long point region conservation authority › userfiles › files › 2016 agendas › lprca...

Long Point Region Conservation Authority

4 Elm St., Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 0C4 519-842-4242 or 1-888-231-5408 ˖ Fax 519-842-7123 Email: [email protected] ˖ www.lprca.on.ca

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24th, 2016 @ 6:30PM TILLSONBURG ADMINISTRATION OFFICE

AGENDA

1. Welcome

2. Additional Agenda Items

3. Disclosures of Interest

4. Deputations: none

5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting:

a) Board of Directors’ Regular Meeting

– August 3rd, 2016 Pg 1-8

6. Business Arising: none

7. Review of Committee Minutes: none

8. Correspondence: none

9. Development Applications: (L. Minshall)

a) Hearing: 72/16 (Vajda) Pg 9-18 b) Hearing: 135/16 (Weiler) Pg 19-39 c) Hearing: 105/16 (Mawhiney) Pg 40-46 d) Staff-approved applications Pg 47-50 e) New Applications Pg 51-53

10. New Business: none

PLEASE CALL 519-842-4242 OR 1-888-231-5408 IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND

FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus,

Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Noel Haydt, David Hayes, John Scholten, Tom Southwick

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS – MINUTES August 3, 2016

Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Roger Geysens, Noel Haydt, David Hayes, Tom Southwick and John Scholten Staff in attendance: C. Evanitski, J. Robertson, J. Maxwell, D. Holmes and L. Minshall Regrets: Leroy Bartlett and Craig Grice The LPRCA Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm Wednesday, August 3, 2016 in the Tillsonburg Administration Office Boardroom. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS

MOTION A-99/16 moved: D. Beres seconded: N. Haydt THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors add “Mary Weber re: Norfolk County By-Law Decision” under “Delegation” as item 4 to the August 3rd, 2016 agenda, as well as, a “Legal Matter” under In-Camera as item 11 (b).

CARRIED The GM reviewed the rules and timelines regarding deputation requests. To be reviewed further. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST N. Haydt declared a conflict relating to the deputation and the Delegated Responsibility of Municipal Plan Review, item 10 (h) and removed himself from the table during discussions. DELEGATIONS a) Mary Weber: Re: Norfolk County Zoning By-Law Ms. Weber is a property owner on Hastings Drive in Long Point and has been lobbying Norfolk County to re-zone Hastings Drive from hazard land to hazard land-LP to allow development. She feels that LPRCA is the stumbling block and that there is no threat to life and property that can’t be mitigated by technology. She also stated that Hastings Drive residents are being unfairly treated compared to the rest of Long Point. Ms. Weber appealed to the Board to not appeal the proposed zoning by-law amendment for Hastings Drive. Ms. Weber fielded questions including one regarding her statement re: “LPRCA wants that tract of land” and she responded that it was not a verified statement, but the feeling of the cottage owners.

1



MOTION A-100/16 moved: D. Beres seconded: R. Geysens THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives that delegation by Mary Weber re: Norfolk county Zoning By-Law as information.

CARRIED MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS MOTION A-101/16 moved: D. Beres seconded: T. Southwick THAT the minutes of the LPRCA Board of Directors Regular Meeting held June 1st, 2016 and the Mid-Month Development Application Approval of July 18th, 2016 be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING None REVIEW OF COMMITTEE MINUTES No questions or comments. MOTION A-102/16 moved: T. Southwick seconded: D. Beres THAT the minutes from the Backus Museum Committee meeting of April 12th, 2016 and the Audit and Finance Committee meeting of May 9th, 2016 be received as information.

CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE MOTION A-103/16 moved: T. Southwick seconded: D. Beres THAT the correspondence outlined in the Board of Directors’ Agenda of August 3rd, 2016 be received as information.

CARRIED

2



DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

a) Staff Approved applications Planning staff approved 29 applications over the past month. Staff responded to questions.

MOTION A-104/16 moved: T. Southwick seconded: D. Beres That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation Applications report dated August 3rd, 2016 as information.

CARRIED

b) New Applications

The Planning Department recommended the approval of four applications.

MOTION A-105/16 moved: D. Brunton seconded: J. Scholten THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following Development Applications contained within the background section of the report:

A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with

Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06),

LPRCA-112/16 LPRCA-127/16 LPRCA-128/16 LPRCA-131/16

B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval

process for this Development Application, as far as it relates to LPRCA’s mandate and related Regulations.

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS a) CALENDAR REVIEW The Watershed Tour is scheduled for August 26th by invitation only. This year’s tour will highlight the five revenue producing parks. The Leighton and Betty Brown Scholarship Presentation has been changed for this year. The Scholarship will be presented next Wednesday evening at the Lee Brown Marsh Manager’s residence and only the winner and the winner’s family along with the Lee Brown Marsh Management Committee will be in attendance.

3



There is no Board meeting scheduled for September. MOTION A-106/16 moved: D. Brunton seconded: J. Scholten THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Calendar of Events Report for August and September as information.

CARRIED b) GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT The GM highlighted his meeting with the Environmental Commissioner prior to the Carolinian Canada Coalitions Annual General Meeting and his meeting with a consultant who is developing erosion protection techniques. The techniques are interesting but not yet available. The GM explained that the role of the Joint Advisory Committee for Source Protection is to lobby the government to help secure funding for municipal partners to advance Source Protection protocols. MOTION A-107/16 moved: D. Hayes seconded: N. Haydt THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for June and July 2016 as information.

