Appendix A Public and Agency Comments

Transcription

Appendix A
Public and Agency Comments
Page 1 of 4
A
1
2
3
4
5
B
C
D
E
Northern Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review -- Comments, Issues and Influences
Class: Official Plan -O. Zoning By-law -Z, Implementation - I, Not in Area -N, Not Under OP jurisdiction -J Major Influence
Location: Tobermory - T, Lion's Head - L, Ferndale -F, Out of Area - O
Commenter
Comments and Issues Summary
Location Class
Comments and observations
6
7
Wolfgang Wacholz
Jan Pugsley
8
Wolfgang Wacholz
9
10
Petition
Charles and Tulia Hewlett
11
James Kuellmer
12
13
John Bainbridge
Arliss Golden
14
Bill Caulfied-Brown
15
Hugh Black
concern about parking for tour boats, conversion
of residential to commercial, crowds, traffic, fuel
safety
endorsing article by John Bainbridge
residential vs. Business interests, need to develop
a more rounded year round community, reduce
extent of commercial zoning, better public
consultation
rezone lands zoned Special Policy Area 4 from C1
to R1
same as above
Need for regular scheduled bus route to Owen
Sound
extensive submission outlining goals, areas to be
further examined. Should refer directly to his
submission, most notably goals,
commercial/residential and H zone requirements
Do not remove commercial zoning
supports submission by Bainbridge, need for
improving consultation, respect rights
impact of local businesses, lack of business
participation, new commercial development,
parking lots and tour boats, overcrowding, impact
of National Park, threats to natural environment,
parking, boat launching, visual, sound and general
pollution,
T
T
O, Z
T
O, Z
T
T
O, Z
O, Z
T
J
T
T
O, Z, J
O, Z, J
T
O
T
O, I
F
Page 2 of 4
A
B
16
Mary Catherine Janssen
17
Peninsula Bruce Trail Club
18
Bob Cunningham
19
National Park
20
Jan Pugsley
21
Graham Draper
22
Arlene Kennedy
23
24
Dana Holmes
Ron Davidson
25
Mike Campbell
C
concern about SPA 4, consultation, parking,
conversion of residential to commercial,
improvement and addition of public
walkways,improvements to Library parkette,
waste mangement, parking, recreation, senior's
complex
better recognition of Conservancy, maintain trails
from Tobermory to Wiarton, enhance walkability,
natural environment protection and
enhancement,
Isthmus Bay Property Owners Association, Open
House was poorly designed and executed,
Partners meeting as part of the preparation of the
Park Master Plan
Follow up on Transitions meeting. Plan should
reflect the five "D's" --density, diversity, design,
distance to transit, destination accessibility
concerns focus on human health, renewable
energy and climate change
natural environment protection, diversity,
sustainable, citizen involvement, better planning
and oversight, Tobermory Heritage Conservation
District
moratorium on establishing new businesses or
commercial rezoning, create community heritage
committee, specific suggestions including
addressing parking, crowding, commercial
development, most controversial is requiring
National Park approval
T
opposes commercial restrictions being added to
Tobermory downtown,
D
E
T
O, I
T, L, N
O, J
L
T
O, M
T, L
), I
T, L, F
O, J
T
). J
T
T
O, J
O
T
O, Z
F
Page 3 of 4
A
26
Jeff Corner
27
SEPO
28
Rick Peacock
29
Amy Hofstrand
30
Kent Wilkins
31
Arliss and Lynne Golden
C
Disagrees with Bainbridge submission, feels
business is an important part of the community
negative impact of commercial uses,
overcrowding, Holding Zones don't work, failed to
achieve goals to positive economic climate,
environmental protection, quality services,
common theme, better consultation (maybe and
advisory committee for Tobermory?),
concerns about restrictions on commercial
parking,
disagrees with Bainbridge submission, conflict
between residents and business operators
submitted extensive comments that should be
consulted, parking, solution to
residential/commercial zoning conflict
Don't want commercial zoning removed, even
from residential uses
Brent Robins
32
B
33
Bruce Peninsula Environment
Group
34
Bruce Peninsula
BiosphereAssociation
D
E
T
O
T
O, I
T
O
T
O, I
T
O, I
T
O, Z
Extensive comments. Disagrees with Bainbridge
submission. Leave commercial zoning as is, don't
impose more stringent requirements, consult on
Heritage Plan or designation, and more
T
O,Z
stonger environmental protection, balance
environmental and economic issues, diversity,
walkability, dark skies policy needed, natural links,
energy use, create Environmental Advisory panel, T, L, F
Recommended policy additions re cognizing the
role of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the
Niagara Escarpment Commission, the need for a
dark skies policy, and environmental protection in
general
T, L, F, O
O
O
F
Page 4 of 4
A
B
35
Richard and Jack Salen, Blue
Heron Company
36
Adam Robins
37
Transition Community Group
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brent Robine, Bruce Anchor
Cruises
Matters that could influence
policy
C
Do not remove commercial zoning, improved
water and sewer services, address parking, access,
control billboards, public ownership of water
access, streamline approvals and permitting, no
public consent for H zone removal.
disagrees with Bainbridge submissions, better
growth management not restriction, do now
remove commercial zoning, residential and
commercial don't mix
focuses on Energy, Transportation and food
production. Make renewable energy mandatory,
alternative transportation modes, improve
walkabilitiy, provide public land for food
production,
Leave H zone removal as is, don't integrate
residential and commercial uses, concerned about
a heritage committee, feels criticism of parking
not warrented, wants public parking, better public
access to water,
1. Spruce the Bruce tool kit for Tobermory
2. Spruce the Bruce tool kit for Lion's Head
3. Provincial Policy Statement
4. Bruce County Official Plan
5. National Park Management Plan
6. MTO Guidelines for Signage, Access and Land
Use Along Provincial Highways
7. Demographic Changes (our report will be
updated with 2011 census data once it is
released.)
8. NEC Plan
D
E
T
O, I
T
O, Z
T, L. F
O, J
T
O, I
F
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Wiarton Planning Department
Lynda Steinacker; Jack Van Dorp;
FW: Bruce Anchor Tour Boat Company
Monday, June 20, 2011 5:54:05 PM
------------------------------------------From: Wolfgang Wachholz[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:54:01 PM
To: Wiarton Planning Department
Subject: Bruce Anchor Tour Boat Company
Auto forwarded by a Rule
June 20. 2011
County of Bruce Planning
To whom it may concern.
Recent developments at the corner of highway 6 and Front Street in
Tobermory, a tour boat operation, have horrified many. An area that had
hitherto been almost entirely residential is being subjected to major
changes without the slightest local input. Assuming the Bruce Anchor
Company is complying with all permits and regulations one must wonder
what kind of planning could have permitted this additional project to go
ahead. With already heavy traffic coming of the ferry, additional traffic at
the same corner for Church Service, traffic on Big Tub Road and now traffic
to a new parking lot being constructed kitty corner from the Bruce Anchor
Ticket Office at 7480 Hwy 6, it is bound to be an intersection asking for an
accident to happen.
Furthermore on the waterside we will have large tour boats embarking and
disembarking large numbers of people on a lot that is only 66’ wide. Beside
this lot is a very popular diving and swimming area known as the Gap, one
of the few public areas available to the people of Tobermory. The dangers
here are even more obvious.
Storage of fuel on the premises with the possibility of spills make this
location even less comprehensible for it’s intended use.
This development has only one redeeming aspect, making money for it’s
owner. Certainly the planning should always involve the whole community,
not just a few businessmen.
With regards,
Wolfgang Wachholz
26 Front Street
Tobermory, On
N0H 2R0
519 596 2187
------------------------------------------From: Jan[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:55:56 AM
To: Wiarton Planning Department
Cc: MNBP, Ray Burns; MNBP, Tom Boyle; MNBP, DEPUTY MAYOR JOHN
BAINBRIDGE;
MNBP MAYOR MILT MCIVER
Subject: lack of opportunity for public scrutiny
Auto forwarded by a Rule
County of Bruce Planning & Economic Development - Wiarton
Phone: (519) 534-2092
Box 129,578 Brown Street
Wiarton, Ontario
N0H 2T0
Dear Planner,
I am not sure how these developments got past Council. Perhaps there is an
issue with the lack of opportunity for public scrutiny in the planning mechanism?
Where do we go from here?
Jan Pugsley
June 16, 2011
Gap Development
by johnbainbridge9
Many people have phoned and written expressing their concerns about the
development occurring at the Gap. These particularly dealt with the potential
danger to bathers and divers from the tour boat using the dock, parking
congestion, garbage, and the potential threat to this long established public
bathing spot. The Municipality is reluctant to post signs advertising this public
access because of potential liability. I said that while public ownership of this
access to the lake was not an issue, the size and proximity of the development
certainly could create the appearance that there was no longer any public access
and thereby discourage public usage. This may be an instance when, to assure
continued public access, the public may have to remain vigilant about asserting
their rights by using the Gap.
Robins Hotel
by johnbainbridge9
This ten room hotel, to be built at the corner of Legion Street and Hay Bay Road,
is one of four major projects in Tobermory approved by Council over the past 12
months. The issue before Council related to the removal of the “holding” zone
symbol on this commercially zoned property to allow development to proceed. I
pointed out that the developments already approved by Council had generated
considerable concern and disappointment in Tobermory. While most developers
had complied with all zoning requirements, the practice of using these “holding”
zone symbols, which were put in place years ago and required no public notice
to remove, were often like time bombs which, from the resident’s point of view,
went off without warning and caused great unhappiness. I suggested that
Council needs to look at better ways of managing development that involves
residents in the process and keeps them informed. One such mechanism is a
Community Improvement Plan, something that is envisaged under the Planning
Act. This allows the community to set out an overall vision of how they want their
community to evolve and therefore guides all future development in a way that
conforms to this vision. Wiarton has recently developed a Community
Improvement Plan.
This year the municipality will be reviewing its Official Plan. This is the regulation
that is the foundation of the Zoning By-law and ultimately controls development.
There will be a public hearing later this year or early next year. If you are
concerned about Tobermory then you should attend and make your views heard.
source:
http://johnbainbridge9.wordpress.com/
Aug .8.2011
Ms. Sabine Robart
Planning for the future. (or parking lot with a view)
The recent developments in the village of Tobermory have shown the shortcomings of the present or
none existing planning processes, which have allowed this community to become a single purpose town.
Lack of oversight by the elected officials has further aggravated this condition. Very narrow business
interests have driven the development without any consideration for the long term health of the
community. Furthermore the businesses provide for only a short time of employment, and then mostly
for students from out of town.
To change this trend we must make this village a village again... with people who like to live here year
round or at least for most of the season. That means we must reverse the trend to zone all prime living
areas commercial only. Many towns found a way to combine business and pleasure by creating shared
spaces; stores and services below and condos or old age homes etc. above and set aside desirable
residential areas only. We cannot expect people to settle here and pay taxes if all we can offer is a lot in
the bush! And even if the new comers were looking for that, they would at least expect to visit a down
town that had some life remaining in the off seasons.... not just a bunch of empty lots and shuttered
businesses.
Let’s build a Main Street, a place where business can expand without having to encroach upon valuable
residential properties. It’s been done by most towns around us. Look at Lion’s Head, Wiarton, Meaford,
Thornbury, just to name a few. What those towns have in common are a Main Street and a waterfront
that has often developed into a fine place to live for retirees and professionals with the means to pay for
substantial homes and the accompanying higher taxes year round.
A good start would be to re-zone the stretch of Front Street between Highway 6 and the Ferry Dock
residential. To my knowledge none of the present owners are interested in commercial activities but
one. Again, why should one business dictate the zoning? Another area that could provide room for many
fine homes or condos is the area from Lee’s Fishery along the bay toward the Tobermory Lodge.
The town has just decided to build an expensive Medical Clinic; we have a fine school, daycare center
etc. but no people to fill them. I don’t think we can convince many professionals to settle here, or
anybody else for that matter, without giving them a place to stay. A place with a grand view in a fine
town. Why wouldn’t a doctor or other professionals settle here if they found that kind of a place?
Although my next point may not be within the realm of planning, it still deserves mention. I find it
incomprehensible, regardless of zoning, that the neighbouring properties to a developing property need
not be notified of changes. The value of a property can be diminished without the slightest concern by
the one causing the devaluation. It seems the town has a moral if not a legal duty to inform all who may
be effected. The right to do business is necessary for our future growth, but that right should not include
the devaluation of someone else’s property.
In closing I like to reiterate that the intend of this letter is not to banish business from town but to
promote an all inclusive town, a town that can support our doctors, teachers, stores beyond the short
tourist season!
Respectfully,
Wolfgang Wachholz
26 Front Street,
Tobermory, Ont.
519 596 2187
[email protected]
By Bruce County Planning at 3:32 pm, Sep 07, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO:
SABINE ROBARTS, PLANNER, BRUCE COUNTY
FROM:
JOHN BAINBRIDGE, TOBERMORY
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF OFFICIAL PLAN FOR TOBERMORY, LIONS HEAD AND FERNDALE
DATE:
07/09/2011
Introduction
The year 2010/11 has seen a significant increase in commercial development in
Tobermory, including a three fold increase in the tour boat traffic, the development of
three new parking lots within the boundaries of the community, approval of a motel, the
development of two tour boat ticket outlets, and the rebuilding and significant expansion
of the Crowsnest Pub in Little Tub Harbour. The tourist lobby has supported these
activities by advertising Tobermory as a destination in China and elsewhere overseas
with striking results.
In a 2007/08 survey, the National Park counted 224,184 visitors to the Park alone. The
same survey found that a total of 14,358 visitors went to Flower Pot Island. This year, on
two successive days on Canada Day weekend, the Park counted 1200 and 1400 visitors to
Flower Pot Island and this, before all of the tour boats to Flower Pot were in operation.
On Civic Holiday Day weekend more than 10,000 people checked into the Visitor
Information building in Tobermory. These are extraordinary numbers for a community
with a permanent population of approximately one thousand people.
While various agencies monitor the tourist traffic on the Peninsula, in the nine months
that I have sat on Council, a period when all the above commercial developments were
approved, no briefing papers, statistics, or analyses of tourism and its related economic
activities were presented to Council to guide us in our decisions. While I often heard
various clichés about the importance of jobs, I never saw an analysis of the labour force
in Tobermory or on the Peninsula to inform us about the kind of jobs being created, the
number of people employed, whether they were resident or non-resident, and precisely
what benefits accrued to the Municipality in order to determine the value and impact of
any of the developments Council was being asked to approve.
Accordingly, it is to be hoped and expected, that after hearing from the general public,
the Municipality and the County Planning Department will conduct a thorough, evidence
based study of all the available data, in order to fully brief Council on the economic and
cumulative impacts on the three communities and their natural environment of the
changes proposed to the Official Plan, including:
•
economic impacts of commercial development to date in those areas zoned
commercial,
1
•
•
•
•
a labour force analysis to ascertain the employment effects and value of various
economic activities and trends in employment,
the impact on municipal revenues and expenditures of the various commercial
activities approved to date,
the impacts on the residents of the three communities of the commercial
development to date, particularly of the tour boat industry, and
the potential economic and cumulative impacts on the three communities and
their natural environment of any proposed changes to the Official Plan.
Without this information Council cannot make an informed and sound appraisal of the
changes to the Official Plan which may be presented for their approval.
Vision
The over-riding objective of the Official Plan is set out in the Vision. However, the
developments approved by the Municipality and the County Planning Department in the
past 12 months have been at variance with at least two of the statements in the Vision:
1.
The people recognize that the future is based to a great extent on the cultural and
natural environment of the area and as such, shall strive to protect it. The rapid
expansion in the number of powerful tour boats, the proliferation of parking lots to
support this expansion, the virtual elimination of The Gap as a public access to the water
despite the cultural significance of this associative landscape, (see D below) and the
failure to recognize the importance of any cumulative effects (see C below) of the
developments on the natural environment is at variance with this vision statement and
undermines the whole vision.
2.
The people of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula recognize that
development must be planned in an effective, fair, efficient and flexible manner. The
manner in which developments in Tobermory in 2010/2011 have been approved have
lacked transparency and they have been at variance with this vision statement. (see below
– holding provisions)
Major Community Goals
The developments in Tobermory have similarly been at variance with the following
Major Community Goals:
1.
Major Community Goal (a) To create a positive economic climate to create a
wide range of employment opportunities. Given the lax conditions for lifting holding
zones and the public outrage expressed by residents of Tobermory it is safe to assume
that a positive economic climate appears to mean giving preference to developers at the
expense of the interests of residents.
