Discussion Paper 1: Shoreline Setbacks
– 20 vs 30 metres
Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan Review
Page 1
Discussion Paper: Shoreline Setbacks – 20 Metres vs 30 Metres
1 Background
The Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan and the Development Permit By-law include two different setbacks that
apply to development and redevelopment along the Township’s water bodies. Depending on circumstances, either a
20 metre setback or a 30 metre setback would apply based on the lake or other waterbody (i.e. river), the property
abuts. During the development of the existing Official Plan in 1998, a Planning Advisory Committee identified and
considered the importance of preserving the character of small, remote lakes in the Township. Through this planning
process, it was specifically recognized that small and remote lakes have different characteristics from larger more
developed lakes, which affect the level of development that can be sustained ecologically and socially. At the time it
was noted in a discussion paper on the topic (attached as Appendix 1 to this report) that
“there are social or human limits to development that a lake can sustain and still maintain its
overall character and desirability. Shoreline development and facilities, and the
recreational activities that they generate must be in balance with the ability of a
waterbody to withstand the impact of the water based recreation. Social carrying capacity
is much more difficult to determine or quantify since it relies on value judgment. A social
carrying capacity involves two components; the number of people engaged in an activity
at a density that is efficient and safe for the users, and the acceptable density of people
as perceived by the users themselves.”1
According to Section D.12 of the Official Plan, a minimum setback of 20 metres applies to development from the
normal or controlled high water mark of a lake or watercourse. However, if the water body is considered a “Category
3” lake, the setback will be 30 metres. Category 1 and 2 lakes make up the majority of the Township’s development
and they include such lakes as Lake of Bays, Dickie, Echo, Grandview, Paint and Ril Lakes. These are generally
larger lakes (70 hectares and greater in area) and where the majority of development occurs. Category 3 lakes are
smaller and more remote lakes that are considered to be more sensitive to development.
In addition, a 30 metre setback is required adjacent to any identified Class 1 (significant) fish habitat, sensitive lakes
due to water quality (i.e. Lake Trout lakes, over-threshold lakes, etc.), lands prone to flooding or to preserve habitat
or specific features (Section D.12). Where it is not possible to meet the required setback, Section D.14 may consider
a lesser setback provided that sufficient lot depth is not available on an existing lot; terrain or soil conditions make
meeting the setback impossible; or when located in a Community designation with an established building line. Also,
an addition to an existing building or replacement of a sewage disposal system is permitted where the setback is not
further reduced. Further to these specific circumstances, the proposed setback reduction must not create a negative
visual impact when looking at the lot from the water and/or impact the natural environment.
2 The Issue
The difference in standards depending on the lake has caused some confusion in the Township, especially during the
redevelopment (demolition and rebuilding of a dwelling) of a property . Therefore the question has been raised as to
whether or not one setback should apply to the entire Township. The policies of the Official Plan require anyone
Lake of Bays, Lake Character: A Summary Report to the Township of Lake of Bays Planning Advisory Committee, June 21,
1999.
1
Page 1
Discussion Paper: Shoreline Setbacks – 20 Metres vs 30 Metres
demolishing and/or rebuilding a cottage to relocate to the 20 or 30 metre setback, Sections J.41 and D.14 may
consider reductions to these setbacks, but further clarification of these Sections may needed.
3 Setbacks: What the Research Says
A 30 metre setback has been recommended as a natural vegetation buffer since 1974 when the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the Ministry of the Environment formed a joint committee to look for precautionary measures to
protect lakes. A 30 metre setback was recommended to apply to cottages and sewage disposal systems. According
to the Shoreline Vegetative Buffers Study by the District of Muskoka in 2003 (attached as Appendix 2), and the more
