03-26 PEDAC

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: Date unknown Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/agendas/26-03-26 PEDAC.pdf)

Document Text

Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee Thursday, March 26, 2026, 10:00 AM County of Frontenac Administration Building 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON Meeting YouTube link

Call to Order We begin this gathering by acknowledging and celebrating these traditional lands as a gathering place of the first peoples and their ancestors who are entrusted to care for mother earth since time immemorial. We do so respecting both the land and the Indigenous People who continue to walk with us through this world. Today, the County is committed to working with Indigenous peoples and all residents to pursue a united path of reconciliation.

Adoption of the Agenda That the agenda for the March 26, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee be adopted.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

Adoption of Minutes That the minutes of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting held January 29, 2026 be adopted. 26-01-29 PECAC Meeting Minutes

Deputations and or Presentations

Briefings 6.1.

Directors Briefing Mr. Joe Gallivan , Director of Planning and Economic Development, will provide the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee a briefing of the departments activities since the last meeting 26-03-26 PEDAC Director Briefing

(Page 4)

Reports to the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee

(Page 9)

7.1.

Report 2026-033 - Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends to County Council: That By-Law Number 2026-16 of the Township of North Frontenac, adopting Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to permit, define, and regulate additional residential units, be approved ; and That the Official Plan of the Township of North Frontenac, as amended, be further amended as per Township By-Law Number 2026-16 in Attachment 1 to Report Number 2026-033, being Official Plan Amendment Number 2 for the regulation of additional residential units.

Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units 2026-033 Attachment 1 - BL 2026-16 OPA - Additional Residential Units 2026-033 Attachment 2 - OPA 01-25 ARU Final Report 2026-033 Attachment 3 - Servicing Standards for ARUs - OPA 2 File No

7.2.

(Page 18) (Page 26) (Page 31) (Page 42)

Report 2026-034 - Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends to County Council: That By-Law Number 2026-17 of the Township of North Frontenac, adopting Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to amend and update policies related to site plan control, be approved ; and That the Official Plan of the Township of North Frontenac, as amended, be further amended as per Township By-Law Number 2026-17 in Attachment 1 to Report Number 2026-034, being Official Plan Amendment Number 3 for updated policies related to site plan control. Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies 2026-034 Attachment 1 - BL 2026-17 OPA - Site Plan Control Policies

Communications

Other Business

10. Next meeting

Page | 2

(Page 47) (Page 63)

11. Adjournment

Page | 3

Minutes of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting January 29, 2026 [Note: Minutes are not Verbatim, please refer to full video at]

A meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee was held in the Council Chamber at the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Thursday, January 29, 2026 and was called to order at 10:00 AM Present: Councillor Judy Greenwood-Speers, Chair Councillor Ron Vandewal, Vice Chair Leona Fleischmann Councillor Fred Fowler, Mike Hage Phil Leonard Jim McIntosh Present Virtually: Councillor Fran Smith Staff Present: Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development Debbi Miller, Community Development Officer 1.

Call to Order We begin this gathering by acknowledging and celebrating these traditional lands as a gathering place of the first peoples and their ancestors who are entrusted to care for mother earth since time immemorial. We do so respecting both the land and the Indigenous People who continue to walk with us through this world. Today, the County is committed to working with Indigenous peoples and all residents to pursue a united path of reconciliation

Page 4 of 66

2.

Election of Officers Ms. Amini conducted the election of Chair and Vice-Chair a)

Election of Chair

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Fowler Mr. Phil Leonard

That Councillor Ray Leonard be elected Chair of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee for 2026. Carried Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Smith Councillor Leonard

That Greenwood-Speers be elected Chair of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee for 2026. Carried Councillor Leonard was elected Chair but declined the nomination. Councillor Greenwood-Speers accepted the nomination of Chair. b)

Election of Vice Chair

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Leonard Councillor Greenwood-Speers

That Councillor Fred Fowler be elected Vice Chair of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee for 2026. Carried Councillor Fowler accepted the nomination of Vice-Chair Ms. Amini turned the meeting over to the Chair. 3.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were none. 4.

Adoption of Agenda Moved By: Seconded By:

Mr. McIntosh Mr. Hage

That the agenda as amended for the January 29, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee be adopted. Carried

Page | 2 Page 5 of 66

5.

Adoption of Minutes Moved By: Seconded By:

Mr. McIntosh Mr. Phil Leonard

That the minutes of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting held November 27, 2025 be adopted. Carried 6.

Deputations and or Presentations

Directors Briefings Mr. Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development provided the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee with the planning briefing and responded to questions on same. In addition to the slides, Mr. Gallivan noted the application for Plan of Subdivision in Hartington, which includes applications for amendments to the Townships Official Plan and Zoning By-law. County staff have deemed the application complete but that does not mean at this time that staff support the application. The developers are planning to conduct an Open House on the project which is for 34 residential units. In terms of the Natural Heritage Study, we are so advanced in terms of GIS, including LiDar. Staff are hoping for the consultants to show wetland areas that staff are currently not aware of to recognize and protect these areas. The County Official Plan will highlight these areas and look at ways to protect them. In terms of Economic Development, we are hoping that highlighting certain areas will come up in the consultation phase. In terms of questions as to how much importance is put on waterfront and the protection of it, Mr. Gallivan noted that this is not a priority of the study as much of the Official Plan is focused on protection. The study will look at land areas adjacent to the lakes but will not be focused on waterfront policies. In terms of the Hartington Subdivision, there are 3 applications, 2 of which are at the Township level and part of the Planning Act requires the applications at the Township level to hold a statutory Public Meeting, however the application at the County level does not require the County to hold a public meeting. This Committee will be kept informed of the public meetings as the application will eventually be considered at this table. In terms of any submissions regarding communal services, the applicant is arguing that communal services on this property are not sufficient. In terms of the High-Speed Rail, there are no planned crossings at roadways, and we would advocate for the same in terms of the K&P Trail, but we are not yet at that stage. In terms of communal services, do we not have leverage here at the County. Mr. Gallivan noted that the new Township of South Frontenac Official Plan priority is building on communal servicing. Currently the site is outside of the settlement

