Our Muskoka’s Position on the TML Official Plan

November 2023- Our Muskoka’s Letter

Throughout the Official Plan process Our Muskoka has dedicated considerable time, money and resources towards participating in the Official Plan review process and to understand how the proposed changes will impact residents and business owners alike. Our Muskoka provided numerous comments about the proposed policies and asked many questions to help understand the reason for the change and how the new policies will be applied. To date, very few of our questions have been responded to or addressed. Last year, we were disappointed to hear that the Township Council and Staff were not interested in considering or responding to public questions, comments or suggestions that did not align with the Council’s initial policy direction. Our Muskoka was considerably discouraged to discover that after more than 2 years of participation in the Official Plan review process, only certain comments that aligned with Council vision would be considered. The Township is making significant changes to long-existing policies such as the minimum lot size requirements and introducing many new complex policy requirements such as net benefit analysis, cumulative impact, recreational carrying capacity, water access lot recreation requirements, etc.

The initial adoption of the new Official Plan was rushed to beat the November election and the Council at the time adopted the plan “as amended”. A final version of the plan was not available for public review before adoption. At the recent August meeting, a significant number of further policy changes were proposed that included amendments that were not related to conformity to the District Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement. The adopted Official Plan has now been revised for a third time with new significant changes that were not considered in August. We believe the planning process is intended to be public, open and transparent. Our Muskoka does not support how the Township and District have continued to consider special requests and comments for further additions and revisions to the adopted Official Plan after the review process has concluded, the public commenting has ended and a decision was made to adopt the plan.

The adopted Official Plan contains numerous policy changes such as E.4.4.2.b) (where minimum lot size requirements have been substantially increased) where little to no justification, detailed research or analysis has been completed to justify the change. Sufficient justification has not been provided to explain why it’s necessary and acceptable to exceed the requirements of District policy. Our Muskoka provided a details policy on July 28, 2022, with the assistance of Planscape which furthers this point.

We believe that the intent of the Official Plan has been overlooked which has resulted in a massive, overly complicated/prescriptive/ restrictive document with too much necessary detail and regulation. With Planscape's guidance and review throughout this whole process, it is our opinion that policy changes are required to address this issue and/or additional research and analysis are required to justify many of the proposed policies.

The protection of the environment and water quality is an important goal of the Official Plan and a healthy environment is important to the well-being of the community, however, providing protection of the environment above all other uses and activities is not consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement.  The Province intends for land use planning decisions to provide a balance between different uses and activities and that all interests be assessed and balanced. One type of use or activity cannot automatically trump or supersede all else. The proposed approach of the adopted Official plan does not provide for all interests to be assessed and fails to plan for the interests of the entire community. Policy changes are required to address this issue.

An Official Plan is a critical planning document that guides future growth and development and has significant impacts on lot creation, building sizes and locations, permitted land uses, and other matters related to the use and development of land. Although there are aspects of the adopted Official Plan that are positive and we agree with many of the proposed goals and objectives, it requires more work and further revisions.

In addition to the previous comments provided, Our Muskoka continues to have concerns and objections to the following matters;

1. Requiring the cumulative impacts of development to be assessed for individual planning applications

2. Requiring new boathouses and boathouse expansions to be subject to site plan approval

3. Requiring lengthy monitoring requirements associated with an Environmental Impact Study

4. Requiring an Environmental Impact Study for the majority of future planning applications

5. Requiring ‘Net Gain’ to be assessed for individual planning applications

6. Including shoreline buffers as part of the natural heritage system

7. Including vague and subjective wording such as “protection of exceptional visual characteristics

8. Requiring the character of new development to be reflective of existing development

9. The definition of the Waterfront Area designation

10. Requiring the conservation of vistas, panoramas, landmarks, tree-lined horizons and other similar
    features without more guidance, detail or explanation

11. Including development limits in shoreline buffers that do not include existing development

12. Prohibiting lot creation until a causation study is completed

13. Limiting maximum lot coverage increase to 1/10 of the permitted maximum

14. Requiring a soils investigation study and 10 years of monitoring and reporting to create a new lot
    on a non-vulnerable lake

15. Increasing the minimum lot area and frontage requirement for standard lots, lots with steep
    slopes, lots on a narrow waterbody, and water access lots on all lakes

