TOWNSHIP OF NORTH KAWARTHA IN-WATER ZONING REGULATION

Prepared By:

• Municipal Planning Services Ltd.•

February 9, 2016

Appendix 1

Township of North Kawartha Proposed Zoning Amendment In-Water Regulation

Written and Verbal Submissions DATE SENT NAME COMMENT Aug 26, 2015 Bill Raspberry, President

Chandos Lake Property Owners Association (CLPOA)

CLPOA surveyed members and does not support in-water boathouses on Chandos Lake.

Dec 15, 2015 Edith Moore Object to meeting date and time Jan 11, 2016 Clark Breuls, Vice President

Chandos Lake Property Owners Association

Letter reminding Council that the position of association and members has not changed since August 26, 2015 submission

Jan 13, 2016 Ralph Ingleton • No boathouse/ports except on Federal waters;

• Docks no wider 8’, total sq ft 380, 1 dock per property;

• 75% shoreline kept in natural state; • Max. 25% recreational area to be

‘hardened’ with armour stone or natural stone rip rap;

• Open boat lifts in recreational area only;

• Permits required for all docks/boat lifts larger than 108 sq.ft.

Jan 17, 2016 Bryan Tamblyn • Disappointed in timing of public meeting.

• Sketch submission proposing a 16 x 20 metre dock envelope that would permit any configuration of dock.

Jan 21, 2016 Sandy Kilgour, Director Eels Lake Cottagers Association (ELCA)

Surveyed property association: Recommends two categories – structural and non-structural docks.

1. Structural: Dock would require a permit application, review by Township’s Building Department

2. Non-Structural: Would not require permit or review by Building Department if in compliance with suggested provisions:

• Docks to be placed in a rectangular area adjacent to the shoreline property, docks must not interfere with water flow and currents;

• Dock to be located no closer than 4.5 metres to the side lot line or the 90 degree projection of side lot line where it meets the tangent of the front line at the shoreline.

With respect to permit review for a structural dock over a waterbed owner to be advised to contact MNR for their review.

Jan 21, 2016 Douglas Lawrence Parks Canada maximum size 320 sq ft dock. Parks Canada component width 2.4 metres. Suggests a 10% reduction of size in this area of

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT the Park (Wolf Lake). Possibly extending the length of a dock to compensate for seasonal fluctuation in water levels.

Jan 21, 2016 Alanna Boulton, TSW (Parks Canada)

Comments and corrections to clarify TSW regulations.

Jan 22, 2016 Debra Anthony Opposed to in-water boathouses Jan 22, 2016 Cliff Objects to timing of meeting No date (submitted for public meeting)

Bob and Marcine DuBois • Reviewed history of Jack’s Lake. • Suggested a single dock to be

permitted, limited to 350 sq. ft. and a maximum width of 8 feet.

Jan 25, 2016 Doug Wellman • Does not support in-water boathouses.

• Regulate the size of docks similar to the regulations on Stony Lake (320 sq.ft.)

Jan 25, 2016 Malcolm Martini, President Loon Lake Cottagers Association

• Concern about the timing of public meeting.

• Agrees with prohibiting over the water boathouses with a residential component.

• Would like confirmation that the expansion or building of a dock is Parks Canada issue and does not need to apply to the Township.

• Would like confirmation on wet and dry boathouses. Wet boathouses fall under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada, dry boathouses may or may not.

Jan 25, 2016 Daniel Bell • Dismayed by recent court decision on requiring permits for building docks and floating boathouses.

• Concern about added cost and additional bureaucracy.

Jan 25, 2016 Peter Phil Concur with Sandy Kilgour’s submission. Jan 25, 2016 Ray & Peggy Eaton Primarily agrees with Planner’s

recommendations with the exception of the following: 5.1.5 – period 2 – maximum width of a dock 12 ft; period 4 – change from 452 to 500 sq.ft. 5.1.8 – Add the word permanent 5.1.12 – change period for floating docks to Mid-March to end of October. 5.1.13 – Two docks allowed as long as the total sq.ft is within the specified size.

Jan 25, 2016 Jody Johnson (Legal Counsel) Aird & Berlis LLP For Richard & Margaret Hart

Comments on Section 1.2(g), “continuation of existing uses”. This section should not be amended and should remain in the Zoning By-law 26-2013 and remain applicable to client’s dock and boathouse.