Page | 3 Page 6 of 66

area boundaries which is why it requires an Official Plan Amendment but we should have some leverage on requiring communal servicing. 8.

Reports to the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee 8.1.

Consultant Briefing Amy Hogue of the Ontario Highlands Tourism Organization and Jane McCulloch of Terminus Consulting provided PEDAC with a briefing on the Eastern Ontario Rail Loop Project and responded to questions on same.

8.2.

Report 2026-007 - Eastern Ontario Rail Trail Loop Project Update This report is provided to the committee for information purposes only.

8.3.

Staff Briefing Ms. Debbi Miller provided PEDAC with a briefing on the 2025 Business Retreat and responded to questions on same. To the question of how you target those interested that are out there that you are not aware of as currently they would not be part of this, Ms. Miller encouraged this Committee and all businesses to spread the word on this. We do promote across social media, and our partners promote this as well to help connect to people. Mr. Allen also noted the attraction packages that we develop or have access to that we are working on. We provide a lot of data on Trail use in our annual report which is public facing and provide more concrete data upon request. Ms. Miller noted that on the first Wednesday of the month, staff host a business meeting for those on the Islands.

8.4.

Report 2026-008 - 2025 Business Retreat This report is for information.

8.5.

Staff Briefing Ms. Debbi Miller provided PEDAC with a briefing on the Frontenac County Business Awards and responded to questions on same.

8.6.

Report 2026-009 - Frontenac County 2025 Business Awards This report is for information.

8.7.

Report 2025-010 - Business Directory Demonstration Although this report is for information only, Ms. Elderhorst provided a presentation of the new Business Directory that GIS has been working on and what the site will look like. It was suggested that it might be beneficial to note which businesses are Islands friendly as many will not come to the Islands.

Page | 4 Page 7 of 66

Ms. Elderhorst noted that at present, this site is not live but will go live with the launch of the new website anticipated in March. Staff will reach out to the community to assist in updating or ensuring the site is accurate as well as add new businesses, but the information can only be updated by staff. Businesses would need to submit a form for any updates. In terms of expanding this to the Gananoque area, it was noted that we only support businesses within Frontenac County. To the question of how to track those who work from home, Ms. Elderhorst noted that there are businesses in the list without address as we have many home based businesses, so they are in the list, just not on the map. 9.

Communications

10. Other Business
11. Next meeting The next meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 26, 2026, in the Council Chamber
12. Adjournment Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Fowler Ms. Fleischmann

That the meeting hereby adjourn at 11:37 a.m. Carried

Page | 5 Page 8 of 66

Director’s Briefing Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee March 26th, 2026

Page 9 of 66

Wel come E mm a St ucke • Emm a has expe ri ence in lo cal econo mic de ve lop ment, pub lic and pri vate secto r l and use pl an nin g, and conser vatio n.

Page 10 of 66

Lea n Six Sigm a t ra ining

Page 11 of 66

A LTO Hi gh S pe ed R a i l P ro je c t

Online Engagement including Survey and Interactive Map: https://www.altotrain.ca/ March 26 – County CAO and Director of Planning & Economic Development attending working session

Page 12 of 66

Ec onomic D evelopm ent Business Support • Wolfe Island Monthly Business Meetings Next Meeting – April 1 st , 9:00 to 11:00 – Hotel Wolfe Island

• Business Visits Continuing to connect with businesses across Frontenac. If you know a new business or someone considering expanding or adding something new, please make sure they know that Economic Development is here to assist, support, and collaborate. .

Page 13 of 66

HT T PS : // E X PE RI E NCE .A R CGI S .CO M/ E X P ER IE NCE / C55 F8 A 4A A 49B473F826C845DC581CD92

Page 14 of 66

P lanning Se rv ice s County Projects • CPPS template • Natural Heritage Study • Population, Housing, and Employment Projections Township Projects • North Frontenac OPAs for additional residential units and site plan control • North Frontenac Community Improvement Plan (CIP) • South Frontenac: 3 active subdivision files (Sunbury, Shield Shores, and Hartington Phase 2) .

Page 15 of 66

Plann ing Si te Visits Ongo ing (C ano nto La ke , No rth Fro nten ac)

Page 16 of 66

Questions?