This goal should be rewritten to remove the 'repetition' - the word create is used twice in
the same sentence.
2
2.
Major Community Goal (c) To provide that any development proceeds in a
logical, progressive and economically sound manner. This goal appears to be a platitude
as no where in the current Official Plan is there an explanation of what this means, how
we will know if it has been achieved, or what measures should be taken to ensure the goal
is achieved. However, the evidence suggests that it has not been achieved.
The fact that Little Tub Harbour (identified by the County Planning Department in its
Spruce the Bruce initiative as Tobermory’s “Downtown”) is, with the exception of three
businesses, a dead zone for eight months of every year, strongly suggests that this Major
Community Goal is a failure. More work should go into defining what this goal means
and how it can be achieved.
3.
Major Community Goal (h) – Re-designation of the Hamlet of Ferndale to a
Secondary Urban Settlement Area. There is no obvious rationale in the Official Plan for
this goal. Have there been any studies and is there any supporting data that suggest that
this is a sensible long term goal for the Municipality?
A)
Commercial Development ( 3.2.1)
First, it is important to note that I am not opposed to commercial development. Indeed, I
am acutely aware of the importance of economic activity to the life of all communities.
Second, most of the developments referred to in this submission have all complied with
every condition set by the Municipality and other approval agencies. The problems I refer
to all arise from the Official Plan and how it has been implemented and, particularly, the
inadequacy of the conditions applied to commercial development approvals. Third, it is
important to note that the residential population of the Northern Bruce Peninsula is the
source of 96 per cent of all of the municipality’s revenue from taxation and
approximately three per cent is received directly from commercial taxation. In spite of
this disparity the existing official plan exhibits a bias towards commercial developers. No
provision illustrates this bias more than s. 5.4 and the manner in which it has been
implemented. (see B below)
Economic Impacts of Various Commercial Developments
The economic consequences of commercial developments are not all the same. They
come with a variety of impacts on a community and bring a range of benefits and
consequences.
At one end of the spectrum of the impacts of commercial development in Tobermory,
Lions Head and Ferndale is the grocery store, the hardware store, the LCBO, etc. which
remain open all year and offer a range of important services to the communities and
provide full and meaningful part-time employment. The municipality earns direct and
indirect tax revenues from the enterprise itself and from the predominantly resident jobs
they provide. Their impact on the environment is primarily limited to the site the business
occupies, the limited and short-term parking they offer, and the waste they generate.
The construction industry, not only provides a service to the residential community they
also create many full time and part-time year round jobs and generally build a product
that will eventually generate additional significant municipal revenues.
3
The there is the tour boat enterprise which has a large impact on the residents and the
environment through associated buildings and the large area, long term parking lots they
occupy. They rely on large numbers of tourists flooding into the area, all by motor
vehicle, cause a significant increase in boat traffic and deposit thousands of people
primarily onto the ecosystem of Flower Pot Island. Most of the jobs created are
necessarily limited by the short tour boat season and many of them are held by students
who do not pay taxes to the municipality. Many of these jobs are subsidized by
government.
Given the disparity in the types of commercial enterprises and their varied impacts and
benefits to the community the Official Plan and the Municipality and Council should
devote more effort and thought to distinguishing the type of commercial development the
Official Plan should encourage and the evaluation criteria applied to the approval
process.
B)
Holding Provisions (S. 5.4)
1.
Rationale
Properties in the centre of Tobermory were pre-zoned decades ago and prior to the
amalgamation of the three townships into the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula.
The demography and commercial conditions have significantly changed in the interim.
However, the criteria set out in s. 5.4, makes no provision for changing circumstances
that may have made the original zoning no longer appropriate or which have the potential
to cause friction in the community if a development were to proceed.
The lifting of several “H zones” in Tobermory in 2011, based on the number of calls,
letters, and emails to the Municipality and Councillors, and the formation of a Big Tub
Harbour Citizens Committee dedicated to responding to the disturbance caused by the
tour boat developments, created much unhappiness among a large number of residents.
According to one letter received by the Municipality there was an altercation between the
developer and a 70 year old resident which became physical.
These effects have arisen because the holding provisions do not require the County
Planning Department, the Municipality or its Council to consider the impacts of lifting
the “H zones” on the community. In fact the requirements for approval of the lifting of
the “H zones” are minimal. S. 5.4(d) makes clear that the intent of the holding provisions
are to facilitate development and avoid any public notice and input and, indeed, to
circumvent all public expressions of concern.
2.
Criteria Used to lift “H zone”
Nothing illustrates the shortcomings of the holding provisions and the way they are used
better than the tour boat development at Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street in
Tobermory that was approved by Council in January of this year. The development
included a hydraulically operated dock attached to the rock face adjacent to one of only
two public accesses to the water in the centre of Tobermory. (There is a third public
4
access at Dunks Bay beach but this is almost two kilometres from the centre of
Tobermory) There were 11 conditions to be met by the developer prior to the “H zone”
being lifted. These were:
1)
Negotiation and registration of a Site Plan Control Agreement;
2)
Provision of a legal survey;
3)
Approval from Grey Bruce Health Unit;
4)
Approval from Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Grey Sauble Conservation
Authority as it relates to the proposed commercial dock;
5)
Provision of MTO permits or authorization for sanitary sewer crossing;
6)
Provision of a contingency plan in the case of sewage pump failure;
7)
TSSA approval if on site fuel storage planned;
8)
Confirmation of compliance of the proposed sun hut structures with Zoning By-law
2002-54, as amended, and the Building Code Act;
9)
Food services shall be contained within the proposed information/ticket sales centre
on the subject property;
10) Existing access from the unopened road allowance is permitted at this time;
11) Comprehensive review of the site plan as it relates to Zoning By-law compliance;
Not one of the conditions considered the impact of the development on the neighbours or
other residents living in the vicinity of the dock. Nor, despite the three fold increase in the
number of powerful tour boats operating from docks in Little Tub Harbour and the dock
at Front Street, did any agency, much less the Municipality and the County Planning
Department, give any consideration to the cumulative impacts (see C below) of the
development on the community or its natural environment.
In the same year as Council lifted the H zone from the Front Street dock property,
Council and the County Planning Department also approved the lifting of “H zones” from
four other commercial properties:
78 Hay Bay Road (61 acres) Parking Lot with the following conditions:
1)
Negotiation and registration of a Site Plan Control Agreement;
2)
Provision of a drainage/stormwater management plan prepared by a
certified professional;
3)
Maintain tree coverage around entranceway to parking lot.
47 Legion Street Motel with the following condition
Negotiation and provision of a Site Plan Control Agreement and
comprehensive review of the site plan as it relates to Zoning By-law compliance.
35 Big Tub Road Parking Lot and guest cabin with the following conditions:
5 Bay Street Crowsnest redevelopment with the following conditions:
5
In addition to these developments a third parking lot was being constructed off Highway
6 near Hay Bay Road to support a competing tour boat operation.
It would be no exaggeration to say that Council was not expected to get involved in any
of the details of the approval process. Typical of that expectation was the passing of the
by-law to approve the new Crowsnest Pub. Three parking lots in one year and three
additional tour boats have had a profound impact on many residents sense of their
community. Most of these developments were approved without any public notice or
opportunity to comment. In the case of every one of the developments the discussion in
Council was minimal and the impacts of the developments on the residents were never
considered.
It is quite clear that the new Crowsnest building at 5 Bay Street is substantially different
from its predecessor. A significant amount of rock was excavated from the site to make
way for the larger foundation. Presumably, the old building was either a legal nonconforming use and the new building fell under s.5.6(b) or a legal non-complying use and
it came under s.5.7 of the Official Plan. Whatever the circumstances there was no
Committee of Adjustment meeting to approve the new development and Council was
never briefed on the discussions which led to the Site Plan Agreement. There was no
briefing of Council about the parking implications of the new building or whether any
cash-in-lieu of parking was agreed. After the building was finished Council was expected
to approve a fait accompli.
Non-transparent arrangements such as these, at best, fuel discontent among the taxpaying
public and, at worst, lead to perceptions of favouritism and unfairness.
C)
Cumulative impacts of developments
Neither the County nor the Municipality consider the cumulative impacts of development
such as, for example, the threefold increase of tour boats in the harbour and the rapid
increase of large parking lots. While the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(CEAA) applies only to the Federal jurisdiction it sets a national, minimum standard for
environmental assessment that should be noted and emulated by the County planners and
the Municipality.
Section 16(1) of the CEAA requires the consideration of cumulative environmental
effects, as well as direct environmental effects, of a proposed project. Cumulative
environmental effects are defined as effects “that are likely to result from the project in
combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out”.
A measurable change in the environment is defined as a change that is real, observable
and detectable compared with existing (baseline) conditions.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA) has issued a number of policy
and procedural documents that provide guidance for conducting an assessment of
cumulative effects, including the Agency’s Operational Policy Statement (CEA Agency
2007), the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (CEA Agency 1999) and
6
the Reference Guide: Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects (CEA Agency
1994).
According to the CEA Agency’s Operational Policy Statement, the scope of a cumulative
effects assessment may extend beyond biophysical effects to include the effects of
biophysical changes on health and socio-economic conditions, physical and cultural
heritage, and other aspects described in the definition of “environmental effects” in the
CEAA legislation.
The plethora of private parking lots to support the three fold increase in tour boat
developments which have sprung up within Tobermory this year have caused many
residents to be concerned about the cumulative impacts on their community and its
environment Nevertheless, no consideration has been given to the cumulative effects on
the population of the town, its cultural associative landscape, or its natural environment
by these parking lots and the increased marine activity. This important omission in the
planning process needs to be addressed in the current review of the Official Plan.
D)
Provincial Policy Statement
The tour boat development at Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street has caused great
offence to many residents because of the indifference shown by the planners to the
impacts on the residents in the immediate neighbourhood and the effects of vastly
increased tour boat traffic on the quiet enjoyment of the property of the residents who
live in the vicinity. This is at variance with the vision and the policy set out in Part IV and
Part V of the Provincial Policy Statement:
Part IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System
The long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontarians depend on maintaining
strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy.
Strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy are
inextricably linked. Long-term prosperity, environmental health and social wellbeing should take precedence over short-term considerations. (My emphasis)
Part V: Policies 1.0 Building Strong Communities
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend
on wisely managing change and promoting efficient land use and development
patterns.
Efficient land use and development patterns support strong, liveable and healthy
communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate
economic growth.
The Provincial Policy Statement, Part V, emphasises the need to protect the environment
and public health and safety. Many residents have expressed concern about the potential
risks to public health and safety of placing this tour boat dock immediately adjacent to a
small public beach used by swimmers and divers (see letter to Municipality of Northern
7
Bruce Peninsula dated August 12, 2011, from Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee.
They have also expressed concern about the effect on the public’s enjoyment of this small
beach. It is a serious short-coming of the planning process that no consideration, at least
that the public is aware of, was ever given to the issue of public safety.
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005) and Cultural and Heritage Resources
Cultural and Heritage Resources include buildings, designed landscapes such as parks,
gardens, etc, evolved landscapes such as a settlement area, and associative landscapes
which are landscapes with powerful religious, artistic, or cultural associations of the
natural element. In Tobermory, one such associative landscape might be The Gap
because of its century old association as a local swimming area and its unique vista in the
approach to Tobermory.
This Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and
came into effect on March 1, 2005. Section 3 of the Planning Act states that land use
planning decisions by municipalities and approval authorities "shall be consistent with"
the PPS, 2005.
Section 2.6.1 of the PPS states that: Significant built heritage resources and significant
cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS defines "significant" as valued
for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place,
an event, or a people. There are an unknown number of buildings and other cultural and
heritage resources in the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula which may be
significant. It is essential that the Official Plan comply with PPS, 2005 and an evaluation
of cultural resources be carried out in order that the land use planning process can protect
the cultural and heritage resources in the Municipality.
Once cultural and heritage resources have been identified, under the Ontario Heritage
Act s. 27. (1) The clerk of a municipality shall keep a register of property situated in the
municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest.
The determination of what is significant cultural and heritage property and resources is
made by the community. In order to facilitate that process the Council of the municipality
may establish a Municipal Heritage Committee 1 pursuant to section 28. (1) of the
Ontario Heritage Act. It states that: The council of a municipality may by by-law
establish a municipal heritage committee to advise and assist the council on matters
relating to this Part, matters relating to Part V and such other heritage matters as the
council may specify by by-law.
More than one hundred municipalities in Ontario, large and small, have established
Municipal Heritage Committees but the Northern Bruce Peninsula has not.
The policy requires that where there is a significant cultural resource consideration must
be given to this resource at every step in the planning and decision-making process. In
1
Ontario Heritage Act, 1990, Chapter O.18 s.28 and s. 2.6 Ministry of Culture, Heritage Conservation
Principles for Land use Planning.
8
addition, the cultural values of the community for whom the resource has significance
must be respected 2.
Evaluation of significance of the resource should reflect consensus among community
members with an interest in the preservation, use and development of cultural heritage.
Evaluation of the resource must be based on proper research. Evaluation clarifies where
significance or value lies in cultural heritage and how that significance is expressed. In a
community, a heritage resource is part of a whole system which includes the natural
environment and human activities 3.
According to the Cultural Heritage Principles, the surroundings or setting of a cultural
heritage resource often contribute to its significance and vice versa. Where significance
is linked to the contextual value of the resource, try to preserve the context. Try to
maintain the same use for a heritage resource, or if this is not possible, find a compatible
new use that does not demand too much change to the resource's physical fabric. 4
The Associative Landscape
The Gap has been a public swimming site since the early 1900s. It is one of only two
areas in the centre of Tobermory where the public have access to the water. The
placement of the tour boat development at Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street with
its accompanying signs, road access, stairs down to the dock, and building immediately
adjacent to The Gap has left the impression that there is no longer any public access. The
municipality has refused to place any signage indicating that The Gap is public land.
Accordingly, the long term effect of the development will be to deter public use of this
access to the water.
The disregard for the cultural significance to the community of The Gap and the failure to
evaluate and respect its significance is at variance with the Provincial Policy Statement,
2005, vis. Heritage Conservation Principles for Land use Planning. Municipal land use
planning decisions are to be consistent with this policy.
E)
Little Tub Harbour
As a direct result of the zoning choices made by the County Planning Department, the
Municipality and its predecessor, the Township of St. Edmunds Little Tub Harbour, the
heart of Tobermory, has evolved over 40 years from a vibrant community with many year
round residents into a virtual "dead zone" for two thirds of each year. This area, which
the County, in its Spruce the Bruce Toolkit, optimistically calls the downtown, would,
without the presence of the grocery store, the LCBO, and the Princess Hotel, be empty
for most of the year. Such a transformation from a vibrant community to a dead zone for
two thirds of a year represents a failure to implement Action 3.2.2(a) of the Official Plan
2
3
4
PPS 2005 -Policy Section 2.6, Ministry of Culture, Heritage Conservation Principles for Land use
Planning.
9
and a general failure of the County and Municipality`s land use planning efforts over the
past few decades.
It is also a failure of the Spruce the Bruce initiative to ignore this unfortunate
development and focus its efforts narrowly towards tourist business only.
It should be the focus of the Major Goals of the Official Plan to revitalize Little Tub
Harbour by encouraging more residential usage and year round businesses.
Parking in Little Tub Harbour (3.2.3.4(g) and 3.2.2)
The Municipality has failed to make any progress in the implementation of this policy as
it applies to the centre of Tobermory. The parking congestion during the months of July
and August represents a failure of s.3.2.2 Action(c) of the Official Plan.
The County’s Spruce the Bruce Toolkit for Tobermory, which has been adopted by the
Municipality, states in Goal 2: To strategically address the traffic flow, parking areas
and signage for downtown; and Goal 3: To improve the physical design of the main
harbour area and increase the quality of public places in the core.
The Municipality and the County Planning Department should weigh the value of the 16
parking spaces beside Craigie’s restaurant and 16 parking spaces along the front of the
harbour against the potential for reducing congestion and improving the physical design
and utility of Little Tub Harbour.
At a minimum the Municipality and the County Planning Department should explore the
benefits of turning Little Tub Harbour into a pedestrian area with exceptions for delivery
vehicles, boat launching, dive equipment delivery, and parking at Peacocks Grocery.
Boat ramp in LTH (3.5.2(c))
Pursuant to s.3.5.2(c) of the Official Plan the Municipality is required to improve existing
… boat launch facilities.
