The township of Douro-Dummer is considering a shoreline preservation bylaw. The concept was brought forward by a delegation representing the Environment Council for Clear, Stoney and White Lakes at the November 5, 2024 regular council meeting.
The delegation raised concerns with development on the lakes within the township which prompted council to direct staff to research shoreline preservation bylaws in neighbouring municipalities and report back to council outlining their findings.
Council also requested that staff prepare a draft bylaw and report back to council for discussion.
D.M. Wills Associates Limited (Wills) was retained by the Township of Douro-Dummer to review the need to implement a shoreline preservation by-law in response to shoreline development concerns raised by Environment Council for Clear, Stoney and White Lakes delegation.
DM Wills submitted a report to council which was presented by Diana Keay and provided an overview of the current provincial and municipal policies, inclusive of the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement, County of Peterborough Official Plan, the New County of Peterborough Official Plan, the Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law and the Township’s updated Site Plan Control By-law. Additionally, Wills completed a jurisdictional scan of shoreline preservation by-laws for surrounding municipalities considered to be similar in geographic area, population, and development type.
Based on the research done by Wills, four options were presented to council for consideration.
Option one was to stick with the status quo.This would mean that staff would continue to process development applications which restricts development and site alterations with in 30 metres of the shoreline in the applicable designations.
Option two would see the creation of additional policy. This option was broken in to two parts in the Wills report, option two A and two B.
Option two A would strengthen its shoreline development policies in addition to the present official plan policy and zoning regulations. This could see limits to vegetation removal as an example. This option would remove ambiguity that exists in the present official plan but there is concern that this may create a “one size fits all” approach that may not be suitable.
Option two B would be subjected on a site by site basis. The Township, as part of site plan control, may require a Tree Inventory and Presentation Plan/Impact Assessment to ensure the amount of vegetative cover is appropriate. The permitted vegetation removal/grade alteration can be tailored to the site and development to ensure the appropriate amount of visual buffering/shoreline naturalization and vegetation for soil stability remains on site. The requirement for additional plans and studies would be determined in the site plan control process.
Option three is to institute a shoreline preservation bylaw. Such a bylaw exists in Haliburton and is designed to regulate major development on its lakes and to ensure that the shoreline is properly maintained.
The report submitted by DM Wills stated that the existing official plan already has policies and regulations governing the shoreline development consisting of setbacks and encouraging vegetation cover, therefor a new bylaw could be considered somewhat redundant.
Wills recommended option two B for council to consider.
Lois Wallace presented to council on behalf of the Environment Council for Clear, Stoney and White Lakes. Wallace told council that they support the recommendation of Two B, however they don’t believe that the option goes far enough to protect shore land vegetation and natural landscapes and there by protect water quality in the lakes.
Wallace commented that the Wills reports do not address fundamental gaps. She said there is nothing in place to prevent extensive clearing of trees or significant grade alterations of natural landscapes before permits are applied for. There is also no deterrent or punishment in place for people who alter the shoreline before applying for permits.
Wallace urged that before approving option Two B that council direct staff to continue to study other municipal regulations that protect shoreline trees and natural landscapes and to explore further measures to address the gaps outlined.
Keay said that she was struggling to understand what the bylaw is supposed to be. She said there are more effective tools such as a tree cutting bylaw or a site alteration bylaw which may be a more appropriate way to achieve the measures being sought.
Deputy mayor Harold Nelson said he would not support a tree cutting bylaw and that ratepayers should be able to do what they want on their own property.
Nelson pointed to an issue he had at a property he owns in Peterborough where he had discussions with the municipality regarding a dead tree which he saw as a safety issue and the city would not allow him to cut it down.
Nelson moved the recommendation for option Two B