Page 17 of 66

Report 2026-033

Report to the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee To: Chair and Members of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee From:

Kevin Farrell, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development

Date of meeting:

March 26, 2026

Re:

Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units

Recommendation Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends to County Council: That By-Law Number 2026-16 of the Township of North Frontenac, adopting Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to permit, define, and regulate additional residential units, be approved; and That the Official Plan of the Township of North Frontenac, as amended, be further amended as per Township By-Law Number 2026-16 in Attachment 1 to Report Number 2026-033, being Official Plan Amendment Number 2 for the regulation of additional residential units. Background On February 27, 2026, the Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac passed Bylaw Number 2026-16 to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 2 (OPA) to the current Official Plan, pursuant to Section 17 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

Page 18 of 66

The amendment introduces a definition for “additional residential unit” (ARU) and establishes policies that govern where additional units may be permitted and the conditions under which they can be created. The purpose of this OPA is to permit up to three residential units within the Rural and Hamlet designations of the Official Plan on lots that front on a Township owned and maintained road or a private road the meets the County’s and Township’s Private Lane Standards. The OPA does not permit ARUs within 150 metres (492 feet) of a lake or major river or within 300 metres (984 feet) of all at-capacity lake trout lake. In addition to the policies that enable and regulate ARUs, Township Council also endorsed a stand-alone document that sets out standards for servicing ARUs. These standards are intended to ensure that new residential uses can be serviced with an adequate amount and quality of drinking water, and to ensure that increased water usage does not impact nearby wells (see Attachment 3) The changes proposed through this OPA align with the intent and requirements of both the Planning Act and the County Official Plan. The policies of both documents aim to support a diversification of residential uses and housing options while ensuring that development is appropriately serviced, that natural heritage features such as lakes are protected, and that groundwater resources are properly managed. Comment Public Meeting and Agency Consultation To initiate the ARU project, County planning staff met the Township’s Economic Development Task Form (EDTF) on October 2nd, 2024. The main considerations that came out of this meeting included: •

Ensuring flexibility in the policies to allow up to three detached residential units on one lot of record.

•

Ensuring that ARUs can be properly serviced with water and septic and to ensure no impact on adjacent wells.

•

Ensuring protection of the waterfront and other natural heritage features.

County staff conducted best practice and existing policy framework research to identify how other rural municipalities were managing ARUs on private services. During this time, County planning staff worked with Malroz Engineering (the County’s Geoscientists/Hydrogeologist consultant) to draft servicing standards to ensure that ARUs can be adequately serviced without impacting adjacent wells and land uses. Once an initial set of policies was drafted, County planning staff discussed the policies with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) to ensure the policies are in-line with existing lake management policies. MECP staff were supportive of the policies pertaining to additional residential units on Rural and Hamlet properties in principle. MECP staff suggested that appropriate servicing standards must be Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 2 of 8

Page 19 of 66

implemented to ensure that the ARUs are able to be adequately serviced. These servicing standards were drafted in consultation with Malroz Engineering in accordance with Ontario Guideline D5-5 Private Wells: Water Supply Assessments. Overall MECP was satisfied with the proposed Official Plan policies, servicing standards, and proposed implementation methods. A statutory public meeting was held at the Township Office on August 7, 2025, where the draft Official Plan policies and the Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units were presented. The purpose of this public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the public and Council to review and provided feedback on the proposed policies. Planning staff wanted to make sure that this public consultation session was held during the summer months, where seasonal resident attendance would be maximized. Updates and information regarding the project, including additional information for public input was available through the Township’s Engage Frontenac portal. All public comments received at the public meeting are discussed in the recommendation report presented to the County of North Frontenac seen in Attachment 2. Following the public meeting County planning staff reviewed the policies in the context of public concerns raised during the public consultation period, considering comments received in person, by e-mail, and through the Engage Frontenac platform. Following the public meeting, County planning staff engaged with MECP staff once more to discuss the proposed policies, servicing standards, and suggested implementation strategies. County planning staff are of the opinion that the public and technical consultation for this OPA are in-line with the Planning Act and constitute good planning. Planning Analysis County planning staff reviewed the proposed OPA against the requirements of the Planning Act, and the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) and the County of Frontenac Official Plan. County planning staff are of the opinion that Official Plan Amendment Number 2 meets all the requirements of the Planning Act and conforms to all applicable policies of the PPS and County of Frontenac Official Plan.

1. Planning Act Section 17(24.1) the Planning Act allows municipalities to pass policies that will permit up to three residential units on any parcel of land by restricting the ability to appeal these policies. This section allows the municipality to pass policies that permit the following arrangement: Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 3 of 8

Page 20 of 66

(a) A second residential unit within a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse on a lot where residential use is allowed, provided all ancillary buildings or structures together contain no more than one unit. (b) A third residential unit is permitted within a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse on a lot where residential use is allowed, provided ancillary buildings or structures do not contain any residential units. (c) One residential unit is permitted in an ancillary building or structure on a lot with a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse, if the main house contains no more than two units, and no other ancillary buildings contain residential units. The policy essentially permits up to three residential units in one house, or two residential units in one house or attached to the house with one additional residential unit in a detached accessory structure. Any policies that propose a different arrangement than what is outlined in Section 17(24.1) of the Planning Act and summarized above can be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Based on feedback received from the consultation process, the policies presented in this Official Plan amendment will permit on one lot the following: •

Up to three detached residential units, or

•

up to three residential units in one house, or

•

up to two residential units in one house or attached to the house with one additional residential unit in a detached accessory structure.

