A three-year study on septic systems is an inadequate period of time
To the Expositor:
Davis and McClay Development Lid. (‘McLay’) proceeding with ‘Phase 1’ of the Lake Manitou subdivision development is ‘new’ only in the sense that they are just now proceeding in accordance with the terms of a settlement that was approved by ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 2015. Lake Manitou Area Association (LMAA) was active across 2012-2015 in pursuing our opposition to the development. We attended the initial OMB session in early 2012, provided a summary statement of our opposition, and were accorded ‘party’ status to the proceeding, with (then-president) Mike Costigan Sr. and (lake steward) Rob Coulter being established as the contacts-of-record for LMAA. The other two parties are McLay and the Province (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) as lead agency, with input from the environmental ministries (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change [MOECC) and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry [MNRF]).
At issue was/is that the development requires re-zoning of 1-2 pre-existing single lots into 21 lots to support a multiple dwelling development. That action is contrary to Lake Manitou being designated as “at capacity:” several elements of Provincial Policy stipulate that a lake shall be designated as at capacity when indicators of water quality approach or have reached certain levels, beyond which detrimental change will occur. In the case of Lake Manitou, direct measurement (by MOECC) of average deepwater oxygen concentrations showed them to be below the limit of 7 mg/L established (by MNRF) for the preservation of lake trout fisheries.
The ‘at capacity’ designation requires that no new lots are to be created in the watershed of a lake so-designated. One clause of provincial policy provides for an exemption where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development can be carried out with no negative impact; no increase in phosphorus loading to the lake.
The outcome of the 2012 session was that further OMB proceedings on the matter would be delayed to allow the parties the opportunity to discuss/resolve their positions. OMB rules allow for any two parties to pursue a proposed resolution, and do so without the participation of other parties. McLay and the province pursued that across 2012-2015, without inviting LMAA. We nevertheless pursued our interest/objection in contacts with MOECC and MNRF staff that would be advising MMAH and expressing our position in articles and letters-to-the-editor in The Expositor.
In the course of negation/discussion between McLay and the province, MOECC staff became persuaded that additional phosphorus loading could be minimized if the new lots were developed with enhanced onsite wastewater treatment systems that would capture more phosphorus than conventional ‘Class 4’ eight and then 13 lots. Phase 1 is to be established with the enhanced onsite wastewater systems, with the approval of Phase 2 being contingent on satisfactory performance of the Phase1 onsite treatment systems. Those are to be monitored for three years and meet a performance standard of less than or equal to 0.3 mg/L total phosphorus in 80 percent of the samples.
LMAA had about two months to consider the proposed settlement, during which time we secured a provision that LMAA would be given a copy of the monitoring results and have 30 days to comment to MOECC (no veto authority) before the province proceeded with a decision as to whether Phase 2 would be permitted to go ahead.
Mike Sr. and Rob attended the 2015 OMB pre-hearing (teleconference). We reiterated our concerns, but for considerations including the data review provision and other factors withdrew LMAA’s objection rather than force a full hearing at OMB (Mike Sr. had canvased all directors, and the majority not all voted to withdraw our objection).
I was and am of the opinion that three years is an inadequate period to assess the long-term performance of the onsite treatment systems, and that the performance criteria of 0.3 mgTP/L is too lax. That noted, there is no avenue to attempt to re-visit the OMB ruling at this date. We will have the noted opportunity to review/comment on the monitoring results of Phase1. Looking forward, other developers might see precedent value if Phase 2 of the McLay development should be allowed to proceed. We should be watchful for any indications of that; perhaps by periodic inquiries to the four municipalities that border Lake Manitou and the Island’s two planning boards.
Rob Coulter, M.Sc.,
Lake Steward
Lake Manitou Area Association