recent Shoreline Vegetative Buffers Report by the Muskoka Watershed Council, dated January, 2013 (attached as
Appendix 3), there has since been broad consensus from a variety of scientific studies that 30 metres was the best
buffer distance in order to protect fish and other wildlife habitat (see Table 1).
Table 1: Studies Recommending 30 metre vegetative buffer width
Table 2: References from Table 1
Allen, A.W. 1983 Habitat Suitability Index Models: Beaver. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/10.30
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S.S. Cooke, D. Sheldon, and D.
Dole. 1991. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson Associates, Inc. for Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program. Wash. Dept. Ecology, Olympia, Wash.
Page 2
Discussion Paper: Shoreline Setbacks – 20 Metres vs 30 Metres
Corbett, E.S. and J.A. Lynch 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on Municipal Watersheds. Pp.
187-190. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian
Conference, April 16-18 1985 Tuscon, Arizona.
Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of streamside Bufferstrips for Protecting
Aquatic Organisms. Technical Completion Report, Contribution #165, California Water Resources
Centre, University of California, Davis, CA.
Gilliam, J.W., and R.W. Skaggs. 1988 Natural Buffer Areas and Drainage Control to Remove Pollutants
from Agricultural Drainage Waters. Pp. 145-148. In: J.A. Kusler, M Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.)
ASWM Technical Report 3; Proceedings of the National wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses. US Fish and Wildlife Serv., U.S. EPA, and US Army Corp of Engineers.
Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating Dairy Waste Management Systems Influences on Fecal Coliform
Concentration in Runoff. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.
Hickman, T. and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. US Dept. Int., Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5
Jacobs, T.C. and .w. Gilliam, 1985 Riparian Losses of Nitrate from Agricultural Drainage Waters. J.
Environmental Quality. 14:472-278.
Johnson, A.W. and Ryba, D.M. “A Literature Review of Recommended Buffer Widths to Maintain Various
Functions of Stream Riparian Areas” Prepared for Kings County Surface Water Management Division
Seattle, Washington February 1992
Jones, J.J., J.P. Lortie, and U.D. Pierce, Jr. 1988 The Identification and Management of Significant Fish
and Wildlife Resources in Southern Coastal Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
Augusta, Maine. 14 pp.
Karr, J.R. and I.J Scholosser. 1977. Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on Water
Quality and Stream Biota. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA 30605. EPA –600/3-77-097.
Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Musseallem 1985. Best Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint
Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. J. Soil and Water Conservation 40: 164-167.
Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Roby 1980. Effect of Logging on Macroinvertebrates in Streams
With and Without Buffer Strips. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:1076-1085.
Peterson, R.C., L.B.M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere. 1992. A Building-block Model for Stream
Raleigh, R.F., William, J. Miller, and P.C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Chinook
Salmon, U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.122.
Roby, K.B., D.C. Erman, and J.D. Newbold 1977. Biological Assessment of Timber Management Activity
Impacts and Buffer Strip Effectiveness on National Forest Streams of Northern California. USDA – Forest
Service, California Region.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980 Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer Strips in Controlling
Pollution and Feedlot Runoff. J. Environ. Quality 9:483-497
Wilson, L.G. 1967. Sediment Removal from Flood Water by Grass Filtration. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 35-37.
Page 3
Discussion Paper: Shoreline Setbacks – 20 Metres vs 30 Metres
4 Policy Options
1) 20 Metre Setback
One option is to have a 20 metre setback requirement on all Township water bodies. This is not the
preferred recommendation since it would leave smaller and more sensitive lakes with less protection as
evidenced above and it would create visual impacts for those existing properties that currently comply with