Section 16(3) of the Planning Act states that an Official Plan may not contain policies that prohibit the use of up to three residential units on Urban Residential Land. The Planning Act defines Urban Residential Land as a parcel of land that is located within a settlement area and served by sewage works that are owned by a municipality, a municipal service board, or a municipal drinking water system as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. This section does not apply to the Township of North Frontenac as the Township contains no lands that meet the definition of Urban Residential Land. This means that the Township has the authority to pass policies that prohibit the use of ARUs in certain areas (e.g. the Waterfront Area). County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed by OPA 2 are consistent with the Planning Act.

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 4 of 8

Page 21 of 66

2. Provincial Planning Statement (2024) The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS promotes efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate economic growth. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, all municipal decisions regarding planning applications “shall be consistent with” applicable provincial policy. Through the PPS, the Province of Ontario aims to increase the supply and mix of housing options to address the full range of housing affordability needs. The PPS directs communities to support housing that responds to changing market conditions and local demand. Specifically, Section 2.2 of the PPS requires municipalities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the projected needs of current and future residents. Within settlement areas, the PPS requires municipalities to support general intensification and redevelopment to help achieve complete communities. This includes planning for a range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities. The following policies apply to this OPA. Section 2.6.1(c) states that residential development is permitted on rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. Section 2.6.2 encourages development that can sustained by rural service levels. Section 3.6(4) permits individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water serviced provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impact. Section 4.2 requires municipalities to protect, improve, and restore quality and quantity of water by planning for efficient and sustainable use of water resources through practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality, and ensuring consideration of environmental lake capacity. The Servicing Standards included in this OPA as a stand-alone reference document that has been endorsed by Township Council will ensure that wells on adjacent properties are not impacted and that ARUs are properly serviced with an adequate amount and quality of drinking water, thus ensuring that ARUs can be sustained by rural service levels. County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed in this OPA and the accompanying servicing standards meet the requirements set out in the Provincial Planning Statement.

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 5 of 8

Page 22 of 66

3. County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016) The County of Frontenac Official Plan is a framework for guiding development in the County through the management and protection of the natural environment and by providing direction and influence on growth patterns. It is focused on the six themes of economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability. Section 5.6.2 states that Township Official Plans shall permit the use of a second residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if no building or structure ancillary to the house contains a second residential unit; and further, to allow the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse if the house contains a single residential unit. This policy sets out the minimum number of dwelling units that are permitted. The policy does not prohibit more than two residential unit on a parcel of land. Section 3.3.3.4 – Special Policies Waterfront Areas identifies all Waterfront Areas as any area located within 150 metres (492 feet) of a waterbody. The Waterfront Area designation does not apply to settlement areas/hamlets. The policies presented in this OPA will not permit ARUs within 150 metres (492 feet) of a waterbody in the Rural Area designation of the Township Official Plan but will permit ARUs within 150 metres (492 feet) of the water within Hamlets. The Township will have an opportunity to restrict ARUs on waterfront lots within the Hamlets and Hamlet Zoned waterfront lots through a future Zoning By-law Amendment. Section 7.1.4.4.1 – Lake Trout Lakes requires municipalities to protect at-capacity lake trout lakes by creating Official Plan policies that protect these lakes, including restrict new lot creation within 300 metres (984 feet) of an at-capacity lake and exceptions to various development prohibitions. This OPA will not permit ARUs within 300 metres (984 feet) of an at-capacity lake. Section 4.2 – Servicing sets out a goal that aims to ensure that citizens of Frontenac County have access to potable drinking water. Section 4.2.1.5 – Private Services states that individual on-site sewage service and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. The Servicing Standards included in this OPA will ensure that development of ARUs will not negatively impact wells on adjacent properties and that ARUs are properly serviced with an adequate amount and quality of drinking water. County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed in this Official Plan Amendment and the accompanying servicing standards meet the requirements set out in the County of Frontenac Official Plan.

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 6 of 8

Page 23 of 66

Next Steps If this OPA is approved, Township Council will initiate an amendment to the Township Zoning By-law that will create new provisions for the development ARUs and identify the Zones in which ARUs will be permitted in. The Township Zoning By-law amendment process will establish the following provisions: •

Appropriate separation distance between residential units to adjacent lots, other uses on each property, and natural heritage features (e.g. lakes, rivers, and wetlands).

•

Minimum lot size required for constructing an ARUs

•

Minimum parking and access standards

Strategic Priority Implications 2. Contribute to the Progress of Sustainable Economic Growth and Prosperity Throughout the County Financial Implications The work completed for this amendment is divided into two components. The first consists of background work undertaken by County planning staff, and the second relates to the administrative implementation of the Township-specific Official Plan Amendment process. The Township of North Frontenac was charged only for work that pertained specifically to the Township. Work that can be applied across all Townships, such as best practice research and the development of servicing standards, was billed to the County. This approach ensured that no single Township bore a disproportionate share of costs for work that will ultimately benefit other municipalities undertaking similar projects. The intent of this approach was to ensure equity in billing. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Township of North Frontenac County of Frontenac, Planning and Economic Development Department Ministry of Environment Conservation and Park (MECP) Malroz Engineering

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 7 of 8

Page 24 of 66

Attachments Attachment 1 – By-Law Number 2023-73, Being a By-law to Amend the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (Amendment Number 2, Additional Residential Units) Attachment 2 – Recommendation Report for Official Plan Amendment to Permit up to Three (3) Residential Units on Rural and Hamlet Lots Attachment 3 - Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Additional Residential Units March 26, 2026 Page 8 of 8