The only boat launching ramp within, what the County euphemistically calls the
"downtown” of Tobermory, is located in the immediate vicinity of the busiest grocery
store and its parking area, adjacent to a busy pedestrian crossing point and a popular local
restaurant, across the access to the only laundromat, and in the area where semi-trailers
frequently manoeuvre and unload. More than 50 to 60 ducks add to the chaotic scene by
occupying the area, waiting to be fed by passers-by, particularly children. The fact that
there has not yet been a traffic fatality in this area in no way reduces the potential for one.
The boat ramp should be re-located to a less congested area, not only to alleviate
congestion, but to eliminate the high risk to public safety.
In the short run the potential dangers to the public could be reduced if Little Tub Harbour
were to be converted to a pedestrian area (see Parking above) and the ducks were shot
and eaten.
10
F)
Public access to water and The Gap (s.3.5)
There are three areas in Tobermory where the public have access to the water. One is a
municipal road allowance at Dunks Bay two kilometres from Little Tub Harbour. The
other two are at the Big Tub Light and the road allowance at the terminus of Highway 6,
locally called The Gap.
While the Municipality recognizes that efforts need to be made to improve public
waterfront access and recreational opportunities (at page 35 of the Official Plan) the
effect of its policies in 2010/2011 has been to reduce public access to the waterfront from
two locations to one in the centre of Tobermory by the virtual elimination of The Gap as
an access to the waterfront.
The Gap also possesses important natural qualities as a deepwater swimming and diving
area in the centre of Tobermory and it is within easy walking distance from the
“downtown.” It has been used as a local swimming area for more than 100 years and, as
such, The Gap has important cultural significance to the community. (see below - Culture
and Heritage)
The Municipality must take steps to restore public access to the waterfront at The Gap by
signposting the access and taking steps to reduce the public safety risk posed by the tour
boats to swimmers and divers at The Gap.
Further, pursuant to S. 3.5.2(b) of the Official Plan, the Municipality and the County
Planning Department should Promote the protection of lands that provide scenic vistas or
have important natural qualities. The Gap, by any definition is a scenic vista as it
provides the only view of Georgian Bay on the approach to Tobermory from two
kilometres south on Hwy 6. It would be a tragedy if through neglect or disinterest the
Municipality and the County planners were to allow a commercial sign from the adjacent
commercial development to intrude on that vista.
G)
Front Street
The area from Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street to the Ferry terminal, known as
Special Policy Area #4, is zoned commercial but residential uses are permitted. In fact,
all of the lots in this block have residential buildings.
When this block was zoned commercial the properties were owned by commercial
fishermen. Some buildings were commercial outlets for fishing and cottage rentals such
as O.C. Vail which was a fishing/retail outlet plus rental cottages, LaVoie rental cottages,
Martins (rental cottages) and Ransbury's? (rental cottages). Recently, all of these
properties have been redeveloped as seasonal and permanent residential. Several
represent significant personal investments. None are used for commercial purposes.
Given the public outcry at the development of one of these properties at Lot 61 on the
north side of Front Street as a tour boat enterprise it is in the public interest to recognize
the settled residential nature of the north side of Front Street and prevent further public
11
outcry by re-zoning all the properties in the block with the exception of Lot 61, as
residential.
H)
Recommendations
The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and the County Planning Department
should take immediate steps to:
1. Protect what remains of the accessibility to the public beach known locally as The
Gap
2. That the Official Plan comply with PPS, 2005 and an evaluation of cultural
resources be carried out in order that the Land use planning process can protect
cultural and heritage resources
3. Immediately establish a Municipal Heritage Committee to ensure that the
remaining cultural heritage of the municipality is evaluated and respected.
4. Consider, as part of the land use planning process, the cumulative impacts of
commercial developments on the environment, the people and the cultural
heritage of the communities of the Northern Bruce Peninsula
5. Provide opportunities for residents to receive adequate notice of proposed
commercial developments and the proposed lifting of H zones from properties
zoned commercial
6. Provide opportunities for residents to provide input into the land use planning
process when there is a proposal to lift an H zones from properties zoned
commercial
7. Require the Municipality and the County Planning Department to bring more
discrimination to the evaluation of commercial developments and their relative
benefits to the community. In particular to consider the best interests of the
residential population
8. Re-evaluate the zoning of Little Tub Harbour to restore its year round vitality
9. Re-zone the north side of Front Street from the Ferry Terminal to Lot 61 on the
north side of Front Street to residential
10. To set as a priority the resolution of the parking congestion in Little Tub Harbour
11. To set as a priority the provision of more and safer boat launching facilities
12. To provide more public access to the waterfront in Tobermory
12
Bill Hollo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill Hollo
August-28-11 10:34 AM
'[email protected]'
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; Sabine Robart
Re: Review of Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula
Thanks
From: Bill Caulfeild-Browne <[email protected]>
To: Bill Hollo
Cc: John Bainbridge <[email protected]>; Jack Schenk <[email protected]>; Bill Jones
<[email protected]>; Milt McIver <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun Aug 28 10:31:21 2011
Subject: Review of Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula
Good Morning Bill!
Thank you for coming to listen to us on Saturday last in Tobermory. As requested, I am putting my thoughts in
writing. Perhaps you could forward this to Sabine too, as I do not have her email address.
Let me first say that I fully support the submission made by John Bainbridge which was addressed to Sabine
and dated August 28th. I agree with all the points he makes and thus will not repeat them. I also unreservedly
support the submission made my Jack Schenk which I believe he will put in writing. These two gentlemen have
said all the things I think need to be said.
I believe in commercial development that is carefully managed in the context of the interests of the whole
community and within the limits its infrastructure. I fear that too much has been allowed to happen in a
haphazard manner - much of which could be avoided with better communication. To use the now infamous
example of the new parking lot on Big Tub Road, most of the bitterness in the community could have been
avoided if local residents had been consulted before the changes to the property were undertaken.
Here we had a commercially zoned property which had been used only for residential purposes for about 50
years, in what is demonstrably a residential area. It is my contention that (without diminishing the rights of the
owner) neighbouring residents should have been informed of the intended change of use. This would have
given them the chance to provide input to the Site Plan before anything happened.
Please note that I am not suggesting the rights of owners be abrogated in any way because of a change of use,
only that the owners be obliged to give proper notice and then listen to input so that they and the Municipality
can agree on an appropriate Site Plan.
I do not know whether a change to the rules such as I am suggesting is a matter for the County or our
Municipality to enact - but I'm quite sure that a lot less vitriol would be expended if only people were
consulted.
I look forward to the next stage of public consultation.
Your sincerely,
Bill
1
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
[email protected]
Tobermory, Ontario, N0H 2R0
Phone & Fax 519.596.2942
www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
2
Introduction
At the Listening Meeting held by the Council of North Bruce Peninsula at the Tobermory
Community Center on Saturday, August 27, 2011 the planners requested that individuals submit
their inputs to the planners by e-mail. I am submitting my comments, observations, concerns and
suggestions regarding the current situation in and around the village of Tobermory.
The absence at this meeting of representatives of most commercial businesses in Tobermory
should be of concern to the planners, the council and local property owners.
Concerns
My wife and I were shocked when we returned to the small village of Tobermoryin early June of
this year to see how local businessmen,hadin a single off-season,had been able to so significantly
alter the natural environment of the village. It was obvious these changes were made
exclusively for competitive business purposes and their own financial gain.
Observations
Since last fall there were added additional parking lots for the exclusive use of customers using
each particular business’s tour boats. The trees had been clearedandin some cases the rocks had
been fractured and leveled to provide additional parking spaces for the customers.One business
built small gathering sheds, with appropriate signage, and located them at strategic points in the
village for the purpose of gathering potential boat riders to their specific business using their
newly introduced buses. A large new ticket office had been built on Highway 6 as you enter the
village with a large electronic sign to catch the attention of potential customers as they enter the
village ofTobermory. Clearly the objective was to snag these customers before they realized
there was now a second provider of boats that would ferry passengers to Flowerpot Island. As
you crest the hill toward what was once the “gap”, trees had been cleared, two parking lots added
and large signs erected for the ticket office of the second company that now also ferries
passengers to Flowerpot.A large hydrauliccontrolled dock had been fastened to the rock faceon
BigTub Harbour and thenatural gap in the rock that people used to use to come down and view
Big Tub Harbourhas essentially been converted to the entrance to the second cruise boat
company ticket office. In addition to adding the hydraulicdock, the trees in the area of thisdock
have been cut and decks built for the use of passengers as they wait for that business’s boats to
Flowerpot.
As of this year there are 7 tourboats, some of which are larger than those that were in service
last year. Mostmake several runs a day to tour the wreck in Big Tub Harbour and take customers
to and from Flowerpot Island. These boats have large engines and their engine noise is very
evident from the shore. In Big TubHarbour the engine noise is magnified by the rock face of the
shoreline of the harbor.
As a consequence of efforts to market the National Park andthe two main businesses in the
village of Tobermory,the environmental quality the Villagehas been effectively compromised.
Around the harbor there now is significant overcrowding on the streets and walkways. There is
an absolutely abysmal public parking situation with a parking officer now patrolling the parking
area to limit the duration of use of each parking space. To launch a boat at the public ramp is
now a challenge. The overflow of this mass of peopleafter they have paid for and completed
their individual boat ride, overflows into the surrounding private areas of the community with
the resulting aggravation andconflicts with property owners that such overcrowding brings. We
have found people sleeping in their cars parked on our property and tents set up for sleeping on
out septic bed. It is now possible on a quiet summer evening to sit out on ones deck in Dunks
Bay and listen to the “music” coming from one or more restaurantsin the center of the village.
When the park, (Fathom Five Provincial Park, was originally in the planning stage( Letter from
Steven Moorhead to Tom Lee, Director , Park Planning Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources,
Queen’s Park, dated April 1, 1973), two basic objectives were stated. 1) a park for the citizens of
Ontario which would bring to life the excitement, educational values and recreationalpotential of
this underwater environmentin context with its cultural and physical surroundings and 2.) the
determination of proposals which preserve and enhance the unique character of the Tobermory
region.It is clear that objective number one has been met based upon the crowds of people now
coming to the park and the very limited land mass that is Tobermory. Further, the current park
management has jealously guarded much of the area of land now under its control with the
exception of the overcrowding that is occurring on the public areas on Flowerpot Island. Crowd
spillover has become the problem of property owners in the surrounding community. Objective
two has been a failure.
By contrast, the village that was Tobermoryhas completely lost any semblance of the quaint
fishing community it once was and that made it so attractive to visitors. There is no commercial
fishing in the community as there once was. Sport fishing has been almost completely
destroyed. The harbor now is geared almost exclusively to businesses catering to tourism and all
that comes with it. The decline in theoverall quality of the village during the brief summer
season has occurred through untethered commercialization, deliberate,uncontrolled destruction
of thelocalphysical environment and overcrowding for commercial gain encouraged by flashy
local and distant advertising; adverting that appears at times to be targeted to distinct ethnic
communities in urban areas. Most efforts appear to be geared to support the significant financial
investments of a very small number of businessmen. The result, during the peak season,is visual,
noise and environmentalpollutionbrought on by overcrowding.
Potential Topics for the Plan to Address
The above paragraphs outline areas where the North Bruce Peninsula Plan, if completed in a
timely manner and executed effectively , could still have some positive impact upon the
development of Tobermory and the surrounding community.
These include:
• To address the negative impact upon the natural environmentof the village that is
occurringto facilitate commercial development.
• To control further commercial development without first having completed impact
studies. The objectives being to: a) control and enhance the quality of the remaining
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
local environment, b.) toensure that the required services are in place tomaintain at least
thequality of the present environment prior to further development and c.) to prevent
further overcrowding and the lack of such things as common courtesy often experienced
during the summer season with visitors on the streets of Tobermory.
To address the deplorable parking situation for residents of the area trying to patronize
the few remaining stores still interested in serving the local community of Tobermory.
To address the deplorable situation for individuals trying to launch or retrieve their boats.
To control the visual pollution created by large electronic or painted signsplaced in
obvious locations for commercial purposes as one entersordrives around the village.
To control the sound pollution created by the engines of the numerous tour boats that
make frequent trips into and out the harbor and over the shipwreck in Big TubHarbour.
To control theair pollution from the engines of these boats .
To control the noise levels associated with the “music”of bands that flows on a summer
evening across the communityand surrounding areasfrom commercial establishments.
To control the maximal use, or overuse, of the walkways/ facilities on Flower Pot Island
which seems totally inconsistent with the purpose of preserving the unique character of
the islands and unique land mass that make up the park.
Methods to Develop and Successfully Execute the Plan
A successful development plan, like a scientific experiment, requires gathering and
accuratelyassessing all available information/ issues/questions from all segments of the
community, both private and commercial. These inputs from a cross section of the community
will justify future government activities that will enhance the quality of life while maintaining
the natural beauty of the community. Like an experiment, a successful plan needs a specific
overriding objective. The plan must then include a set of sub objectives related to specific issues
but all related to the overall objective of the exercise.To be effective each objective should be no
longer thana one sentence statement to ensure that each objective is well thought out, clear and
specific.
Once the objectivesfor the plan have been agreed upon, each objective should have its own set of
specific methods developed to achieve it. The Plan should also include, prospectively, the
criteria that will be used to assess levels of success of the plan.
If the Development Plan for North BrucePeninsula is approached much as one would the
development of a protocol for a scientific experiment, it will haveclear objectives, lay out
specific steps to achieve each objective and will include methods to evaluate the results
achievedagainst each objectiveat the end of five years. In the end the Plan should provide the
local government and the local community with an assessment of how well the objectives of the
plan have been achieved.The results of the Plan shouldprovide the foundation for the next five
year planning cycle.
Respectfully submitted,
Hugh E Black, DVM, MSc, PhD
Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Hollo
Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:02 PM
Sabine Robart
Fw: Review of Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula
From: John Bainbridge <[email protected]>
To: Bill Hollo
Cc: Bill Caulfeild-Browne <[email protected]>; Jack Schenk <[email protected]>; Bill Jones
<[email protected]>; Milt McIver <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue Sep 06 19:00:35 2011
Subject: Re: Review of Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula
On 06/09/2011 10:17 AM, Bill Hollo wrote:
Thanks for your comments, and your patience while I finished off the last week of my holidays. We have John
Bainbridges submission as part of our information gathering and will be addressing it in our research or
alternatives phase. Obviously one of the biggest issues we have encountered is the conflict between
commercial uses and residential uses. We appreciate receiving such thoughtful submissions early so that we
can use them as ideas to be considered. Thanks.
From: Bill Caulfeild-Browne [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: August-28-11 10:31 AM
To: Bill Hollo
Cc: John Bainbridge; Jack Schenk; Bill Jones; Milt McIver
Subject: Review of Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula
Good Morning Bill!
Thank you for coming to listen to us on Saturday last in Tobermory. As requested, I am putting my thoughts in
writing. Perhaps you could forward this to Sabine too, as I do not have her email address.
Let me first say that I fully support the submission made by John Bainbridge which was addressed to Sabine
and dated August 28th. I agree with all the points he makes and thus will not repeat them. I also unreservedly
support the submission made my Jack Schenk which I believe he will put in writing. These two gentlemen have
said all the things I think need to be said.
I believe in commercial development that is carefully managed in the context of the interests of the whole
community and within the limits its infrastructure. I fear that too much has been allowed to happen in a
haphazard manner - much of which could be avoided with better communication. To use the now infamous
example of the new parking lot on Big Tub Road, most of the bitterness in the community could have been
avoided if local residents had been consulted before the changes to the property were undertaken.
Here we had a commercially zoned property which had been used only for residential purposes for about 50
years, in what is demonstrably a residential area. It is my contention that (without diminishing the rights of the
owner) neighbouring residents should have been informed of the intended change of use. This would have
given them the chance to provide input to the Site Plan before anything happened.
1
Please note that I am not suggesting the rights of owners be abrogated in any way because of a change of use,
only that the owners be obliged to give proper notice and then listen to input so that they and the Municipality
can agree on an appropriate Site Plan.
I do not know whether a change to the rules such as I am suggesting is a matter for the County or our
Municipality to enact - but I'm quite sure that a lot less vitriol would be expended if only people were consulted.
I look forward to the next stage of public consultation.
Your sincerely,
Bill
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
[email protected]
Tobermory, Ontario, N0H 2R0
Phone & Fax 519.596.2942
www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
Dear Bill,
I appreciate the openness shown by the Planning Dept in encouraging a dialogue around the review of the
Official Plan. However, I think that it would be helpful to avoid characterizing any part of this discussion as ... a
conflict between commercial uses and residential uses. That is not the issue that is troubling so many residents
of Tobermory. There are three principal problems.