the larger setbacks.
2) 30 Metre Setback
As indicated above, research shows that a 30 metre development setback is most effective at mitigating the
impacts of development on water quality. Given that large lakes in the Township are monitored for their
water quality and there are no concerns with respect to water quality, we are not in favour of this option.
3) Status Quo
The current approach is generally seen as functioning well by Township staff. We support the maintenance
of the lake-specific approaches to setbacks since the Official Plan benefits from strong policies requiring
vegetation to be maintained along the shoreline. However the drawback of the status quo is that the
existing Official Plan policies are not seen as providing sufficient flexibility to address existing situations
where older cottagers have been constructed in the past and do not meet current standards. Therefore the
status quo is not the preferred approach.
4) Existing Approach Plus Policy Flexibility for Existing Situations
The supported approach is to maintain the existing policy variation on setbacks between smaller Category 3
lakes and other larger lakes that are less sensitive to development pressures. However, as we have
recognized above, we recommend that the existing policies be amended to introduce greater flexibility to
allow redevelopments of existing conditions without the need for planning approval provided the proposed
redevelopment does not have a negative impact on character, water quality, and natural environment
associated with the lake. Therefore the policies of the Plan should be amended to permit a variation from
the requirements of the lot standards provided that mitigating measures are undertaken to ensure the
redevelopment conforms with the policies for protecting shorelines. The amended policies would then
permit a cottage owner to reconstruct their dwelling at the current deficient setbacks provided that certain
conditions are followed. These might include the provision or implementation of compensating measures
designed to sustain or enhance the integrity of the shoreline area including, upgrading or installing tertiary
sewage treatment systems, planting or revegetating an area equivalent to the building’s encroachment into
the required setback, relocating or demolishing other buildings or structures on the property, or additional
measures that have a net improvement on the environment.
5 Recommendations
Page 4
Discussion Paper: Shoreline Setbacks – 20 Metres vs 30 Metres
We suggest that the Official Plan maintain the existing setbacks found throughout the Township and provide
revised policies with clear and additional criteria that may permit a reduced setback to be possible without
necessitating an application under the Planning Act, or perhaps a staff variation to ensure the specific
criteria has been met. Where a setback is reduced, staff would have the ability to assess the situation and
where there is disagreement, the policy would require a study to be undertaken to justify the decreased
setback and Council’s approval. Policies should require vegetation to be maintained in this circumstance up
to a depth of 30 metres, taking account of permitted vegetation removal for safety or pruning purposes.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Welwood, MCIP, RPP
Page 5
Appendix 1
Summary Report: Lake Character: A summary of a report to the Township of Lake of Bays Planning Advisory
Committee Dated June 21, 1999 Respecting Remote, Undeveloped and Small Lakes
LAKE CHARACTER
A summary of a report to the
Township of Lake of Bays Planning Advisory Committee
Dated June 21, 1999
Respecting Remote, Undeveloped and Small Lakes
1.
BACKGROUND
During the review of the 1998 draft of the new Lake of Bays Official Plan, the Planning Advisory
Committee identified and considered the importance of preserving the character of the remote
lakes in the Township of Lake of Bays. They also discussed the potential policy direction that
could be added to the Official Plan to achieve this end.
The Committee requested that staff consider this matter and suggest potential policy approaches
to deal with the preservation of lake character. Staff subsequently provided the following report to
the Planning Advisory Committee. The character of all the lakes in the Township was considered.
However, particular attention was given to remote, undeveloped and small lakes.
2. REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Township Vision and Draft Official Plan Policy

