IN THE MATTER OF subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2008 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Bonnie Chen and Andrew Merricks Consent Part of Lot 31, Concession F, (Medora) Township of Muskoka Lakes B/85/06/ML PL C APPEARANCES: Parties Township of Muskoka Lakes Bonnie Chen and Andrew Merricks Counsel M.E. Fitton C. Wagman Mark Lawrence Norman Harrison MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY J.R. AKER ON NOVEMBER 28, 2007 Bonnie Chen and Andrew Merricks (appellants) are the owners of property at Part of Lot 31, Concession F (Medora) in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. The land has shoreline frontage on Lake Muskoka and is municipally known as 1033 Rossclair Road, Unit 10, Port Carling. They propose to sever the westerly parcel with approximately metres (300.6 feet) of shoreline frontage and an area of approximately 2.71 hectares (6.6 acres) and retain the easterly portion with 69.3 metres (227 feet) of shoreline frontage and an area of approximately 1.62 hectares (4.0 acres). There is an existing cottage with a separate garage and a separate two-storey boathouse on the retained portion.

2 -2- PL An application for consent was submitted to the Township of Muskoka Lakes. On January 8, 2007, the Committee of Adjustment of the Township of Muskoka Lakes received submissions and a staff report, which recommended that the matter be adjourned. The purpose of the proposed adjournment was to allow for the submission of a satisfactory site evaluation report to identify suitable building envelopes on the severed lot and for the submission of a satisfactory fisheries assessment to demonstrate no negative impacts on fish habitat located in front of the severed lot. At the meeting, the Committee of Adjustment refused the consent application. The appellants appealed the decision to this Board. Expert Witnesses and Other Witnesses During this hearing, the Board heard viva voce evidence from three expert witnesses, and two other witnesses. Robert List, a qualified planner retained by the appellants, provided planning evidence in support of the application. Stephen Fahner, Director of Planning for the Township of Muskoka Lakes, provided land use planning evidence in support of the application with conditions (Exhibit 25). Gordon Nielsen, an ecologist, provided evidence on fish habitat, watercourse, deer wintering area, wetlands and topographic issues. His evidence was in support of the proposal. Mark Lawrence, representing his family and neighbours Barbara and Paul McNicol, and Adrienne and Douglas Mahaffy, provided evidence in opposition to the proposed severance. Mr. Norman Harrison, the owner of property southeast of the subject property, provided evidence in opposition to the consent application. Position of Bonnie Chen and Andrew Merricks Mr. List described the property as heavily treed with coniferous and deciduous vegetation. On the proposed retained parcel, the area in front of the existing cottage has been cleared to create a vista. The property is moderate to steeply sloping near the shore and the water depth is 38 to 42 inches at the boathouse. On this retained parcel,

3 -3- PL there is adequate room for a replacement leaching bed in the area north of the existing garage. The location of the proposed driveway to service the severed lot is relatively level across the retained parcel. Mr. List described the proposed severed parcel as vacant of any buildings or structures. There is a creek that traverses the property that is well defined and there is no evidence of creek flooding due primarily to the sloped sides of the creek. Water depth near the south-severed lot line is about 32 inches to 38 inches when measured 35 feet out from the shore. Water depth from this location decreases at and past the mouth of the creek. There is emergent aquatic vegetation along this shoreline, particularly in the shallower areas. In the opinion of Mr. List, both the proposed severed lot and the proposed retained lot can be described as typical Lake Muskoka waterfront. Mr. List provided the Board with a comparison of the proposed lot frontages of 300 feet for the severed lot and 227 feet for the retained lot to the existing lot frontages on both sides of the subject property. Around Neilson Bay towards Kennedy Point, the five lots have lake frontages ranging from 300 feet to 1250 feet. The eight lots to the south have lake frontages from 114 feet to 860 feet. His summary is that there are four lots with frontages between 114 feet and 270 feet and nine lots with frontages of 300 feet or more. In the opinion of Mr. List, the proposed lot frontages are in a keeping with the existing character of the immediate waterfront community. Mr. List reviewed the current zoning of the subject property (Exhibit 3 Tab 9). The retained parcel is zoned WR1 for the front 400 feet and WR2 for the rear part. The severed parcel south of the creek with a width of 160 feet and a depth of 400 feet is zoned WR1. The severed parcel south of the creek and more than 400 feet back is zoned WR2. The creek valley itself is zoned EP1. The existing boathouse on the lot to be retained must be converted to a single storey boathouse with a maximum height of 16 feet. The evidence of Mr. List is that, with this change in the height of the boathouse, the proposed severed lot and the proposed retained lot will meet all the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law as amended by Zoning By-law and no variances are required.