CARRIED c) CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT REVIEW UPDATE The GM spoke to the document that is to be submitted to the Province by Conservation Ontario. The document includes comments from the various conservation authorities, municipalities and other stakeholder groups. MOTION A-108/16 moved: R. Geysens seconded: D. Hayes That the Board of Directors receives the Conservation Authorities Act Review Update as information; AND THAT LPRCA send its own letter of support of Conservation Ontario’s submission to the Province.

CARRIED d) CANADA 150 APPLICATIONS LPRCA submitted six applications to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program to help improve infrastructure at Backus Heritage Conservation Area and Waterford North Conservation Area. The applications were ranked internally based on eligibility and need. Funding has not yet been announced for this round of funding.

4



MOTION A-109/16 moved: D. Hayes seconded: R. Geysens THAT the Long Point Region Conservation Board receives the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Application Report as information.

CARRIED e) 2nd Quarter Financial Update There is currently a shortfall in the budget due to two tenants departing unexpectedly part way through the year. The tenant at Backus has left and the Ministry of Finance has left the administration office. A small space in the basement of the administration building is still being rented and the office space upstairs is currently listed for rent. The campground expenses are tracking well. Planning has reviewed 50% more applications to date over last year and have taken more time to review due to the complexity of the projects. Turnaround time for applications has been averaging 10 days to two weeks with approximately 30% of the applications being completed in less than a week. MOTION A-110/16 moved: D. Hayes seconded: Roger Geysens THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the 2nd Quarter Financial Report as at June 30th, 2016 as information.

CARRIED f) 2016 PARKS CAPITAL UPDATE Staff reviewed the various capital projects budgeted for 2016. The Haldimand CA hydro upgrade, the Backus Heritage CA water system upgrade in campground E and the updated park entrance signage projects are complete. The Backus Heritage CA water system upgrade in campground C is complete except for two isolation chambers to be installed at the end of the camping season. The Norfolk water intake upgrade is 75% complete to be finished in August and the last two projects, hydro upgrades at Backus and Waterford North, will be completed at the end of the camping season. The Waterford North gatehouse project is not proceeding at this time and may be discussed during the 2017 budget. MOTION A-111/16 moved: D. Hayes seconded: R. Geysens THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the staff report on the 2016 update re: Projects in Conservation Areas as information.

CARRIED

5



g) A.D. LATORNELL CONFERENCE R. Chambers and D. Beres would like to attend if there is availability but both suggested that those who have not yet attended be considered first. MOTION A-112/16 moved: R. Geysens seconded: D. Hayes THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the attendance of the General Manager, Mike Columbus and two others for the 23rd Annual A.D. Latornell Conference.

CARRIED h) INVESTMENT POLICY UPDATE The updated draft investment policy was reviewed by the Audit and Finance Committee in June 2016. The Committee recommended including Principal Protected Notes (PPN) in the Investment Policy and investing $2 million into CIBC PPNs. Staff reviewed the investment projection over the life of the PPN (7 years). MOTION A-113/16 moved: D. Hayes seconded: R. Geysens THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the revised Investment Policy; AND confirms investment of $1,000,000 from each of the two Backus Woods endowment funds into Principal Protected Notes as per the recommendation from the LPRCA Audit and Finance Committee meeting of June 13th, 2016.

CARRIED i) DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MUNICIPAL PLAN REVIEW Staff reviewed the history of the Ontario Planning and Development Process. In 1995, the province delegated the responsibility for comments on development proposals related to natural hazards to the conservation authorities across the province. The conservation authorities are mandated to comment on municipal planning documents and applications from the province’s perspective with regard to Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Comments are first to be provided to the municipality regarding planning matters. If the municipality decision is not consistent with the PPS, LPRCA is obliged to notify the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) of the inconsistency. In regards to the decision made by Norfolk County Council regarding allowing trailers on Hastings Drive in Long Point, LPRCA fulfilled its obligation to the province by sending a letter to MMAH of the inconsistency with the PPS along with the comments provided to Norfolk County in June 2016. LPRCA did not file an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. If MMAH appeals Norfolk County Council’s decision, LPRCA staff will be required to provide information or attend the hearing.

6



MOTION A-114/16 moved: D. Brunton seconded: J. Scholten THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the report regarding Delegated Responsibility of Municipal Plan Review as Information.

CARRIED j) EXPRESSION OF INTEREST – TILLSONBURG TOWN HALL The Town of Tillsonburg recently advertised that they are researching new administrative facilities. Staff submitted an Expression of Interest and will continue to explore potential partnership opportunities. MOTION A-115/16 moved: J. Scholten seconded: D. Brunton THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s report regarding the Town of Tillsonburg’s Request for Expressions of Interest in a new town hall; AND THAT the GM be authorized to explore any potential partnership opportunities for the Board’s consideration.

CARRIED D. Beres read an anonymous letter regarding the landscaping at the administration office, specifically the prairie grass which the public assumes is weeds. The prairie grass was planted in partnership with funding received from the RBC Blue Water Program. Staff was directed to prepare communication materials explaining the project. MOTION A-116/16 moved: J. Scholten seconded: N. Haydt That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into an “In Camera” session to discuss: personal matters about an identifiable individual, including Conservation

Authority employees; a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the Conservation

Authority; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications

necessary for that purpose

CARRIED

7



MOTION A-117/16 moved: R. Geysens seconded: R. Chambers That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now adjourn from the “In Camera” session.

CARRIED

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00pm.

