KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE BURLINGTON March 2 nd, 2018 Ms. Emily Dance, Clerk Township of Huron-Kinloss 21 Queen Street P.O. Box 130 Ripley, ON N0G 2R0 Dear Ms. Dance: RE: Township of Huron-Kinloss Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Project Update and Comment Summary, MHBC FILE: 1597 C The purpose of this letter report is to provide an update regarding the above-noted project as well as outline how the various comments received have been responded to by the project team. This document is accompanied by a revised Zoning By-law (clean copy included as Appendix A, and track changes version included as Appendix B) to be presented to Council at the upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting on March 5 th, 2018. Recommendation to Council It is recommended that Township of Huron-Kinloss Council authorize the circulation of the revised Draft Zoning By-law text and mapping for public comment, in advance of the open house / public meeting to be held on March 24 th, 2018. Project background The Township of Huron-Kinloss retained MHBC Planning to complete a comprehensive review of Zoning By-law 2001-87. The Zoning By-law is a legal document that specifies how land can be used through regulations (property setbacks, building heights, etc.) and permissions (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.). The Township s current by-law (By-law 2001-87) dates from 2001and requires an update as a result of the approval of the Township s new Official Plan in 2016. The Planning Act requires that municipalities amend their Zoning By-laws within three (3) years of a new Official Plan being in effect. It is also important to ensure the Zoning By-law reflects current practices, changes to provincial policy, and supports the strategic direction of the Township. The objective of the Zoning By-law update was not only to ensure the new By-law conforms with current Provincial, County and local policies but also to improve the usability and readability of the By-law, eliminate redundancies and reflect current best-practices. 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM
A Background Report regarding this project was prepared in July 2017, and a draft of the revised Zoning By-law (and related mapping) was released in August 2017. Consultation summary Throughout the project, there has been an effort made to continue to keep the community and commenting agencies informed of the process and current events. A number of opportunities for input have been sought, as follows: Project Kickoff meeting with Township Staff (March 9 th, 2017) Initial Review Report Presentation to Council (April 10 th, 2017) Public Meeting No. 1 to Introduce Project (June 1 st, 2017) Background Report to Council for information (July 10 th, 2017) Draft By-law and mapping released for review (August 17 th, 2017) Public meeting No. 2 to review draft Zoning By-law and obtain comments (September 9 th, 2017) Project team meeting with Township and Agency staff (December 19 th, 2017) In addition to the above events, notice regarding this project was provided in property tax newsletters by Township staff, letters were mailed to property owners where mapping was revised, notice was provided on the Township website, and notices appeared in the local newspaper. The above has provided notice that has gone beyond the Planning Act requirements for such a project, and has helped to ensure that the community is aware of the work being undertaken on this important project. Summary of comments received regarding August 2017 draft Zoning By-law The response from Township residents and agency staff has been strong, and a number of comments were received since the project commenced. The following summarizes the comments received since the draft Zoning By-law was released in August 2017: Community comments A total of 229 written comments were received from property owners within Huron-Kinloss, either at the September 9 th, 2017 community meeting or afterwards. In addition, numerous public feedback forms were submitted and comments were received by phone as well. The comments generally fell into the following categories: Comment EP / floodplain zoning: The vast majority of the comments received were in relation to the proposed changes to the EP zoning based on updated mapping provided to MHBC. Action Significant effort was undertaken to review specific comments / properties and revise zoning where appropriate. Changes to the EP mapping have been reviewed by Conservation Authority staff and the County. This review has resulted in significant changes to the EP mapping (see discussion below). 2
Rural (RU) zone: Some confusion and clarification needed regarding purpose of the proposed new zoning category. Site-specific regulations / zones: Propertyspecific Zoning category proposed to be changed to Agricultural Rural (AG4) to clarify that focus remains agriculture. Each circumstance was reviewed to ensure that Bylaw addresses property adequately. A table outlining the comments received from the public and agencies, as well as responses / actions taken is attached as Appendix C. Bruce County Planning staff from Bruce County conducted an in-depth review of the draft August 14 th, 2017 Zoning Bylaw, and provided detailed comments to the project team on September 1 st, 2017. Many of the comments were focused on definitions and general regulations, and a number of revisions were made to better clarify the text and intent. The attached table in Appendix D of this report summarizes the comments received from Bruce County and our proposed responses. Sourcewater Protection Comments were received from Drinking Water Source Protection on September 12 th, 2017. The comments suggested some modifications to the Source Protection section of the By-law, as well as adding some additional information regarding restricted land uses. As a result of comments received related to sourcewater protection, Section 4.31 of the Zoning By-law was revised and expanded. Comments from the Risk Management Official are included as Appendix E. Conservation Authorities Staff from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) provided initial comments regarding the draft Zoning By-law on October 12 th, 2017. Minor clarifications and revisions were recommended to the text as it relates to appendices, and a note was requested to be added to the EP section indicating that some lands within EP are regulated by the Conservation Authority. In addition, some mapping changes were recommended based on further agency review. Overall, staff indicated that they were generally satisfied with the proposed Zoning By-law. Further involvement from MVCA staff occurred following the community meeting, and additional revisions were made to the mapping of environmental features within their jurisdiction. Staff from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) provided initial comments regarding the draft Zoning By-law on October 2 nd, 2017. Some text revisions were suggested to improve clarity, including adding a reference to the Dynamic Beach Study, and correcting wording of some sections. These comments were taken into account in the preparation of the revised By-law text. 3
SVCA staff were in attendance at the community meeting and were able to obtain comments directly from members of the public at that time. In addition, further involvement from SVCA staff has been ongoing as further revisions to the mapping were reviewed and considered by the project team. Comments from the MVCA and SVCA are included in Appendix D., with letters attached as Appendix E. Summary of recent activity Conservation Authority mapping As noted in our previous update to Council, the MHBC team conducted a detailed review of the more than 200 individual comments submitted in response to the draft Zoning By-law following the meeting last fall. A number of mapping corrections were proposed and reviewed with Township staff, Bruce County staff, MVCA staff, and SVCA staff in December 2017. Minor comments were received from Bruce County and MVCA, and incorporated into the proposed mapping. Detailed comments were also received from SVCA, and concerns were raised regarding many of the proposed mapping revisions. Over the past month, MHBC has continued to work with SVCA staff regarding the specific review of approximately 50 properties where there was a conflict identified between the proposed Environmental Protection (EP) mapping and existing structures on the properties. As a result of this review, mapping was revised for approximately 15 of the properties. Additional properties along the Lakeshore within the Dynamic Beach hazard are also being reviewed by SVCA. At this time, SVCA is continuing to review the mapping for some of these properties. However, for many of the other properties, the EP limits were recommended to remain as presently proposed either because of hazards or the need for additional information / site investigations. Summary of recent activity Zoning By-law text revisions A number of revisions have also been made to the Zoning By-law text in response to input received from the community, Township staff, and commenting agencies. In addition, further review by MHBC staff has resulted in revisions to various components of the By-law. Proposed changes are shown in the track changes version of the By-law within Appendix B. The following lists some of the main areas of text changes since the August 2017 draft of the Zoning By-law: - Re-naming of the Rural (RU) zone to Agricultural Rural (AG4), in order to address confusion regarding the intent of the zone. - Revisions to general regulations regarding Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) to ensure that the Zoning By-law follows the most recent Provincial guidelines (OMAFRA). - Revisions to general regulations regarding secondary farm residences. - Revisions to the regulations regarding secondary farm residences, so that they are permitted within the AG1 and AG4 zones through a site-specific application but not as of right. - Revisions to general regulations to better define provisions for farm home industry / business. - Revisions to general regulations related to Sourcewater Protection, in response to comments received. - Removal of proposed regulations that would automatically rezone lands subject to applications for surplus farm dwellings, in response to comments from Township staff. 4
