1. Planning Case Study: Charleston Lake

2. Case Study: Charleston Lake Official Plan and Zoning /by-law processes & technical issues 1993 lake trout report Draft Official Plan New lake trout report: January 2006 Approved Official Plan: March 14, 2006 Draft Zoning By-law Public Meeting: July 11, 2006 Conclusions

3. 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in S-E Ontario Restates many 1977 recommendations Voluntary measures: Upgrade septics Reduce phosphorus inputs Discourage lawns Retain vegetation

4. 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in S-E Ontario Encourage Municipal Planning: 30 m setback Reduce nutrient flow Encourage back lots buffers

5. Draft Official Plan Discussed & supported previous study conclusions about trout Acknowledged new Charleston Lake Study was being prepared Set out interim policies Indicated these would be replaced in late 2006, based on new study

6. New MOE Charleston Lake Report (January 2006) Lake “at capacity” “No new shoreline development shall be permitted which will result in increased phosphorus loadings” “300 m setback for sewage systems for new development”

7. 30 m setback for all structures For existing lots, 30 m setback (building and septics) or “as remote from the water as the lot will allow” New MOE Charleston Lake Report (con’t)

8. Approved Official Plan, as modified by Municipal Affairs (March 14, 2006) “Generally, the creation of new lots will not be permitted within 300m of highly sensitive lakes” New development may proceed within 300m on existing lots of record only”

9. “Council will not consider any application that involves the creation of a new lot, residential units, or any non-residential development on” at capacity lakes, except when: 300m + Circuitous drainage of 300m Drainage to another basin Approved Official Plan (con’t)

10. Draft Zoning By-law Would have established a 300m holding zone (H) around Charleston Lake but would automatically allow: Repair Internal renovations New septics at least 30m back Other activities on existing lots require a process to remove (H) No new waterfront lots

11. Public Meeting (July 11, 2006) No supporters attended! Objectors were loud & clear: Unfair to put the most onerous restrictions on the vacant land Lack of restrictions on upstream waterbodies “as remote as the lot will allow” is unfair to owners with deep lots Fails to regulate cattle out of watercourses Needs to be more reasonable Work on new Zoning By-law suspended

12. Conclusions Planning is a long, complex process Difficult to get long-term support Many players involved – varying levels of scientific understanding Election year has special challenges When an important lake planning issue emerges, all must share the planning/regulatory pain