Township of Chatsworth

Land Division Committee

Agenda
October 15,2014
9:20 a.m.
l. Call to order
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Minutes of September 3, 2014
4. Consent Hearings:
9:20 a.m. 8512014,8612014, Loucks
B7|2AA &. Bgl20l4
5. Other Business
Township of Chatsworth Land Division Committee Minutes
-w-ednesday sepremb er 3,2014
Township
"
tL::#-
Members Present:
Chair Mayor Bob Pringle
Member Terry McKay
Member Brian Gamble
Member Scott Mackey
Member Cornelius Vlielander
Staff Present:
Township Planner Ron Davidson
Secretary Treasurer Dianne Oldrieve
1. Call to Order
Chair Pringle called the rneeting to order at 9.30 a.m.
2, Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof.
None
3. Minutes of March lgth 2A14.
07-14 Moved by McKay
Seconded by Gamble
That the minutes of the Township of Chatsworth Land Division
Committee of Vlarch 19,zAU be approved as circulated. Carried
4. Public Hearings:
l) Application for Severance Lot l5o Concession 13, Geographic Township
of Sullivan B4l20l4 Lembke Farms Ltd
Public in Attendance
The Secretary read the statutory requirements for the Public Meeting.
County of Grey Planning and Development Department comrnented in their
letter dated August 20,2014;
Comtnents have been received frorn Trarrsportation Services stating that there is no
objection to the proposed severance. An entrance permit will be required if an
entrance is proposed that differs fi-om the current enfrance.
County planning staffhave no concerns with tlie subject application.
Grey Sauble Conservation stated in their letter dated September 2,2014 that they
generally have no objection to the consent application.
Water Services Coordinator, Carolyn Vlielander-Vlarx: This property is not
serviced by mturicipal drinking water.
Septic Inspector, Dan Swedlo: I arn generally satisfied that soil and drainage
conditions are suitable to pennit the proper siting of buildings and that conditions
are suitable for se\ilage system constructiou.
Fire Chief, Mike Givens: No issues.
Township Planner, Ron Davidson noted in liis Planning Report dated July 30th
20L4 that it is evident that the proposed severance confonns with the County
Official Plan.
The proposal can be deemed consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
With regard to the Township's Zoning By-law, the sudect lands are currently zoned
'Al'
and 'EP'. The 'Al ' zone requires a
'minirnum
lot area' of 2A hectares and a
'minirnum
lot frontage' of 180 metres. Both the severed and retained parcels
exceed these rninimtun standards.
Favourable considerat.ion could be gi.ren to tile proposed severance.
08-14 N'loved by Vlackey
Seconded by Vlielander
That Consent Application B,412014 be granted subject to the following
conditions;
1. Payment of severance fee to the Township. Carried
06-14 Moved by Gamble
Seconded by McKay
That the Township of Chatsworth Land Division Committee adjourn at
9:36 a.m. Carried
Bob Pringle, Chair Dianne Oldrieve, Secretary Treasurer
Chatslr,'orth
Townshp of Chatsworth
RR 7, Chatsworth, Ontario, NH 1G0
Grace Nayler, Treasurer and Assistant CAO/Clerk
519-794-3232 Fax 519-794-4499
Will Moore, CAO / Clerk
Telephone
September 24,2014
Township of Chatsworth
R.R. 1
CHATSWORTH, Ontario
NOH
,1GO
Dear Committee of Adjustment members:
Re: Applications for Consent (8,512014,B,612014, B7l2A14 and 88/2014)
Part Lot 4, Goncession 1 EGR, Geographic Village of Ghatsworth,
Township of Sullivan
Owner: Leanne Loucks
Applicant: PlinnyLoucks
The following has been drafted to provide the Committee of Adjustment with planning
comments concerning the above-noted severance applications.
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the former Village of
Chatsworth. The site comprises 6.3 hectares of land and has approximalely 217
metres of frontage along Massie Road. The southeastern corner of the property is
located within close proximity of the Jane Street cul-de-sac bulb but is separated from
this Township road by an odd-shaped reserve.
A forested area exists in the southeast corner of the property, at the termination of
Jane Street Approximaiely one-third of the property is situated within a Provincially
Significani Wetland. The remainder of the property, rhich
was once cleared, is now
overgrown in small trees and shrubs.
The owner is proposing to sever four residential lois lvithin the forested area located in
the southeast corner of the site. This would involve the extension of Jane St'eet and
the removal of the Tolvnship-owned reserve.
The lot areas of ihe four proposed parcels and the retained lot are as follows:
ll ,='
Parcel A,rea
Lot 1 261A m'
Lot 2 2749 m'
Lot 3 2A31 m'
Lot 4 1318 m'
Retained Lot 5.08 ha
The retained parcel is not intended to be developed at this time.
