OPA #17 Appendix1 - County of Simcoe

Page 1 of 4
To: Oro-Medonte Council
From: Nick McDonald
Date: August 5, 2003
Subject: Official Plan Review
Job Number: 2360
BACKGROUND
Attached to this report is a revised Official Plan Amendment that changes some of the general
land use policies in the Township.
A draft Amendment was prepared for Council and public consideration at a public meeting under
the Planning Act on June 24, 2003. In the period leading up to and following the public meeting,
a number of written submissions on the proposed policies were received. In addition, a number
of individuals made presentations at the public meeting. As a result of these submissions and
further consideration of the draft policies by Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003 a
number of minor changes to the Amendment presented at the public meeting are proposed.
A table identifying and summarizing the submissions made by the public is attached to this report
as Appendix A. The table also includes our response to these submissions. Both the original
written submission and our written response to that submission are attached as Appendices to
the recommended Official Plan Amendment.
A brief description of the changes that were made to the Amendment following the public meeting
is described below.
1. The Amendment will be known as OPA # 17 (the Oro Moraine/Aggregate OPA will be
known as OPA # 16).
2. Subsection d) of the policy on Home Industries is amended by adding the words “dust
and odour” after noise.
3. The policy on Home Industries is also amended by adding the words “and the function of
adjacent roads” to the end of e).
Page 1
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078

4. The General Criteria for considering new lots by consent in Section H2.2.1 is modified by
adding in a new subsection j) which states “will conform to Section 51(24) of the Planning
Act, as amended”.
5. The policy on boundary adjustments in Section H2.2.2 is amended by deleting the words
“correcting conveyances, enlarging existing lots or through acquisition by a public body.”
and replacing those words by “modifying lot boundaries.”
6. Section D2.3.2.1 is modified by adding the word “retirement” to the title and “retiring” in
the body of the policy dealing with lots for retiring bona fide farmers.
7. Section D2.3.2.2 is modified by adding in the words “in the agricultural designation” in the
introductory section. This section is also modified by changing subsection b) from “an
original Township lot upon” to “that existed on”. The intent of this change is allow for no
more than one infilling lot from any 20 hectare parcel which existed on the date the Plan
comes into effect in the Agricultural designation.
8. Section 2.3.12, which deals with farm related tourism establishments is modified by
adding the words “permanent” in the second sentences.
9. Section D3.3.2, which deals with infilling lots in the Rural designation is modified by
adding the words “in the Rural designation” in the first sentence. In addition, subsection
a) is deleted and the word “that” in subsection b) is replaced with “than generally”. Lastly,
subsection c) is modified by deleting the words “an original Township lot upon” and
replacing those words with “a lot that existed on”. The intent of this policy is also to allow
for the creation of no more than one infilling lot from any 20 hectare parcel of land that
existed when the new Official Plan policies come into effect.
10. Section D10.3.8 is substantially modified by deleting all of the text that was in the draft
OPA that was presented to the public at the public meeting on June 24, 2003. Instead, it
is proposed to delete the last sentence and replace that sentence with the following
words. “Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential
development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an
application is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for development from
an environmental, servicing, character and traffic perspective shall be assessed. If major
development is proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried
out to determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth
management perspective.”
11. Section E4, which deals with the Edgar Special Policy Area, was proposed to be deleted
as part of this Amendment presented on June 24, 2004. Instead, it is now proposed that
the deletion of the Special Policy Area designation be dealt with separately in the context
of a future OPA.
12. The water taking section has been significantly modified to ensure that the policy will only
come into effect once the courts have ruled that water taking is a use of land in
accordance with the Planning Act. The policy will also state that if the courts rule that the
use is a land use, a By-law review process shall be undertaken and all issues with
respect to water taking shall be addressed at that time.
Page 2
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078