4 -4- PL Mr. List reviewed in detail the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area. Section C. 9 (b) requires that new uses will be compatible with the type and character of the community. His evidence is that the two proposed lots will be for single residential use and the size and frontage on Lake Muskoka of both lots are generally in character with the area. Section D.19 states that waterfront lots should be sized and designed to recognize environmental, terrain, water quality, fish habitat, and water body constraints among others. The evidence of Mr. List is that the stream location is protected and that there are no terrain, water body or water quality restraints and there are no critical fish habitat impacted by this proposed development. Mr. List referred to Section D. 27 of the Official Plan which states that new residential shoreline lots will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and a minimum water frontage of 60 metres (197 feet). His evidence is that the size of the proposed lots of 2.71 hectares (6.6 acres) and 1.62 hectares (4.0 acres) far exceeds the lot size requirement. His further evidence is that the proposed water frontages of approximately metres (300.6 feet) and 69.3 metres (227 feet) exceed the water frontage requirement of the Official Plan. In the opinion of Mr. List, both the proposed severance and the retained parcel are in conformity with the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area. Mr. List referred to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan. His evidence is that this Official Plan is comprehensive and restrictive. In his opinion, the Township recognizes the strong pressure for the waterfront development and is continuously updating the Official Plan to protect the public interest. Section B. 2.4 states that by limiting density of buildings and structures in the Waterfront area, the character of the Waterfront area will be protected. The evidence of Mr. List is that after the height of the boathouse is reduced both the proposed severed lot and the retained lot will conform with the Zoning By-law and the limiting density will be achieved by adhering to the Zoning By-law. Mr. List referred to Section B.3.1A, which sets out a goal to protect the character of the waterfront in recognition of the different character of individual lakes. The

5 -5- PL evidence of Mr. List is that Lake Muskoka has a different character than most other lakes typified by large cottages set back from the shore on treed lots with boathouses at the edge of the water. His evidence is that both lots are large in size, which will protect the character of the waterfront. Mr. List referred to Section B.5.6, which states that waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the proposed use and recognize the natural and built influences in the waterfront. In the opinion of Mr. List, the subject property has typical Muskoka terrain including an area suitable for deer wintering. The creek on the property is common and the Type 1 Fish Habitat in front of the proposed severed lot and Type 2 Fish Habitat in front of the retained lot are common to Lake Muskoka. In his opinion, the size of the proposed lots and the length of the water frontages are sufficient to accommodate the proposed residential use. Mr. List referred to Section B.8.8 which defines a narrow waterbody as a navigable lake or river with a minimum distance from shoreline to shoreline of generally less than 150 metres (500 feet) for at least 100 metres (330 feet) along both shorelines. The evidence of Mr. List is that the proposal is not on a narrow waterbody. Lastly, Mr. List referred to Section F that states the total land area within the Township is described as being Site Plan Control Areas. The evidence of Mr. List is that both the proposed severed lot and the proposed retained lot are subject to site plan control. In the opinion of Mr. List, the proposal before the Board maintains the general and specific intent of the Official Plan of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. Mr. List reviewed the proposed severance and the Provincial Policy Statement Section b) states that healthy communities are sustained by accommodating an appropriate range of recreational and open spare uses to meet longterm needs. In the opinion of Mr. List, the creation of a single residential cottage lot is consistent with this Section of the PPS Section c) states that healthy communities are sustained by avoiding development, which may cause environmental or public health or safety concerns. In the opinion of Mr. List, the proposed development will not cause any public or safety

