COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY -LAW REVIEW Public Meeting Phase 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY

• LAW REVIEW

Public Meeting – Phase 2

September 27, 2016

PROCESS

In 2013 – New Town of Bracebridge Official Plan One appeal – Withdrawn February 2015 Planning Act requires update of Zoning By-law – 3 years 2015 and 2016 Municipal Budgets and Business Plans

PROCESS

Zoning By-law Working Group:

• Three members of Council
• Member of Committee of Adjustment for Consent
• Member of Committee of Adjustment for Minor Variance
• Mayor is ex-officio member

RFP to Planning Consulting Firm to prepare Background Reports and feedback on amendment prepared by staff MHBC – Consulting Firm

PHASING/TIMING OF REVIEW

Phase 1 Background Studies

• Urban Residential Standards
• Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Uses
• Parking Standards
• Accessory Use

General Housekeeping

• Cleaning Up Definitions
• Correct mapping errors in Zoning from 2006
• Adjustment to standards due to metric conversion
• Clarifying Provisions

PHASING/TIMING OF REVIEW

Phase 1 Urban Centre Official Plan Implementation

• Adjusting uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas
• Implementing Second Dwelling Unit policies
• Defining new uses

Process

• Builder’s Breakfast held in October 2015
• Public Open House held in January 2016
• Public Meeting on Draft By-law Amendment #1 in February 2015
• By-law 2016-039 approved in May 2016

PHASING/TIMING OF REVIEW

Phase 2 Implementation of Official Plan

• Primarily focus on Rural and Waterfront Issues
• Zone Aggregate Lands
• Provisions and Zones for Environmental Features and

Constraints Other Changes

• Few changes propose to Urban Centre
• Correct mapping boundaries for entire municipality

PHASING/TIMING OF REVIEW

Phase 2 Process

• Zoning By-law Working Group and Staff Working Group in June

2016

• Builder’s Breakfast held in July 2016
• Public Open House held in July 2016
• Public Meeting on New Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Tonight
• Next Step – Refer Back to staff to review comments
• Bring New Comprehensive Zoning By-law for approval later this

fall

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• Proposed

changes to protect character of smaller lakes and have more uniform provisions on Lake Muskoka

• Changes to address OP policies on

Natural environmental predominating

• ver built form and limiting size of

marine related structures based on shoreline frontage

• Not proposing any changes to amount
• f shoreline to by covered (max. 25%

up to 22 metres)

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• Proposed Provisions
• Less than 30m frontage – boat

port with no deck and dock

• Between 30m and 60 m frontage –

boat port or one storey boathouse with no deck and dock

• Between 60m and 90m – boat

port or one storey boathouse with or without a deck on roof

• 90m and over – any of the above

plus a two storey boathouse

• Two storey boathouses only

permitted on Lake Muskoka

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• Current side lot line setback – 5m

regardless of structure

• Proposed side lot line setbacks
• Dock – 5 metres
• Boat Port with no deck – 5 metres
• Dock or Boat Port on narrow

waterbody – 9 metres

• One Storey Boathouse with no

deck on roof – 9 metres

• Two Storey Boathouse, Boat Port

with deck on roof or Single Storey Boathouse with deck on roof – 13.5 metres

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• On the Muskoka River currently

maximum projection into river is 6m

• Proposed increase to 8m on main

branch

• Current and Proposed – Boat Ports

and Docks

• Maintain 5m side yard setback in

Urban Centre

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• Currently sleeping cabin – standalone

building only and maximum 23m2

• Proposed size increase to 37m2
• Permit as either:
• Standalone
• In second storey of boathouse
• Above accessory building –

Detached Garage

• Current and Proposed – One per lot
• Current and Proposed – No kitchens

but washroom permitted

PROPOSE CHANGES – WATERFRONT

• Currently three Shoreline Residential Zones (SR1, SR2 and SR3)
• Proposed Shoreline Residential Zones
• SR1 – Standard Waterfront Lot
• SR2 – Lakes at Capacity for Lake Trout or Over Threshold Lake
• SR3 – Narrow Waterbody – 150m to 90m across
• SR4 – Narrow Waterbody – Less than 90m across
• SR5 – Water Access only
• WL – Waterfront Landing

PROPOSE CHANGES – RURAL

• Minimum Lot Size for RR and RC

Zones – 2 ha and 90 metres of frontage (required in OP)

• Rural Institutional Zone:
• Cemeteries, Schools, Churches,

etc.

