Catchacoma Property Owners In Opposition to a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Petition of Property Owners
In Opposition to a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
We, the undersigned, being property owners of lands on or in proximity to Fire Route 272, Township of Galway-Cavendish-Harvey (Cavendish Ward) are opposed to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment as filed with the Township regarding the use of the property known municipally as 21 Fire Route 272.
The Zoning By-law Amendment if approved will create an incompatible land use relative to the established area use of land (seasonal residential). The incompatibility pertains to the proposed use of the land for vehicle parking and water access purposes. The By-law request offers no regulatory controls/provisions to specifically limit the use of the property to the water access property seeking mainland access. In other words, the land could become a parking lot and boat launching location for an unspecified number of users.
Similarly, the lands in proximity to the proposed property are all used for residential purposes. Allowing this non-residential use (specified in the proposed Amendment) serves to establish a land use inconsistent with surrounding land uses.
As previously noted, the Amendment seeks to facilitate boat access to a water access only property. The owner of said property also has family members having seasonal dwellings on or in proximity to the concerned water access property. It is entirely foreseeable that the use of the property will be extended to accommodate said family members and their guests. Collectively this could result in 10 (ten) or more vehicles and associated boat traffic (launching and related activities). Additionally, the use of the property for the above purpose, could be conceivably further exacerbated by use by other owners of water access properties desiring mainland access facilities/service.
The subject property has recently been altered by way of the removal of trees-vegetation. The use of the property for vehicle parking (and related boat and accessory equipment storage) will be readily visible from area properties. There is no evidence being offered of any landscaped/buffering treatments and related mitigation measures to be employed to address compatibility concerns. Moreover, the Amendment is not proposing any regulatory provisions to address this concern. If left unchecked, we will have the unpleasant prospect of having the equivalent of a commercial parking lot and public boat launch in the middle of our neighbourhood. A dock facility has already been constructed anticipating the use of the property for the aforesaid purposes.
To this end, there is also no evidence of any regulations serving to address the size and use of boat dock facilities. This reinforces our concern that the property will be positioned, if not properly regulated (and enforced) to accommodate more than a single water access cottage property.
Finally, we are concerned of the precedent that will be established by the Amendment. Mainland access to the property is currently provided by way of an established marina serving the lake community. There is no known disruption in the current access arrangements. Thus, the need for the proposed mainland access from the subject property is in fact, not required.
Given the foregoing, we are opposed to the Zoning Application as filed with the Township.