Waterfront_zoning

Jeff Green | Jul 06, 2006

Back toHome

Waterfront zoning issues dominate meeting

by JeffGreen

Manuel Stevens of Parks Canada presented a proposal requesting South Frontenac’s participation in an environmental management study of the Rideau Canal , which would include areas in Storrington District bordering the canal. The study would be done by Queen’s School of Urban and Regional Planning, and would cost the Township up to $1,000. Councillors questioned the value of such a study, but agreed to consider the proposal and prepare a reply in the next week or two. Mr Stevens commented that South Frontenac presently has very progressive waterfront land use policies to protect environmental quality.

Zoning amendment - Council approved the Chubaty/Reade Application for a zoning amendment to allow severance of a lot on Sydenham Lake into two, one of 2.5 acres, the other 3 acres, both with waterfronts of 285 feet. According to the Township Plan, as a rule, minimum lot size is 2.5 acres, with 250 feet of frontage on a public road and 300 feet of waterfront but the municipality may consider reductions provided the overall intent of the plan is maintained. The lot to be severed is located among a number of very small lots (some smaller than 3/4 acre, with waterfronts less than 90 feet). Thus, the much larger severed lots could be considered appropriate within the context of the surrounding development. Also, the two new lots will be required to share a common water access point which is high exposed rock. The remainder of the shoreline is to be re-naturalized and reforested, to protect adjacent wetlands.

There was acrimonious discussion, and Council remains divided on the question of how best to measure frontage on water. June 20, Council had voted that as policy, they would not use the sentence in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law stating: "in the case of a waterfront lot on a private lane, the lot frontage will be measured perpendicular to the side lot lines in a straight line between the two said side lot lines at a point where the side lot lines intersect with the high water line." They felt this did not give clear direction, and could lead to distorted lot shapes. One member of Council suggested that the sentence should be replaced by the policy that "waterfront lot frontage be the shortest distance between the two side lot lines within 30 metres of the waterfront." However, this was seen to be too much of a departure from the by-law wording to be inserted as a policy change. Eventually Council decided to keep the June 20 resolution unaltered, and address any clarification of the zoning by-law at a later date, as part of a ‘housekeeping’ by-law.

Old Canoe Lake Road

Bedford district councillors indicated an interest in closing a small portion of the old Canoe Lake Road , currently a seasonally maintained road, used as a short-cut by some residents. Divesting the Township of this road would eliminate responsibility and liability, as well as any potential pressure to maintain it at a higher standard. CAO Burns noted that this road closure had been overlooked for several years, and confirmed that none of the adjacent residents were asking for this to be done. Councillor Barr objected that this amounted to giving the road allowance away. Councillor Hahn countered that the road would cost the Township much more, if any of the adjacent landowners pressed for winter maintenance of the road. Much discussion ensued, with the eventual agreement that as long as there was no cost to the township, the road could be closed.

Hazardous Waste

July 15 has been confirmed as the Township’s second Hazardous Waste Day, at the Township barns on Keeley Road . Cost of the first day has risen to $26,000: staff are looking for a less expensive contractor, and hope to be permitted to use the township’s oil cans for the oil waste, to help cut back on costs. Objecting to the expense, Councillors Robinson, Smith and Barr voted against holding the July 15 collection day. Robinson suggested it would have been cheaper to subsidize residents to use the Kingston HW facility. Others argued that most of the 300 cars had brought in waste from several households. Councillor Stowe pointed out that an enormous amount of toxic material had been diverted from our landfills.