- As outlined in Appendix B, revisions to many areas of the By-law in response to comments received from Bruce County. - Minor adjustments to the Rural (now AG4) limits in order to follow lot lines, whereas the designation is based on soils mapping (which does not follow lot lines). - Revisions to special provisions to ensure consistency with site-specific by-laws and mapping. Additional input regarding the current draft of the Zoning By-law will be sought from the community through this round of consultation, and additional changes may be made. Next steps As noted, an open house is scheduled for March 24 th, 2018. The Township will circulate formal notice to the community prior to the meeting. This event will provide an opportunity for members of the community to review the revised Zoning By-law information, and discuss comments with MHBC and agency staff. A public comment period will also be provided following the open house. Comments received through the circulation will be taken into account by the project team as the final draft of the Zoning By-law and mapping is prepared. It is anticipated that MHBC will return later this spring with an update for Council and the final Zoning Bylaw for adoption. Closing This report and attachments provides an overview of the work undertaken to address and respond to comments received as a result of the consultation that has occurred to date regarding the Zoning By-law update. Further community consultation and input is invited leading up to and following the March 24 th, 2018 open house. MHBC will work with applicable agency staff to review and respond to additional comments received, so that the final Zoning By-law adequately addresses the needs of Huron-Kinloss. Yours truly, MHBC Pierre J. Chauvin, MA, MCIP, RPP Partner Nicholas P. Bogaert, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc: Matt Farrell, Township of Huron-Kinloss 5
Appendix A Revised Draft Zoning By-law
Submitted under separate cover
Appendix B Comparison of text changes between 1 st and 2 nd draft By-laws
Submitted under separate cover
Appendix C Summary of resident comments
Submitted under separate cover
Appendix D Summary of agency comments and responses
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) Huron-Kinloss Zoning By-law update: Summary of Agency comments / responses Prepared by MHBC / February 2018 # Section Comments (County) Response (MHBC) Number 1 2.8 Person designated to Administer By-law: Recommend that the By-law Administrator be different than the Enforcement Officer. Section 2.12 has the Zoning Administrator dealing with Holding zones. This Section 2.8 revised to remove Enforcement Officer. may not be a good job for the Enforcement Officer as opposed to the CBO. 2 2.10 Interpretation of Zone Boundaries clause 6 re: EP boundaries. EP boundaries that reflect Provincially Significant Wetlands boundaries should not be altered except via a Zoning By-law Amendment. Noted. Existing structure remains, and notes that interpretation is done by Township staff or CA. Below is suggested wording used in other Zoning By-laws. For PSW s. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section xx, the zone boundaries of the EP-1' Zone shall not be altered except by a By-Law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990 as amended. For EP Notwithstanding the provisions of Section xx, in locations where the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone boundary does not coincide with the local Conservation Authority (SVCA or MVCA) hazard land mapping, minor adjustments may be permitted to the EP Zone boundary without an amendment to this By-law when approved in writing by the SVCA or MVCA and the Chief Building Official. In a reinterpretation of the limits of the EP Zone boundary, all requirements of the By-law shall be applied relative to the revised boundary including any applicable setbacks. 3 2.12 Wording = 2nd paragraph seems to imply that non-structural agricultural uses shall be permitted on Text revised as suggested. lands that are subject to a H even if the lands are not zoned AG. Removal of a Holding Zone should also refer to the satisfaction of any other conditions that may have been established through a site specific By-Law. 4 2.16 Transition Minor Variances. Are all M.V. notwithstanding the year that they were passed to be extended 2 years? Yes, all minor variances will be extended. Text revised to confirm intent. 5 Definitions Agriculture: and accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment. While we recognize that the Definition follows the PPS direction we would strongly recommend that a Definition revised as suggested. Zoning By-law amendment now required (see also Section 4). Zoning By-law amendment be required for accommodation for full time farm help in order to be able fully ascertain that the applicants meet the full intent of the Definition that being full time (year round) help and not just for limited periods of time. This would typically apply just to large dairy or other very large livestock operations and that the help is required on the one farm and not on multiple barns on multiple properties. 6 Definitions Accessory Agriculture = automatically includes Farm Help. (matches OMAFRA Pub 85 1 definition Noted. Term not included in By-law. 1
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Comments (County) Response (MHBC) Number 7 Definitions Is there a difference between Assembly Hall and Community Centre? Yes, intent is different. Both terms retained. 8 Definitions Building Height: the definition uses the average grade at the front on the building. Is there any concerns about height for the backyards of houses with walk out basements? It is possible that for some lots this could result in a three storey wall in the backyards overlooking an abutting property. Correct. No concerns about heights with walk-out basements. No changes made. 9 Definitions Auto Wrecking Establishment = is this the same as a Salvage, Recycling and Scrap Yard? Note: Salvage Recycling or Scrap Yard is not used anywhere in the By-law. 10 Definitions Bed and Breakfast: the Definition states that a B&B can only go into a building existing as of the date of the passage of the By-law. Is this the intent? The terms have a different intent. Definition of salvage now includes auto wrecking as a potential component. Definition revised to indicate building does not have to be existing. 11 Definitions CBO definition conflicts with Admin. Section? No conflict identified. No changes made. 12 Definitions In 2016 the Planning Department, along with Bruce County Social Services Dept., initiated updating the County s local planning documents to reflect the Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA). The definitions were developed in conjunction with Social Services so that the licensed and subsidized daycare services the County provides be permitted in the Zoning By-law in accordance with the CCEYA. These definitions are: CHILD CARE means the temporary care for, or supervision of, a child including providing for a child s safety, well-being or development, in the absence of the child s parent and for a continuous period that does not exceed 24 hours, in accordance with the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 including any amendments, or its successor. CHILD CARE CENTRE means a business that has obtained the proper licensing from the province to operate a licensed child care centre for the provision of temporary care for or supervision of a child including providing for a child s safety, well-being or development, in the absence of the child s parent and for a continuous period that does not exceed 24 hours, in accordance with the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 including any amendments, or its successor. HOME CHILD CARE means Child Care provided in a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling by one or more child care provider(s) that is regulated by a home child care agency. UNLICENSED CHILD CARE means Child Care provided in a single detached dwelling, semidetached dwelling or duplex dwelling that is not Home Child Care or a Child Care Centre, or a private school within the meaning of the Education Act. We would like to see these definitions used in place of day care facility. We would like to see child care permitted in all zones that contain a residence (including agricultural and rural). We would Revisions made to definitions and regulations as suggested. 2