The first is that most of the commercially zoned property in Tobermory was zoned as such more than 40 years
ago and, by placing a holding by-law on these properties, the public and affected residents have been denied any
notice or say in the subsequent development of the property, in spite of the passage of four decades and the
changes in demography, which have taken place since the property was so zoned.
The second issue is that it is a mistake to characterize all commercial development as being the same. As I have
pointed out in my submission, there are various types of commercial development which bring different benefits
and drawbacks to the community and the Municipality. In the short time that I have been on Council there have
been no analyses of the nature of the many commercial developments, which were approved or of their impacts
on the community, by the Municipality or the Planning Dept. An economic and social analysis should be a
feature of all commercial development proposals, particularly when they are located in or near a residential
area.
The third issue is the general tendency to polarize the discussion, as you have done, as being for or against
commercial development. I doubt that anybody in Tobermory is against commercial development. We are all
acutely aware of the nexus between the viability of health care, schools, etc and economic development. Most
people would simply like to have a deeper discussion about the type of development that we want to encourage,
based on up to date statistics, and in an open forum.
Regards,
John
2
Submission to the County of Bruce Official Plan Review From Peninsula Bruce Trail Club September 2011 Executive Summary This Peninsula Bruce Trail Club's submission to the Official Plan review process makes the following requests: a) That the Bruce Trail Conservancy be better recognized within the plan for the important role it plays in the economic, cultural, social and recreational ways illustrated in this document. b) That the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and the County of Bruce state in the Official Plan their support for the Mission of the Bruce Trail Conservancy as stated in the Mission Statement at the beginning of this document. The Bruce Trail The Bruce Trail, Canada's oldest and longest footpath, provides the only
public access to the magnificent Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO World
Biosphere Reserve. It is one of only twelve such reserves in all of Canada.
Mission Statement: The Bruce Trail Conservancy is a charitable
organization committed to establishing a conservation corridor containing a
public footpath along the Niagara Escarpment, in order to protect its natural
ecosystems and to promote environmentally responsible public access to
this UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve.
The Peninsula Bruce Trail Club is one of nine volunteer clubs making up
the BTC. The Peninsula Club has 600 members, a quarter of whom
volunteer as trail captains, land stewards, serve on the executive, or assist
on work parties and special events. Many of our members are residents
and property owners.
1 The Peninsula Club maintains over 250 km of main and side trails from
Tobermory to Wiarton, and manages over 50 properties totaling over 3000
acres (1200 ha). The trails and properties on the Bruce are arguably the
most ecologically important and spectacular of the Conservancy's holdings.
Comments on specific statements in the Official Plan document
"The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula has changed over the years and
continues to change" 1
"As part of the five year review process, the Municipality shall assess
ii) demographic, social and physical changes to the Municipality"
Among the changes noted in our community is that of an aging population enhanced by the influx of significant numbers of retired permanent residents. The Northern Bruce already has one of the oldest demographics in Ontario and significant numbers of these new residents are retired professionals who have chosen to reside in the tranquil protected beauty of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula. The most common physical activity for seniors is walking and many of these newer residents take pleasure in regular hikes on the Bruce Trail. Thus the Bruce Trail is providing a free, year‐round, volunteer managed recreational facility for the Municipality. Other changes of note are the increase in environmental awareness among residents and visitors as well as the increased threats to species at risk. Furthermore our population is too small to justify membership in the regional Conservation Authority. This requires a more local approach to such issues as water and wetland protection, forest management, habitat protection as well as the creation and maintenance of public low impact recreation facilities. There is little mention of Bruce Trail in the County Official Plan either as an environmental land conservancy, as a publicly accessible footpath or as a very significant economic, recreational and cultural community asset. In view of the comments above we urge that the Bruce Trail's importance in the 1
The comments in this submission are in response to Dep. Mayor J. Bainbridge's document ' Environmental excerpts of Official Plan for The Tobermory and Lion's Head Areas and the Hamlet of Ferndale'. Further quotes are in italics for the rest of this paper. 2 community of Northern Bruce Peninsula should be recognized and that the Mission of the Bruce Trail Conservancy be supported in the County of Bruce's Official Plan document. "v) the quality of the area's natural environment, including ground water, lake water quality, wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest." The Bruce Trail Conservancy's clearly stated mission is to secure and protect a natural corridor along the Niagara Escarpment. The Peninsula Bruce Trail Club manages over 3000 acres of escarpment lands in which the only commonly permitted activity is hiking on the trail or skiing or snowshoeing in winter. Much of this corridor is thus protected habitat for hundreds of species some of which require the large areas of interior forest environment for survival. The geology of the Peninsula is also structured such that the groundwater and surface water sources are toward the eastern escarpment side which is in part protected by our natural corridor ecological policies. Vision "The people of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula are committed to a progressive and diverse community that is safe, clean, environmentally protected and creates economic sustainability through employment and educational opportunities for all. The people recognize that the future is based to a great extent on the cultural and natural environment of the area, and as such shall strive to protect it." Many policies of the MNR, MOE, NEC etc. do assist in protecting the natural environment. But setting aside the most ecologically diverse and sensitive areas of escarpment forest, shoreline and wetlands under an active stewardship program such as the Bruce Trail Stewardship program assures a higher level of protection and supervision than just, too often ignored, regulations. Major Community Goals "a) To create a positive economic climate to create a wide range of employment
opportunities." The Bruce Trail is a major year‐round tourist attraction for the municipality and as such contributes significantly to the tourist economy. By protecting the shoreline 3 scarp face of our managed properties which include such land we also contribute to the water quality and the natural visual water‐borne experience of visitors and residents alike. The trail also provides low impact access to the magnificent diversity of flora and fauna on the escarpment environment so is used by many birders and other kinds of naturalists. "b) To protect the natural environment .. to ensure future economic growth."
While supporting the above statement we submit that it is very limited in it's expression. There need be no justification for protecting the natural environment. It is the basis of all human existence. We all need to better understand this concept and understand that environmental protection and economic health are by no means mutually exclusive. Indeed they are interdependent. " d) To provide quality services to its residents, recognizing that services must be
provided in a fiscally responsible manner, and shall always be restrained by taxation
and funding."
The Bruce Trail is a quality, well maintained recreational, cultural and educational service provided at no cost to the municipality's residents and visitors. "g) Encourage linkages of the footpath of the Bruce Trail in an optimal location as close
to the escarpment as possible."
The Peninsula Bruce Trail Club has been most fortunate, in recent years particularly, to establish helpful and encouraging relations with the Municipal Council and with senior staff. This has allowed us to proceed with fewer administrative barriers and with greater infrastructure support in such areas as the provision of trail access points parking lots and optimum trail routes to remove the trail off busy roadways. We hope that this experience will lead to more administrative streamlining of future such projects and also in such Bruce Trail Conservancy requests as severances. We are very grateful for this recognition and assistance. 4 Section 3 -Land Use Policies
Natural Areas
"..... The focus of the Natural Areas policies in this Plan is aimed at sustaining these natural areas to ensure enjoyment by future generations..." The lands that are owned and/or managed by the Bruce Trail Conservancy are set aside in deed as conservation lands so are thereby very limited in 'development' beyond the footpath of the Bruce Trail. This designation on this considerable body of lands relieves the Municipality of dealing with future requests and proposals for development on these lands saving both time and money. In summary: This Peninsula Bruce Trail Club's submission to the Official Plan review process makes the following requests: a) That the Bruce Trail Conservancy be recognized within the plan for the important role it plays in the economic, cultural, social and recreational ways illustrated in this document. b) That the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and the County of Bruce state in the Official Plan their support for the Mission of the Bruce Trail Conservancy as stated in the Mission Statement at the beginning of this document. Respectfully submitted by: Don McIlraith, President, Peninsula Bruce Trail Club September, 2011 5 Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill Jones [[email protected]]
Monday, September 26, 2011 8:39 AM
'Mary Lynn Standen'
Bill Hollo; Sabine Robart
FW: Official Plan Open House - Ferndale
Hi guys, e-mail below gives us some feedback about the meeting in Ferndale.
Regards,
Bill Jones, CAO
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
56 Lindsay Road 5
RR# 2
Lion's Head
N0H 1W0
519-793-3522 ext225
[email protected]
From: Bob Cunningham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: September-25-11 9:43 AM
To: Bill Jones; Robart, Sabine; Bainbridge, John; Councillors; McIver, Milt
Cc: 'Burns, Kathryn (E-mail)'; 'King, Bruce & Kathy (E-mail)'; Marshall, Joanne & Bill; 'Snow, Nancy & Don (E-mail)'
Subject: Official Plan Open House - Ferndale
To: Mayor McIver, all members of council, Bill Jones, Sabine Robart
Official Plan Open House – Ferndale, August 27, 2011
I am writing to you on behalf of the executive of the Isthmus Bay Property Owners Association. Several members of our
executive attended the above open house as a group and were extremely disappointed in the lack of organization, limited
information available and lack of process in this information seeking venture. We all came away more confused than
enlightened.
It was our understanding the intent of this forum was to present some of the work done around the planning process and
to solicit input from the public. From our perspective the open house was poorly designed and executed. We were given
no direction to discern the information scattered on the boardroom table or to get a sense of what the documentation was
presenting. Rather than throwing a bunch of documents on a table, a short presentation or handout describing the
documents and introducing the officials might have been more helpful and appropriate. And while we were able to talk to
the planners we noticed that no notes were being taken, there was no process identified to allow attendees to make
written comments and no instructions were given to attendees on how to respond within the process. In addition, none of
the officials in attendance wore name tags so it was often impossible to separate the public from those who might have
valuable information to share.
We have serious doubts that this open house will have fostered any significant public input to assist you in the planning
process and we certainly hope the next meeting is more organized and informative.
Bob Cunningham
President
Isthmus Bay Property Owners Association Inc
1
Management Plan Review
Bruce Peninsula National Park
Partner Meeting
Record of Discussion
Meeting Date:
Partners:
Time:
Location:
October 27, 2011
Municipality of Northern Bruce
Peninsula & County of Bruce
10:00 – 2:30 pm
Parks Canada Visitor Centre
Purpose : to share information on the respective plan review processes and discuss any
feedback on the opportunities and proposed management themes for Bruce Peninsula
National Park.
Participants:
Municipality of Northern Bruce
Peninsula
Milt McIver, Mayor
John Bainbridge, Deputy Mayor
Betsy Stewart, Councillor
Tom Boyle, Councillor
Ray Burns, Councillor
Bill Jones, Chief Administrative Officer
County of Bruce
Chris LaForest, Director of Planning
Bill Hollo, Deputy Director of Planning
Sabine Robart, Planner
Kim McPhedran, Tourism Manager
Parks Canada
Frank Burrows, Park Superintendent
Monique Wall, Manager of Visitor
Experience
Jeff Truscott, Acting Manager of
Resource Conservation
Cathryn Buckley, Technical Services
Coordinator
Sean Liipere, Public Outreach Education
Coordinator
John Meek, Heritage Planner
Agenda Items & Discussion Notes
Management Plan Presentation & Overview of Public Consultation Schedule
•
•
•
•
Parks Canada consults with the local municipality through the National Parks
Committee and through the Park Advisory Committee. The working relationship
was acknowledged as being very good.
It was noted that there was a lack of provincial government involvement in
management planning for provincial lands on the peninsula.
Traffic congestion includes visitors of local residents. Visiting friends and relatives
(VFR) was noted as being a large tourist market in Tobermory.
It was suggested that it was a good time for Parks Canada, the province and local
municipality/county to get together to share data, and identify the appropriate
management tools that can be used during the peak season and identify
opportunities for the shoulder season. County staff noted that there was more
capacity in the spring than in the fall due to availability of seasonal staff. It was
1
•
•
suggested that a pilot project could be developed for a shoulder season activity
which would involve some local business owners.
First Nations concerns regarding the management plan themes were noted to
include:
o Concerns about increased visitation in the shoulder seasons and that
visitation may be driven by gate receipts; and
o Cumulative effects of visitation in summer and shoulder seasons.
Specific comments on the draft management planning themes from municipal and
county staff included:
o Be clear and concise.
o Rank your priorities (i.e., protection, visitor experience, outreach
education).
o Look for partners for the built environment and provide financial
contributions to help for parking.
o Shoulder season: we should aim for marginal increases.
o Formal relationship between Parks Canada and the municipality: has
improved over the last year; Dorcas Bay traffic solutions have worked; we
should look at alternatives for ATV use; and the National Park Committee
is working.
o How can we coordinate environmental reviews, ecological planning?
o How do we work together on the customer service problem?
Overview of the Official Plan Review
•
•
•
•
The official plan review is for the secondary urban areas of Tobermory, Lion’s
Head and the Hamlet of Ferndale.
The process will have three phases and will take one year to complete. Phase 1
has been completed with public open houses to introduce the process and solicit
feedback.
The issues being considered in the review include:
o Connections: trails for pedestrian and cyclists and improvements to
signage
o Lack of access to the shoreline
o Servicing requirements (water and sewer)
o How do you harness volunteerism?
Issues that need to be discussed with Parks Canada specifically:
o Jurisdictional issues (e.g., who owns/controls the shoreline, bed of the lake
etc.)
o Visitation statistics: the park has a huge impact on the municipality and
they would be interested to share data regarding visitor statistics
Actions:
• John M. will forward a pdf copy of the Visitor Information Program to
Sabine for distribution.
Roundtable Discussion
•
Overflow during peak season
o Bruce County Tourism are willing partners for identifying methodologies to
deal with overflow.
o Suggested that Parks Canada needs to state our objectives for each
visitor node of the park so that the marketers can develop effective
techniques.
o People are coming due to the iconic scenery and the proximity to the
market. New Canadians may not feel it is crowded and the Great Lakes is
new and exotic. The value is good compared to Muskoka.
o For the overflow, the following ideas were discussed as options:
1) New areas in the park could be opened. Halfway Log Dump, for
2
•
•
example, could be improved to handle more visitors.
2) The business community could fill the gaps with additional offers.
3) Parks Canada could be innovative in customer relations (e.g., more
package trip planning, internet booking etc.)
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
o The municipality is developing a park and recreation master plan and the
initial research suggests that there is a strong interest in outdoor
recreation as opposed to indoor facilities.
Regional Planning
o It was suggested that a formal data sharing partnership was needed
between the county and Parks Canada, perhaps through Land Information
Ontario (LIO). The county is interested in natural heritage information.
o The municipality and the county are interested in the development of a trail
plan and would attend the proposed scoping meeting in December.
Actions:
• An invitation for the scoping meeting will be sent to Chris LaForest and
Sabine Robart.
3
Sabine Robart
Jan [[email protected]]
Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:36 AM
Bill Hollo
BURROWS (H) Betsy; Sabine Robart
Official Plan Review as it relates to Tobermory. the 'five Ds', namely
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sabine and Bill
great to see your faces and hear your thoughts at the Transitions Meeting in Lions Head. I appreciate very much the
opportunity to hear what you had to say.
Now, a phrase perhaps of interest to you ...
“...Contemporary urban planning follows design principles that are often referred to as the ‘five Ds’*, namely,
as it applies to the village of Tobermory:
density
I would like to see increased densification and infill within the Town Plot of Tobermory. Having ditched on
my street and requiring a tow, I am considering living in the village since it is safer for me especially
November - April. Being able to survive without hydro for a minimum of three days would likely be easier
in town than on the shore.
diversity
- local services like a drugstore? Interesting resilient retail outlets targetted to the increasing
numbers of the major cohort aged 60-70. It has taken me more than 12 months to purchase a new
watch band - the local jeweller retired more than ten years ago. A four hour round trip to
purchase a watch band? Right now, as far as I know, that is necessary.
design
- appropriate main street design. the new Crowsnest is a good start. Restoration of heritage
buildings, new buildings compatable with original ones.
distance to transit
I would like to see some kind of transit so that I can get into town without driving and also get to the bus
station in Owen Sound.
destination accessibility
I would like to be able to walk around the village safely without the danger of tripping. It is a good way to
husband health resources - walking around and not tripping = reduction of fractures and heart attacks - a
good thing wouldne't you say?
In making recommendations, I am not clear on the burden to volunteers because of the smaller size of our
village. Perhaps you could somehow qualify what the impact one or more of my suggestions might have on the major
population cohort aged 60-70? A specific example is what would be the burden on volunteers to have some sort of transit
here?
