Upload
tranminh
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Northern Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review and New Comprehensive Zoning By-law
Open House September 25, 2017
What is today about?• This morning: Providing information and answering
questions• This afternoon: Feedback directly to Council. • Staff have 2 recommendations this afternoon:1) Receive reports for information; and2) Direct removal of “Red Line” (potential wave uprush
area) from zoning schedules
• By-laws are not being passed today or October 10.
Presentation Agenda
• Process and Public Consultation Review
• Main Topics we are hearing about• Official Plan and Highlights of Changes• Zoning By-law and Highlights of
Changes• Resources• Q and A
Process Overview
Step 1: Discussion• Special Council Meeting Jan 23, 2017• Topic Papers • Tax Notice and Newspaper Ads • Public Comment period to March 31st
• Summary to Council April 10th.
Process Overview
Step 2: Prepare Proposed Plan / By-law & Open Houses• Open House May 28• Reported Back to Council June 12; some preliminary
direction given• Open Houses (2) July 8• Back to Council July 31 some preliminary direction
given• Draft published September 1st
• Open House September 25th
Process Overview
Step 3: Public Meetings• Public Meetings September 25, 2017 (after open
house for the Plan Update and New By-law)• Second Public Meeting October 10
Process Overview
Step 4: To be determined• Council may direct further changes to by-law /
Official Plan Amendment• If so, further public consultation(s) may be
required• Recommendation to Council• Decision by Council.• Local Plan Update must be approved by Bruce
County
Process ReviewHas it worked?• people are here• 500+ email addresses in project
database• GSCA has responded to approx.
75% of Hazard requests to datePerhaps not so well?• People confused and angry• Private citizens publishing their
own notices, facebook groups etc.
Lets first see if we can clear the air about some of the major comment themes we have been hearing about
Major Comment Topics
• Environmental Hazards• Sewage Disposal Systems on small lots • Minimum Size for Dwellings• Short Term Accommodations • Scope of Changes to the by-law and
consultation process
Environmental Hazards• Accurately illustrating hazards has been a persistent problem in
Bruce County• Existing zoning based on
• 1:10000 scale Ontario Base Maps (+/-10m horizontal accuracy and 2-5m vertical accuracy)
• 1:2000 scale maps for Lions Head and Tobermory (+/-2m horizontal accuracy and 0.5m vertical accuracy
• Some Site specific mapping• Hard copy “stereo” pairs from 1980s airphotos, later digitized• Some site visits• Other provincial data (e.g. wetlands, soils) from OBM
mapping• Does not include Provincially Significant Wetland layers
• Lack of confidence in the maps.
Defining “Environmental Hazards”• “Pilot Project Steering Committee” established• Supported by Bruce County and Municipality• All of Northern Bruce Peninsula Council plus 5 members of
the public from the Municipality• Reviewed relevant Policies, Regulations, and Guidance
Documents, maps, external research• Committee approved a report with 9 Recommendations
including criteria for Hazards• Report accepted by Municipal Council and County Council
What are “hazards”• Typically places where buildings or structures, or life and
property, would be at risk due to naturally occurring processes.
• Hazards are not always immediately apparent.