Page 25 of 66

The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac By-law # 2026-16 Being a By-law to Amend the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac (Amendment Number 2 – Additional Residential Units Whereas a Public Meeting was held regarding this amendment on August 7, 2025; and, Whereas the Municipal Council of the Township of North Frontenac deems it appropriate to amend the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac, as it relates to policies regarding Additional Residential Units; Now Therefore, the Council of The Corporation of the Township North Frontenac, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.c.P.13, as amended, enacts as follows:

1. The Township of North Frontenac Official Plan is hereby amended by the following changes, which shall constitute Amendment Number 2 to the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac:

a. Add a new definition for Additional Residential Unit (ARU) alphabetically within Appendix 1 “Definitions”: Additional Residential Unit (ARU): means an additional habitable dwelling that is a self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as a primary dwelling. An ARU includes its own kitchen, bathroom, living space, and sleeping area. ARUs can take various forms, such as: a. Detached structures (e.g., backyard cottages or carriage houses); or, b. Attached/interior units (e.g., attached in-law suites, basement apartment, converted garage). b. Delete subsection (e) within the definition of ‘Residential Intensification’ in Appendix 1: Definitions of the Official Plan and replace with the following: (e) the conversion or expansion of existing residential buildings to create new residential units or accommodation, to construct additional residential units including accessory apartments, secondary suites, and rooming houses

Page 26 of 66

c. Delete Section 2.3.7 in its entirety and replace with the following text: To provide for a range of housing types and densities that meet the existing and future needs of a predominantly rural community, including an aging population wishing to remain in their community, affordable housing is recognized as a matter of Provincial interest under the Planning Act. Recent legislative changes now facilitate the creation of up to three residential units on a single lot where residential use is permitted. This policy shall not apply to sleeping cabins or “bunkies,” nor to buildings or structures located on waterfront properties, where additional residential units could result in adverse impacts on water quality and the natural environment. d. Add a Subsection 3.2.1 “Additional Residential Units (ARUs)” into Section 3.2 “Accessory Uses” with the text shown in Schedule ‘A’ to this By-law. e. Delete Section 4.1.2.A “Hamlets – Permitted Uses” in its entirety and replace with the following text: A. Residential uses: single detached and two-unit dwellings, group homes and garden suites. Two-unit dwellings shall include semidetached dwellings, duplexes and converted dwellings. Higher density residential uses will also be permitted which serve the changing demographic profile of the community such as housing for retirees, continuum-of-care facilities, small block apartments and town housing. Council will endeavor to provide for affordable housing in meeting future housing demands. Council shall allow the use of additional residential units on a single lot of record by authorizing a total of three residential units in the following manner, subject to policies outlined in Section 3.2.1, f. Delete Section 4.3.1 “Rural Residential Uses – Permitted Uses” in its entirety and replace with the following text: For the purposes of this Plan, housing types may include permanent rural residential uses including single detached and two unit dwellings, mobile homes and accessory uses including additional residential units and/or a garden suite. Housing types may also include continuum-of-care facilities and tenured housing oriented to

Page 27 of 66

short-term or seasonal occupancy such as condominiums, fractional ownership and time-sharing. Recreational vehicles are not considered to be a form of housing, but rather for short term recreational-oriented accommodation. 2.

The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Frontenac for the approval of Official Plan Amendment Number 2 for The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date that Official Plan Amendment Number 2 is approved by the Council of The Corporation of the County of Frontenac, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990.c.P.13, as amended.

Read a first and second time February 27, 2026. Read a third time and finally passed this February 27, 2026.

Gerry Lichty, Mayor

Tara Mieske, Clerk

Page 28 of 66

Township of North Frontenac Schedule ‘A’ to By-Law Number 2026-16 3.2.1

Additional Residential Units (ARUs)

The intent of this section is to address housing needs by increasing the supply and variety of housing options, ensuring ARUs are properly serviced without affecting neighboring properties, and protect the natural environment and water resources

1. ARUs are not permitted within the Waterfront Area designation of this Plan.
2. ARUs are not permitted within 300 metres (984.2 feet) of a designated At-Capacity Lake.
3. Additional dwelling units may be permitted on lands where a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or townhouse is the principal use permitted in the Rural and Settlement Area/Hamlet designations in Appendix 2 of this Plan, provided that: a. The lot size is sufficient to accommodate the additional residential unit(s) as outlined by the Township Zoning By-law. b. The additional dwelling unit(s) can be adequately serviced in compliance with the Township’s Residential Servicing Standards. c. The property contains no more than a total of three (3) residential units. d. A sleep cabin and/or loft-above-a-garage does not fall under the definition of ARU. e. A Garden Suite is considered a residential unit under this policy. f. The ARU(s) have a smaller footprint and gross floor area compared to the principal dwelling. If the ARU is larger than principal dwelling, the largest of the two becomes the ‘principal/primary dwelling’ for the purposes of the Zoning By-law. g. The ARU(s) can be serviced with water and wastewater in accordance with the Township of North Frontenac’s “Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units”. h. The lot has direct access from a year-round maintained publicly owned road, or a private road within an approved plan of condominium, or a private road that has been constructed to Township’s Private Lane Standards and that is maintained year-round.

Page 29 of 66

i.

The ARU complies with the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard sections of this Official Plan.

j.

Access (i.e. driveways) to the ARU(s) is constructed to a standard that allows access by emergency service vehicles.

