Body: Committee of Adjustment Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: October 13, 2022 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of Adjustment/2022/Committee Of Adjustment - 13 Oct 2022 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Committee Of Adjustment Meeting Agenda TIME: DATE: PLACE:
7:00 PM, Thursday, October 13, 2022 Council Chambers/Virtual via Zoom.
1 .
Call to Order
a )
Resolution
2 .
Adoption of Agenda
a )
Resolution
3 .
Electronic Meeting Information
a )
The meeting will be live streamed at the following link: http://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontenacTwp/ Please visit the Virtual Committee of Adjustment Meetings page on the Township website for the link to register to be a participant in this meeting: https://www.southfrontenac.net/en/open-for-business/virtual-committee-ofadjustment-meetings.aspx Instructions about participating via Computer, Laptop, Smartphone, Tablet and Telephone can be found at the above noted link as well.
b )
PowerPoint Presentation Staff has prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that will be displayed on the screen of the meeting, you can also follow along with the PDF version that is in the attachment of this agenda item.
4 .
Declaration of pecuniary interest - none declared
5 .
Approval of Minutes – September 8, 2022
a )
Resolution
6 .
New Minor Variance /Permission Applications:
a )
PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) Location: 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake, Bedford The applicant is requesting to enlarge a legal non-conforming structure by building a new deck and screened porch located within the 30 metres of the highwater mark of Devil Lake. The new deck and screened porch will be in the location of the existing deck, set back 21.48 metres from the high water mark. The proposed deck and screened porch will not be any closer to the high water mark than the existing deck.
356
57 82
Page 1 of 142
b )
PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell) (NovaTech) 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington To request permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge a legal nonconformingdwellingwithin30mofthehighwatermarkofLoughboroughLake.Thee xisting 632 square foot dwellingissetback 10.3m from the highwatermark. This buildingwouldbe replaced withadwellingthat hasan1100 square foot groundfloor areaanda2520 square foot total floor area.The new dwelling would be setback 12.1m from the highwater mark.
83 13 8
7 .
Other Business
a )
Delegated Consent Report
13 9
b )
December Committee of Adjustment Meeting
14 014 2
8 .
Adjournment
a )
Resolution
Page 2 of 142
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Thursday, October 13, 2022 7:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting from Council Chambers 4432 George Street, Sydenham, ON Page 3 of 142
Welcome to the Virtual Meeting for the Committee of Adjustment This is a hearing of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac. All members of the public are muted on our end and your cameras will not be turned on. Committee Members
Township Staff
• Randy Ruttan (Chair)
• Christine Woods (Senior Planner)
• Alan Revill
• Sarah Cadue (Planner)
• Norm Roberts
• Michelle Hannah (Secretary Treasurer & Planning Assistant)
• Mike Nolan • Doug Morey • Mike Howe • Tom Bruce Page 4 of 142
• Ken Gee
Adoption of Agenda • Call to Order • Adoption of Agenda • Declaration of Pecuniary Interests • Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting • Hearings for Applications • Consent Granting Authority Report • Other Business • Adjournment Page 5 of 142
Format for Each Hearing 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
The Chair will introduce the file The Planner will provide an overview of the application The Planner will make a recommendation on the application Questions or comments from the Applicant / Agent / Members of the Public Committee deliberation and vote The Chair will state whether the vote was carried
Page 6 of 142
Appeal Rights
Page 7 of 142
• Township staff will be in contact with the applicant following the meeting. Where a decision has been made, it will be forwarded to the applicant and anyone who has requested to be notified within 15 days. • If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the hearing or make written submissions to the Township before a decision is made, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. • Anyone may appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The appeal must be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment within 20 days of the notice of decision. The notice of appeal must set out the reasons for the appeal and be accompanied by the fee required by the Tribunal. • If you have any questions after the meeting, please reach out to staff.
How to Speak to an Application • The Chair of the meeting will open the floor to public comments • Click “Raise Hand” button to request to speak or dial *9 (star nine) when participating by telephone • The Chair will recognize a member of the public, and the Meeting Host will unmute the member of the public • Once the member of the public is done speaking or the Committee has no further questions, the Meeting Host will mute their microphone
Page 8 of 142
In Case of Technical Difficulties • If a Committee member joining virtually disconnects from the meeting, the meeting will proceed if there is still quorum. The Committee member will attempt to reconnect. • If quorum cannot be met within 15 minutes, the meeting will be postponed. • Staff will be in touch with applicants. • A notice will also be posted on the Township’s social media if the meeting is postponed.
Page 9 of 142
Agenda • Call to Order • Adoption of Agenda • Declaration of Pecuniary Interests • Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting • Hearings for Applications • Consent Granting Authority Report • Other Business • Adjournment Page 10 of 142
Application PL-ZNA-2022-0124 Permission to Enlarge a Legal Non-Conforming Use
Applicant: Michael Boyd Property: 46 Devils Cove Lane
Page 11 of 142
Property Description • On Devil Lake • Lot area approximately 14,256 square feet (1324.4 square metres) • RLSW Zone • Developed with a cottage with attached decks, private well, septic system and shed
Devil Lake Subject property
Page 12 of 142
Page 13 of 142
Proposal • Permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge the legal nonconforming dwelling on the property within 30 metres of the highwater mark • Demolish existing deck on west side of cottage and replace with a screened porch • Existing deck is 21.5 metres from highwater mark, screened porch 21.5 metres from high water mark • Screened porch will be 5 metres in height No increase in height Page 14 of 142
Proposed screened porch
Proposal Continued…
Page 15 of 142
Proposed screened porch
Proposed screened porch to existing deck
Page 16 of 142
Existing Deck
Existing Deck
View from waterfront to cottage Page 17 of 142
View from waterfront (west side of cottage, location of screened porch)
Page 18 of 142
Views of the shoreline
Department, Agency and Public Comments Building Services – Did not meet criteria Cataraqui Conservation Authority – no objection • Reviewed the application – recommended maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings and structures and the water & use of runoff controls • Proposed development is located within their required 6 metres access allowance from the top of bank. Since the proposal is not anticipated to aggravate the hazard, CRCA staff have no concerns from an erosion perspective • Permit will be required Page 19 of 142
Public Comments – none received
Planning Analysis - Permission
Page 20 of 142
• Dwelling is legal non-conforming • The screened would be no closer to the highwater mark of than the deck that currently exists (21.5 metres to the highwater mark of Devil Lake) • No increase in height • The Gross Floor Area will increase a difference of approximately 83 square feet (7.71 square metres) • The enlargement allows for more activity without requiring significant vegetation removal as its being constructed in the same area as the existing deck, with a similar construction method • A Development Agreement is being proposed as a condition of approval
Recommendation • Approval • Pending any comments received • Subject to conditions • The application is approved in accordance with submitted plans • Building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property • Development Agreement Page 21 of 142
Public Questions and Comments If you would like to speak: • Use “Raise Hand” feature at the bottom of your screen. • Dial*9 (star nine) for phone. • Please wait to speak until you hear your name and your microphone has been unmuted.
Page 22 of 142
PL-ZNA-2022-0124 Committee Deliberation and Vote
Page 23 of 142
Application PL-ZNA-2022-0130 Permission to Enlarge Legal Non-Conforming Use
Applicant: Steven and Rebekah Hounsell Agent: Novatech Property: 3115 Lakehead Road
Page 24 of 142
3115 Lakehead Road South Frontenac Permission Application Committee of Adjustment – October 13, 2022
Page 25 of 142
Page 26 of 142
Page 27 of 142
Page 28 of 142
Requested Permission Application • Permission from the Committee is required to reconstruct and expand a legally non-conforming building within the 30m setback from the highwater mark and within the 30m required front yard setback.
Page 29 of 142
Page 30 of 142
Page 31 of 142
Page 32 of 142
Rationale
Page 33 of 142
• Expansion of a legal non-complying structure is permitted under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act. • There are no tests in the Planning Act for applications under Section 45(2). • Sims et al. v. Daschko - “there must always be a prior consideration of whether what is intended is indeed desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure. The effect of any concession made must always be weighed in the light of the impact it could have upon neighbouring properties enjoying a different classification”.
Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure • No change of use (single detached to single detached) • Proposed dwelling conforms to min. floor area in Zoning By-law • Proposed dwelling conforms to maximum lot coverage • Proposed dwelling conforms to interior side yard and rear yard setbacks • Proposed dwelling increases the non-conforming watercourse setback and front yard setback from 10.3m to 12.1m Page 34 of 142
Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure • Proposed septic system replaces an existing holding tank currently located 11.9m from the Lake with a new tertiary septic located approximately 50m from the lake (65m to proposed biofilters) • The Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Ecological Services concludes the proposed development has no net negative impacts on Loughborough Lake and its associated fish habitat. • Proposed development is considered appropriate development and use of the land Page 35 of 142
Impact to Neighbours
Page 36 of 142
• Of the immediate five neighbours on Lakehead Road, two other lots have detached dwellings within the 30m setback from the watercourse • The proposed dwelling replaces an existing legally non-conforming detached dwelling in its current location • The proposed dwelling will be further from the watercourse and front lot line than the existing dwelling • The proposed dwelling will appear as a single storey building when viewed from Lakehead Road
Page 37 of 142
View from East Neighbour’s house towards existing dwelling
Page 38 of 142
View from West Neighbour’s house towards existing dwelling
Thank you
Page 39 of 142
Existing cottage
Ridge behind cottage
Page 40 of 142
Page 41 of 142
View from hydro easement to sewage system location and treed area to be retained
View from hydro easement to top of ridge and proposed garage location
Department, Agency and Public Comments • Building Services – sufficient area for sewage system • Cataraqui Conservation – recommended deferral for owners to consider alternate building location • Public Comments – support received from two individuals
Page 42 of 142
Planning Analysis
Page 43 of 142
• A dwelling is a permitted use in the RLSW zone • The existing dwelling is legal non-conforming because it is less than 30m from the highwater mark • Alternate location would require larger footprint, more site disturbance and vegetation removal • Increase in setback from highwater mark from 10.1m to 12.1m • Enlargement to the rear and constructed into slope • No adverse visual impacts anticipated • New tertiary sewage system more than 50m from highwater mark • Appropriate to grant permission to enlarge dwelling
Recommendation • Approval • Pending any comments received • Subject to conditions • In accordance with submitted plans • Building permit is required for all demolition and construction • Will be subject to site plan control per By-law 2022-58 Page 44 of 142
Public Questions and Comments If you would like to speak: • Use “Raise Hand” feature at the bottom of your screen. • Dial*9 (star nine) for phone. • Please wait to speak until you hear your name and your microphone has been unmuted.
Page 45 of 142
PL-ZNA-2022-0130 Committee Deliberation and Vote
Page 46 of 142
Supplemental Slides for PL-ZNA-2022-0130
Page 47 of 142
Page 48 of 142
View of Shoreline and Existing Dwelling from Loughborough Lake
Page 49 of 142
View of Shoreline from the Existing Dock
Page 50 of 142
Graphic Representation of Proposed Dwelling from Loughborough Lake
Page 51 of 142
View from East Neighbour’s waterfront towards existing dwelling
Page 52 of 142
View from West Neighbour’s waterfront towards existing dwelling
RLSW – Limited Service Residential – Waterfront EP – Environmental Protection A- Agriculture
Page 53 of 142
Consent Granting Authority • Michelle to add approved applications
Page 54 of 142
Other Business • Next Meeting – November 10
Page 55 of 142
Conclusion/Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Page 56 of 142
Page 57 of 142
.
the the general
.
general nature
Requirements
in
for
appropriate intent intent
in than
Conservation
’.‘(,l/
Mme
A
/Jun./v\5c’1L~
w
are
Authority
These fees Note: applications permit
Valley
Conservation
Class
Conservation
a
of
with
fees
prior
consultation
new
P’A~(»/newt
and
for
Authority
Authority
a
Review
Conservation
OR
Fee:
use Offi
al
by Chapter
4,
or
5
only;
sewage
/Kate?!”
this application construction.
3,
u.Po~
on any
2,
be
review
$97.00
$97.00 $97.00
Admin
building
or?
these
onsite an application submitted
the land Plan. By—la
the
‘I990,
Committee
PERMISSION
appointed
Building
of
provided
to Township when submitting Authority, are to
the
Class
to
the
Frontenac.
Planning $959.00 $1 .31 6.00 0.00 $2.01
South
of of
or
eight of Planning
2021
FRONTENAC
persons R.S.O. Act
SOUTH VARIANCE
January,
OF
provisions
development purpose purpose
for be provided (where applicable)
permit
and and
By-law
Committee 45 the of
Updated
TOVVNSHIP FOR MINOR
or
P. 13,
Township
i
b it
( the Separ To ate w ns hi p
/ ~‘iFl’ ¢ IcA’ I70v/ 1
agencies
to
sewage
Fee:
si ru Zoning the AU Ggr soJ g PLANIWNG $.:V.~ this be with the Secretary—x/ of filed application copy Treasurer together with the to Note 3 (below), SKETCH referred in SH’P accordance with the chart below FEE in in cash, E d e
system
a
Performance
combination
Vl/ITH
South Frontenac Only
Region
Variance Variance Variance other
of
application).
completed
without
Type:
a that Fee Authority the applicable
Agplication Variances 1 -3 Variances 4+ building After
a
by—|aw.
that (1) one It is required Adjustment, Committee of by a NON—-REFUNDABLE made to the payable Township
.
tains minor
the the
is Section
Zoning
It is required Conservation payable to
9%
Please additional
Rideau
Quinte
Cataraqui
system
Minor
Minor Minor
Township
is
Mai
s
vary
Adjustment under zoning a
may
of formed from
desirable
l/laint
Is
is
variance:
Committee
variance
Application
The that
minor
Committee Committee
The
APPLICATION
Page 58 of 142
Date
CAREFULLY
APPLICATION P.13 C.
1990,
as
FOR amended
MINOR
VARIANCE
Received:
Each abutting
applicant lands
File
No:
ITEM
FRONTENAC R.S.O, Act,
subject showing the dimensions the of a shall sketch provide shoul The sketch outlined Question 29 the application. of as in d This sketch, measures. either Metric in or and scaled in Imperial dimensioned Variance analysis the Minor A of is the basis the Form, for the Application p that the spend recommended It is strongly applicant Committee of Adjustment. the data toli transfer thoroughly assemble the data and carefully and to time at measure dimensions and accurate sketch be drawn with that the important not ments. be o information include the above not required may which does application who a s of the assistance person to secure wish the may applicant regard, is att answering the questions such sketches. to application of A guide drafting ac he Personal of Information Collection d. Planning 19 Act, herein is under the requested required information Personal 90 Adjustment/Land Division used by the Committee of be This information will and be rnade a above referenced application, may the of reviewing purpose v interest an Agencies and Persons in having Commissions, Authorities, boards, a directed should be information of regarding the collection this questions i Sydenham, Ont., Box Adjustment 100, of (P.O. Committee Treasurer the of l ext.2224) 376-3027 . a b l e
THIS
SOUTH Planning
PLEASE
READ
OF
TOVVNSHIP
Page 59 of 142
Page 60 of 142
reason
51:7’
What
Please (|.e.
If the
‘I1.
of
are
answer
indicate residence,
subject be to public
to
whether
Yes item
0:55
1 1
is
of
the
APPLICATION 1990, 13.13 C.
as
FOR arrlended
yes,
El
are
for
No
etc.)
EACH
any
building
EXISTING
‘5
please
or
MINOR
/Z.C’.’/\
co-r
of
or
the
H/(~H of
indicate:
structures
facilities
rv \aL !Fr?a zm
Zoni ng
on
the
from
parking
El Yes
the
”c/vx
[l§.
VARIANCE
cou.:‘7¢nc..=’
‘9
;<iz.K«.~7o.c>~l
indicate these
road?
‘‘Ha,/
<5
provisions
structure
buildings
L.
distance
only,
maintained El No
L
ocz/L
the
P
—r2;T’n._
By—law:
with
£-‘5‘:0n—:7‘/A
land?
is water by approximate
I
/‘Run
so
51¢
Zoning
comply
“/5
municipally BYes
subject
7”7?<\éLe// there shed,
uses
and
property
a
cannot
Auo
uct
S
the
zrz-/;<,~
from
land:
I
the
use
front on road?