The subject lands are desgnated
'Secondary
Settlement Area',
'Wetlands'
and
'Hazard
Lands' on Schedule A (Land Use) to the County of Grey Official Plan. The
specific area of the four proposed
lots appears to be designated mostly
'Secondary
Settlement Area'; however, the development does appear to include some of the
'Hazard
Lands' and
'Wetlands'
designations.
The
'Secondary
Settlement Area' designation is generally
intended to accommodate
limited residential growth as well as new community facilities and employment uses.
Lot creation for detached dwellings is permitted
within land use designation.
With regard to servicing, Section2.6.4 Secondary Settlement Areas staies:
(3) Where partialservices
exist in a Secondary Settlement Area, development shatl
only be permitted
to allow for the development of vacant and/or underutilized
/ofg as well as the creation of lots, subject to satisfying the fottowing
requirements:
(a) the development is within the reserve sewage sysfem capacity or reserve
water sysfem capacity; and,
(b) site conditions are suitable far the long-term provision
of such services;
(c) providing
the development is within the existing settlement arca.
With regard to these policies:
Reserve capacity does exist within the Chatsworth water system to
accommodate the four new lots.
.
The Chief Buiiding Official will be visiiing the siie and commenting on the
suiiability of the property for individual, private septic systenrs.
.
The property
is located within the existing settlement ai'ea.
With regard to the'Wetland' designaiion on the subject property, the Official Pian does
not perrnit development or site alieration within a Prorrincially Significant Woodland.
2l '-'r
..:
Development or site aiteration is also prohibited within the 120 metre adjacent lands
"...unless
it has been demonstrated through an Environmental tmpact Study, as per
section 2.8 7 of this Plan, that there wili be no negatve impacts on the natural features
or their ecological functions".
ln this regard, Aquatic and Wildlife Services prepared an Environmental lmpaci Study
and has conducted an Environmental lmpact Study on behalf of the land orner.
Additional information is provided below.
ln addition, the subject property
is immediately adjacent to lands that are shown on
Appendix B (Constraints) to the Official Plan as 'significant
Woodlands'.
Development or site alteration is not permitted
rithin a
'significant
Woodland' or within
the 50 metre adjacent lands "...unless
t has been demonstrated through an
Environmental lmpact Study, as per
section 2.8.7 of this Plan, that there wilt be no
negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions".
On this note, the aforementioned Environmental lmpact Study (ElS), in addition to
evaluating the proposed
development on the'Wetland', also addressed ihe adjacent
'Significant
Woodland', and furthermore considered the other natural heritage features
listed in the County Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement that are typically
studied when conducting an ElS.
Through the EIS process, the exact boundary of the
'Wetland'
was determined by the
author and was mapped by an Ontario Land Surveyor. The Ministry of Natural
Resources has since approved the'Wetland'mapping, with a very slight modification.
The EIS supports the idea of having the
'Wetland'
boundary serve as the rear lot line
of Lots 1 and 2 and including two types of buffer within these two proposed parcels.
Within the first buffer, which includes lands within 15 metres of the
'Wetland'
boundary, development and site alteration would be prohibiied. Within the second
buffer, which would be applied to lands situated between 15 metres and 30 metres
from the
'Wetland'
boundary, only minor site alterations lvould be allowed. Such
alterations would include graded fill, grassed lawns and treed areas. Essentially, these
lands if disiurbed are io return to a natural state. The two buffers would not be
included in Lots 3 and 4. The EIS concluded that rith
ihese buffer areas in place, no
negative impacts on the'Wetland' are anticipated.
\A/iih regard to ihe
'Significant
Woodland' identified on the lands to the easi on
Appendix B, the EIS siates that the "rail
ti"ail" (former railway cori^idor) physicaily
separates the adjacent wooded area from the subject lands and rherefore there is no
direct linkage between the adjacent'Significant Woodland' and the foresteci poriion of
ihe subject lands Addjtionaiiy, the EIS states that no significant supporting features
oi' significani ecologicai functions exisi iithin
the adjacent
'Significant
Woodland'.
Based on the foregoing, the EIS concludes that the pi'ooosed deielopment vould
hare no negaiive impact on tne adjacent natural heritage feature.
3l
Provided the EIS is acceptable, the proposed
development should conform wiih the
natural heritage policies of the County of Grey Official Plan
The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has revieved the EIS and, in a letter
dated June 25,2A14, has recommended that the two buffer areas not be included with
Lots 1 and 2 but rather remain with the retained parcel. The GSCA references Section
13.5.4.2 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (implementation document of the
Provincial Policy Statement) which states:
"Where feasible, buffers should not be located on lats privately owned by individuals.