16. Requiring a site plan agreement to prohibit the storage of hazardous materials in a boathouse
    during the typical flooding season

17. Prohibiting lot creation based on Recreational Carrying Capacity

18. The methodology used to apply Recreational Carrying Capacity

19. Increasing the minimum lot frontage on Skeleton Lake

20. Limiting the maximum gross floor area of a dwelling

21. Requiring sustainable design requirements to be considered through development applications

22. Including specific site plan requirements and subjecting boathouses to site plan approval

23. Requiring improvements to existing legal non-complying buildings when redeveloped

24. Requiring the potential impact of similar approvals to be assessed for individual planning
    applications

Official Plan Detail and Length

The proposed 3rd draft Official Plan is a large document that includes a substantial amount of detail and requires more than a thousand policies and 296 pages to describe how the Township plans to manage growth and development over the next 10 years.

It will be very difficult for a property owner or builder to understand the Official Plan requirements and implications without the assistance of Township staff or a planning consultant.

Our Muskoka believes the Official Plan should contain short, concise and succinct policies that property owners and builders can understand. Many other jurisdictions have Official Plans that accomplish this. A lengthy Official Plan with many complex, interrelated policies will require more Township staff resources to explain and interpret the Plan for owners, builders, realtors, surveyors, and consultants. It remains to be seen how the multiple new requirements and policies will be implemented and how development on each lot will be impacted.

The Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association has participated in the update of the Official Plan throughout the review process and provided several written submissions and delegations to the Planning Committee to provide input and express concern or support for specific policies. Our Muskoka appreciates that the public was provided with an opportunity to offer additional comments for the review of the new Official Plan. Many of the concerns identified in our previous submissions and comments continue to exist in the latest revision of the plan. A recommendation to adopt the new Official Plan is being considered at the Special Planning Committee Meeting on October 3, 2022 (Item 5.a. Official Plan Review). We strongly request the adoption of the new Official Plan not be rushed, and that a second public meeting be held in recognition of the significant changes included in the latest revision and the limited time available for the public to review.

Public Participation and Transparency

The Official Plan review process was based on community input and public engagement. Many community members and businesses spent countless hours reviewing the draft plan, attending meetings and providing detailed and thoughtful comments through a lengthy review process. It is disappointing that the Township has not provided a direct response to the public comments received or explained how the comments were addressed and considered through the review process. The consultant’s memorandum specifically explains how some of the District’s and lake association's comments were considered, however, many of the other changes are not reflected in the memo and it is unclear why these other changes were made. Conversely, it is also unclear why specific changes requested by the public were NOT made.

Many of the public comments included questions or were seeking clarification about certain policy directions, but no response or follow-up was provided. A much more thorough and detailed response to the public comments MUST be provided to the public and Council before the new plan is adopted. Failure to do so gives the appearance that most public comments were simply dismissed and not given any consideration. Adopting a new plan without providing the public with a reasonable understanding of how their comments were considered is not transparent and disrespectful to those who gave time to provide input into the new plan.

Significant Changes

The revised draft plan contains several hundred revisions. Some changes are simple, and others are detailed and complex. Some sections have been relocated and/or renumbered and others substantially modified. Several new policies have also been added and some policies deleted. Modifications have also been made to the land use schedules and appendices. The revisions include more than just minor adjustments or corrections and represent substantial changes to the June 28, 2022 draft plan. Notice of a new public meeting for the revised plan should be given under the requirements of the Planning Act.

Timing and Revisions

Notice of this meeting was sent on September 20, 2022, but did not include the revised plan for review. The revised plan was only available at the end of the day on September 23, 2022, and only through the Committee agenda. The revised plan was not made available on the Engage Muskoka Lakes website and a link was not sent to followers of the Official Plan Review project portal. The Township has provided the public with only 10 days (5 business days) to review and comment on a plan that includes a significant number of changes. Such a quick turnaround does not provide sufficient time for the public to meaningfully participate and provide comments for a revised plan that includes a significant number of changes. We request the public be provided with a reasonable amount of time to review the revised plan before a recommendation for adoption is considered.