Jan Pugsley
1
* the five D's
----- Original Message ----From: Pollutionfree
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:17 AM
Subject: [.......Pollution Free Cities] Is Urban Intensification the Best Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
Dense downtown living more carbon intense due to higher consumption: a case study of Helsinki (10 page pdf,
Jukka Heinonen, Riikka Kyr¨o and Seppo Junnila, Environ. Res. Lett., Sep. 26, 2011)
Today’s review article (partly) turns on its head the assumption by urban planners that intensification of the
urban population is a worthy objective from an environmental and infrastructure point of view. This is based on
a comprehensive cradle to grave assessment of CO2 emissions. Results indicate that a densely populated
population core emits more than their suburban cousins for all categories of emissions except ground
transportation because of the higher consumption of goods and services there. This conclusion may not be true
of cities where the high consumer population lives in the suburbs but is a clear signal for planners to make their
assessments on more than a transportation basis. Density may be a preferred option for other reasons but not
necessarily for climate mitigation.
Key Quotes:
“Contemporary urban planning follows design principles that are often referred to as the ‘five Ds’, namely,
density, diversity, design, distance to transit, and destination accessibility”
“dense urban structure reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which in turn reduces CO2 and other air
emissions..At the same time, it is known that urban development patterns have a larger influence on daily
commuting, while recreational transit is more dependent on the socioeconomic background of the consumer”
“carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions are substantially higher in the dense downtown area than in the
surrounding suburbs, which is suggested to imply that the increased consumption due to the higher standard of
living increases emissions more than the higher density is able to reduce them.. carbon load of 14.7 ton CO2e
per capita in Helsinki DT with nearly 10 000 inhabitants km−2 compared to 12.0 ton CO2e in the Helsinki SU
with less than 3000 inhabitants km−2”
“climate policies should give higher priority to the energy consumption of buildings, to alternative energy
production and distribution modes, as well as to low carbon consumption within the city”
“dense and diverse urban structure can be justified from a number of other ecological and social considerations
such as exploiting readily available infrastructure, protection of wetlands or other natural habitats, or restoring
greenfields for recreational use”
Related articles
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Personal Approach to Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (everydayhealth.com)
Car makers 'reducing emissions' (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
Wastewater recycling can multiply greenhouse gas emissions (eurekalert.org)
Carbon Reduction Targets: How Do Different Sectors Compare? (greenresearch.com)
Business insurance holders 'need single emissions reporting format' (premierlinedirect.co.uk)
Electric cars key to greener future (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
Steps to reduce overall carbon emissions associated with concrete pavements by about 50 percent
(nextbigfuture.com)
Canada's Emissions Trends (climateinsight.wordpress.com)
EU Is Overrating Biofuels Benefits (technologyreview.com)
Are Motorcycles "Greener" Than Cars? (volokh.com)
-Posted By Pollutionfree to .......Pollution Free Cities at 10/05/2011 08:17:00 AM
3
Northern Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review Submission
October 8, 2011
Arlene Kennedy
50 Huron Drive,
R.R.#2, Tobermory
Ontario, N0H 2R0
To: Bill Hollo and Sabine Robarts, Planners, Bruce County
CC: Mayor, Council and CAO Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
________________________________________________________________
Introduction
I am a property owning Bruce Peninsula resident. I have been a Tobermory
business owner, (Circle Arts Gallery at 14 Bay Street), for almost six years. I am
also a Life member of the Bruce National Parks’ Friends; am on the Sources of
Knowledge Committee and the Bruce Peninsula Environmental Film Festival
Committee; am a member of the Bruce Trail Association, The Bruce Biosphere
Association, the Bruce Peninsula Environmental Group, the Bruce Peninsula Bird
Observatory, St. Edmunds Property Owners Association; and a supporter of the
Transition Community and the Grey Bruce Community Foundation.
I am pleased to respond to your invitation with the following comments that are
also shared with all of the above.
Vision
My vision for the Bruce and for Tobermory is one that respects, protects and
preserves the natural environment in a manner that attracts visitors, tourists,
cottagers and residents alike while preserving our culture and community.
I envision a community that respects diversity – cultural, biological and
ideological – and is a dynamic, learning community, encouraging and celebrating
learning, sharing, affirming individual and collective positive action and tolerance,
including our First Nations partners.
I seek a sustainable community that looks to future generations by leaving a
legacy of caring and preservation and conservation, honouring our culture and
our built and natural environments.
I want to participate as a member of an engaged citizenry, working together
creatively toward mutual goals through collaborative problem solving and pooling
of resources for the greater common good.
1
Migration to the Bruce
There is a sense of place in the Bruce. According to Statistics Canada, in less
than ten years, one in five people in the work force will be between the ages of
55 and 64. The Bruce Peninsula is a magnet for creative people. This is a region
that is full of talented people that are resourceful, innovative and strong. Many
permanent residents have been here for generations. Many hold down at least
two or three jobs, both paid and volunteer. They know how to think on their own
and are often inventive, self-sufficient and able to make do with what is at hand.
Many new residents are retired professionals who demonstrate a willingness to
contribute skills and experience as dedicated volunteers, contributing essential
tax dollars and in-kind value to the economy.
Boomer retirement will crest in 2025, and the influx of retirees to the Bruce
expect to be actively creative in their communities. Statistics Canada’s census
noted one in seven were seniors in 2006. By 2016 the percentage of Canadians
over 65 will be 23.1%. Over 27% of residents in North Bruce today are over the
age of 65.They are injecting creative energy, experience, expertise and
resources into the Bruce Peninsula. In turn, they are also drawing nourishment
from this dynamic, very special place. The concentration of creative individuals
here is blooming with those who seek quality of life.
Richard Florida at The University of Toronto writes about how to attract and
retain creative people that foster an open and dynamic sustainable community.
The diversity and creativity of this region’s economy is vast, evolving at an
unprecedented pace. Seasonal visitors and tourism are increasing dramatically.
The flood of cottagers and new residents seeking the attributes of this world
biosphere is growing as more ‘natural retreats’ in the south become more
congested. Municipal leadership in better management of the cultural and
environmental impact of these changes threatening to overtake us is
essential.
Planning and Oversight
Tobermory is the most visible testament to the need for better planning and
oversight. One example is seemingly unfettered development that appears to
occur without an overarching planning and community context of shared
consideration and action. Boat tours in increasing numbers, without an overall
integrated strategic management plan for Tobermory, stress the infrastructure
and culture of the immediate community as well as the parks. There is an
increase in environmental awareness among residents and a commensurate
desire to protect and preserve what draws people to the Bruce in the first place.
The environment is seen to be increasingly at risk through lack of coordinated
planning and regulation, especially at the shared grass-roots community level.
Community and Municipal consultation and cooperation with all stakeholders are
2
essential. Municipal participation in the creation of a coalition of conservancy,
(including the parks and First Nations), and also other private land owners in the
Bruce would help to inform and coordinate mutual goals. Coordination of efforts
and public understanding will help to maximize resources that are perhaps
currently less effective as stand-alone municipal, individual, organizational and
commercial investments of time, volunteers and funding.
The bedrock of the unique character and identity of the village of
Tobermory is its heritage and its creative vitality. Authenticity and
uniqueness of this ‘land’s end’, this terminus that thrusts into the largest fresh
water resource in the world, are the attractions. People recognize that the future
is based to a great extent on preserving the cultural and natural environment of
the area, and as such, are willing to strive to protect it. Environmental protection
and economic health are mutually interdependent. Culture matters. Heritage
matters. The continuum of history and creativity is the foundation and life blood of
any thriving community.
Tobermory Heritage Conservation District Designation
Designation of Tobermory as a Heritage Conservation District is a solution for
bringing together in cooperation all the various stakeholders to benefit the longterm health of the entire community and to protect investments, both financial
and otherwise, in its natural, built and cultural heritage.
The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit includes a publication on "Heritage Conservation
Districts: A Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act",
2006.
The the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and the County of Bruce
Official Plan Review process is an opportunity to formally request for
consideration the designation of Tobermory as a Heritage District, under the
page 11 category of a "Dynamic (continuing to evolve)" district which they
note includes districts"... that have evolved over a long period of time and
where the process of evolution is ongoing. The physical form and
attributes of such districts exhibit the process of past development and
maintain a continuum with the past to meet the needs of the present (and
future) community."
Tobermory’s history is unique and deserving of Heritage District designation, as
an early settlement and fishing village, and now, as an evolving, burgeoning
tourist destination at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula, the terminus of the Bruce
Trail and Niagara Escarpment, a World Biosphere and Dark Sky Preserve.
The publication guide on Heritage Conservation Districts, page 5, also notes:
"Subsection 41,(1) in Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act enables the council
3
of a municipality to designate the entire municipality or any defined area or
areas of the municipality as a Heritage Conservation District.
District designation enables the council of a municipality to manage and
guide future change in the district, through adoption of a district plan with
policies and guidelines for conservation, protection and enhancement of
the area’s special character."
District designation may include entire villages, waterfronts, important
vistas or views, lifestyles and traditions of the people who live and work
there. Heritage Districts contribute to an understanding and appreciation of
the cultural identity of the local community, region, province or nation.
Embarkation upon the process of designation of Tobermory as a Heritage District,
with both cultural and natural forms, would bring together stakeholders under a
common planning umbrella. The process and the time line are outlined on pages
16 and 17 of the publication guide on Heritage Conservation Districts. A
municipality does not specifically require a Municipal Heritage Committee to
designate a Heritage Conservation District, but alternatively, a local steering
committee or local residents’ organization can request consideration for such
designation through their municipal council. Volunteer research and discussion
and public participation are essential.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, section 40.1, “Designation of study area”, council
may designate by by-law a heritage conservation study area for up to one year. I
understand that Council, in consultation with the community, can set the
objectives of the designation, the boundaries, the content of the heritage district
conservation district plan and any changes that will be required to any municipal
by-laws, include any zoning by-laws. Council may set limitations regarding
alteration of property; erection or removal of buildings or structures or classes of
buildings or structures; landscapes and public open spaces; overall spatial
pattern/major landscape components, land use; circulation network and pattern
and connection to surrounding area; vegetation patterns; and historic views,
(page 23, Heritage Conservation District guidelines).
Request for Official Plan Consideration
Municipal leadership is crucial in order to work with the community to identify,
recognize, build upon and protect the unique qualities and nature that ensure
Tobermory will thrive.
I request that the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and the County
of Bruce state in the Official Plan their support for the establishment of a
Tobermory Heritage Conservation District Designation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Arlene Kennedy
4
Mayor, Council and CAO
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the Official Plan for Tobermory. To give my letter some
context, I will tell you about myself. I have been coming to the upper Bruce since 1978 and have owned
a cottage in Tobermory since 1990. My children now work in Tobermory during the summer. We fully
understand the need for tourism to provide a living for the residents of Tobermory,
Based on the information provided to us, it is my understanding that it will take approximately 4 years for
the new official plan to be finalized. In light of that, I am requesting two things be implemented
immediately:
I)
Council pass a motion putting a moratorium on any rezoning or approval of business
ventures that are requesting new construction or demolition of existing structures within the
area of Tobermory covered by the Official Plan. Making decisions based on a 40 year old
official plan may not be in the best long term interest of Tobermory.
II)
As required by law, Council create a community heritage committee asap, to allow our
historic buildings be preserved for posterity
It is obvious that any strategy for future plans for Tobermory cannot be made without considering long
term plans for Bruce Peninsula National Park. The town and the Park not only must coexist, but the most
effective plans should, to some extent be intertwined. The Parks’ decisions in these areas may impact
the nature of business ventures coming into Tobermory. Constant, amicable communication between the
Park and Council is a necessity.
Why Do People Come to Tobermory?
It is also critical that Council identify the factor that brings people to Tobermory. This from my perspective
is: the ability to experience the natural beauty and wilderness of the Bruce Peninsula.
Visitors come to Tobermory looking for the opportunity to dive, swim, hike, camp and boat. There are
businesses that are more directly linked to “the natural wilderness” experience such as dive shops, tour
boats, boat rentals, camp grounds etc. There are also the businesses that add enjoyment to the visitor’s
stay in a less direct manner: hotels, restaurants, art galleries, grocery store, sweet shop etc. However, I
think it is important for council to remember that if people can’t get the natural experience they are looking
for, they either won’t come, or will only come once and won’t recommend it to their friends.
There are certain areas that are traditional access points for swimming and shore diving which must be
preserved. These would be the lighthouse, Dunk’s Bay, the harbour tugs site and the Gap. Council has
already put swimming and shore diving at the Gap in jeopardy by their approval of a commercial boat
enterprise right beside the access point. Parks Canada staff were advising divers this summer it is no
longer recommended they dive a very popular site, the anchor (at the Gap ) Tourists were told, by the
boat operators’ staff that they shouldn’t swim there as it wasn’t safe. Parking is no longer available
unless you are going on the tour boat. The beach at Dunk’s Bay is very small for the number of visitors
that are going there.
In addition to the traditional access points for swimming, Mermaid’s cove and Little Cove are becoming
more popular.
What is the Maximum Capacity of Tobermory?
The official plan must consider how many is too many? During July and August the National Park was at
capacity. Do we want more tourists in July and August and can the town handle them? If Council
decides the town wants more tourists, what activities are they going to do if they can’t get into the
National Park? Additionally, there are services that must be put in place to support this increased volume
of tourists. These are washrooms and garbage collection. One washroom at the lighthouse and Dunk’s
Bay is not enough. Washrooms and garbage cans are immediately needed at Mermaid’s cove and Little
Cove.
Suggested Criteria
Before Council develops its Official Plan it must establish the criteria it is using to create the plan. Below
is some criteria I would like the Council to consider using.
1)
Development must preserve and sustain the natural environment (environmental impact
assessments must be done on any new business which is water based)
2)
Traditional access areas must be maintained and any new businesses approved cannot put the
safety of users in these areas at risk
3)
Washrooms and garbage dumpsters must be supplied at all access points
4)
The safety of the public must not be put at risk by new development
5)
Development and signage within the town of Tobermory must be in keeping with initiatives
outside of Tobermory ie. Being a dark skies community
6)
Heritage structures/identifiable landmarks such as the Big Tub Lighthouse must be identified and
protected.
7)
Most importantly, there needs to be something that allows the Council to say “no” when it is not
in the best interest of the town and the community. The wishes of one should not outweigh the
interests of the many.
8)
Park approval must be granted before any change in zoning or new development is approved
Additional issues that the Council should consider.
Re-location of the boat launch:
The present location is horribly awkward and congested. Perhaps a better location could be acquired.
Parking:
Parking along the stone wall where the dive boats dock should be reserved for divers. The dive shops
could have a certain number of seasonal permits that they could issue to divers going out on their
charters. The dive charters depart and return at predictable hours. During this 30 minute period four
times a day, the parking enforcement officer should use discretion and could even assist with traffic flow
as the divers load and off load their gear.
Parking should be allowed at the Gap for divers, especially for an emergency dive vehicles.
Consideration for Council:
The majority of council members are not from Tobermory and may have not vested interest in its long
term future. I would urge Council to weigh heavily the opinions of the councillors from Tobermory on
issues that impact Tobermory. If they are objecting to a proposal why would council support it? Council
members must also be able to put aside their family and friend connections and make decisions for the
good of the Tobermory community.
The majority of the money that comes into the coffers of Northern Bruce comes from taxes paid by
cottagers. It is in council’s best interest to ensure that Tobermory continues to be a place that people
want to own cottages.
Should you have any questions I can be reached at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Dana Holmes
cc.
Parks Canada
Tobermory Property Owner’s Association
Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Hollo
Friday, November 18, 2011 1:00 PM
RON DAVIDSON; Sabine Robart; Bill Jones
RE: Tobermory
I am pleased that we are finally getting some comments from the business community. The Department has
NOT taken a position on the issues raised in our consultation process. We have had expressions of concern
about the impact of businesses on residential areas from several individuals. Our timetable is to report on
issues next month, report on alternatives in the spring, and make final recommendations in the summer. We
anticipate public consultation meetings at the alternatives and final re commendations stage.
Any comments would be welcome in the next couple of weeks. Of course, comments are welcome at any
time.
From: RON DAVIDSON [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: November-18-11 12:00 PM
To: Bill Hollo; Sabine Robart; Bill Jones
Subject: Tobermory
Sabine, Bill and Bill. I haven't been involved in the Official Plan update proceedings just yet, but I
have been speaking with Brent Robins who is very concerned about the direction that review might
be taking....specifically, the possible conversion of commercial lands to residential lands. Brent
advises that others in the business community are also concerned. In this regard, please add our
names to the list of persons to be contacted for all notices pertaining to the review process.