Rather buffers shauld be included into the same otvnership that it is to protect. When
buffers are incorporated into individual lots, consistent management of buffers is not
possb/e. ln such cases, different landowners will treat the buffer in various ways, and
plannng
authorities will have little ability to enforce and zoning or covenants intended
to preserve
buffer functions."
The GSCA acknowledges that excluding the buffer areas from Lots 1 and 2 would
result in both parcels becoming too small, which means that the proposed
development would have to be reconfigured, resulting in three lots being established
as opposed to four.
Aquatic and Wildlife Services has responded with a letter to the GSCA letter dated
September 5,2014 stating the following:
"The NHRM clearly sfafes in this regard "where feasible", thus, this approach is not a
policy
or planning
direction as you have implied, but a best management approach
where feasibly possrb/e. The subject lands with a two tier buffer approach is sufficient
to maintain no negative impacts to the wetland feature. The decision as ta the
"ownership"
of the buffer lands is at the discretion of the Township of Chatsworth, as
such the EIS recommended approach and Site Plan lot configuration is not in conflict
with the NHRfi/l as yau suggesf. Given the small land base area, surrounding
residential development, surrounding disturbances, feaiure fragmentation (old rail
line), identified ecological functions of the PSW plus
adjaceni uplands and existing site
conditians (little ground cover, primary
overhead tread cover) to include the ownership
of the buffer lands as part of the retained PSW lands utould serve no additional
practical
benefit itself. As such, ii is not feasible ic put tne buffer lards with the same
ownership of the PSW, as the PPS and County OF
policies promote developmeni
vttithin urban
Qiliage)
enviroitments."
ln this discussion regai^ding the future ownership of the v,etland buffer, it is important
io firsi understand thai ihe Township is not inte"esteC in acquiring the portion of the
subject lands correred by the
'Weilands'
or its buffei'iands. The discussion should be
based on whether these lands should be incluCed witn Lois 1 and 2 or kept with the
retained parcel.
4l '-,
--
As noted abor/e, the Natural Heritage Resource fi/anual uses the words
"vr/here
feasible" to explain in what circumstances the buffer lands should not be included with
the development lands. These particular worcls are subjective and leare the
remainder of the statement open to interpretation.
ln ihis particular
se, removing the buffer area from Lots 1 and2 is not feasible from
the perspective
of being able to sever four lois. As noted above, if the buffer area is
removed, the number of lots to be created is reduced to three.
This issue has been given in-depth consideration. The Township Planner is willing to
accept that the proposed
development can conform with the natural heritage
policies
of the Official Plan subject to the conditions recommended later in this Planning
Report.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) directs urban type uses, such as residential
development, to the designated settlement areas such as Chatsworth. With regard to
servicing, the PPS states:
1.6.6.5 Partialservrbes shall only be permitted
in the following circumstances.
a) where they are necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage
servrbes and individual on-site water services in existing development;
or
b) within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and minor rounding out of
existing development on partialseryices provided that site conditions
are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no
negative impacts.
The proposed development should qualify as infilling. The Building Official will be
commenting on the suitability of the site for private septic systems.
The natural heritage policies of the PPS are very similar to those of the County Official
Plan. Provided the mitigative measures recommended in the EIS are implemented,
the proposed development should be consisieni with these policies.
The subject lands are zoned
'R2'
(Urban Residential),
'Wetiands
Proieciion' and
'Environmental
Protection' according to the Tovrnship's Zoning By-law. The area of
the prcposed
four residentiai Iois is zoned nrcstly
'R2',
with a
portion zoned
'Wetlands'
The boundary beiween the
'R2'
zone and the
'Wetlands'
zone needs to
be redeiineated through a rezoning application in order ic refleci the surveyed retland
boundary established in the EIS as adjusied by ihe Ministry of Natural Resources.
The'R2'
Tone
requii-es a
'nninimum
lot area' and
'minimum
lot frontage' of 2000 square
metres and 24 rnetres respectively. Three of the four proposed lots vrill exceed the lot
sl
area requirement, whereas Lot 4 would comprise 1318 square metres. The Zoning
By-laur Amendment rould
need to refieci this reduced lot area. With regard to lot
frontage, one of the four lois is listed on the application form as having only 23.95
metres and therefore this deficiency also needs to be acknowledged in the Zoning By-
lav Amendment.