_____________________________ ________________________________ Michael Columbus Judy Maxwell Chair Manager, Corporate Services

8

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT

Date: August 24, 2016 File: 3.3.1

To: Chair and Members, LPRCA Board of Directors

From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: Long Point Region Conservation Authority Application 72/16 (Zoltan Vajda) Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 178/06, Proposed Construction of an Addition at Charlotteville Plan 546 Lot 2, 26 Macauley Avenue, Turkey Point

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors refuse to grant a “Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” Permit for Permit Application No. 72/16 (Zoltan Vajda) for the following reasons:

1. The renovation and construction of a major addition to a dwelling in the Lake Erieshoreline flood hazard is contrary to Long Point Region Conservation Authority shoreline policies for redevelopment in the Lake Erie flood hazard area. These policies have been implemented to reduce or eliminate preventable risk to life and property damage from flooding.

2. The control of flooding is affected by development that substantially increases theinvestment in a flood hazard area that does not have safe access/egress for evacuation or emergency assistance.

3. The proposal is not unique; therefore the granting of an exemption to policy could beseen as setting precedent. Similar applications may have to be permitted as a consequence.

BACKGROUND

The subject land is located at 26 Macauley Avenue in Turkey Point (Figure 1). The subject land contains a single-story, detached seasonal dwelling and boat house (Figure 2), and is generally surrounded by other seasonal dwellings, with a boat channel access to the lake at the rear. In this location, the property and associated development is subject to flood-related hazards from Lake Erie and is fully regulated under Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s Ontario Regulation 178/06 (Figure 3).

In May 2006, O. Reg. 178/06, Long Point Region Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, came into effect. Through this regulation, LPRCA may permit, restrict or refuse development and activities in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands.

9

More specifically, as it relates to this application, O. Reg. 178/06 states that:

2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another personto undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,

a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or toinland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, including thearea from the furthest offshore extent of the Authority’s boundary to the furthestlandward extent of the aggregate of the following distances:

(i) the 100 year flood level as shown in the most recent document entitled “Great Lakes System Flood Levels and Water Related Hazards” available at the head office of the Authority, plus the appropriate allowance for wave uprush,

(iv) an allowance of 15 metres inland;

3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described insubsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.

The lakeshore resort community of Turkey Point is subject to frequent flooding from Lake Erie. Widespread flooding has been document in at least 1954, 1955, 1975 and 1985.

As they relate to this application, LPRCA’s objectives in administrating the Regulation are to: Prevent loss of life Minimize property damage and social disruption Reduce public and private expenditure for emergency operations, evacuation, restoration

and protection measures Minimize the hazardous and unnecessary development of flood and erosion susceptible

shoreline areas which in future years may require expensive protection measures.

The Application

On May 2, 2016, LPRCA staff received a permit application under O. Reg. 178/06 to construct an addition to the existing cottage. The application was submitted with a site plan and floor plan, attached as Figures 4 and 5. The application includes the proposed addition of a garage, renovation of the existing cottage, a 26.9m2 extension to the rear of the existing cottage and a 90.3m2 partial second floor.

The applicant proposes to floodproof the cottage by raising the top of the existing foundation to the 100-year flood elevation. It is not known whether the existing foundation is competent to withstand or provide relief for the hydrostatic pressure associated with flooding in Turkey Point. LPRCA staff has encouraged the applicant to obtain engineering advice on foundation/crawl space improvements that will improve the structural stability and reduce potential damages in the event of a flood.

The ground floor area of the existing one-story cottage is 125.0 m2. The area of the proposed ground floor addition plus the second story addition totals 116.2 m2 which represents a 93% addition to the existing habitable space. Because of the 93% addition along with the significant

10

renovation of the cottage, the proposed work is considered to be redevelopment.

Applicable Policy

The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System and Large Inland Lakes Technical Guides for Flooding, Erosion and Dynamic Beaches (MNRF Technical Guide), issued by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 2001, currently stands as the LPRCA’s guide for decision-making related to its Lake Erie shoreline jurisdiction.

Consistent with the MNRF Technical Guide and in recognition of the existing development in the Turkey Point community, LPRCA supports modest investment in the repair and maintenance of existing cottages. Minor development of existing flood-prone dwellings for maintenance and repair purposes is considered to mean repairs, renovations , and minor additions totaling no more than 50% of the habitable floor area. Additions totaling more than 46.5 m2 or 50% of the habitable floor area are considered to be redevelopment, requiring dry, passive floodproofing and safe access/egress in an effort to reduce the risk to life and property in the flood prone resort communities over the long term. Because of the 93% addition along with the significant renovation of the cottage, the proposed work is considered to be redevelopment and requires dry, passive floodproofing and safeaccess/egress.

Flooding and Floodproofing

LPRCA also relies on the Long Point Region Shoreline Management Plan (Philpott, 1989) to guide decisions on development in its lakeshore jurisdiction. For existing or new dwellings located within the Turkey Point Beach reach, the Shoreline Management Plan recommends development “be raised above the flood and/or wave uprush level” and “supported on piled foundation or perimeter bearing walls capable of withstanding hydrostatic pressure”. The Shoreline Management Plan recommends that the lowest structural component of the bottom floor of any new or modified structures in Turkey Point should be located above a flood elevation of 176.5 m GSC. LPRCA has been consistent since 2006 in requiring that the top of foundation be at or above 176.5 m GSC for residential redevelopment, major additions and replacements, thereby reducing the risk to life and property. In more recent years, LPRCA has also required that the foundation be designed by a professional engineer to withstand hydrostatic pressures and hydraulic lift, as recommended by the 1989 Shoreline Management Plan, thereby further reducing flood damage potential.