(,,«x,¢;
I
relief
/5:/xvuc
used road.
o,_// C0 garage,
3
the
subject
c,ouzzn/~\ctt—f
Coue’
existing
of
the
? S
proposed
property
the
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
. 7:’: road/lane): Frontage (on g£‘+) (‘*(7.(7?(?(l/"—”’–?“6~uv-’-f\f‘-D 9+ Area: :3. m3
SOUTH Planning
(;“xc,.:~e-as :5
of
maintained
or
the
an’).
the
nearest
£4-‘C/L
the
used
to
Road/Lane:
®<_=‘u:eS
a
If access facilities
and
(,(>‘r
subject the privately
s”/0
ale
extent
f//
JL\
why
and
S
zoning
(E-)(t$‘rILJc-s
ELL/«/0
nature
'
water):
OF
(Qz’$.(3’(?’-1+
(on
)2 L
current
7T1_<
Name
OR
Does
The
The
The
Depth:
Frontage
TOVVNSHIP
Page 61 of 142
Building
Line
from
Line
from
Line
from
answer to
SOUTH Planning
.
of
the
is
E
yes,
Yes
structure(s), or subject land’?
14
“‘5’?
'
for
each
or
land:
El
to
T0 M
proposed
No
additions
or».‘i‘sioe’(r.2c¢u.n.—>
subject
93“
addition,
existing
Deng)
W N:
- S n/\
$\—eE,b
S’ M
(2)
APPLICATION c. P.13
1950,
‘ $*‘°’“3
‘
‘I _
I
FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,
5’7°’*”
‘
7'3‘“”’” III M3
1
I0 *7
. ‘I BM
6 1.] ‘M
9.;
Résiocwdcf
item
the
5/
uses
High
of
building(s) on
built
774/
proposed
any be
(‘o
to
Mark
from
Area
applicable)
If the
14.Are
13.The
(If
VVater
Setback
Dimensions Floor
OF
P/9,‘/MC r.7_sC\E, C/O
(1)
‘A’Z?o’.’;“.’$“.§3JZ’§J’3y§’"°
of
Lot
Setback Side
Height
Lot
Rear
Setback
Front
Lot
Structure residence)
of
Setback
Type (E.g.
TOVVNSHIP
FOR
arrlended
building
building(s)
(3)
as
or
or
structure(s),
in di ca te :
(4)
VARIANCE
structure
MINOR
Page 62 of 142
story
Do
your
plans
Z?!»/xnuf
please
plans
OF
_
IV‘
M
.
Wu,
Ls1A.r-.5)
(‘3*’‘’‘)
,v\
include
crllenxc.-..
provide
include
(2)
the
details:
any
RAISING
o~.=c.4a
of
A.~o
DEMOLITION
an
existing
existing
?_=‘7°;Ac4;
of
on mark
(3)
a,J\—r…
structures?
MINOR
VARIANCE
/~JEL-J
oauc
lXYes
D
AN D
the setback lane, same. the CONSTRUCTION NEVV
FOR amended
a private be will the to
as
structure?
relate building.
and
APPLICATION c. P.13
1990,
is on waterfront, property setback the water from high required in this question of size the total completed
3.1 ~’’_l<53”‘
/13,-J(,JIl>r=’
334"‘’-°""-
S
‘3To9~‘/
Li .€ 4
_
,e.~D
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
POIKCH
SOUTH Planning
[U.bV"‘*
SCKJEN
Dgcrg
(1)
subject and the dimensions NOT to the
Mark
of
one
ding It Is story)
from
if
Line
from
from Line
Line
from
If the line The
your
If yes,
Do
and
lot 2)
Setback Water (If applicable)
High
NOTES:
B
tvvo
Outside
or
lndlcata
of
Lot
Lot
mensions Bulldinglstructure
(Also
Height
Side
Setback
Rear
k Lot
of Structure residence)
Setback
Front
Setbac
Type (E.g.
TOVVNSHIP
Page 63 of 142
Please approval
drainage
ofa
indicate
provided
owned
the
fixtures
bedrooms
to
provided owned
to and
swales
by
or
land Consent.
is
subject
of
an
or
have
other
application
by
land individual
the
subject
by
a
under
means?
the
Plan ning
owne d
oper ated lake,
and
publicly a communal or
well.
owned
lan ds:
E
D
Yes
Yes
8
B
VARIANCE
Yes
Yes
NIINOR
continued:
on
El
IE
El
D
FOR amended
a publicly or communal
land
subject operated
the
as
owner:
constructed
land individual
subject
were
current
encroach
C/um.-n~rc.c.«..7P’-‘)
ditches.
3-15-n,=vv
sewers,
the
the
the subject operated
of
structures
by
system?
structure
uses
is
and
and
subject
by
or
septic
disposal privately a
Subdivision
5»/N’««E’
provided
$.20-rus
whether Plan of
P.¢..ux-Y1:
D:-1’:-.4/\
or
sewage
sewage system. means: other
whether
is
(,Jc_-/Lg.
water privately a means:
the
existing
was
of
space
acquired
living
plumbing
number
APPLICATION P.13 O.
development?
FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,
proposed
addition existing
buildings
land
the the
that
~Ie1m_:>
time
existing
snoex
subject
Pik«u.–re!
system, other or
whether
of
I'1"l{>
the
9%.
length
date
storm
ls
privy,
Indicate operated
water body,
Indicate
.The
the
on
VVill
in
Increase
(c)
(d)
in
Increase
in
the
details:
(b)
of
SOUTH
Planning
Increase
uses
provide
OF
(a)
the
please
are
/I/la-4
date
What
21
20.The
19.The
‘I8.
If yes,
TOVVNSHIP
Page 64 of 142
**NoI:e:
The and
ii)
boundaries proposed
be
abutting
to
of
to
distances
property importance
to on-site be varied. should and IS
AG
file
(neighbours’)
REEIVIENT
OF
TC)
INDENINIFY
lan d
barns sig nas
applicant’s
of
P
and
the subject buildings, wetlands,
the
on
location
THE
subject crossing.
the the railway
TOP
and fields wells, septic is SKETCH The be shown. carefully, and neatly accurately
land.
owners’
to as
including
between bridge or
land
THE
subject
of
VARIANCE
application
application
the
the
IVIINOR
artificial features include Examples or stream banks, barns, these of features from and
lands.
…..i.e. distance point. landmark such as a
subject
AT
the
been
of
FOR amended
of
nurnber
as
ever
number
has
file
ARROVV
following:
the
rs)
Variance).
land
the
APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13
give
the
and abutting REQUIRED be prepared
all
line
of
NORTH
the
The
of
lot
or
dimensions
A
showing
give
,;|g,_zo‘uu
(Minor
subject
please
the Act
please
HAVE
reference
buildings.
and
MUST
yes.
pt
yes,
all natural the subject river ditches, distance Show
location
is
No
Planning
submitted
a
is
whether
25
FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,
The location approximate the land that is adjacent watercourses, drainage wells and tanks. septic lines.
The
El
27
indicate the of
item
SKETCH
must
to
43
question
SOUTH Planning
&No
OF
location of The nearest township
THE
i)
“”’
SKETCH
A
answer If the the application.
Yes
please if known. under Section
El
If the the
answer to application.
Yes
of
El
TOVVNSHIP
Page 65 of 142
Page 66 of 142
to
appoint address
should
owners
and
someone
be
must
zoning: come
acres: All
parts
be not aware You may pre—consultation in for
area,
and
and
Docking:
This
other
on
—
number
act
this
with
ofthe
of
are
shared
roads
behalf
should
your
address,
section.
zoning planning
question
the here
in
separat e postal
VARIANCE
variance pr o owners All c es s.
live with
NIINCR
if they complete
FOR amended
during appear
even
as
must
words, seeking or that
a
can
only
relevant
is
by
meet add to further
not
can
only
the Township; but lanes
you
you
variance developing
why
and
completed. property
be
that
ca n
the
access
private provide
ed an the
requir
do to than 3 within 0 buildi ng
this
on to from
you are asking 25 rather m a structure of an accessory be
on your staff.
looked after driveways, private with others).
are
is
(not
the water, embankment.
you
In
question
Municipally maintained Roads: themselves that residents maintain are and that generally property
Parking water.
to
this in mailing
APPLICATION P.13 1990, C.
This is asking what of Relief: Extent question asking to are it could be that —for you example, that asking increase the or are to height mark, you seeking variance construct are a to or that mark, you lot line than the principal building.
you
depth,
phone
appear the full
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
the Land: of Subject are the are same as former Townships. The Districts the District: If you beginning bill. on tax with the roll number number 1 029) I (the long your f are 020 district is numbers 040-050, or 030, O10, if the your Bedford: your Loughborough; numbers 060 district is are or 070, Storringto if the n; your numbers district is Portland. are 080, bill tax are and Lot Numbers: not sure, check Concession your if you civic number has been not assi Number: Your civic address if a Street ned, blank. space on or are This whether not you of Road/Street: Name question applies road. a public it will have a Plan No: property has been Reference surveyed, If your that has not been more on surveyed, one or plan. If your parts property blank. which on Roll No: This is the number beginning with appears “IO29’ your submi ting the before take time to look it up application.
name,
wish
all
SOUTH
Planning
Reason why can’t you comply: could because be, for example, already close too to is that of a because impossible steep
front
water
Nature variance water
of
address(es)
OF
Current
when
Frontage,
f.
e.
b.
a.
Description
authorization.
You may person’s
the
The and
names
TOVVNSHIP
Page 67 of 142
actually
instances, of existing find may
Demoli
Description are you information
Length
Septic:
Water their
years.
acquired:
in
most
it.
a
uses:
most lake.
cases
in the
cases
Vvhen
n Ion
are
made
the answer
You deck
on
must
structures
increase clear
are
—
answer
will
answer be
not
take
e.g.
are
granted made not
you
to
on
the
ng,
all
please
sections
land
MINOR
property
FOR amended
recreational
as
complete dwel
your
it
part
screened
be
the
private
will
has
sure,
that
sewage
private
land
provide
of
raise
is
at
add
your
the
the
but
used
best
but
some
for
to
be
ou resid t involve ence d. . in
n d ”,
departme nt. wi th of
deck,
may
waterfront
residential
there
th e const ructla
as
increase An involve an
building
estimate.
property’?
system,
well,
been
of
beginning
on to your demolition
the
a
must
th e this describe of
now,
VARIANCE
property, systems.
add
the
building accomplished
to
this question. would porch
to
there
to
and the be
on septic
development
from cannot
Committee
proposing
clear
possession
a
each
the
height
permit
new
ANYTHING garages,
dwelling.
permission
in
you
to
a
a
build decks,
proposed ALL addition to
example,
If you For
an
requires or
walls did
a
additions,
planning
words,
have
Please with
other
you
not you
I
is
or
vacant
APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13
business,
R.S.O.
answer same to this be the question will currently and planning are vacant, you section recreational “vacant 10 would be in be “residential”
there
the is
columns.
ad is
buildings
retail
Act,
FRONTENAC
structures:
are If you includes construct
In
buildings:
existing months?
18
supply: water from
of
If
construction:
demo
to
This
anything
Development:
under
Structure:
it
and
ANY
the land described 13 would
If this although because
walls.
existing
or
of
land
19)Date
Date
do
All
separate
new
—
proposed
in
that,
include
of
basement
18)Uses would space.
a
of
structures: “yes”
on: a
are
Generally,
be section
Uses:
in
SOUTH Planning
residential,
OF
buildings of your property.
example, use to
is
e.g.
If there “yes”.
residence.
on
is
Uses:
proposing
of
for
the
Proposed
question
17)Raising
described
then
Proposed if,
Description structure the from
but
Buildings: question
Existing
TOVVNSHIP
Page 68 of 142
Are
there
has
the
if
been
zoning
property.
Has
a
you
previous
been will by—|aw.
ever
has
as
to
before done commissioners. been appointed.
Agreement
this All
submitting
Indemnl
owners
y:
known,
the
Must
what
the
as
or
of
the
front
sign application,
consent
a
on
any
ofa
were.
blyssi on
commissioner application or it can
in be
of
d i s t sa n a b c ff y e s ,
ple ase
oaths signed
of front
accurate, to and
property,
professional
detailed,
the
dimensions accepted.
a
on
the
with
(severance)
deal
VARIANCE
the property? on other special per mi the seller proba will
variance
owner,
of
granted
to
MINOR
subdivision or information)
for
contract with do show not be not will in
FOR amended
constructed
granted the of
new
aware
importance
variance the details
be signed application, must sign
and
a
be
variance
for severance this provide
a minor probably are If you
help
stress the We cannot SKETCH: enough sketch. You do necessarily need to not sketches that drawn are not to but scale, USE not drawn neatly (PLEASE A RULER),
there number
this.
to
the
can
been
application
have
APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13
an
If
of
of
currently
that
R.S.0.
application
there
ditches
Act,
FRONTENAC
yes: If application
variance aware
owner
is
specific
SOUTH Planning
is a current number. (Staff
consent:
etc.?
there
OF
for you
a
Minor time
variance:
If there the file
If yes: indicate
for
drainage,
for Application the property’?
Drainage: natural
TOVVNSHIP
Page 69 of 142
Page 70 of 142
Daub‘:coy.-’ own’
Page 71 of 142
Page 72 of 142
ac
aw
Cc->7T/‘Ex?
¥
Inset Inset Map Map
Gailhowie 59B BUCE BAY LANE Pond
SH IPT
ON
M 59A BUCE BAY LANE
R CH
DRE W S R C AN
O
AD
Brady Lake
27 BUCE BAY LANE
Crow Lake
N
IL
E
LA E
V DE
AD RO E M ONA L AK
LAN
Christie Lake
45 BUCE BAY LANE
PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (BOYD)
W
S
E
N LA MC AN
E DR
Devil Lake
46 DEVIL’S COVE LANE Legend Subject Property
Devil Lake
Township Boundary Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity
BU
5 BUCE BAY LANE
CE
BA Y
LA
Lake Trout Lake - Not at Capacity NE
Non-Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity Wooded Area
40 DEVILS COVE LANE
Waterbody Provincially Significant Wetland Wetland
46 DEVILS COVE LANE
Road 24 DEVILS COVE LANE
54 DEVILS COVE LANE
AN DEVILS COVE L
E
Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2020. 64 DEVILS COVE LANE
53 DEVILS COVE LANE
25 CEDAR LANE
L AR CED
Scale: 1:1,000 0
10
20
40 m
E AN
Page 73 of 142
8 CEDAR LANE
While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.
UTM Zone 18 NAD 83
Date: 2022-09-08
September 29, 2022
File: MV/FRS/289/2022
Sent by E-mail Ms. Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Hannah: Re:
Application for Minor Variance PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) Pt Lot 11, Concession 12; 46 Devil’s Cove Lane Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Devil Lake
Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for minor variance and provide the following comments for the consideration of the Committee of Adjustment. Proposal The proposal involves the replacement of an existing deck with a new deck and screened in porch. The minor variance is requested to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres, as required by section 5.8.2(a) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law, to 21.5 metres to permit the construction of the new deck and porch. Site Description The property is located on the north shore of Devil Lake. The topography of the property can be described as rising steadily from the shoreline toward the south of the lot where the existing dwelling is located. There is also an existing shed located next to the dwelling. The property is densely covered in mature tree and vegetation growth. The property is designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and zoned ‘Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone’ (RLSW) in the implementing Zoning By-law. Devil Lake is designated as a moderately sensitive Lake Trout Lake in the Official Plan and is zoned Environmental Protection’ (EP) in the implementing Zoning By-law. Discussion The main interests of CRCA in this proposal are the protection of the water quality of Devil Lake and the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline.