Based on the foregoing, the following is recommended:
Provided the Chief Building Official is satisfied, prior to the consideration of these
applications by the Land Division Committee, that the four lots are all suitable to
accommodate individual, private septic systems, approval could be granted subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner enters into an agreement with the Township with regard to the
designing and construction of the Jane Streei extension. Such agreement shall
include: the removal of the existing "bulb" at the current end of Jane Street; the
restoration of the "bulb" lands (save for the section of the road to remain) to
grass and driveways; and, the dedication of the surplus "bulb" lands (and other
Township lands subject to the current reserve) to the adjacent property owners if
so desired by the adjacent property
owners.
2. That the lands be rezoned as follows:
The 'Wetland'
zone boundary on the subject property be adjusted to
accurately refleci the wetland boundary mapping approved by the Ministry
of Natural Resources;
The two bufiers of the 'Wetland', as identified in the Environmental lmpact
Study prepared by Aquatic and Wildlife Services and dated ltlay 2A14, be
established as separate zones on Lots 1 and 2, with the following
provisions
to be included in the Zoning By-law.
(i) ln the buffer zone within 15 metres of the wetland boundary, no
development or site alteration, including tree cutting or fill placement,
shall be permitted;
(i) ln the buffer zone betvveen 15 and 30 metres of the wetland boundary.
no development or site alteration shall be permitted except for:
a. select iree cuttinghinning shall be permitted within Vegetation
Comrnuniiy No 2 sho'run cn Figure 6 to the Environmental
lmpact Study (and io be specificaily identified as a sub-buffe"
area in tne Zoning By-law Amendment) provided that 30% of the
upper tree canopy is maintained on each lot anC provided that
such iree cuiiing/thinning occurs prior to siamping of the deeds
A.
B.
6l
for Lots 1 and 2. The subsequent removal of any trees shall be
prohibited except as required for health and safety including best
management forestry practices.
b. topsoil placement and lot grading with immediate native grass
seeding down shall be permitted within Vegetation Community
Nos. 1 and 3 as shown on Figure 6 to the Environmental lmpact
Study (and to be specifically identified as a sub-buffer area in the
Zoning By-law Amendment.
C. A holding (h) symbol be attached to the 'R2' zoning of the retaned parcel.
3. That a visible barrier (e.9. cedar rail fence, bollards) be established along the
boundary between the two buffer areas of Lots 1 and 2 required in Condition 28
to the satisfaction of the Township. The location of the arrier shall be
established by an Ontario Land Surveyor.
4. That the tree removal note in Condition 2B(ii)a for Lots 1 and 2 be conducted;
and, that the author of the Environmental lmpact Study or similar qualified
professional mark the trees to be removed prior to their removal and that he/she
subsequently submit a letter following their removal explaining that at least 30%
of the tree cover of each lot has been maintained.
5. That the deeds for all four lots be submitted to the Township, stamped by the
Township and registered on title by the applicant's lawyer simultaneously.
This opinion is provided without the benefit of having received comments from any
other agency or any adjacent land owners. Should new information arise regarding
this proposal, the Committee of Adjustment is advised to take such information into
account when considering the applications.
this information will be of assistance.
Ron Davidson, BES,
Touinship Planner
RPP, MCIP
TlPa'c
It
Si
Township of Chatsworth
Land Division Committee
l{otice of Applications for Consent
le ?fnnng Act, "SO lggo, as clrnenlel
Take Notice that the Township of Chatsworth Land Division Comrnittee has appointed
October 15. 2014 at 9:20 a.m. fbr the purpose of a public hearirrg into this matter. The Hearirrg
r,vill be held at the Towrtship of Chatsworth Council Chambers at 316837 Highway , R.R.#1,
Chatswortli, Ontario.
CONSEN't APPLICATION: File No: B\DA14.8612014.B7l20l4 &.B,812014
PI.JRPOSE AND EFFECT: To sever fbur residential lots with fi'ontages on Jane Street alrd
to retain a residential lot with frontage on Massie Road.
LECAL DESCRIPTION: Part Lot 4, Corrcession I EGR (former Village of Chatsworth)
SEVERED PARCEL: AREA 2610 sq. rn.
(28094.7
sq. ftl
(Part I on attached drawing) FRONTAGE 24.5 metres
(80.4
feet)
DEPTH 5l .2 - 7l.l metres
(167
.9 - 233.4 fet) Irres
SEVERED PARCEI-: AREA 2749 sq. m
(.29590
96 sq ft l
(Part 2 on attached drawing) FRONTAGE 28 rnetres
('91.9
f-eet)
DEPTH 5 I .2 - 86.7 metres ( 167.9
-
284.4 fet) Ineg
SEVERED PARCEL: AREA 2031 sq. rn (2182.2 sq. ft )
(Part
3 on attached drawin-u) FRONTAGE 28.3 metres
(92.8
f'eet)
DEPTH 32.1
-
86.7 metres
(
105 .2
-
284.4 fbet) Ines
SEVERED PARCEL: AREA 1318 sq. m
(l4l87
3 sq. fi.)