The following relevant elevation data was determined from a survey conducted by LPRCA staff at 26 McCauley Avenue on May 25/26, 2016:

Elevation 100-year Depth of Flooding 100-year design flood level 176.50 m GSC 25-year design flood level 176.30 m GSC

Top of foundation elevation 176.5 m GSC Centre line McCauley Avenue 175.35 m GSC 1.15 m 3.8 ft Access to safety – max. depth 175.20 m GSC 1.30 m 4.3 ft

Safe Access/Egress

During times of flooding, the path for pedestrian or vehicular access/egress for either evacuation or emergency assistance is flooded to a depth of 1.1-1.3 metres for a distance of 1.8 km. This depth of

11

flooding on the access is unsafe, putting both residents’ and emergency responders’ lives at risk.

Permits for redevelopment have been issued in Turkey Point in the belief that safe access/egress is available to support evacuation and emergency assistance in the event of a flood. However, flood depths in much of the Turkey Point community are unsafe, being significantly greater than the 0.8 metres depth that is considered the upper limit for safe access in calm, still water conditions. No permits for redevelopment of this nature have been issued by LPRCA since it became apparent that safe access/egress is not available.

Staff Recommendation

The proposed development does not conform to the LPRCA’s policies for redevelopment in the floodplain in Turkey Point and is contrary to LPRCA’s objectives for the administration of O.Reg. 178/06. In LPRCA staff’s opinion, the control of flooding will be affected by the proposed development and, therefore, staff recommend that the application be refused.

Prepared by: Approved and submitted by:

Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng. Cliff Evanitski Interim Manager Watershed Services General Manager

12

WALT

ER ST

ELM

LANE

TURKEY PT RD

WALLACE ST

BRISTOL ST

TURKEYPT RD

RALPH ST

TYLE

R LA

NE

LANDON ST

JENNYWRENLANE

CLUB

HOUS

E RD

LOCHMOOR AVE

WALMSLEYST

ARNOLD ST

PK LA

NECR

ES

RESERVE ST

RIDGE

WOOD

DR

QUAKER ST

MACA

ULAY

AVE

ORDN

ANCE

AVE

CEDA

R DR

FRON

T RD


NOTE:LPRCA Disclaimer Statement:Users of the LPRCA's maps and data are cautioned to consider the provisional nature of the information before using it fordecisions that concern personal or public safety or the conduct of business. LPRCA assumes no responsibility for thecorrectness of the information contained in this map nor liability to any user of such information, regardless of the purpose.

0 780 1,560390

Meters

Figure 1Lot 2, 26 Maccauley Ave.

Turkey Point, Norfolk County

LegendRoads

Property Lines

26 Macauley Ave.

±

26 Macauley Ave.

26 Macauley Ave.

13

MACA

ULAY

AVE



0 20 4010

Meters

Figure 2Lot 2, 26 Maccauley Ave.


LegendRoads

Property Lines

26 Macauley Ave.

±

26 Macauley Ave.

14

WALT

ER ST

ELM

LANE

TURKEY PT RD

WALLACE ST

BRISTOL ST

TURKEYPT RD

RALPH ST

TYLE

R LA

NE

LANDON ST

JENNYWRENLANE

CLUB

HOUS

E RD

LOCHMOOR AVE

WALMSLEYST

ARNOLD ST

PK LA

NECR

ES

RESERVE ST

RIDGE

WOOD

DR

QUAKER ST

MACA

ULAY

AVE

ORDN

ANCE

AVE

CEDA

R DR

FRON

T RD



0 780 1,560390

Meters

Figure 3 - Ont. Regulation LimitLot 2, 26 Maccauley Ave.


LegendLake Erie Flood Extent

O. Regulation Limit 178/06

Roads

Property Lines

26 Macauley Ave.

±

26 Macauley Ave.

26 Macauley Ave.

15





Re: Long Point Region Conservation Authority Application 135/16 (Tim & Marie Weiler) Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 178/06, Proposed Construction of an Addition at Charlotteville Plan 190 Lot 188, 189, 2 Pellum Street, Turkey Point

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors refuses to grant a “Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” Permit for Permit Application No. 135/16 (Tim & Marie Weiler) for the following reasons:

1. The construction of a new dwelling in the Lake Erie shoreline flood hazard is contrary toLong Point Region Conservation Authority shoreline policies for redevelopment in the Lake Erie flood hazard area. These policies have been implemented to reduce or eliminate preventable risk to life and property damage from flooding.

2. The control of flooding is affected by development that substantially increases theinvestment in a flood hazard area that does not have safe access/egress for evacuation or emergency assistance.

3. The proposal is not unique; therefore the granting of an exemption to policy could beseen as setting precedent. Similar applications may have to be permitted as a consequence.

BACKGROUND

The subject land is located at 2 Pellum Street in Turkey Point (Figure 1). The subject land contains a single-story, detached seasonal dwelling (Figure 2), and is generally surrounded by other seasonal dwellings. In this location, the property and associated development is subject to flood-related hazards from Lake Erie and is fully regulated under Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s Ontario Regulation 178/06 (Figure 3).

In May 2006, O. Reg. 178/06, Long Point Region Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, came into effect. Through this regulation, LPRCA may permit, restrict or refuse development and activities in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands.


19

2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another personto undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,

a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or toinland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, including thearea from the furthest offshore extent of the Authority’s boundary to the furthestlandward extent of the aggregate of the following distances:

(i) the 100 year flood level as shown in the most recent document entitled “Great Lakes System Flood Levels and Water Related Hazards” available at the head office of the Authority, plus the appropriate allowance for wave uprush,


3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described insubsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.