Page 1 of 4
Page 74 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd)) September 29, 2022 Water Quality The Official Plan recognizes the need to minimize lake impacts by reducing phosphorous inputs, preventing erosion and maintaining natural appearances. Accordingly, policies have been included that can vary the setback from the highwater mark from 30 to 90 m depending on the site characteristics such as steepness of slope, vegetation cover, soil depth and soil phosphorus retention. Section 5.2.7 (b)(ii)(3) of the Official Plan indicates that a reduction from the setback may only be considered if it is not physically possible or environmentally desirable to meet the 30 metre water setback requirement, and that there will be no negative impacts to fish habitat or water quality. Similar to the Official Plan, Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy (EPP) considers new development within the 30 metre water setback area only if there are no reasonable alternatives for locating the development outside of the water setback area, the development is no closer to the water than existing buildings or structures on the property, and is set back as far as possible from the water in all directions, complies with the maximum lot coverage provisions of the Zoning By-law, and suitable methods to minimize negative impacts on water quality are incorporated into the development. Staff recognize that the existing residential dwelling is in non-compliance with the current zoning by-law for the Township of South Frontenac and is entirely situated within the required 30 metre setback from the highwater mark of Devil Lake. We understand the existing development also exceeds the maximum lot coverage provisions of the Zoning By-Law, which require a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent for the principal building and 5 percent for accessory structures. Based on our estimation, the total lot coverage for the existing dwelling, deck, and shed is approximately 9 percent, and the proposed development may increase the total lot coverage for the site to approximately 10 percent. Staff note that there is limited opportunity to move the development further away from the water as the site is constrained by a private lane the south and septic system to the east. Additionally, the proposal is not encroaching closer to the water than the closest point of the existing dwelling, which is 21.5 metres measured inland from the highwater mark. The proposed increase in lot coverage is, in the opinion of CRCA, a negligible increase, and is not anticipated to negatively impact the ecologic or hydrologic integrity of Devil Lake. Staff therefore have no concerns from a water quality perspective. In order to protect the shoreline and water quality in the long-term, staff recommend maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings/structures and the water and use of runoff controls to direct stormwater from hardened surfaces (e.g. rooftops) away from the lake where natural infiltration can occur. Natural Hazards Flooding: The maximum recorded water level for Devil Lake is 131.96 metres geodetic. For Devil Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. CRCA planning and permitting policies require all development and site alteration to be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based upon
Page 75 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd)) September 29, 2022 relevant aerial and elevation mapping data, the proposed development will be located outside of any area that may be subject to potential flood risk. Erosion: The CRCA, in accordance with provincial technical standards, defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to be 6 metres from the stable top of bank. CRCA policies and guidelines require that this 6 metre setback is applied for all new development, including decks. The purpose of this setback is to ensure that regular maintenance or repair of buildings and structures, or that bank stabilization and shoreline protection works can occur, and that emergency personnel have the ability to access shoreline areas. Based on relevant aerial and elevation mapping, the proposed development is located within the 6 metre access allowance from the top of bank. CRCA policies and guidelines can permit a reduction of the access setback for the proposed addition on the existing building since the deck does not encroach further into the setback than the existing building and access is not further restricted. Since the proposal is not anticipated to aggravate the hazard, staff have no concerns from an erosion perspective. If approved, staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. Recommendation In summary, staff have no objection to the approval of the proposed development under application PL-ZNA-2022-0124. We also recommend implementation of the above-noted environmental mitigation measures (in bold text). Ontario Regulation 148/06 Please note that portions of the subject lands are subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. For this property, any development (buildings and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) within 15 metres of the floodplain of Devil Lake (131.96 metres geodetic) or 15 metres of the top of bank is subject to O. Reg. 148/06. Therefore, a permit will be required from our office should the application be approved. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at jtreash@crca.ca. Yours truly, . Janelle Treash
Page 76 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd)) September 29, 2022 Resource Planner cc:
Sarah Cadue, Planner, South Frontenac Township, via e-mail
Page 77 of 142
82
To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared by: Development Services Department Date of Meeting: October 13, 2022 Subject:
Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) – 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake
Summary This application is requesting permission to construct a screened porch within 30 metres of the highwater mark of Devil Lake, thereby enlarging a legal non-conforming building. This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of this application for permission to enlarge a legal non-conforming building, per section 45(2) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions.
Background Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: Limited Service Residential Waterfront – RLSW
Relief Requested The application seeks permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge a dwelling within 30 metres of the highwater mark by increasing its gross floor area through the addition of a screened porch.
Discussion/Analysis Property Description The subject property is located at 46 Devils Cove Lane. Devils Cove Lane is accessed from McAndrews Road. The property has an lot area of approximately 14256 square feet (1324.4 square metres) with 95.37 feet (29 metres) of waterfrontage on Devil Lake. The property is developed with a cottage with attached decks, private well, septic system and shed. The cottage is built into the slope of the property. The cottage on the property is a single storey, setback approximately 21.5 metres to Devil Lake.
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 78 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) – 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake
The cottage has two decks on the north and west sides of the dwelling. The vegetation on the property consists of grass and mature trees scattered around the property. There is exposed bedrock throughout. The property contains a gravel driveway which leads down to the waterfront.
Summary of Proposal The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing deck that is approximately 198.16 square feet (18.40 metres squared) on the west side of the cottage and replace it with a screened porch that is approximately 281 square feet (26.10 metres squared). The screened porch would be constructed on post foundations, similar to the existing deck. The existing deck is set back 21.5 metres from highwater mark, and the proposed screened porch will be setback 21.5 metres from the high water mark. The screened porch will be 5 metres in height, the same height of the cottage. There will be no increase in height for the proposed screened porch. The proposed screened porch will be constructed to almost to the same dimensions as the existing deck, the increase in square footage versus the existing deck is approximately 83 square feet (7.71 metres). The screened porch will increase in width towards the west lot line, not the water. The existing deck is aging, and the applicant wishes to increase their activity area and repair it to a safe condition. The current footprint of the existing cottage and existing decks cover an area of approximately 1194.79 square feet (111 square metres) with a lot coverage of approximately 8.4%. Including the existing shed on the property the lot coverage is at approximately 9.1%.
Department and Agency Comments This application did not meet the criteria for circulation to Building Services for a sewage review because the proposed increase in living space is less than 15%. The subject property also has an existing septic system and private well. The screened porch will not have any plumbing fixtures or encroach on the existing septic system. Cataraqui Conservation provided comments on September 29th, 2022, which indicate that staff have no objection to the approval of the proposed development. However, in relation to water quality staff recommended maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings and structures and the water and use of runoff controls to
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 79 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) – 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake
direct stormwater from the hardened surfaces (e.g., rooftops) away from the lake where natural infiltration can occur. CRCA also noted that the proposed development is located within their required 6 metres access allowance from the top of bank. CRCA policies and guidelines can permit a reduction of the access setback for the proposed addition on the existing building since the screened porch does not encroach further into the setback than the existing building and access is not further restricted. Since the proposal is not anticipated to aggravate the hazard, CRCA staff have no concerns from an erosion perspective. If approved, CRCA staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. These recommendations will be included in a development agreement that is a proposed condition of approval. Lastly, CRCA noted that a permit under O. Reg. 148/06 would be required from their offices should the application be approved. The applicant must initiate this application process prior to the building permit stage.
Public Comments No comments have been received from the public to date.
Planning Analysis Section 5.10.2 of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 states that existing buildings with less than the minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. This provision does not allow the enlargement of these existing buildings. This makes them legal non-conforming structures. Permission is then required to make changes to legal non-conforming buildings. The dwelling was constructed before the zoning bylaw was passed in 2003. The proposal would result in the enlargement of a legal non-conforming dwelling and the screened porch would be 21. 5 metres to the highwater mark of Devil Lake. The proposed screened porch would be no closer to the highwater mark (21.5 metres) of than the deck that currently exists (21.5 metres) on the west of the property and would not be increasing the height of the dwelling. With the addition of the screened porch, the gross floor area of the cottage will increase from 198.16 square feet to 281 square feet, a difference of approximately 83 square feet (7.71 square metres).
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 80 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) – 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake
The increase in the area of the screened porch will result in lot coverage increasing by about 0.6%. Staff agree with Cataraqui Conservation that the proposed increase in lot coverage is negligible, and not anticipated to negatively impact the ecologic or hydrologic integrity of Devil Lake. There is limited ability to enlarge the deck in any other location as the site is constrained by a private lane to the south and the septic system to the east of the cottage. The proposal is designed to cause minimal disturbance to the waterfront as the enlargement is going towards the western property line, not the water. The proposed screened porch will exceed the interior side yard setback as it’s at 5.8 metres. The proposed enlargement represents appropriate and desirable development of the lot given the site constraints (e.g., private lane and septic system on the east side). The proposed screened porch will allow for more activity area without requiring significant vegetation removal or site alteration as it’s being constructed in the same area as the existing deck, and with a similar construction method (e.g., post foundation). The proposed enlargement from the existing deck is modest in size and will conform to the aesthetic of the existing dwelling and the waterfront. The proposal is not anticipated to increase the nutrient loading associated with the septic system as no bedrooms and plumbing is being added as part of the proposal. A development agreement is being proposed as a condition of approval to address environmental standards of the Township as well as to implement Cataraqui Conservation’s recommendations on sediment and erosion controls, and shoreline preservation. The Committee may permit an enlargement or extension to an existing legal nonconforming building or structure wherein the use of such building or structure does not conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law but legally has been in continuous existence before and following the date the Zoning By-law was passed. It is the opinion of staff that it is appropriate for the Committee of Adjustment to grant permission to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling, as described in this report.
Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given:
by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by posting on the Township’s Current Planning Application webpage by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 81 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - PL-ZNA-2022-0124 (Boyd) – 46 Devils Cove Lane, Devil Lake
Recommendation That the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve application PL-ZNA-2022-0124, subject to the following conditions:
- Permission is granted to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling on the subject property by adding a 281 square foot (26.10 metres squared) screened porch on the west side of the dwelling, setback 21.5 metres from the highwater mark of Devil Lake, as per the drawings submitted with PL-ZNA-2022-0124, received on August 29, 2022, that will be attached to the Decision as Schedule “A”.
- A building permit is required for ALL construction and demolition on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
- The applicant is required to enter into a development agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. The use of appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., silt fence, straw bales) during construction. b. Roof runoff will be discharged into infiltration trenches or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads. c. Efforts shall be made to maintain and enhance a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings and structures and the lake.
Report Prepared By: Sarah Cadue, M.PL., Planner
Reviewed By: Christine Woods, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 82 of 142
Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca
July 12, 2022 Mr. Steve Hounsell 513 Deerview Drive Kingston, Ontario K7L 4V3 Dear Mr. Hounsell: RE:
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 3115 LAKEHEAD ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE SOUTH FRONTENAC TOWNSHIP
Ecological Services was retained to assess the subject lot, upon which you have proposed to enlarge an existing residence and upgrade the sewage disposal facilities. This letter has been amended from that of November 30, 2021, to provide up-to-date survey and plan information and to address an additional issue raised by the Township of South Frontenac. 1.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a small lot (approximately 0.28 hectares/0.68 acres) in a row of small lots located along the south shore of Loughborough Lake (Attachment 1). It is located at the far west end of the lake, approximately 462 m from its western outlet. The existing cottage is set back from the lake approximately 11.5 m. The lot slopes down toward the lake with a significant elevation change, of approximately 10 m from the rear of the lot to the lakefront. The lot is generally characterized by overhead deciduous tree cover, but there is clear evidence of its long-term use for seasonal residential purposes, particularly around the cottage and in its immediate area of lawn, and in the depauperate ground conditions beneath the treed areas. 1.1
Ecological Land Classification
We visited the site on July 26, 2021, from which ELC mapping was prepared (after Lee et al. 19981) – see Attachment 2. The northern 40% of the lot was the most impacted by 1
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Technology Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.
Page 83 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
the current land-use. We observed Cultural (CU) areas associated with the road/driveway access to the site and with the cottage and mowed lawn along the shoreline. The approximately 3 m closest to the shoreline was characterized by a raised berm and a line of trees (7 White Cedar, 2 Eastern Hemlock, and 1 Yellow Birch). The reason for the berm is unknown, but it may be associated with the roots of these trees. This polygon was too small to map as a separate ELC area, but it is essentially cultural in nature. The band of coniferous woodland between the two cultural areas is a fairly steep slope that is characterized by White Cedar vegetation. This ELC category of a Dry – Fresh White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC2-2) can have variable site conditions and substrate types, here steeply sloped (see also site photographs in Attachment 3) with little to no vegetation below. The entire site slopes downward from the road to the lake, but this White Cedar strip is the area with the steepest drop. The existing cottage is nestled against the base of the drop, on the western side of the lot. The southern portion of the lot (approximately 60%) is treed. We mapped this as a Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FOD5). Here we observed Sugar Maples as the dominant tree cover. There were a number of Eastern Hemlock observed as well, but with insufficient canopy to deem this a Mixed Forest type. Other trees noted included Bitternut Hickory, Black Cherry, Ash (most in decline due to Emerald Ash Borer infestation), and White Cedar. There was no notable shrub layer, but ground species included Garlic Mustard, Carex pennsylvanica, Trillium spp., Helleborine, Oryzopsis, False Solomon’s-seal, Downy Solomon’s-seal, and Lady Fern. There was evidence of human activity in the area (tree cutting, trash, burning, etc.), which may contribute to the sparse under-canopy layers. The upland at the waterfront has little in the way of natural vegetation other than the trees (see Attachment 3). The nearshore water area slopes gently, is characterized by shallow water (to approximately 1 m depth) out well past the dock, and is dominated by Chara, a type of freshwater, multi-cellular algae also known as Musk Grass or Skunkweed. The total dock length is approximately 16 m. At approximately 8 m from shore, the aquatic vegetation becomes more diverse, particularly on the north side, with Vallisneria americana, Water Lilies, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton zosterformis and P. richardsonii. Fish were observed, but were not sampled directly. Centrachids (sunfish) and minnow species were present. 2.0
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The subject property is adjacent to a portion of Loughborough Lake South wetland. The provincial Policy Statement (PPS 20202) states that: 2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in . . . significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E.
2
Provincial Policy Statement. 2020. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Province of Ontario. 53 pp.
2 Page 84 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
The main issue originally identified by planning authorities, however, is related to fish habitat, and specifically to Lake Trout. The PPS states that: 2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal regulations. The PPS defines provincial and federal requirements as follows: a) in regard to policy 2.1.6, legislation and policies administered by the federal and provincial governments for the purpose of fishery protection (including fish and fish habitat), and related, scientifically established standards such as water quality criteria for protecting lake trout populations. The PPS also addressed lands adjacent to natural heritage areas of importance: 2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall no be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, . . . and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. While the PPS is largely silent with respect to Lake Trout specifically, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM, OMNR 20103) provides more detailed guidance on the implementation of the Natural Heritage policies of the PPS. Here, the width of adjacent lands is defined on “inland lake trout (at capacity) on the Canadian Shield [as] 300 m” and “all other fish habitat 120 m.” The subject property is located at the west end of Loughborough Lake. As pointed out in the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority’s Lake Fact Sheet (CRCA 20174), the east basin of the lake is on Canadian Shield, but “limestone underlies the west basin.” It is also “much deeper (maximum 38.4 m) and cooler and favours species such as trout.” ● As the subject lot is located at the far west end of the lake, and the west basin does not lie on Canadian Shield, it appears that the adjacent land distance of 300 m is not justified by the provincial policy or guidance documents. In this case, the more typical 120 m should be taken as the width of adjacent lands, as set out in the NHRM. Section 11.0 of the NHRM provides further guidance. To be consistent with policies 2.1.6 and 2.1.8 of the PPS, planning authorities shall protect fish habitat by:
3
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 2nd edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. 4 Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 2017. Lake fact sheet: Loughborough Lake. CRCA, Glenburnie, Ontario. 13 pp. Available online at: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0496/7242/1533/files/2017-FactSheetLoughboroughLake.pdf?v=1613617498
3 Page 85 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
• not permitting development and site alteration in fish habitat except in accordance with other applicable legislation, policies and standards administered by the federal or provincial governments for the purpose of the protection of fish and their habitat; • identifying special considerations for land adjacent to lake trout lakes that are a development capacity on the Canadian Shield; and • not permitting development and site alteration on adjacent lands unless the ecological function has been evaluated and there will be no negative impacts on the feature or its ecological function. Reference is also made to the Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook (Ontario 20105). This resource is subtitled “Protecting Water Quality in Inland Lakes on Ontario’s Precambrian Shield,” and that intent is reiterated in the statement of purpose. In that document, they describe the scientific basis of the guidelines, which were indeed developed for lakes on the Canadian Shield. The guidelines were supposed to provide clear and consistent guidance to municipal planning authorities. ● Again, it is clear from the PPS and the supporting NHRM that, as the west basin of Loughborough Lake does not lie on the Canadian Shield, this aspect of Policy 2.1.6 does not apply. Township of South Frontenac: Section 5.2.8 of the Township’s Official Plan (South Frontenac 2003) identifies the west basin of Loughborough Lake as a “highly sensitive Lake Trout lake.” The basis of this identification is not revealed, but it is assumed that this comes from the then-current listings (MOE/MNR 19936), in which the west basin of Loughborough Lake is identified as highly sensitive, and in which the province further identifies the basin as a “holding basin” in which there is no natural reproduction. This is consistent with work done by Ecological Services in 19987 and 19998. We undertook Spring Littoral Index Netting for the Ministry of Natural Resources on several Lake Trout lakes in the area, and found no natural reproduction in either of these sampling years in Loughborough Lake.
