The Madawaska Club of Go Home Bay
Board Meeting Summary
Tues Jan 28th, 2014
Michael Williams’s house
362 Deloraine, Toronto
Board Members Attending: Michael Owen, Bill Lougheed, David Cape, Dottie Graham, Doug McKenzie, Michael Stephens, Michael Williams
Absent: Roger Ashton, Hugh Wilkins, Dana Stewart
1. Formal Business - Dottie
· Approval of Nov minutes
2. Board Succession – Michael O
· Michael O advised the board that Hugh Wilkins resigning from the board due to restrictions arising from new employment with federal government which prohibits Hugh being involved on outside boards in environmental positions.
· Board agreed to continue with the policy of posting vacancies and Doug McKenzie was directed to post the open environmental portfolio.
· Additional discussion around board succession and nominating process was deferred to a future meeting
3. Board Meeting Management – Michael W.
· Observation made that board meetings still could be improved in terms of effectiveness and overall time spent
· Board agreed to adopt and follow the previously circulated ‘Summary of Effective Meeting Tips’ produced by Michael W.
· Keys points are to:
Ø Delineate between ‘Action Items’ and ‘Reports’ in developing agenda with ideal being that majority of agenda is devoted to action items
Ø All ‘Action Items’ need to have a pre-read document outlining background, options, action needed etc by the proposing board member sent to the board members via email in advance of the meeting
· It was agreed unanimously that we would adopt this policy and that Dottie would include in the overall ‘Directors Conduct Policy’ documentation that she is developing
4. Policy Development Update – Dottie
· Logo Use: Michael S put the small change into the logo use policy so that is done.
· Dottie’s Director’s Conduct policy is done.
· Need further review on Site non-payers (Roger), advertising (Doug) and Employee Hiring/Review (Dana)
· Dottie also called to have final director portfolio descriptions in hand by next board meeting [still outstanding?]
5. Zoning Bylaw – Michael W.
· Michael W. reported that 1st draft is complete and the process is expected to go thru a total of 4 drafts
· Citizens planning committee has winnowed issues requiring community input to 12 key points which the board asked to provide or agree proposed direction on
· Michael’s input on the bylaw has been governed by our objective of ‘protecting the Go-Home community plan.
· Summary of the board’s direction for Michael W. to communicate back to the township on these 12 key issues, is as follows:
5.1Cumulative Width of Shoreline Structures
The question is how much of the shoreline should we have restricted for development. Currently it’s 10% up to a maximum of 23m, minimum 10m.
Township thinks it would be great if every community had the same ‘rule’, Michael’s recommendation is that we agree that there should be a common shoreline protection amount, but used on a sliding scale to enable larger properties with more shoreline to be able to use them. Recommend that 23m seems a good upper limit.
Want to keep consistent with the plan that is 23m, need provision for minimum. Go with sliding scale.
5.2 Shoreline Activity area
Desire is to maintain, in the 15m area from high water mark, and that 90% of that area natural, (ie. No removal of vegetation), the rest can be used for structures. Michael suggested that we don’t see that there is a reason to change the limits as they exist.
Concern raised about whether such a restriction will prevent people clearing juniper or invasive species. Michael will raise the question about clearing juniper/invasive species vs. cutting down pines.
5.3 Boathouse/Boat ports
6m wide is max for a boathouse. New by-law will distinguish between dry land and on-water boathouse (or combination). Question of whether it should be more permissive with boat ports than boathouses. Currently quite restrictive – 6m x 9m.
Suggests that we leave it alone as it stands in the by-law.
5.4 Dock and ramps
Things got changed a year ago, except for at Go Home – we asked to be excluded. Ramp and dock length are cumulative. Township is looking at cumulative length as 26m, width 4.3m. We don’t want this. Go Home limits are 3 docks at 15m long, 10’ wide – seems reasonable.
5.5 Freestanding decks
Decks that are below 1.2m in height. If you use the 10% of the total lot size limit – that could result in a huge deck. 40m2 and 5 m setback. We think it should be to water’s edge.
Suggests that we say this is ok.
As of right, so as for (sorry Michael – I must have gapped on this – can you fill in the blanks?)
5.7 Attached Decks
Great deal of discussion about what the top size should be, and whether out of site decks could be excluded from limitations. Currently there are not sensible limits on these type of deck structures.
Michael will continue to look at this matter and come back to the board with recommendations. Generally the board supports some more restrictive limits, defining what those should be is a bit of a challenge.
5.8 Gross Floor Area
Just looking to agree on a definition. We want to include basements in the total. No agreement yet so we’ll wait and see how things develop.
5.9 Sleeping Cabins
No kitchen facilities, they’re supposed to be for overflow guests. Height and size restrictions will be decided. Have to be on guard for peaks. Issue is one kitchen per lot. Having a kitchen classifies it as a dwelling unit.
5.10 Open space islands
All agreed that if you want to increase – file for amendment. They will all be grandfathered. All other zoned open space will stay that way. GBLT has a proposal that all lands that are held in trust for future generations and they will be in a special category.
5.11 Saunas, Whirlpools, Hot Tubs
Townships have said that there are lots more things that can be built on the shoreline. Township knows they need regulation; they haven’t landed on it.
Suggests that to comply with our community plan, we should not allow a sauna/whirlpool/splashworks as of right. Gazebos were put in as of right – which was an error of the Township. The have said that they will correct it. So development of these things on the shore will require CofA which means neighbors will be consulted. Intent is that when these type of structures are contemplated that they be developed to minimize impact. Existing structures grandfathered.
Need to have stricter septic regulations. Have to decide what setbacks are. Currently the setback is 30m. People are upset about how one measures the setback. Some want the old high water line. Think it would be helpful if we knew how the 30m are measured. Need more information on this one.
Motion to adjourn: – Meeting adjourned