Category Archives: MNBP

Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula

Dumpsters are on the chopping block – again.

Posted on by

Waste Management and Dumpsters

Readers will recall that two years ago the Municipality tried to replace the rural dumpsters with curb side pick-up and a user-pay fee. Further, in order to prevent bagged garbage from being scattered by animals, residents would be required to buy individual $300 bear proof roadside containers.

This proposal was not popular among residents who already felt burdened by annual property tax increases and SEPO led a successful fight against removing the dumpsters.

Once again, with the election behind us, the Municipality is hatching another plan. Earlier this year Gamsby and Mannerow, consultants from Owen Sound, were hired by the Municipality to prepare a Long-term Waste Management Plan. This was presented to the Municipal staff last summer and, presumably after considerable input from them, it was finally presented to the Waste Diversion Group, a committee of Council, in the Fall.

The Waste Diversion Group (a committee of local residents) had prepared its own Waste Diversion Plan in November 2009. It did not recommend immediate replacement of dumpsters with curb side pick-up. Instead it focussed on what the Municipality itself could do to reduce waste by adopting a “zero-waste philosophy” which included education and improved signage, significant improvements to the current re-cycling programs, and exploring partnerships and opportunities for diverting more recyclable materials from the landfill sites. These recommendations were ignored in favour of removing dumpsters and expanding curb side pick-up, which the public, subsequently, soundly rejected.

You may wonder why the Municipality is so determined to remove the dumpsters, which is a significantly cheaper form of collection system than curb side pick up. The root of the problem is the shortage of landfill space. There are three landfill sites in the municipality. At the current rate of use St. Edmunds will close in ten years, Eastnor in about 12 years, and Lindsay in about 16 years. Assembling the land and paying for the minimum five year approval process for a new landfill site will be extremely expensive and it will significantly increase property taxes for all residents of the municipality.

Furthermore, the geology of the peninsula means that any new landfill site must be in the former Eastnor township. Consequently, the remaining space at the existing landfill sites represents a valuable but decreasing asset to all taxpayers.

It is believed by the municipality that, because they are unregulated, dumpsters allow more recyclable waste to find its way to the landfill site than is the case with curb side pick-up. It is also believed to be easier to control the amount of residential waste that finds its way into the landfill site by introducing a user-pay fee through the ‘bag tag’ system. There is no question that these views are reinforced by the actions of residents, cottage renters, or businesses who leave appliances, large items like furniture, and recyclables, etc. at the dumpsters. However, the one thing we know for certain is that the municipality does not know much for certain. There are few reliable statistics on waste in the municipality. Most of the assumptions about waste are derived from Provincial averages, which do not always apply to the MNBP. Almost nothing is known about waste generation and recycling in the industrial and commercial sector of the municipality. This is complicated by the municipal practice of rolling all tourist generated waste into the poorly understood industrial and commercial sector.

In addition to the lack of good data, particularly about industrial and commercial waste, a further problem is that the Municipality has no enforcement by-laws related to waste disposal in dumpsters.

When a person is observed wrongfully disposing of waste at the rural dumpsters or elsewhere (and this frequently happens) they cannot be charged with an offence. Thus, in the two years since the Council’s own committee recommended sensible measures for improving the diversion of waste nothing significant has been done by Council to conserve our valuable and diminishing landfill sites, other than to commission a second report

The new waste management plan, will be presented to Council in January 2012 after which the public will be allowed to read it. There will be a public meeting, located at the municipal office on Lindsay Road 5, miles from where most taxpayers live. In spite of this inconvenience, we urge all taxpayers who may be concerned about waste diversion, Council’s approach to the enforcement of waste disposal or diversion measures, the eagerness of the municipality to expand the expensive curb side pick-up with an user pay system, the removal of dumpsters, or the imminent increase in our taxes as the need for a new landfill site approaches, we urge you to pass your views on to the Mayor and Council, if not by attending the public meeting, then at least in writing.

Follow the Deputy Mayor’s blog for information on how to get a copy of the report and for information on when the public meeting will take place at johnbainbridge9@wordpress.com.

SEPO’s submission for the Official Plan Review

Posted on by

Sabine Robarts, Planner, Bruce County,
Bruce County Planning & Economic Development Department,
Box 129, 578 Brown Street, Wiarton, ON., N0H 2T0.

Subject: Review of Official Plan for Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale.

Dear Ms. Robarts,

St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc. (SEPO) is a not for profit organization, established over thirty years ago by a group of Tobermory property owners and residents. The purpose then and as it is now, is to provide a collective voice for the property owners and residents of the community comprised of the former Township of St. Edmunds. The membership consists of 435 households or otherwise property owners with approximately 35% being permanent residents in the N0H 2R0 postal code area. The following commentary is specific to Tobermory.

SEPO’s goals are:

  • Lead collective action in support of the long term affordable enjoyment of our properties in an unspoiled natural environment, and
  • Encourage responsible attitudes for sustaining the high quality of life on our St. Edmunds properties.

These goals are not inconsistent with those set out in the Vision Statement of the Official Plan for Tobermory, Lions Head and Ferndale or, for that matter, in the Municipality’s Charter.