(Part 4 on attached drawin-u) FRONTACE 23.95 rnetres
(78.6
fetl
DEPTH 32.1
-52.2
metres(105.2- 173.6fet) Ineg
RETAINED PARCEL: AREA 5.08 hectares
(12.6
acresl
f.RONTAGE 215.4 metres
[706.6 feet)
DEPTH l9l rnetres
(626.6
feet) Irreg
HAVING ACICESS ON: Severed
-
Jane Street
Retailred
-
Massie Road
West Back Line
SEE SI(E'ICH ATTACHED
Property o\,vrters within 120 metres (legislation requires 60 rnetres) of subject larrd are hereby
notifed of the above application f-or colrsent.
If a person or public body does not rnake oral submissions at the meeting or make written
submissiorrs to the Township of Chatsworth Land Division Committee with regard to the
proposed severance bef'ore the severance is granted, the person or public body is not entitled to
appeal the decision of the Land Division Comrnittee. Also, if a person or public body does not
rnake oral submissions at the meeting or make written submissions to the Township of
Chatsworth Land Division Cornmittee before the severance is grarrted, the person or public
body' rnay rrot be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal befbre the Ontario Murricipal
Boarcl unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasorrable grounds to do so.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Land Division Cornmittee in respect of the
proposed consent, you must mke a written request to the Township of Chatsworth.
Additional infonnation regarding the application is available for public inspection from Monday
to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Township of Chatsworth Office.
Wlren requesting information please quote FlIeNo.B5/71014-8612014-87/2014 &,88/2A1.4
Secretary-Treasurer
Township of Chatsworth Land Division Comrnittee
R.R.# l, Chatsworth, Ont
NOH lGO
Phone: 519-794-3232 Fc 519-794-4499
PLAN OF SUR'/EY
OF ALL OF
LOT 12
REGISTRAR'S COMPILE PLAN 1039
GEOGRAPHIC \4LLAGE OF CHATSWORH
TOWNSHIP OF CHATSWORTH
COUNTY OF GREY
aBtt El ulll,
SCAra-l:760

I I lro,tl
_lgqL
-Jo".-I
\,* or."*-oo ..-l
o
PART
'
PLAN 16R_589O
LJ;:
\\
l@6AI _
MASSIE ROAD
vr_
tg
l
ir
REGISTE
\'
REGRAR'S COMPTLED PLAN No.\
\l\3g Y- -"
\ tortz \
\
.", ,,
\
Lc
LOT 15
rEqrRHsur ffi
UNM 3 UM rc rc.
oA.........,.....,,...,-..-..,.....
-';'";
PLAN I6R-
ws
D^E-,--.--..-..-...-....-...
rffiffi|ffi
R rErqmE?-qffi
|-!+-l--E
PL
I
[
-,,.
'iu\
-;
\B,Pl
Y_
o, ,u"L,
-="t
LO
F
\\
oa
oo
\"\
01 I
N 1089
qq
65
t4
I
I
PAR| 2 r
Str-
--1l:-
ALE 1:40
W*ry,W
/l
PLAN
"-rDrrl
.ot
\
t,'\
\
"r"r
r\"r"rJ'
\
r'or
\ s'"\
,tts'.J
tt
r \
^#'
./'
i
*7r-t
s
\J
LOT 116
!ot"' \
r*D6@M
ffi.*duwE
#ffi,*'c,&w!g###E - ---' 6
\J
-
'-
\'-
_LU'I
'
i%
\
\\
\\
$\
\\
o\
\\
\
S't
a
L
\
I
I
L\
h,
l/
i\S
i \-r
i%
i \.
i\y
t\
?
J
I
I
\
\
I
tn@
(1.4\Ps)
Jm sB(HaM)
I
,l)
I
,\
LCT I
/'P
":Z
RECISTERED
'B'
)
\
\?
\o
\
1"\
LOT 9
\
4
/
/
/ /
+Y/ /
,/ /
d-'
.^rr'
Y'
e/
{''
..)
{,7 fz
q
s,z
z\
)
1
I .c)
/

I
i\,
t+-onn
rqlf-t
i\,uu
zs.s\t
\
_AtCk Z
1-
!,r, \\.
t.zaraz
0.55 RESERVE
l(?