Jan 25, 2016 Leo DeSorcy • Supportive of general direction of planning report.

• Supports limiting new wet boathouses, ports and gazebos on docks.

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT • Supports zoning for new docks, but

concerned the draft regulations do not go far enough. Encourages Council to consider limiting shoreline modification to no more than 25% of the shoreline.

• Concerned about separate permits from separate agencies – is it possible to harmonize the process.

• Can the Zoning By-law be clear about non-conforming boathouses.

• Supports no to all new in-water boathouses, boat ports and gazebos encourages strong Zoning By-law for scaled docks.

Jan 26, 2016 Bryan Tamblyn Suggestions for size of docks: • Connection docks and docks straight

out should be at least 3m wide • Docks straight out could be 25 m. • Connecting docks could be up to 10

m. • Docks could be 20 m x 20m • L-shaped docks 20 m wide • 3 m is ample side yard tie • Max extension in a lake 25 m.

Jan 26, 2016 Larry Burton • Support reasonable regulation of dock, lifts and boathouses;

• Implications on local employment, oppose the position of Township and MNR.

Jan 26, 2016 John Velacich JVC Construction

• Concerned about regulating current docks or lifts.

• Permits for new cottage and boathouses only.

Jan 26, 2016 Mike Tiernay Instead of eliminating boathouses the municipality should ensure there is clear building code that protects the quality of the lake water and has appropriate setbacks from property lines. For designated cold water lakes if a person is able to obtain permission from the Ministry, then the Municipality should approve permits as long as the plans fall within the parameters of the Municipal Building Code.

Jan 26, 2016 Brandon Jewitt On-the-Water Designs

• Recommends understanding the dock sizes property owners are requesting before placing restrictions on a certain size;

• Permit process will be complex and will require enforcement;

• Recommends viewing removable structures as a separate category from permanent structures. This will allow the fast track of the bulk of applications and able to focus efforts on larger scale construction where safety and environmental impact is

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT the greatest;

• Permit Pricing; • Recommends a flat rate for

temporary structures based on lighter permitting requirements.

Jan. 26/2016 Open House Comment Form

Art Parker Requests that the By-law prohibit any enclosed structure in the lake whether floating or supported from the lake bottom

Jan. 26/2016 Open House Comment Form

Heather Brooks-Hill • Very good public meeting and format;

• Maximum area of 240sqft. (think of fish spawning);

• If employment, income, business are the issues push for basic income guarantee.

Jan. 26/2016 Comment Form

Peter Knapp • Understanding is that the TSW regulations apply to Stoney Lake and that this proposed By-law has no affect;

• In-water boathouses should not be permitted;

• On-land boathouses can be “tucked” into the shoreline.

Jan. 26/2016 Comment Form

Rob Little

Concerned about the answers to your two questions were not separated into contractors and property owners. Therefore suggest discounting the answers to Qst 1.

Jan 26, 2016 Rick Hickson R&J Machine Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• Dryland and in-water permanent style boathouses should be allowed on the lakes in North Kawartha Township. Stoney Lake is under Federal jurisdiction and should remain so;

• Size limitation of 30ft x 32ft, restricted to single-storey pitched roof. In-water boathouses on pilings and minimum of 10ft from the shoreline. Lot sizes would have to be a minimum of 100 ft to a maximum coverage of 35%. Setbacks proposed from projected lot lines to be 15 ft. written permission from property owners on both sides compulsory;

• Docks as recommended are too restrictive. Maximum ramp length of dock 24 ft or until 2 ft of water is reached at low water. Total projection from high water into the lake consider 25 metres. Maximum surface area in the range of 900 sq ft. excluding the ramp. Total frontal coverage could be restricted to 30% lot coverage;

• Concerned that landowners may not be able to repair and restore boathouses.

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT • Suggested any zoning category be

referred to as a Lake Zone. • Feels TSW regulations are too

restrictive. • Requested that marine railways still

be permitted. Jan 26, 2016 Jeff Ball

Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• Objects to all lands below the high water mark being zoned Major Recreation Open Space why not create a new zone “Lake Zone”;

• Questions Open Space Zone prohibiting any type of building or structure. What happens to existing structures as a result of MNR jurisdiction?

