SUBMISSION
TO: Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards (“Township”)
Cc Round Lake Property Owners Association
From: Robert C. Rossow
395 Christie Street, Pembroke, Ontario K8A 4R8
Date:September 19, 2023
Re: Submission on Proposed new comprehensive Zoning Bylaw ("Bylaw")
And Re: 1501 Red Rock Road, Round Lake, (“1501”)
As owner of 1501, I wish to make the following submissions, pursuant to the last paragraphs in the Notice of the Township dated August 31, 2023. Because of my pending hospitalization on October 3 I will not be able to attend the October 10 public meeting and I trust these submissions will be consider by Council notwithstanding my absence.
For your information my perspective is that of an owner of a 50+ year old seasonal “cottage” or “camp” near the end of its useful life. This is far from a unique situation, there are many owners on Round Lake,(“Lake”) in the same situation. My reading of the Bylaw indicates the property is zoned RR with the rear portion EP.
Overall, firstly, the Bylaw does not recognize the housing crisis in Canada or the Township. Many in the Township are aware of the greatly increased costs of housing and in particular of rental accommodation..” The bylaw does not come close to achieving any reduction of these costs. In fact this is the type of bylaw that the Toronto Globe and Mail in its September 18, 2023 issue might have had in mind when it stated: “There is a simple solution to the housing crisis: Voters in municipalities across Canada should elect mayors and councils dedicated to stripping away zoning restrictions, while simplifying and lowering the costs of permissions and permits.”
Secondly, the Bylaw effectively prevents by its zoning restrictions and setbacks improvements and replacements to older cottages resulting in a significant loss in value to owners of these cottages, reduction in the tax base to the Township as a result of the loss of value, degradation of the Lake water quality and loss of business to local suppliers and contractors
The template used for this Bylaw does not reflect the characteristics of the Township, that is a Township centred on the Lake and the residences surrounding it nor the housing crisis. Council should appoint a committee of residents and property owners to review the Bylaw before proceeding further.
My specific submissions,1-7, with reference to the particular section numbers of the draft Bylaw follow:
1. Section 1.13 provides the Bylaw is to come into force when passed by Council. I would submit that the date of coming into force should be settled now in order that anyone that would be significantly prejudiced by the new bylaw would have an opportunity to prepare plans, arrange financing and construction; otherwise anyone wishing to build, including those wishing to put a small addition onto their property will be faced with costs and delays such as minor variances and perhaps even amendments to the Bylaw, quite apart from all of the costs and requirements associated with building under the proposed bylaw. I would submit the Effective Date should be December 31, 2024.
2. Section 1.4 provides that nothing in the proposed Bylaw prevents what is permitted by an existing minor variance; but section 1.12 contradicts this when it states: “notwithstanding…” I believe this is a mistake and it should read in section 1.12 “notwithstanding the foregoing minor variance decisions approved under any existing bylaws remain in full force and effect where the appropriate building permit is obtained by December 31, 2024”.
3. Much of the shoreline of Round Lake, as we all know, was subject to flooding but this is now avoided by the drawdown starting after Labor Day. The definition for “Flood” in the definition section of the Bylaw is unclear as to what is meant by “flood”, ie is it to be determined by the current situation with drawdowns or by the prior situation. It is submitted that flood should be defined in accordance with the current situation and not the pre-drawdown situation. Moreover the definition talks about “not ordinarily covered by water” without defining what is meant by “ordinarily”. We all know that from October-April certain areas of the Lake bed are not covered with water that at other times, i.e April-September are covered.so what is meant by “ordinarily”. This may appear to be nitpicking but the fact is that all of the other flood definitions and setbacks flow from the meaning of “Flood”. See my next item 4
4. Section 3.12.1 provides for no development in areas subject to flooding, however, as noted above what is subject to flooding is quite uncertain given the changes in the Lake brought about by the drawdowns. In addition setbacks from Wetlands are the same as are measured from High Water Mark. There are wetlands on the non-Lake side of Red Rock Road. This means that the properties between the Lake and the Wetlands are squeezed and may not have, including mine any area on which to rebuild. My submission is that the Wetlands setback should not apply where there is a Township Road, such as Red Rock separating the wetlands from the cottage property.
This Section 3.12.1 goes on to provide that anything under 171.95 geodetic contour is susceptible to flooding and an elevation survey will be required for any building permit application. This survey will cost according to my information at least $1000 plus taxes. I would have thought the Township should have some idea as to where that contour is around the Lake such as at the boat launch, the public parks and fire hydrants. This this significant cost for someone merely wanting a small addition which could then be avoided when applying for a building permit.
I would also submit that the Township should know in advance how many properties will be in effect down zoned by the development restrictions. This down zoning will obviously reduce assessments if the seasonal properties cannot be redeveloped which will lead to higher taxes on other properties. I would further submit the Township provide its estimates of the impact on the tax base in this regard before proceeding.
5. Despite section 3.12, section 3.18 allows replacement anywhere as long as no change in length, size or volume of the building; in other words replacement is permitted but only to the extent of there is no change in length, size or volume. Since the concern is over flooding, my submission is that there be an allowance for increase in height to permit flood proofing. This seems to be contradicted by Section 3.27.5 f which permits the expansion of a dwelling away from the water side of the dwelling. In addition section 3.19.2 seems to allow additions to a structure where the existing building legally existed. Because the cottages are legal nonconforming uses then they do legally exist. My submission is these clauses should be redrafted to provide far more clarity amongst these three sections. Obviously this would avoid uncertainties, problems with interpretation and unnecessary costs and staff time to the Township.
6. With respect to the zone provisions, and in particular the RR zone the lot area must be at least 1 acre. Many of the lots, I suspect on the Lake and certainly on Red Rock Road do not have that minimum area which again means that there is, even in the case of a minor addition, a requirement by the owner to have a minor variance or perhaps bylaw amendment. I would submit for existing lots the minimum lot size should be whatever the current lot size of that particular lot is to avoid all of the delays, costs and expenses of a minor variance each time there is some building.
7. The EP Zone prohibits Residential Uses; yet many properties, mine included, and at least two of my neighbours have septic systems extending into the E P Zone. There is no provision for allowing this system to be upgraded as a result of which we will be having old septic systems that cannot be upgraded with the resulting degradation of Lake water quality. This is of course exacerbated if the old seasonal cottage cannot be replaced as a result of the provisions of the proposed Bylaw.