\-
:
(Pi.qJgr)
'yr%,
CEDAR
{USH
I a-t:.
l.' i
lsX' -\ \
ro\ ,n
\ts/FLAN
/089-l,
degh-
Planning and Development
595 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound Ontario N4K 3E3
51 9-372-0219 / 1 -800-567-GREY / Fax: 519-376-7970
October 8,2A14
Ms. Dianne Oldrieve, Secretary-Treasurer
Land Division Committee
Township of Chatswor-th
RB#1 Chatsworth, Ontario NOH 1G0
Re: Gonsent Applications 805/2014, 8,0612014, B,O7 12914 & 808/2014
Part Lot 4, Concession 1 EGR
Township of Ghatsworth (geographic Village of Ghatsworth)
Owner: Leanne Bayne-Loucks
A,gent: Pliny Loucks
Dear Ms. Oldrieve:
This correspondence is in response to the above noted applications. We have had an
opportunity to review the applications n relation to the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS) and the County of Grey Official Plan (OP). We offer the following comments.
The purpose and effect of the subject applications is to sever four residential lots with
frontages on Jane Street and to retain a residential lot with frontage on Massie Road.
The Jour proposed severed lots and the retained lot will rneasure as follows:
f-l-ot---l-nrea lar)
26'10 square metres I Zq.SO 51.2-71.1
2749 ssuare metres i28.00 51.2-86.7
t 32,1-86.7
t 32.1-52.2
i
Retained I 5.08 hectares 215.4 191.0
Schedule A of the OP designates the subject lands as 'SeconCary Settlement Area'.
Section 2.6.4 of the OP states,
1) The Secondary Settlement Areas, as identified in Table 6 and shown on
Schedule A of this Pian incluCe exlsting settlement areas which may have
sgnificant populations and,ior a wide range of uses and amenities-
Seconda,ry Settlement Areas are intended tc provide a limited opportunity
for growth and
prcvide a range of lirring styles and employmenl locations.
Grey County: Colour lt Your Way
2031 souare metres
1318 square metres
Page 2
October 8,zAM
2) Permitted Uses in the areas designated Secondary Settlement Areas are
residential uses, bed and breakfast establishmenls, home lrural
occupations, commrcial and dry industrial uses, public recreational and
institutional uses intended to support the surrounding agricurture
community.
3) Where partial services exist in a Secondary Setilement Area,
development shall only be permitted to allow for the development of
vacant and/or underutilized lots, as well as the creation of lots, subject to
satisfying the followin g
requirements:
a) the development is within the reserve sewage systern capacity or
reserve water system capacity; and
b) site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such
services.
c) providing the development is within the existing settlement area
The planning
report provded by the Township planner states that the new lots can be
accommodated by the reserve water capacity. lt shall be ensured that the proposed
lots can accommodate private septic systems.
Schedule A of the OP also designates the subject lands as 'Provincially Significant
Wetlands' (PSW).
Section 2.8.3 of the OP states,
1) No development or site alteration is permitted within the Provincially
Significant Wetlands designation. Except where such activity is
associated with forestry and uses connected with the consenuation of
water, soll, \/lldllte
and other natural resources ut not tncludtng utldtngs
and will not negatively impact the integrity of the wefland.
2) No development and site alteration may occur within the adjacent lands
of the Provincially Significant Wetlands designation unless it has been
demonstrated through an Environmental lmpact study, as per section
2.8.7 of this Plan, that there will be no negative impacts on the naturat
features or their ecological functions.
Developrnent and site alteration within the adjacent lands of the
Provincially Significant Wetlands designation will require a permit from
the appropriate conservation authority as per the conservation authority's
generic regulations.
An Environmenta! lmpact Study (EiS) has been compieted for the subject lands.
Protzided that the natural heritage mitigation measures recomrnended within the EIS
are implemented, tounty planning staff have no further concerns in lhis regard.
Grey County: Colour lt Your Way
Page 3
October 8, 2014
Schedule A further designates the subject lands as 'Hazard Lands'. Section 2.8.2(3) of
the OP states,
ln the Hazard Lands designation buildings and structures are generally
not permitted.
It appears that the Hazard Lands will be within the buffer recommended in the ElS,
wherein no development is permitted. The subject application conforms to the above
policy.
Appendix A of the OP indicates that the subject lands are located wiihin 500 metres of
a 'known abandoned landfill'. Section 5.4.2(2) of the OP states,
No development or site alteration shall be permitted within 500 metres of
an exlsting or known abandoned landfill site, unless a D-4 Study has
been prepared and submitted for review in accordance vith the Ministry
of the Environment Guidelin e D-4, indicating that the lands to be
developed are secure from potential methane gas and/or leachate
migration from the landfill site or what remedial measures or conditions
are required prior to any development approval being granted.
