O.M.B. Hearing January 30, 1979.
Brief for O.M.B.  Postponed APRIL ?, 1979, Sharbot lake, by L.W. Sobczak.
SHARBOT LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

My main concern is the acceleration of the eutrophication cycle of Sharbot Lake.  Most lakes over long periods of time, thousands of years will gradually eutrophy (that is poorer water quality) even from natural causes. What man does is shorten this eutrophication cycle from thousands of years to less than a hundred years. However, this does not have to follow if careful planning and programs are instituted.   In fact, the eutrophication cycle can even be reversed through careful programs. What Sharbot Lake Property Owners Association would like to see is the eutrophication cycle be extended and even reversed if at all possible.  We are not against development and even would like to have more people enjoy what we have, providing our environment is not  jeopardized.   Thus, we want to be sure that the necessary planning has been done, and assured that the eutrophication cycle will not be accelerated. Through two (?) of correspondence with the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Town of Sharbot Lake, I did not receive this assurance.  In fact, I learned just the opposite.  Very little is known, results are ambiguous, studies are not done or incomplete, some plans and reports are confidential, and the state of’ the art today is just speculation at best and not an exact science.  However, the Ministry of Natural Resources knows quite well about Lake Planning Guidelines, Land Use Planning, etc. but are reluctant to make this information available to the public unless you specifically ask for it

Most people do not understand the environment we live in.  In fact, taking myself as an example, two years ago I did not understand or appreciate the complexity of the environment until I got into the problem and started asking questions.  I soon learned that there were, at present, no reliable answers.  Each person in the lake adds to the general pollution of the lake usually unknowingly, thus accelerating the eutrophication cycle.  Thus, if the lake capacity is to be increased then careful planning, regulations must be installed to not only protect the present residents but also the people who are coming.  It is easy to say this little bit will not hurt, but all the bits together usually can lead to a catastrophe.  For these reasons I believe the following format is necessary before further development takes place on Sharbot Lake.
1. Land Use plans and a report for the complete development of Sharbot Lake and its watershed.  This means a land inventory study should be made perhaps along the lines suggested by the Interim Lake Planning Manual and Guidelines for land use planning put out on a limited basis in 1974, 1976, & 1978 by the Ministry of Natural Resources.  Lake, shoreland and watershed capacity studies should be made.  Estimates of the water quality today and predict what they would be if development were to take place.  The water quality indexes for various parts of the lake before and after development should be made as indicated in the Manual as a start.  Once this study has been made, copies should be sent to all residents for comments.  Then public meetings held to discuss the proposed land use maps and studies so that all opinions can be heard.  These guidelines stress that public participation is an essential part of the planning process, which has not occurred in Sharbot Lake.

2.  Official Plan.  After the public meetings are held and all the necessary studies made as indicated by the public, Official Plan and By-Laws can be instituted whereby new development would have to conform.  This would assure orderly development with the lease harm to the environment.  Any changes would have to go through a complex process where again everyone could have their say and know fully what is taking place.  In the case of a lake, rather than notify all the landowners within 400’ of the proposed development, all residents with frontage on the lake should be informed because the same water touches all our property lines.

This development of a Land Use and Official Plan has not been made so far.  As a result, no full public participation has been made.  Take for example the developments by Lakeside Living Limited Phases 1 & 2 and the present Phase 3 Mountvale Point Subdivision.  What have Phases 1 & 2 done to the lake environment?

(1)  First the loons (indicator of a good natural environment) have moved from this development site.

(2)  The Bay opposite Cooley Island is polluted and cannot be used for drinking. Perhaps part of the reason lies in the fact that a landfill causeway was built which cut off the free flow into the lake.  This in turn developed a stagnant swamp in behind where nutrients are allowed to concentrate and leach into the lake which further tends to contaminate the water there.  In addition a public right of way across this area was moved from the lakefront to a back area which cut off public access to the lake.  Phases 1 & 2 did not provide a useable public access to the lake.  Now the developer is selling these lots for less than $400.00 down.  This land in addition to blocking the swamp water is only about one foot above high water.  Expensive septic beds probably costing $500.00 or more have to be built to assure the least effect on the water quality.  However, anyone that can only afford $400.00 down on the lot is unlikely to spend $500.00 on a septic bed.  Therefore, what is required is that the developer provide pre-serviced land before he can sell it.

(3)  Each lot has to be engineered in detail and certain minimum determinations made such as what is the  rate of flow of nutrients and bacteria from the proposed leaching bed site to the lake.  This can be done using flow meters recently developed by Dr. Lee at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.  At present no charts to my knowledge exist that indicate rates of transport of nutrients and bacteria depending on soil conditions and slopes.

(4)  Public participation with respect to phase 3 has been nil and a good example of this is the proposed By-Law 789-78 passed December 20, 1978.  I have asked Dennis Knight of the Ministry of Housing and Harold Clarke, Reeve of Sharbot Lake to provide me with the plans of the proposed development.  No one could do this because it was not allowed.  How can the public give positive input if we are denied basic data to comment on proposed projects.  Rushing By-Law 789-78 for Mountvale Point subdivision is not my idea of public participation.  I received a copy December 30, 1978 and it is impossible to fully inform our members and get their comments.  In fact, I would say this is the responsibility of the Town.  These are only a few reasons why we must have a Land Use and Official Plan first before any development takes place.

On January 8, 1979, I objected to the undue haste of rushing By-Law 789-78.  O.M.B. agreed to postpone the hearing until April sometime.