13. Section H1.4.1 is to be clarified by including policies which would permit the creation of
new blocks of land that are accessed by other private lands or by easements or right-ofways
over condominium blocks, provided there are agreements in place that provides for
emergency access and which ensure the accesses are appropriately designed for their
intended and future use.
14. Section H9, which deals with Residential Care Facilities, has been substantially changed
by:
• Deleting any references to “24 hours” and “room and board” from sub-section ‘a’.
• Deleting all of sub-section ‘b’.
• Re-numbering ‘c’ to ‘b’ and deleting all words after ‘facilities’ in the first sentence.
• Including a new ‘c’, which shall read as follows:
c) Crisis care facilities, treatment centres, correctional residential care
facilities and hostels for the homeless or transients are not to be
permitted as of right in the implementing zoning by-law, and shall be
subject to re-zoning. Such a zoning by-law amendment will be subject to
an evaluation of the following criteria:
i) the intensity of use relative to the area of the property;
ii)
iii)
iv)
the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses;
the suitability of the location with respect to the needs of clients
and availability of necessary services;
the potential impact on existing community services;
v) proximity to other residential care facilities; and,
vi)
size and type of dwelling as well as lot size.
• Changing ‘shall be mandatory’ to ‘may be required in last sentence of subsection
‘d’.
• Deleting sub-section ‘e’.”
15. Section D6 is modified by adding two new objectives to the Recreational designation
which state:
• ensure that new uses are properly planned and located and serviced
with an appropriate supply of water and sewage services; and,
Page 3
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078

• ensure that new recreational uses will not have an impact on the
environmental, hydrogeological and agricultural resources of the
Township.
In addition accessory accommodation facilities have been added as a permitted use.
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the above, it is my opinion that the attached Amendment should be adopted by
Council. Following its adoption, it will be provided to the County of Simcoe who will then circulate
the Amendment to the appropriate agencies. It should be noted that the County has already
reviewed the Amendment and has very few and minor concerns about the document, all of which
I believe have been addressed.
I look forward to speaking with Council about the Amendment on August 21, 2003.
On the basis of the work completed to date and the assessment of the public comments, it is
recommended that Council:
• Receive this report; and,
• Pass a By-law that will adopt Official Plan Amendment # 17.
Yours truly,
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
NM/jrw
Encl - Table a
Page 4
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078

# Writer Issue Response
1 Fred Rumford
May 29, 2003
Lot 11, Con 12
2 Jim Reisch
June 2, 2003
Baycrest Drive
Lot Severance Policy
Severances more desirable than subdivisions because
larger lots, greater distances between do not
compromise water table to same degree. Septic
impacts lessened as well.
Many rural lots not agriculturally suitable, but ideal for
building. More building lots would increase tax rolls.
Requests more liberal severance policy in rural areas.
Home Occupation
Issue of home for sale on corner of Penetanguishene
Road. Prospective buyer is a lawn care business
interested on condition of selling their own home. Their
intent to build storage shed and willingness to
challenge rulings in court shows inclination to
circumvent restrictions. Potential $30,000 loss of
resale value hurts people who strive to make area a
nice place to live.
Reminds Township of previous OMB hearing rejecting
a City of Barrie attempt to annex the Shanty Bay area.
Rational was that area was rural and not “urban,” a
decision fought hard for by ratepayer group attendance
at hearing and lobbying at Queen’s Park. Ruling also
stated that OMB would not grant relief in the future if
the area developed heavily. Annexation would have
cost Township 17% of its tax base. He passed that
decision around at a previous public meeting on an
application, which most of Council should remember.
Consent policies will not be modified in any substantive
way. New policies to be included to provide for creation
of infilling lots in Rural designation subject to
conditions. These policies should allow some
severance activity in rural area. Township’s strong
intent to direct most development to settlements.
Home industries will no longer be permitted as of right
in implementing Zoning By-law; rezoning required.
Appears from letter that use is not a home occupation.
Municipal By-law Enforcement should be called if this is
the case. Generally, home occupations are to occur
entirely within a dwelling, not in an out building.
Requests amendment or elimination of home
occupations in the Shanty Bay area to keep residential
character. Should also be revised across Township to
ensure similar unfair practices cannot occur.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
1