The specific area where the lands are proposed to be severed is outside of the 500
metre buffer. A D-4 Study will not be required.
Appendix B of the OP indicates that the subject lands are located within the adjacent
lands of
'Significant
Woodlands'. Section 2.8.4(1) of the OP states,
No development or site alteration may occur within Significant
Woodlands or their adjacent lands unless it has been demonstrated
through an Environmental lmpact Study, as per section 2.8.7 of this Plan,
that there uill be no negative impacts on the natural features or their
ecological functions.
The aforementioned EIS addressed Significant Woodlands. County planning staff are
satsfied that the development will not negative impact the Woodlands.
The subject lands abut the Couniy BailTrail. Comments have een received from
Forestry and Trails stafi stating concems regarding this proposal. Staff require
infcrmation d emonstratin g tha pre-development and post-development drainage does
not change and that no drainage wiil be Cirected to the County trail property, With the
retland
feature already present, there could be some issues with regard to water being
directed to the trail, which statf could not suppott. Additionaily, the entire area
proposed fcr development is treed. The area is greater than one hectare and all tree
Grey County: Colour lt Your Way
Page 4
October 8,2014
removal must be in accordance with the Grey County Forestry Management By-law. ln
the absence of drainage information, the applications are considered premature.
County planning
staff recommend deferral of the subject applications until such time
as Trails staff coneerns regarding drainage are addressed.
The County requests notice of any decision rendered with respect to this file.
lf you wish to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
IW
Planner
(519) 372-0219 ext. 1233
alisha. bu itenhu is@grey. ca
www.orev.ca
uitenhuis, B.E.S.
Grey County: Colour lt Your Way
Grey Sauble
Consewaton
237897 lnglis Falls Road, R.R #4, Owen Sound, ON N4K 5N6
Telephone: 519.376.3076 Fax; 519.371.0437 Email:admin@greysauble.on.ca
www.greysauble.on.ca
October 8,2014
Mr. Will Moore, CAO/Clerk
Township of Chatsworth
RR1
Chatswo'th, Ontario
NOH lGO
Dear Mr. Moore:
RE: Application for Consent: 85/201 4, Bi612014, B7l2O'l4,Bgt2O14
Applicant: Leanne Loucks
Agent: Pliny Loucks
Part of Lot 4, Concession I EGR
Township of Chatsworth, former Village of Chatsworth
Our File: P11108
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has reviewed the above noted applications in
accordance with our mandate and policies for natural hazards, for natural heritage issues as per
our Memorandum of Agreement with the Township of Chatsworth and relative to our policies for
the implementation of Ontario Regulation 151/06. We otfer the following cornments.
Subject Proposal
It is our understanding that the purpose of the consent applications is to create 4 new residential
lots within the Village of Chatsworth. The creation of the lots will require the extension of Jane
Street in order to create enough frontage to accommodate the lots. The lots are
proposed to be
on municipal water and private sewage disposal systems. An environmental impact study (ElS)
has been completed for the proposal by Aquatic and Wildlife Services.
Site Description
The subject property s located on the south side of Massie Road with access from Jane Street
within the Village of Chatsworth. The property is bound by Massie Road to the north, a rail trail
to the east, and commercial and residential properties to the south and west. Four residential
lots are proposed within the south east corner of the propey, with consideration for future
phase 2 development on the western portion of the propefty. The area of the proposed
development features a predorninately eastern white cedar stand that is upland from a wetland
feature bordering the rear of the proposeC lots.
GSCA Regulations
A large portion of the prcperty is regulated under Cntario Regulation 151/06: Regulation of
Derralopment, lnterference with Wetlands & Alteration to Shorelines & Watercourses. The
rogulated area is associated with the Pi'ovincially Signiiicant Congers Creek Swamp Wetland
(PSW) and the 120 metre adjacent lands to the wetiand feature.
f.

Conservation
ONTARIO
Nual Chtp;oot
Watershed Municipalities
Arran-Elderslie, Chatsworth, Georgian Bluffs, Grey Highlands
Meaford, Owen Sound, South Bruce Peninsula, Blue Mountains
I\4r'. Wiil Mttole.
(AOi('lcrk
Appl rcat rons fol Co nsert : Il5i20 I 4, A6120 I 4. )7 /2() | 4. Il 8/20 I 4
Pari ol'Lol 4,
('oncesskrn
| !iCR.'l'ownship or'Chatswolth (tbrnrcl
Vilia.ec oi'Chatsworth)
Ocrober'8,2()14
Oul File No. Pl I 108
Under this regulation, a permit is required from this office prior to the construction of buildings or
siructures, the temporary or permanent placement
of fill within the affected area, nterference
with a wetland, and/or the straightenng, changing, diverting or in any way nterfering with an
existing channel of a river, lake, creek, stream or watercourse.