6 -6- PL concerns and any environmental concerns can be addressed through the report and recommendations in the report of Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited (Exhibit 4). In the opinion of Mr. List, the proposed severance has regard for all the requirements of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. The proposal has regard on matters of provincial interest and is not premature as no public interest is adversely affected. The land is suitable for a severance as the Waterfront Residential Zone 1 (WR1) requires a minimum of 200 feet of lake frontage and a minimum area of 1 acre and both lots meet this requirement. A site evaluation has confirmed suitability for development including sewage purposes. Each property will have a specific Section 51(26) agreement respecting the limitation of development of all buildings and structures on the severed parcel and the maintenance and protection of a landscape buffer along the shore of the retained parcel along with other requirements. The severed parcel will be subject to a rezoning. In the opinion of Mr. List, the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2005, conforms with the Official Plans of the Muskoka Planning Area and the Township of Muskoka Lakes, complies with the current zoning on the property and represents good planning. Mr. Gordon Nielsen, the President of Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited, was qualified as an ecologist for this hearing. He undertook a site visit on May 25, 2007 with two terrestrial ecologists from his firm. He prepared a draft Fish Habitat Assessment and Site Evaluation Report and circulated this document to the Township of Muskoka Lakes for review and comment. He engaged Pinestone Engineering Ltd. to review locations for sewage disposal system. He inspected the site a second time on July 20, 2007 in the company of Mr. Steve Fahner, Director of Planning for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. Mr. Nielsen finalized the Fish Habitat Assessment and Site Evaluation Report on August 2, 2007 (Exhibit 4 Tab 2) and circulated it to the Township of Muskoka Lakes and to the former agent for neighbours objecting to the severance. Mr. Nielsen referred to Figure 1 of his report, depicting the proposed severed and retained lots and their relationship to the near shore of Lake Muskoka. He agrees with both Township and District staff in their assessment of Ministry of Natural Resources mapping which shows Type 1 Fish Habitat beginning approximately at the boundary

7 -7- PL between the proposed retained parcel and the proposed severed parcel and extending across the frontage of the proposed severed parcel and around the terminus of Neilson Bay. The evidence of Mr. Nielsen, based on his two site visits, confirms the presence of shallow waters with abundant aquatic vegetation within the northerly portion of the frontage of the proposed severed lot. There is an area of moderate near shore slopes with firm substrates and little to no aquatic vegetation within the southeasterly portion of the proposed severed lot. Mr. Nielsen referred to Figure 2 of his report, which provides a detailed description of near shore depths, substrates and vegetation conditions in relation to appropriate docking and boathouse envelopes. Figure 2 includes interpolated 0.5 metre and 0.75 metre depth contour lines. His evidence is that a water depth of 0.5 metres is the minimum preferred depth for locating a boat mooring area and the most preferred depth at the outer end of the slip is 0.75 metres or greater. Figure 2 sets out an appropriate boathouse envelope with docking envelope as water depths approaching 0.75 metres are generally found within approximately 15 metres of shore throughout the southerly portion of the frontage of the proposed severed lot. The evidence of Mr. Nielsen is that the water levels in the Muskoka Lakes are controlled by dams and a relatively consistent water level is maintained. Mr. Nielsen provided evidence on the existing creek and watercourse, an identified deer wintering area, a small wetland adjacent to the mouth of the creek and the topography of the subject property and in particular the proposed severed lot. His evidence is that all of these constraints are quite typical to the Muskoka area. Mr. Nielsen stated that the proposed severed lot does contain the aforementioned constraints and these should be considered in determining the location and design of an access driveway, parking area, building envelope, tile field, shoreline structure, and a pathway between the dwelling and the waterfront. The evidence of Mr. Nielsen is that the proposed lot has a significant size of approximately 6.6 acres and, in his opinion; there are opportunities to develop this lot in a manner that fully respects each of these constraints. In this regard, he provided the Board with Figure 3 (Exhibit 5) depicting an area, which is appropriate for development,