4. Any application resulting in the creation of a new lot of record that has the effect of separating an ARU from the principal dwelling must demonstrate that the ARU can be serviced by its own well and sewage disposal system and meet all the policies outlined in Section 3.15 (Subdivision, Condominiums, Consents and Part-lot Control) of this Plan. Creating a new lot of record from an ARU where the well and/or sewage system is shared with another dwelling located on a separate lot of record is not permitted.
5. The ARU(s) are properly addressed in accordance with the Township Civic Addressing By-law, as amended.

Page 30 of 66

Planning Report To:

Mayor and Members of Council

From :

Dmitry Kurylovich, Project Manager/Senior Planner, County of Frontenac Sonya Bolton, Manager of Community Planning, County of Frontenac

Approved By:

____________________, Township of North Frontenac

Date of Meeting:

February 27, 2026

Re:

Planning Recommendation Report Proposed Official Plan Amendment to Permit up to Three (3) Residential Units on Rural and Hamlet Lots.

File Number:

OP 01/25

Recommendation That Council endorse the Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units shown in Attachment 2 of this report as a stand-alone technical reference document to be used as terms-of-reference material for the development of Additional Residential Units. That Council adopt the proposed Official Plan Amendment Number 2 to permit up to three residential/dwelling units on lands designated as Rural or Hamlet, as per the draft by-law shown in Attachment 1 to this report; and That Council direct staff to prepare and send the Official Plan Amendment package to the County of Frontenac for approval; and That Council direct staff to begin the process of amending Zoning By-Law Number 55-19 to include provisions related to Additional Residential Units that comply with the updated Official Plan policies found in this amendment.

Background On August 26, 2024, Council passed a resolution that provided direction to planning staff to initiate the process of amending the Official Plan to permit additional residential units in the Township.

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 1 of 11

Page 31 of 66

County planning staff conducted research on existing best practices for ARUs in rural settings which included a review of ARU policies from other municipalities. County planning staff also worked with Malroz Engineering, the County’s peer reviewer for hydrogeological reports, to draft a set of servicing standards that would ensure that ARUs are properly serviced with water and sewage services and will not impact adjacent wells. The standards were drafted in accordance with Ontario Guideline D5-5 Private Wells: Water Supply Assessments. County planning staff discussed the initial version of the ARU policies with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks to ensure the policies would be in-line with existing lake management policies. A statutory public meeting was held at the Township Office on August 7, 2025. The purpose of this public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the public and Council to review and provided feedback on the proposed policies. Planning staff wanted to make sure that this public consultation session was held during the summer months, where seasonal resident attendance would be maximized. Updates and information regarding the project, including additional information for public input was available through the Township’s Engage Frontenac portal. Following the public meeting County planning staff reviewed the policies in the context of public concerns raised during the public consultation period, considering comments received in person, by e-mail, and through the Engage Frontenac platform. County planning held another meeting with MECP to discuss the proposed policies with respect to public feedback. Overall, MECP are satisfied that the policies presented in the Official Plan Amendment and noted that the proposed servicing standards are in-line with existing Provincial and local policies, and Provincial direction.

Researched By: Dmitry Kurylovich, Project Manager/Senior Planner, County of Frontenac

Comments Proposal The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment is to permit up to three (3) residential units within the Rural and Hamlet designations of the Official Plan. An Additional Residential Unit (ARU) is defined as a self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as a primary dwelling. An ARU includes its own kitchen, bathroom, living space, and sleeping area. ARUs can take various forms, such as: •

Detached structures (e.g., backyard cottages or carriage houses).

•

Attached/interior units (e.g., attached in-law suites, basement apartment, converted garage.

The goals of these policies are:

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 2 of 11

Page 32 of 66

• • • •

To provide a variety of housing options. To increase the housing supply. To ensure that ARUs can be serviced appropriately without impacting neighboring properties. To ensure that natural areas and natural heritage features are protected.

A full draft of the proposed amendment has been included as Attachment 1 to this report. Consultation. Malroz Engineering – County of Frontenac’s Hydrogeological and Geo-Environmental Consultant County planning staff worked with Malroz Engineering to draft servicing standards to aid in the implementation of ARU policies to ensure that additional dwellings can be adequately serviced with water, and to ensure they will not have a negative impact on adjacent land users and wells. The Draft Servicing Standards were prepared with reference to Provincial Guidelines D-5-5 (Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment). The D-5-5 is a standard guideline that is used for ensuring adequate supply of water for development in rural areas across the Province. The Servicing Standards are also aligned with the Township of South Frontenac and the City of Kingston but tailored specifically to the North Frontenac context. These standards were drafted as a County project; therefore, the work was not billed to the Township of North Frontenac. Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP). MECP staff were initially consulted regarding development on the waterfront as well as servicing. MECP staff were supportive of the policies pertaining to additional residential units on Rural and Hamlet properties in principle. MECP staff suggested that appropriate servicing standards must be implemented to ensure that the ARUs are able to be adequately serviced. Following the public meeting, County planning staff engaged with MECP staff once more to discuss the proposed policies, servicing standards, suggested implementation strategies, and the comments raised by a member of the public that suggested a waterfront setback of 1,000 metres for any new ARU use. The following issues were discussed: •

How far the Waterfront Area designation extends from surface water features and if the policies would permit development on back lots that are located behind those directly on the waterfront. The specific issue is how do the proposed policies regulate the 150 metre (492 foot) waterbody setback if the waterfront lot is only 50 metres (164 feet) deep, for example.