Environmental Hazards to MapPPSC Recommendation Two: That the following features be included in the list of what is to be considered "Natural Hazards" • Flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards associated
with the shoreline of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay;• Flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards associated
with the shoreline of Inland Lakes; • Flooding and erosion hazards associated with rivers and
streams; • Wetlands (lands that are seasonally or permanently covered
by shallow water or water table close to surface) • Steep slopes
Next Step: Mapping• Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) contracted
to prepare maps of these criteria• Draft maps endorsed by committee to initiate the
public process (maps available for public review and comment)
• Grey Sauble Conservation Authority to review issues raised with hazard maps and conduct site visits if required
How are Environmental Hazards Mapped?• Air photos are flown with at least
60% overlap• The difference in perspective
allows viewing in "stereo" – the images have “depth” that can be used to judge the height of features
• By knowing the precise location of the aircraft at the time the photo was taken we can determine the precise elevation of the ground
• Use technology to automatically collect elevation points; some correction is necessary in heavily treed areas
New Hazard mapping
• Digital Elevation Model (DEM), not just contours / spot heights
• Hazards redefined using the updated DEM
• Reviewed/ Data corrected and analyzed by humans
• Typically +/-1m vertical accuracy, higher in open areas
‘Categories’ of Environmental Hazard Comments
• Great Lakes Shoreline; • Inland Lakes; • Provincially Significant
Wetlands; and • Mapping Accuracy (including
other inland areas)
Great Lakes Shoreline
2 main mapping components:• 100-year flood elevation;
and• 15 metre wave uprush
allowance (“red line”)
Great Lakes Shoreline
Major concerns/themes in comments about 100-year flood elevation:• Doesn’t match high water mark on survey
or survey stakes• Hasn’t been applied consistently in the past• Water has never been that high• Cottage was built before 1980s high water
and still standing• Impacts property values, mortgage,
insurance, ability to develop in future• Can’t rebuild or make additions• Not mapped correctly
What is the “100-year Flood elevation”?• Height of instantaneous peak or flood flow
• 1% chance of occurring in any given year.
• minimum design flood criteria standard in Ontario.
• Typically based on the highest known level and the strongest wind “setup”—the combination of wind forces at a given time.
• elevations established by Ministry of Natural Resources in 1989 (following the 1986-1987 record high water levels)
Source: “Great Lakes System Flood Levels and Water Related Hazards, OMNRF, February 1989; elevations in Metres Above Sea Level, Geodetic Survey of Canada (GSC)
177.6
177.7
177.8
100 year flood elevationArea Elevation
Lake Huron Pike Bay to Cape Hurd
177.6
Cape Hurd to Stormhaven
177.7
Georgian Bay 177.8
Great Lakes Shoreline: 100 year flood elevation
• Current zoning maps do not adequately illustrate 100-year flood elevation
• Current Zoning text describes hazard:
100 year flood elevation
AreaCurrent Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Lake Huron Pike Bay to Cape Hurd
177.6 177.6
Cape Hurd to Stormhaven 177.6 177.7 (+10 cm)
Georgian Bay 177.6 177.8 (+20 cm)
Impact of increasing 100-year flood elevation to match MNR model• Appears to be limited to some properties on Myles
Drive, Lake Huron side of Big Tub Harbour road, and a few lots around Tobermory Lodge.
• Changes to 100-year flood elevations do not appear to render any properties “undevelopable.”
Lake Huron Side – no increase in elevation
Draft mapping shows some properties that could be largely below the 100-year flood elevation. With GSCA we are continuing to work with landowners to refine mapping as much as possible.
What about the “High Water Mark?” • often understood to refer to “Land covered so long by water as to wrest it from vegetation, or as to mark a distinct character on the vegetation where it extends into the water, or on the soil itself”• In some locations the “High Water Mark” was
used to establish the limits of a shoreline reserve or shore road allowance.
• Surveys may also show the property boundary to be the edge of the water on the date of the survey.
What about the High Water Mark? • May occur in the same spot as the
100-year flood elevation, but not necessarily.
• 1986 St. Edmunds By-law (pre-1989 definition of 100-year flood elevations) referred to “lands below the high water mark” as being zoned hazard
• “mature” trees may correspond to the location of the ‘high water mark’ but not specifically or consistently.
• A 100-year flood event may not kill trees.
Black - boundary from plan of subdivisionYellow – 177.6 elevationGreen – approximate tree line
Summary: “High Water Mark”
does not equal “100-year flood elevation”
(though they sometimes occur in the same spot)
“RED LINE”
Main concerns we are hearing:• “Hazard” area runs through house / lot• Arbitrary/doesn’t make sense on
specific property• Not mapped correctly• Impacts property values, mortgage,
insurance, ability to develop in future• Can’t rebuild or make additions
Wave Uprush Allowance: What Is It?• The 100-year flood elevation does not include
wave uprush• Winds can drive water farther inland• Line shows 15 metre offset to 100-year flood
elevation• Why 15 metres?“Where planning authorities lack technical information from studies, the province suggests using 15 metres for wave uprush and other water related hazards on Lake Huron– measured horizontally from the 100-year flood level.” – Understanding Natural Hazards (MNR 2001)
Wave Uprush Allowance
Pilot Project Committee notes:• Wave action associated with storms can create
hazardous conditions. • The hazard only exists if buildings and structures are
not properly set back to accommodate for wave action. • For the most part, the “hazard” only exists during
storm events. • Small yet potentially important nomenclature issues;
“great lakes setback” and “wave impact setback” might be more appropriate policy and regulatory labels.