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Number Comments (County) suggest that child care centre be permitted in C1/ Institutional zones. 13 Definitions??Farm Business: the definition allows for value-added processing or packaging but does not provide any limits to the use. OMAFRA Guideline suggest that high water uses would not be appropriate. 14 Definitions The By-law Definitions include multiple similar uses: Residential Care Facility, Nursing Home, Long Term Care Facility. Is there any way to simplify the multiple uses into one? 15 Definitions Lane vs Private Access Right-of-Way: Lane definition says it is only for secondary access. Private Access says that it has to be paved and min of 16 meters in width. What about a private lane that provides primary access to a property and is not paved? 16 Definitions Front Yard: The modified definition establishes the entire area from the Street Line to the building as the Front Yard regardless if the building is set back further than required by the By-law. Is this the preferred interpretation? 17 Definitions No Definitions of the following Permitted Uses - Terminals for Storage and Handling of Freight - Processing of Extracted Aggregate, Quarry Stone - Concrete Batching Plant 18 Definitions Lot Line, Front as applied to Through Lot = can end up with accessory buildings just off the rear property line messes with the properties on either side Response (MHBC) Section 4.11 revised to address comment. Review undertaken of terms and slight modifications made to Residential Care Facility. Other definitions remain. Definition of lane revised to indicate that it does not need to be for secondary access. Yes, that is the preferred interpretation. Definitions added for concrete batching plant, asphalt batching plant and aggregate processing facility. Noted. Definition determines which lot line is the front / rear. No revisions made. 19 4.1 Accessory Buildings: Along Lakeshore some owners prefer to have their garages in the front yard. Does 4.2, or another Section permit this? Suggest that clauses (3) and (4) be slightly rewritten to state the Minimum Setback number first and then the Max Height allowance. If no setback is required for accessory buildings on lots which adjoin body of water does this mean they can all be a max of 6 metres in height? Section 4.1 revised as suggested, and wording added regarding Lakeshore areas. 20 4.2 States within a dwelling but definition of B&B says single detached only. Revised to indicate single detached. 21 4.6 In our opinion clause (e) is should be deleted: Access to the dwelling, accessory secondary unit shall be by an entrance from the side or rear yard. 22 4.7 Secondary Farm Residence: The extent of the individuals eligible for a secondary farm residence in our opinion are not in conformity with the County Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement. Revision made as suggested. Revisions made to not permit as of right, but rather require a site-specific Zoning Bylaw Amendment. Additional guidance also 3
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Number Comments (County) We recommend that Dwelling, Secondary Farm Residence not be an as of right Permitted Use but rather be subject to a needs test at the time of creation. The Planning Department is of the opinion that the applicant should demonstrate via a Zoning By-law Amendment that the residence is needed for full time (365 days a year) farm help. Secondly, considering that the need for farm help may change over the years with changing agricultural operations on the farm that the 2nd residence may no longer be required. Therefore it is our opinion that 2nd residences should be mobile homes or similar portable units. Response (MHBC) added regarding secondary farm residences. 23 4.11.2 Clause includes wording or a use similar in nature to those listed above. Would this include an Automobile Body/Repair Facility? 24 4.11.5.5 Farm Home Industry caps the farm business located in an accessory building to 100 m2. The County has received several applications to amend this size and Council has stated on several occasions that this is too small. The OMAFRA Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario s Prime Agricultural Areas Section 2.3 On-Farm Diversified Uses permits up to 1 ha. total (including parking etc.) for these uses. We would like to see your proposed 100 m2 increased, perhaps using a percentage of the total size of the property to determine the total size of a building permitted. We would also like to see inclusion of: located on the farm, secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, limited in area, and shall be compatible with and shall not hinder the surrounding agricultural operations included in the provision. Yes, it could include an Automobile Body / Repair Facility. Revisions made to section to better reflect guidance from OMAFRA. 25 4.14(c) There is no definition of building floor area Definition added as suggested. 26 4.15 Home Business- Professional Uses lists a tradesperson or contractor and permits this to occur in an accessory building. While we support this type of provision in Ag & Rural zones, we are concerned about its application in town (e.g. R1 zone) and potentially having a welding shop or something of a similar nature in town in a residential area. There is no limitation on the number of trucks and equipment that may be stored this means that any number of employees may come to the dwelling, pick up equipment and then leave for a job site. This scenario has significantly changed the property from a R1 or R2 use. The ability to run a tradesperson business out of the dwelling is not the issue; it is related to the use of accessory buildings for storage. 27 4.16 Clause (e) Kennels must be 300 metres from settlement areas and 150 m (492 ft) from property line. Only 100 ac. parcels may be able to meet these requirements and then they still require a rezoning. We suggest that Kennels be included as a Permitted Use in AG1 zone. We suggest that Kennels be Noted. No concern noted, given the definitions and limitations placed on scale and extent of use. If use were to be too large, would then no longer comply with intent. Noted. Intent is to limit kennels to larger properties and also regulate through sitespecific amendments. 4
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Number 28 4.17 4.18 Comments (County) given the same consideration as other Uses that are Permitted in a Zone i.e., Farm Home Industry that are regulated by specific conditions. We recommend that the By-law include the various Minimum Distance Separation options available e.g. IG 7. 9, 35 and 38 as found in MDS Publication 853. Response (MHBC) Sections refer to OMAFRA guidelines. Additional revisions also made to reference potential exemptions. Revisions made as suggested. 29 4.19 2nd paragraph additional clarification of the intent of the para would be welcome. Also recommend that the para include the need to meet not just parking requirements but also loading requirements. 30 4.20.1 Wording 1st sentence to be fixed Revisions made as suggested. Recommend that Section 4.20 match wording with Section 4.21 Non-complying i.e. lawfully established vs. legally established Planning Act wording is lawfully used Section 34(9)(a) 31 4.20.3 Seems to suggest that even if building is not lawfully use/established that It can be repaired/renovated Revisions made to clarify that only applies to legal non-conforming buildings. 32 4.22 Outdoor Storage is permitted for a Farm Home Industry (clause 4.11.6), Section 4.22 states that the Section revised to clarify intent related to Outdoor Storage can only be in the Interior Yard or a Rear Yard. Is this the intent on an AG1 property? AG1 and AG4 zones. 33 4.22.4 Clause protects only a residential zone but not an existing residential use that is not zoned residential or any institutional uses. 34 4.24 While Planting Area is used in the By-law, Sections 5.1.11 and 5.3.5 provide different requirements for the Planting Area Correct. No changes made. Noted. Circumstances are different between sections. No changes made. 35 4.25 2nd paragraph = additional clarification on the intent of the para would be welcome. Section deleted as it was determined to be redundant. 36 4.26 Setbacks County Roads: County will agree to reduction to urban standard for the Primary / Secondary/ Hamlet. All other areas to remain as per by-law Section revised to indicate that consideration of reductions applies within settlement areas and Lakeshore. 37 4.26.2 Still needed? Use former railway Noted. Section retained because could apply in the future. 38 4.27 Recommend that the By-law include a minimum ie but no closer than xxx metres. Noted. Was determined as not required. 39 4.28.1(b) Recommend to just use EP Setback retained for municipal drain. 40 4.29.2 Railway Crossing = still needed? Noted. Section retained because could apply in the future. 5