•

Servicing Standards need to identify a minimum lot size that would permit ARUs. This is especially important given the Township’s sensitive groundwater quality, which may be prone to contamination due to the underlying geology and shallow soil conditions.

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 3 of 11

Page 33 of 66

•

Overall ARU policies need to ensure that development is not permitted near surface water features (e.g. streams, lakes, rivers).

Overall MECP was satisfied with the proposed Official Plan policies, servicing standards, and proposed implementation methods. Consultation with the Township’s Economic Development Task Force (EDTF). To initiate the ARU project, County planning staff met the EDTF on October 2nd, 2024. The main considerations that came out of this meeting included: •

Ensuring flexibility in the policies to allow up to three detached residential units on one lot of record.

•

Ensuring that ARUs can be properly serviced with water and septic and to ensure no impact on adjacent wells.

•

Ensuring protection of the waterfront and other natural heritage features.

Public Comments Waterfront Setback: Public comments were received regarding additional residential units on the waterfront. Planning staff responded to the comments by stating that the proposed draft policies do not permit ARUs on lands within the Waterfront Area designation of the Official Plan and do not permit ARUs within 300 metres (984 feet) of a designated at-capacity lake. Additional comments included concerns regarding the waterfront area designation and that the 150 metre distance was not enough to protect the quality or character of the Township’s waterbodies. As a follow up to the comments received during the in-person public consultation session, a letter was received by staff on September 16th, 2025 from a member of the public that proposed a 1,000-metre (3,280 foot) waterbody setback for ARUs. The letter raised concerns with the proposed 150 metre (492.12 foot) waterbody setback, the lack of lake capacity studies, the lack of regulations pertaining to mandatory septic inspections and short-term rentals. The letter also raised concerns regarding gaps in the Official Plan Designation and the Zoning By-law that would permit ARUs in areas adjacent to the water. The underlying intent of the 1,000-metre (3,280 foot) waterbody setback was to ensure that ARUs would be located outside of walking or all terrain vehicle travel distance from a lake. Planning Response: •

The 150 metre (492 foot) waterbody setback for non-capacity lakes exists in an established waterfront planning framework which includes the Township Official Plan and the County of Frontenac Official Plan that define the Waterfront Area as those lands that extend 150 metres (492.12 feet) from the shore of a lake. The County of Frontenac is in the process of undertaking a new natural heritage strategy. If this strategy recommends that the waterfront area designation should be expanded beyond the

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 4 of 11

Page 34 of 66

current 150 metre (492 foot) setback, these polices will then be amended into the Township and County Official Plan in the future. •

The proposed 1,000-metre (3,280 foot) waterbody setback for all lakes would exceed the 300 metre (984 foot) waterbody setback for at-capacity lakes, and 120 metre (393 foot) setback for Provincially Significant Wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, making it more restrictive than the most restrictive waterfront and natural heritage-related development policies in the County. Planning staff acknowledge and share the public’s interest in protecting water quality and waterfront character; however, such protection must be achieved through proportionate and policy-consistent measures.

•

Regulations of mandatory septic inspection and regulation of short-term rentals are separate issues and should be treated as such through specific by-laws. Regulating ARUs for the purpose of regulating septic inspection or short-term rentals is not an appropriate use of policy.

•

County planning staff reviewed the extend of the Waterfront Area designation as well as the corresponding Residential Waterfront and Limited-Service Waterfront Zones to identify gaps in coverage. Planning staff were able to identify a number of lots within 150 metres (494 feet) of lakes and rivers that are not protected by the Waterfront Area designation or Residential Waterfront Zone. To ensure these gaps are addressed, County planning staff will recommend a minimum waterbody setback of 150 metres (494 feet) for all ARUs and 300 metres (984 feet) for all ARUs near At-Capacity Lakes in the implementing Zoning By-law, regardless of the underlying Zone or Official Plan designation.

•

Most of the waterfront development in North Frontenac are accessed from private lanes. The proposed policies do not permit ARUs on any private lane that does not meet the Private Lane Policies of the Official Plan. Therefore, the number of large lots that have waterfrontage that may support additional dwelling units more than 150 metres (494 feet) from the shoreline of any lake or major river is limited simply due to the way they are accessed.

•

It is important highlight that the current Zoning By-law permits Secondary Dwelling Units to be constructed on Rural-zoned and Limited Service Rural-zoned lands, outside of the Waterfront Area designation. At the present time, the 150 metre (494 foot) setback restriction for ARUs proposed by the policies of this Official Plan amendment do not exist, meaning lots that are located near the waterfront that are zoned Rural or Limited Service Rural (accessed by private lanes) are already permitted to construct a second dwelling. Since these zoning provisions were introduced in 2014, the Township has not received any applications for Secondary Dwelling units within 150 metres (494 feet) of a lake.