5
Ontario Lakeshore capacity assessment handbook: protecting water quality in inland lakes. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/document/lakeshore-capacity-assessment-handbook-protectingwater-quality-inland-lakes and < https://www.ontario.ca/page/lakeshore-capacity-assessmenthandbook-protecting-water-quality-inland-lakes-ontarios-precambrian-0> 6 Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources. 1992. Inland Lake Trout management in southeastern Ontario. 160 pp. 7 Ecological Services. 1998. The 1998 spring littoral index netting for Lake Trout in Devil and Loughborough Lakes, and the 1997 creel census of Loughborough Lake. Produced for the Ministry of Natural Resources, Kingston Management Area. 74 pp. 8 Ecological Services. 1999. The 1999 spring littoral index netting for Lake Trout in Eagle and Loughborough Lakes. Prepared for the Ministry of Natural Resources, Kingston Management Area. 61 pp.
4 Page 86 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
The Official Plan goes on to apply a 300 m setback and the following policies 5.2.8 (a): (i) Existing lots of record may be developed in accordance with Section 5.2.7 b) ii) 3). Consideration may be given to servicing the lot with a new technology, other than an approved class 4 sewage disposal system, where it has been demonstrated that the use of such technology will not impact on water quality over the long term. (ii) Generally, the creation of new lots, through the severance consent process, within 300 metres (984.3 feet) of a highly sensitive lake trout lake will not be considered for approval due to the potential to further degrade the water quality necessary to maintain a healthy lake trout population. (iii) Notwithstanding (ii) above, Council may consider the creation of new lots through the severance consent process in special or unique circumstances where it can be proven to the satisfaction of Council, in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, that one or more of the following conditions exists: a) the drainage of the proposed lot flows to a separate, non-sensitive, watershed as a result of existing topographical or physical features; b) it can be demonstrated, through hydrogeological studies, that the drainage of the sewage effluent will effectively result in a circuitous setback of at least 300 metres (984.3 feet); c) that new technologies in sewage disposal systems, acceptable to the Ministry of Environment, will be utilized resulting in no adverse effects on lake water quality; d) a conventional septic system (tile bed) will be located outside 300 metres (984.3 feet) from the highwater mark, provided that the total nutrient loading resulting from proposed buildings, construction and land clearing does not adversely affect the water quality of the lake. (e) the proposal is supported by detailed site-specific hydrogeological and soil studies which assess phosphorus distribution, migration velocity and long-term soil retention capabilities. (iv) Minor variance applications shall be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.11 of this Plan.
5 Page 87 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
The first of these policies appears to be the one most applicable in this case. The Official Plan policy [5.2.7 b) ii) 3)] that is specified to guide development in the case of existing lots of record states: 3) Proposals to construct additions to existing dwellings that are already within the 30 metre setback may be permitted but will be evaluated on the merits of the proposal based on the following: a) the ultimate total gross floor area, building footprint and lot coverage being proposed; b) the closeness of the existing dwelling to the high watermark; and c) the capacity of the lot to accommodate new development at a greater setback from the high watermark. In no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark. 3.0
THE PROPOSAL
The property has an existing cottage (area, including the shed, approximately 710 sq. ft.) on the site that dates back to the 1950s or earlier (exact date unknown). It is proposed that the cottage be rebuilt to create an all-season residence. The general concept is illustrated in Attachment 4. The new structure will be larger (approximately 1,100 sq. ft., plus a garage of 250 sq. ft.), but will be no closer to the lake; in fact, it will be very slightly (approximately 1.8 m) further away from the lake. A small shed located beside the cottage will be removed. The other aspect of the development proposal is the removal of the existing holding tank, and its replacement by a modern, tertiary septic treatment system, something recognized as beneficial in the Official Plan [5.2.8 (a) (i), noted above]. The existing tank is located approximately 21.5 m from the lake. While holding tanks can be highly effective at keeping nutrients from entering adjacent waters, they are generally not preferred, as their integrity depends on proper maintenance by landowners (we have no reason to suspect that has not been the case). As a replacement, Groundwork Engineering have recommended a Waterloo Biofilter system, which will be set back as far as possible on the lot, the biofilters at approximately 68 m from the lake, and the surrounding bed at a minimum distance of approximately 50 m from the lake (see Attachment 4). This system has been proven in thousands of installations across North America. In addition, Operation and Maintenance agreements are a regulatory requirement in Ontario for all residential, tertiary treatment systems such as this. This agreement is between the system owner and an approved Service Provider, and certifies that the system will be inspected and maintained annually. There are a number of constraints to development on the site, including an area with steep slopes and a hydro easement through the property (Attachment 3).
6 Page 88 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
4.0
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
SIGNIFICANT WETLAND
The subject property fronts on a portion of Loughborough Lake South wetland. This area of the wetland is depicted in provincial mapping as completely associated with the lake, which is consistent with our observations on site. This means that the wetland here is characterized by a community composed of underwater aquatic plants (Chara in the area close to the shoreline, with increasing diversity (species such as Vallisneria americana, Water Lilies, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton zosterformis and P. richardsonii) further out into the lake. The proposal will not be located within the wetland, but will be located within 120 m of the wetland, or within adjacent lands. 5.0
FISH HABITAT
We examined the nearshore area to make some assessment of the fish habitat adjacent to the property. The habitat appears to be open water wetland, dominated primarily by underwater vegetation (Chara dominant, but with Valisneria americana, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton zosterformis, and P. richardsonii. There were a few floatingleaved water lilies, but species could not be determined because flowering was past. As well, there was one small patch of emergent plants in front of the cottage (probably softstemmed bullrushes). The nearshore water was shallow and very gently sloped. It appeared to be 1.0 m in depth or less out beyond the end of the dock (estimated at least 20 m). There was little cover or structure observed, other than the cover provided by the dock itself. Although we did not directly sample for fish, Loughborough Lake is known to support a wide variety of fish species9 and the characteristics of the site offered several good habitat features. 5.1
Lake Trout
Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) are a relatively common species in Ontario, ranked as S5, or very common in the province. They are widely distributed across the province, in Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Superior and across the deep cold lakes of the Canadian Shield. Their habitat requirements include water depths of at least 15 m (50 ft). The reason that Lake Trout lakes are of concern in the province is due to the Lake Trout requirement for cold, deep, oxygen-rich water. The unrestricted input of nutrients into a lake can increase algal growth and biological oxygen demand (BOD). As BOD increases, waters can consequently can hold less dissolved oxygen. For lakes in southern Ontario, this may be an issue, particularly as the climate continues to warm. The province has long considered Loughborough Lake to be a holding basin, to be managed as a so-called “put-and-take” fishery, and have stocked it for many years in 9
Fish ON-line. Database created by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. <https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/FishONLine/Index.html?site=FishONLine&viewer=FishONL ine&locale=en-US>
7 Page 89 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
order to take angling pressure off healthier Lake Trout lakes such as Devil Lake, further north on Canadian Shield. From 1990 until 2003, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 trout were released yearly. Following our SLIN work in 1998 and 1999, it became apparent that there was no natural regeneration in Loughborough Lake. We spoke with Mark Ferguson (personal communication10), who managed to stocking program for the Ministry of Natural Resources at that time, and he confirmed that no natural regeneration was observed. Fall index netting was conducted by the Ministry, as well, and again no natural regeneration could be confirmed. More recently, stocking has continued as a partnership between the Ministry and the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association (though not in 2020 or 2021, due to COVID; the Ministry placed 15,000 fingerlings each of those years). According to the Loughborough Lake Association, “the project is designed to increase the trout population for those who fish the lake,” which statement is consistent with the Ministry’s management goals for this waterbody. 6.0
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We considered the following points: ● it is our opinion that the subject property is not subject to a 300 m adjacent land structure, based on the PPS and NHRM, but rather to the standard 120 m width. The Township’s Official Plan, however, specifies 300 m of adjacent lands for the west Basin of Loughborough Lake. The recommendations of the province are limited to lakes located on the Canadian Shield because this is the area for which research was done (Muskoka Lakes area), and for which the recommendations were developed. Lands that are not located on the Shield are very different in nature, particularly with respect to topography, soil chemistry, and soil depths. The municipality does not state its reasons, but in our opinion, they have not demonstrated the scientific validity of applying these stringent setbacks to lands outside the Canadian Shield. ● the proposed site redevelopment will enlarge an existing use, marginally improving the setback from the water, but clearly meeting the Official Plan requirement set out in section 5.2.7 b: ii) 3), in which the municipality states there should be no encroachment further into the setback of an existing use, and also section 5.2.8(a)(i), in which consideration of better septic technology is suggested. The site is entirely impacted by its long-term residential use, but has retained a reasonable amount of natural vegetation cover. In general, the northern part of the lot is cultural in nature, while the rear (southern part) of the lot is more natural in nature. ● Official Plan policy [5.2.7 b: ii) 3)] also speaks about considering the capacity of the lot to accommodate new development at a greater setback from the high-water mark. Of the two proposed features, it is far more beneficial to lake water quality to have the septic treatment facilities set back as far as possible. We considered the possible placement of both, at the rear (south end) of the lot, the dwelling immediately north of the septic field, and the net benefit of this option. This would result in essentially the same benefit to lake 10
Mark Ferguson. Retired Fisheries Biologist. Long career with the Ministry of Natural Resources and with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
8 Page 90 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
water quality, as the new septic would be of the same type in the same location. It would be of greater impact to the ecology of the area, however, as it would result in additional if not complete loss of the only area of the lot sustaining relatively natural vegetation cover (i.e., the FOD5 woodland). We considered the potential for re-naturalization. The southern CU area will not be allowed to regenerate because this supports an access road, a hydro line and right-of-way. The nearshore area (currently mowed lawn) could be revegetated, but the reality is that that is the area that best allows the property to be used for water-related purposes. We would anticipate that little if any would be restored to natural vegetation cover, as it is a reasonable expectation that someone living on a lakefront property would wish to access the water and use the waterfront. Overall, given the lot size and constraints, and given the significant improvement associated with the proposed septic treatment, we are not persuaded that there would be a benefit to the lake environment through forcing all development to the south. ● the redevelopment will affect lands that are already altered from their natural state. We acknowledge that there will be some loss of woodland associated with the installation of a separated driveway and the septic facilities. We note that the plans have been revised to minimize the loss of trees, but add that this woodland is of modest diversity, with poor understory habitat; the ash component present is dying due to the impact of Emerald Ash Borers. Here, we would consider the benefits to water quality to outweigh the loss of a portion of the deciduous woodland. ● the negative impacts associated with residential development adjacent to wetland habitat result primarily from the production of waste and the potential for those nutrients to enter the wetland, and direct conflicts with wetland species that require adjacent uplands for part of their life cycle. The nature of the wetland here is characterized by submerged aquatic vegetation, and this type of wetland is primarily used by species that are fully aquatic. We consider the proposed redevelopment to be essentially identical to the existing situation (with a minor improvement in the setback), and find a low probability of increased conflicts. The installation of a Waterloo Biofilter type of septic system located at the rear of the property represents a substantial improvement in the potential for waste runoff into the wetland. ● the negative impacts associated with residential development adjacent to fish habitat result primarily from the production of waste, and the potential for those nutrients to enter the lake waters. The dwelling itself is largely inert, so the anticipated impact in that respect would be in the additional amount of hardened surface adjacent to the lake (expanded building footprint, less the area of the small shed being removed). So, there is potential for an increased amount of runoff from hardened surfaces, which could carry particulate matter into Loughborough Lake. We do note two points, however: the berm that fronts this lot would act to physically slow and prevent particulates from entering the lake; and the subject property is located close to lake outflows, meaning that any runoff from this lot will flush quickly out of the lake and making it unlikely that runoff from the site could affect the portions of the lake where Lake Trout occur. Additionally, as a mitigation measure, three infiltration trenches are proposed (along the driveway and to capture roof runoff – see Attachment 6). 9 Page 91 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
● with respect to the holding tank, these structures are generally not considered to be a preferred solution due to the lack of oversight, and the reliance upon private landowners to maintain them in an appropriate fashion. We are fully supportive of the proposal here to install a Waterloo Biofilter type of tertiary septic system at the rear of the lot, increasing the setback of the nutrient load associated with the waste substantially (approximately 50 m from the lake), and its maintenance assured by the required maintenance contracts. It is our opinion that this will be an improvement from the existing situation, and that it would represent greater security with respect to water quality protection. ● the assessment of Loughborough Lake’s at-capacity status was determined with the existing development in place. Redevelopment of the lot, particularly considering the proposed Waterloo Biofilter septic system, will not create further impact. ● there are a number of mitigation or enhancement measures that should be implemented to further minimize the potential for impact prior to, during, and after construction. These are set out below: • the removal of any woody vegetation prior to development should be subject to timing restrictions, to minimize the potential for impacts to native species using the habitat, and to ensure compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We recommend that there be no removal of trees or shrubs from April 1 to August 30. • during construction, standard best management practices should be put in place; in particular, keep machinery well away from the water’s edge, particularly when refueling, and establish means (e.g., sediment fencing or staked haybales) to ensure that disturbed sediments are unable to reach the lake. Such measures should be continued or left in place until work is completed and all disturbed soils have been permanently stabilized (e.g., with vegetation). These measures should be checked regularly by the landowner or site manager. • in making final design decisions, we recommended that rainwater falling on the hardened surface of the dwelling be directed such that it maximizes the distance of overland flow or that overland flow is avoided. The elected proposal for infiltration trenches is shown in Attachment 6. • recognizing the limited area available for shoreline restoration, we recommend that shoreline naturalization efforts be made on the raised berm area (approximately 3 m in width) at the water’s edge. While there are a number of native trees along this area, there is little else. We recommend further vegetation of the area, specifically shrubs and/or ground-level plants, with an emphasis on the use of native species. This will not only improve the ability of the area to slow runoff, but will provide some habitat opportunities, a modest degree of lake buffering, as well as potentially improve shading of the water at the edge of the berm.
10 Page 92 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
• consider enhancement of the nearshore fish habitat. While this area of the lake is not Lake Trout habitat, trout are piscivorous carnivores, so any enhancement of fish habitat would be beneficial to them as well. We noted the relative lack of cover and structure in the area in front of the cottage. Something as simple as dropping a mature tree into the nearshore water can be highly beneficial to fish, and we note that the clearing on the upland will necessitate the removal of some trees that could supply this material. 7.0
SUMMARY
The proposal on this lot is to expand an existing use, and the proposal includes the establishment of a tertiary septic system that will provide long-term security with respect to potential nutrient input that could potentially affect fish habitat and water quality, as well as wetland. Impacts include some loss of upland vegetation, and an increased in hardened surfaces that could contribute additional sedimentation/nutrients into the adjacent lake, potentially affecting fish habitat. The proposed replacement of the existing holding tank with a tertiary septic system at a greater setback is a net gain, in our opinion, and provides greater security with respect to water quality protection. With the additional implementation of recommended mitigation and enhancement measures, it is our opinion that the proposal will have no net negative impact on Loughborough Lake and its associated fish habitat or wetland habitat.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Alice Snetsinger
11 Page 93 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 1. Annotated detail from topographic map 31 C/9 (Sydenham) showing the general area of the subject property.
12 Page 94 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 2. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) after Lee et al. (1998). See text for discussion. Base satellite view is 2008 imagery from <frontenacmaps.ca>
13 Page 95 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 3. Site photographs. Taken by report author July 26, 2021.
Photo 1. From southwest corner, looking northward onto the property. Deciduous woodland cover with relatively sparse vegetation cover below.
Photo 2. From the northern end of the FOD5 area, looking southward. Note the rise in the land toward the road, and evidence of tree cutting or cleanup.
Photo 3. Example of some of the trash observed in the FOD5 area. 14 Page 96 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Photo 4. Portion of the cultural area associated with the access road and hydro line. Looking WSW.
Photo 5. Looking northeast along the White Cedar slopes. Note that lack of vegetation below, which allows a good view of the moderately steep slope here.
Photo 6. Looking southwest along the White Cedar slope, from the access stairs. Again, note lack of vegetation below. Cottage located at the base of the slope. 15 Page 97 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Photo 7. View of mowed Cultural area near the cottage, looking northeast. Note the sloped White Cedar area on the right, and Loughborough Lake on the left.
Photo 8. View of Cultural area near the cottage, looking southwest. Note here the evidence of most intensive use: cottage, picnic table, mowed lawn, dock, etc.