# Writer Issue Response
3 Mary Rose, Mary M.
Rose Consultants, Inc.
(Dr. Tibor Harmathy)
June 13, 2003
Part Lot 13, Con 14
4 Armstrong Harrison
Associates
(Cougar
Hills
Developments Ltd.)
June 15, 2003
Part Lot 1, Con 5 Oro
5 Richard Haalboom, Q.C.
(Christian Horizons)
June 17, 2003
Oro Moraine Boundary/Severance
Further to letter of April 10, 2003. Understands curved
area of moraine is difficult to administer, but inclusion
of these lands is onerous and can be excluded while
still providing a recognizable boundary. Owner wishes
to sever an 0.8-acre lot which accommodates his
personal residence. Currently owner does not want to
undertake any extractive activities on site, but
proposed OP designations would extinguish existing
development rights.
Requests Oro Moraine boundary be adjusted to
exclude this site from policy area. Map attached.
Property Specific/Estate Residential
Unique circumstances surrounding site could allow
lands to be placed as an Exception to Rural Policies.
Many current uses significantly more intensive than
small-scale Country Estate development. Country
Estates in keeping with character of immediate area.
Community facilities are readily available and site
would support perhaps 10-12 lots.
Request consideration for applications, which may be
made in the near future, to develop site for small-scale
country estate lots.
Proposed Section H9 – Residential Care Facilities
Appreciate recognition of group homes “permitted as of
right” in residential areas.
Supervision in a group home may not always be 24--7.
Not correct to cite tenants as “receiv[ing] both room
and board.” Residents of a group home are not
boarders, but have legal rights as tenants who live
together as a common housekeeping unit.
Current policies do not permit severances on subject
property. Oro Moraine Enhancement Area designation
would permit severances under Rural designation
policies.
Appears there is sufficient frontage, adjacent
residential lots and original parcel size to provide an
opportunity for creation of an infilling lot on property
under proposed Rural lot creation policies.
OP will continue to direct development to existing
development nodes in Horseshoe Valley Corridor –
confirmed by OMB in 1994. Every effort should be
made to avoid continuous thread of development along
Horseshoe Valley Road. Other permitted uses for
Rural designation more compatible with rural areas
than subdivisions.
Number of changes proposed to reflect some concerns
raised. All references to ’24 hours’ and ‘room and
board’ deleted from Subsection A. Subsection B
deleted. Renumber C to B and delete all words after
‘facilities’ in the first sentence. Add new Subsection C
which mentions the need for a Zoning By-law
Amendment that addresses intensity of use relative to
lot area; compatibility with surrounding land uses;
suitability of locations with respect to service availability
and client needs; potential impact on community
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
2

# Writer Issue Response
“Facility” has institutional connotations which is what
Provincial policy is working towards: “deinstitutionalization.”
Specific definitions to be implemented in ZBL: is this an
indirect attempt to segregate group homes, contrary to
Provincial policy and law?
Who measures what performance standards? It is up to
the owner to decide what kind of residential dwelling is
used; what the minimum floor space is. The only
determinant can be the general rules applicable to all
residents such as by the Building Code. Registration of
homes may be required.
Adequacy of supply depends on circumstances over
time and is not determinable by a local official or Bylaw.
Who decides what is appropriate senior
government funding, or adequate community services
for clients?
What is meant by proper siting? You cannot indirectly
segregate what is not allowed directly. That continues
to be my basic concern in these comments.
Does not know how Site Plan Control has any
connection to proper licensing, unless licensing is an
attempt to segregate.
Even though client is not against a limit (usually has
fewer than 6 residents), does not know where authority
for limits on number of residents.
services; proximity to other care facilities; and size and
type of dwelling. Change ‘shall be mandatory’ to ‘may
be required’ in Subsection D. Subsection E deleted.
Intent of Township is not to restrict Residential Care
Facility Establishment in any single detached dwelling,
but to ensure certain types of facilities from being
established anywhere in Municipality without a proper
planning process.
Only unique performance standard is distance between
facilities. Some municipalities have 1000 metre
distance, which is one option Township is considering.
Other performance standards relates to performance
standards contained within Zoning By-law that apply to
any residential use. To other residential uses, only
unique standard would be for parking, where higher
amounts could be required.
Before residential care facility is permitted, Township
would like to enter into Site Plan Agreement that deals
with issues unique to the property (landscaping,
parking). Site Plan Control is also used to regulate bed
and breakfast establishments, home industries and
other uses normally associated with a dwelling.
Term ‘Residential Care Facilities’ chosen because it is
used in many other municipalities and does not carry
same connotations as “group home.” Appreciates
concern and is open to suggestions on how to identify
the use.
Client is not against concept of Minimum Distance
Separation since it prevents “ghettoization,” and group
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
3

