In a six to four recorded vote on Monday, November 22nd, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SCVA) Board of Directors, deemed the recent Saugeen Shores application for the proposed Cedar Crescent Village (CCV) development to be incomplete.
According to Eric Downing, Manager of Environmental Planning and Regulations, the SVCA has not yet received a detailed plan regarding the Dynamic Beach Hazard assessment and “at this stage SVCA staff does not feel that the submission is acceptable”.
The main sticking point is the Dynamic Beach Hazard and the request for a reduction in its limit. The Administrative Review process was requested by Saugeen Shores and is only to determine the completeness of the application. A decision on whether the proposed development can or cannot be built, and technical merits of the application, are not part of the Review.
He added that a detailed report is “critical to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on pollution, erosion, flooding and the conservation of land”. The applicant was advised on March 29th that the application was incomplete. The applicant, Saugeen Shores, did not agree that the methodology regarding the Dynamic Beach assessment is appropriate and, therefore, requested an Administrative Review and Section 28 hearing simultaneously. “These cannot be done at the same time,” said Downing. “The Administrative Review has to be done first to determine if it goes to a Section 28 hearing.”
The Dynamic Beach assessment, according to Downing, has deficiencies and that, for any development in a Dynamic Beach area, the SVCA has control. “We have received no detailed plans,” said Downing. “The SVCA hired coastal expert Peter Zuzek, who did not feel the report received from the applicant substantiated the 30 meter setback that is under the Provincial legislation.
Zuzek confirmed that no technical information has been received from the applicant and no studies have been done to allow the 30 meter setback of the Dynamic Beach to be reduced. “The story is pretty simple. There are rules in place as to what is to be done such as technical studies, scientific and engineering principles and none of that has been provided to date, therefore, we cannot accept the reduction of the Dynamic Beach setback. Also, the paved inter-locking brick walkway is not a substantial structure that limits the wave effects and there are in-shore affects over that walkway. So, until we see some proper technical studies done, we cannot reduce the current mapping setback.”
Downing said that Saugeen Shores and SVCA are now at an impasse. “We do not have enough information to consider approving the application without a detailed assessment .. we don’t know what the potential impacts are and that’s why we asked for this report to be submitted. Therefore, we recommend this application be considered incomplete and will continue to work with the applicant. We don’t know what the plans are.”
Saugeen Shores’ Engineer, Amanda Froese presented a power point presentation laying out the Cedar Crescent Village. According to Froese the Dynamic Beach Hazard limit is a default limit and should not apply to the proposed development. “Many applications in Southampton and Gobles Grove had Dynamic Beach limits reduced. Shoreplan Engineering was retained to carry out the engineering analysis to determined of the flood hazard line hazard based on the 100 year flood line from Goderish to Tobermory, the wave uprush and to determine the applicability of the Dynamic Beach Hazard.”
“There has remained disagreement of the methodology used … the engineering analysis was within industry standards and should be acceptable … the Dynamic Beach is the only outstanding issue and the report submitted constitutes an engineering study.”
Bruce Pinchin of Shoreplan Engineering set out technical details which he felt were a complete study. The purpose of the Dynamic Beach allowance is to protect the beach and the 30 meter allowance is the provincial default and is very general and cannot apply to all situations.
Pinchin said the Ministry of Natural Resources has set out technical details that include “on some low shorelines plains, the beach and associated dune deposits may be of such low height and width that the flooding hazard is a higher elevation or extends landward of the beach deposits”. “Such is the case at Port Elgin,” said Pinchin.
He also pointed out that numerical modelling had been used and that “The suggestion (by SVCA) that other analyses is required to evaluate a potential reduction in the 30 meter dynamic beach allowance is too open-ended. Further analysis will not provide any relevant information. This would result in a repeat of unnecessary work like that of the water level analysis and add unnecessary delays to the project.”
Froese added, “It is our professional opinion that the Dynamic Beach analysis as provided by Bruce Pinchin of Shoreplan Engineering and the recommendations coming from that analysis are within industry standards and constitute an engineering analysis. They should be satisfactory and the application complete. The recommendations coming out of that report indicating the Dynamic Beach at the lakeward side of the promenade be the move forward for the development and enable us to continue finishing our detailed design and the permit process.”
In a question and answer period that followed, new Director Dave Myette was the first to raise a question. “There is significant development within the Dynamic Beach that includes the Beach House washrooms, office and pumping station. How were they reconciled?”
Downing replied that there are number of structures and uses that are permissable such as a pumping station and water outlets.
Bill Stewart of Kincardine asked why a third party was not present when it had been agreed to. Jennifer Stephens said that there had been considerable dialogue between the SVCA Chair, Saugeen Shores and herself but there was no way to “come to a decision and we were at an impasse”. Stewart said that he was disappointed. “This comes down to the dynamic beach line and two experts … if it goes 30 ft. one way or 30 ft inland it becomes more serious. What would be the cost for an assessment?
Chair Maureen Couture reminded the Board that the Review was not to determine technical aspects but whether or not the application was complete.
Zuzek added that there was routine flooding in the area, water flowing in both directions over the walkway, sand blowing across. “Therefore, with the recent high water levels, the parking lot is routinely flooded and the necessary requested study should be completed.”
Other concerns raised were around the future accountability of the Board if questioned about environmental concerns should the development go ahead without detailed studies.
It would appear to be a moot point however, as the CCV proponent has planned to move the development away from the Dynamic Beach Hazard regulatory area, and the move was approved by Saugeen Shores Council on Monday, November 22nd.
