1 / 12

Planning Case Study: Charleston Lake

Planning Case Study: Charleston Lake. Case Study: Charleston Lake. Official Plan and Zoning /by-law processes & technical issues 1993 lake trout report Draft Official Plan New lake trout report: January 2006 Approved Official Plan: March 14, 2006 Draft Zoning By-law

kara
Download Presentation

Planning Case Study: Charleston Lake

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Planning Case Study:Charleston Lake

  2. Case Study: Charleston Lake • Official Plan and Zoning /by-law processes & technical issues • 1993 lake trout report • Draft Official Plan • New lake trout report: January 2006 • Approved Official Plan: March 14, 2006 • Draft Zoning By-law • Public Meeting: July 11, 2006 • Conclusions

  3. 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in S-E Ontario • Restates many 1977 recommendations • Voluntary measures: • Upgrade septics • Reduce phosphorus inputs • Discourage lawns • Retain vegetation

  4. 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in S-E Ontario • Encourage Municipal Planning: • 30 m setback • Reduce nutrient flow • Encourage back lots • buffers

  5. Draft Official Plan • Discussed & supported previous study conclusions about trout • Acknowledged new Charleston Lake Study was being prepared • Set out interim policies • Indicated these would be replaced in late 2006, based on new study

  6. New MOE Charleston Lake Report (January 2006) • Lake “at capacity” • “No new shoreline development shall be permitted which will result in increased phosphorus loadings” • “300 m setback for sewage systems for new development”

  7. New MOE Charleston Lake Report (con’t) • 30 m setback for all structures • For existing lots, 30 m setback (building and septics) or “as remote from the water as the lot will allow”

  8. Approved Official Plan, as modified by Municipal Affairs (March 14, 2006) • “Generally, the creation of new lots will not be permitted within 300m of highly sensitive lakes” • New development may proceed within 300m on existing lots of record only”

  9. Approved Official Plan(con’t) • “Council will not consider any application that involves the creation of a new lot, residential units, or any non-residential development on” at capacity lakes, except when: • 300m + • Circuitous drainage of 300m • Drainage to another basin

  10. Draft Zoning By-law • Would have established a 300m holding zone (H) around Charleston Lake but would automatically allow: • Repair • Internal renovations • New septics at least 30m back • Other activities on existing lots require a process to remove (H) • No new waterfront lots

  11. Public Meeting (July 11, 2006) • No supporters attended! • Objectors were loud & clear: • Unfair to put the most onerous restrictions on the vacant land • Lack of restrictions on upstream waterbodies • “as remote as the lot will allow” is unfair to owners with deep lots • Fails to regulate cattle out of watercourses • Needs to be more reasonable • Work on new Zoning By-law suspended

  12. Conclusions • Planning is a long, complex process • Difficult to get long-term support • Many players involved – varying levels of scientific understanding • Election year has special challenges • When an important lake planning issue emerges, all must share the planning/regulatory pain

More Related