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Number Comments (County) 41 4.32 Does this conflict with Salvage yard or Auto Wrecking yard permitted uses. A number of Automobile Repair Facilities may have unused motor vehicles parked on their lots. Response (MHBC) No conflict identified, since section includes unless otherwise permitted. 42 4.33 Surplus Farm Residence Severance Is the Section intended to negate the need for site specific zoning amendments? Does the Section apply to every severance of a surplus farm residence regardless of the age of the severance? As a blanket clause it is difficult to apply for example a farm parcel may be comprised of more than one original Crown Lot. We may not necessarily apply a restriction to the entire farm parcel lot but maybe only to the lot that the dwelling came off of. Intent was to negate the needed for sitespecific zoning amendments, and would apply to all farm residence severances. Section removed based on concerns raised to date from County / Township staff. 43 4.34 Section 4.34 and Section 2.15 are the same wording No duplication identified. 44 4.35 Add words at the end the most restrictive regulations shall apply to all uses Revisions made as suggested. 45 5.1 Parking requirements for B & B =- few urban dwellings have the parking required for a B&B Correct. Intent is to allow where certain regulations can be met. 46 5.1.4 Recommend that a garage be counted as a parking spot Do not agree. No revisions made. 47 5.1.5 The regulation of driveway width seems to be embedded in this Section versus Section 5.1.10 Driveways. If a lot has a min frontage of 17 m (R1 Zone) and the By-law permits a max driveway width of 9 m 53% of the front yard could be driveway. 48 5.1.7 A full size school bus is approximately 13.7 m in length; most are 10 ½ feet in height / so those who drive school buses and park them at home would not be able to meet these requirements Wording revised to clarify which regulations apply to singles / semi-detached, as compared to other uses. Revision made to exempt school buses parked temporarily. 49 5.1.9 1st paragraph is confusing in its calculation No concerns noted upon further review. 50 5.1.10 Is there a setback to a property line for a driveway or parking? Revisions made to 5.1.4 to indicate that no parking is permitted in required front yard. 51 5.1.11 Section 5.1.11 Landscaping could be linked to Section 4.24 Planting Area since it talks about requiring a planting area. Revision made as suggested. 52 5.3.5 Section 5.3.5 Landscaping could be linked to Section 4.24 Planting Area since it talks about requiring a planting area. Revision made as suggested. 6
Bruce County Comments (September 1 st, 2017 letter) # Section Comments (County) Response (MHBC) Number 53 8.2.9 Section 8.2.9 should refer to Section 8.1 not 7.1 Noted. No 8.2.9 in By-law. 54 9 We support your application of a Rural Zone, and assume it is going to match the Rural designation of the County OP. We suggest some indication at the beginning of the Section about where one can have an RU zone. We note that the County OP has an extensive list of uses that are permitted in the Rural Areas and would encourage a wider array of permitted uses in the Rural zone. Some examples may include: rural industrial, rural commercial, farm-related tourism etc. 55 9.1 Considering that the farm size for the Rural Zone is 20 ha, do the farms warrant an as-of-right Secondary Farm Residence? There are a (small) number of properties to be zoned RU that are small in size but are now eligible for Farm Business as-of-right even though the Farm Business is supposed to be tied to a Farm. It will be difficult to see how the farm on these small properties will remain the primary use in this potential situation 56 10.1 No definition of Dwelling, Existing Single Detached. This new use makes all these dwellings, regardless if they were legally constructed or not, legal in the By-law. Section 45(2) of the PA will no longer apply to these Use since they will no longer be legal non-conforming. Home Business would be added as a Use. Is there a limitation of what type? Can a Tradesperson now use an existing accessory building located in the EP for storage or materials as permitted in Section 4.15? Does the word Existing Single Detached make those uses that are illegal now legal? 57 11.1 The Park definition includes curling rinks, arenas and other major recreational buildings. There are a number of properties zoned OS outside of the settlement areas where these uses would not be appropriate. 58 12.1 Add Semi-detached and Duplex as Permitted Uses. County OP Section 4.4.4.1.1(vii) requires that duplex/semi-detached dwelling units be included in the same zone as a single detached and that similar zoning provisions apply to both types of housing. 59 12.3 Suggest that a Minimum Lot Area be included for R1 uses that may go on partial services since the HK OP permits partial servicing in Lucknow and Ripley Rural zone has been changed to Agricultural Rural AG4 to clarify link to agriculture. Minor mapping revisions and refinements made to generally reflect property boundaries and eliminate dual zoning. Section revised to remove Secondary Farm Residence as permitted as of right. Now addressed in Section 4.7. Definitions included for both Existing and Single Detached. However, permitted used since revised to exclude dwellings. Some OS areas rezoned to EP, which has a restriction on buildings. Site-specific regulations also revised. Uses are permitted within R2, which is in conformity with County Official Plan. Section revised to indicate that partially serviced lots subject to Hamlet regulations, which includes lot area. 7
60 12.3.8 Unattached Garage and Accessory building not the same? No Side Yard requirements for Unattached Garage in Lakeshore? 61 13 Suggest that Group Homes be removed from the By-law by definition and use. Please see attached Appendix A discussion points from Ontario Human Rights Commission. 62 13.3.1 Can you have a R2 zone in a Hamlet? There is no differentiation between lots that have full/partial/private services 63 13.3.1 Would suggest that Duplex dwelling be subject to the same Regulations as the Semi-Detached rather than the Single Detached. The Apartment definition is 5 units plus. The Triplex definition is for 3 units. What is a building with 4 units divided horizontally defined as? 64 14 Cluster Townhouses recommend that additional provisions be added to regulate the distance between townhouse clusters at the end of the units and back-of unit to- back of unit or front of unit to front of unit. Definition Townhouse, Street Frontage = requires each townhouse to be on separate lot = what about rentals? 65 15.1 No definition Associated Community Facilities Purvis Lake is zoned LCR. Can a Mobile Home go in to Purvis Lake? 66 16 Does the GC zone match the Core Commercial Designation? If yes, is there any need for Regulations for Municipal Water and No Municipal Services since the Core Commercial designation is fully serviced? We would recommend that there be no Max Gross Floor Area. If a business wants to merge a number of buildings by removing common walls in the Core of Ripley or Lucknow there should be Max GFA. While automotive uses such as gas bars and the older repair garages are on the decline the GC zone does not Permit these uses. In fact in Ripley no automotive uses are permitted at all since there is no HC zone. 67 17 Drive Through Establishment definition would classify any business as a Drive Thru as long as it has a service window. Wholesale Establishment is Permitted Use but definition is just for Wholesale 68 18 The Permitted Uses seem to cover more than what the OP permits which is commercial uses primarily serving the day-to-day needs. 69 20 Institutional Zone permits Institutional Uses on all properties zoned I regardless of whether they are located in a settlement area or in an agriculture or rural location. This means that a long term care facility could theoretically locate on any I zoned property. This is not in conformity with the County OP direction on the location of Institutional uses. We recommend that the Township differentiate the types of Institutional uses that are permitted based on their rural versus urban location Regulations removed since dealt with elsewhere. Revisions made to remove group homes as a dwelling, and include residential care facilities as permitted uses in many zones. Noted. R2 not located in Hamlet. No revisions made. Duplex refers to horizontally divided whereas semi-detached is vertically divided. No change made. Apartment definition revised to be 4 units. Most appropriate to regulate cluster townhouses through site plan. No revisions made. Rentals can remain on separate lot. Noted. No definition needed. Yes, provided it conforms to By-law. Not always a match between GC and Core Commercial. No revisions made. In such a circumstance, the oversight of a site-specific by-law would be desirable. No revisions made. Correct. Term / definition revised. A review of this section was undertaken, and hotel / motel were removed. Other uses added in response to comments. Noted. Any new Institutional use would require a site-specific amendment, which would allow for oversight and consideration of appropriateness. No revisions made. 8