Already in current by-law
6.30.1 Flood ProofingIn any zone, no building openings associated with the habitable floor area of a dwelling or structure shall be located at or below the minimum elevation of 179.1 m G.S.C. (587.5 ft) for lands adjacent to Lake Huron and 178 m G.S.C. (583.9 ft) for lands adjacent to Georgian Bay.or;In any zone on lands adjacent to Georgian Bay or Lake Huron, all habitable buildings shall be setback a minimum of 15 m (49 ft) measured horizontally from the 177.6 G.S.C. (582.6ft) elevation.
Wave Uprush provisions in practice
• Professionally prepared topographic survey confirms the elevations when it is uncertain that new development meets requirements.
• when someone wants a minor variance to floodproofing elevations / provisions coastal engineering studies are completed to support the variance
Wave Uprush Allowance
Pilot Project Committee notes:• Plans should recognize that “accurate shoreline/wave
uprush mapping is not in all cases available and the impacts associated with Great Lakes can be addressed through written provisions in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.”
Wave Uprush concept in Text?
Text is important but has some limitations • Numbers can be difficult to relate to the real world• Elevations at Lake Gauges are measured using a
different “benchmark” – close but not the same• Can lead to surprises or disappointment down the
road• Use of setbacks and elevation requirements
requires a starting point for where to look.• Some areas have lower backshore
Wave Uprush concept in Text?
Text says what the hazard is.Maps show where the hazard is.Proposed Section 4.7.1.8…where the ‘Environmental Hazard (EH)’ Zone boundary does not coincide with the location of Environmental Hazards to buildings or structures, minor adjustments may be permitted to the ‘EH’ Zone boundary without an amendment to this By-law when approved in writing by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with such expertise as may be warranted…
Ditch the 15 metre Red Line• Some comments have come in that say “leave it on!”But:• Shoreline is variable and Detailed Wave uprush
calculations for different areas of the Peninsula were not part of this project; and
• Provisions for a 15 metre setback or floodproofingelevation are found in the existing and proposed zoning by-laws, with the proposed by-law including an increased floodproofing elevation for Georgian Bay of 179.1m Above Sea Level;
• “New” lots created since 2000 have generally been planned to accommodate and be subject to greater setbacks as outlined in the Bruce County Official Plan
So what changes?Issue in Current By-law Solution in Proposed By-law
Georgian Bay Floodproofing elevation for wave uprush only 20cm higher than recommended 100-year flood elevation
Apply 179.1m floodproofing elevation for all lots on Lake Huron / Georgian Bay.
Lots on a point, with lake frontage on two sides (does a 3 metre side yard setback apply?)
Include 7.5 metre setback in the floodproofing option (179.1)
Floodproofing required for additions larger than 50% of the area of the original structure (determining“original”); still increases risk.
Require any additions (or parts ofadditions) within 15m to be adequately floodproofed. This applies to building openings, not floor height
Two separate sections referring to the applicable setback could result in inconsistent application.
Consolidate the provision
So what changes? (cont’d)
Issue in Current By-law Solution in Proposed By-law“Habitable” use vs accessory buildings, change of use over time, and risk of loss in the event of flooding.
Establish provisions for a boathouse (for storing boats and related accessories), exempt from floodproofing requirements.Require setbacks/ floodproofing for all other enclosed buildings/structures.
Official Plan policy for 30m setback for “New” lots. Lots created under the old by-law become “existing” lots in new by-law.
Apply Jan 1, 2000 as the date for 15m setbacks vs. 30m setbacks. (Plan policy since 1997, Current by-law is from 2002.Most waterfront lots created in the last 17 years have site-or subdivision-specific zoning.
