Photo by Chris Whalley

Minutes: April 8, 2014 Zone By-Law Public Meeting



TUESDAY April 8, 2014 @ 7 p.m.


This public meeting was held this date in the Calvin Community Centre under the authority of Section 34 of the Planning Act for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law of the Municipality of Calvin.

Present were: Mayor Brown, Deputy Mayor Pennell, Coun Albright, Coun Latimer, Coun O’Connor, Glenn Tunnock; Planner, Ken Brewitt; Fire Chief/Project Manager/Building Inspector, Chris Whalley; Road Super. & Lynda Kovacs; Clerk-Treasurer.

Guests: 1- P.A. Blackburn; Ontario Land Surveyor on behalf of Applicant


The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 7:00 pm.


No pecuniary/conflict of interest declared.


Welcoming Remarks from Mayor Brown

Mayor Brown welcomed all attendees to the Public Meeting held under authorization of Section 34 of the Planning Act and advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The purpose of the meeting was explained – to consider a zoning by-law amendment to rezone lands to Limited Service Rural Special Exception part of Lots 36 Concession 11, Township of Calvin. The Zoning B-law Amendment is required as a condition of Consent by the East Nipissing Planning Board. The effect of the By-law would be to permit the construction of dwellings on three new building lots.

Guests were instructed that time would be provided for the Planner; Glenn Tunnock, to make a presentation and then anyone wishing to speak in favour of, followed by anyone wishing to speak contrary to the proposed zoning by-law amendment, would have opportunity to make a presentation and were advised that they must provide name and address to the Clerk in order to be entitled to appeal the decision of Council to the Ontario Municipal Board.


Glenn Tunnock; Planner, Tunnock Consulting Ltd.

            Mr. Tunnock made a presentation outlining the proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law for theMunicipality of Calvin. He explained that the application was filed on November 12, 2013 and was deemed to be complete pursuant to the Planning Act on March 10, 2014.

The subject lands were identified as being part of Lot 36, Concession 11, Calvin Township, and more particularly located on the south shore of Lake Talon east of the Talon Lake Road. The subject lands are vacant; however adjacent lands to the west are still operated as a tourist camping facility. Lots have a steep incline from the lake before leveling off. Some of the naturalized shoreline and parts of the interior of the two westerly lots has been disturbed through prior use as part of the camping area while lands further away from the shore notably south of the private road access and the eastern-most lot remain in their natural state. The private road access from Talon Lake Road has been constructed; however, the right-of-way has yet to be registered on title. The access road crosses over and bisects the two most westerly lots and terminates at the western lot line of the most easterly lot.

            The three lots were recently created by consent (East Nipissing Planning Board). Conditions of provisional consent include the requirement for rezoning of the lands.

            Under the Official Plan of the Municipality

1) The lands, which are designated Rural Settlement Area permit among other land uses, low density rural residential uses (Section 3.5.1) such as single detached dwellings subject to meeting certain development criteria:

            a) Lot sizes shall have a minimum lot area of 0.8 ha (3.5.3) and must be adequate for individual water and sewage systems (

            b) The Plan requires conservation of the shoreline ( “As much of the natural shoreline vegetation as is possible will be retained in its natural state while reasonable allowance will be made for water access. Controls on shoreline structures (e.g. boat houses, docks, saunas, gazebos etc.) will be controlled through zoning and/or site plan control.”


            c) Access on a private road is governed under Section “A lot may be used or developed for a use permitted which does not have frontage on a public road provided that the lot has a legal access (e.g. right-of-way) registered on title on the date of approval of this Plan.” Planning Board has granted provisional consent on the basis of the right-of-way being registered. Once the ROW is in place, the lots will have required access to permit development. The ROW should have a width of 20m in the event that the private road is assumed by the Municipality in the future.


            The proposed residential uses comply with the permitted uses in the Official Plan and the lots have been properly sized to enable them to be serviced with on-site sewage and water services. Provision has been made to provide for proper access; however, the private road right-of-way must be properly registered before development will comply with the Plan. The intent of the Plan is to conserve shoreline areas in their natural state as a means to conserving their ecological values. Site plan control can be used to govern the location of the building envelope and the standards for on-site individual water and sewage disposal systems and the conservation or reinstatement of shoreline. To this extent the intent of the policies of the Official Plan will be maintained.


2) There are no resource-related issues with respect to this development (i.e. with respect to impacts on mineral extraction, mining or agriculture). There are no known natural heritage features affected by this application.


3) Part of the land affected by this application fall within the Fill Lines and the mandate of the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority under Regulation 177/06 Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines & Watercourses. The NBMCA may impose controls through permitting process to ensure that development does not affect the integrity of the shoreline for flood and erosion control purposes.


            The jurisdiction of the NBMCA to govern the development and site alteration within the Fill Lines is set out in Section 8.1.2 of the Plan. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) does state that development and site alteration is not permitted within an erosion hazard unless “it has been demonstrated that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard”; also that development shall generally be directed to areas outside of hazardous lands which are impacted be erosion hazards. The protection of the shoreline for flooding and erosion control overlaps the 30m shoreline area which is to be retained in its natural state. There is no policy conflict between the two objectives as the area is essentially defined as a no-development zone. We note that the requirements of the NBMCA could be incorporated into the site plan control agreement or addressed separately through the NBMCA permit system, if measures are required by the NBMCA.