The lakeshore resort community of Turkey Point is subject to frequent flooding from Lake Erie. Widespread flooding has been documented in at least 1954, 1955, 1975 and 1985.

As they relate to this application, LPRCA’s objectives in administrating the Regulation are to: Prevent loss of life Minimize property damage and social disruption Reduce public and private expenditure for emergency operations, evacuation, restoration

and protection measures Minimize the hazardous and unnecessary development of flood and erosion susceptible

shoreline areas which in future years may require expensive protection measures.

The Application

On July 18, 2016, LPRCA staff received a permit application under O. Reg. 178/06 to redevelop an existing cottage. The application was submitted with a site plan and floor plan, attached as Figures 4 and 5. The application includes the proposed addition of a shed, a covered deck, an open deck and the construction of a 178.4m2 two-storey single-family dwelling.

The ground floor area of the existing one-story cottage is 77.1 m2. The area of the proposed ground floor addition plus the second story addition totals 101.3 m2 which represents a 131% addition to the existing habitable space. Because of the 131% addition, the proposed work is considered to be redevelopment.

Applicable Policy

The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System and Large Inland Lakes Technical Guides for Flooding, Erosion and Dynamic Beaches (MNRF Technical Guide), issued by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 2001, currently stands as the LPRCA’s guide for decision-making related to its Lake Erie shoreline jurisdiction.

Consistent with the MNRF Technical Guide and in recognition of the existing development in the

20

Turkey Point community, LPRCA supports modest investment in the repair and maintenance of existing cottages. Minor development of existing flood-prone dwellings for maintenance and repair purposes is considered to mean repairs, renovations, and minor additions totaling no more than 50% of the habitable floor area. Additions totaling more than 46.5 m2 or 50% of the habitable floor area are considered to be redevelopment, requiring dry, passive floodproofing and safe access/egress in an effort to reduce the risk to life and property in the flood prone resort communities over the long term. Because of the 131% addition, the proposed work is considered to be redevelopment and requires safe access/egress.

Safe Access/Egress The following relevant elevation data was determined from a survey conducted by LPRCA staff at 2 Pellum on July 21, 2016:

Elevation 100-year Depth of Flooding 100-year design flood level 176.50 m GSC 25-year design flood level 176.30 m GSC

Site grade 175.5 m GSC 1.0 m 3.3 ft Intersection of Pellum Street 175.35 m GSC 1.15 m 3.8 ft & Cedar Drive Access to safety – max. depth 175.20 m GSC 1.30 m 4.3 ft

During times of flooding, the path for pedestrian or vehicular access/egress for either evacuation or emergency assistance is flooded to depths reaching 1.3 metres for a distance of 700m. These flood depths are significantly greater than the 0.8 metres depth that is considered the upper limit for safe access in calm, still water conditions. This depth of flooding on the access is unsafe, putting both residents’ and emergency responders’ lives at risk.

Permits for redevelopment have been issued in Turkey Point in the belief that safe access/egress is available to support evacuation and emergency assistance in the event of a flood. However, flood depths in much of the Turkey Point community are unsafe. No permits for redevelopment of this nature have been issued by LPRCA since it became apparent that safe access/egress is not available.

Staff Recommendation

The proposed development does not conform to the LPRCA’s policies for redevelopment in the floodplain in Turkey Point and is contrary to LPRCA’s objectives for the administration of O.Reg. 178/06. In LPRCA staff’s opinion, the control of flooding will be affected by the proposed development and, therefore, staff recommend that the application be refused.


Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng. Cliff Evanitski Interim Manager, Watershed General Manager, LPRCA Services, LPRCA

3 21

ELM

LANE

TURKEY PT RD

TYLERST

CEDA

R DR

TURKEY PT RD

PELLUM ST

CLUB

HOUS

E RD

RALPHST

TYLE

RLA

NE

LANDONST

JENNYWRENLANE

PARKWOOD AVE

MEADOWBROOKAVE

CRESTWOOD AVE

FERRIS ST

LOCHMOOR AVE

WALMSLEY ST

ARNOLD ST

PK LA

NECR

ES

RIDGE

WOOD

DR

ORDNANCE AVE

FRON

T RD



0 520 1,040260

Meters

Figure 1Lot Lot 188, 189, 2 Pellum St.Turkey Point, Norfolk County

LegendRoads

Property Lines

2 Pellum St.

±

2 Pellum St.

2 Pellum St.

22

CEDA

R DR

ORDNANCE AVE

PELLUM ST



0 20 4010

Meters

Figure 2Lot Lot 188, 189, 2 Pellum St.Turkey Point, Norfolk County

LegendRoads

Property Lines

2 Pellum St.

±

2 Pellum St.

23

ELM

LANE

TURKEY PT RD

TYLERST

CEDA

R DR

TURKEY PT RD

PELLUM ST

CLUB

HOUS

E RD

RALPHST

TYLE

RLA

NE

LANDONST

JENNYWRENLANE

PARKWOOD AVE

MEADOWBROOKAVE

CRESTWOOD AVE

FERRIS ST

LOCHMOOR AVE

WALMSLEY ST

ARNOLD ST

PK LA

NECR

ES

RIDGE

WOOD

DR

ORDNANCE AVE

FRON

T RD



0 520 1,040260

Meters

Figure 3 - Ont. Regulation LimitLot Lot 188, 189, 2 Pellum St.Turkey Point, Norfolk County

LegendLake Erie Flood Extent


Roads

Property Lines

2 Pellum St.

±

2 Pellum St.

2 Pellum St.

24

Date: August 11, 2016 File: 33-10-493-100-40800


From: Tim and Marie Weiler

Re: LPRCA Application 135/16 Pursuant to O. Reg. 178/06

We have received notification from Mr. Cliff Evanitski, GM., that he request the

LPRCA Board of Directors to refuse to grant a permit to rebuild a cottage at 2

Pellum, Turkey Point. We respect wholeheartedly the intent of Reg. 178/06 but

in certain situations approval should be granted. Reasons for this are addressed

below.