Objectives1. Protect buildings and structures from damage
due to flooding, wave uprush, and other coastal hazards such as ice piling up.
2. Address neighbourhood impacts of development along the shoreline • consistent setbacks • provisions that limit the scale of buildings
along the shoreline• Provision for trailers (other than boat trailers)
to be outside the Environmental Hazard zone, [not parked out on the shoreline].
Objectives3. Recognize that structures exist and provide
for additions or replacement in the event of catastrophe (subject to floodproofing noted above). We would generally recommend that the opportunity be taken wherever possible through redevelopment to locate further from shoreline hazards, or to meet the floodproofing elevation if in the same location
Major themes in comments about Inland Lakes• Mapping onshore lands Environmental
Hazard doesn’t reflect geology, slope, watershed characteristics
• Adverse Impacts to property values, insurance, mortgage, tax base
• Amounts to “Expropriation” • Unable to develop or redevelop or build
additions or use property• “No one wants the setbacks increased”
Inland Lakes Comment Themes• Mapping various onshore lands EH is
unrealistic (risks lower based on geology, slope, watershed characteristics)
• Impacts to property values, insurance, mortgage
Response:Hazard maps were revised to show only areas below the Ordinary High Water Mark (posted early September)
Inland Lakes Comment Themes• Unable to develop or redevelop or build additions or
use property• “No one wants the setbacks increased”• Amounts to “Expropriation” Response:• Revised provisions to 15m for new development,
10m for additions / redevelopment of existing• Permit unenclosed buildings/structures in setback• Permit a boathouse in setback
Inland Lakes Setbacks• Reviewed existing development around lakes.• Majority of development is at least 10m from the
lake
Inland Lakes Setbacks• Increased development, including redevelopment
over time close to the lake can change the character of the shoreline and have adverse impacts on water quality and fish habitat
Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) Concerns in comments:• Bought property without it / don’t want it• Can’t do anything with property • Property value / tax base• Expropriation without Compensation• Wasn’t even mapped hazard• Other wetlands / Hazards not mapped PSW• “green line” development setback
• Bought property without it / don’t want it
Response• Boundaries established by the Province (MNRF) • Provincial policy requires that Development and
Site Alteration be prohibited in PSW (needs to be zoned to prohibit development)
• Can’t do anything with itResponse: Can be used for‘forestry/silviculture’ and the following existing uses: agriculture, outdoor recreational activities which are non-intensive in nature and are compatible with the surrounding natural environment including uses such as nature interpretation, hiking and walking trails, cross-country skiing, fishing and hunting in accordance with the ‘EH’ Zone filling or excavation is not permitted within the ‘EH-[psw]' zone except to allow existing agricultural uses to continue.The proposed by-law prohibits: • All buildings and structures except those necessary for flood and/or
erosion control purposes in accordance with Section 24.3. • Site alteration, such as filling or excavation is not permitted within the
‘EH-PSW' zone except to allow existing agricultural uses to continue.• A “boathouse” or “boat launching and docking” (involving site
alteration) – do not qualify as structures necessary for flood / erosion control purposes.
• Property value / tax base• Expropriation without Compensation
Response• Landowners with PSW can participate in
Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program• Optional program does not impact status
of wetland
• Wasn’t even mapped hazard• Other wetlands / Hazards are not mapped PSWResponse• Boundaries are established by the Province (MNRF)• Layer not incorporated in previous by-laws• Applies to the most valuable wetlands, determined
using a score based ranking system that identifies and measures wetland function
• not all wetlands have been evaluated
• “green line” development setback
Response:• Not a “no” zone – a Maybe• Recognize that many of these areas are developed to varying degrees• Provincial Policy Statement directs Municipalities to prohibit
development on lands adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands unless the function of the lands has been evaluated and it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the wetland feature or its ecological functions. This policy is not intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue.
“Green Line” adjacent lands to PSW
PPSC recommended:• Not include these adjacent lands within the Environmental Hazard
“zone” • recognize them in plans, authorize site plan control in plans, and
have the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula “develop and adopt site plan control standards to the extent that the requirements for site plan approvals on “adjacent lands” are known and predictable.”