Photo 9. View to the southwest along the raised berm discussed in the report. Note the presence of trees along the berm, with little other vegetation. 16 Page 98 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Photo 10. View to the northeast along the property shoreline on Loughborough Lake. Note the thin line of trees along the water’s edge, and the patch of emergent vegetation in the nearshore area.
Photo 11. View from the end of the dock, looking southerly back toward the property. Note the shallow water adjacent to the shoreline with aquatic vegetation. The stump at the right is approximately the property edge.
Photo 12. View to the southwest along the property shoreline on Loughborough Lake. Note the well vegetated shoreline on the adjacent property. 17 Page 99 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 4. Site plan of the proposed site redevelopment. Annotated detail from Groundwork Engineering Ltd. C-101, dated March 15, 2022, last revision date April 19, 2022. Scale 1:250. The existing cottage is highlighted in pink, the proposed dwelling in red. The area of the proposed septic is shown in green.
18 Page 100 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 5. Detail from site plan by Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc., dated April 2022, confirming water setbacks. Scale 1:200.
19 Page 101 of 142
Hounsell: Loughborough Lake
Ecological Services: July 12, 2022
Attachment 6. Annotated detail from Groundwork Engineering septic plan drawing, project GW-20002-29, Drawing No. C-101, dated September 8, 2021. The location of the proposed infiltration trenches is highlighted in pink.
20 Page 102 of 142
W
1
N
C-101
Groundwork
LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE
SEPTIC SITE PLAN 1:150
Engineering Limited
S
GEOTECHNICAL ● CIVIL ● STORMWATER ● ONSITE WASTEWATER
7.0
0m
E
UNIT 640 - 654 NORRIS COURT KINGSTON, ONTARIO OFFICE (613) 634-1789 LOCATION PLAN
0m .2 18
m
38
0m
7.0 PR
NOTE: WHEN DETERMINING WELL LOCATION THERE WILL NEED TO BE A 15m CLEARANCE FROM THE SEPTIC TANK AND STONE AREA OF TYPE A BED AS PER OBC TABLE 8.2.1.6.A. & OBC TABLE 8.2.1.6.B.
OP 3 B OSE ED D H RO OU FIX OM SE TU S RE C 28 OU .5 NT TO FL T A OO L L R A IVA RE BL A2 E 09 2 m
m
83
CALCULATIONS AS PER ONTARIO BUILDING CODE PART 8 DAILY SEWAGE FLOW DETERMINATION
- MAIN HOUSE
- 3 BEDROOMS = 1,600 L/D
- FIXTURES NUMBER 28.5 > 20 = 425 L/D
- TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 209.02m2 > 200m2 = 100 L/D USE LARGER OF 2 NUMBERS FOR FIXTURES/FLOOR AREA
TOTAL = 2,025 L/DAY → 3,000 L/DAY* *UPSIZED AT THE REQUEST OF OWNER
1.5
9m 15.2
0m
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SIZING 3000L/DAY X 1.89 = 5,670L MINIMUM ANAEROBIC DIGESTER VOLUME = 5,664L* MINIMUM INNER TUBE VOLUME = 600L*
R15.00m
*AS PER WATERLOO BIOFILTER 2020 DESIGN & INSTALLATION GUIDE
LOADING
EXISTING SOIL: T-TIME > 50 (TOPSOIL OVER BEDROCK)
10.37m
TYPE A BED CALCULATIONS FLOW RATE < 3000L/DAY THEREFORE RATE IS 75L/m²
STONE AREA = 42.25m2 → Q/75→ 3000 75 = 40m² (REQ’D)
.94 m
4.8 0m
X 50 = SAND AREA = 375m2 → QXT/400→3000 375m² (REQ’D) 400
HY
DR O
LIN
ES
4.8 0
m
32
ET
CK (
4.8
m)
0m
.0
15
REVISIONS
m 00
.
28
BA
No.
Description
Date
1
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
SEP 8, 2021
2
ISSUED FOR PERMIT APPLICATION
APR 22, 2022
BENCHMARK:
.3
11 3m
S XI
S OR
HB
IG NE
E
WA Y
SIB NW
126.133m
GEODETIC ELEVATIONS ESTABLISHED USING CAN-NET GNSS REAL-TIME CORRECTION NETWORK Client / Land Owner:
STEVE HOUNSELL
Project:
3115 LAKEHEAD ROAD ONTARIO
ELGINBURG Drawing Title:
ING EX IST
5.0 0m
AD
G
N TI
SE
D BE
SH
m
RO
C TI
P
7m
HE AD
IVE
00 3.
ED
PR
D E S O OP
5 9.
LA KE
m
m 50 . 6
. 25
m 00
ELEVATION 125.654m
AR
50
0 00 1 0 FB 00 1 FB 00 0 -1 FB
W E IV R D
DESCRIPTION SIB NE
DR
m 75 . 82
AY
No. 01.
SEPTIC PLAN Drawn by: Checked By: Page Size: Scale:
M.A.B
Project Number:
GW-20002-29
MB 24"x36" AS NOTED
Date:
Page 103 of 142
SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
Drawing Number:
C-101 SHEET 1 of 2
Groundwork Engineering Limited
1.23m
4 1
0.50m
GEOTECHNICAL ● CIVIL ● STORMWATER ● ONSITE WASTEWATER
MAX FB-1000
FB-1000
FB-1000
UNIT 640 - 654 NORRIS COURT KINGSTON, ONTARIO OFFICE (613) 634-1789
0.90m
LOCATION PLAN
6.50m
15.00m
NOTES:
1 C-102
TYPE A BED PROFILE VIEW
- TYPE A DISPERSAL BED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER OBC 8.7.7.1.
- TYPE A SAND TO BE 6<T<10 WITH A MAXIMUM 5% OF PARTICLES WITH A DIAMETER OF 75μm OR LESS, PASSING THROUGH A 0.074mm (No. 200) SIEVE. AS PER OBC 8.7.7.1.(4)(a).
- SEPTIC STONE AS PER OBC 8.7.7.1.(6), 8.7.3.3.(2) AND TABLE 8.7.3.3.
- STRIP ALL EXISTING TOPSOIL IN AREA OF TYPE A BED.
- GEOTEXTILE TO BE NON WOVEN NEEDLE PUNCHED POLYPROPYLENE TERRAFIX 270R OR EQUIVALENT.
- FORCEMAIN IF NOT SELF DRAINING NEEDS TO BE BURIED 1.5m DEEP, INSULATED OR HEAT TRACED TO PREVENT STANDING WATER FROM FREEZING. 7.WATERLOO BIOFILTER ANAEROBIC DIGESTER & (3) FLATBEDS FB-1000 TO BE INSTALLED AS PER WATERLOO BIOFILTER 2020 DESIGN & INSTALLATION GUIDELINES.
- WATERLOO BIOFILTER ANAEROBIC DIGESTER TO HAVE A MINIMUM WORKING VOLUME OF 5,664L WITH A MINIMUM INNER TUBE VOLUME OF 600L.
- SIMPLEX TIMER CONTROL PANEL WITH AUDIBLE AND VISUAL ALARM TO BE MOUNTED ON 100mm x 100mm x 1.5m PRESURE TREATED WOOD POST ADJACENT TO ANAEROBIC DIGESTER OR ON SIDE OF BUILDING FOR EASIER SERVICING. 10.PUMP UPGRADE REQUIRED. CONTACT WATERLOO BIOFILTER WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 8m LENGTH OF 50mmØ FORCEMAIN = 72m 11.ALL ELECTRICAL WORK MUST BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ELECTRICAL CODE & BE PREFORMED BY A LICENCED ELECTRICIAN IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE ESA.
NTS
MIN 1.00m
0.45m
0.80m
2
TYPICAL SWALE PROFILE
C-102
NTS
3
NTS
3.23m
C-102
INFILTRATION TRENCH
REVISIONS
FB-1000
No.
Description
Date
1
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
SEP 8, 2021
2
ISSUED FOR PERMIT APPLICATION
APR 22, 2022
1.23m
No. 01.
DESCRIPTION SIB NE
ELEVATION 125.654m
SIB NW
126.133m
GEODETIC ELEVATIONS ESTABLISHED USING CAN-NET GNSS REAL-TIME CORRECTION NETWORK
101mm
76mm
0.30m
0.20m
BENCHMARK:
Client / Land Owner:
0.30m
STEVE HOUNSELL Project:
3115 LAKEHEAD ROAD ONTARIO
ELGINBURG Drawing Title:
4 C-102
UNIT PIPE DIAGRAM NTS
6 5 C-102
PAN LYSIMETER DIAGRAM NTS
C-102
PUMP CHAMBER NTS
DETAILS & NOTES Drawn by: Checked By:
Project Number:
GW-20002-29
MB
Page 104 of 142
24"x36" AS NOTED
Drawing Number:
SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
SHEET 2 of 2
Page Size: Scale: Date:
JH
C-102
Page 105 of 142
minor
is
of
completed
other
A/linor
system
Valley
Rideau
Conservation are
Authority
Conservation
Note: These fees permit applications
Conservation
Quinte
Please additional
a
and
and
of
in
of
and
for
new
fees
prior
consultation
Authority
Authority
a
Review
Conservation
SOUTH
of of
provisions
the the
or
eight of Planning
Planning
to
Class
any
on
3,
4,
or5
this application construction.
2,
are
to
to submitting
application
onsite
Admin
these
submitted
only;
sewage
be
an
review
$97.00 $97.00 $97.00
Building
to
with
building
or
struc ture
13,
by Township Chapter P.
(
the Separ To ate w ns hi p
agencies
to
sewage
Fee:
e b it
the Secretary— Treasurer (below) 3 in Note . d below in cash,
the
1990,
Committee
PERMISSION
appointed
chart
filed referred
the
be
Zoning
Fee:
OR
the land, Plan. By—Iaw.
provided
use of Of?cial
Township
when Authority,
the
,343.00 $1 $2,058.00
$979.00
2022
FRONTENAC
persons Act R.S.O.
VARIANCE
January,
OF
this application with SKETCH the accordance with Frontenac. South
purpose purpose
be for provided (where applicable)
permit
FEE
the
development
By—law
of
Committee
45
NIINOR
Updated
FOR
TOVVNSHIP
copy together
Township
(1)
appropriate intent intent
Performance VVITH combination with in than a Class A system
Region
Variance
Variance
Minor
Frontenac
a
by—|aw. Zoning
Fee a Authority applicable
that
without
Type:
the application).
South Only
to
required
building
Conservation payable
It
After
Agplication Variances 1-3 Variances 4+
Variance
Cataraqui
the general
general nature
Requirements
in
for
It is that one required Committee ofAdjustment, by a NON—REFUNDABLE to the made payable
is
the the
vary
is Section
APPLICATION
Adjustment under zoning a
may
of formed from
is desirable Maintains Maintains
Minor
Township
‘l .
is
variance:
Committee
variance
the
Application
The that
minor
The
Committee Committee
FRONTENAC
SOUTH
Page 106 of 142
Committee
questions Treasurer 376-3027
boards,
regarding the of ext.2224).
Commis
ITEM
SOUTH Planning
ns.
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
CAREFULLY
the
by
APPLICATION 1990, P.13 C.
as
FOR
amended
under
NIINOR
VARIANCE
and
Persons
information Box (F’.O.
Planning
Act.
100,
Sydenham,
Ont.,
Division be made may having interest an should be directed
the
Adjustment/Land of and application.
herein is required the Committee
referenced Agencies collection this of of Adjustment
above
Authorities,
the
used
requested
be
Committee
Personal information This information will of purpose reviewing
Collection
drafting
regard,
time to important application
as
THIS
OF
i n
1 9
shall sketch the a dimensions provide the subject showing of outlined 29 the The sketch shoul of application. Question in and scaled either Metric or measures. in Imperial This i sketch. d n is the basis the analysis the Minor Variance Form, for of A p Adjustment. It is strongly of recommended that the applicant spend p carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and the data transfer to li be drawn accurate that the sketch with dimensions and measure which does include the above be c not information not ments. required may at to secure a the wish the assistance of person who applicant may i such sketches. answering the att of guide to is A application questions o ac n he Personal of Information d.
READ
Each applicant abutting lands dimensioned the Application
PLEASE
TOVVNSHIP
Page 107 of 142
Page 108 of 142
‘I1.
nature
The
reason see
are the
nearest
used
to
Yes
garage,
whether
Residential there shed,
uses
D
of
and
are
the
a
No
subject
Yes
cornply
any
subject
EXISTING
land?
by water approximate
is
13
municipally
cannot
is
with
buildings
distance
only.
the
FOR
of
or
0.3
the
the
on
the
from
parking
Zonin g
setback
Committee
APPV OX» ha
VARIANCE
X1 Yes
of
facilities
structures
these
indicate
road?
provisions
the
from
Approx.
the 30m
IVIINOR
road/lane):
arnended
within
required
(on
as
please
building
Act
By—law:
maintained El No
Zoning
Planning
the
Watezfront
Area:
Frontage
land.
APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13
non—con7pIying
the
from
Residential
of
the
use
etc.)
property
road.
used
Road
to be public
existing
N/A
a’
45(2)
rn
32
land:
the
of
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
relief
front on road?
proposed
subject
ea
the
Service
subject
legally a watercourse.
letter
property
/er
the
ofa
expand
Section
of
the
rn
Approx.
and
area
SOUTH
Planning
100
Limited
extent
—
maintained
or
the
Lakeh
Road/Lane:
co
why
and mark
under
and
Please indicate (l.e. residence,
What
and
the
access
of
zoning
Approx.
OF
of
depth water):
RLSVV
the subject a privately
facilities
If
Name
OR
Does
The
highwater
reconstruct
Permission
current
The
Depth:
(on
frontage(s),
Frontage
The
TOVVNSHIP
Page 109 of 142
If
14.Are
13.The
to
(If
be
story)
Mark
from
to
of
one
the
SOUTH
is yes,
Planning
1
3 metres
metres
metres
storeys)
metres
metres metres &
for
Act,
of
subject
metres
Yes
structure(s), land’?
subject
or
the
70>‘?
or
land:
El
No
additions
<2)
EACH
R.S.O.
FRONTENAC
sq metres (dwelling) 72-2 /77511195 50(garage)
55 (‘W0
14.2
(garage)
57-8
69.8
'
(dwelling)
10
Detached Dwe/ling
1 1
OF
3.3
<1)
item
Residential
uses
High
is
ding
bui|ding(s) on
built
proposed
any
i
Line
from
Line
Area
applicable)
Vvater
Floor
Dimensions
tvvo
Lot
Line
from
from
Bu
Lot
Lot
of
o indicate or story
Height
(AI
etback
Side
S
Rear
Setback
Front
answer
Structure residence)
of
the
Setback
(E.g.
Type
Setback
7
TOVVNSHIP
to
building
as
FOR
amended
bui|ding(s)
(3)
structure
P.13
or
existing
C.
APPLICATION
1990,
or
indicate:
lVIlNC)R
structu
re (s),
(4)
VARIANCE
Page 110 of 142
If the
story
Lot
NOTES:
If
your
yes,
Do
and
lot 2)
Setback water High (If applicable)
Buildinglstructure
Line
from
Line
from
Line
from
it
Mark
subject
item
please
plans
4_0 1-,_1
'
metres
metres
1
sq.
me
'
&
t ‘93
metres
9 0 storeys)
metres metres
1
for
each (2)
proposed
FRONTENAC R.S.C). Act,
Expansion
details:
any
of
legally
DEMOLITION
existing
norrcomplying
of
on
rnark relate building.
and
addition,
to
use
FOR
(3)
be the
lane,
or
the
setback
El
Yes
i n d ic at e:
VARIANCE
structure
MINOR
same. the CONSTRUCTION NEVV
building
arrlended
private
will
a
as
structures?
APPLICATION P.13 1990, C.
on is property waterfront, setback the frorn high water required in this question of size total the completed
12
234
include provide
12
Detached Dwem-ng
yes,
SOUTH Planning
is
58'8
14
OF
(three
(1)
and the dimensions NOT the to
If the line The
one
of
is
story)
from
if
Building
tvvo
Outside
or
indicate
of
Lot
Lot
Dimensions
(Also
Height
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Front
to
Structure
answer
of residence)
Setback
(E_g.