Regrettably, Tobermory is undergoing a transformation through largely poor or non existent planning as well as poor municipal management that is moving the community further and further away from the desired mandate of its constituents. Specifically, the rush to meet the needs of the overwhelming visitor traffic, brought on largely through Parks Canada and Provincial tourism promotional activity, has caused commercial developments that have directly impacted the enjoyment of residential properties around Big Tub Harbour as well as removing public access to the Gap. All this has occurred without any consultation or forethought of the long term impact to the many local residents who have devoted so much to the community over the years. Much has been said about the overcrowding during certain periods over the summer and, again due to poor planning, the inadequacy of the public infrastructure to handle the onslaught of visitors to Little Tub Harbour.

2011, in particular, has seen the approval by the County Planning Office and the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP) of a large number of developments by the tourist sector, including a hydraulic dock at the Gap, several parking lots and a motel that have all been approved with minimal or no input from the public.

This disregard for public opinion is directly attributable to the use of holding zone by-laws which exist on most commercially zoned properties in Tobermory.

This form of zoning has been in existence for a number of decades and it may have made sense when they were created. However, given the changing demographics of the residential population and the rapid increase in tourism to the former St. Edmunds (according to the National Park their visitor numbers have increased by 8 per cent per year since at least 2008) these holding zones that by-pass public input are like time bombs which periodically go off and deeply unsettle the public. They are in effect a planning tool that is demonstrably creating tension between the residential and commercial sectors of Tobermory.

SEPO will not assume your role as planner by going in detail through the Official Plan and identifying specific actions that have created problems in Tobermory and which are honoured more in the breach. We would, instead, prefer to draw your attention to the Major Community Goals in the current Official Plan which the Planning Department and the MNBP have significantly failed to achieve. These are:

  • Goal (a) To create a positive economic climate. Based on recent letters to the Bruce Peninsula Press, letters to the Council of the MNBP, and the considerable feedback SEPO has received, we would argue that the climate in Tobermory is not positive.
  • Goal (b) To protect the natural environment in order to ensure future economic growth. In our view the Province, through its regulations, does more to protect the natural environment than the MNBP which, while it says much, is more passive than active in its approach to the environment. Furthermore, SEPO believes that the natural environment in the MNBP is sufficiently unique that the Official Plan should protect it for its own sake and for posterity and not merely to ensure future economic growth.
  • Goal (c) To provide that any development proceeds in a logical, progressive and economically sound manner. There is much evidence that the result of recent developments has been to cause rifts and tension between the residential and business communities in Tobermory. There is no doubt that this goal has been a failure. We would also suggest that the planning process, which has left the centre of the community, Little Tub Harbour, as an almost lifeless husk for two thirds of the year is a palpable failure of community planning. The current Official plan should be adjusted to ensure that more community and business activity returns to the Little Tub Harbour during the eight months when it is not inundated with tourists.
  • Goal (d) To provide quality services to its residents. The lack of parking in the centre of the community of Tobermory has been a problem that has persisted for years and is exacerbated by the annual increases in tourist traffic. It significantly inconveniences residents who want to access their main shopping area and boaters who have difficulty in accessing the only boat launch in the area. The failure of the planners and the Council of the MNBP to address the problem of parking and traffic flow is at variance with this and other goals and a failure of the planning process.
  • Goal (e) To work with the private and public sector to develop a common theme for building construction and appearance that enhances the appearance of the harbour areas, the downtowns, and the commercial areas along the Provincial Highway and County Roads. SEPO and other community organizations have frequently and always in vain approached Council to work with the municipality to achieve this goal. The inability of the Council to work with its residents through formal advisory committees has been a major impediment to achieving this goal.

Furthermore, SEPO would also like to draw your attention to Clause 5.15 (Public Consultation and a Fair and Timely Process) of the current Official Plan. This brief clause (five lines long) says nothing about how public consultation will be achieved. The current system of putting obscurely worded notices in the only local media (a monthly paper) and holding “public meetings” in the municipal offices located more than 40 minutes driving from three quarters of the population falls far short of the spirit of public consultation.

SEPO recognizes the difficulty of communicating with the population of a rural and linear municipality like the MNBP and accordingly, we have suggested establishing a Tobermory Advisory Committee (see below and the attached). Council’s refusal to explore the merits of this proposal and its quick rejection suggests that the MNBP is not interested in public consultation. This perception is reinforced by Council’s other rejections of attempts by the public to be consulted including, Council’s most recent rejection of a Municipal Heritage Committee.

SEPO would like to suggest that its proposal to establish a Tobermory Advisory Committee as a committee of council be revisited.

Progress is inevitable and thoughtful development is desirable. In April, 2008, a presentation was made to Council, proposing the establishment of a Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council. The Committee was to have the following mandate and objectives:

MISSION STATEMENT:

  • The purpose of the Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council is to assist Council by broadening the scope of information that goes both into the identification of needs and thus into the decision-making process of Council affecting Tobermory and the Tobermory Community. The Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council will be only advisory in nature, and will have no other authority or mandate.