• For implementation at Site Plan level recommend showing in Zoning Schedules (used every day)
• This would be a separate project. The purpose would be to establish straightforward standards to address the impacts anticipated from development permitted by the by-law, with minimal administrative burden.
• Some development may have little to no impact; other development may need a closer look.
Themes about Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazards• Don’t want/accept new hazards mapped on my property• Who trespassed to map it• Don’t trust models• Mapping is arbitrary• Has not been flooded in my lifetime / no insurance claims• If I whine they will move the line• Turnaround time for review/mapping changes
Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazard Themes• Don’t want/accept new hazards mapped on my propertyResponse:• Goal is to show hazards to buildings and structures where
they occur to direct development away from hazards.• Some hazards are obvious (land under water) some are less
obvious (low areas only sometimes flooded)• Hazards are not being invented, but rather illustrated.• Aim is to make maps as accurate as possible
Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazard Themes• Who trespassed to map it• Mapping is arbitrary• Don’t trust models
Response• Mapping Technique Reviewed above.• Good, but not perfect- accuracy can be lower in heavily forested
areas• Many sites have been successfully reviewed; reviews are ongoing• First step in reviews is a closer desktop analysis (direct more
people and processing power to getting elevations• We do not go on your property without your permission
Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazard Themes• Has not been flooded in my lifetime / no insurance claims
Response• Mainly along Lakes, where we are using 100-year flood event• Many uses possible that would not generate claims• Agriculture still a permitted use
Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazard Themes• If I whine they will move the line• Turnaround time for review/mapping changes
Response• Over 140 requests for review have been received• Approximately 75% have been processed• Most changes have been small adjustments• Larger changes have been in heavily forested areas
where accuracy is more difficult• Several site visits have been conducted to identify
features ‘on the ground’
Mapping Accuracy and Inland Hazard Themes• If I whine they will move the line• Turnaround time for review/mapping changes
Response• Responses generally provided airphoto maps• Most up-to-date hazard layer is on laptops here;
will be posted to interactive viewer as soon as possible and then the zoning layers will be updated
Hazards added• Some hazards were included in recent
update which had not been previously mapped and are not shown in the draft schedules published in advance of this meeting
• All but 4 of these areas are within National Park or other Conservation Organization Lands
• The 4 areas are along Highway 6 (Zone Map 32, inset at right, in purple); 2 of the 4 areas are nearly identical to areas that are currently zoned hazard
• We will reach out to these landowners directly before the next Public Meeting
Mapping Accuracy
• Council will need to set an end date for review requests to allow them to be processed and the schedules prepared for to consideration of new zoning by-law
• If you have not reviewed your property please visit bit.ly/nbphaz or have a look at the schedules on tables here today.
Other Notes• Hazard Lands in National Parks and Provincial Parks have
not been the focus as they are generally outside of the Municipality’s jurisdiction and experience little development pressure in Hazard areas.
• Mapping Efforts within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area, including private lands, are focused on the areas where the Municipality has jurisdiction through the local zoning by-law
Resources to help you Review Environmental Hazards Maps
• www.Bit.ly/nbphaz interactive viewer shows current and proposed hazard boundaries.
• Print /PDF Maps available that correspond to zoning schedules• Mapping Brief, Examples, Pilot Project Steering Committee Reports, background
information
Where to Find them• On the Municipal Website under ‘News’ OP Review/ New By-law• At the Municipal Office• At the Tobermory and Lion’s Head Libraries (reference – not for checkout)
Concerned about the maps? Please email or write us!
[email protected] AND [email protected] SUBJECT: Natural Hazard MappingINCLUDE: Tax Roll Number and Address (if assigned)
GSCA ATTN: Andrew Sorensen Bruce County Attn: Jack Van Dorp#237897 Inglis Falls Rd P.O. Box 129RR#4 Owen Sound ON N4K5N6 Wiarton ON N0H 2T0T 519 376 3076 x 227 519 534-2092 x 125
We will review the area in question and can schedule a site visit with you. We will not go on your property without permission.