70 22 Concern: There is only one (1) property in the entire Township zoned M2 (map 53). Fuel Storage Establishment requires M2 zone are there no fuel storage establishments in HK? Proposed zoning reflects current situation. However, there are site-specific M1 zones that permit (e.g. Lucknow). 71 23 Are there no building setbacks proposed for the ER zone at all? Correct. Regulations added to refer to requirements of Aggregate Resources Act. 72 25.2 Special Provision 25.2 should refer to AG-3 not to AG1 Revision made as suggested. 73 25.110 The Special Provision for the property now includes the right to build all of the Permitted Uses of the RRC Zone. I do not believe that was the intent of the original site specific by-law for the property. Section revised to indicate notwithstanding in order to clarify intent. 74 Misc. Recommend that the By-law include setbacks for buildings and structures to Private Roads/Lanes These would be regulated through Plan of Condominium or site plan processes. No revisions made. 75 Misc. Recommend that a definition of Value-Added Processing or Packaging as referred to in Farm Business definition be added to By-law. 76 Misc. HK OP states that Secondary units shall be permitted in the Residential and Hamlet designations where appropriate sewage and water services exist. Part of Lakeshore at the north end is fully serviced will Secondary Units be permitted in this area? 77 Misc. Recommend the By-law include a requirement for a minimum amount of green space in a Front Yard for Residential uses. Noted. Definition determined not to be needed, as the regular meaning of the words would apply and is appropriate. Secondary units would not be permitted per Section 12.2, and 13.2. This is consistent with the Official Plan. Noted. This is not required given the regulations regarding building setback and driveway width. 78 Misc. What zone/permitted use definition will cover off Landfill Not permitted in any zone. Existing facility permitted through site-specific provisions. 79 Map Misc. What size of parcel determined if it was to be zoned AG1 or AG3? Parcel size of less than 3 ha and also properties where primary use is residential. 80 Map 40 Label on map is RU-25.66. Special Provision reads: 25.66 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Institutional (I) Zone, the land identified with Special Provision 25.66 and as described below a wastewater treatment facility (lagoon system) shall be a permitted use and all other Institutional uses are prohibited. a) Part of Lot 14, Concession 7, Huron b) Part Lot 54, Concession 1, Kinloss [Former I-2] Revised as suggested. 81 Map 40 R1 zoning outside of settlement area boundaries to north of Lucknow Correct. Recognizes existing situation. 82 Map 54 &9 EP line match between Map 54 and Map 9 at north end is ugly Noted. Mapping revised. 9
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority comments (October 2 nd, 2017) # Section Number Comment (SVCA) 1 2.13 Section 2.13 indicates that the regulated areas of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority is attached as Appendix D to the By-law. SVCA staff were not able to locate any Appendices to the Bylaw on the Township of Huron-Kinloss website. If the SVCA Approximate Regulated Areas and Approximate Regulation Screening Areas are to be included as an Appendix in the By-law, SVCA staff can provide that information to the Township, and we would ask for the opportunity to review a Draft of such an Appendix. 2 2.14 Section 2.14 Dynamic Beach (db) Allowance (30m) In addition to a minimum setback from the 100 year floodline, new buildings and structures in the reduced dynamic beach (db) area would also be subject to minimum building elevations. SVCA staff suggest a reference to the Huron-Kinloss Dynamic Beach Study Phase II (April 2008) & Phase III (August 2010) prepared for the Township of Huron- Kinloss by W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. be included in Section 2.14. There is also a typographical error: This regulated area of the Saugeen Valley 3 Definitions Section 3 Definitions SVCA staff recommend including a definition for Municipal Drain, as this term appears in Section 4.28 of the By-law. 4 4.20 Section 4.20.1 Non-Conforming Uses there appears to be a typographical error in the first sentence of this section. 5 10 Section 10 Environmental Protection (EP) Zone The reference to the Saugeen relating to Schedule A-1 Lucknow in 10.1 Permitted Uses can be removed, as Lucknow is not within the SVCA jurisdictional area. 6 Mapping SVCA staff will continue to assist the Township of Huron-Kinloss and MHBC in regard to the identification of natural hazard features and areas so that they can be appropriately zoned in the Bylaw Maitland Valley Conservation Authority comments (October 12 th, 2017) # Section Number Comment (SVCA) 1 2.13 1. Section 2.13 informs there is an Appendix D, regulated areas of the MVCA attached to the Bylaw. However, the appendix is not attached to the draft document nor available on-line. Please provide a copy of Appendix D to MVCA for review. 2 9 2. Section 9.0 - Environmental Protection of the current Zoning By-Law (May 2013) features the following Note for Information Purposes : Note for Information Purposes (Does not form part of the Zoning By-law) Some of the lands within and adjacent to the Environmental Protection zone as shown on the bylaw schedules may be subject to the Conservation Authority s Regulation Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Where Response (MHBC) Reference to Appendix D removed. Revisions made as suggested. Definition added as suggested. Revision made as suggested. Revision made as suggested. Continued efforts to revise mapping based on ongoing feedback. Response (MHBC) Reference to Appendix D removed. Revision made as suggested. 10
development or site works are proposed within a Regulated Area, as shown on schedules filed with the Conservation Authority where such mapping exists, a permit from the Conservation Authority may be required. The Conservation Authority should be contacted to determine the extent of the Regulated Area. The Conservation Authority should be consulted before development, including construction, reconstruction, conversion, grading, filling or excavating occurs to determine whether the Authority Regulations apply. It is our opinion the above note is good information for readers and provides advanced notice to the public that Conservation Authority permission may be required. This notice potentially reduces delay for application revew, which is in the best interest of the landowner. However, Section 10 - Environmental Protection of the proposed By-law does not include this note. We strongly recommend this text remain in the proposed by-law for reasons mentioned above. 3 Mapping As noted in recent email correspondance, MVCA has completed our review of proposed EP (Environmental Protection) mapping. We have submitted our recommendations for amendments to the EP zone to the Township and MHBC. Largely, the EP zone comprises natural hazard lands and natural heritage features as prescibed in the Township of Huron-Kinloss Official Plan. However, we did notice inconsistancy with the proposed EP zone with respect to significant woodlands. As such, we have made recommendations to maintain uniformity (i.e. some tracts of smaller woodland are zoned EP where others, specifically larger woodlands, are not). Continued work on mapping has occurred, and all revisions made based on comments. 11
Appendix E Agency comment letters
Corporation of the County of Bruce 30 Park Street, P.O. Box 848, Walkerton, ON, N0G 2V0 brucecounty.on.ca Township of Huron-Kinloss MHBC Planning Attention: Sonya Watson Attention: Pierre Chauvin PO Box 130, 21 Queen Street 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Ripley, Ontario Kitchener, Ontario N0G 2R0 N2B 3X9 September 1, 2017 Dear Sonya/Pierre, Thank you for including the Bruce County Planning Department in your consultation for the new Huron-Kinloss Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw. We would like to commend you on a job well done and appreciate all the work you have put into this project thus far. We have some changes to suggest and questions as follows: # Section Comments Number 1 2.8 Person designated to Administer By-law: Recommend that the By-law Administrator be different than the Enforcement Officer. Section 2.12 has the Zoning Administrator dealing with Holding zones. This may not be a good job for the Enforcement Officer as opposed to the CBO. 2 2.10 Interpretation of Zone Boundaries clause 6 re: EP boundaries. EP boundaries that reflect Provincially Significant Wetlands boundaries should not be altered except via a Zoning By-law Amendment. Below is suggested wording used in other Zoning By-laws. For PSW s. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section xx, the zone boundaries of the EP-1' Zone shall not be altered except by a By-Law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990 as amended. For EP Notwithstanding the provisions of Section xx, in locations where the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone boundary does not coincide with the local Conservation Authority (SVCA or MVCA) hazard land mapping, minor adjustments may be permitted to the EP Zone boundary without an amendment to this By-law when approved in writing by the SVCA or MVCA and the Chief Building Official. In a re-interpretation of the limits of the EP Zone boundary, all requirements of the By-law shall be applied relative to the revised boundary including any applicable setbacks.