As you are aware, Section 1.3 Employment Area of the Provincial Policy Statement states that
"Planning authorities may permit the conversion of lands within employment areas to nonemployment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that
the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need
for the conversion." Section 6 Definitions of the PPS goes on to provide the criteria for
comprehensive reviews. Do you know if Council will be initiating a comprehensive review?
Brent is interested in knowing the County's position on this mater at this time, if you've taken a
position yet.
Thanks guys.
Ron
Ron Davidson
Land Use Planning Consultant Inc.
265 Beattie Street
Owen Sound, ON
N4K 6X2
Tel: 519 371-6829
Fax: 519 371-3131
1
Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Hollo
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:02 PM
Sabine Robart
Fw: North Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review
From: Mike Campbell <[email protected]>
To: Bill Hollo
Sent: Tue Nov 29 13:21:42 2011
Subject: RE: North Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review
Thanks Bill
I appreciate your quick response I will check out the documents on the county web site.
Mike
Mike Campbell
Rentcottage.com
888-447-9590
From: Bill Hollo [mailto:[email protected]]
To: [email protected]
Cc: Sabine Robart; [email protected]
Subject: RE: North Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review
Thanks for your interest. There’s a couple of pieces of information you might find useful
1. All documents produced to date, including our timetable, can be found on the County website. I
understand also on the Municipal website
2. We have made no decisions yet. This fall we have been collecting information on issues. In the new
year, we will be identifying and evaluating alternatives, followed by recommended alternatives and
final adoption of any changes in the Official Plan. There will be public meetings at each stage.
3. Please participate in the process as it goes on to completion next summer.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please call or email me or Sabine Robart in our Wiarton office.
From: Mike Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Bill Hollo
Cc: Sabine Robart; [email protected]
Subject: North Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Review
Hi Bill
I have been following the new official plan review process in the press and on the Deputy Mayors blog, and am
becoming increasingly concerned with some of the discussions taking place regarding the revisions to the land use
designations in the Village of Tobermory.
1
Removing the commercial designation from lands in the village will only encourage strip development down the highway
(the development has to go somewhere) and would eliminate a compact commercial form that is pedestrian orientated,
similar to what we have now.
I understand that there are many issues this new development creates, however the lands have been designated and
zoned for many years by many different councils and in various planning documents.
It’s ironic that when we finally realise development in these designated areas that many councils have aspired to see,
there is such a backlash.
Unfortunately I am a late participant in this process.
Can you send me any background documents that have been presented at public meetings, I would also like to know the
planning process from here.
Best Regards.
Mike
Mike Campbell
Rentcottage.com
888-447-9590
2
Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Hollo
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:02 PM
Sabine Robart
Fw: Commercial zoning
From: Jeff Corner <[email protected]>
To: Bill Hollo
Sent: Tue Nov 29 20:04:32 2011
Subject: RE: Commercial zoning
Thank you for getting back so promptly
Jeff Corner
From: Bill Hollo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: November-29-11 9:04 AM
To: Jeff Corner
Cc: Sabine Robart
Subject: RE: Commercial zoning
Thanks for your comments. We are in the process of identifying issues, and in the new year we will be
preparing alternatives, and then finally in the summer identifying a recommended solution. There will be
public meetings at each phase. Check out our blog and the County website for more information, and as
documents are produced they are being lodged in the municipal office and libraries.
Thanks for your interest, and In encourage you to participate in the balance of the process.
From: Jeff Corner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Bill Hollo
Subject: Commercial zoning
Hello Bill
I was sent a copy of John Bainbridge’s memo to Bruce County planning; First I would
like to say as a business owner in Tobermory I am shocked at the letter and how the
information is skewed to look like the business community plays a minor part in the
harmony and health of this community.
The business community may be small but the employees and customers other than
tourists also rely on our existence. Most of the tourism operations are also the service
providers for the community; our grocery store, restaurants, gas station, golf course,
marinas, shops, even the Legion would not be able to survive without tourism. Some of
the tourism operators give back large to the community in their time and donations to
service groups.
1
Bill Jones
I attended a planning meeting in Wiarton last Thursday, regarding improvements that
should be made to the Tobermory area. I would like to state that as a business owner in
the Tobermory downtown. I am fully against turning the downtown area into a green
zone. If the downtown area was turned into a no parking zone, I may as well close my
doors. The municipal parking lot works great for people who want to browse through the
stores, go for a hike, or have a meal. Most people who come in to buy groceries like to
park close enough to take the cart to their car if they have to. If the town was changed to
a green zone what would all of the parking space be used for? How would you approach
wheelchair accessibility for the businesses downtown? I am afraid this would cause a loss
for our businesses, not help to promote them. I would be willing to attend any meetings
regarding this issue. Thank you for your time.
Rick Peacock
Peacock’s Foodland
Tobermory, ON
[email protected]
519-596-2380
Greetings Sabine
We need to take the dialogue forward in a constructive manner where the parties can get
together and hash the issues.
My comments below in bold italics.
I was somewhat perplexed the other day when I found out that not only was there a
review of the official plan, but that our elected deputy mayor had made submissions on
changing the plan for the Tobermory downtown and made comments on that downtown
without consulting with the people who live in the downtown.
I have permanent family connections going back to the early 1900s, and have lived
here full time in the harbour for the past 20 years. I have never seen anything so factually
challenged expressed by someone in authority on the harbour.
I have also directly participated in two community group round tables that resulted in
changing the two way traffic around the cenotaph to one way, thereby reducing congestion in
the harbour, adding green space, and adding parking as well. The other group dealt with the
new parks visitors center, one of the main issues being the road access to it.
Both of those process were very productive, the issue was raised by Smokey Golden at
the meeting and I elaborated on it somewhat, and we recommended it as a model for getting
community input on the review of the official plan. The process to date is setting up to be
adversarial with various groups sending propositions and delegations to the powers that be,
where a community forum working group would tend to be less adversarial and more
proactive in coming up with concrete sound solutions to the issues at hand.
First it might be advantageous for all to debunk some of the myths developing around our
local issues as exemplified by the submission by John Bainbridge.
While various agencies monitor the tourist traffic on the Peninsula, in the nine months that I have
sat on Council, a period when all the above commercial developments were approved, no
briefing papers, statistics, or analyses of tourism and its related economic activities were
presented to Council to guide us in our decisions. While I often heard various clichés about the
importance of jobs, I never saw an analysis of the labour force in Tobermory or on the Peninsula
to inform us about the kind of jobs being created, the number of people employed, whether they
were resident or non-resident, and precisely what benefits accrued to the Municipality in order to
determine the value and impact of any of the developments Council was being asked to approve.
How much would such a study cost, who would pay for it? Jobs being important in a seasonal
job community is not a cliche but an ever present reality for many who live here.
Vision
The over-riding objective of the Official Plan is set out in the Vision. However, the
developments approved by the Municipality and the County Planning Department in the past 12
months have been at variance with at least two of the statements in the Vision:
1. The people recognize that the future is based to a great extent on the cultural and natural
environment of the area and as such, shall strive to protect it. The rapid expansion in the number
of powerful tour boats, the proliferation of parking lots to support this expansion, the virtual
elimination of The Gap as a public access to the water despite the cultural significance of this
associative landscape, (see D below) and the failure to recognize the importance of any
cumulative effects (see C below) of the developments on the natural environment is at variance
with this vision statement and undermines the whole vision.
The tour boat operators in the harbour have been proactive over the years in providing
parking for their patrons who use the tour boats. If they didn’t, you would be complaining
about them not providing parking for their operations, if they do, you complain that they do
provide parking for their customers. The parking areas are done tastefully, and complement
their surroundings better than most any parking lots in the area. They should be
congratulated for providing this for their customers and the professional way in which they
have installed the parking in the past and currently.
The virtual elimination of the Gap? Prior to reading the Bainbridge “submission” I would not
have had any idea that there was a current issue with the Gap. The Gap has always had
limited access due to its size of 66 feet wide. My children regularly swim there, and I go there
many evenings to take pictures and have never had a problem getting there or felt there were
any restrictions in doing so. In fact, since the trees were limbed at the cottage next door a
decade or so ago, the evening sunset viewing has gone up quite a bit, where you would see a
few people 10 years ago, now its usually at least 20 if not 30 people taking advantage of the
sunset. The Location is not promoted in tourism literature, and shouldn’t be promoted with
additional signage, but I am unaware of any restriction in access and have not experienced
any restriction in access for any reason. The Property beside the gap has been tastefully
developed over the past years, the building looks professional and the view is spectacular.
Parking has been added to relieve the stress of parking on other areas. The business owner
should be complimented on his development of this commercial property to its potential, not
vilified, tarred and feathered by those also sitting on adjacent commercial property.
2. Major Community Goal © To provide that any development proceeds in a logical, progressive
and economically sound manner. This goal appears to be a platitude as no where in the current
Official Plan is there an explanation of what this means, how we will know if it has been
achieved, or what measures should be taken to ensure the goal is achieved. However, the
evidence suggests that it has not been achieved.
The fact that Little Tub Harbour (identified by the County Planning Department in its Spruce the
Bruce initiative as Tobermory’s “Downtown”) is, with the exception of three businesses, a dead
zone for eight months of every year, strongly suggests that this Major Community Goal is a
failure. More work should go into defining what this goal means and how it can be achieved.
It would be a kindness to say this is factually challenged. First, “a dead zone for eight months of every year”. The
harbour, depending on how you define it, has a grocery store open year round, a liquor store, and a
hotel/restaurant. One wing of another motel is also open year round. Many of the businesses open weekends up
until Christmas, and a good number open weekends in April as well. The primary tourist season begins the first
week of May and is done by the 2nd to 3rd week of October, which is 5.5 months by any calculation not including
all the work that begins in April and continues into the end of October and into November. Many of the business
owners also have primary dwellings within the immediate vicinity. Approximately 20 people live in the harbour
itself year round, which is more than lived here 20 years ago. The Municipal Plan was to make the harbour the
downtown core, and as such is a success with a gradual increase in businesses over the years. 20 years ago there
were a handful of businesses on the south side of the harbour, today there is a solid row of businesses from the
Blue Bay motel to Golden Gallery. Dead zone compared to what? Compared to the busy ness of mid summer?
Totally. Compared to Big Tub Harbour in mid winter, Little Tub is a vibrant year round community. Go to the
communities around Yellowstone in April and see how vibrant they are. Go to Killarney in September.
A) Commercial Development ( 3.2.1)
Third, it is important to note that the residential population of the Northern Bruce Peninsula is
the source of 96 per cent of all of the municipality’s revenue from taxation and approximately
three per cent is received directly from commercial taxation.
Factually flawed once again. Commercial taxes are applied on TOP of property taxes. The
owners of the businesses also for the most part also own significant land holdings in the area,
including their own homes. The employees of those businesses do likewise.
Economic Impacts of Various Commercial Developments
The economic consequences of commercial developments are not all the same. They come with a
variety of impacts on a community and bring a range of benefits and consequences.
The construction industry, not only provides a service to the residential community they also
create many full time and part-time year round jobs and generally build a product that will
eventually generate additional significant municipal revenues.
Those full and part time residents, where did they come from, how did they find out about the
peninsula, how much was as a result of coming up to the peninsula as a tourist?
The there is the tour boat enterprise which has a large impact on the residents and the
environment through associated buildings and the large area, long term parking lots they occupy.
They rely on large numbers of tourists flooding into the area, all by motor vehicle, cause a
significant increase in boat traffic and deposit thousands of people primarily onto the ecosystem
of Flower Pot Island. Most of the jobs created are necessarily limited by the short tour boat
season and many of them are held by students who do not pay taxes to the municipality. Many of
these jobs are subsidized by government.
Restricting the argument to part time summer employees, how many of them are the university
student sons and daughters of cottagers and residents. What are the real facts of employment,
not just the assumptions made.
C) Cumulative impacts of developments
Neither the County nor the Municipality consider the cumulative impacts of development such
as, for example, the threefold increase of tour boats in the harbour and the rapid increase of large
parking lots. While the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) applies only to the
Federal jurisdiction it sets a national, minimum standard for environmental assessment that
should be noted and emulated by the County planners and the Municipality.
Threefold increase of tourboats? How, where does he get his stats from? 15 years ago we had
the Great Blue Heron, The Blue Heron V, the Seaview III, The True North II, and two
zodiacs.
We now have the Great Blue Heron, The Blue Heron V, two blue heron zodiacs and two
Bruce Anchor zodiacs. Overall capacity might be up some, but triple?
The Provincial Policy Statement, Part V, emphasises the need to protect the environment and
public health and safety. Many residents have expressed concern about the potential risks to
public health and safety of placing this tour boat dock immediately adjacent to a small public
beach used by swimmers and divers (see letter to Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
dated August 12, 2011, from Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee.
The dock is relatively small compared to many of the private docks in big tub and is situated a
reasonable distance away from the area used by the public to access the water, and divers.
They have also expressed concern about the effect on the public’s enjoyment of this small beach.
It is a serious short-coming of the planning process that no consideration, at least that the public
is aware of, was ever given to the issue of public safety.
The Gap is a red herring issue. The property owners to the east of the property are the ones
concerned, and could im not sure if their concern is more for the commercial operation beside
the gap as with the gap itself. They have known their cottages were zoned commercial and
have done nothing until now to change the zoning based on their usage. It only became an
issue when someone decided to use the property for its commercial potential, which is
perfectly within their rights and the plan. If I was one of those cottagers I wouldn’t like it
either, any more than I like someone putting a shore well and a dock in front of our view on
Hay bay, destroying one of the nicest sunset spots in the area.
Referring to the area as a beach is a bit rich though, it’s a rock face with a steep drop off, the
uninformed and unaware would read Johns submission and think someone had put in a
massive commercial tourist boat dock next to a public swimming beach.
The Associative Landscape
The Gap has been a public swimming site since the early 1900s. It is one of only two areas in the
centre of Tobermory where the public have access to the water. The placement of the tour boat
development at Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street with its accompanying signs, road access,
stairs down to the dock, and building immediately adjacent to The Gap has left the impression
that there is no longer any public access.
No it hasn’t. In fact it makes the Gap more noticeable.
The municipality has refused to place any signage indicating that The Gap is public land.
For good reason, you don’t advertise a small slice of heaven when its small. For the same
reason we don’t ADVERTISE Dunks bay as a public access beach, it simply doesn’t have the
facilities or capacity to handle the traffic. The same reason we no longer advertise Mermaids
Cove as public access to tourist, there is insufficient parking to handle the traffic.
E) Little Tub Harbour
As a direct result of the zoning choices made by the County Planning Department, the
Municipality and its predecessor, the Township of St. Edmunds Little Tub Harbour, the heart of
Tobermory, has evolved over 40 years from a vibrant community with many year round residents
into a virtual “dead zone” for two thirds of each year. This area, which the County, in its Spruce
the Bruce Toolkit, optimistically calls the downtown, would, without the presence of the grocery
store, the LCBO, and the Princess Hotel, be empty for most of the year. Such a transformation
from a vibrant community to a dead zone for two thirds of a year represents a failure to
implement Action 3.2.2(a) of the Official Plan and a general failure of the County and
Municipality`s land use planning efforts over the past few decades.
News flash, the community has been here for 140 years, not 40 years. In the early 1900s there
was 2000 people living in Tobermory. Logging ran out leaving only fishing. Fishing collapsed
in the early 40s leaving tourism as the only long term viable business. Fishing enjoyed a
minor resurgence with whitefish and chub, but that came to an end about 15 years ago,
affecting 25 people who made their living primarily from fishing. I find it more than bizarre to
suddenly decide that 40 years ago is the cutoff for figuring if Tobermory is successful or not
and someone jump to the uninformed opinion that the past 40 years has been an unfortunate
development.
It is also a failure of the Spruce the Bruce initiative to ignore this unfortunate development and
focus its efforts narrowly towards tourist business only.
It should be the focus of the Major Goals of the Official Plan to revitalize Little Tub Harbour by
encouraging more residential usage and year round businesses.
So let me get this straight, the official plan is a failure because it encouraged business to develop in the harbour
area and that is what happened, but all the while we really wanted more residents in the harbour area.
The fact is there are now more year round residents in the harbour area now than 20 years ago. It is unfortunate
that John made no attempt to speak to any of the residents of the Tobermory Harbour before making his
submission declaring it a dead zone and suggesting rezoning it.
I can guarantee you there are more people living full time in the harbour than live part time in the strip from the
gap to the chicheemaun. Their opinion counts (it should) and ours doesn’t?
Now, many of us prefer the business to be seasonal, since we need time to recuperate from the summer busy ness.