• Woodland Retreat:
• Minimum 10 hectares
• No year round road frontage req’d
• Maximum size 60m2
• Time limitations similar to Hunt

Camp

PROPOSE CHANGES – RURAL

• Second Dwelling Units currently not

permitted as a right in Rural Area

• Proposed in RR and RU, where lot

meets lot standard and building meets setbacks

• Can be located:
• In main dwelling
• In accessory building
• As standalone building
• If in accessory building or standalone,

maximum size of 75 m2

• One per lot

PROPOSE CHANGES – BACKYARD HENS

• Currently only permitted on Hobby

Farm (2 ha lot) or Agricultural Use

• Proposed on R1 Lot in Urban Centre

and RR and RU in Rural Areas

• Proposed Provisions:
• Minimum lot size 0.2 ha
• Maximum 10 hens
• No roosters
• Keep in predator and rodent proof

enclosure

• Minimum 6m from any lot line
• Minimum 30m from any navigable

waterway

• Principal Dwelling must be on

same lot

PROPOSE CHANGES – TOURIST USES

• Currently just one CT Zone
• Proposing three CT Zones being:
• CT1

– T

• urist

Establishment (Resort)

• CT2 – Campground
• CT3 - Marina
• Will permit appropriate accessory

uses such as restaurant, assembly hall and limited retail component

PROPOSE CHANGES – TRAILERS

• Currently one permitted per lot
• Proposed in Shoreline Area:
• Maximum of two
• Located in rear or side yard
• No human habitation
• Not on vacant lot
• Proposed in Rural Area
• Maximum of two travel trailers or

motor homes

• Maximum of four trailers total
• Maximum two on vacant lot
• Can be used for human habitation

with time limit and no connection to services

• Meet zone setbacks and only one

in front of principal building

PROPOSE CHANGES – SHIPPING CONTAINERS

• Permitted in M1 and M2 Zone as part
• f Phase 1
• Proposed to permit on Rural and

Rural Industrial Zone subject to the following:

• Minimum lot area – 2ha
• Maximum of 1 per lot
• Minimum setback of 30 metres

from any street

• Minimum side yard setback of 15

metres

• Buffered

from road and neighbours

• Not used for habitation

PROPOSE CHANGES – WETLANDS

• Currently wetlands zoned as overlay

zone (Schedule K)

• Placing in primary zone
• Two wetland zones:
• EPW1

– Non-Provincially significant wetland (30m setback)

• EPW2 – Provincially Significant

Wetland (30m setback for development on existing lots and 120m setback for development on new lots)

PROPOSE CHANGES – MAPPING

• Currently schedules are scanned black

and white maps

• Draft schedules are colour coded
• Proposing to put interactive colour

and black and white schedules on line

• Click on property, shows zone and link

to applicable section of by-law

Agency Comments Received

District of Muskoka District comments indicate that the PPS does not permit development

• r site alteration on adjacent lands to a Provincial Significant Wetland

(PSW). They indicate that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Natural Heritage Reference manual defines adjacent lands for these type of wetlands as all lands within 120 metres. The District indicates that another approach should be taken to the proposed 30 metres setback for existing lots such as a general provision apply a Holding Symbol to all lands within 120 metres of the PSW, which cannot be removed until a qualified biologist has confirmed that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the wetland and its associated ecological functions.

Agency Comments Received

District of Muskoka District comments also indicate that the Town may wish to consider modify the definition of “Septic System Leaching Bed Distribution Pipe” to be recognized as a structure for the purposes of appropriate regulation. T

• wn of Huntsville

Indicate no concerns with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning By- law update.

Public Comments Received

Marg French Comments indicate that the site specific provision of the SR1-47 Zone should include permitting one employee as part of the Home Occupation that is not a residence of the dwelling. This provision was included in the site specific By-law 2006-091 for the property.

Public Comments Received

Wayne Simpson Requests that the zone boundaries on the Willen Investments Lands situated behind the Canadian Tire store be modified to reflect proposed future road alignment. Mr. Simpson recommends that the lands to the north of the proposed road be zoned C4-Holding, the proposed arena site be zoned Institutional, the valley lands on either side of the arena site be zoned EP1 and the south-east quadrant remain zoned R1.

Public Comments Received

Kevin and Sheila Isnor Requests that the EP2 zoning from their property be removed as they would like to have a hunt camp on their property.

• Mr. and Mrs. Isnor’s property is located completely within the Spring

Creek Wetland Muskoka Heritage Area and as such the EP2 Zone was put on the property in 2006 at the request of the District of Muskoka.

Recommendation

• 1. That the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, attached as

Appendix “A” to Staff Report PD053-16 be received for information purposes.

• 2. That staff report back to Planning and Development Committee

with recommended changes to the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, based on agency and public comments received as a result of the public meeting and circulation of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law.