South Frontenac Council – Apr 19/16

Wilma Kenny | Apr 20, 2016

Public meeting re Storrington condo proposal

At the County’s request, Council held a public meeting for input concerning Shield Shores, a waterfront condominium proposal by Barry Campbell. This would be for 18 residents on an 82-acre property lying between Wellington Street and Dog Lake, just outside Battersea. The plan’s common elements include a private park, trail access to the park, two water access points and interior roads.

Planner Mills’ notes point to one lot contained within the area that is listed as “to be retained” yet is not described anywhere in the application. Only six lots have waterfront: all others would share two small water access points, one of which Mills feared could encourage too much boating activity in a constricted water-space, even though neither of these access points is intended to include docks or boat launches. Three of the waterfront lots would have good views but are situated high on sheer cliffs, with no apparent means of access to the lake.

Hydro transmission line easement crosses the property, but seems not to interfere with the proposed development. Malroz is currently peer-reviewing the Hydrogeological and Terrain analysis reports, so their review is not yet available. The Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority has made 27 recommendations, and suggests that Council defer any decision until all their recommendations and concerns are addressed. A current right of way access to an existing waterfront property crosses two of the proposed lots, and cannot be closed unless the owner of the existing lot gives permission. (She has some concerns about the alternate access offered by the developer.)

Speaking on behalf of the property owner, Mike Keene of Fotennn agreed that the property labelled as retained would have to be brought into the plan in some way, and said they planned to do some revisions to the proposal once all the commenting reports were in.

Mills’ recommendations were as usual: that Council receive the comments and attachments of the planning report, defer any decision until comments from the public are reviewed, and forward the planning report and comments from the public to the County.

Four local residents spoke at the public meeting. Jeff Peters had concerns about the negative effect 18 properties with lawns, driveways and septic systems would have on such a shallow lake. Sharon Freeman, who lives across the road, said the property owner had already cleared out a lot of trees and underbrush, thus already destroying the natural habitat for wildlife. Mary Bird, whose property is surrounded by the land under discussion, said that there are far fewer Grey Rat Snakes since the recent clearing of the land. Matt Rennie said that with lots running four deep back from the water, this appeared to amount to “backlot development.” He asked why the pubic meeting was being held before the proposal was complete, and whether there would be another public meeting later.

Fran Willes also asked whether the public meeting was premature, because the submission was incomplete.

Mayor Vandewal said the public meeting was being held now because the County had requested it. He added that a landowner is free to cut all the trees he wishes: the controls on shoreline protection are only in the development agreement, once a proposal is accepted.

The current planner’s report and all comments from the public meeting are to be forwarded to the County.

CAO Orr reminded those present that only those who have commented on a proposal, either at the public meeting or by letter to Council or the County, will be eligible to either call for an OMB review or speak at one.

(As an oversight from the last Council meeting, Council also agreed to forward to the County the planner’s report and all comments from the public meeting concerning the Collins Lake subdivision proposal.)

Timeline for Zoning By-law Amendments re Lakefront Properties

(from April 5 Council meeting)

Planner Mills has recommended changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law that would remove section 5.11, which permits lakefront buildings destroyed by fire, flood or other disaster to be reconstructed on the same footprint. This has raised concerns among residents of older cottages and homes, which were built much closer to the water than would currently be permitted.

Councilor Schjerning is concerned that seasonal residents may not even learn about this until too late to ask for reconsideration, and asked why the rush.

Councilor Sleeth asked for an extension to the decision, for seasonal residents are still a big part of the Storrington community.

Councilor Sutherland said he was not sure this needed to be postponed, for the lake associations already were informed.

Councilor Revill thought very few would be affected but the change, and it is important not to permit residents to remove and replace lakeside structures.

Councilor McDougall said very few have been, or will be affected by the by-law change.

Council agreed to proceed with the suggested timeline: April 26, the Committee of the Whole will receive the planner’s report, legal opinions and delegations. If necessary, further delegations will be received May 10, and a final decision will be made at the May 17 council meeting. Lake associations will be informed of this timeline.