The island access lot is approximately 1 acre in size with a 100' shoreline.  It is located in Hardwood Bay which is generally shallow with a weedy bottom and with the exception of one year-around home is uninhabited.
The shoreline remains in its natural condition consisting of mainly cedar and pine	A fairly steep shoreline is well protected with roots and organic material

1. nutrient loading that results from the physical disturbance of an otherwise natural shoreline; and
2. development that includes septic systems

1. the physical features and proposed alteration of the site; and
2. the siting and location of the buildings and infrastructure and the design of the development shall not result in a negative impact on the lake function, dynamics and ecology.

1. without an Official Plan Amendment, and
2. without a detailed EIS as required in the County of Renfrew Official Plan

The Township and County look after our roads and have responsibility for guiding development of private property through community input, Official Plans and Zoning by-laws, but who manages the lake?  Certainly the MNR and MOE have a responsibility, so does Bonnechere Power who have use of the lake as a reservoir but how does the community have meaningful input when it comes to questions affecting water and lake ecology?

The LCPOA has been watching with interest over the past year an OMB appeal that is examining the adequacy of the approval process of the County, Township and MNR involving proposed development in Hardwood Bay. Because of the timing of the Township By-law – in December when there are the fewest number of people around the lake, there was little time or notice for concerned property owners to get organized.

As a result, the OMB Appeal had to be initiated by a couple of individuals, rather than as a group, which would have been the preferred way to proceed with the Appeal. While many may question the value of proceeding with the Appeal over concerns about the impact of proposed development on one more lot on Lake Clear, the real issue is the apparent failure of the Township, County, MNR and MOE to adhere to the Policies in the Official Plan that are there to protect the lake for present and future generations.

At the hearing the MOE acknowledged that the lake was approaching a critical point in being able to accept additional phosphorus. The OMB Member - and even the Township’s lawyer - “disassociated” themselves from the plan approved by the Township in support of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment because it was nothing more than a hand sketch on a rough piece of paper. Is that the level of effort that should be acceptable to allow development on Lake Clear, a Highly Sensitive Lake?

One of the fundamental outcomes from the Hearing was the requirement of the proponent to prepare a proper Site Plan, and an opportunity provided to the Appellants to have equal opportunity in reviewing and commenting on the Site Plan, as the MOE and MNR. As it turns out, the Appellants have recently learned that they were not included in this review process as was required by the OMB Member. The next step in the process is for comments to be made on the Site Plan at Committee, before Council votes on the Site Plan. Before the Site Plan process is finalized, the matter must return to the OMB Member for final approval, and Appeal periods on matters of law to Divisional Court must be expired.

While there have been only two named Appellants, they represent the interests of many around the lake – and their future generations. Costs of the Appeal have been mounting, and there is a genuine need for financial assistance to see this matter through to its proper conclusion. If you are able to help with a financial contribution, please contact _______

• what is practically possible.  We are dealing with runoff from a natural untouched area with minimal phosphorous or other nutrients, this is not urban type stormwater.  Wildlife waste is probably the greatest threat.
  
• fine tuning a basically good site plan
  
• need to make sure it's something that will be reliable over time

1. How to minimize the nutrient impact from stormwater runoff (no mention of Spring melt)?
2. Comments are based upon site plan elevation data and visual inspection from a site visit
3. MNR and MOE have approved the site plan (Gord Miller might question this)

• drainage on north side of Witkie takes runoff past lot
• general drainage on south side of Witkie flows towards lake
• no runoff from adjacent property flows onto the proposed lot (no supportive topographical data)
  
• garage roof will drain into a gravel and rock burm

• 3/4" crushed limestone surface
• 3 soak-away-pits (not necessary to construct to MNR standards, also pit nearest to the lake doesn't appear to have 1 m clearance above ground water)
  
• 3 ramp intercepting swales to direct runoff into pits
  

1. remove 2 shoreline parking spaces to upper parking area
2. write a detailed ramp construction plan and provide proper supervision (is BVT's Kennedy up to this?)

1. The appellants have been allowed to comment as required in the OMB interum report
   
2. It's only 400 sq m with minimal impact compared to the runoff from the entire lake.
3. We've spent enough time and money on this, what more can we do?
4. Pass the by-law amendment on condition that Dampsy agrees with no shoreline parking and implements the construction plan (no mention on insuring the ramp specs. will be maintained