Dysart et al council is opting to proceed with proposed changes to its official plan and zoning bylaw to allow sheds, saunas and gazebos on privately-owned shorelines, though officials have recommended increasing setbacks from the water.
At a July 22 meeting, councillors agreed that waterfront property owners should be allowed to install any one of the three structures, settling on setbacks of zero metres for gazebos, five metres for sheds, and 10 metres for saunas. This remains a proposal for now – another public meeting will be held, plus further opportunities for council discussion, before it can be formally adopted.
Current rules stipulate any structure be located at least 20 metres from the water, while an earlier proposal, shared at a July 8 public meeting, called for that to be dropped to three metres.
“At the public meeting, more factual evidence was provided that justified maybe keeping the policies as currently written, compared to reasons provided… to support changing them,” Iles told council this week.
Referencing a public survey that drew 735 responses earlier this summer, where 56 per cent were in favour of changing the OP and zoning bylaw, 40 per cent opposed and four per cent unsure, Iles added, “based on that, I still question whether the slight majority of residents who want to have a building in the water setback warrants changing our well-established shoreline policies that go back to 1977… and are designed to protect our lakes and are part of Dysart’s unique character.”
Coun. Pat Casey indicated he wants to proceed with changes to establish a more realistic framework for development on the water to allow property owners to make changes without requiring special approval from council.
“Why we’re doing this is to absolve all the problems we get reoccurring every meeting,” he said. “I’m still in favour of us staying the course here.”
In his report, Iles provided two options to council – the first included eight recommended changes he feels will make the amendment more palatable for the public; the other was to close the file.
The first amendment called for saunas to be excluded from the policy, with the planner citing the potential for issues with floor drains possibly leading to unwanted pollutants seeping into the water. Casey contested that, saying he has never seen a sauna fitted with a floor drain. Iles said his research suggested 85 per cent of outdoor saunas have drains.
“The other issue is, unless they require a building permit there’s no municipal oversight. If they do put a sauna in with a drain, we’ll never know. It could drain into the lake for a number of years until a complaint is made,” Iles said.
Council agreed to outlaw saunas with floor drains but allow ones without them. It was also stipulated saunas, sheds and gazebos be no larger than 10 sq. metres – Iles’ fourth recommendation.
The planner also proposed permitting sheds and saunas within the established setback on lots with a steeply sloped grade (15 per cent or more), though council quashed that. He also recommended implementing a blanket fourmetre setback for all structures, though council opted to implement specific distances for each.
Iles also called for applications to be subject to municipal site plan control – meaning owners would have to submit a detailed drawing to planning staff outlining what they want to install and where. He said these would not need to be professional renderings, per current policy, with staff prepared to accept hand-drawn plans providing they’re neat and accurate.
This would remove the requirement for a shoreline health report, which is administered by the building department. Kris Orsan, Dysart’s manager of planning, said he’s worked in other municipalities where site plan control was utilized, noting it worked well.
“It could be a cookie-cutter template containing a name and a diagram – so that if there are issues or concerns, we have something [that shows] the applicant didn’t adhere to the plans,” Orsan said.
Iles noted standard site plan application fees are $1,200, but staff could work on reducing administrative overhead and lowering the fee.
Other suggestions, which were approved, included prohibiting the storage of boats and other motor vehicles and harmful fluids in sheds, and changing the definition of sheds, gazebos and saunas from ‘roofed structures’ to ‘accessory buildings.’
Iles also suggested applicants complete a scoped environmental impact statement prior to any construction taking place.
“It won’t be a full-blown environmental impact study, but it will provide options to mitigate development and ensure there won’t be any negative impacts on… critical fish habitats, lake trout lakes at-capacity, and provincially significant wetlands,” Iles said.
This means any property within 300 metres of an at-capacity lake trout lake and 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland will require a study, likely costing between $2,000 and $5,000. Iles said the study would address issues around erosion, stormwater runoff and removal of shoreline vegetation.