Trial Run

The proposed new plan represents a substantial change from the current plan. Many policies and requirements are more limiting, restricting and controlling. The new plan will guide growth and development for decades to come and will require substantial changes to the Zoning By-law and other by-laws. To ensure there are no unintended consequences and the new plan functions as envisioned, we recommend the new plan be given a trial or test run. A test run could include reviewing planning applications for several months against the current and new plans to gauge the effect and outcome. This approach has been used successfully in other municipalities to reveal interpretation or operational issues before a new plan is adopted. Testing the plan helps to avoid the need to make future amendments to correct inevitable errors, omissions or other unforeseen issues. Rushing the adoption of the new plan will not allow any time for the new policies, schedules and appendices to be tested. We believe it is problematic to adopt a new plan that has not been tested.

Staff Recommendation

To date, neither the consultant nor Township staff have recommended adopting the new plan. It is important for the consultant and Township planning staff to publicly confirm if they support the adoption of the revised plan. We believe the Township would be ill-advised to adopt a new Official Plan that contains policies not supported by its planners and consultant.

Department Comments

An Official Plan directly impacts municipal operations and procedures, and many staff and departments frequently work with the Official Plan. It is unclear what input or comments Township staff or departments provided for the new plan if any. Before a new plan is adopted every department affected, including the Planning Department, should provide comments to the Committee. Considering the potential impacts of a new plan and department comments currently provided for site-specific minor variance applications, it is reasonable that the same departments would provide comments for the new Official Plan.

Transitional Policies

The proposed transitional policy (A2.b) for planning applications submitted before the adoption of the new plan is insufficient due to the significant delays by the Township to deem applications complete. The requirement that applications, submitted before the adoption of the new plan but not deemed complete, must have regard for the adopted plan and policies that are more restrictive is also problematic.

Under the Planning Act, municipalities have a minimum of 30 days to review most planning applications and deem them complete. Notice of a complete application is to be provided to the public and the applicant. The Township currently deems applications complete at the time notice of a public meeting is given. For many years the Township has consistently failed to deem planning applications complete within Planning Act timelines. Many applications are deemed complete more than +100 days after submission. It is problematic that applications submitted months before the adoption of the new plan, but not deemed complete will be required to have regard for the new plan and the more restrictive policies. In some cases, an application may be supported by the current plan but not the new plan. The Committee should understand how many applications not deemed complete will be impacted by the new plan. We question why submitted applications that are not deemed complete should be impacted by the Township’s failure to comply with Planning Act timelines.

Policy Concerns

In addition to the previous comments provided, Our Muskoka continues to have concerns and objections to the following matters:

1.        Requiring the cumulative impacts of development to be assessed for individual planning applications

2.        Requiring new boathouses and boathouse expansions to be subject to site plan approval

3.        Requiring lengthy monitoring requirements associated with an Environmental Impact Study

4.        Requiring an Environmental Impact Study for the majority of future planning applications

5.        Requiring ‘Net Gain’ to be assessed for individual planning applications

6.        Including buffers as part of the natural heritage system

7.        Including vague and subjective wording such as “protection of exceptional visual characteristics”

8.        Requiring the character of new development to be reflective of existing development

9.        The definition of the Waterfront Area designation

10.     Requiring the conservation of vistas, panoramas, landmarks, tree-lined horizons and other similar features without more guidance, detail or explanation

11.     Including development limits in shoreline buffers that do not include existing development

12.     Prohibiting lot creation until a causation study is completed

13.     Limiting maximum lot coverage increase to 1/10 of the permitted maximum

14.     Requiring a soils investigation study and 10 years of monitoring and reporting to create a new lot on a non-vulnerable lake

15.     Increasing the minimum lot area and frontage requirement for standard lots, lots with steep slopes, lots on a narrow waterbody, and water access lots on all lakes

16.     Requiring a site plan agreement to prohibit the storage of hazardous materials in a boathouse during the typical flooding season

17.     Prohibiting lot creation based on Recreational Carrying Capacity

18.     The methodology used to apply Recreational Carrying Capacity

19.     Increasing the minimum lot frontage on Skeleton Lake

20.     Limiting the maximum gross floor area of a dwelling

21.     Requiring sustainable design requirements to be considered through development applications

22.     Including specific site plan requirements and subjecting boathouses to site plan approval

23.     Requiring improvements to existing legal non-complying buildings when redeveloped

24.     Requiring the potential impact of similar approvals to be assessed for individual planning applications