8 -8- PL which is located 30 metres (100 feet) back from the lake, outside the stream riparian zone and away from other areas of constraint. The area is approximately 870 square metres in size, which is sufficient to contain a parking area, dwelling, deck and other typical amenities. The sewage disposal area is identified as Location 1 as terrain conditions between this area and the area for a dwelling are suitable. Mr. Nielsen provided recommendations regarding the location of the access driveway, recommendations regarding the building location and sewage disposal system and recommendations for a dock or boathouse that will appropriately mitigate any impacts on fish and fish habitat. Mr. Nielsen provided further recommendations relating to shoreline buffer and waterfront access on the proposed severed lot. Lastly, the Board was provided with recommendations regarding vegetation buffer on the retained lot. In the opinion of Mr. Nielsen, the implementation of his recommendations as part of the Site Plan Agreement will provide a high level of protection to the natural environment and the proposal represents good environmental planning. Position of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Mr. Steve Fahner, Director of Planning for the Township of Muskoka Lakes, provided land use planning evidence in support of the proposed land severance before the Board. Mr. Fahner provided evidence supportive of and consistent with the evidence of Mr. List on the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). In his opinion, the proposed severance is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Mr. Fahner provided the Board with a letter from Ms. Melissa Maurer, Planner with the District Municipality of Muskoka, dated December 22, 2006 (Exhibit 3 Tab 24). Ms. Maurer refers to the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area and encourages the Township to utilize site plan control to ensure that the existing shoreline vegetation is retained and a fisheries impact assessment is undertaken prior to building any shoreline structures. Ms. Maurer concludes in her correspondence that, In

9 -9- PL consideration of the foregoing, Muskoka staff would have no objection to the above noted application. The evidence of Mr. Fahner is that he is knowledgeable of the goals, objectives and policies of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area. He agreed with the recommendation of Ms. Maurer and, in his opinion, the proposed severance conforms to the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area. Mr. Fahner reviewed the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan and in particular Section B.3.1.A and B.3.1 which protects the character of the waterfront in recognition of the different character of individual lakes and promotes single-tier development. In his opinion, the proposed single-tier residential development set back from the waterfront is consistent with the character of the shoreline of Lake Muskoka. In the opinion of Mr. Fahner, the proposal conforms to the Official Plan as this is not an area of steep slopes and is not located on a narrow water body. The proposed severed lot and retained lot are large in size and the Fish Habitat Assessment and Site Evaluation Report does address the concerns of fish habitat and creek protection. Mr. Fahner advised the Board that the Township of Muskoka Lakes retained the firm of Gartner Lee Limited to peer review the Fish Habitat Assessment and Site Evaluation Report of Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited. In a letter of August 7, 2007 from ecologist Nick Hodges (Exhibit 26) the peer review is summarized by the following paragraph: In summary, the recommendation provided in the report demonstrates good regard for the habitat features and functions on the property and are considered appropriate. At this time we see no need for additional site investigation. In the opinion of Mr. Fahner, this independent peer review does not raise additional environmental concerns and was accepted by the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. Mr. Fahner reviewed the proposed severance application with regard to the criteria set out in subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act. In his opinion, the proposal is not premature, conforms to the Official Plans, both lots will meet the existing Zoning By-law and are suitable for development, the right of way over the retained lot will provide a suitable road access, the dimensions of both lots are satisfactory and the restrictions on the land and the conservation of natural resources will be through the two