• Objects to gazebos being prohibited on docks;

• Objects to a maximum dock projection being limited to 15 or 20 metres as it would limit and/or prevent lake access for many waterfront residents due to fluctuating water levels;

• Recommends maximum surface area of a dock to be 1,000 sq.ft;

• Objects to restricting the expansion of existing docks and marine facilities that are accessory to commercial uses;

• Pre-existing docks and structures, will they be “grand-fathered”?

• What happens after the meeting? Opportunity to comment further?

Jan. 26/2016 Lee Minty Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• A maximum surface area of 450 sq. ft. is too restrictive for docks if ramp is included;

• Maximum dock length or projection can be a problem on lakes with fluctuating water levels

• Will existing docks be grandfathered? • Are PWC ports a marine facility? • Is there an issue with ramps being

wider than 8’? • Could the ZBA permit docks without

any regulation? Jan. 26/2016 Evan Rodgers

Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• The issue of in-water regulation should not be driven by the OMB appeal;

• Minutes of settlement are not an appropriate way to address in-water regulation;

• Swim rafts should be recognized in the by-law;

• Should be required to own the shore road to have a dock;

• One dock per lot? • A sliding scale of docks to shoreline

frontage may work;

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT • Maximum surface area of 400 sq ft

would be appropriate; • What about seasonal docks?

Jan. 26/2016 Rick Wannop Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• Has the Township received complaints with respect to boathouses/docks?

• Why wasn’t the decision appealed as it relates to docks?

• Large floating docks are beneficial to lake ecosystems;

• Lake specific regulations would be the better way to address this issue;

• In-water regulations could work but why require building permits?

Jan. 26/2016 Gerry Douglas Written Submission and Verbal Submission

• Will the by-law distinguish between a permanent structure and floating structure?

• The Ministry of Municipal Affairs needs to address building code regulations

• The OBC does not address dock construction

No Date Roger Howard • Concerned about January date for meeting.

• Provisions should be made for longer ramps due to rocky shorelines and lake level changes

• Proposed By-law Section 3.1 (l), part 5) does this mean that a permit from the Township is still needed, but all dimensions are the responsibility of MNR?

• Meters squared versus square meters; • The measurement notation should be

clarified or specified; • Dock area vs. ramp area illustration,

which is the real measurement standard?

• Clarity of proposed changes: suggests adding a “What Does This Mean in Practice” document;

• Suggests attaching the current By-law and the proposed By-law as amended in two column format with the changes highlighted on the proposed amendment;

• Addition of line number make referring to items for discussion much easier.

Jan 27, 2016 Doug Hutton • Suggests using the term Lake Zone rather than Open Space

• Suggests being more generous with the permitted size of docks because boathouses will NOT be permitted.

• Believes a property owner should be able to build what they want provided it doesn’t destroy the environment or offend anyone.

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT • Raft Issue vs. Dock issue – two

separate entities. • Maximum sq ft for docks should be 64

sq metres (or larger) • Opposes permanent structures on

docks. • Keeping the dock at an 8ft width

reduces the desirability of using the dock as a deck.

• Permit process should be quick, easy and efficient.

Recommendations Boathouses: • No on-land or on-water boathouses

in North Kawartha. Recommendations Docks:

• Width of all docks shall be included in a Regulated Lake Area which is 25% to a maximum of 15 meters of the shoreline frontage.

• 25% of the visible shoreline or what can be viewed from a boat. A straight line from AtoB.

• Docks to be in the Regulated Lake Area, within the 4.5 m setbacks from side lot lines to maximum distance of 20m

• Maximum width 2.4m • Maximum of 3 fingers no wider than 2

m. • Access ramps not to exceed 2.4 m • First 3 m of dock adjacent to shore

must be open span • Boatlifts must be located within or

adjacent to specified dock. • Boatlifts much be open design. • Gazebos on docks not permitted • An extension may be granted on

very shallow water up to a depth of 1 m.

• Docks must not interfere with water flow and currents or boat traffic.

• Floatation for Floating docks shall be enclosed and contained.

• Installation of floating docks and structures will be permitted during mid-March to June 30th.