            Mr. Tunnock is of the opinion that the application for zoning amendment meets the policy intent of the Official Plan with respect to the scope of the uses permitted, servicing and protection of the natural environment provided that the requirements of the NBMCA are met.

            Under the Zoning By-law of the Municipality

            The subject lands are currently zoned Commercial Recreational, a zone which does not permit a single detached dwelling as a main use, hence the requirement for a rezoning to Limited Service Rural. Only part of the lands currently zoned CR are to be rezoned since the tourist commercial use will be a continuing use. We are satisfied that although a section of the CR zone will be carved out for the residential use, the residual CR zoned area will still meet the applicable requirements of the zoning by-law.

            The severed lots each have a proposed parcel size of at least 0.8 ha {2 ac} in area and will meet the minimum lot area per the requirements of the Limited Service Rural Zone (Section 5.6.2) and the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the LSR Zone (per Section 5.6.1).

            The lots have sufficient depth to ensure that the future dwellings will meet the 30m setback from the shoreline. However, the location of the private road has not been dimensioned on the sketch accompanying the application so it is unknown as to whether there is sufficient space between the road and the shoreline to locate a dwelling on the two western most lots. Although the by-law does not impose a setback for development on lots bisected by a private road ROW, we recommend that a dwelling be setback a minimum of 7.5m from the limit of the ROW to ensure a degree of public safety, privacy and a setback suitable to accommodate snow storage and access to the dwelling without interference from it use by passing vehicles.

            The minimum frontage requirement in Section 5.6.2 of the by-law is 45m, and applies to road frontage as well as the shoreline and the street line. The lots do not have street frontage in the conventional sense and the eastern most lot only has frontage on a stub or t-section of the private road. With the registration of the ROW, the lots could be considered to have a frontage of 20m coinciding with the width of the ROW. To ensure that the proposed lots comply with the zoning by-law, a special exception to the by-law is required to reduce the minimum required lot frontage, specifically: “Despite the provisions of Section 5/5/2(a), on lands described as Part Lot 36, Concession 11, Municipality of Calvin and zoned Limited Service Rural Special Exception One LSR-X1 the minimum lot frontage for three building lots shall be 20m on the private road providing access to the lots.”

            Mr. Tunnock is of the opinion that the rezoning application will meet the requirements of the zoning by-law provided a special exception is built into the amending by-law and provided the ROW is registered to ensure legal access to all of the lots. The application is consistent with the PPS to the extent that the type of land use is appropriate in a rural area (Section 1/1/4/1(a)); that the lot/parcel can be adequately serviced per Section and provision for off-site sewage capacity is available for hauled sewage. The application is consistent with the PPS. Therefore Mr. Tunnock recommends that Council approve the rezoning application pending confirmation that the ROW has been registered.


Those in Favour

No Submissions.


Those Opposed

The Clerk read a submission received from neighbouring property owner Mr. Dennis Bean at 172 Talon Lake Road. Mr. Bean has expressed concern over flooding on the ROW which accesses his property. In 2005 landfill was completed on the applicant’s property which transferred standing water onto neighbouring land which consisted of a greenbelt and a roadway. Apparently this flooding caused the destruction of trees in the greenbelt and flooding of the roadway. The roadway Mr. Bean refers to is the registered ROW which accesses Mr. Bean’s residence. There are concerns that the continued flooding could prevent emergency vehicles from reaching Mr. Bean’s residence if needed in an emergency situation. Mr. Bean requests that Council instruct the applicant to create a permanent, year round drainage system to permit water to flow from the area and thereby eliminate any further flooding and damage. Mr. Bean also expressed concern that the new private road right-of-way required to service the newly created lots could add further drainage to the area and intensify the problem. Other than this, Mr. Bean had no further concerns with the rezoning of the new lots.


Mayor Brown and Council

            The 2005 history of the area of concern was discussed by Council, staff, Mr. Tunnock and P.A. Blackburn on behalf of the applicant. It was agreed that this drainage issue needs to be permanently corrected prior to rezoning these new lots, in order to ensure that this ongoing problem is permanently eliminated. Council approves of the rezoning but wants to be assured that this problem has been rectified satisfactorily, prior to granting approval by By-law. The option of placing  “Hold” (“H”) on the By-law was addressed by Mr. Tunnock.

P.A. Blackburn will be taking this up with the applicant.


Resolution of Council No. 2014-062

Moved by: Coun Albright and seconded by Coun Pennell

“That a decision on the rezoning application pertaining to Lots 36 Concession 11 be deferred pending a satisfactory agreement being reached concerning the drainage issue between the applicant and the neighbor at PART 2 PLAN NR967 sand that the agreement be submitted in writing to the municipality within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution.”

Carried unanimously.


Resolution to Adjourn No. 2014-063

Move by Coun Pennell and seconded by Coun Albright

“That this meeting held under the authority of Section 34 of the Planning Act for the purpose of considering an amendment to the municipal zoning by-law now be adjourned at 7:55 p.m.”

Carried unanimously.

Make an E-Payment
View Site Map