Disclaimer: Joe Kowalski, who features in this story, owns the Whitewater News and employs the writer and editor of this paper.
The Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approved an amendment to the zoning categories of the property described as Part of Lot 7, Ross Concession 13, from “Rural (RU) Zone” and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to “Tourism Commercial – Exception Twelve – holding (TC-E12-h) Zone”.
“The applicant is seeking to change those lands similar to that of River Run and Wilderness tours, which is Tourism Commercial.” Burton said, referring to JP2G Consulting submitting on behalf of Joseph Kowalski, John Joel Kowalski, and Katherine Kowalski.
He said the planned developments were a resort, a lodge, a yoga study.
“because it does not front into any county owned roads, the conditions is to secure a right of way via River Run.”
“We should be supporting waterfront development when it is presented.” he said. Saying it will not impact the rural character of the area.
The applicant, Joe Kowalski, was present.
“Ivan is right, that property when I did buy it, it did come with a general easement connecting to grant settlement road.” “Our purpose for the property is continued resort development.
“We have the only practical access to Ottawa River Park.” he said. “Hopefully we will get Ottawa Valley to open the provincial park, it’s quite lovely, and this will be instrumental to that if this ever comes to pass.”
Councillor Nicholson, asked if it’s zoned all all the way to Grant settlement.
“The lands that aare currently operated by wilderness tours is all tourism commercial, and goes all the way to Grant Settlement.” he said.
Nicholson also said that he hoped to lobby their voice to the Ministry for opening the park.
A motion was carried, but an audience member wished to speak, so the Council extended the presentation.
Mark Bell, the owner of the property that gains access to the land, spoke, and said he had a few questions for council.
“Joe just mentioned in the presentation of Voyager bay of the preservation of the natural landscape and the waterfront. I’m just wondering what that means for this property. By changing this from waterfront to tourist commercial with all these different amendments, what does that mean for this property, and whether that waterfront will continue to be protected if it’s changed over.
“The notice we got in the mail is pretty ambiguous as there are ten or twelve different uses of this property. Is the intent to put one of the uses on the property? Is it to put all of them on the property.”
He asked if the intent was to build a road through his property, which he said was used and operated by his family for cash-cropping, and hunting/recreating.
“There have already been encroachments on the property, there’s been lots of cease and desists” he said.
How big is the easement and how much are they going to use of the easement” Councillor Mackay said.
“You would have to search the title and deed.” Burton said, saying that Kowalski could clarify that.
“I don’t see why we would allow a second access if one already exists.” Burton said. “These lands are supposed to be used as a extension of River Run, I don’t expect they would create access through your land, Mark.”
Brian Whitehead said there would be a holding symbol and a formal study.
“The problem with that particular statement, I know how they formulated the statement when they laid out the easement, “ Bell said. “Since then, the agreement has changed, the man who Joe purchased the land from pastured cattle on that. There’s really no way to get over that property with going over a substantial portion of that land.
“There’s no reason why I wouldn’t be a new neighbor. I’ve been a neighbor for years, and I don’t see how I would be any different.”
Mayor Moore asked if the yellow portion of the map would be swallowed up or be a separate property, and Kowalski said they would be seperate, with access for both properties.
Councillor Nicholson asked Bell for clarification for the property, and if he farmed on both sides of the river course. Bell confirmed that he owned south of the river ‘with three other landowners’ and owned the adjacent properties.
“I’ve just started to build by business.” Bell said. “Building a road through that would be detrimental to my business.”
Councillor Jackson asked if the easement was over Bell’s property or Kowalski’s property.
Bell clarified that the provious owner, Wilson, granted easement over the property he eventual purchased, and since the severance “would be the only one that borders that property.”
The motion was again carried.