3 2.12 Wording = 2 nd paragraph seems to imply that non-structural agricultural uses shall be permitted on lands that are subject to a H even if the lands are not zoned AG. Removal of a Holding Zone should also refer to the satisfaction of any other conditions that may have been established through a site specific By-Law. 4 2.16 Transition Minor Variances. Are all M.V. notwithstanding the year that they were passed to be extended 2 years? 5 Definitions Agriculture: and accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment. While we recognize that the Definition follows the PPS direction we would strongly recommend that a Zoning By-law amendment be required for accommodation for full time farm help in order to be able fully ascertain that the applicants meet the full intent of the Definition that being full time (year round) help and not just for limited periods of time. This would typically apply just to large dairy or other very large livestock operations and that the help is required on the one farm and not on multiple barns on multiple properties. 6 Definitions Accessory Agriculture = automatically includes Farm Help. (matches OMAFRA Pub 85 1 definition 7 Definitions Is there a difference between Assembly Hall and Community Centre? 8 Definitions Building Height: the definition uses the average grade at the front on the building. Is there any concerns about height for the backyards of houses with walk out basements? It is possible that for some lots this could result in a three storey wall in the backyards overlooking an abutting property. 9 Definitions Auto Wrecking Establishment = is this the same as a Salvage, Recycling and Scrap Yard? Note: Salvage Recycling or Scrap Yard is not used anywhere in the Bylaw. 10 Definitions Bed and Breakfast: the Definition states that a B&B can only go into a building existing as of the date of the passage of the By-law. Is this the intent? 11 Definitions CBO definition conflicts with Admin. Section? 12 Definitions In 2016 the Planning Department, along with Bruce County Social Services Dept., initiated updating the County s local planning documents to reflect the Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA). The definitions were developed in conjunction with Social Services so that the licensed and subsidized daycare services the County provides be permitted in the Zoning By-law in accordance with the CCEYA. These definitions are: CHILD CARE means the temporary care for, or supervision of, a child including providing for a child s safety, well-being or development, in the absence of the child s parent and for a continuous period that does not exceed 24 hours, in accordance with the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 including any amendments, or its successor. CHILD CARE CENTRE means a business that has obtained the proper licensing from the province to operate a licensed child care centre for the provision of temporary care for or supervision of a child including
providing for a child s safety, well-being or development, in the absence of the child s parent and for a continuous period that does not exceed 24 hours, in accordance with the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 including any amendments, or its successor. HOME CHILD CARE means Child Care provided in a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling by one or more child care provider(s) that is regulated by a home child care agency. UNLICENSED CHILD CARE means Child Care provided in a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling that is not Home Child Care or a Child Care Centre, or a private school within the meaning of the Education Act. We would like to see these definitions used in place of day care facility. We would like to see child care permitted in all zones that contain a residence (including agricultural and rural). We would suggest that child care centre be permitted in C1/ Institutional zones. 13 Definitions??Farm Business: the definition allows for value-added processing or packaging but does not provide any limits to the use. OMAFRA Guideline suggest that high water uses would not be appropriate. 14 Definitions The By-law Definitions include multiple similar uses: Residential Care Facility, Nursing Home, Long Term Care Facility. Is there any way to simplify the multiple uses into one? 15 Definitions Lane vs Private Access Right-of-Way: Lane definition says it is only for secondary access. Private Access says that it has to be paved and min of 16 meters in width. What about a private lane that provides primary access to a property and is not paved? 16 Definitions Front Yard: The modified definition establishes the entire area from the Street Line to the building as the Front Yard regardless if the building is set back further than required by the By-law. Is this the preferred interpretation? 17 Definitions No Definitions of the following Permitted Uses - Terminals for Storage and Handling of Freight - Processing of Extracted Aggregate, Quarry Stone - Concrete Batching Plant 18 Definitions Lot Line, Front as applied to Through Lot = can end up with accessory buildings just off the rear property line messes with the properties on either side 19 4.1 Accessory Buildings: Along Lakeshore some owners prefer to have their garages in the front yard. Does 4.2, or another Section permit this? Suggest that clauses (3) and (4) be slightly rewritten to state the Minimum Setback number first and then the Max Height allowance. If no setback is required for accessory buildings on lots which adjoin body of water does this mean they can all be a max of 6 metres in height? 20 4.2 States within a dwelling but definition of B&B says single detached only. 21 4.6 In our opinion clause (e) is should be deleted: Access to the dwelling, accessory secondary unit shall be by an entrance from the side or rear yard. 22 4.7 Secondary Farm Residence: The extent of the individuals eligible for a secondary farm residence in our opinion are not in conformity with the County Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement.
We recommend that Dwelling, Secondary Farm Residence not be an as of right Permitted Use but rather be subject to a needs test at the time of creation. The Planning Department is of the opinion that the applicant should demonstrate via a Zoning By-law Amendment that the residence is needed for full time (365 days a year) farm help. Secondly, considering that the need for farm help may change over the years with changing agricultural operations on the farm that the 2 nd residence may no longer be required. Therefore it is our opinion that 2 nd residences should be mobile homes or similar portable units. 23 4.11.2 Clause includes wording or a use similar in nature to those listed above. Would this include an Automobile Body/Repair Facility? 24 4.11.5.5 Farm Home Industry caps the farm business located in an accessory building to 100 m 2. The County has received several applications to amend this size and Council has stated on several occasions that this is too small. The OMAFRA Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario s Prime Agricultural Areas Section 2.3 On-Farm Diversified Uses permits up to 1 ha. total (including parking etc.) for these uses. We would like to see your proposed 100 m 2 increased, perhaps using a percentage of the total size of the property to determine the total size of a building permitted. We would also like to see inclusion of: located on the farm, secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, limited in area, and shall be compatible with and shall not hinder the surrounding agricultural operations included in the provision. 25 4.14(c) There is no definition of building floor area 26 4.15 Home Business- Professional Uses lists a tradesperson or contractor and permits this to occur in an accessory building. While we support this type of provision in Ag & Rural zones, we are concerned about its application in town (e.g. R1 zone) and potentially having a welding shop or something of a similar nature in town in a residential area. There is no limitation on the number of trucks and equipment that may be stored this means that any number of employees may come to the dwelling, pick up equipment and then leave for a job site. This scenario has significantly changed the property from a R1 or R2 use. The ability to run a tradesperson business out of the dwelling is not the issue; it is related to the use of accessory buildings for storage. 27 4.16 Clause (e) Kennels must be 300 metres from settlement areas and 150 m (492 ft) from property line. Only 100 ac. parcels may be able to meet these requirements and then they still require a rezoning. 28 4.17 4.18 We suggest that Kennels be included as a Permitted Use in AG1 zone. We suggest that Kennels be given the same consideration as other Uses that are Permitted in a Zone i.e., Farm Home Industry that are regulated by specific conditions. We recommend that the By-law include the various Minimum Distance Separation options available e.g. IG 7. 9, 35 and 38 as found in MDS Publication 853. 29 4.19 2 nd paragraph additional clarification of the intent of the para would be welcome. Also recommend that the para include the need to meet not just parking requirements but also loading requirements. 30 4.20.1 Wording 1 st sentence to be fixed Recommend that Section 4.20 match wording with Section 4.21 Noncomplying i.e. lawfully established vs. legally established Planning Act wording is lawfully used Section 34(9)(a) 31 4.20.3 Seems to suggest that even if building is not lawfully use/established that It can be repaired/renovated
32 4.22 Outdoor Storage is permitted for a Farm Home Industry (clause 4.11.6), Section 4.22 states that the Outdoor Storage can only be in the Interior Yard or a Rear Yard. Is this the intent on an AG1 property? 33 4.22.4 Clause protects only a residential zone but not an existing residential use that is not zoned residential or any institutional uses. 34 4.24 While Planting Area is used in the By-law, Sections 5.1.11 and 5.3.5 provide different requirements for the Planting Area. 35 4.25 2 nd paragraph = additional clarification on the intent of the para would be welcome. 36 4.26 Setbacks County Roads: County will agree to reduction to urban standard for the Primary / Secondary/ Hamlet. All other areas to remain as per by-law 37 4.26.2 Still needed? Use former railway 38 4.27 Recommend that the By-law include a minimum ie but no closer than xxx metres. 39 4.28.1(b) Recommend to just use EP 40 4.29.2 Railway Crossing = still needed? 41 4.32 Does this conflict with Salvage yard or Auto Wrecking yard permitted uses. A number of Automobile Repair Facilities may have unused motor vehicles parked on their lots. 42 4.33 Surplus Farm Residence Severance Is the Section intended to negate the need for site specific zoning amendments? Does the Section apply to every severance of a surplus farm residence regardless of the age of the severance? As a blanket clause it is difficult to apply for example a farm parcel may be comprised of more than one original Crown Lot. We may not necessarily apply a restriction to the entire farm parcel lot but maybe only to the lot that the dwelling came off of. 43 4.34 Section 4.34 and Section 2.15 are the same wording. 44 4.35 Add words at the end the most restrictive regulations shall apply to all uses 45 5.1 Parking requirements for B & B =- few urban dwellings have the parking required for a B&B 46 5.1.4 Recommend that a garage be counted as a parking spot 47 5.1.5 The regulation of driveway width seems to be embedded in this Section versus Section 5.1.10 Driveways. If a lot has a min frontage of 17 m (R1 Zone) and the By-law permits a max driveway width of 9 m 53% of the front yard could be driveway. 48 5.1.7 A full size school bus is approximately 13.7 m in length; most are 10 ½ feet in height / so those who drive school buses and park them at home would not be able to meet these requirements 49 5.1.9 1 st paragraph is confusing in its calculation 50 5.1.10 Is there a setback to a property line for a driveway or parking? 51 5.1.11 Section 5.1.11 Landscaping could be linked to Section 4.24 Planting Area since it talks about requiring a planting area. 52 5.3.5 Section 5.3.5 Landscaping could be linked to Section 4.24 Planting Area since it talks about requiring a planting area. 53 8.2.9 Section 8.2.9 should refer to Section 8.1 not 7.1 54 9 We support your application of a Rural Zone, and assume it is going to match the Rural designation of the County OP. We suggest some indication at the beginning of the Section about where one can have an RU zone.