# Writer Issue Response
homes appear to be in favour of this. Does not think
there is any jurisdiction for municipality to rule on MDS.
Objects to requirement of ZBL Amendment to permit
group homes in Rural locations. Does not understand
what is meant by Rural locations. ZBL cannot
determine intensity of use relative to area of property to
be any different than for any other person anywhere in
Township. What is compatibility with surrounding land
uses? Who determines compatibility? Is this another
form of indirect discrimination?
Legislating group homes out of one section of the
municipality is discriminatory. Suitability is determined
by caregiver and is not determinable by municipality,
subject to MDS and other generally applicable
requirements. Needs and service availability is
determined by residents and caregivers, not
municipality.
Does not understand meaning of “potential impact on
existing community services.” If size and type of
dwelling and lot are sufficient for a family home, client’s
viewpoint is it is also sufficient for a group home and
cannot be separately determined by a By-law.
It appears Township is intending to use rules indirectly
to segregate and discriminate what is not allowed to be
done directly in accordance with statutory law
(including Planning Act) and Provincial policy. Not
attempting to be unduly critical of proposed
amendments, but no group home should be
encapsulated into a special zoning category separate
from general residential uses. Perhaps not what is
intended, but that is his impression at this time.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
4

# Writer Issue Response
6 Ray Kelso
(Reinders Southpark)
June 18, 2003
Part Lot 3, Range 2 Oro
(Oro Glen Estates)
7 Albert Schwartz
(Schwartz and Company)
June 18, 2003
East Part Lots 19 & 20,
Plan 51R-16339, Con 1
Oro
(Jelmak Management
Services)
Expansion of Shanty Bay Settlement Area
Follow up to June 17, 2003 meeting. Is an ideal
property for development for a number of reasons.
Part B policies of OP should be amended as it relates
to Settlement Areas and Servicing Strategies.
Modification wanted in order for site to be considered.
Recommend inclusion of site within Shanty Bay
Settlement Area as good candidate site for residential
development.
Property Specific – Development Desired
Would like to speak at June 24, 2003 meeting. Have
several suggestions for property development.
1. Limited large lot development on public roads
across from existing shoreline development (letter
attached suggesting 20 lots on Line 12 and 12 on
Lakeshore Road, all 100’ x 400’) with land
donated for a park with trails and parking;
2. Golf course integrated with adult community
lifestyle homes on large lots; and,
3. Private/Public golf course with trails. Some land
could be donated for a park.
Lots and course would have little, no impact on
agriculture. Distance from Barrie likelier to attract
people interested in quieter Oro-Medonte lifestyle, not
families. No increase in municipal services as all
development proposed on public roads with other
services (phone, cable, garbage) already in place. Lot
size in character with existing Maplewood, Lakeshore,
Line 14 homes. Close to public loading dock and
parks. Golf course in keeping with small settlement
amenities already in place (including convenience
store).
Township of opinion that no justification provided to
support a change to Settlement Area expansion policy.
If expansion was to be contemplated in the future, a
Secondary Plan must be completed for entire
settlement.
No need to amend servicing policy at this time as
Shanty Bay expansion policy will not change.
Planning Advisory Committee does not support a policy
that would permit new lots on public roads across from
the Shoreline designation. In reviewing all requests of
property owners together, appear policies would
provide for considerable additional development in
shoreline area. The draft policy will not be carried
forward into final OPA.
Encouraged to review Section D6 to determine if his
lands meet its criteria.
Adult lifestyle communities in Rural designation
recommended to be deleted. Occupancy and servicing
issues can arise.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
5