10 -10- PL development agreements authorized under section 51 (26) of the Planning Act as conditions of approval. In the opinion of Mr. Fahner, a plan of subdivision on the lands is not necessary for the proper and orderly development as set out in subsection 53(1) of the Planning Act and the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and represents good planning. Position of Mark Lawrence Mr. Lawrence provided the Board with a fifteen (15)-page evidence outline (Exhibit 27). Mr. Lawrence is critical of the Fish Habitat Assessment and the Site Evaluation Report of Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited dated August 2, 2007 (Exhibit 4 Tab 2) and the viva voce evidence of ecologist Nielsen. The evidence of Mr. Lawrence is that the Nielsen report incorrectly maps the location of the majority of water vegetation and, therefore, the Type 1 Fish Habitat. His evidence is the aquatic vegetation extends throughout the water frontage of the proposed severed lot. Mr. Lawrence relies on photographs of the subject property and adjacent shoreline (Exhibits 14A-14E). Mr. Lawrence is critical of Figure 2 of the Nielsen report outlining the boathouse location based on data from a May 25, 2007 site visit which, in his opinion, is well before aquatic vegetation is fully grown. His evidence is that the proposed boathouse location would result in bottom scouring and clipping of vegetation as boats access the lake from the proposed boathouse. The evidence of Mr. Lawrence is that the Nielsen report makes incorrect water level assumptions that indicate water levels remain relatively constant over the summer season when, in 2007, water levels dropped close to 10 inches and have a high to low water zone differential of 37.4 inches (Exhibit 15). The evidence of Mr. Lawrence is that the Nielsen report downplays the significance of the Type 1 Fish Habitat by stating that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not distinguish between a Type1 Fish Habitat and a Type 2 Fish Habitat.

11 -11- PL His evidence is that there is not yet developed a common federal and provincial classification system to distinguish between a Type 1 Fish Habitat and a Type 2 Fish Habitat. In the opinion of Mr. Lawrence, the Fish Habitat Assessment Report and Site Evaluation Report contain a number of errors and, as a result, are sufficiently flawed and that the real facts do not support the application for severance. Mr. Lawrence questions the accuracy of the planning evidence of Mr. List. Mr. Lawrence questions the methodology of measuring water depths and the assumption that the proposed boathouse location on the severed lot is appropriate. Mr. Lawrence questions the evidence of Mr. List as to the width and character of the proposed lot 300 feet and the retained lot 227 feet. In the opinion of Mr. Lawrence, the existing lot frontage of 517 feet is more in character with the existing lots on Kennedy Point. In the opinion of Mr. Lawrence, we have an opportunity to protect an arguably unique landscape on Lake Muskoka with a number of geographic features such as a Type 1 Fish Habitat in shallow water with abundant aquatic vegetation complemented with a stream on the property and a deer wintering area. Mr. Lawrence requests the Board not to approve this severance application. Position of Norman Harrison Mr. Harrison is a neighbouring property owner with planning experience. The evidence of Mr. Harrison is that the proposed severance will disrupt a property that contains a woodland stream draining a significant wetland area flowing over exposed bedrock with small waterfalls in a defined ravine. In the opinion of Mr. Harrison, the removal of vegetation to locate the residence and parking area will nullify the charm of the stream s ravine environment. The second reason for not approving the severance is that the proposal is suggesting that there is sufficient water depth to reach the proposed boathouse throughout the boating season. The evidence of Mr. Harrison is that Lake Muskoka does not have a consistent water

12 -12- PL depth over the boating season and this could result in requests to permit dredging in front of the proposed boathouse. Lastly, the evidence of Mr. Harrison is that this proposed severance would needlessly crowd this side of Neilson Bay. In the opinion of Mr. Harrison the approval of this severance would emulate the unbridled creation of rows of cottages on small frontages, which occurred in the past. Mr. Harrison stated clearly that, if the severance were approved, the result would be better because of this four day Ontario Municipal Board hearing. He acknowledged that the appellants have come up with a very sensitive development. Findings and Conclusions of The Board In the hearing, the Board listened carefully to all the viva voce evidence of each witness. During the hearing twenty-eight (28) exhibits were provided as evidence. Based on all of the evidence, the Board prefers the evidence of Mr. List, Mr. Fahner and Mr. Nielsen. Based on the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed severance and the retained portion are appropriate in size and water frontage. The proposed lot is 2.71 hectares (6.6 acres) with a frontage of approximately metres (300.6) feet and the retained lot is 1.62 hectares (4.0 acres) in size with approximately 69.3 metres (227 feet) of water frontage. The Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area requires new residential shoreline lots to have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and a minimum water frontage of 60 metres (197 feet). The Official Plan of the Township of Muskoka Lakes requires under Waterfront Policies a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and a water frontage of 60 metres (200 feet). The proposal before the Board exceeds the requirements of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area and the Official Plan of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. Similarly, Comprehensive Zoning By-law and the current Zoning on the majority of the property of WR1 requires a lot to be 1 acre in size with a minimum of 200 foot frontage.