Sewage Systems on Small LotsThemes in comments:• Information• High Cost, including for residents with fixed
Incomes• Risk of failure• Forced Replacement of systems
Sewage Systems on Small LotsComment Themes:• Information• High Cost, including for residents with fixed
Incomes• Risk of failure• Forced Replacement of systems
Sewage Systems on Small Lots• Risk of Cumulative (adverse) Impacts to
groundwater due to clustered development on onsite sewage disposal system
• Includes areas of Tobermory (not on sewer) and Lions Head (no sewer)
• Also includes clusters in Hamlets and along the shoreline
Sewage Systems on Small Lots• Risk is a product of the quantity of effluent/sewage and the ability
for it to be diluted into the ground.• The ability of rainwater to infiltrate the ground (related to soil type
and depth, lot coverage, and tree cover) is a factor. • Risk to groundwater is higher in areas with sparse soil over rock,
particularly with fractured and karstic bedrock with vulnerable aquifers
• Risk can be reduced with larger lot areas (dilution – more land for rain to fall on) and by improved sewage disposal system technologies which can pre-treat effluent before it is discharged to the tile bed / environment (reduce quantity).
• Development typically evaluated using MOE D5-4 Guidelines for Groundwater Quality Impacts. Guidelines uses Nitrate as a base as there is a maximum allowable concentration in drinking water (10mg/L).
• Background concentrations can also be a factor
Sewage Systems on Small LotsWhy now?• Changes in understanding since many lots were
created mean new lots need to be larger.• Recent subdivisions have had conditions of approval
that require advanced systems even for lots >4047 square metres (1 acre)
• Large supply of existing vacant lots (over 1200 in R2 zone at last count) many of which are undersized.
• Continued buildout of lot inventory, much of it in areas with extensive development on existing (often undersized) lots of record
Sewage Systems on Small LotsWhy now?• Use of dwellings is changing – “cottages” shifting
to “dwellings” or year-round occupancy)• Increasing cottage rental activity (secondary
properties occupied more frequently)
Sewage Systems on Small Lots• Full services for Tobermory and Lion’s Head and Ferndale are
goals in the Official Plan, but there are costs and constraints.• Current Official Plan (Tobermory, Lion’s Head, Ferndale) has
policies to:• Zone new lots (on septic) to require the building envelope of
the building/structure to be in proximity to the geographic centre of the new lot, but providing an opportunity for consideration of environmental and physical constraints;
• Place all vacant lots of record in a zone that prohibits development or establishes a Holding provision to require all requirements of Section 4.2 for water and sewage servicing to be met.
• Require that a new use or change to an existing permitted use submit a Nitrate Study for any lots less than 4047 square metres (1 acre) and serviced by an individual onsite sewage service.
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
• Zoning by-law has to Conform to Official Plan• Local Official Plan policies are related to County
Official Plan• Local Official Plan has to conform to County
Official Plan
Implementation Challenges
• Re-zoning or Holding provisions would add time and cost to process
• Nitrate studies have costs associated with on-site test pitting water sampling, reporting, which may not be appropriate for existing lots of record
A General “Nitrate Study”?• Huron GeoSciences completed
pilot study in 2013 for Lions Head Area
• Indicated very few lots (shown in white) would be able to “pass” a nitrate study threshold of 10mg/L Nitrates at the lot line using a conventional onsite sewage disposal system for a single dwelling unit
• largely a function of lot area
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
Alternative to current policies?• Compared findings relative to recently completed Nitrate
Studies for development proposals• input the same parameters for background nitrate levels, runoff
coefficient (combination of soil, surface, and ground cover), annual precipitation, transpiration, and runoff/infiltration values.
• Used 1000L/day of effluent with a concentration of 40mg/L as outlined in the MOE D5-4 guideline, and solved for the lot area that would yield 10mg/L Nitrate at the property boundary.
