Dozens at waterfront meeting
by Blake Wolfe/The Scugog Standard

It was standing room only at a public meeting held this week to discuss proposed regulations governing new development on waterfront properties in Scugog Township, drawing criticism, concerns and plenty of confusion from local residents.

And while no decisions were made that night, the issue will return to the public forum at least once more this year. The Monday night (June 14) meeting drew dozens of residents from both the Lake Scugog and Chalk Lake shorelines, the two main areas to be affected by the township’s proposed zoning legislation changes, all in the name of protecting the health of local water bodies. Among the proposed changes are:

- a 30-metre setback for buildings from the shoreline, with a minimum 30-metre ‘vegetation buffer’ along the shore;
- buildings and structures occupying only 25 per cent of the total developable area; and
- no negative effects on ‘key natural heritage areas’ or ‘key hydrological features.’

The planned amendment also seeks to incorporate provisions found within both the Greenbelt Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Planner Jim Dyment said that a number of the proposed amendments would require the township to examine properties on a case-by-case basis, due to factors such as lot size.

In an attempt to quell public frustration over the proposed changes, Mayor Marilyn Pearce stressed several times during the meeting that the legislation would apply only to new development - defined in an accompanying staff report as ‘an activity requiring a building permit.’ The report also stated that the legislation would not be applied retroactively to existing developed properties.

“We need a public discussion, not a public hanging,” said the mayor, calling for “conversation, not confrontation.”

Emotions, however, overflowed at points during the meeting, with one resident ejected by the mayor (she was later welcomed back to speak), after speaker John Galbraith received a round of applause for raising safety issues with the proposed 30-metre buffer.

“A child could easily go unnoticed in that area, right along the water,” said Mr. Galbraith, a father of two young children.

Anger arose amongst some attendees over the lack of public notification of the meeting, which was not advertised in the township’s weekly ‘Bulletin Board’ newspaper page. Some residents at the meeting stated that they were informed by word-of-mouth from other property owners, with one resident taking his frustration to the council bench during an intermission.

Some speakers also implied that the township was trying to quietly pass the legislation with a minimum of public input. Not so, said Mayor Pearce, questioning the source of that rumour.

The size of the proposed buffer zone also caused confusion amongst attendees, some of whom were told by the Kawartha Conservation authority via the ‘Blue Canoe’ program (funded in part by the Region of Durham and the township) that the size of the buffer would be closer to 10 feet.

Scugog Island resident Mike Kapustin questioned the onus on waterfront property owners to improve lake health, when run-off sources may indeed lie elsewhere. Local realtors also weighed in on the potential impacts of the amendments. Calling a buffer zone an “infringement on property rights” realtor Dave Coppins told attendees that the legislation would “definitely affect property values.” That statement was countered by the mayor, who said that an unhealthy Lake Scugog would do just the same.

“If the intent of this meeting was to shock waterfront property owners it certainly worked,” said realtor Guy Latreille, adding that “there was so much misinformation that it took most of the evening to clarify the intent of the proposed bylaw. Mr. Latreille said the facts were far less scary.

“If it comes to passing with some modifications, it is up to property owners to make certain that the exceptions (to the bylaw) will adequately protect the future uses of these properties and their values,” he said.

A final sign-off on such amendments could take some time, however. According to a staff report, final approval of the bylaw amendment must take place within three years of the township’s new Official Plan, which has yet to come into effect. Currently, the plan has received Regional approval but remains in limbo due to a handful of appeals, including a blanket appeal of the plan by Loblaw Properties Limited, which owns the property where Vos’ Independent Grocer in Port Perry is located.

Mr. Latreille said that in the end it will be property owners who decide how this will play out.
“The decisions will be made by those who participate,” he said.

Councillors closed the meeting by motioning for a second public meeting, possibly in an open house format, to be held some time in September.