1. The existing cottage at 2 Pellum, Turkey Point, would be severely damaged

during a widespread flood similar to the flooding that occurred in at least 1954,

1955, 1975 and 1985. The main floor is located below the 100 year flood level.

The LPRCA policy is "to reduce or eliminate preventable risk to life and property

damage from flooding".

By leaving the cottage as is and refusing this application, LPRCA is not in our view

reducing or eliminating preventable property damage or loss to life at 2 Pellum.

Yes LPRCA would support a modest investment on our part to raise the cottage

and construct a foundation to meet LPRCA guidelines. This procedure does not

make sense economically. Various structural components such as floor joists,

plate and the bottom of studs are rotting. It is comparable to the idiom "throwing

good money after bad."

What exactly was the height of the widespread flood that occurred in TP in 1954,

1955, 1975 and 1985? Was the water level at the 3.8' height at 2 Pellum Drive?

In 62 years there has been 4 floods. Yes we realize it only takes one severe flood

to cause damage on a wide scale basis. We would like to think the advantages of

a rebuild outweigh those risks.

27

Attached is a copy of a stamped crawlspace proposing a dry passive floodproof of

the development described in application. This crawlspace is at a height above

the 100 year flood level. The crawlspace design was not part of our original

application. The proposed structure would therefore "reduce or eliminate

preventable risk to life and property from flooding" at 2 Pellum. In essence it

would be safer in the rebuild.

LPRCA requires that it must be demonstrated "Electrical , mechanical and heating

services are located above the level of the Shoreline Flooding Hazard." Heating

and electrical services will not be located in the crawlspace.

Attached is a revised diagram of the crawlspace.

2. The proposal is for the construction of a seasonal cottage, not permanent.

Therefore during a widespread flood, emergency operations/evacuation would be

minimized for the seasonal residents at 2 Pellum. If a severe storm/flooding were

to be forecast, said residents would in all likelihood be at their home community.

One of LPRCA's objectives is to "reduce public and private expenditure for

emergency operations, evacuation..."

Presently there is an application for a minor variance, file #ANPL2016182. In the

report from the Planning Department it is stated, "Norfolk County EMS can

foresee no issues with this application at this time." Does this imply evacuation or

emergency assistance will not be affected?

3. "The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas

described in subsection 2(1), if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion,

dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the

development."

This development is not changing the existing landscape but in actuality

improving the lot. The control of flooding to the new structure is greatly

improved with the dry passive floodproof. Erosion and dynamic beaches are not

being affected. Pollution will be lessened as a septic system will be installed

under the guidelines of Norfolk County and the present holding tank removed.

32

4. The construction of a rebuild would provide economic benefits to the

community. Construction supplies would be bought in the county and trade

people would be employed. There will be increased tax dollars for the county.

5. We understand that any rebuilds must meet these 2 requirements:

a) The new building or structure is the same size as the original habitable floor area of the former building or structure and the use is the same, b) Addition to the gross floor area to a maximum of 50 percent of the original habitable floor up to 46.5m2 (500ft2), whichever is the lesser and the use is the same,

Several cottages in Turkey Point have been demolished and replaced with new

structures that support a dry passive floodproof. These are similar or larger in

size to our proposal and are located nearby. A few of these are located at 91

Ordnance Ave., 93 Ordnance Ave., 23 Cedar Dr., 218 Cedar Dr. See attached

pictures.

These cottages do not meet requirement 5.a, b above.

For generations people have visited scenic Turkey Point to enjoy the beaches and

water. Unfortunately the lakeside community of Turkey Point was allowed to be

developed at a time when our forefathers did not fully realize the ramifications of

their actions and how it impacts the environment. "It is what it is" and we must

learn to live with the consequences. We are attempting to improve a part of

Turkey Point and enjoy what nature has given us with our family and friends. We

request the Board of Directors to allow acceptance of our permit, as it is similar to

other new redevelopments that have occurred in the past. By doing so LPRCA

would help "to reduce or eliminate preventable risk to life and property damage

from flooding."

33





Re: Long Point Region Conservation Authority Application LPRCA-105/16 (Randy

Mawhiney) Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 178/06, Proposed Construction of a Change House at South Walsingham Plan 251 Lot 75, 201 Hastings Drive, Long Point.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors refuse to grant a “Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” Permit for Permit Application LPRCA-105/16 (Randy Mawhiney) for the following reasons:

1. The construction of a new structure in the Lake Erie shoreline flood hazard and dynamic beach hazard along Hastings Drive is contrary to the approved 1989 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Shoreline Management Plan and LPRCA policies for development in the area of the subject lands.

2. This construction of a new structure would result in increased property damage due to flooding and the forces of wave action.

3. This construction of a new structure affects the control of flooding in that it increases the potential for flood damage.

4. This construction of a new structure affects the control of dynamic beaches in that it interferes with dynamic beach processes.

5. The proposal is not unique; therefore the granting of an exemption to policy could be seen as setting precedent. Similar applications may have to be permitted as a consequence. The construction of new structures will have a cumulative effect that would greatly affect dynamic beach processes and the control of dynamic beaches.