• Only one dock per lot is permitted. Jan 27, 2016 Bill Woods • Concerned about shallow, silted bay,

will dredging be allowed to accommodate boats docking the 400 foot waterlines?

• Will there be removal of shoreline vegetation to enhance views?

Jan 27, 2016 Mary Frances Woods Concerned about shoreline, it should not be disturbed.

Jan 28, 2016 Linda and Michael Mulgrew • Comments relate only to Big Cedar Lake;

DATE SENT NAME COMMENT • More than 25 wet and dry

boathouses on Big Cedar; • Support Section 1.2 (g) of zoning by-

law; • Regs. for in-water buildings/structures

are important to controlled and sustainable development.

Feb 1, 2016 Bryan Olive Consider the proposed amendment to be a big issue and potentially impactful on shoreline residents and constractors.

Feb 1, 2016 Roger and Eva Graham Opposed to any requirement for permits for docks on Kawartha lakes.

Feb 1, 2016 Dennis Hebert • Chandos Lake cottager; • Opposed to any regulations on

docks, boathouses or water toys; • Docks are a meeting place and

gathering spot for family and friends. Feb 1, 2016 Jason Pulchinski Chandos Lake cottagers;

432 max. surface area for a dock is too small; Regulations should be relative to shoreline frontage; Boathouse issue needs to be addressed but dock regulations go too far.

Feb 1, 2016 Sid Donia Rules for dock location, size limitation and structures are reasonable; Exemptions should be provided for pre-existing structures; Max surface area of 1,000 sq. ft including ramp would be appropriate; Dock projection needs to consider fluctuating water levels; Administration should involve a “Lake Inspector”; Existing prohibitions on boathouses should be maintained.

Feb 3, 2016 Boating Ontario Opposes the proposed amendment; Damaging to local economy; Marine industry generates $3 million annually and supports 67,000 full-time jobs.

Feb 9, 2016 Paul Smith, Park Superintendent Kawartha Highlands SSPP

Request that the proposed exemption of in-water regulations on Park lakes be removed so the Park can utilize Township regulations.

Appendix 2

Township of North Kawartha Proposed Zoning Amendment In-Water Regulation

Public Open House Workshop – January 26, 2015

Question #1 – Docks Should docks be the subject of further regulation?

• No; • No!!! No regulation required – just indicate docks are ok – give permit and build; • In land locked lakes docks should be able to be up to 800 sq. ft. to permit safe

docking conditions if needed for multiple boats; • No with qualification – Depends on if lake is land locked – then no, Depends on if

on Trent – more traffic – yes, Guidelines or regulating docks is a very costly process to manage/enforce;

• Should be regsonable – Dock sizes have not been an issue until this court case. Things were fine before this ruling. Leave them alone and do not restrict the sizes. This is what your constituents/rate payers want;

• On Stoney Lake north side – so regulated by Trent Severn – don’t need more rules, boathouses are more of a problem;

• Stoney Lake – leave docks out of regulations. How is this all taxed if regulated? Trent Severn regulates, deal with boathouse issues;

• Regulations – NO! Floating boathouses – YES! There should not be regulations for docks. There should be regulations for floating boathouses (taxation & limits);

• Who is going to inspect all of the docks? What about existing docks that exceed current regulations?

• 1) Yes – docks 2) But they need to be reasonable 3) No – boathouses (in-water or on land);

• Can enclosed structures on docks be prohibited? i.e. a building set on a dock of any size;

• Yes. I think a dock should be under 600 sq. feet; • Does prohibition of “boathouses” on “cold water lakes” include all enclosed

structures? • Should NK regulate “in-water” buildings – Yes Why? Regulate size, shape, safety,

purpose; • Yes to regulation of docks – restriction of setbacks from riparian rights. For

example docks to be restricted from projecting past 66’ outward from high water mark. Boathouses in the water must be regulated;

• Absolutely they should be regulated. The Planner’s Report and proposed regulation make sense;

• Possibilities – 1) Use TSW regs 2) Have regs permitting minimal size 3) Site-based? • Docks should be regulated as to max. size, setbacks and length as proposed; • Yes – some basic regs on size/location; dock types – crib, floating. Whatever

regulations are drafted, they need to be clear and consistently applied; • Starting size of docks permitted – say over 160 sq. ft; • “Future” dock structures should be regulated. Existing to be grandfathered; • Docks can be regulated only if the sizes are typical of people’s needs and desires • Will current docks & boathouses be grandfathered in. Yes we agree that there

should be some regulations “minimum”;

• Assume present and in construction projects are grandfathered in; Question #2 – Boathouses Do boathouses represent part of the existing built-form on your lake? Should in-water or dryland boathouses be permitted in the Zoning By-law?