The Township Vision has provided direction to “preserve the wilderness setting” of the
Township and “actively preserve land for wilderness areas and parkland”. This direction
has been reflected in the Township Official Plan in the objectives and general policy.

In particular, section C.8 directs growth to areas where settlement has occurred rather
than to remote, relatively undeveloped areas. Similarly, C.32 directs that large tracts of
natural open space should be preserved. Many of the policies deal with character and
within the waterfront policies it is recognized that individual lakes possess their own
character. Character is defined in section C.6 as the essence, which defines an area, is
established over time and is rooted in various characteristics.

Although lake specific plans are encouraged by the Official Plan, specific recognition and
preservation of the character of small and remote lakes has not been directly addressed.
The overall character of the Township includes the existence of remote lakes and
relatively undeveloped lakes. In addition, smaller lakes possess characteristics that make
them different than the larger lakes, and affect the level of development that can be
sustained ecologically and socially.

Environmental and ecological constraints limit the amount of human activity that any
given lake can properly accommodate. This idea of a carrying capacity has been applied
to address issues such as water quality and incorporated in the official plan through the
environmental and development constraint policies.

Similarly, there are social or human limits to the development that a lake can sustain and
still maintain its overall character and desirability. Shoreline development and facilities,
and the recreational activities that they generate must be in balance with the ability of a
waterbody to withstand the impact of the water based recreation. Social carrying capacity
is much more difficult to determine or quantify since it relies on value judgement. A social
carrying capacity involves two components; the number of people engaged in an activity
at a density that is efficient and safe for the users, and the acceptable density of people
as perceived by the users themselves. (Reference: R. Jaakson, M. Buszynski and K.
Botting).

To date in the Township, the density of development in the waterfront designation has
first been limited by environmental and ecological factors and secondly by the shoreline
frontage and area requirements. Since the larger lakes have historically been the primary
focus of shoreline development, the lot size requirements and the resultant density have
been designed based on this size of lake. However, it is questionable whether the
application of these standards on smaller lakes will have the same result or impact. In
addition, lakes which are inaccessible by road and remain remote and undeveloped offer
a different lake character and recreational value.
Character of Township Lakes
Factors

The type of factors that affect the character of a specific lake community beyond physical
and ecological characteristics include:





lake size
lake shape
access
total lake shoreline frontage
number of patent lots




amount of crown shoreline
historic development and land uses
average lot frontages and
building allowances and setbacks.
Size

The lakes within the Township have been placed in 4 categories based on size, as is
indicated in Figure 1. Lakes which are less than 8 hectares are considered to be within
the rural area and would be subject to the requirements for that rural designation rather
than those for the waterfront designation. Detailed information for each lake is also
included for reference in Figures 6 (a) to (d).

Although Lake of Bays and Peninsula Lake are considered predominant lakes in the
Township due to their size and history of settlement, a significant number of small and
very small lakes characterize the Township (see Figure 1). However, the surface area of
the two large lakes at 7,340 hectares, far exceeds the combined lake area of the other
110 lakes, which is 4,731 hectares.

The small and very small lakes have significant shoreline frontage in the ownership of the
crown with a number of lakes completely in crown ownership. The land surrounding
medium and large lakes is primarily patent land. (See Figure 2.) Crown land is most often
natural open space and in the past has been expected to remain in this state. This has
served to retain nature shoreline reserves on lakes with crown land. However, the
disposition of such land appears to be imminent and these reserves would no longer be
protected from development. Disposition of crown land along the shorelines in the
Township would have a significant impact on the development potential and character of
the smaller lakes.
Frontage

As shown on Figure 3, the average lot frontage for patented land is much smaller for the
large lakes than the small lakes primarily due to the lack of development on these lakes
which tend to be more remote and lack road access. The average shoreline frontage of
crown lots on the medium and smaller lakes is also significantly greater than on the large
lakes.
Access

Access plays an important role in the level of development that occurs on a particular
lake. Year round road access is provided to most areas of the large and medium lakes,
explaining the level of existing development. The smaller lakes are generally less
accessible and a significant number have no road access. Typically, these lakes remain
undeveloped. Past restrictions on the extension of private roads has likely assisted in the
maintenance of these lakes as remote and undeveloped areas.
Environmental and Development Constraints

A greater number of the smaller lakes exhibit physical constraints, which have a
substantial impact on the development potential of the lake. For instance, many lakes are
completely considered to be a narrow waterbody or have a substantial shoreline frontage
characterized by wetland. The constraint of steep slopes was not considered due to the
localized nature of that factor. However, steep slopes contribute to the character of a lake
and would present a constraint to lot creation.
Number of Lots

The combined number of existing lots on the medium, small and very small lakes (2276)
is only slightly greater that the number of existing lots on the large lakes (2089).
However, potential lot creation on those lakes (1797) is much greater than that for the
large lakes (369). More than 50% of the potential for lot creation on the smaller lakes is
found on crown land. Should crown land be released for private development it would
present a significant increase in the number of lots which could potentially be created.
(See Figures 1 and 4.)