BACKGROUND

The subject land is located at 201 Hastings Drive in Long Point (Figure 1). In this location, the property and associated development is subject to flood-related hazards from Lake Erie and is fully regulated under Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s Ontario Regulation 178/06 (Figure 2). In May 2006, O. Reg. 178/06, Long Point Region Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, came into effect. Through this regulation, LPRCA may permit, restrict or refuse development and activities in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands.

40


2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,

a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, including the area from the furthest offshore extent of the Authority’s boundary to the furthest landward extent of the aggregate of the following distances: (i) the 100 year flood level as shown in the most recent document entitled “Great

Lakes System Flood Levels and Water Related Hazards” available at the head office of the Authority, plus the appropriate allowance for wave uprush,

(ii) the predicted long term stable slope projected from the existing stable toe of the slope or from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as that location may have shifted as a result of shoreline erosion over a 100 year period,

(iii) where a dynamic beach is associated with the waterfront lands, an allowance of 30 metres inland to accommodate dynamic beach movement, and


3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.

On June 9, 2016, LPRCA staff received a permit application under O. Reg. 178/06 to construct a new 9’x12’ (108 ft2) change house. The application was submitted with the attached site plan as Figure 3 indicating a 9’x12’ structure ‘set on cement blocks’. The applicant has declined staff’s request for further location and design details. LPRCA relies on the LPRCA Shoreline Management Plan (Philpott, 1989) to guide decisions on development in its lakeshore jurisdiction. The Long Point Hastings Drive reach (DZ1-Reach 1, Hastings Drive) is a narrow sand spit at the western end of the Long Point spit. Hastings Drive is well below the design wave uprush level along its length and is subject to frequent flooding including washover. The Shoreline Management Plan recommends a “no re-build” policy for existing development based on “the severity of damage to which those areas are subject, and the imminent danger that exists”. It further recommends no reinforcement of existing shoreline protection structures and removal of the shore protection structures and cottages that come into public ownership “to minimize the potential for littering of downdrift shores and to minimize reflection and therefore nearshore scouring. The latter step will likely result in greater beach build up”. The Hastings Drive area has experienced significant flooding, washover and wave action frequently in the past, most notably in 1954/1955, 1958, 1969, 1971-1973, 1975, 1985. On a nearly annual frequency, travelled portions of the Hastings Drive roadway becomes flooded during fall storm events. The 100-year instantaneous water level for Hastings Drive as documented in the Long Point Region Shoreline Management Plan (Philpott, 1989) is 176.3 m GSC and the recommended design flood level is 176.7m GSC. Similarly, the 25-year design flood level is 176.5 and the 10-year flood level is 176.3m GSC. The site for the proposed change house is 1.0 metre below the 100-year design flood elevation, making the change house susceptible to flood damage in the event of a 100-year flood as well as

41

lesser floods.

The following relevant elevation data was determined from a survey conducted along Hastings Drive during the week of June 20, 2016:

Elevation 100-year Depth of Flooding 100-year design flood level 176.7 m GSC 25-year design flood level 176.5 m GSC Site grade 175.7 m GSC 1.0 m 3.3 ft Centre line Hastings Drive at site 175.5 m GSC 1.2 m 3.9 ft

Philpott (1989) further estimates the 100-year near shore wave height to be 3.0 metres and the resultant wave uprush elevation to be 178.0m GSC. Under these conditions, the potential for severe flood damage or displacement is very high. There is also the potential for this or like structures to be swept into existing nearby seasonal dwellings causing increased flood damage to neighbouring properties.

The Hastings Drive area, including the subject lands, also meets the criteria for a dynamic beach as defined in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System and Large Inland Lakes Technical Guides for Flooding, Erosion and Dynamic Beaches issued by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 2001.

Dynamic beaches are areas along the Lake Erie shoreline where accumulated, unconsolidated sediment continuously or intermittently moves as a result of naturally occurring processes associated with wind, water and changes in the rate of sediment supply. These processes can be interrupted by the construction of a structure on the beach or foredune. In particular, wave action against vertical barriers (walls) increases scour and erosion, and increases sand removal from the beach.

There are 75 privately owned, vacant lots on Hastings Drive. Should approval of this application set a precedent, the potential for subsequent applications for similar structures is quite high, resulting in a cumulative effect on the dynamic beach processes.

The proposed development does not conform to the LPRCA’s policies for development in the flood hazard and dynamic beach hazard in Long Point. In LPRCA staff’s opinion, the control of flooding and dynamic beaches will be affected by the proposed development and, therefore, staff recommends that the application be refused.


Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng. Cliff Evanitski Interim Manager Watershed Services General Manager

42



0 10 205

Meters

Figure 1Lot 75, 201 Hastings Drive

Long Point, Norfolk County

LegendProperty Lines

201 Hastings Drive

±

201 Hastings Drive

43



0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Figure 2 - Ont. Regulation LimitLot 75, 201 Hastings Drive

Long Point, Norfolk County

LegendProperty Lines

201 Hastings Drive

Lake Erie Flood Extent


±

201 Hastings Drive

201 Hastings Drive

44





Re: Section 28 Regulation – Staff Approved Applications Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation Applications report as information.

STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal #1 - To develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion.

BACKGROUND

Application# LPRCA-85/16 Birch Drive, South-West Oxford – Tillsonburg

• The proposed work – to remove and replace two culverts;• A satisfactory site plan, sediment and erosion control plan, and

dewatering/diversion plan has been submitted;• The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it should not negatively

impact the watercourse;• The application is within the regulated flood and erosion hazard of Big Otter

Creek and the control of flooding and erosion should not be affect by theproposed development.