Having said that, what kinds of year round businesses do you think would be viable to move into the harbour
area? Would you suggest perhaps some factories for the harbour? That doesn’t work? Hmm, how about some
service based industries. Right you need significant year round residents to service to have a service based
business. Any other ideas? It’s the same question the tourist businesses wrestle with every year, which comes first
the chicken or the egg? Do you need to be open to expand the off season to encourage people to come up in the
off season, or do you first wait for them to come up and then open up longer.
Long term without a way to attract new people to the area, the population will decline as the population is the
oldest in Canada. Without tourism to attract people to the beauty of our area, and entice them to retire or move
here, the community would truly become a ghost town.
Parking in Little Tub Harbour (3.2.3.4(g) and 3.2.2)
The Municipality has failed to make any progress in the implementation of this policy as it
applies to the centre of Tobermory. The parking congestion during the months of July and
August represents a failure of s.3.2.2 Action© of the Official Plan.
How is that? How does a brief insane successful period in the middle of the summer represent
a failure of anything? Council has long been aware of the need for additional parking for the
area, and have been as budget and circumstances allowed, improving that situation. Could it
have been done better? Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Adding additional parking
is easier said than done, it means the purchase of property if not already owned, and the
adding of additional infrastructure such as sidewalks, paving and signage to service those
parking areas. This all takes time and money.
The County’s Spruce the Bruce Toolkit for Tobermory, which has been adopted by the
Municipality, states in Goal 2: To strategically address the traffic flow, parking areas and
signage for downtown; and Goal 3: To improve the physical design of the main harbour area
and increase the quality of public places in the core.
Let me see, in the past 20 years we have gone from congested two way traffic past the cenotaph to a smoother
traffic flow with one way traffic, increased the parking area and increased the green area as well.
The Municipality and the County Planning Department should weigh the value of the 16 parking
spaces beside Craigie’s restaurant and 16 parking spaces along the front of the harbour against
the potential for reducing congestion and improving the physical design and utility of Little Tub
Harbour.
Its been discussed many times over the years. There will never be a consensus on it.
At a minimum the Municipality and the County Planning Department should explore the benefits
of turning Little Tub Harbour into a pedestrian area with exceptions for delivery vehicles, boat
launching, dive equipment delivery, and parking at Peacocks Grocery.
Its been explored, many times. Although I fail to understand how Peacocks grocery rates to have parking but
none of the other businesses do. Something tells me Peacocks wouldn’t be impressed with removing 16 to 32
parking spaces from the harbour either.
Boat ramp in LTH (3.5.2©)
Pursuant to s.3.5.2(c) of the Official Plan the Municipality is required to improve existing … boat
launch facilities.
The only boat launching ramp within, what the County euphemistically calls the “downtown” of
Tobermory, is located in the immediate vicinity of the busiest grocery store and its parking area,
adjacent to a busy pedestrian crossing point and a popular local restaurant, across the access to
the only laundromat, and in the area where semi-trailers frequently manoeuvre and unload. More
than 50 to 60 ducks add to the chaotic scene by occupying the area, waiting to be fed by
passers-by, particularly children. The fact that there has not yet been a traffic fatality in this area
in no way reduces the potential for one.
The large numbers of ducks have moved on, lack of food I think. Its not euphemistically, its is
a downtown, small, but its what we got.
The boat ramp should be re-located to a less congested area, not only to alleviate congestion, but
to eliminate the high risk to public safety.
Nice idea, again, its been discussed in the past, but its what we got, so deal with it. There is no
easy solution to the boat launch primarily because there are not many easy alternatives. Our
geology has certain issues in most places that don’t comply with good boat launches. The
difficulty with the existing ramp would be somewhat less but Peacocks during one of their
expansions moved out to cover where they had parking on their property so now the parking
in front of peacocks is on municipal property. It was only a fifteen or twenty foot expansion by
Peacocks into the harbour parking area, but it did make a difference. But again, like you said,
it’s a dead zone 8 months of the year so why worry about it.
As for traffic fatalities? Have you ever spent time in the harbour, the cars don’t move that fast,
no straight path, tight corners, congested, and there is about as much chance of traffic
fatalities in the harbour parking area as there is in a Walmart parking lot.
In the short run the potential dangers to the public could be reduced if Little Tub Harbour were to
be converted to a pedestrian area (see Parking above) and the ducks were shot and eaten.
Potential dangers to the public reduced by making Little Tub Harbour a pedestrian area? Just
what is your agenda anyway?
F) Public access to water and The Gap (s.3.5)
There are three areas in Tobermory where the public have access to the water. One is a municipal
road allowance at Dunks Bay two kilometres from Little Tub Harbour. The other two are at the
Big Tub Light and the road allowance at the terminus of Highway 6, locally called The Gap.
There was a cottage up for sale about 15 years ago beside the Dunks bay allowance. Would
have only cost the municipality $85000 for it. Once you understand the way the taxes work,
that’s much easier said than done.
While the Municipality recognizes that efforts need to be made to improve public waterfront
access and recreational opportunities (at page 35 of the Official Plan) the effect of its policies in
2010/2011 has been to reduce public access to the waterfront from two locations to one in the
centre of Tobermory by the virtual elimination of The Gap as an access to the waterfront.
I think John is forgetting that the public has access to the water all the way around Little Tub,
from the Grandview to the Harbourmaster. More would be better, but we do need to be able to
afford it as well.
The Gap also possesses important natural qualities as a deepwater swimming and diving area in
the centre of Tobermory and it is within easy walking distance from the “downtown.” It has been
used as a local swimming area for more than 100 years and, as such, The Gap has important
cultural significance to the community. (see below – Culture and Heritage)
The Municipality must take steps to restore public access to the waterfront at The Gap by
signposting the access and taking steps to reduce the public safety risk posed by the tour boats to
swimmers and divers at The Gap.
As I have accurately pointed out earlier, public access has not been restricted and was never taken away, so thus
does in no way need to be “restored”.
Further, pursuant to S. 3.5.2(b) of the Official Plan, the Municipality and the County Planning
Department should Promote the protection of lands that provide scenic vistas or have important
natural qualities. The Gap, by any definition is a scenic vista as it provides the only view of
Georgian Bay on the approach to Tobermory from two kilometres south on Hwy 6. It would be a
tragedy if through neglect or disinterest the Municipality and the County planners were to allow a
commercial sign from the adjacent commercial development to intrude on that vista.
Your right on that one, I wouldn’t want to see a large commercial sign on the water side.
G) Front Street
The area from Lot 61 on the north side of Front Street to the Ferry terminal, known as Special
Policy Area #4, is zoned commercial but residential uses are permitted. In fact, all of the lots in
this block have residential buildings.
When this block was zoned commercial the properties were owned by commercial fishermen.
Some buildings were commercial outlets for fishing and cottage rentals such as O.C. Vail which
was a fishing/retail outlet plus rental cottages, LaVoie rental cottages, Martins (rental cottages)
and Ransbury’s? (rental cottages). Recently, all of these properties have been redeveloped as
seasonal and permanent residential. Several represent significant personal investments. None are
used for commercial purposes.
Given the public outcry at the development of one of these properties at Lot 61 on the north side
of Front Street as a tour boat enterprise it is in the public interest to recognize the settled
residential nature of the north side of Front Street and prevent further public outcry by re-zoning
all the properties in the block with the exception of Lot 61, as residential.
That I would think is sensible and reasonable as long as all the people who own those properties agree to it.
Problem is the area has been zoned commercial since 1970 and some of those residents don’t want to see the
zoning change.
Recommendations
The Plan as it exists has been adequate to the task so far. Personally I would like to see a zoning designation for
those properties that are homes in the commercial area to be a commercial/residential. Getting a mortgage on
your home when it is zoned pure commercial is not easy.
More parking needs to be added, whether that is a plan issue or a township issue I don’t know.
I am somewhat perplexed by comments raised at the meeting by the planners about some kind of designation for
arts. I don’t see how that has anything to do with the zoning or planning process unless some group is lobbying
for free rent or free taxes. The art community has done well on the peninsula with the existing zoning, which
forces them to have professional operations within the existing business community. As a gallery which carries
not only my own work but many other local and area artists, I don’t like to have to compete against others getting
free rent from municipal or having Trillium fund or Canada council grants funneled into their operations, it
creates an unfair playing field.
I have many other ideas but they would probably be best to keep until I see what is being planned.
Thank you for your time.
Kent Wilkens
Golden Gallery Tobermory
Ice Cream & Treats/Peninsula Supply
Date: 2011‐12‐04 To: Bill Hollo and Sabine Robarts, Planners, Bruce County cc: Mayor, Council and CAO Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula Re: Submission by the Bruce Peninsula Environment Group related to the Review of Official Plan for the Tobermory and Lion’s Head Secondary Urban Areas, and the Hamlet of Ferndale INTRODUCTION The Bruce Peninsula Environment Group (BPEG) recognizes that the Official Plan of the County of Bruce guides development throughout the entire county, and that the Official Plan currently under review relates only to Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale. “The other regions of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula are covered by the County of Bruce Official Plan.” It is the County Plan which “establishes policies to guide development on matters such as agriculture, aggregate extraction, the location and hierarchy of settlement areas, shoreline development, and broad urban development policies.” From the materials available for review, we are aware that the Municipal Plan must conform to the goals, objectives and policies of the County. In addition, the province has policies and guidelines that impact County and Municipal plans. Within this context, however, given that our local Municipal Plan does establish “policies for matters of local interest” and “provides local policy direction for development”, BPEG feels it is important to participate in the review process. We also assume that, as part of the next step in the review process, the County and the Municipality will indicate what was discovered through an assessment of the following (mandated as part of the five‐year review process): i) the adequacy of lands available within each of the land use designations to support anticipated development; ii) demographic, social and physical changes to the Municipality; iii) effectiveness of the various policies of the Plan; iv) changes in County or Provincial policies which impact upon the relevance of the Plan; v) the quality of the area's natural environment, including ground water, lake water quality, wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest; and, vi) the adequacy of Municipal servicing (i.e. municipal water and sanitary sewers) within Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale. BPEG members perceive that significant changes have taken place over the past five years in the demographics of the Municipality, the growth of the tourism industry, and the quality of the area’s natural environment. These include the loss of wetlands, the steady depletion of available landfill capacity, and increasing threats to water quality. Thus, we look forward to the assessments, including a description of the process used to complete them, in the next phase of this Review. The process for obtaining input from BPEG members (approximately 200 active) to guide this submission included: (1) an email notice of the review with website links to the Official Plan, followed by a verbal announcement at a BPEG meeting (2) discussion at a BPEG Board meeting, leading to an articulation of key issues (3) presentation of the list of priority issues to the membership (at a regular meeting and by email) with a request for feedback and additional suggestions (4) an internet survey of the membership to identify the degree of support for various issues and a final round of any additional suggestions (5) a summary discussion and review of collated survey results at the BPEG Board meeting on Dec 13th. Only those issues that received strong endorsement from the significant majority of members are incorporated into our suggestions. We support many of the components of the current plan, and have used it as the guide for our comments. When suggestions received from members seem to relate more to the Official Plan for Bruce County, we have tried to identify them ‐‐ in the hope that they will be noted and considered at the time of the County’s next review. VISION Overall: BPEG is supportive of the present Vision statement. We suggest only two changes, which are noted below in red. “The people of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula are committed to a progressive and diverse community that is safe, clean, environmentally protected and creates economic sustainability through employment and educational opportunities for all.” “The people recognize that the future is based to a great extent on the cultural and natural environment of the area, and as such, shall strive to protect it ensure that it is protected and enhanced. “ “The people of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula recognize that development must be planned in an effective, fair, efficient and flexible manner.” “All reasonable efforts should be made to direct growth and provide public services within these Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale and, at the same time, all reasonable possible efforts should be made to protect and enhance the cultural, social and natural environments.” Rationale for these suggestions: BPEG believes that the need to “protect and enhance” the environment should be more strongly worded. “Strive” and “reasonable” seem to be terms open to considerable interpretation. MAJOR COMMUNITY GOALS Overall: BPEG suggests a re‐ordering of the goals, as well as some changes which are noted below in red. b) a) “To protect and enhance the natural environment, in order to ensure future economic growth.” Rationale: BPEG members strongly support the need “to protect the natural environment”. There are many reasons to do this – reasons that we believe are even more compelling than “to ensure future economic growth”. For all regions of the county, and especially for the Northern Bruce Peninsula, environmental protection is critical. Without it, the health of our diverse ecosystems suffers and along with it, human health and economic health suffer. We are all interdependent. There is no need to identify only an “economic” justification for protecting the natural environment, and suggest removal of “in order to ensure future economic growth”. If this phrase remains, other “reasons” should be added to this Goal. This could provide an opportunity to comment on the importance of issues such as water protection, waste reduction/diversion, dark skies, etc. We are pleased to see that the Bruce County Plan articulates the need to “protect and when possible enhance the quality of the natural environment.” As well, the Provincial Policy Statement indicates, “The long‐term prosperity and social well‐being of Ontarians depend on maintaining strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy.” [Italics added for emphasis.] Note: We also submit that “To protect and enhance the natural environment.” should be the first major goal for our municipality. As one member said, “North Bruce Peninsula needs an Environment First Official Plan.” a) b)To create a positive economic climate to create a wide range of employment opportunities. c) To provide ensure that any development proceeds in a logical, progressive and economically sound manner that is economically and environmentally sound. Rationale: This sets the stage for inclusion of important issues such as waste diversion, dark skies preservation/enhancement, protection of water and renewable/sustainable energy in the Goals and Actions within the specific Sections. Comment: For Goals d) ‐ h), we have no specific suggestions except to request that these be explicitly addressed in the assessment and considered in the next step in the Review. Suggestion: Consider explicitly adding goals related to  Towards Zero Waste – waste reduction and diversion  Water protection SECTION 3 – LAND USE POLICIES 3.1 RESIDENTIAL 3.1.2 Actions f) To require new residential developments to provide pedestrian and bicycle links between the residential areas, the downtowns and the harbour areas. Question: Important action. Has this been done? Recent examples? 3.1.3 Policies 3.1.3.1 Low Density Residential Suggestion: Reconsider a current by‐law that requires a minimum of 1000 square feet for new residences. Rationale: Homes with a small footprint may both make housing more affordable and be more energy efficient for both young and older couples. 3.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 3.2.2 Actions and 3.2.3.1 Goal and 3.2.3.4 Policies Comments: Many identified “actions” in this section (especially (b) regarding pedestrian‐oriented improvements in downtown and harbour areas, (c) improved parking in downtown areas, and (h) pursuing “innovative and creative approaches to encouraging environmentally clean industry to locate within the Official Plan area”) are still relevant and greater efforts to implement such actions are needed. Suggestion for addition to SECTION 3 overall: Add an item related to the enhancement and preservation of Dark Skies – for commercial as well as Municipal and residential areas. 3.4 NATURAL AREAS “Tobermory and Lion’s Head are located at the end of one of the most beautiful natural settings in the world. The Niagara Escarpment, Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, the harbours and the general sense of natural open space serve as constant reminders of the importance environment and all it has to offer.” Comment: BPEG strongly supports this statement. Suggestion: We suggest rewording the remainder of this statement to read: “The Municipality recognizes the natural environment as its most important asset. The Natural Areas Policies in this Plan are aimed at sustaining these natural areas — to ensure continuation of their vital ecological services, to safeguard essential economic opportunities dependent on the natural environment, and to provide enjoyment by present and future generations.” 3.4.1 Goal a) Play a lead role in the maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment to ensure that the ecological functions remain intact for future generations. Comment: BPEG strongly supports this statement. 3.4.2 Actions [Suggestions and additions are noted below in red.] (c) require buffer areas around natural areas when new development is proposed and maintain and improve 'corridors' linking 'islands' of natural areas in keeping with recommendations of Ontario Nature. d) recognize the predominance of karstic drainage features in the area, and give special consideration needs to be given to the impact of new and existing development on ground water resources. e) enlist the assistance of public and private agencies to ensure that any ground water contamination problems resulting from any faulty septic systems are addressed. Question: Important action, but how is this identified at present? f) promote the conservation of energy, water and other natural resources by actively encouraging and supporting energy‐conscious initiatives – e.g., the installation of solar‐energy systems, the re‐use of grey water, and the use of non‐low flush toilets (in keeping with the provincial building code). Ensure that all municipal buildings lead by example and adopt all feasible energy‐saving measures. Comment: Strong support for g) recognize that natural features and areas exist outside the boundary shown of Schedule ‘B’ Land Use Plan, e.g. Baptist Harbour – Cape Hurd ANSI, portions of the Lake Huron shorelands, Hopkins Bay, etc. Planning and development decisions shall take into account the impacts of these decisions on those features and areas outside the plan area. Question: What specific measures have been taken to put these “Actions” into practice? Suggestion: Add the following “actions” h) review and consider change in zoning where natural habitat is threatened, especially for species at risk, endangered species and wetlands. i) create an Environmental Advisory Panel for the Municipality which includes concerned groups and local residents. Rationale: By creating an Environmental Advisory Panel for the Municipality, we would have our own "Watchdog" at work protecting this magnificent peninsula. This group could assist in bringing important information and perspectives to key decisions for the overall good of the municipality. 