# Writer Issue Response
8 Tanya Pallopson
(Rudy & Associates Ltd.)
June 19, 2003
Lot 5 Con 14
(Jane Teskey)
9 Betty Veitch
June 20, 2003
RR#1 Barrie
10 (Jack) John Jermey
June 23, 2003
1012 Ridge Road
RR#2 Hawkestone
Property Specific Severances
Propose severing 3 lots from the Teskey property for
infill development. Surrounding land uses (all
residential) on municipally maintained road, with the
Teskey property currently encompassing 55 ha (138 a).
Allowing only one infilling lot should be overlooked as
good planning would fill in the empty lots along
Townline with residential lots and not leaving two
existing empty spaces fronting Townline.
Home Industry
Appreciated greatly the reply to May 28, 2003 letter.
Interesting that Mr. Styles maintains to Andrea Leigh
that building on lot adjacent to hers is for storing a
motor home. Is most happy that consideration is to be
given to impact on adjacent land uses by home
industries, and that neighbours will be given notice
prior to any such construction. Thank you.
Severance Policy (New Lot Size)
Have lived, farmed in Oro-Medonte for entire lives.
Wish to build a house south of Ridge Road on less
desirable agricultural land to build bungalow that is
near family and friends. Site meets their needs and OP
objectives to preserve good agricultural land.
Township has arbitrarily designated their farm into two
separately deeded, 50 acre lots. This does not comply
with OP, where D2.3.3d states proposed lot should
generally be not larger than one hectare. The split of
their property by Ridge Road requires building lot to be
50 acres in size rather than the one hectare. Not the
same for other bona fide farmers.
OP oversight results in unique circumstance for this
property. Roadway stipulation forcing the 50 acre
Lot creation in Agricultural designation not proposed to
be amended, except for infilling policies to remove date
restriction and original lot size. Policies of Provincial
Policy Statement and County Official Plan further
restricts severance in prime agricultural land.
Severance could be allowed if lands were designated
Rural, but no justification provided to support change.
Confirmed at July 15, 2003 meeting of Planning
Advisory Committee that more restrictive policies on
home industries needed, requiring new home industries
to undertake a rezoning process to be permitted. All
matters relating to proposed industry then must be
considered in an open public forum.
While Planning Advisory Committee is very
sympathetic to request, concerns exist over amending
policies to permit additional lot creation in
circumstances like this one. Policy requiring retained
lot to be at least 36 hectares in size is intended to
ensure new residential development is largely directed
to settlement areas. Owner has ability to apply for an
Official Plan Amendment to enable Council to consider
request on a site specific basis.
Situation may not be that unique in Township. A
number of highways, roads, utility corridors and rail
lines bisect Township.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
6

# Writer Issue Response
severance is contrary to OP intent. Do not want a
severance creating a third lot, but that protection of
agricultural land supercede the arbitrary severance by
the roadway.
Understand that options are to appear before
Committee of Adjustment to treat this as a special
circumstance, or to rectify during five-year review. Ask
that their age and circumstances be considered in
length of time to decide.
11 Simcoe County Respite
Home
June 24, 2003
12 Barry Peyton
(Provista Group Inc.)
June 24, 2003
(Eric Bowes and Dawn
Braden)
13 Ralph and Wendy Hough
June 24, 2003
4965 Line 11 North
Document brief on benefits of Respite Homes and the
need for a care facility in Simcoe County. Outline
benefits and general specifications for their proposed
Rural property including building size, general location
(15 minutes from major services), facility operation.
Home Industries
Written account of June 24, 2003 presentation. With
recent OMB decision recognizing their Pallets North
property has a Home Industry, how (or if) will proposed
OPA affect their business, now recognized as a home
industry? Also ask that site be exempted from any
restrictive provisions in amendments. Present Minutes
of Settlement and their confidential nature may lead to
incorrect inference by future purchasers that proposed
amendments apply to these lands.
If no exemption possible, request pallet recycling by
recognized as a home industry as per Settlement.
Severance Policies
Not in best interest of Township or residents to
maintain freeze on Rural severance while permitting
severances in other areas (Shoreline Residential).
Large subdivisions should not occur in overdeveloped
areas, as experienced in Cumberland Beach. We may
Respite home to be added as permitted use wherever
a residential care facility is permitted.
Official Plan should be much more restrictive with
respect to home industries. This direction results from
establishment of uses considered by landowners to be
home industries, which do not meet intent of OP or
Zoning By-law. Pallets North business is such a
business, which is why Township is proceeding to
Ontario Municipal Board regarding the property.
Township considers this an illegal use of the property
and it will continue to be illegal with adoption of new
Official Plan and implementing Zoning By-law. Unless
OMB decides in the interim that the use is permitted,
would not be recommended to Council to recognize
this situation in Official Plan
Lot creation policies as they apply to rural areas would
not be changed, but infilling lot creation policy is
proposed for Rural designation. Basis of OP adoption
in 1995 was to restrict rural development to protect
rural character of the Township. Shoreline and
Settlement Area lot creation opportunities are very
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
7