Sewage Systems on Small LotsResults:
General area Lot area to hit 10mg/L at lot line
Notes
Lions Head 2385 square metres Larger lot with some depth of material to bedrock (more water mixing with effluent)
Eastnor Township 3670 square metres Very little soil (higher runoff coefficient, less water mixing with effluent)
• Skip the costly study in urban areas , install a system that treats pre-sewage for smaller lots?• Also makes sense to look at clustered development in other areas• Local Hydrogeologist supported introduction of standards, suggested 2400 square metres
could be argued to be too small.• We have subsequently located 2 more studies in shoreline areas (slightly less rocky) which
suggested that lots under these conditions in the 2800-3000 square metre range could support a conventional sewage disposal system
Sewage Systems on Small Lots• Prepared provisions for higher-density development,
(semi-detached/duplex dwellings, accessory apartments) with provisions for lot area requirements for conventional and advanced sewage disposal systems.
• Calculations used the best conditions assumptions to (maximum flexibility)
• Even with provisions for advanced systems (and 40% reduction in concentrations) there is limited potential for intensification on septic systems while meeting groundwater quality objectives
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
Concept:• Lots that cannot meet 10mg/L concentration of
nitrates at the lot line with a conventional system should use an advanced system.
• Studies at the lot level are costly to complete• Suggested lot area thresholds of 2400 square
metres (Lions Head – best case) and 3700 sq. m. (elsewhere – limited soil).
• Could consider applying 2400 sq. m. throughout the Municipality – premise that some is better than none
What are “Advanced” Sewage Systems?• Class IV system (Septic tank and distribution system)• Uses an advanced treatment “unit” with active or passive
technology • Unit pre-treats sewage effluent before it is discharged into the
distribution system• Can often occupy a smaller “footprint” on the site, but may
require an imported sand mantle• Advanced systems must pass tests to meet specific treatment
parameters• Currently 4 system types approved for use in Ontario
• Find out more at http://www.oowa.org/consumer-information/2017-options-onsite-residential-wastewater-treatment-technologies/
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
Comment Themes:• Information• High Cost, including for
residents with fixed Incomes• Risk of failure• Forced Replacement of systems
Cost -“Advanced” Sewage Systems• Cost more to install. • 4 different systems• Local contractors we talked to noted typical prices ranging
from $6000 more than a conventional system (often around $12,000) to as high as $35,000.00.
• One supplier we talked to suggested installed costs in the range of $20-30,000
• Operating costs:• Annual maintenance (all systems) • electricity consumption (2/4 systems) (and parts)• replace filter media every 8-15 years (1/4 systems)
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
Comment Themes:• Information• High Cost, including for
residents with fixed Incomes• Risk of failure• Forced Replacement of systems
Do “Advanced” Sewage Systems work?• New Testing regime (“made in
Canada” test) has standards and testing requirements for colder climates
• Some technologies have not met the new standard (cannot currently be installed
Sewage Systems on Small Lots
Comment Themes:• Information• High Cost, including for
residents with fixed Incomes• Risk of failure• Forced Replacement of systems
Forced Replacement?• Medium to long-term timeframe for
improvement as existing systems require replacement;
• well-maintained existing/new systems can last 25-30 years
• Would apply for new systems / new development
Summary• Groundwater quality is important to protect over the long term• Groundwater quality on the Peninsula is vulnerable due to generally shallow
soils and fractured bedrock environment• Maintaining Groundwater quality is not compatible with higher-density
development on septic systems and is a constraint to development potential• May be appropriate to replace Current Official Plan policies (urban areas) with
policy that allows Zoning to set minimum lot areas below which advanced systems are needed for existing lots
• May also be appropriate to apply a minimum lot area in other areas with clustered development on septic systems
• Where development is clustered and lots are small and cannot be increased, an advanced sewage system is likely better than a conventional system
• May not be a great idea to create new lots that rely upon advanced systems in order to protect groundwater
• Costs are also a factor, and system requirements are different which may suit different people
• May be appropriate to balance application of proposed by-law with maintaining flexibility, recognizing some variation in conditions throughout the Municipality
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size• Considerable interest early in the process• Initially proposed 50 square metres for single-detached dwellings• Reduced sizes for apartment dwelling units, “tourist cottages” (ie
cottage court)Themes in comments:Eliminate altogether to support affordable housing / tiny homes (some)Reduce (most)Leave same (some)Different minimums in different zones (one)Increase (few)
Minimum Size for Dwelling Units• Discussed with Council June 12th, received
preliminary direction to use 70 square metresfor single-detached and semi-detached dwellings.