Type
TOVVNSHIP
Page 111 of 142
Is
or
whether
sewage
whether
drainage
other
time
that
te
Swa/es
Priva
and
provided
te
existing
is
over/and
by
sewers,
of
an
fixtures
bedrooms
by
65+
of the
flow
ditches,
owned
provided
to
and
owner:
by
swales
or
FOR
have
other
land individual
subject
or
a
a
and
publicly communal
well.
owned
means?
by
communal
the
continued:
on
CI
Yes
owne d
oper ated lake,
land s:
:2
D
E
Yes
D
El
VARIANCE
El
Yes
MINOR
I21 Yes
E
amended
publicly
by
a or
land
subject operated
the
as
structure?
constructed
land individual
subject
were
current
encroach
years)
the subject operated
uses
the
structure system?
be
existing
APPLICATION P.13 ‘I990, C.
development?
of
structures
to
is
and
to
and
disposal privately a
owned
provided
(Estimated
the
(1 9505)
sewage system. means:
Priva
was
or
septic acquired
living
plumbing
number
space
RAISING
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
proposed
addition existing
buildings
land
the the
privately a means:
Unknown
of
water
existing
Unknown
the
on subject
2019
the
(d)
in
Increase
(C) VVi|I
in
in
the
Increase
of
(b)
uses
details:
the
SOUTH Planning
Increase
the
provide
include
OF
(a)
system. or other
length
storm
privy,
Indicate operated
water body,
Indicate
.The
date
20.The
21
date
What
plans please
are
your
If yes.
Do
1 9.The
1 7.
TOVVNSHIP
Page 112 of 142
**Note:
Yes
if
A
the
answer
application.
”“
to
to
distances
and
property importance
The
lines.
wells
is
of
of
and
be
septic
that
approximate
The
the land watercourses,
location
The
township
location
The
nearest
boundaries
proposed
and
be
I2
is
No
abutting
line
on—site should
varied.
to
tanks.
drainage
the
IS
file
subject
(neighbours’)
and abutting REQUIRED be prepared
these
features
from
the
subject
of
sig nifi as can t
barns,
applicant’s
buildings, wetlands, the
on
P A G E .
and
of
Plan ning
lan crossing. d subject
location
and fields owners’ wells, septic The SKETCH is be shown. to carefully. neatly and as accurately
or of
OF
THE
subject
the the railway
the
VARIANCE
application
application
the
the
TOP
of
including
THE
between bridge or
land
AT
the
been
of
number
under
MINOR
features artificial include Examples stream banks. barns.
and land.
lands.
FOR
arnended
application
as
ever
number
ARROVV
following:
the
has
file
an
distance . . . . ..i.e. as a such
landmark
point
of
NORTH
the
give
land Variance).
the
of
subject
give
subject
APPLICATION P.13 1990, C.
(l/linor
is
all natural of the subject to river ditches, distance Show
or
A
showing
HAVE
location adjacent
all
lot
the Act
please
Consent.
land
please
yes,
or
FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.
dimensions
yes,
reference
buildings.
and
MUST
a
is
subject
whether Planning
25
No
submitted
27
indicate the of
item
SKETCH
must
Yes
the
SOUTH Planning
Subdivision
OF
question
The
THE
SKETCH
the
El
43
to
whether Plan of
application.
answer
El
ofa
indicate
please If known, under Section
of
the
the
If
Please approval
TOVVNSHIP
Page 113 of 142
Page 114 of 142
Nature
Roads:
why
line
mark, mark,
—
and
if
your
long
to
number
on
this in mailing
district
are
is
—
060
Bedford;
you
and
your that
All
that
of
it
Relief:
parts
are
of
a
close to steep
because
comply:
generally
themselves
maintained
can’t
shared
roads (not
has
surveyed, not
to height construct
what
of
you
be
on your staff.
must
by
but
the
and
lanes
Township;
the
private provide
the
red an
requi
buildi ng
3
do
c a n
you r
a
assi gne d. on
within
than
to
this
on
on to from
that
accessory
asking rather structure are m
have
are
been
Storringt on; bill
f
separa te postal
040-050,
surveyed,
completed.
not meet add to further
a an
25
will
is
tax
you
appears
property
be
it
not
your not
been
has or
check
can you variance a developing
why
Townships.
in
VARIANCE
variance p owner’s r All o c e s are If you s tax bill. your .I
the here
live with
on are numbers district your
whether
after driveways, others).
that
looked private
with
are
or
seeking
words,
to
variance
are
the
are
asking asking
planning
Zoning
question
Form
MINOR
if they complete
during appear
even
number
sure,
FOR
amended
Variance
as
which ‘1029‘ application.
been property
with the
has
applies
civic
not
or
with the if 070,
former
should
behalf
address,
increase
water, embankment.
the
a
other
you
In
building.
to
you
with is
this
ofthe
of
submitting
This question could be that asking seeking
If your
beginning
plan.
property
question
You be may not aware pre—consu|tation in for
maintain
that
if number before up
on
acres:
the it
No;
This
Minor
section. your
the
APPLICATION P.13 c.
1990,
same as the the number beginning
phone
appear the full act
R.S.O.
Completing
numbers
are
Land:
and
someone
be
must
the
are you are that you than the principal
or or
parts
is look
area,
to
This
example,
Extent for
l/Iunicipally
residents
property
that
030,
Road/Street:
could be, for example, that is already too because impossible
Reason
water water front
variance
zoning: come
depth.
No: time
blank. Roll take
you
lot
Current
when
Frontage,
or
road. Plan more
or
Reference
e.
of
blank.
one
d.
f.
address
appoint
should
to
Act,
FRONTENAC
numbers are 080, district is Portland. your and Lot Numbers: Concession are if you Number: Your civic address Street if a space Name a public
c.
020
roll
Guide
SOUTH Planning
owners
A
OF
the Subject The Districts number (the
to
Loughborough;
the 010,
Description of District: a.
name,
wish
You may person’s authorization.
all of address(es)
names
the
The and
TOVVNSHIP
Page 115 of 142
Buildings:
Proposed question
Description are you information
their
VVater
years.
Length
20)Date
19)Date
18)Uses would space.
of
do
separate
new
—
to
because
under
Structure:
it
acquired:
of
it.
columns.
construct
in a
uses:
lake.
most
the is
cases
“residentia|"
section
a
are
the
e.g.
not
take
answer
example,
If you
you
—
answer
are
granted not made
words,
are
build
dwelling,
new
will
has
sure,
please
sections
part screened
be
the
private
land
provide
of
that
your
the
well,
been
of
porch
this
to
there
is
building
the
but
used
involve
An
some
for
to
in
departme nt. wit hou of t reside nce, involved.
be deck,
nd “,
th as e constr uct la
waterfront
residential
an
increase
building
your
estimate.
property’?
would
best
to
beginning demolition
on
the
a
must
this
th e
describe
of
now,
access
VARIANCE
property, systems.
add
the
accomplished
question.
raise
add
at
the be
and
to
on septic development
ANYTHING garages,
proposing
clear
possession
a
each
you
it
in
the
land
only
MINOR
property
can
all complete dwelling, your
on
from permit height cannot the to Committee to permission
a
a
decks, proposed to
addition
ALL
requires or increase made clear
an
to
10
you
FOR amended
recreational
is
as
be the same question will and planning are you would be recreational “vacant
this
must on
structures
vacant,
to
You deck
or
vacant
relevant
APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13
only
business,
planning additions,
in be
walls
did
For
with
is
answer currently
there
structures:
have
Please
other
you
VVhen
In
buildings:
existing months?
18
supply: water from
or
If
buildings
retail
is
FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,
question
are If you includes
would
construction:
This
13
Generally, the land described
and
ANY
demolition All a proposed addition walls. is not if this although that, you
in
proposing
of
structures: “yes”
existing
land
of
Uses: example, be use to section in
is
are
residential.
This
SOUTH Planning
buildings of your property.
If there “yes".
e.g.
Docking:
residence.
on
is
Uses:
and
OF
Development: include anything
of
1 7)Raising a basement
instances, of existing find may actually
Demolition:
Proposed but if, for then the described
1 8)
Description structure the from
1 2)
question
Existing
Parking water.
TOVVNSHIP
Page 116 of 142
Drainage:
SKETCH:
yes: application
drawn
not
has
as
this
to
a
there
has
the
known.
a
been
the
All
lndernnify: submitting owners
the
Must
be
signed
application, sign must the
been
a
in or
FOR
system,
amended
for
consent
of
not a
ofa
on
the
dimensions
be
in
of
to
of
d i s t a sn a b c ff y e s ,
plea se
oaths signed
front
and
accurate,
property, were.
professional
detailed,
the
accepted.
a
on
may
with
(severance)
deal
there
VARIANCE
the property? on other special per mi the seller prob will ssi ably
commissioner application it can or
be
show
with
on
any
variance
owner,
of
granted
to
but
IVIINOR
or subdivision information)
sign the application,
front
will
importance contract not do
as
constructed
granted the of
new
variance aware be
severance this
application
details
variance
minor a probably are If you
previous and what
by—law.
will
provide
for
an
have
sewage
APPLICATION P.13 c.
1990,
private
stress the enough need necessarily to are not to drawn scale, (PLEASE USE A RULER),
if
been
zoning
ever you
be that
currently
will
R.S.O.
application can help
there
Act,
FRONTENAC
ditches
answer
current (Staff
Is
speci?c
the
SOUTH Planning
property,
Has
cannot not
that
do
is
number.
this.
to
the
neatly
Vve
etc.?
OF
consent:
done before commissioners. been appointed.
Agreement
sketches
of
cases
there
there number
You
if
but
sketch.
If
aware
variance
a
for you
of
variance:
owner
Minor
time
If
there the file
indicate
yes:
If
for Application property? the
for
most
Are drainage,
in
natural
Septic:
TCVVNSHIP
September 9, 2022 Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 To Ms. Christine Woods: Reference:
3315 Lakehead Road Application for Permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act Our File No. 121144
Novatech has been retained by the owner of the property municipally known as 3115 Lakehead Road (the “Subject Property”) to prepare an application for permission to expand a legally non-complying use. This amended cover letter has been prepared to address Township comments, dated February 15th, 2022. This letter describes the existing conditions of the site, the proposed reconstruction, and the rationale in support of the application. Existing Conditions The Subject Property is located on the west side of Lakehead Road, within the Township of South Frontenac. Specifically, the Subject Property is located on Loughborough Lake (See Figure 1). The Subject Property has an area of approximately 0.3 hectares and a depth of approximately 100 metres. The Subject Property has approximately 32 metres of frontage on Loughborough Lake. The existing detached dwelling is legally non-complying with respect to setbacks from the highwater mark of the watercourse, and minimum front yard setback. The existing detached dwelling is to be replaced with a new dwelling. The existing holding tank will be replaced with a tertiary septic system as a part of the proposed development. The Subject Property is legally known as Part Lot 12, Concession 7, within the Geographic Township of Storrington/Kingston. The Subject Property is zoned Limited Service Residential - Waterfront (RLSW) under the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75. The context of the Subject Property is shown on Figure 1. The existing detached dwelling is shown on Figure 2.
NOVATECH
Page 1 of 8
Page 117 of 142
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Existing Building
NOVATECH
Page 2 of 8
Page 118 of 142
Proposed Development The Permission application proposes the reconstruction and expansion of the legally non-complying detached dwelling within the approximate footprint of the existing detached dwelling. The existing detached dwelling has a footprint of approximately 630 square feet. The proposed detached dwelling has a level one footprint of approximately 1,100 square feet, a level two footprint of approximately 825 square feet, and a level three footprint of 325 square feet, with a 270 square foot garage (not included in the 325 square feet). The total gross floor area of the proposed detached dwelling will be 2,520 square feet. Vehicular access will remain from Lakehead Road. The proposed development will be built approximately 1.8m further from Loughborough Lake than the existing detached dwelling. The footprint of both the proposed development, and the existing detached dwelling are shown on Figure 3.
Figure 3. Proposed Development and Existing Detached Dwelling
Since Lakehead Road is considered to be a private lane, the front lot line is deemed to be the lot line between the waterway, and the lot. Permission Application Permission is required from the Committee to reconstruct and expand a legally non-complying building within the 30m setback from the highwater mark of a watercourse and within the 30m required front yard setback. Rationale Expansion of a legal non-complying structure is permitted under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act. There are no tests in the Planning Act for applications under Section 45(2). The decision of Sims et al. v. Daschko states that expanding a legal non-conforming structure is permitted provided:
NOVATECH
Page 3 of 8
Page 119 of 142
“there must always be a prior consideration of whether what is intended is indeed desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure. The effect of any concession made must always be weighed in the light of the impact it could have upon neighbouring properties enjoying a different classification”. The decision of Sims et al. v. Daschko found that the expansion of a legally non-complying use must:
- Be appropriate and desirable for the area, and
- The impacts of expanding the legally non-conforming use on neighboring properties must be examined. There are other court cases for permission applications under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Planning Act that are relevant to this application. In the case of TDL Group, the City of Ottawa established a comprehensive Zoning By-law that sought to limit legal non-conforming uses. The comprehensive Zoning By-law sought to remove the legal non-conforming rights where a non-complying building was damaged, demolished, or removed voluntarily and the building was not repaired or re-occupied within two years. The Ontario Municipal Board found that property owners had an absolute right to demolish all, or part of a building, and reconstruct within the same buildable envelope provided that there is an intention to continue the use. In the case of Brougham v. South Frontenac (Township), the proponent sought to demolish and reconstruct a dwelling that was considered legally non-conforming. In this case, the dwelling was located within a 30m setback of a shoreline which did not comply with the Township of South Frontenac’s Zoning By-law. The Ontario Municipal Board sided with the appellants and determined that the appellants had an absolute right to demolish and reconstruct the dwelling within the same building envelope. The proponent was permitted to demolish the non-conforming use and reconstruct the dwelling within the 30m setback to the shoreline. In the case of Fraser v. Rideau Lakes (Township), the proponent sought to demolish, reconstruct, and expand a dwelling that was considered legally non-conforming. In this case, the dwelling was located within a 30m setback of a waterfront, which did not comply with the Township of Rideau Lakes Zoning By-law. The proponent proposed to demolish and replace with a larger dwelling on the approximate footprint of the previous dwelling. The new dwelling would have an increased floor area, mostly on the second floor. The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application under the “four tests” of a Minor Variance Application under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, and the application was refused. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal confirmed that permission applications are not subject to the “four tests” of Minor Variance Applications and are subject to the tests outlined above. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal confirmed that the intent and purpose of the Official Plan does not need to be considered when reviewing permission applications. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal confirmed that the test for undue adverse impacts should only consider the proposed expansions, and not the use in its entirety. The decisions for the above cases have been included with this permission application.
NOVATECH
Page 4 of 8
Page 120 of 142
The first test for expanding a legal non-complying use is that it is appropriate. The current use of the property is a single detached dwelling. The proposed development is a single detached dwelling. The reconstruction and expansion of the legally non-complying use is appropriate as there will be no change in use of the Subject Property. The minimum gross floor area of the RLSW zone is 635.1 square feet. The gross floor area of the existing detached dwelling is 630 square feet. The existing detached dwelling does not meet the minimum required gross floor area of the RLSW zone. The proposed detached dwelling has a gross floor area of approximately 2,520 square feet. The proposed detached dwelling conforms to the minimum gross floor area requirement of the RLSW zone. The maximum lot coverage under the RLSW zone is 5% of the total lot area. The proposed development has a lot coverage of 3.5%. The proposed development conforms to the maximum lot coverage requirement of the RLSW zone. The minimum interior side yard setback of the RLSW zone is 3 metres. The western interior side yard has a setback of approximately 5m. The eastern interior side yard has a setback of approximately 10m. The proposed detached dwelling exceeds the minimum interior side yard setback requirement of the RLSW zone. The minimum front yard setback of the RLSW zone is 30 metres. Since the proposed development fronts onto a private road (Lakehead), the watercourse is deemed to be the front lot line. The proposed development is located further from Loughborough Lake than the existing detached dwelling. The minimum setback from a detached dwelling to the highwater mark in the RLSW zone is 30m. The existing detached dwelling is located 10.3m of the highwater mark. The proposed development is located 12.1m from the highwater mark. The proposed development is located 1.8m further from Loughborough Lake than the existing detached dwelling. The proposed design and orientation of the dwelling is appropriate as it increases the distance between a detached dwelling, and Loughborough Lake. As part of the reconstruction, a new septic system will be installed. The existing holding tank will be removed and replaced with a modern tertiary septic treatment system. The existing tank is located approximately 11.9m from Loughborough Lake. The proposed biofilters will be located more than 65m from the lake. The associated bed will be located approximately 50m from the lake. The location of the existing holding tank, and the proposed septic system is shown on Figure 4.
