South Frontenac Council

by Jeff Green and Wilma Kenny | Apr 27, 2016

30 metres of controversy

Vigorous debate over changes to rules for existing buildings located close to water bodies in South Frontenac

When South Frontenac Planner Lindsay Mills brought forward a package of so-called 'housekeeping' amendments to the township's zoning bylaw in early February, he expected that as much public interest would be generated as was the case in the past when these kinds of amendments have come forward. That is, none at all.

That is what happened for 10 of the 12 amendments in the package that he submitted, but for two of them there have been strong, negative responses.

These responses, totaling over 30 written submissions and 12 or so oral submissions to a meeting of the South Frontenac Committee of the Whole this week, concern changes to the way the township will deal with buildings that are located less than 30 metres away from a body of water.

Since the township adopted its ground-breaking Official Plan in 2005, no construction has been permitted within 30 metres of water bodies, which is something that lake associations encouraged at the time, and still do.

However, those houses and cottages that were already built before 2005, many of which were located within the 30 metre setback, were and still are legal, captured under the term “legal non-conforming”.

The bylaw that has been in place since 2005 says that while these properties are legal, and can be repaired and improved, those improvements cannot include anything that expands their size in any direction.

The change that is being proposed by the township planning department is the addition of a sentence to the existing bylaw, which says “reconstruction of the building is prohibited”. Planner Mills says this was already implied in the existing wording but that it should be made more explicit.

The other change he is proposing is the addition of a definition of when a building ceases to exist, which will be as follows: “Once the walls of an existing structure within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is considered vacant and the structure cannot be rebuilt within the 30 metre setback.”

In addition, Mills proposes to eliminate a clause in the bylaw that permits the replacement of a building if it were destroyed by “fire, lightning, explosion, tempest, flood or act of God, or a demolition permit” from the township.

Noting that a property owner could leave their property to deteriorate in order to claim it is no longer suitable to live in, and then “argue they should be allowed to reconstruct”, Mills said it would be better to let the township's committee of adjustment deal with this kind of circumstance instead of including it in the zoning bylaw.

“There should be no issue at the committee after any kind of catastrophic event, and the township can minimize the fees we charge in those cases,” he said in a telephone interview this week. “In my experience the committee has only once refused to allow someone to build, and that was a case where there was virtually no dry land to build on.”

The first concerns about the proposed changes came in January from Chief Building Official, Brian Gass.

Gass, who has since left to take a job near Ottawa, said that if residents feel that a bylaw is “unfair or not reasonable” it might lead them to bypass the permit process and build illegally.

“It is proven that illegal construction is one of the most common causes of unsafe construction practices” he wrote.

Over the past few weeks, the Sydenham Lake Association has taken up the issue, recommending that the passage of the bylaw be deferred to make time for a full public airing of opinions. The Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday night was the first of two opportunities for public discussion.

After Lindsay Mills presented his perspective on the proposed changes, Councilor Ron Sleeth spoke in favor of keeping the clause that permits rebuilding properties destroyed or damaged by an 'Act of God’.

Councilor Alan Revill agreed, saying that based upon his building official experience, having a provision for replacement on the same footprint if there had been damage beyond the owners’ control should remain in the bylaw. “There’s increasing chance of this possibility, with climate change,” he said.

He added that in the event of total loss, insurance might not grant full relief if the building were required to move to another site. “Every situation is different; perhaps we can’t legislate for all.”

“Let's not add more layers of bureaucracy.” said Councilor Mark Schjerning.

Sydenham Lake Association member, Jeff Peck, spoke next, setting the tone for the presentations that followed by calling for thoughtful dialogue even if, like himself, the speakers did not agree with Mills’ proposals. Speaking on behalf of the association he said that it was important that this issue receive a full public airing, and that although the township had posted information on its website and in local papers, it was unlikely to reach seasonal residents.

Speaking for himself and not the association, Peck emphasized that owners should have the right to use and maintain their non-compliant properties instead of having to rely on the discretion of a committee of adjustment, should their structure be damaged by an ‘Act of God’.

Earlier, in an interview with the News, he talked about experiences he has had dealing with the existing bylaw on behalf of himself, and relatives and neighbours, where the interpretation of the bylaw by staff made it difficult to properly maintain legal non-conforming properties within the 30 metre setback.

Larry Arpaio of the Bobs and Crow Lake Association congratulated the township on having an Official Plan that is beginning to address the environment and lake quality, but asked whether there was a danger of creating a 2-tier real estate scenario, in which those structures within the 30-metre setback would be of less value than those further from the shore.

Other speakers were concerned about the township’s goal, as stated by Mills, of eventually having all structures located behind the 30-metre setback. Several are using family homes and cottages that are over 100 years old, but have been maintained as viable structures.

Council will hear further delegations at the May 10 COW meeting, and will make their decision at the May 17 Council meeting.

Waste Disposal Site Update

David Bucholtz, of Cambium, Inc. presented the annual update of the township’s waste disposal sites. All of the five active sites: Portland, Loughborough, Bradshaw, Salem and Green Bay are functioning well. Some of the environmental issues at Portland have been addressed by partially capping the site and addressing the challenge of surface water run-off. Its remaining life at the current rate of fill is about 28 years. Loughborough, once it gains compliance for groundwater, has a life of five years left, with the potential of another nine years once if the remaining capacity of phase 2 is realized. Bradshaw has about 11 years' capacity; Salem, 13 years; and Green Bay 18 years. All sites have an attendant’s shelter and a varying range of facilities for recycling materials.

Mayor Vandewal asked whether it would be of any financial gain to fill and close the smaller sites first before continuing with Portland and Loughborough.

Councilor Ron Sleeth asked whether there would be any gain in bringing Storrington’s waste into the township sites, rather than continuing to pay to truck it away.

Bucholz said that neither question can be answered without further research.

Road Allowance Closure Request

Boy Scouts of Canada have asked the township to consider closing and selling to them a fragment of road allowance that runs across the Otter Lake Scout Camp property from their boundary with Frontenac Park to a cliff overlooking the lake. It was discovered when they sought a building permit for a new four-season facility. Council has no objection to closing the road allowance, as it is of no foreseeable use to the township. However, there was no agreement re the price to be charged. Unopened road allowances have a range of four possible rates per square foot, depending on the property’s location in relation to water. Planner Mills was asked to bring a recommendation to the next meeting.