• A few references to 50 square metres were missed and are noted to be increased to 70 square metres.
Short Term Accomodations• Also generated interest early in the process• Canvassed on June 12th
• Council provided direction that the matter not be addressed in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
• Some additional comments received expressing concerns, mostly related to• Exceeding capacity of onsite septic systems• Neighbourhood concerns about noise and level
of use of properties
Scope of ChangeThemes“Omnibus Bill”“Too much change”“Slow down and review piece by piece”“Too much paper to manage”# of pages of current versus new by-law“Don’t change anything you don’t have to”
Scope of Change – Official PlanThe Official Plan Update (Tobermory, Lions Head, Ferndale) has a 1-page summary of changes to each section. You can see the changes in the “tracked changes” version, and read the final product in the “clean” version.
Scope of Change – Zoning By-law• Applies everywhere except DC area.• Is a new document and has new regulations.• Length further increased by increasing the font size
and line spacing to make it easier to read.• “side-by-side” comparison document (existing vs
proposed) published earlier this month to facilitate comparisons; 2 by-laws in 1 book makes it nearly twice as long.
“Breaking down” the change• Report on Today’s Public Meeting Agenda highlights changes
from the current By-law to Sections 1 and 3 through 10 of the New By-law.
• Handouts of posters – Great Lakes, Inland Lakes, septic Systems, PSWs.
• Order follows the side-by-side companion book, with a brief explanation
• Refers to previous reports on topics which are also attached to this agenda. Provisions that are not changed are not discussed.
• Review of Section 2 (definitions) and the Rest of the by-law will be published as soon as we are able to produce them, in advance of the October 10th Public meeting.
Don’t change what you don’t have to
• We get it • Todays Report includes table of changes
“back” that could:• Retain current provisions with greater
flexibility• Include current provisions that are not
there but have merit• Increase clarity or address errors
Official Plan
• Includes Vision, Goals, and policies• Designates areas for different uses on maps• Provides policies for the different designations.
Updates to Official PlanThemes or Areas we looked at (report on this agenda):• Public Consultation and process • Built form: Sense of Place • Energy Conservation, Air Quality, and Climate Change • Housing • Natural Heritage Systems• Child Care Facilities • Environmental Hazards• Wildfire Hazards• Source Water Protection• Servicing• Tourism
OP Update Resources for Review:• Report posted for public meeting agenda summarizes changes• Current Plan• Topic Reports and Reports to Council• “Track Changes” versions that shows changes to from current to proposed
plan• Clean version of proposed Plan • Summary Table (by section) describing changes
Where to Find them• On the Municipal Website under ‘News’ OP Review/ New By-law – some
links take you to files on the Bruce County website for the project.• At the Municipal Office• At the Tobermory and Lion’s Head Libraries (reference – not for checkout)• At the Wiarton Planning Office
Proposed Zoning By-law
Some outstanding matters:• Existing uses in a couple of areas • Recently adopted amendments to current
by-law• Some current provisions that should or
could be retained in the new by-law• Still receiving some agency and public
comments
Resources to help you Review The Proposed Zoning By-lawAvailable Today:• www.Bit.ly/nbphaz interactive viewer shows current and proposed zoning• Draft Zoning By-law• Side-by-side comparison document of existing / proposed by-lawIn progress:• Summary of changes (Section 1 and 3 to 10 attached to today’s agenda)Where to Find them• On the Municipal Website under ‘News’ OP Review/ New By-law• At the Municipal Office• At the Tobermory and Lion’s Head Libraries (reference – not for checkout)• At Open Houses
Summary
• Changes are proposed to The Official Plan and a new Zoning By-law is proposed.
• We have heard and understand frustrations with process and volume of information
• Today we reviewed a number of common concerns and made some resources available
Summary
• We are working on resources for additional sections of the new by-law and will publish them as soon as possible
• We have also received specific concerns from people and we are working through these and responding to them
Summary
• Council has provided some preliminary direction on matters to get us to this stage but will not adopt the Plan or By-law until after the October Public Meeting
• If further changes are made there will be further public consultation.
• Please sign in/ sign up for notice of further meetings and Council’s decisions on these matters.