NOVATECH
Page 5 of 8
Page 121 of 142
Figure 4. Location of Existing Holding Tank (Blue) and Proposed Tertiary Septic System (Orange)
The replacement of the holding tank located close to the lake, with a modern system located far from the lake reduces any potential impact associated with failure of a private wastewater system. The replacement of the holding tank with a tertiary septic system provides greater security with respect to the protection of water quality. An Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Ecological Services and has been submitted with this application. The report notes that although the proposed development has the potential to direct water to the lake, there is an existing berm located between the existing detached dwelling and the lake. The existing berm will be maintained and will slow or stop particulate from entering the lake. The proposed development includes infiltration trenches that will interrupt overland flow to the lake. The report outlines mitigation measures and enhancement measures that should be implemented to minimize potential impacts pre, and post construction. Subject to the implementation of these measures, the report concludes that the proposal will have no net negative impacts on Loughborough Lake and its associated fish habitat. The proposed development is considered appropriate, as it increases the setback from Loughborough Lake. The proposed development meets and exceeds many performance standards of the RLSW zone with respect to setbacks from lot lines. The proposed tertiary septic system is an improvement over the existing holding tank. The proposed development has no net negative impacts on Loughborough Lake, and its associated fish habitat, subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures of the Environmental Site Assessment.
NOVATECH
Page 6 of 8
Page 122 of 142
The second test for expanding a legal non-complying use is impact on neighbours. There is already a detached dwelling present on the Subject Property within the 30m setback from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake, and within the minimum 30m required front yard setback. The proposed detached dwelling is situated in a similar location as the existing structure but has been moved further away from Loughborough Lake. The reconstruction and expansion of the legally non-complying use will have little to no impact on neighbouring properties. The proposed development is located further from Loughborough Lake than the existing detached dwelling. It should be noted that within the grouping of five adjacent lots to the Subject Property, two other lots have detached dwellings located within the 30m setback from the watercourse and within 30m of the required front yard setback. The 30m setback from the watercourse is shown on Figure 5.
Figure 5. Approximate 30m Setback from Highwater Mark
Figure 5 demonstrates that half of the lots in this grouping of lots on Lakehead Road are located within 30m of the highwater mark. The reconstruction of the detached dwelling on the Subject Property further away from the highwater mark and further away from the front lot line will have no impact on the neighboring properties. The use will remain residential, which is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed expanded dwelling complies with and exceeds all Zoning By-law provisions for a detached dwelling, except for the legally non-conforming setback from a waterbody and front lot line. The proposed reconstruction will have no impact on any neighbors.
NOVATECH
Page 7 of 8
Page 123 of 142
The application for permission conforms to Section 45(2) of the Planning Act. The proposed development is appropriate and desirable for the use of land and the surrounding area. The proposed development will improve the existing situation by locating the reconstructed and expanded dwelling further from the lake, and by replacing the existing holding tank with a tertiary septic system far from the lake. The expansion will have little to no impact on surrounding properties. The permission to expand legal non-complying rights represents good land use planning. In support of the application for Permission, please find enclosed:
Permission Application Form; Site Plan; Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Ecological Services; OMB Decision: Sims et al. v. Daschko; OMB Decision: TDL Group; OMB Decision: Brougham v. South Frontenac (Township); Div Court Decision TDL Group LPAT Decision: Fraser v. Rideau Lakes (Township);
Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact either Murray Chown or the undersigned. Yours truly, NOVATECH Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Adam Thompson, BES Murray Chown, RPP, MCIP Senior Project Manager | Planning & Director | Planning & Development Development
NOVATECH
Page 8 of 8
Page 124 of 142
EL
:1 24 .6 6
1
0 + 040
EL
6
:12
EL :12 4.6 3
:
4.6
(
:12 5
4
25.7
EL:1
:12
:12
5.7 9
EL
:12
5.9
7
.57
6.1
0
126.00
EL
:12
EL
:12
6.0
3
:12
6.0
EL
:12
1
:12 6.0
00
8
6.0
4
EL:12
6.31
0
:12
EL
6.0 12
EL
:12
EL
6.0
126.00
9
SITE PLAN
126.50
6.3
5
127.00
5.8
3 0 + 020
6.5
0
1:250
12 7.0
0
12
C-101
EL EL
0
126.0
EL
125.00 125.10
125.50
0 5.010 12 125. 50 125.
4
EL
1
EL :12 4.7 1
43 0 + 043.
EL :1
13
31
EL:131.87
.95 EL
0
:13
132.0
EL :13
2.5
2.6
13
EL :1
32
EL
:13
.95
1
0
13
3.00
50
2
ON 1 SECTI 0 + 000
0 2.5
2.5
EL
:13
00
3.0
6
2.6
3 133.00
0
EL
134.5
:13
3.8
1
13 4.0 0
133.50
0m
R15.0
4.50
13
5.00
13
5.50 13
6.00 13
6.50 13
7.00
13
0
7.5
13
0
8.0
13
PROFILE DETAIL 1:100
19.42m
134m 133m 132m 3.13m
131m 5.88m
130m
9.15m
129m 128m
3.45m
2 C-101
127m 126m 125m 124m
5(9,6,216
&OLHQW/DQG2ZQHU
67(9(+2816(//
‘HVFULSWLRQ
1R
‘DWH
35(/,0,1$5<
5(9,6(‘$63(5$5&+'5$:,1*6
/2&$7,213/$1
3URMHFW
/$.(+($‘52$’ 217$5,2
(/,1%85 ‘UDZLQJ7LWOH
6,7(3/$1$1’352),/( ‘UDZQE\ &KHFNHG%\ 3DJH6L]H 6FDOH ‘DWH
0$%
3URMHFW1XPEHU
*:
0% [ $6127(’
0$5&+
‘UDZLQJ1XPEHU
6+((7RI
(2’(7,&(/(9$7,216 (67$%/,6+(‘86,1&$11(7 *1665($/7,0(&255(&7,21 1(7:25.
1R
‘(6&5,37,21 6,%1(
(/(9$7,21 P
6,%1:
P
&
Page 125 of 142
NOTES:
PE F SLO
PE F SLO
T OP O
T OP O
ER ST MA UITE ' S 5’ x 12
T OP O
DRAWINGS MUST NOT BE SCALED. VERIFY DIMENSIONS ON SITE
10
D1 BE ’ x 10’
C RE M O RO x 13’
' 20
/ RY UND IL LA / UT2’ G ST 8’ x 1
ATTACHED GARAGE BEYOND
10
D2 BE ’ x 10’
UP UP
DN
DN
Y TR EN13’ x 9’
EN CH .5’ KIT9.5’ x 13
GE RA ' GA 20’ x 13
ING ' DIN ’ x 13.5
9.5
CK DE
.C. W.I 8’ 6’ x TE SUI EN 6’ x 12’
PE LO
CK DE
18
OF
IN G LIV ’ x 18’
PE LO
RO
PE LO
OF
FS
RO
FS
FS
13
PO
PO
PO
D MU’ x 8’
TO
TO
TO
F SLO
PE
C0PYRIGHT THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF COLBOURNE & KEMBEL, ARCHITECTS INC. AND MUST NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR DISTRIBUTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ISSUED COPIES MUST BE RETURNED TO THE ARCHITECT UPON COMPLETION.
UP
10’
6
UP
DN
EXISTING GRADE SHOWN DASHED
R
6’ x
R W/’ x 6'
DN
6
R W/’ x 6'
W/
133 m 131 m 129 m
TO
E
O
F
DN
TO
E
E
O
F
O
F
SL
O
3
125 m
SL
PE
0m
152.1m FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1 (LOWER LEVEL)
LVL 2 FLOOR AREA: 76.6 m2 (825 ft2) FFE: 129.6 m
LVL 1 FLOOR AREA: 102.1 m2 (1,100 ft2) FFE: 126.15 m
TOTALS: HOUSE AREA: 208.8 m2 (2,250 ft2) GARAGE AREA: 25.2 m2 (270 ft2) GFA: 234.0 m2 (2,520 ft2)
FLOOR PLANS SCALE:
PE
E SLOP
LVL 3 FLOOR AREAS: HOUSE AREA: 30.1 m2 (325 ft2) GARAGE AREA: 25.2 m2 (270 ft2) TOTAL AREA: 55.3 m2 (595 ft2) FFE: 133.05 m
127 m
O
PE
OF TOP
LEVEL 3 (UPPER LEVEL)
SL
O
TO
6m
12m
24m
18m
2
SECTION SCALE:
30m
1 : 200
0m
4m
8m
12m
16m
20m
1 : 200
15.0 m
PROPOSED DRILLED WELL
124.85m AVERAGE SEASONAL HIGHWATER MARK
FRONT YARD SETBACK )
RK
CLASS 4 LEVEL IV TREATMENT UNIT
. AS
EXISTING CEDAL/MAPLE WOODS TO REMAIN
m
SL
PROPOSED 3-STOREY DWELLING
AKE
HL
TO
FFE (UPPER): 133.05m
OUG
VER SO
LINE HEA
PROPOSED SEPTIC LOADING AREA
101
OR
PE
RO
HYD
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES TO REMAIN
FFE (LOWER LVL): 126.15m
NEW GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
EXSTING LAWN TO REMAIN
2
ACK
101
5.4 m
VAT
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
REMOVE (5) TREES
EXISTING EXTERIOR STEPS TO REMAIN
TO
EL
2.7 m
E PE
3.0 m
1.0 m
O
SL
NEW CEDAR TREES REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND LET GROUND COVER RETURN TO NATURAL CONDITIONS
NEIGHBOUR’S EXISTING RAISED SEPTIC BED
JC JC JC BY
RE-ISSUED FOR REVIEW RE-ISSUED FOR REVIEW ISSUED FOR REVIEW REVISIONS/SUBMISSIONS
2022-05-31 2022-05-10 2022-04-12 DATE
SLOPE
PROPERTY LINE
F
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES TO REMAIN
3 2 1 No.
F TOP O
5.3 m
INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
NEW GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
O
)
9.6 m
ANE
EXISTING CEDAR WOODS TO REMAIN 3.0 m
I (PR
E LIN
AD
TY
RO
ETB
D
DS
AD
ER OP
PR
EHE
AR RY
REA
LAK
PROPOSED SEPTIC CONTACT AREA
2
GHB
LO
m
125.1 m LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION
LOU
m
W .H m AS .1 RK E 2 S 1 MA G AV HW m S. TO .3 A 0 E 1 S ED OS VG P A RO TO (P G N I T FOOTPRINT OF XIS (E EXISTING COTTAGE SHOWN DASHED
FS
4.8
PO
4.8
SE
)
RK
MA
EXISTING SEWAGE PUMP CHAMBER
TO
EXSTING LAWN TO REMAIN
3.6 m
F EO
A TY
N
RO
0m
SE
(F
5.6 m
3.0 m
INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
T
RD
1.4 m
PROPERTY LINE
OP
E
.0 30 ROM F CK A B
G
AV
HW
MA
PROJECT
Hounsell Residence
Project Address: 3115 Lakehead Road DRAWING
SITE PLAN EXIST
ING S
HARE
D DR
IVEW
AY SCALE
NOTE: ALL PROPERTY, TOPOGRAPHICAL AND SEPTIC INFORMATION TAKEN FROM GROUNDWORK ENGINEERING LIMITED SEPTIC DRAWINGS. REFER TO SEPTIC DRAWINGS FOR DETAILED SEPTIC DESIGN.
1 : 200 PROFESSIONAL SEAL
DRAWN
DATE
JC CHECKED
JC
Page 126 of 142
1
REVIEWED
SITE PLAN SCALE:
1 : 200
0m
APR 2022 PRINTED
?? DRAWING No.
TC
4m
8m
12m
16m
20m
PROJECT No.
NOT FOR PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT SEAL AND ISSUED NOTE
20058
101
September 30, 2022
File: MV/FRS/297/2022
Sent by E-mail Ms. Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Hannah: Re:
Application for S.45(2) Permission PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell) Pt Lot 12, Concession 7; 3115 Lakehead Road Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake / Loughborough Lake South PSW
Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for permission and provide the following comments for the consideration of the applicant, Township staff, and the Committee of Adjustment. Proposal This application for permission is for the reconstruction and expansion of a legally nonconforming dwelling, as required under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act. The permission is requested to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres, as required by section 5.8.2(a) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law, to 12.1 metres. Site Description The subject property is located on the south shore of the west basin of Loughborough Lake. Currently, there is an existing dwelling on the lot set back approximately 10.3 metres from the water. The topography can be described as sloping gently from the low till bank, up towards the level area where the existing dwelling is located, then moderately sloping up towards the south/interior of the lot. The property is mostly cleared with some pockets of deciduous trees along the shoreline and in the interior of the lot behind the dwelling. The woodlands on the lot have been identified as significant woodlands in the Central Cataraqui Region Natural Heritage Study (CRCA, 2006). The property is designated ‘Environmental Protection,’ and ‘Provincially Significant Wetlands’ on Schedule A of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, and zoned ‘Limited Service Residential – Waterfront’ (RLSW) and ‘Environmental Protection’ (EP) in the implementing Zoning By-law. The boundary for the EP zone coincides with the Loughborough Lake South Provincially Significant Wetland along the shoreline. Loughborough Lake (west basin) is designated as a highly sensitive Lake Trout Lake in the Official Plan and is zoned Environmental Protection’ (EP) in the implementing Zoning By-law. Page 1 of 5
Page 127 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell)) September 30, 2022 Discussion The main interests of CRCA in this proposal are the protection natural heritage features (e.g. wetlands and woodlands), the protection of the water quality of Loughborough Lake and the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline. Water Quality In accordance with the PPS, CRCA staff strive to maintain, and where possible, enhance water quality in our review of development proposals. CRCA is also concerned about protecting the overall ecological integrity of waterbodies, shorelines, and riparian areas. Loughborough Lake (west basin) has been identified as an at-capacity, highly sensitive Lake Trout Lake by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Official Plan recognizes this classification and requires that development occur at a minimum setback of 30 metres from the highwater mark. A minimum 30 m development setback is particularly important in protecting sensitive surface water features such as Loughborough Lake from nutrient input, sedimentation and erosion, and loss of riparian habitat. Maintaining a minimum 30 m setback is also important as a way to avoid cumulative impacts and consistent implementation of this setback sets a positive precedent. Consistent with the intent of the Township Official Plan, and, more importantly in this case, consistent with the intent of Section 2.2.1 of the PPS, Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policies (EPP) considers new development within the 30 metre water setback area under certain circumstances with the purpose of avoiding adverse impacts and, where possible, achieving net environmental gains. Section 6.1.9 of the EPP states: development may be supported within the water setback area on existing, constrained lots, where the proposed development expands or replaces an existing building or structure, and only if the new building or structure is set back as far as possible from the highwater mark of a waterbody, the footprint of the building is minimized, and suitable methods to minimize negative impacts on water quality are incorporated into the development. An Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared in support of the application for permission (Ecological Services, July 12, 2022). The EIA notes that the negative impacts associated with the proposed development are a loss of upland vegetation, the production of waste and potential for those nutrients to enter the lake, and the increased runoff from hardened surfaces which carry particulate matter into the lake. The EIA states that with the dwelling located no closer to the water than the existing building, and with the tertiary septic system pushed back from the water to the furthest extent possible (approximately 50 metres from the water), the proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact the water quality of Loughborough Lake and its associated fish and wetland habitat. The EIA also states that while there is room for the dwelling to be located at the south of the lot next to the septic system, this would involve a loss in the woodland vegetation cover, which would not provide a net benefit to the quality of the lake. Moreover, the EIA notes that the berm that fronts the lot would physically slow and prevent particulates from entering the lake, and the subject property’s close proximity to lake outflows means runoff from the site will quickly flush out of
Page 128 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell)) September 30, 2022 the lake, making it is unlikely to affect the habitat for Lake Trout. Other mitigation measures, such as three infiltration trenches, are also proposed to capture runoff from the roof and driveway. The EIS states that naturalization of the shoreline buffer is not proposed, as the front lawn is anticipated to continue to be used for shoreline recreational purposes. Staff recognize that the design and location of the proposed septic system represents an improvement to the site in some respects. Staff also recognize that there are constraints on the lot, such as the presence of the hydro corridor, and efforts are being made to push the dwelling a modest distance (1.8 m) further from the water. However, given the particular sensitivity of the south shore of the west basin of Loughborough Lake (as noted, both an at-capacity lake trout lake and part of the Loughborough Lake South Provincially Significant Wetland) and given the need to consistently apply water protection policies in accordance with Section 2.2.1 of the PPS, it is our opinion that there are opportunities to make additional ecologic improvements to the site. In this instance, the proposal involves a complete redevelopment of the site where the existing dwelling and structures will be removed, allowing the opportunity to achieve improvements in terms of compliance with water protection policies. Based on a review of the site plan and the information provided by the EIA, there is room at the rear/south of the lot for both the dwelling and septic system, with the dwelling immediately north of the septic field. While this would require the removal of some deciduous trees, doing so would result, in our opinion, in a true ecological net benefit as it allows for the opportunity for a better (currently non-existing) buffer of vegetation between the lake and development, and, in our opinion, would be more consistent with the intent of the Township’s waterbody protection policies. As currently proposed, staff cannot support a proposal that would result in the expansion of a building footprint and impervious surfaces (i.e. larger driveway) at an inadequate setback from a highly sensitive lake trout lake where there is a clear opportunity to achieve a greater setback that would result in a net environmental improvement. Natural Hazards Flooding: The maximum recorded water level for Loughborough Lake is 125.1 metres geodetic. For Loughborough Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. CRCA planning and permitting policies require all development and site alteration to be setback a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based upon elevation mapping data and site observations, the proposed development will be located outside of any area that may be subject to potential flood risk. Erosion: CRCA Planning Policy defines the extent of potential erosion hazards for the shoreline associated with Loughborough Lake as the sum of an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance of 3(h):1(v) for till shorelines and a minimum erosion access allowance of 6 metres. For a 1 metre high till slope, the erosion hazard would extend approximately 11 metres inland from the toe of slope. Based on the site plan submitted and available LiDAR data, the proposed dwelling will be located outside the erosion hazard limit.