• Yes – Boathouses, both in-land and dry-water, exist. My belief: permit only small dry-land boathouses with marine railroads or lifts;

• Not sure – If you get along with neighbour – no problem. If you don’t, then it could be an issue;

• On Big Cedar boathouses represent part of existing built-form on lake. In-water boathouses or dryland boathouses need to be subject to by-laws;

• Boathouses should not be allowed; • Yes, boathouses do represent built form. In-water boathouses - should be

allowed on land, not out on the lake; • Boathouses do not add to the character of the lake. Existing dryland & in water

structures should be grandfathered. Future in-water must be banned. What about the environmental concerns when constructing these on water;

• There are currently a small number of boathouses on our lake – Chandos. Utility sheds should be allowed close to water at the lake edge;

• Yes. Concern for secondary docks, ie slides, balloon toys on secondary docks extended further into the water. How many allowed? Could someone put a dock anywhere with no control?

• Boathouses 1) There are a few old boathouses 2) All boathouses should be prohibited on all lakes;

• A) yes B) yes – with limits ie no habitation/deck over boat slip, should have size limits;

• Stoney Lake – yes to boathouses – in water boathouses should be regulated by permission from 2 neighbours, each side, approving it is not blocking their view – if no area on their lot;

• Boathouses are not permitted on my lake. However why restrict people? If done responsibly they definitely have a place and purpose. Once again if people want them, let them have it. Docks and boathouses bring employment and economic development to our community;

• Boathouses – yes, lots on Stoney Lake. Only dryland boathouses should be permitted. No more in-water boathouses and disallow living over and in the boathouse;

• If a boathouse is being used to store a boat or water toys – yes. But if to be used as living quarters – no;

• Boathouses in water and on land should be permitted with size restrictions, single storey with sloped roof should be permissible;

• Boathouses on cold water lakes being banned on land it follows that any enclosure on water, floating or on supports should likewise be banned, irrespective of size;

• Open air boat houses to a max size; • Both in-water and dryland boathouses are a minor part of the lake character and

I think no further in-water boathouses should be permitted.

Appendix 3 The Corporation of The Township of North Kawartha

By-Law #2016-xx (Preliminary Draft February 9, 2016) Being a by-law prepared under the authority of Section 34 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P.13, as amended, to amend Zoning By-Law #26-2013 as amended, of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha, in the County of Peterborough. Whereas Zoning By-Law #26-2013 as amended, was passed under the authority of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P. 13, as amended. And Whereas the matters herein are in conformity with the provisions of the Official Plan of the County of Peterborough as approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; And Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha conducted a public hearing in regard to this application, as required by Section 34(12) of the Planning Act, R.S. O. 1990, Chap. P. 13, as amended; And Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha deems it advisable to amend Zoning By-law 26-2013 as amended, and under the provisions of the Planning Act has the authority to do so; Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha do hereby enact as follows: 1. Zoning By-law No. 26-2013 as amended, is further amended in the following

manner:

a) Section 1.2 (e), Scope of By-law is amended by adding the words “which shall include Crown lands and all lands covered by water. Notwithstanding, this By-law shall not eliminate, reduce or override the regulatory jurisdiction of Ontario Parks or Parks Canada with respect to land use”, at the end of the paragraph;

b) Section 1.2 (i), Scope of By-law is amended by deleting the sub-section and

replacing it with thte following:

(i) Compliance with Other Restrictions: This By-law shall not be effective to reduce, override or mitigate any restrictions lawfully imposed by a governmental authority having jurisdiction to make such restrictions, including but not limited to the Trent Severn Waterway (Parks Canada) and the Ministry of Natural Resources under the authority of the Public Lands Act and the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.

c) Section 1.2, Scope of By-law is amended by adding the following new

sentence after Section 1.2 (k):