The estimate of potential lot creation as identified in Figure 1 and Figures 6 (a) to (d) has
taken into account the policies of the draft plan that would constraint lot creation, such as
narrow waterbodies, wetlands, recreational water quality and water quality related to fish
habitat. The larger lot frontages required for certain lakes in section H.46 has also been
taken into account. However, land use was not considered, and it is expected that
commercial use would more likely be found on the large or medium lakes.
Lake Surface Area Ratios

Perception of lakes with a small surface area is different than that on a larger lake due to
the area available for recreation, particularly boating as well as values such as viewing
planes. As a result, the amount of development that can be sustained is affected.

As illustrated in Figure 5, when existing and potential lots on patented land are
considered, the lake surface area available per lot on the two large lakes is greater than
that for the other lake categories. Should the disposition of crown land be assumed and
added into the estimate for future lot creation, the ratio of lake surface area per lot is
significantly reduced on the small lakes. The medium sized lakes have the smallest lake
surface area per lot and this takes into account the lakes, which have the 400-foot lot
frontage requirement. The ratios on the small and very small lakes may be higher than
that on the mid-sized lakes since the lot creation potential estimates took constraints
such as wetlands and narrow waterbodies into account and these constraints are more
predominant on the smaller lakes.

The requirement for 1.6 hectares of surface area per lot is contained in the official plan of
at least one municipality in the Haliburton area. In that municipality, a minimum lot
frontage of 150 feet is required and the lot capacity on each lake is allocated on a “first
come, first serve basis”.

Should the number of lots that can ultimately be created on the medium and small lakes
be reduced, the lake surface area per lot would be increased. The last column of Figure 3
indicates that the amount of lake surface area per lot could be increased, if crown land is
not taken into account and the number of new lots that could be created are reduced by
half. However, the ratio for medium and small lakes would still be less than the ratio for
the large lakes.
Design of Development

Other development limits or design influences such as building setbacks and lot
coverage limits or shoreline preservation efforts and the retention of vegetation can
also assist in the maintenance of the character of a lake. Limits on the types of boats
or motor size can also contribute to the perception of lake character (eg. Walker
Lake).
Policy Options

Currently, the plan limits development potential through the application of environmental
and ecological constraints and the minimum lot requirements for a shoreline lot. With the
exception of 8 waterbodies, the minimum shoreline frontage required is 200 feet. In
addition, the plan encourages the preparation of a lake specific plan and directs that such
a plan should be prepared where an undeveloped lake is being released by the Crown for
development. This approach could be retained.

Alternatively, the policy could be generally enhanced to better recognize and preserve
remote areas and that individual lake character (see the attached policy revisions). In
addition, the following measures could be considered:

Include a policy prohibiting the division of any land that is released by the crown for
development, and delete section H.79.

Prepare a new schedule to the plan, which would identify 3 lake categories (large,
medium and small). Include a corresponding policy in the waterfront section that
would identify a minimum lot frontage for each category of lake (Large=200 ft,
Medium=400 ft and Small=500ft). (See the attached policy revisions.)
3. FINAL POLICY DECISIONS
Planning Advisory Committee and Council decided to proceed with the second option and
included a new schedule in the draft plan that identifies lake categories and requires different
minimum lot frontages for each category. In addition, an increased setback of 30 metres was
introduced for the small lakes.
A stronger approach was taken with respect to the release of crown land and a statement
discouraging the release of crown land was included in the plan. Policy to prohibit the further
division of released crown land, unless it is to correct an existing property situation was also
included.
Appendix 2
Shoreline Vegetative Buffers, District of Muskoka, October 2003
Appendix 3
Shoreline Vegetative Buffers, Muskoka Watershed Council, January 2013