Provincial Policy Statement
3.1 Natural Hazards
GSCA identified natural hazard lands on the subject property
associated with the flood potential
of the PSW feature and an area identfied in the EIS as a seasona groundwater discharge/seep
zone. These areas are identifed on the attached map.
We note that the western porton of the retained parcel
exhibits features of being poorly
drained
as evident by the presence
of standing water and saturated soils at the time of GSCA's site
inspection and revew of aerial photography. Any proposed
development should account for
poor
drainage.
2.1 Natural Heritage Values
Natural heritage features identified on and adjacent to the subject property includes the
Provincially Significant Congers Creek Swamp Wetland and significant woodland identified
under the County of Grey Otficial Plan.
Under Section 2.1.4 a) & b) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) development and site
alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands,
Under Section 2.1.5 b) of the PPS development and site alteration shall not be permitted in
significant woodlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on
the natural features or their ecological function.
Under Secton 2.1.8 of the PPS developmenl and site alteration shall not be permitted on
adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4 and 2.1 .5
unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their
ecological functions.
The EIS report provided
demonstrates that the proposal would have no anticipated negative
impacts to natural features or the ecological functions of the Provncially significant wetland and
ihe adjacent mapped significant woodland. The reporl proposes mitigation rneasures and
buffers to maintain naturai hertage values.
The proposal will require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the measures outlined in the
EIS in conjunction with municipal requirements. The zoning amendrnent is also required to
adjust the wetland zone.
he Township Planner's report dated September 24, 2014 outlines a suitable
process to
address bulfer provisions within the required zoning by-law for the propedy. (page 6 and 7 of
the report) Further to hls 5 points, it should be noted that all four lots are subject Ontario
2ol
-
l\l Will tukrotc. CAO/Clcrk
r\ppl icat iorrs to r
(.rnsent
l J5/20 1 4. P'6{2() l 4, lt'! fl) i 4. ti8/2() 1 4
Partol'f .()t 4,('(tccssi<:lr I il(t.'Iou,nshipol('httswtr'th (lornrer Villagcoi'(lhatsr,,rlnh)
()cttrt'rcr
.2014
()rrr
lile Ntl. l)l I l()8
Regulation 151/06 administered by the GSCA. An additional explanatory note should be added
to the proposed
zoning by-law indicating the requirernent for permits from GSCA
prior to any
site alteratons. As part of our requirements for permts, we wll requre detailed engineered lot
grading and drainage plans.
Recomrnendations and Additional Comments
We recommend that decision on the proposed
consents be deferred until an appropriate zoning
by-law is passed to adjust the hazard zone as outlned on the enclosed map and the wetland
zone to correspond with the approved Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry boundary.
The zoning by-law should include the provisions noted in the Township Planne/s report of
September 24, 2014 iterns 1 to 5 inclusive. ltem 4 regarding tree removal will need to be
reviewed with the GSCA prior to completion in the event the tree removal involves site grading.
We recornmend that the proponent provide docurnentation that ensures that the proposed lots
have sufficient area for proposed
sewage treatment areas located outside the 30 metre utfer
from the wetland to the satisfaction of the Township's CBO.
The four lots are regulated under Ontario Regulalion 151/06. The recommended zoning by-law
should include a note that indicates that "Prior any site alteration and/or lot grading on the four lots, a
permit is required from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. Permit requirements will include
providing a detailed engineered site plan detailing lot grading and drainage, sewage disposal detals,
driveways, dwelling location, and accessory structures. The plan for lots 1 and 2 will also need to
identify the required buffer areas on the site plan.
lf any questions
should arise, please
contact the undersigned.
Environmental Planning Coordinator
cc via email: Mr. erry McKay, Authority Director, Township of Chatsworth
Ms. Dianne Cldrieve, Planning Department. Township of Chatsworth
Mr. Dan Swedlo, Chief Building Official, Township of Chatsworth
Planning Departmeni, County of Grey
Ron Davidson, Township Planner.
3 ol'.
GSCA: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands
and
^AJtetations
to Shotelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 151/06)
GSC Parcels
Subject Property (Approx.
)
Ontaro Regulaon 151/06
fl
Nanral Hazard Area
'
,
MNR Provincially Significant Wetland
N
Loucks EIS
Roll No. 42-04-340-001-150-00-0000
Part ofLot4, Concession 1 EGR
Our File: P1 1108
Scale
=
1:25O0
0 50m