Page 129 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell)) September 30, 2022 If approved, staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. Natural Heritage Loughborough Lake South Provincially Significant Wetland As noted, the subject lands are located adjacent to the Loughborough Lake South PSW. This wetland is designated Provincially Significant in the Township’s Official Plan and zoned ‘Environmental Protection’ in the implementing Zoning By-Law. These designations highlight the heightened environmental sensitivity of the subject lands, and the protection of the ecologic and hydrologic functions of the PSW are important in terms of protecting the local environment and overall ecological health in the Township. A suitable buffer area is necessary between any new development on the subject lands and the PSW, as a buffer acts to protect the environmental function of this feature by maintaining a riparian corridor. Through this proposed redevelopment, staff see an opportunity to reduce the runoff from impermeable surfaces entering the PSW and to allow natural vegetation to be re-established. Since the lot has the capacity to accommodate development at a greater setback from the water, staff recommend that this option be pursued through reconfiguration of the development. Doing so will help protect the hydrologic functions and ecologic integrity of the PSW in the long-term. Significant Woodlands As noted, the subject lands contain significant woodlands, as identified in the Central Cataraqui Region Natural Heritage Study (CRCA, 2006). The woodlands appear to meet the applicable criteria in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 2010) to be considered ‘Significant,’ based on their proximity to the Loughborough Lake South Provincially Significant Wetland, which receives ecologic benefit from the woodland. The EIA states that the proposed plan is designed to minimize the loss of trees, and that the loss of woodland associated with the installation of a separated driveway and septic facilities is considered acceptable given the modest diversity of the woodland, poor understory habitat, and presence of dying ash. In the opinion of staff, although it will result in some loss of upland woodlands, moving the dwelling to the south of the lot allows the environmental function of the woodland to be retained, as it increases and enhances the riparian corridor between the PSW and the development. This option opens up additional opportunities for the planting of native trees and vegetation, which contributes to the health of the natural heritage system. Recommendation As currently proposed, staff recommend deferral of application PL-ZNA-2022-0130. The existing dwelling is located at an inadequate setback from Loughborough Lake, a highly sensitive lake trout lake. Since the proposal involves complete redevelopment of the site there
Page 130 of 142
Ms. Hannah (PL-ZNA-2022-0130 (Hounsell)) September 30, 2022 is an opportunity to achieve a true environmental net gain and greater compliance with water protection and natural heritage protection policies, including better consistency with Section 2.2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement which directs planning authorities to protect, improve or restore water resources. Specifically, we recommend that the dwelling be shifted further from the lake to the south of the lot next to the proposed septic system. It is our opinion that there is a suitable area at the rear of the lot to achieve this.
Ontario Regulation 148/06 Please note that portions of the subject lands are subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. For this property, any development (buildings and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) within 120 metres of the Loughborough Lake South PSW is subject to O. Reg. 148/06. Therefore, a permit will be required from our office should the application be approved. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at jtreash@crca.ca. Yours truly, . Janelle Treash Resource Planner cc:
Christine Woods, Planner, South Frontenac Township, via e-mail
Page 131 of 142
To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared by: Development Services Department Date of Meeting: October 13, 2022 Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) Subject: PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of this application for permission to enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions.
Background Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) Relief Requested The applicant seeks permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling on the property within 30 metres of the highwater mark of the West Basin of Loughborough Lake. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act.
Discussion/Analysis Property Description The 0.68 acre (0.3 ha) property is located on Lakehead Road and has frontage on the West Basin of Loughborough Lake. The existing 630 square foot dwelling is setback 10.1 metres from the highwater mark of the lake. The dwelling is 5.5 metres in height according to the application form. The dwelling and a small storage shed are located on lands that are generally level. There are several trees along the shoreline, but otherwise this area is cleared. There is a 6-metre high bedrock ridge behind the dwelling and shed. Beyond this www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 132 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
slope is a narrow, cleared and level area through which an overhead hydro line passes. Beyond this level area, the forested land slopes up to the road. Summary of Proposal The owners propose to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new dwelling that includes an attached garage. The new dwelling would be setback a minimum of 12.1 metres from the highwater mark. It would have a 1370 square foot footprint, and a total floor area of 2520 square feet. The new dwelling would be 9 metres in height. The building, consisting of three levels, would be constructed into the ridge. The existing sewage holding tank would be replaced with a tertiary sewage system that would be setback more than 50 metres from the lake. The property currently shares a driveway with the property to the east. A new, separate driveway would be installed on the subject property. Supporting Documentation The covering letter prepared by Novatech (September 9, 2022) describes the existing conditions of the property and the proposed development. It also provides a rationale and planning opinion on the application. An Environmental Site Assessment (Ecological Services, July 12, 2022) was submitted in support of the application. Loughborough Lake contains a provincially significant wetland (Loughborough Lake South Wetland). The lake is also an at-capacity lake trout lake. The consultant assessed the potential impact of the proposal on the wetland and fish habitat. They concluded that the site is entirely impacted by its long-term residential use, that the proposed dwelling would marginally improve the setback from the lake and wetland, and that the proposed advanced sewage treatment system would help protect water quality. The consultant recommended several mitigation or enhancement measures to be implemented to further minimize potential for environmental impact. The measures include timing restrictions for tree and shrub removal, construction best management practices (e.g. erosion and sediment control measures), infiltration trenches for roof runoff, and shoreline naturalization efforts. Agency Comments Public Services did not provide comments on the application because the property is accessed from a private lane. Building Services confirmed that there appears to be sufficient space on the property to accommodate the proposed sewage system within the required setbacks. Soil conditions found on the lot indicate that additional suitable granular soil may be needed to construct a www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 133 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
sewage system. This would be addressed through the application to construct a sewage system. Building Services have no objection to the approval of the planning application. Cataraqui Conservation staff, in a letter dated September 30, 2022, recognized that the design and location of the proposed septic system represents an improvement to the site in some respects. They also recognized that there are constraints on the lot, such as the presence of the hydro corridor, and efforts are being made to push the dwelling a modest distance (1.8 m) further from the water. However, they are not supportive of the proposal as it would result in the expansion of a building footprint and impervious surfaces (i.e. larger driveway) at what they consider to be an inadequate setback from a highly sensitive lake trout lake where there is an opportunity to achieve a greater setback that would result in a net environmental improvement (e.g. between the sewage system and hydro line, more than 30 metres from the water). In the opinion of Cataraqui Conservation staff, although it will result in some loss of upland woodlands, moving the dwelling farther south on the lot allows the environmental function of the woodland to be retained, as it increases and enhances the riparian corridor between the wetland/lake and the development. This option opens up additional opportunities for the planting of native trees and vegetation, which contributes to the health of the natural heritage system. They recommend deferral of the application so there can be consideration for shifting the dwelling further from the lake.
Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The Township Official Plan Schedule designates the subject property as Environmental Protection – Provincially Significant Wetland, and the Zoning By-law Schedule identifies a portion of the property in the Environmental Protection (EP) zone. The interpretation policies of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law specify that where a designation or zone are meant to reflect the boundary of a natural feature, the edge of the natural feature is the boundary. The EP designation and zone in this location is meant to apply to the Loughborough Lake South Provincially Significant Wetland based on the available provincial wetland mapping. This wetland is entirely within the lake, and not on the property. This means the property is actually designated Rural and zoned RLSW. The property is zoned RLSW in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, so the dwelling is a permitted use.
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 134 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
Section 5.10.2 of the Zoning By-law states that existing buildings with less than the minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. This provision prohibits the enlargement of these existing buildings, without seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment. The existing dwelling is legal non-conforming building because it was constructed prior to the current Zoning By-law and is setback 10.3 metres (33.7 feet) from the highwater mark. Through its powers under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, the Committee of Adjustment may grant permission to enlarge the dwelling. The subject property was enlarged through a lot addition in 1990. The lot area increased from 0.25 acres to 0.68 acres. The properties to the east received similar lot additions. The intent of the lot additions was to provide flexibility for future development or redevelopment of the lots in terms of being able to locate a well and sewage system or a new building or structure. The subject property is the last one on this section of the lane to be redeveloped. Cataraqui Conservation recommended deferral of the application so there can be consideration for shifting the dwelling further from the lake, as there is some space between the proposed sewage system and the hydro easement. This recommendation is based on their Environmental Planning Policies, which guide their review of proposals. The policies focus on trying to achieve greater water setbacks and ecological improvements, wherever possible, on properties that are being redeveloped. Staff note this option was raised with the owners through the pre-application meeting process and they decided to proceed with the current application. It is the opinion of staff that although there is area farther from the highwater mark for a dwelling on the property, a dwelling in that location would require a larger footprint to accommodate the intended use of the building and to minimize visual impacts. It would also result in the removal of significant more trees and natural vegetation than reconstruction on the existing footprint. The proposed dwelling would be located on the same general footprint of the existing dwelling, but setback an additional 2 metres from the highwater mark. The enlargement would be to the south (rear of the existing dwelling), and up. Lot coverage of the principal building will increase from 2.2% to 4.6%, which is less than the 5% permitted in the RLSW zone.
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 135 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
The building design minimizes the amount of site disturbance and the amount of vegetation removal that would be required. The building height will increase from 5.5 metres to 9 metres. Although the building will have three levels, the levels will be stepped back, thereby minimizing visual impact when viewed from the lake and its northern shore. The recommended additional plantings along the shoreline would provide further visual screening. The building will be constructed into the ridge, with the garage on top of the ridge, so the view from the neighbouring properties and the lane would be of a one-storey building. Maintaining the forested area between the sewage system and the hydro easement would also help to mitigate visual impacts from neighbouring properties and from the lane. The West Basin of Loughborough Lake is an at-capacity Lake Trout Lake, which means it is at-capacity for development with respect to additional nutrient loadings which may adversely affect water quality. A properly functioning holding tank would ensure no release of nutrients associated with sewage to the lake. However, holding tanks are not sustainable for residential properties over the long-term particularly when the use of a property changes from seasonal to year-round occupancy. A tertiary sewage system is proposed to be installed near the road, setback more than 50 metres from the lake. The existing forested area between the proposed sewage mantle and the hydro easement would be maintained. This would help with absorption of surface and subsurface water runoff. Additional plantings along the shoreline could also help with the absorption of runoff from the dwelling. Conclusion It is the opinion of staff that it is appropriate for the Committee of Adjustment to grant permission to expand the legal non-conforming dwelling on the property, as described in this report. If the application is approved by the Committee of Adjustment, the proposed development would be subject to site plan control per By-law 2022-58.
Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •
by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by posting on the Township’s Current Planning Application webpage www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 136 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
•
by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies
Recommendation That the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve for application PL-ZNA-2022-0130 for 3115 Lakehead Road, subject to the following conditions.
- Permission is granted to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling on the subject property. The replacement dwelling is permitted to have a 1370 square foot footprint, a gross floor area of 2520 square feet, and a maximum 9 metre building height, consistent with the submitted Site Plan (Colbourne & Kembel Architects Inc., No. 3, dated 2022-05-31) that will be attached to the Decision as Schedule “A”.
- The applicant is required to apply for, and enter into, a Site Plan Agreement that would be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. The use of appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) during construction. b. The removal of any excavated materials from the site so that it is not used as fill within 30 metres of the lake. c. Roof runoff will be discharged into infiltration trenches or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads. d. Proper decommissioning of the existing sewage holding tank. e. Entering into a maintenance and service agreement with an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the septic treatment unit, and providing annual proof of maintenance to the Township. f. Preparation of a shoreline remediation plan. The purpose of the plan is to create and enhance the natural vegetative buffer within at least 5 metres of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The plan shall be reviewed by the Township prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit under the Ontario Building Code. The plan shall be implemented within 6 months of an occupancy permit being issued for the dwelling approved through application PL-ZNA2022-0130.
- A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac. www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 137 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - Permission Application (S. 45(2) of the Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2022-0130, Hounsell, 3115 Lakehead Road, Storrington District
Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 138 of 142
To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared by: Development Services Department Date of Meeting: October 13, 2022 Subject: Decisions on Delegated Consents
Summary This report is an information report to the Committee of Adjustment summarizing the Consents that have been approved by Delegated Authority since the last Committee of Adjustment Meeting.
Background The authority to grant undisputed consents is delegated to the Director of Development Services under By-law 2020-27. This report lists the applications which met the criteria for being considered as an undisputed consent and have received provisional consent approval. Committee of Adjustment is notified for information. Discussion/Analysis a) PL-BDJ-2022-0119 (Abrams) (Turcotte) This undisputed consent was granted provisional consent on September 29, 2022. The purpose of this consent application was to create one new residential lot. Attachments None. Approvals Report Prepared By: Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 139 of 142
To: Council Prepared by: Development Services Department Date of Meeting: September 20, 2022 Subject: December 8th, 2022, Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Summary This report is for information with respect to the December 8, 2022, Committee of Adjustment meeting.
Recommendation This report is for information purposes only.
Background In January 2019, Council adopted the Terms of Reference for the South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment. The Terms of Reference set out the schedule for the Committee of Adjustment meetings. The Terms of Reference indicates that meetings are to be held once each month with the exception of January, unless otherwise directed by Council. The Terms of Reference for the Committee of Adjustment also states that the term of the public members on the Committee is for a period of 4 years, coincident with the term of Council.
Discussion/Analysis The monthly Committee of Adjustment meeting for December, 2022 is scheduled to be held on December 8th, 2022, however, the meeting date falls after the end of the current term for Council and as such the meeting will not proceed. The meeting will be cancelled as members of the new Council will not yet be appointed to Committee of Adjustment. Appointments will take place at a Council meeting in January, 2023. Additionally, the recruitment for the Public Members to the Committee of Adjustment will take place between December 2022 and January, 2023. Further information regarding this matter will be circulated at a later date. It is anticipated that there will be a Committee of Adjustment training session for Council and Committee members in January 2023. Additionally, in accordance with the Terms of www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 140 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - December 8th, 2022, Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Reference for Committee of Adjustment, there will not be a January meeting. February 9th, 2023 will be the first Committee of Adjustment meeting for the new term of Council.
Financial Implications None.
Relationship to Strategic Plans ☒ Not applicable to this report. ☐ This initiative is supported by the following priorities of the 2019-2022 Strategic Plan. • •
Priority: Choose an item. Action Item (if applicable): ENTER SPECIFIC ACTION ITEM HERE
Climate Considerations ☒ Not applicable to this report. ☐ This initiative supports climate change mitigation/adaption efforts in South Frontenac; and/or impacts the Township’s resilience to climate change. Note: Once a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy is established, specific action items/priorities will be added to this section of the report for staff to utilize.
Notice/Consultation
All Planning Staff Angela Maddocks, Clerk Louise Fragnito, CAO
Attachments None.
Approvals Submitted By:
Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant, Secretary Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 141 of 142
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report - December 8th, 2022, Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Approved By:
Shelley Stedall, Dipl. B. Admin, AMCT Acting Chief Administrative Officer
www.southfrontenac.net Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive, Rural Leader.
Page 142 of 142