Application# LPRCA-126/16 Lot 87, Plan 436, 155 Woodstock Ave, Norfolk - South Walsingham

• The proposed work – construct a 87m2 garage;• There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space;• The application is 77 metres away from a wetland and the hydrologic function of

the wetland should not be affected by the proposed development;• The application is within the flood hazard of Lake Erie and the control of flooding

should not be affected by the proposed development.

Application# LPRCA-130/16 Con 1 STR, Lot 178, Norfolk – Middleton

47

• The proposed work – remove approximately 20m3 of sediment from a bypasspond along South Creek;

• The material will be placed outside of the riverine flooding hazard;• The application is an alteration of a watercourse and the work will not negatively

affect the watercourse.

Application# LPRCA-132/16 Plan 735, Lot 21, 65 Bee Street, Norfolk - Charlotteville

• The proposed work – to construct a 22.4 m2 covered front porch;• The proposed structure is not closer to the lake;• The application is within the Lake Erie erosion hazard allowance and the control

of erosion should not be affected by the development;

Application# LPRCA-133/16 Plan 120, Lot 40, 2021 Maple Blvd., Norfolk – Port Dover

• The proposed work – to construct a minor addition (approximately 25 m2)constructed on four piers;

• The addition is no closer to the lake than the existing structure;• The application is within the Lake Erie erosion hazard allowance and the control

of erosion should not be affected by the development.

Application# LPRCA-134/16 Lot 7, Concession 11, 23 North Street West, South-West Oxford – Tillsonburg

• The proposed work – to construct a 38m2 covered deck and a 20m2 carport;• There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space;• The application is within the regulated riverine flood hazard of Big Otter Creek

and the control of flooding should not be affected by the proposed development.

Application# LPRCA-136/16 Con 2 STR, Lot 25, 760 Mall Road, Norfolk – Middleton

• The proposed work – to construct a 85.6m2 addition to an existing single-familydwelling;

• The application is approximately 62 metres from the wetland;• The application is within the regulated area of a wetland. The hydrologic function

of the wetland should not be negatively impacted by this development.

Application# LPRCA-137/16 Con A, Lot 14, 15 Cedar Drive, Norfolk – Charlotteville

• The proposed work – replace an existing 30m2 deck;• The application is within the regulated flood hazard of Lake Erie and the control

of flooding should not be affected by the proposed development;

Application# LPRCA-138/16 Plan 117, Con 2, 3, 131 Cedar Drive, Norfolk – Charlotteville

• The proposed work – to remove an existing garage and construct a 51.3m2

garage;• A satisfactory site plan and drawings has been submitted in support of this

application;• A geotechnical report has been submitted in support of this application as the

48

application is in an area with hazardous organic soils; • There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space;• The application is within the regulated flood hazard of Lake Erie and the control

of flooding should not be affected by the proposed development.

Application# LPRCA-141/16 Lot 1, Concession 4, Charlottevile – Norfolk

• The proposed work – to construct a 167m2 non-habitable accessory building;• A satisfactory site plan was submitted with the application;• The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic

function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development.

Application# LPRCA-143/16 Lot 22, Concession 2, 782 Highway 24, South Walsingham – Norfolk

• The proposed work – construct a 37.2m2 non-habitable accessory building;• There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space;• The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The function of

the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development.

Application# LPRCA-144/16 Plan 21074, Block H, 812 South Coast Drive, Haldimand - Walpole

• The proposed work – to raise the existing seasonal dwelling on concrete columnsapproximately 95 metres from a wetland;

• The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologicfunction of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development.

Application# LPRCA-145/16 Plan 41M264, Lot 3, 28 River Oaks Drive, Norwich - Otterville

• The proposed work – to construct a single family dwelling and septic systemapproximately 80 metres from a wetland;

• The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologicfunction of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development.

BUDGET IMPLICATION

N/A


Leigh-Anne Bower Cliff Evanitski Planning Technician General Manager

49





Re: Section 28 Regulation Approval Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06)

RECOMMENDATION THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following Development Applications contained within the background section of this report:

A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06),

LPRCA-140/16 LPRCA-142/16

B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval process for this Development Application, as far as it relates to LPRCA’s mandate and related Regulations.

STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal #1 - To develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion.

BACKGROUND

Application# LPRCA-140/16 Plan 461, Lot 13, 292 New Lakeshore Road, Norfolk - Woodhouse

• The proposed work – to recognize the construction of a 85m2 deck and toconstruct a 37m2 gazebo;

• The application is within the erosion hazard associated with Lake Erie;• A satisfactory site plan and drawings was submitted;• The deck proposal is not in accordance with the Ministry of Natural Resources &

Forestry Technical Guide for Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Shorelinesguidelines; however, the structure is a non-habitable accessory use and can beremoved to facilitate maintenance of erosion protection works if required.

51

Application# LPRCA-142/16 Plan 128, Lot 39, 206 Cedar Drive, Norfolk - Charlotteville

• The proposed work – to recognize the construction of a 27m2 non-habitableaccessory building, placing of approximately 2m3 of fill and the associated grading;

• A satisfactory site plan and drawings was submitted;• There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space;• The application is within the Lake Erie flood hazard and the control of flooding

should not be affected by the development.

BUDGET IMPLICATION

N/A


Leigh-Anne Bower Cliff Evanitski Planning Technician General Manager

52

long point region conservation authority › userfiles › files › 2016 agendas › lprca...

Documents