13 -13- PL The Board finds that the two lots meet the standards set out in two Official Plans and Zoning By-law Based on the evidence of Mr. List, the Board finds the proposed lot frontages of feet and 227 are in character with the immediate waterfront community. The evidence is that the thirteen (13) properties surrounding the subject property have water frontages ranging from 114 feet to 1250 feet with three lots of smaller water frontages, four lots of similar water frontages and six lots with larger water frontage. Based on the mapping provided (Exhibit 3 Tab 13) and the photographs of the area, the Board finds the two proposed lots maintain the character of this residential community. Based on the evidence of Mr. List and Mr. Fahner, the Board is satisfied that the subject lots are not located on a narrow water body as set out in Section 8.8 of the Official Plan of Muskoka Lake, and Nielson Bay exceeds the definition by an acceptable distance. Based on the evidence, the Board finds the planning evidence of Mr. List and Mr. Fahner to be straightforward and based on sound planning principles. The Board notes that staff of the District Municipality of Muskoka have no objection to the approval of this application as set out in their letter of December 22, 2006 (Exhibit 3 Tab 24). Based on the viva voce evidence of Mr. Gordon Nielsen, the Board is satisfied with the Fish Habitat Assessment and Site Evaluation Report prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited (Exhibit 4 Tab 2). The report sets out in Figure 2 a detailed description of near shore depths, substrates and vegetation condition and sets out an area that is relatively unconstrained and appropriate for a dock and boathouse envelope. Figure 1 sets out extensive aquatic vegetation and Type 1 Fish Habitat to the north of this dock and boathouse envelope. Based on the evidence of ecologist Nielsen, the Board finds Figure 2 to contain a relatively unconstrained area with sufficient water depth to support docking and boating activity. The Board carefully reviewed Exhibit 5 as it sets out all the constraints and proposed primary development area and preferred area for a dwelling on the severed lot. Based on the evidence, the Board finds that, with the recommendations of Mr.

14 -14- PL Nielsen, a residence can be developed on the severed lot and protect the natural environment. The Board respects the concerns of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Harrison in the hearing. The Board is satisfied with the expect evidence of planners List and Fahner and ecologist Nielsen. The Board appreciates the objectivity of Mr. Harrison when he referred to the proposal as a very sensitive development. Lastly, the peer review conducted by Gartner Lee Limited concluded that, the recommendations provided in the report demonstrate good regard for the habitat features and functions on the property and are considered appropriate. Based on the evidence, the Board finds the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and conforms to the District Official Plan and the Township Official Plan. The reduction in boathouse height on the retained parcel, as agreed to by the parties will meet all the requirements of Zoning By-law Based on the consistent evidence of planners List and Fahner, the Board finds that proposal satisfies the criteria of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. Each property will have separate agreement under subsection 51(26) of the Planning Act and the severed property will be subject to a rezoning. The appeal is allowed and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1. The Board will withhold its final Order subject to the Board being advised that the rezoning of the severed property is in force and effort. John R. Aker J. R. AKER MEMBER

15 -15- PL ATTACHMENT 1 Chen and Merrick B/85/06/ML Proposed Conditions of Consent 1. A registrable description (deed) of the severed lot (including all required rights of way) be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. Confirmation that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. 3. That cash-in-lieu of parkland in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant land be dedicated to the Township. 4. That a zoning bylaw exemption be granted, and Consent Agreements be entered into, to implement the recommendations of the Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited report dated August 2 nd, The boathouse on the lot to be retained be converted to a single storey boathouse with a maximum height of 16 feet.