# Writer Issue Response
not be so lucky to receive Federal and Provincial
funding when the same happens on our lakeshore.
limited.
14 Kris Menzies
(PK Menzies Planning)
June 26, 2003
15 Kris Menzies
(PK Menzies Planning)
June 27, 2003
(Horseshoe Resort)
Well thought out rural severances on marginal lands
not farmed in years (which we know where they are)
better than throwing open Township to severances or
compacting many septic systems near communal water
sources. Contradictory to protect water quality and
environment by permitting septic systems in highly
developed areas, but not in spread out rural areas.
Mayor Craig is the only Council member not living on a
severed lot. Without severances, we wouldn’t be here.
Lot Boundary Adjustment (H2.2.2)
Representing a client preparing to apply for a Boundary
Adjustment. Requesting clarification or written
confirmation from Township: if one lot is to be made
larger, the lot which the land is being conveyed from to
make to receiving lot larger is acknowledged to be
smaller AND notwithstanding that one lot will be
smaller, the boundary adjustment will still be given
favourable consideration. Such occurs in every
boundary adjustment application.
Object to removal of uses (golf courses) from “Rural”
designation (E2.2.4h)
Resort does not believe taking of water is a land use.
Required rezoning could affect current operation, in
which permits have been issued, should Council not
approve or renew applications to take water.
Intent of this policy has always been to accommodate
adjustments with one lot becoming larger and the other
smaller (as would typically happen in consideration of a
Boundary Adjustment Application). Does not see need
to amend policy since this rationale provides
Committee of Adjustment with ability to consider all
Boundary Adjustment Applications.
Appropriate to remove to ensure consistent policy on
golf courses across Township. Amendment to permit
golf course in rural area would be in keeping with
Section D8 and proposed Oro Moraine policies.
Policy will be substantially modified before presentation
to Council to indicate policy is dependent on courts
determining water taking is a land use under Planning
Act. If water taking becomes a land use, policy will
require comprehensive review of issues to support a
Zoning By-law amendment. Issues on controls and
permissions would be determined at that time.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
8