We note that the County OP has an extensive list of uses that are permitted in the Rural Areas and would encourage a wider array of permitted uses in the Rural zone. Some examples may include: rural industrial, rural commercial, farm-related tourism etc. 55 9.1 Considering that the farm size for the Rural Zone is 20 ha, do the farms warrant an as-of-right Secondary Farm Residence? There are a (small) number of properties to be zoned RU that are small in size but are now eligible for Farm Business as-of-right even though the Farm Business is supposed to be tied to a Farm. It will be difficult to see how the farm on these small properties will remain the primary use in this potential situation. 56 10.1 No definition of Dwelling, Existing Single Detached. This new use makes all these dwellings, regardless if they were legally constructed or not, legal in the By-law. Section 45(2) of the PA will no longer apply to these Use since they will no longer be legal non-conforming. Home Business would be added as a Use. Is there a limitation of what type? Can a Tradesperson now use an existing accessory building located in the EP for storage or materials as permitted in Section 4.15? Does the word Existing Single Detached make those uses that are illegal now legal? 57 11.1 The Park definition includes curling rinks, arenas and other major recreational buildings. There are a number of properties zoned OS outside of the settlement areas where these uses would not be appropriate. 58 12.1 Add Semi-detached and Duplex as Permitted Uses. County OP Section 4.4.4.1.1(vii) requires that duplex/semi-detached dwelling units be included in the same zone as a single detached and that similar zoning provisions apply to both types of housing. 59 12.3 Suggest that a Minimum Lot Area be included for R1 uses that may go on partial services since the HK OP permits partial servicing in Lucknow and Ripley. 60 12.3.8 Unattached Garage and Accessory building not the same? No Side Yard requirements for Unattached Garage in Lakeshore? 61 13 Suggest that Group Homes be removed from the By-law by definition and use. Please see attached Appendix A discussion points from Ontario Human Rights Commission. 62 13.3.1 Can you have a R2 zone in a Hamlet? There is no differentiation between lots that have full/partial/private services. 63 13.3.1 Would suggest that Duplex dwelling be subject to the same Regulations as the Semi-Detached rather than the Single Detached. The Apartment definition is 5 units plus. The Triplex definition is for 3 units. What is a building with 4 units divided horizontally defined as? 64 14 Cluster Townhouses recommend that additional provisions be added to regulate the distance between townhouse clusters at the end of the units and back-of unit to- back of unit or front of unit to front of unit. Definition Townhouse, Street Frontage = requires each townhouse to be on separate lot = what about rentals? 65 15.1 No definition Associated Community Facilities Purvis Lake is zoned LCR. Can a Mobile Home go in to Purvis Lake?
66 16 Does the GC zone match the Core Commercial Designation? If yes, is there any need for Regulations for Municipal Water and No Municipal Services since the Core Commercial designation is fully serviced? We would recommend that there be no Max Gross Floor Area. If a business wants to merge a number of buildings by removing common walls in the Core of Ripley or Lucknow there should be Max GFA. While automotive uses such as gas bars and the older repair garages are on the decline the GC zone does not Permit these uses. In fact in Ripley no automotive uses are permitted at all since there is no HC zone. 67 17 Drive Through Establishment definition would classify any business as a Drive Thru as long as it has a service window. Wholesale Establishment is Permitted Use but definition is just for Wholesale 68 18 The Permitted Uses seem to cover more than what the OP permits which is commercial uses primarily serving the day-to-day needs. 69 20 Institutional Zone permits Institutional Uses on all properties zoned I regardless of whether they are located in a settlement area or in an agriculture or rural location. This means that a long term care facility could theoretically locate on any I zoned property. This is not in conformity with the County OP direction on the location of Institutional uses. We recommend that the Township differentiate the types of Institutional uses that are permitted based on their rural versus urban location. 70 22 Concern: There is only one (1) property in the entire Township zoned M2 (map 53). Fuel Storage Establishment requires M2 zone are there no fuel storage establishments in HK? 71 23 Are there no building setbacks proposed for the ER zone at all? 72 25.2 Special Provision 25.2 should refer to AG-3 not to AG1 73 25.110 The Special Provision for the property now includes the right to build all of the Permitted Uses of the RRC Zone. I do not believe that was the intent of the original site specific by-law for the property. 74 Misc. Recommend that the By-law include setbacks for buildings and structures to Private Roads/Lanes. 75 Misc. Recommend that a definition of Value-Added Processing or Packaging as referred to in Farm Business definition be added to By-law. 76 Misc. HK OP states that Secondary units shall be permitted in the Residential and Hamlet designations where appropriate sewage and water services exist. Part of Lakeshore at the north end is fully serviced will Secondary Units be permitted in this area? 77 Misc. Recommend the By-law include a requirement for a minimum amount of green space in a Front Yard for Residential uses. 78 Misc. What zone/permitted use definition will cover off Landfill 79 Map Misc. What size of parcel determined if it was to be zoned AG1 or AG3? 80 Map 40 Label on map is RU-25.66. Special Provision reads: 25.66 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Institutional (I) Zone, the land identified with Special Provision 25.66 and as described below a wastewater treatment facility (lagoon system) shall be a permitted use and
all other Institutional uses are prohibited. a) Part of Lot 14, Concession 7, Huron b) Part Lot 54, Concession 1, Kinloss [Former I-2] 81 Map 40 R1 zoning outside of settlement area boundaries to north of Lucknow 82 Map 54 &9 EP line match between Map 54 and Map 9 at north end is ugly We have not completed a full review of Section 25 Special Provisions. We have not completed a full review of the Zoning Maps but will go over them in the coming weeks and will provide any additional comments by the end of September. We are available to meet in person if you find it more convenient. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft By-law and welcome the opportunity to review the next version. Sincerely, Dana Kieffer Planner David Smith Senior Planner c.c. Bruce Stickney, Manager Planning, County of Bruce
Appendix A In the zone: Housing, human rights and municipal planning Ontario Human Rights Commission http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/in%20the%20zone_housing_human%20rights%2 0and%20municipal%20planning_0.pdf A 2010 OMB decision [Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario v. Kitchener (City) (2010), O.M.B.D. Case No. PL050611] identified that when bylaws result in restrictions for groups protected by the Code, a municipality may need to show that they are rationally connected to municipal objectives, they were established in good faith, and that it would be impossible to accommodate the group affected without undue hardship. The proposed bylaw was designed to limit certain housing forms in an area the City felt was overconcentrated with single-person, low-income households, residential care facilities and social/supportive housing. The OMB ruled that while decentralization might be a valid planning tool, it must be balanced based on Human Rights Code obligations The OMB ordered the City to revisit the bylaw, and the City ultimately repealed it due to changing planning circumstances. The issues outlined in this decision can also be applied to other similar housing situations. For example, if a municipality enacted bylaws that limited or restricted where young people or students were allowed to live, it could face challenges before the OMB and also complaints (called applications) to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. In 2002, an Ontario court ruled that a bylaw in an Ontario municipality that restricted the number and location of foster and group homes with four or more foster children was illegal because it distinguished between related and non-related persons and thus contravened the Planning Act (Children s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. Brampton (City), [2002] O.J. No. 4502 (S.C.J), aff d [2003] O.J. No. 2004 (C.A.)). The courts have stated that zoning powers do not include the power to zone by referring to the user of the land or to define the use by referring to a personal characteristic. For example, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that a zoning bylaw breached s.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it restricted the location of group homes for older persons, people with disabilities, persons recovering from addictions and discharged penal inmates to a limited number of zones, and required minimum separation distances (Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v. Winnipeg (City), [1990] M.J. No 212 (C.A.): the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal). In 2010, the City of Sarnia changed its bylaws to ensure that people with disabilities do not face additional barriers in finding supportive housing. A group of psychiatric survivors had filed a human rights complaint against the city, alleging that its zoning bylaws violated the human rights of people with disabilities living in group homes. The city changed the bylaw so that: distancing requirements for all group homes were removed the requirement that group homes with more than five residents be located on an arterial or collector road was removed group homes are now included in all zones allowing residential use residential care facilities are a permitted use in any residential zone.