 Another consideration should be given to:

(1)    Architectural and building standards for aesthetics and safety reasons.  At present anything goes, which is not a recommended procedure when larger concentration of people are advocated.

(2)    Boat capacity on the lake.  East Sharbot Lake has an area of 2036 acres with approximately 265 residences or 7.68 acres per residence.  The planning manual advocates 10 acres per boat.  Many cottagers have more than one boat for things like water skiing, sailing and canoeing.  If we assume each cottage has three boats then the average area per boat is only about 2 ½  acres of lake surface – that is about ¼ of what the Lake Planning Manual recommends.  In addition Sharbot Lake (Eastern Basin) is a shallow lake with a mean depth of 16 feet which makes it more sensitive to increased pollution.

(3)    Water quality.  Water quality of Sharbot Lake was studied in 1970 and was reported in 1972 and then again in 1977 using the basic data obtained in 1970.  These reports have to be used carefully because the statistics for the Eastern and Western Basin are reversed.  This discrepancy was corrected for me by Mr. Murray German of M.O.E. after I pointed out discrepancies.

As a cottager on the lake, and after having the water quality on the Ottawa River next to my home in Ottawa deteriorate to the point where it was unsafe to swim in, I am very critical of the water quality.  I noticed that on Sharbot Lake the water quality was slowly deteriorating by the following signs:

(a)   the rocks were getting slimier.

(b)   the weed growth was getting worse.  In fact, we have applied to the M.O.E. for a permit to control the weed growth around our island in 1979.

dead fish and snails were beginning to pile up on our shores.  However, last summer the dead fish and snails were not as severe as in the previous two years.  The only thing that happened last year is that the water level was kept higher during the bridge construction over Fall River and perhaps saved the fish life last summer.  Dr. Lee from the university of Waterloo informs me that excess nutrients cause severe oxygen depletion in the summer which in turn can cause the subsequent death of fish or snails.  Of course other causes could have a similar effect.

The M.N.R. Planning Manual gives a formula for calculating a water quality index p.61.  The Ministry’s policy is that development not take place on lakes having a rank 7 trophic status.  Using the results of the 1970 study when only 66 cottages existed on the east lake the water quality index is at the top end of rank 5.  Since then, about 200 more cottages have been added which would probably place the east lake into a rank 6 trophic status.  The two largest culprits are the oxygen depletion in the water and the total dissolved solids in the water.  A program should be undertaken whereby these two factors are decreased.  For example Limnos Units could be installed to oxygenate the bottom waters.  If more cottage units are to be added then the developers of the new cottages should pay for the installation of Limnos Units.

Another indicator of Water Quality are the lake trout but they have not been in the east lake for years.

Another indicator of water quality are the bacteria counts.  All the water of Sharbot Lake is unfit to drink straight, thus, must be filtered and chlorinated.

M.O.E. report 1972 state that recreational waters can be considered unsafe for swimming when the coliform (TC) , fecal coliform (FC), and or enterecoccus (FS) bacteria exceeds mean densities of 1000, 100 and 20 counts per 100 ml. respectively.  Back in 1970 these limits were exceeded at some of the M.O.E.’s sampling stations.  These bacteriological levels should also be lowered before further development is considered.

In summary the Sharbot Lake Property Owners Association recommends that no further development should take place on Sharbot Lake until:

(1)    a Land Use Plan has been completed,

(2)    an Official Plan adopted,

(3)    a lake study made similar to the one done in 1970.

(4)    summertime oxygen levels raised so that deep water fish can exist,

(5)    weed growth curtailed,

(6)     phosphorous levels decreased,

(7)    bacteriological levels lowered for safe swimming,

(8)    water clarity improved to the 1970 level.

By-Law 789-78 passed December 20, 1978 which approves the Mountvale Point Sub-division, is premature; hasn’t been discussed fully by our members; does not protect the lake to the degree it should; does not provide public access to the lake; concentrates docking facilities into one area which destroys the environment in the location; no consideration is given to lake improvement such as decreasing bacteria levels, raising oxygen levels, lowering total dissolved solids, decreasing excessive weed growth, lowering phosphorous levels; providing pre-services lands; buildings should conform to some minimum architectural and building standards such as the Ontario Building Code; item 2.9 page 4 of By-Law 789 should not be allowed that is conservation land should be public.  If the land is to be private then it should be included in the neighbouring lots.  The same comment applies to item 2.31 regarding private open space; public use, item 2.33 is too narrowly defined; Lots 14, 15, 16, 18 & 19 will front on a right of way which is not up to township standards for roadways.  This should be done aw well before consideration is given to approving this By-Law.

Last but not least is equity of development.  If future surveys show that more development can be tolerated then these cottages should be distributed on some equitable basis among the existing landowners.  However, we must still keep in mind that the full potential should not be utilized immediately but only 50% then assess the lake conditions again before proceeding with further development.

The following publications should be read by all concerned.  The Planning principles and guidelines should be used before any development takes place.

(1)   Guidelines for land use planning.  Draft July 1, 1978, Ministry of Natural Resources (M.N.R.)

(2)   Guidelines for Land Use Planning. Revised January 1, 1974. M.N.R.

(3)   Interim lake planning guidelines, 1976, M.N.R.

(4)   Lake alert phase 2, Methodology, 1972, M.N.R.

There are probably other pertinent publications but so far I have been unable to get hold of them.