# Writer Issue Response
Request amendment to permit lot development by
Resort on private roads. Configuration of Resort and
Condominium Act encourage condo roads to access
interior lots. Resort wishes to develop lands fronting
existing and proposed expansion of driveway. Some
Resort parcels front a private road; no issues thus far.
Appropriate development policies should remain in
place to develop an Adult Lifestyle Community. Most
landholdings proposed on site are still owned by Resort
and is their intent to develop such a community.
Sees no issue with permitting development in this
manner on site, provided appropriate agreements
ensure emergency access guaranteed to any block
without any problems. Road design will have to
conform with relevant municipal emergency access
specifications. Section dealing with private roads to be
clarified to ensure clarity of Municipal intent.
Intent of deletion is to remove principle of establishing
communities in Rural designation. Future proposed
communities would require an Official Plan
Amendment. Wide range of building forms,
development permitted within Horseshoe Valley node.
16 Tanya Pallopson
(Rudy & Associates Ltd)
July 4, 2003
NW Part Lot 26, Con 3
(Mark Rodgers)
No comment on schedules as they are unavailable.
Would like to discuss concerns in detail with staff.
Request notice of any additional changes to OP
Sections subject to June 24 meeting.
Property Specific (Severance Options)
Having interesting experience with Township in
obtaining severance.
Originally met with Andrea Leigh in December 2000 to
discuss severance options. Was told it would be best
to wait until review of Shanty Bay settlement area
expansion to lobby to include subject lands in study.
As of May 31, 2001, informed review would go to
Council June 13, 2001 but would be put on hold until
February 2002 and should wait until then.
After waiting, made deputation to Planning Committee
with request for inclusion October 10, 2002. Submitted
a requested nitrate concentration report on March 10,
2003. Understood that completion would warrant
consideration for expansion area.
At present, no justification for expanding Shanty Bay
settlement area. It would be premature to consider any
expansion without a comprehensive Secondary Plan
for the entire community that would be very much
dependent on justification provided to develop
additional residences.
On process, has always been Mr. McDonald’s
understanding that this review was on general policy
issues, not site specific requests, and Council has
ultimately decided this. If strong feelings exist about
the development proposed on client’s lands, an Official
Plan Amendment application may be filed for
consideration of Council. Application would have to
contain appropriate justification and address all existing
policies dealing with Shanty Bay.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
9

# Writer Issue Response
Received letter from Meridian March 14, 2003 stating
request would be reviewed for Planning Advisory
Committee in April or May 2003. On May 26, 2003,
another letter received that on May 8, 2002, Council
clearly indicated OP review was not to change sitespecific
requests. Several others made comments on
misinformation at June 24, 2003 meeting.
Two years of waiting for “appropriate time” and
provided requested information. Too much time
wasted because Andrea Leigh and Meridian Planning
Consultants had different notions of what OP Review
entailed. Want complaint noted with Mayor and
Council, proposal to remedy this situation and for
subject property to be considered for inclusion in
Shanty Bay settlement area.
17 Ian Rowe
(Burgar Rowe LLP)
July 7, 2003
(Ontario Realty
Corporation)
18 Ray Duhamel
(Jones Consulting Group)
June 24, 2003
(Jules Goossens)
OPA #5: Edgar Centre SPA
OP Review proposes severe restriction of development
potential for subject property. Objectives, uses and
development policies of OPA #5 remain appropriate for
future development of site. Object to any OPA more
restrictive than policies pursuant to OPA #5 and any
ZBL implementing such OPA.
Request Notice of Plan Adoption and dialogue initiated
to discuss concerns before and action is taken.
Property Specific (Shoreline Designation Expansion)
Site is designated rural, immediately outside of
Shoreline designation. Surrounded to the north, west
and south by existing rural residential and shoreline
residential properties. Understand that considerable
planning justification and many applications are needed
to expand Shoreline area.
Support policies permitting minor Shoreline expansion
without OP Amendment if certain criteria are met. If
Noted.
Planning Advisory Committee does not support a policy
that would permit new lots on public roads across from
the Shoreline designation. In reviewing all requests of
property owners together, appear policies would
provide for considerable additional development in
shoreline area. The draft policy will not be carried
forward into final OPA.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
10