Nick Bogaert Subject: FW: Zoning By-Law Comment - From: Carl Seider [mailto:c.seider@waterprotection.ca] Sent: September-19-17 2:57 PM To: Pierre Chauvin Subject: RE: Zoning By-Law Comment - Hi Pierre, Thank you for addressing our comments and for providing additional details on septic systems and waste disposal site threats. Regards, Carl Seider, Project Manager Drinking Water Source Protection 237897 Inglis Falls Road, RR 4 Owen Sound, Ontario, N4K 5N6 Phone: 519-470-3000 Ext. 102 Toll Free: 877-470-3001 Fax: 519-470-3005 c.seider@waterprotection.ca www.waterprotection.ca From: Pierre Chauvin [mailto:pchauvin@mhbcplan.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:39 PM To: Carl Seider <c.seider@waterprotection.ca> Cc: swatson@huronkinloss.com; BLabute@brucecounty.on.ca; RMO Mailbox <rmo@greysauble.on.ca>; Candace Hamm <c.hamm@svca.on.ca>; Donna Clarkson <dclarkson@abca.on.ca>; Meghan Lippert <mlippert@mhbcplan.com>; Matt Farrell <mfarrell@huronkinloss.com> Subject: RE: Zoning By Law Comment Good Afternoon Carl, Thank you for your interest in the draft new Township of Huron Kinloss Zoning By law and for your comments on the Source Water Protection regulations of the draft By law. Meghan and I reviewed your comments and have attached proposed redline revisions that will address the comments provided. The following is a review of the proposed revisions illustrated in the attached: The wording except a solely residential land use will be removed from the regulation. We have also reorganized the list of drinking water threat activities to follow the numbering of prescribed activities. Regulation 4.31.2 b) has been added to address the Restricted Land Use Policy Residential (G 02) of the Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula Source Protection Plan. The list included in 4.31.2 b) excludes the drinking water threats listed in Policy G 02, thereby implementing the Residential Restricted Land Use Policy of the Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula SPP. Regarding the sewer connection by law, we note that Policy 02 01 is a Specify Action policy that is not required to be implemented through the Zoning By law. The Township will be required to enact the By law 1
under the policies of the Source Protection Plan and the Clean Water Act. However, note that the septic system regulations (4.31.3) have been revised to more appropriately implement the source water protection policies of the Township Official Plan. I trust the above addresses your comments on the proposed new Township Zoning By law. Please feel free to call with any questions. PIERRE CHAUVIN, MA, MCIP, RPP Partner MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 701 F 519 576 0121 pchauvin@mhbcplan.com Follow us: Webpage Linkedin Facebook Twitter Vimeo From: Carl Seider [mailto:c.seider@waterprotection.ca] Sent: September-12-17 10:01 AM To: Pierre Chauvin; Mitchell Avis Cc: swatson@huronkinloss.com; BLabute@brucecounty.on.ca; RMO Mailbox; Candace Hamm; Donna Clarkson Subject: Zoning By-Law Comment - With respect to the proposed Zoning By Law review for the Township of Huron Kinloss, I have a couple comments regarding Section 4.31 Sourcewater Protection. Under Section 4.31.2 Use Prohibitions and Regulations within Vulnerable Areas; please consider removing the following wording except a solely residential land use. Under policy G 02 Restricted Land Use Residential within the Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsual Source Protection Plan, the following activities are designated as restricted land uses for the purposes of Section 59 screening (by the Risk Management Official): 1. The handling and storage of fuel; 2. The handling and storage of a dense non aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL); 3. The handling and storage of an organic solvent 4. An activity that takes water from an aquifer or surface water body without returning the water taken to the same aquifer or surface water body; 5. An activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer. Also, please consider included a section to address Policy 02 01 Sewer Connection By law, if applicable; Municipalities with a sewer line in a vulnerable area or within 100 metres of a vulnerable area shall enact a sewer connection by law. The by law shall: 1. apply to all properties in vulnerable areas where: 2
a) the establishment, operation or maintenance of a septic system is a significant drinking water threat; and b) a municipal sewer line is located on a right of way that abuts a property; and c) the linear distance between the sewer line and the point from which plumbing exits a structure on the property is less than 100 metres; and d) sufficient capacity exists in the municipal sewage system to handle the effluent from the property; 2. require connection to the municipal sewer line; 3. require decommissioning of the on site sewage system at the time of connection to the municipal sewer line; 4. establish a deadline not later than five years after the effective date of the Source Protection Plan for the connection to be completed. At the discretion of the municipality, the by law may also contain an exemption for properties where the estimated cost of the sewer connection exceeds three times the estimated cost of an advanced septic system that is sized appropriately for the calculated daily design flow. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions on these, please contact me to discuss further. Regards, Carl Seider, Project Manager Drinking Water Source Protection 237897 Inglis Falls Road, RR 4 Owen Sound, Ontario, N4K 5N6 Phone: 519-470-3000 Ext. 102 Toll Free: 877-470-3001 Fax: 519-470-3005 c.seider@waterprotection.ca www.waterprotection.ca 3
SENT ELECTRONICALLY ONLY (swatson@huronkinloss.com) October 2, 2017 Township of Huron-Kinloss P.O. Box 130 21 Queen Street Ripley, ON N0G 2R0 1078 Bruce Road 12, P.O. Box 150, Formosa ON Canada N0G 1W0 Tel 519-367-3040, Fax 519-367-3041, publicinfo@svca.on.ca, www.svca.on.ca ATTENTION: Sonya Watson, Clerk Dear Ms. Watson, RE: Township of Huron-Kinloss DRAFT Zoning By-law Review Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Township of Huron-Kinloss Zoning By-law. Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) staff has reviewed the text of the Draft By-law, dated August 14, 2017, in accordance with the SVCA s Environmental Planning and Regulations Policies Manual, Approved May 16, 2017, and the Memorandum of Agreement between the Authority and the County of Bruce relating to Plan Review. As you are aware, the southern portion of the Township is within the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) watershed. Comments from the MVCA should also be sought regarding the Draft By-law. In addition, SVCA Environmental Planning and Regulations staff will not be providing comments on text or mapping that appears in the Draft By-law relating to Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP). The following SVCA staff comments and recommendations are offered. Draft Zoning By-law Text 1. Section 2.13 indicates that the regulated areas of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority is attached as Appendix D to the By-law. SVCA staff were not able to locate any Appendices to the Bylaw on the Township of Huron-Kinloss website. If the SVCA Approximate Regulated Areas and Approximate Regulation Screening Areas are to be included as an Appendix in the By-law, SVCA staff can provide that information to the Township, and we would ask for the opportunity to review a Draft of such an Appendix. 2. Section 2.14 Dynamic Beach (db) Allowance (30m) In addition to a minimum setback from the 100 year floodline, new buildings and structures in the reduced dynamic beach (db) area would also be subject to minimum building elevations. SVCA staff suggest a reference to the Huron-Kinloss Dynamic Watershed Member Municipalities Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, Municipality of Brockton, Township of Chatsworth, Municipality of Grey Highlands, Town of Hanover, Township of Howick, Municipality of Morris-Turnberry, Municipality of South Bruce, Township of Huron-Kinloss, Municipality of Kincardine, Town of Minto, Township of Wellington North, Town of Saugeen Shores, Township of Southgate, Municipality of West Grey