OBJECTIVES:

To organize and facilitate bi-monthly (once every two months) public meetings in Tobermory for the Tobermory Community to:

  • express the Tobermory Community’s needs and concerns and to facilitate discussion,
  • address matters referred to it by Council,
  • arrive at a consensus or to take a vote regarding possible solutions or plans, and
  • provide Council with regular reports of the above proceedings for its consideration

Other objectives of the Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council are to:

  • act as liaison with community groups and council,
  • assist Council with the research and any submission needed related to any grant monies that may become available from Federal, Provincial, or other bodies,
  • assist Council in the implementation of any formal needs assessment and/or planning studies related to Tobermory,
  • provide Council with advice, recommendations, knowledge and expertise regarding matters relating to Tobermory, and
  • assist Council in other ways that Council deems appropriate.

The introductory wording to the presentation is attached. At the advice of its administrator, Council voted against this proposal.

Suffice to say that the establishment and existence of the proposed committee could have gone a long way towards avoiding, or at least minimizing the issues that the community has faced, particularly over the last year.

SEPO would like very much to remain involved in future discussions affecting the Official Plan. However, if we have learned anything from how badly development plans and approvals were handled in the recent past, it has become glaringly obvious that more dialogue is required with members of the community to avoid the acrimony that has evolved. Tobermory is a small community but it has tremendous complexity that cannot be managed from afar (the Municipal office) alone. By copy of this letter to the Mayor and Council of MNBP, we encourage that Council recognize this fact and reconsider the need for an advisory committee similar to what was proposed on April 24, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Udo Nixdorf, President,
St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc.

Cc Mayor & Council, Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula

MNBP – it’s time to listen and reconsider.

Posted on by

Dear Mayor McIver and members of Council,

Re: Municipal Heritage Committee

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc. (SEPO) I would like to express our deep concern that at a meeting of Council, on October 24, 2011, a motion, tabled by the Deputy Mayor to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP), was defeated by a vote of four to one.

The motion noted that section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 requires that significant built heritage resourcesand significant cultural heritage landscapesshall beconserved and that, where there is a significant cultural resource, consideration must be given to this resource at every step in the planning and decision-making process.

It was also noted in the motion that the identification of buildings and landscapes, which were significant to the community, should be achieved by a consensus among community members with an interest in the preservation, use and development of cultural heritage. Further, the Ontario Heritage Act s. 28 provides a mechanism for finding this consensus among community members by enabling the municipality to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) to advise Council.

A member of the Executive Committee was present at the Council meeting. The Committee subsequently reviewed the Ontario Heritage Act with particular interest in the sections referenced in the motion.

It is the view of SEPO that there are buildings and landscapes that have cultural significance to the community and which need to be identified in order that the municipality can be in compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement.

For example, letters have been sent to Council from community members identifying the Tobermory library building and the Tobermory museum and adjacent log cabin as being culturally significant properties. At least one of these letters requested that a MHC be established to begin the process of protecting these buildings, and to identify other significant cultural and heritage buildings and landscapes in the municipality.

The grounds for defeating the Deputy Mayor’s motion were that an MHC would interfere with private property rights, that there is already adequate protection for the cultural landscape through the Niagara Escarpment Commission and other agencies, and that we do not need any more regulations. It was further stated that cultural and heritage resources can be adequately protected by Council itself. It was also pointed out that when Council is in open session we are, in fact, achieving consensus.

It appears that the Council of the MNBP do not understand the intent of s. 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement nor the role of an MHC, which is merely advisory and, therefore, does not threaten private property rights nor increase the number of regulations governing the municipality. Accordingly, the residents of the municipality are being denied their right to take appropriate steps to protect those buildings and landscapes which have cultural and heritage value to them.

The remarks of the Council of the MNBP during the discussion of the motion respecting their reluctance to introduce more regulations and their concern for private property rights suggest an unwillingness to implement Ontario Government policies which are designed to protect the public interest.

Further, we believe that the Council is wrong in asserting that its public meetings are sufficient to determine the consensus of the interested members of the community as to which buildings and landscapes are significant. Council always meets in the municipal building on Lindsay Road 5. This building is located in the heart of a rural landscape. It is at least a 25 minute drive from Tobermory , and the Pike Bay area, where more than 20% and 40% respectively of the population resides. Thus, Council meetings at most times are sparsely attended by members of the public, and rarely for the whole meeting. The minutes of the meetings, while published in the local paper, are stripped bare of all but procedural content. As a result, consensus is nothing more than what three of five members of Council chose to think it is.

The Executive of SEPO, therefore, respectfully requests that the Mayor and Council re-visit their decision and take steps to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee for the Municipality.

Yours truly,

Udo Nixdorf, President,
St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc.

As promised during the last election, MNBP started to develop a Strategic Plan

Posted on by

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula has developed a very impressive Strategic Plan, it is posted on the website as a PDF file which requires Adobe reader to view it: http://www.northbrucepeninsula.ca/d_newsroom_strategic_plan.pdf 

The plan’s content is ambitious and comphrehensive.  SEPO wishes Mayor McIver, Council and Staff every success in implementing this plan.