3.5 RECREATION & OPEN SPACE 3.5.2 Actions ‐ Add  Provide public land for community gardens and support their development (infrastructure, access to water, etc) [strongly supported]  Develop plaza or courtyard areas (car‐free) in centre of Lion’s Head and Tobermory (linked to walking healthy community concept) Comment: Consider using concept of “healthy, active communities” from the Provincial Policy Statement as guide and promoting this concept by: “a) planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, and facilitate pedestrian and non‐motorized movement, including but not limited to, walking and cycling; b) providing for a full range and equitable distribution of publicly‐accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, open space areas, trails and, where practical, water‐based resources; c) providing opportunities for public access to shorelines; and d) considering the impacts of planning decisions on provincial parks, conservation reserves and conservation areas.” SECTION 4 ‐ GENERAL DEVELOPMENT 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Comment: There is overall support for the policies in this section. Suggestions follow. “As one of the greatest advantages that the Municipality has is its natural beauty and clean environment, it is the intention of all new developments to proceed with the utmost respect for the environment. One of the major objectives of this Plan is to ensure that the natural environment is left intact for present and future generations to enjoy.” 4.1.1 Policies a) It is a policy of the Municipality to: (1) require all land use proposals to be reviewed by Council and appropriate government agencies in order to ensure that development which has the potential to seriously impair the environment will not be permitted in the Municipality, and (2) require assessment and monitoring of environmental impact whenever significant harm to habitat is possible. Rationale: We support the Municipality for those situations where they have required environmental assessment which then influenced development planning. However, the present statement of “seriously impair” also has allowed developments to proceed in circumstances even when the potential of environmental harm has been identified. This policy needs to be tightened and more supportive of b) which follows. b) The environmental review of all development proposals shall assist in determining whether the development should be endorsed, and if so, what environmental safeguards shall be necessary. Comment: Emphasize “all” in this statement of policy, so that the Vision and Major Goals are actively supported by Policies. Add a new point d) Monitor and mitigate cumulative impacts of expanding tourism and new development. Rationale: This addition received endorsement by all BPEG respondents to the survey. It reflects the importance of the Vision and Major Goals mentioned earlier in the context of changes occurring on the Peninsula. Comment: There is support for the sections 4.1.3 Water Quality and Quantity, 4.1.4 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat, and 4.1.5 Great Lakes Shoreline Flood Plain as related to new development. 4.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES 4.2.2 Actions Add a new action c) Provide for easier safe disposal of hazardous household chemicals and special waste. Rationale: This addition received strong endorsement by all BPEG respondents to the survey. It reflects the importance of effective management of waste and protection of water. We realize that this is currently a County responsibility. However, feedback from residents indicates that the current system is inadequate and increases the risk of dangerous contamination of soil and water. Measures to achieve this are varied, and must involve the County. However, the Municipality needs to take a leadership role in finding effective solutions. 4.3 TRANSPORTATION 4.3.2 Actions Add an item about planning for and encouraging independent modes of transportation (especially walking and biking) – following the concept of “walking healthy communities”.  When walking or biking is not feasible, promote carpooling (e.g., designated safe areas to park cars, with these areas plowed in the winter) and more public transportation, especially during summer. [Note: The County could also play an important role in designating carpool sites along Highway 6 in areas outside those of the schedules for Tobermory, Lions Head and Ferndale]  Encourage and assist in development of more multi‐use paths that are safe (ie, not only a small strip along Hwy 6 in Ferndale and Tobermory).  Assist the Bruce Trail in promoting the idea of a series of “trail towns” involving the Trail that would be used in all seasons – hiking primarily, with snowshoeing or cross‐country skiing in winter. Bruce Peninsula Biosphere Association Input for Official Plan 2011 The communities of Lion’s Head and Tobermory are located in a World Biosphere Reserve and adjacent to the Niagara Escarpment and the national parks. There are very few communities anywhere with such locations. The Bruce Peninsula Biosphere Association recommends the guiding principles of biosphere reserves be included in the planning process since we are recognized as such by UNESCO. Our suggested wording would be as follows: As a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve containing embedded communities, we work to promote healthy, sustainable communities. We balance local development and ecological conservation by considering the ecological footprint of any proposed development in relation to the carrying capacity of the land. We believe this reference should be included as part of the Vision Statement and referenced in the Location description. Given the Official Plan (2009) section 3.8 refers to the special policy for the areas under the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment commission, and sections 1.4 and 1.5 to the unique location and geography of our communities, we believe a specific goal should be developed to explicitly recognize the unique nature of our communities and the need to consider ecological impacts when examining the ramifications of proposed development. This could be included in section 4.1 of the Official Plan regarding environmental review for general development. Another valuable aspect of our Northern Bruce communities is the high quality of the dark sky. We strive to preserve this through both public awareness and regulation as a natural night sky is an important part of habitat for nocturnal animals and a natural wonder for all residents to enjoy. Appropriate dark sky lighting also conserves energy and can be a basis for sustainable economic development in our communities. We therefore recommend that Preserving the Dark Sky (natural night sky) be mentioned as the goal in the section of Heritage and Site Plan Control. Yours truly Jim Kuellmer Chair, Planning Committee Bruce Peninsula Biosphere Association www.brucepeninsula.ca/bioshpere THE
BLUE HERON COMPANY LIMITED
P.O. Box 9, 24 Carlton Street, Tobermory, ON, N0H 2R0
Phone: 519-596-2999 Fax: 519-596-2999 Ext. 6
December 12, 2011
County of Bruce Planning
& Economic Development
c/o Sabine Robart
Box 129
578 Brown Street
Wiarton, ON
N0H 2T0
Dear Sabine:
As a result of the meeting held at your offices on December 8, 2011 and the development of the new
strategic plan for the Northern Bruce Peninsula, The Blue Heron Company Limited would like to offer our vision
along with some points that we believe are important for your consideration.
Little Tub Harbour of Tobermory is already and should remain commercial to give new businesses the
chance to acquire the land and property needed to start their new ventures. At the present time we would not
consider there to be a shortage of commercial lands in the Tobermory area but we would suggest that
eliminating any commercial zonings could leave the town short as it continues to grow over the next 5-10
years.
All downtown commercial developments should continue to be encouraged to use natural materials
(stone and wood) when upgrading old facades.
Water and sewer services are a priority to many in the Tobermory area as new regulations and
inspections become increasingly expensive for local businesses. Many would like to have a functional water
and sewer system that could be depended on without having to invest our own time or energies and thus
allowing us to focus on core business needs. When considering this type of infrastructure we would
recommend extending these services throughout the Bay Street downtown core all the way out to Tobermory
Lodge and down Highway 6 to allow for new services to open up or expand, most notably in the Press these
days would be that of a Seniors/Retirement Home.
When developing new roads it should be kept in mind that this being a tourist destination lends itself to
providing people with scenic drives and as such the standard “grid pattern” roads is not the best solution while,
well treed winding roads provide further tourist enjoyment.
Parking will continue to be an issue within the town of Tobermory and as such we would highly
recommend that all lands zoned commercial should be permitted to have a parking lot established on them
except for those in the downtown core that line Bay Street. With that being said, no parking lot should be clear
cut and paved, all parking areas should only be allowed to be gravel and they should remain esthetically
pleasing, including those that are developed by the Municipality. When possible a buffer zone of trees should
be maintained between the access road and the actual parking lot as not to leave every passerby staring at
parked cars. We would also approve if all of the current parking spaces at the head of the harbour were
removed or reduced in quantity as to provide the Harbour area with more green space and further enjoyment
for community members and visitors alike.
[email protected]
www.blueheronco.com
THE
BLUE HERON COMPANY LIMITED
P.O. Box 9, 24 Carlton Street, Tobermory, ON, N0H 2R0
Phone: 519-596-2999 Fax: 519-596-2999 Ext. 6
It should be in the interest of all businesses in the downtown core to maintain a neat and orderly space
surrounding their entrances and any areas that can be seen by the public eye and as such all dumpsters
should be hidden from public view by either relocation or the building of a fence or façade to block them from
site. Along with this thought we would encourage the Planning Department to encourage all future
developments and property upgrades on the Peninsula to use underground wiring whenever possible.
Almost all of the visitors to the Peninsula travel here via Highway # 6 and as such it should be a priority
to maintain the current natural surroundings. In keeping with this we would not be averse to seeing all billboard
developments banned and current billboards north of Wiarton removed. We would also like there to be a
requirement for those developing anything industrial along the highway corridor to maintain a buffer zone of
trees between the buildings and the highway.
The township should construct and uphold a long term goal to acquire and maintain major points of land
and bay areas for public access to the waters that surround our piece of paradise. Examples may include Big
Tub Lighthouse, North Point, and Dunk’s Bay Beach.
Any shoreline development should be under tighter controls as far as building esthetics and proper
horizontal set-back requirements including, but not limited to, houses, cottages, boathouses, docks and water
lines. At the present time there are far too many structures that are built too close to the shoreline and they are
impeding the natural environment of the Peninsula.
Site Plan Control Agreements along with Building Permits and Zoning changes should have an easy
interim approval provision to facilitate the now overly lengthy procedure on the understanding that all
developments will be subject to the final approvals. Making this change would allow new developments a
chance to open/get started on their already very short season to be able to make their immediate investments
start paying off.
We are not in favour of having public input with regards to the process of removing the “holding”
provision of commercial property. The submission of site plans with county, provincial and municipal
recommendations is sufficient to oversee the public good. Public input would result in further delays and
expense which may stifle commercial development.
The Blue Heron Company Limited does not see a decrease in commercial development over the next
five years in Tobermory but rather an increase. We look forward to the future and knowing that our piece of
paradise is sought after which leaves us in a unique position to continue to expand all while preserving our
natural environment for future generations to be able to enjoy. We do feel that private enterprise will continue
to fulfill most needs as they occur so long as commercial property is available and the process to create such
an enterprise is not too expensive and/or time consuming.
Kind Regards,
Richard K. Salen
Jack R. Salen
The Blue Heron Company Limited, Tobermory, ON
[email protected]
www.blueheronco.com
Sabine Robart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
adam robins [[email protected]]
Friday, December 09, 2011 7:54 AM
Bill Hollo
Sabine Robart; [email protected]
Tobermory Official Plan Review
December 9, 2011
County of Bruce Planning Department
578 Brown Street
Wiarton, Ontario
NOH 2T0
Attention: Bill Hollo, Assistant Planning Director
I was born and raised in Tobermory; I left the town for a few years while completing my post secondary
education in Civil Engineering. Once I had graduated in the spring of 2007 I immediately returned home to
work as part of our family businesses in Tobermory, and eventually start my own business here.
Over the past few months I have been following the Official Plan Review currently underway in our
municipality. A number of articles in the press as well as a blog posted on line by our Deputy Mayor, John
Bainbridge contain a large amount of disturbing content pertaining to the commercial businesses within
Tobermory. I feel that a lot of the information contained in these articles is falsified and extremely exaggerated.
Tobermory is growing, this is obvious however the method of managing this growth is not so obvious. The
strategy proposed by John Bainbridge appears to be to reduce the ability of the town to grow and hope that the
tourists that hinder his enjoyment of the area stop coming here. This is an absurd and selfish method of dealing
with Tobermory’s growth and will not work.
I am not a planner however I feel that the revision of the official plan should reflect the need for growth in
Tobermory. To me the idea of turning any commercial properties back to residential will only increase the
conflict that we have been experiencing between the commercial businesses and the residents. The boundaries
of the C1 commercial zoning designation need to be maintained if not expanded. Integrating Residential
occupancies within this commercial area will only cause problems, unfortunately we have learned that
commercial and residential land usages can not live in harmony when placed in close proximity.
I understand that some areas within Tobermory are zoned C1-a-h, which allows property owners to build
residential occupancies on commercial property. I feel that perhaps this ‘a’ is creating some of the conflicts that
we face, and removing the ‘a’ from the commercially zoned areas will reduce many of the problems we face
now and in the future.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to share with you my opinion regarding this matter.
Yours truly,
Adam Robins
1
Glass Bottom Boat Tours – Tobermory
7468 Highway #6 - Phone: 519-596-2555
January 5, 2012
County of Bruce Planning Department
578 Brown Street
Wiarton, Ontario
N0H 2T0
Attention: Sabine Robart, Planner
Dear Sabine:
RE:
Official Plan Review
I wanted to submit some comments for your consideration with respect to the Official
Plan review currently underway relating to Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale. Some
of these items were covered in my submission to you dated December 7 th, however, I felt
it would be helpful to provide a summary of the issues that should be addressed during
this process from my perspective as a business owner in Tobermory.
The lifting of a holding provision to allow commercial development to proceed should be
governed by the Bruce County Planning Department and the municipality. The public
has an opportunity to comment when areas are designated for commercial use during the
Official Plan process and zoning by-law amendments. We feel the current restrictions are
strict enough and opening this process up to public consultation will not be productive
and will not accomplish anything. If commercial development is subject to too many
restrictions, environmental assessments and guidelines then development will be hindered
and the tourism economy will suffer as a result. Processes already in place such as lifting
of the holding provision, consultation with Grey Sauble Conservation Authority and site
plan agreements are more than sufficient to ensure that development proceeds in an
appropriate manner.
Integrating residential uses within commercial areas will only cause problems.
Unfortunately, we have learned that commercial and residential land uses cannot always
live in harmony when in close proximity to each other. I understand that some areas
within Tobermory are zoned C1-a-h (example – Front Street) which allows property
owners to build to build a residence within the commercial area. I suggest that perhaps
the “a” is creating some of the conflicts that we are forced to deal with and removing the
“a” from the commercial areas will reduce many of the current and future problems.
-2We understand that the idea of a Heritage Committee has been proposed by some
residents. These same residents appear to oppose tourism in Tobermory. We fear that if
such a Committee was formed they will utilize their powers as a lever to control and
dictate how certain lands and buildings are used and eventually hinder the tourism
economy of our town. If the area has such a Committee in place it could discourage
future buyers and developers and in turn depreciate property values in Tobermory and
area.
In terms of parking, the tour boat industry in Tobermory has been criticized concerning
the way parking is provided for their customers. Despite criticism the two tour boat
operators provide adequate, effective and aesthetically pleasing parking areas for our
clients. The use of valuable properties close to the downtown for parking is not
preferred; however, it makes sense since these properties are not being utilized for any
other purpose at the present time. As the properties currently used for parking become
needed for future development new parking areas will need to be constructed. Both the
Bruce Anchor and Blue Heron Companies own substantial property within the
commercially zoned area of Tobermory and will be capable of always providing adequate
parking to ensure the sustainability of their operations. However, the municipality does
need help as there is a limited supply of public parking at present in Tobermory.
Anything that can be done to assist the municipality in providing additional parking needs
to be seriously considered.
When we purchased the property to the east of the Gap in 1997 the Gap was unknown to
the travelling public and was basically only used by a small hand full of local residents.
Since then we have opened up our property to provide a view of the water from the street
and the Gap public access is enjoyed by locals, cottagers and tourists every day of the
entire tourism season. During the summer of 2011 (the first year of operation for Bruce
Anchor Cruises) the Gap was busier than ever. There are unopened road allowances
along the south side of Big Tub Harbour. These municipally owned lands could provide
opportunity for a new public access to the water. An access does require the proper
infrastructure such as parking, washrooms and perhaps stairs to the water. If some
residents are concerned about accessibility to the water perhaps the Big Tub suggestion
could be a partial solution.
We are very pleased that Tobermory is growing. Growth provides for a stable economy,
however, we do need to plan for growth to ensure sustainability.
Thank you for considering my comments. I intend to continue to be involved in the
Official Plan review process.
Yours truly,
Brent Robins
Copy to: Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula

Appendix A Public and Agency Comments

Transcription

Similar documents

Children`s TV 1

Inverhuron Timeline

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Bruce N Letter rev - Community Benefit Tree

here - Bruce Mines Chamber of Commerce

Dahlman Diary

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Samta Ynez, CA February 8 - 10, 2013