“(l) Lakes and Lands Covered by Water All lakes and lands below the high water mark shall be deemed to be zoned Lake (L) for the purpose of this By-law.

d) Section 1.3, g) iii) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(iii) Zone boundaries indicated as following shorelines, shall be interpreted to be the high water mark. Zone boundaries indicated as approximately following the centre-lines of streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such centre lines.

e) Section 2.12, Definitions is amended by deleting the definition of “boathouse”

and replacing it with the following two new definitions:

“2.12 (a) Boathouse, Dryland – shall mean a single storey detached accessory building comprised of a roof and walls and/or posts and located within the shoreline setback and used for the storage of watercraft and shall not contain habitable space or a rooftop patio. For the purpose of this definition a dryland boathouse shall also include a boatport. 2.12 (b) Boathouse, Wet – shall mean a single storey detached accessory building comprised of a roof and walls and/or posts and projecting outward from the high water mark in whole or in part and used for the storage of watercraft and shall not contain habitable space or a rooftop patio. For the purpose of this definition a wet boathouse shall also include a boatport.”

f) Section 2, Definitions is amended by modifying the definition of “height” in

Section 2.18 (b) by deleting the words “marine facility”;

g) Section 2, Definitions shall be amended by deleting the definition of “dock” in Section 2.44 and replacing it with the following new definition:

“2.44 Dock means a structure without a roof or walls, attached to a shoreline and/or marine facility on a permanent or seasonal basis, which projects into a waterbody, outward from the current water mark and has a finished surface elevated above the level of the water, and which is used for the mooring/dockage of watercraft and to provide access from water to land and vice-versa”.

h) Section 2, Definitions shall be amended by adding the following new definition

for “dock ramp” after Section 2.44: “2.44 a) Dock Ramp – means a structure without a roof and located above the current high water mark, attached to a dock which serves to secure a dock to land and/or to provide a stable, accessible and safe means of access between land and a dock.”

i) Section 2, Definitions shall be amended by modifying the definition of “gazebo” in Section 2.78 by adding the following to the end of the definition: “, but shall not be located on a dock or dock ramp or attached to a building”;

j) Section 2, Definitions is amended by deleting the definition of “Gazebo” at

Section 2.78 and replacing it with the following new definition: “Gazebo” means an accessory free standing roofed structure with open or screened walls that is used as a sheltered, outdoor sitting area. It may be located on a deck, or it may be located on the ground as a non-permanent free-standing structure as an accessory use, but shall not be located on a dock or dock ramp or attached to a building.”

k) Section 2, Definitions is amended by adding the following new definition as

Section 2.88 a):

“2.88 a) High Water Mark, Current - means the location where the current water level of a lake meets the land.”

l) Section 2, Definitions is amended by deleting the definition of “marine facility”

in Section 2.113 and replacing it with the following new definition:

“Marine Facility” means an unenclosed, non-roofed accessory or installation to a dock and/or shoreline use which is used to place a boat into or take a boat out of a waterbody; or to moor, berth or store a boat. This definition may include a boat launching ramp, boat lift, PWC port, marine railway, but shall not include a boathouse, boatport or any building used for human habitation, a marina or any boat service, repair or sales facility.”

m) Section 2, Definitions is amended by adding the following new definition for

“Swim Raft” at Section 2.177 a):

2.177 a) SWIM RAFT “Swim raft” means a seasonal in-water and non-motorized floating platform or inflatable used for swimming and recreational purposes.

n) Section 3.1 (a) (v) is amended by replacing “marine facility” with “dryland or wet boathouse”.

o) Section 3.1 (k), Marine Facilities is amended by deleting the words “Boathouses and Boatports” from the sub-section heading and by deleting subsection (i) and replacing it with the following:

(i) Location

A marine facility shall maintain a 4.58 metre interior side yard where it is installed on land and where a marine facility is located in a waterbody, or connected to a dock, it shall maintain a 4.58 setback from the interior side lot line projected at ninety degrees into the waterbody.

p) Section 3.1 (k) is further amended by deleting subsections 3.1 (k) iii) (building

area and height), vi) (Cold Water/Lake Trout Lakes), and (viii) (Special Provisions for Permitted Boatports on Cold Water/Lake Trout Lakes);

q) Section 3.1 (l), Docks is amended by deleting Section 3.1 (l) and replacing it

with the following new section:

