South Shore Area Structure Plan

As discussed below is my rough draft for comments on the proposed ASP. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.

Density and scale

I am curious about the end vision the county wishes to achieve with this plan. The removal of many things leads me to believe the end vision has changed. A few examples of such is the removal of density rules, scale and compatibility to adjacent, rural lake lifestyle, buffering etc. In fairness some of this is still in play for subdivisions. Some stated goals in some areas such as disbursement and avoiding large concentrations seem to not apply to recreational. I am also unclear as to why area C (6.5 quarters) 875 development units while area B (9 quarters) was given 524?
-I do like the direction of the; 50% of new developments should be detached dwellings. I do believe it should be applied to each area independently as opposed to cumulatively. This could potentially help with disbursement and avoiding large concentrations. This would also limit the risk of land sterilization. This would prevent a resort from utilizing all or nearly all capacity for an area and rendering the remainder useless from a development perspective. This would greatly affect property values and cause a bottleneck for infrastructure including roads, lake access etc.
-I have thought alot about why the public was opposed to Paradise Shores compared to Ol’Mac. I have come up with multiple factors that I believe contributed.
1. Ol Mac contributed to infrastructure ie. boat launch, roads etc. (this new plan seems to address this concern)
2. It was staged over decades.
3. It retained much of the natural landscape including a shelter belt and added more. This has a huge impact on aesthetics, noise/light pollution, buffering and even limited potential for refuse blowing offsite
4. It has a large buffer between it and the nearest residential. This is an important distinction. I believe a buffer between various land uses is essential. I also believe the size of the buffer should be proportional to the scale of the development. This would enhance the compatibility to adjacent developments new or existing.
I believe the BLIDP addresses these concerns to some degree 3.1.10 in regards to large concentrations, scale and compatibility but that appears to be omitted in the new ASP. Density and lot sizes were a primary concern during previous consultation and I suspect that is still true today.

Transportation
– What is the practical difference between an arterial road and a local/collector road?
– If east Bayview is an arterial road wouldn’t west bayview thru the village also be an arterial road? Since so much of the traffic patterns vehicle and pedestrian will need to be coordinated between the county and villages what measures are in place for this coordination?
– Has any consideration been put into “haul routes” in the future. If it were made apparent up front which roads would be subject to road bans it would allow better planning of potential surface upgrades. Hindsight being what it is I would hate for surface treatments to be removed later.
– Doesn’t Bayview already have direct access to individual parcels? Does this contradict the rule regarding arterial roads?

Lake Access

-Is the prelim design for new and expanded facilities available or is that to come later?
-Keeping with the separate area mentality, why is there no mention of lake access in area C. With 875 development units the area would be well past the 1 per 700 benchmark. Is it the intent to piggyback off of White Sands and does this need to be negotiated?
-Would a major resort/campground be required to build their own or contribute to the county’s expansion of existing?
Previously the county and SDAB conceded this was a concern to varying degrees regarding paradise shore. I don’t see any preventative rules in place from this concern continuing.

Water/Wastewater

– I would like clarification on whether existing wells and fields would be permitted or whether we would be forced to tie into a regional line. I am getting mixed messages.
4.6.10 Individual private on-site water wells may be allowed where an individual private on-site sewage system is also used
4.6.12 Use of private, individual water wells may continue until such time that a communal and/or regional water supply system capable of servicing the development or lot is available
4.6.13 Development on single parcels may continue to use private individual water wells.

The wording is similar for wastewater as well on single lots

Stormwater

– What is the timing for approval of plans? prior to construction, during, 2 years after?
-What enforcement mechanisms are in place for non compliance?

General

-Bonds. Is it possible to require a bond for major developments to protect the municipality and ratepayers?

– I have multiple questions regarding tax/offsite levies? Whom would it apply to? the subdivision? area? south shore? entire county?
Is there a specific criteria to justify additional levies or is it solely council’s discretion?