# Writer Issue Response
this is not agreeable, request less intensive reviews
and justification as what would otherwise be required.
Request Notice of any draft policies affecting Rural and
Shoreline designations, further meetings and adoption.
19 Bengt Schumacher
June 30, 2003
RR#2 Oro Station
20 Don Haney
(Burl’s Creek Family
Event Park)
July 4, 2003
Shoreline designation development
Very much in favour of limited development on existing
public roads across from existing Shoreline designation
development. Limitations proposed strike a good
balance for Township.
Water Taking
Agrees with general intent of these amendments, but
would be wise to wait for province to settle current
disputes. Unclear as to if water taking is a land use.
Tourism
Supports official recognition of importance of tourism to
future of the Township.
Strong Objection to Several Proposed Amendments
Document appears restrictive in developing a tax base.
Businesses unable to handle additional fees and
license issue was dealt with last year. Business
owners are trimming budgets and Township leaders
should follow this example by streamlining existing Bylaws
and reducing staff operating costs.
Taking of water is over-controlled. Strongly objects to
any intrusion by proposed Section. Only 5-10% of
household water use is for human consumption. The
rest is washing (dishes, clothes, cars), bathing and
toilets. New homes should contain cisterns to collect
water for non-potable uses.
Draft policy on development across from Shoreline
designation will not be carried forward. Policies, as
drafted, would be contrary to intent of OP to limit
additional development.
Policy will be substantially modified before presentation
to Council and indicate policy is dependent on courts
determining water taking is a land use under Planning
Act. If water taking becomes a land use, policy will
require comprehensive review of issues to support a
Zoning By-law amendment. Issues on controls and
permissions would be determined at that time.
Strategic objectives on tourism now added in Section
A2.7 of the OPA.
Amendment provides additional land use permissions
in certain designations, plus opportunities for rural
severances. Most growth continued to be aimed at
settlement areas.
Water taking policy will be substantially modified before
presentation to Council and indicate policy is
dependent on courts determining water taking is a land
use under Planning Act. If water taking becomes a
land use, policy will require comprehensive review of
issues to support a Zoning By-law amendment. Issues
on controls and permissions would be determined at
that time.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
11

# Writer Issue Response
21 Dino and Yula Sardelis
July 8, 2003
SW Corner of Bass Lake
Road and Fourth Line
22 Kris Menzies, PK
Menzies Planning &
Development
(Horseshoe Resort)
July 25, 2003
Ludicrous to exclude senior citizen facilities. Fastest
growing segment of society is the over-55 generation.
Property Specific (Oro Moraine)
Wish to record a site specific OP Amendment for site.
1. Land scored 0-30 in Council defined
environmental sensitivity range. Marginal lands
are essentially a poor quality aggregate deposit.
2. 70 acre size is not enough to sustain a full time
agricultural operation. Verified at public meeting.
3. Cannot extract gravel since trucking prohibited on
road not designated haul route. They accept this.
4. Parcel adjacent to Horseshoe Valley development
and is a natural extension of it. Some Council and
public deputations conceptually support strategic
developments from Township revenue
perspective, quality their property fits.
5. Electric, Gas, Cable, Water services exist already
and road system provides excellent access.
Purchased site for residential development in mind.
Don’t want to fund technical study without some
indication that serious consideration of subdivision
would be given. Ask for indication that we should move
forward in support of potential residents and improved
tax base and their severance application would garner
fair review.
Private Roads (on Resort Lands)
Resort Comprehensive Development Plan now being
processed prefers internal, “non-public” roads.
Frontage onto County Road likely to be safety hazard
with undesirable lots. Internal road design is hoped to
be compact and may not been Township design
requirements, while maintenance demands by resort
may not be amendable to the Township.
Senior citizen facilities permitted within a settlement
provided it can be appropriately serviced.
Creation of new lots in proposed Oro Moraine
Enhancement Area (OPA designation of property) to be
guided by Rural designation policies. These policies,
as amended, will not permit a severance on the lands.
Intent is to direct most residential development to
settlements and maintain rural area as primarily open
space. Number of policies to protect rural character,
deemed by many in Township as a main contributor to
their quality of life.
See ID#15
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
12

# Writer Issue Response
Predetermination of roads on site needed to approve
Common Element Condominium. Emergency Access
needs can be met through easement and review under
any future applications. Existing timeshare and hotel
facilities currently front private driveway.
Ask Township to provide Resort with policy means to
implement their Plan on private roads. Would be
pleased to discuss in more detail.
23 Tannis Hamilton
5628 8 th Line North
Box 148
Moonstone
July 9, 2003
Settlement Area Boundaries (Moonstone)
Asks Council to consider including her lands within Lot
16, Concession 8 within Moonstone Settlement Area.
County and Township Official Plans require justification
that additional lands are required for development, and
that technical studies indicate development is feasible
on lands. No justification provided, therefore Township
not in position to favourably consider request.
TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW
Prepared by
Page
13