“(l) Docks

1) The minimum setback of a dock or dock ramp from an interior side lot line or the straight-line projection of an interior side lot line into a waterbody shall be 4.58 metres (15 feet);

2) The maximum distance a dock may project from the current water mark

shall be 20 metres; (66 feet);

3) The maximum surface area of a dock shall be 46.45 square metres (500 square feet);

4) One dock shall be permitted per lot, however island lots with a minimum

lot area of 0.4 hectares and lots with greater than 100 metres of shoreline frontage are permitted one additional separate dock;

5) Sub-sections 1) to 4) shall not apply to any area of the Township subject

to the jurisdiction of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Provincial Park; and,

6) Sub-sections 1) to 4) shall not apply to any area of the Township subject to the jurisdiction of the Trent Severn Waterway.”

r) Section 3.1 is amended by adding the following new subsection after 3.1 (m):

“(n) Swim Rafts One swim raft shall be permitted per lot provided the raft is compliant with the setback and projection requirements established in Section 3.1 (o) 1) and 2).”

s) Section 3.31 a) is amended by deleting the words “pump houses,

boathouses, docks”.

t) Section 3.31 c) is amended by deleting the section and replacing it with the following: c) Stairs, Landings and Dock Ramps

Notwithstanding the above, stairs, landings and dock ramps which are intended to provide safe access to the water’s edge are permitted to extend to the current water mark provided that such stairs and dock ramps are not more than 1.25 metre (4.1 feet) in width and such landings are not more than 1.52 metres (5 feet) by 1.25 metres (4.1 feet) in dimension.

u) Section 6.1 (b), “dock” shall be deleted.

v) Section 7.1 (b) “dock” shall be deleted.

w) The following new Section 18A, Lake Zone (L) shall following Section 18 as

follows:

SECTION 18A - LAKE ZONE (L)

18A.1 USES PERMITTED

No person shall within any (L) zone use any lot or erect, alter, locate or use any building or structure for any purpose except one or more of the following (L) uses, namely:

(a) Permitted Uses: a dock; a marine facility;

18A.2 REGULATION OF LAKES AND LAKEBEDS

All lakes, lakebeds and land covered by water up to the high water mark, shall be zoned Lake (L). The regulations for uses and structures permitted to project into a waterbody and/or to be attached to the lakebed are located in Section 3.1 of this Zoning By-law. Also, in accordance with Section 3.31, Stairs, Dock Ramps and Landings are permitted in the (L) Zone on a seasonal basis only where necessary to accommodate access to the current water mark during fluctuating or low water levels.

18A.3 KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS SIGNATURE SITE PROVINCIAL PARK

All lakes located within the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park shall be zoned (L) but the in-water regulations of Section 3.1 shall not apply. The establishment of structures on lakes and/or that project into a waterbody from private property shall be subject to the permitting and regulatory authority of the Provincial Parks Act and Conservation Reserves Act.

18A.4 TRENT SEVERN WATERWAY

All lakes located in the Township that are subject to the permit authority of the Trent Severn Waterway shall be zoned (L) but the in-water regulations of Section 3.1 shall not apply. The establishment of structures on lakes and/or that project into a waterbody from private property shall be subject to the permitting authority of the Trent Severn Waterway and the Parks Canada Policies for in-water structures.

18A.5 DOCKS AND MARINE FACILITIES ACCESSORY TO COMMERCIAL USES

Existing docks and marine facilities that are accessory to existing commercial uses shall be permitted and shall not be subject to the in-water provisions of Section 3.1. Furthermore, existing docks accessory to commercial uses are entitled to expand their existing surface area by up to 20% without amendment to this Zoning By-law

x) The legend of all Schedules to By-law 26-2013 shall be amended by adding

the following after Shoreline Residential Island (SRI):

2. In all other respects, the provisions and regulations as set out in By-law No.

26-2013 as amended shall continue to apply and be complied with. THAT this by-law shall come into force and effect on the day it is passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha, subject to the applicable provisions of the Planning Act, Statutes of Ontario, 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended. Read a first, second and third time and passed in Open Council on the xxth day of xxxx, 2016.

________________________________

Rick Woodcock, Mayor

_______________________________

Connie Parent, Clerk