Grandfathering Existing ARUs: Another member of the public asked if it is possible to draft a policy that would ensure ‘grandfathering’ or legal-non-compliance in situations where an ARU was constructed in an North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 5 of 11

Page 35 of 66

area that in the future may prohibit ARUs due a changing capacity status of a nearby lake or waterbody. The resident wanted to make sure that legally established ARUs would not be mandated to be demolished if a nearby lake was later deemed to be at-capacity. Planning Response: County planning staff are of the opinion that an explicit policy ensuring continuation of an ARUs is reductant as this issue is already addressed by Section 3.5 of the Official Plan. Section 3.5 applies to all legally established uses that have since become nonconforming and non-complying. Section 3.5 states: “Nothing in this Plan shall affect the continuance of uses (non-conforming) or setbacks (non-complying) on properties legally established under the provisions of any zoning bylaw in force on the date of approval of this Plan.” Planning Analysis The section below identifies the policies used as the basis for the proposed ARU policies. Planning Act Section 17(24.1) the Planning Act allows municipalities to pass policies that will permit up to three residential units on any parcel of land by restricting the ability to appeal these policies. This section allows the municipality to pass policies that permit the following arrangement: (a) A second residential unit within a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse on a lot where residential use is allowed, provided all ancillary buildings or structures together contain no more than one unit. (b) A third residential unit is permitted within a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse on a lot where residential use is allowed, provided ancillary buildings or structures do not contain any residential units. (c) One residential unit is permitted in an ancillary building or structure on a lot with a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse, if the main house contains no more than two units, and no other ancillary buildings contain residential units. The policy essentially permits up to three residential units in one house, or two residential units in one house or attached to the house with one additional residential unit in a detached accessory structure. Any policies that propose a different arrangement than what is outlined in Section 17(24.1) can be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Based on feedback received from the EDTF, the policies presented in this Official Plan amendment would permit on one lot the following: •

Up to three detached residential units, or

•

up to three residential units in one house, or

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 6 of 11

Page 36 of 66

•

up to two residential units in one house or attached to the house with one additional residential unit in a detached accessory structure.

Section 16(3) of the Planning Act states that an Official Plan may not contain policies that prohibit the use of up to three residential units on Urban Residential Land. The Planning Act defines Urban Residential Land as a parcel of land that is located within a settlement area and served by sewage works that are owned by a municipality, a municipal service board, or a municipal drinking water system as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. This section does not apply to the Township of North Frontenac as the Township contains no lands that meet the definition of Urban Residential Land. This means that the Township has the authority to pass policies that prohibit the use of ARUs in certain areas. Provincial Planning Statement (2024) The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS promotes efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate economic growth. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, all municipal decisions regarding planning applications “shall be consistent with” applicable provincial policy. Section 2.6.1(c) states that residential development is permitted on rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. Section 2.6.2 encourages development that can sustained by rural service levels. Section 3.6(4) permits individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water serviced provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impact. Section 4.2 requires municipalities to protect, improve, and restore quality and quantity of water by planning for efficient and sustainable use of water resources through practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality, and ensuring consideration of environmental lake capacity. County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed in this Official Plan Amendment and the accompanying servicing standards meet the requirements set out in the Provincial Planning Statement. County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016) The County of Frontenac Official Plan is a framework for guiding development in the County through the management and protection of the natural environment and by providing direction and influence on growth patterns. It is focused on the six themes of economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability.

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 7 of 11

Page 37 of 66

Section 5.6.2 states that Township Official Plans shall permit the use of a second residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if no building or structure ancillary to the house contains a second residential unit; and further, to allow the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse if the house contains a single residential unit. This policy sets out the minimum number of dwelling units that are permitted. The policy does not prohibit more than two residential unit on a parcel of land. Section 3.3.3.4 – Special Policies Waterfront Areas identifies all Waterfront Areas as any area located within 150 metres (492 feet) of a waterbody. The Waterfront Area designation does not apply to settlement areas/hamlets. These policies also set out policies that encourage protection of shoreline vegetation and require Township zoning by-laws and official plans to set a minimum waterbody setback of 30 metres (98.4 feet) for all new development. Section 7.1.4.4.1 – Lake Trout Lakes requires municipalities to protect at-capacity lake trout lakes by creating Official Plan policies that protect these lakes, including restrict new lot creation within 300 metres of an at-capacity lake and exceptions to various development prohibitions. Section 4.2 – Servicing sets out a goal that aims to ensure that citizens of Frontenac County have access to potable drinking water. Section 4.2.1.5 – Private Services states that individual on-site sewage service and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed in this Official Plan Amendment and the accompanying servicing standards meet the requirements set out in the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Township of North Frontenac Official Plan (2017) The Township of North Frontenac has unique social and environmental conditions that require varied approaches to land development. The Township’s Official Plan creates the objectives and policies for guiding land use changes by protecting and managing the natural environment, directing and influencing growth patterns and facilitating the vision of Council to develop a strong and diverse economy in the Township, and to ensure all aspects necessary for a healthy community are protected, managed and made available to existing and future residents. Section 2.3.7 states that the purpose of the Official Plan is to provide for a range of housing types, densities, and tenures by allowing for additional residential units within the Township. This policy specifically states that the requirement to provide additional residential units does not apply to lots on the waterfront. Section 3.5 states that Nothing in this Plan shall affect the continuance of uses (nonconforming) or setbacks (non-complying) on properties legally established under the provisions of any zoning by-law in force on the date of approval of this Plan. North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 8 of 11

Page 38 of 66

Section 4.1.2 (A) permits a variety of residential uses and housing types in Hamlets, including secondary dwelling units. Section 4.1.2 (E) permits Garden suites, which are defined as detached residential structures containing a bathroom and kitchen facilities. Garden suites are meant to be temporary uses and require an agreement to be registered for its use. Section 4.1.3 (B) seeks to ensure that lots in Hamlets can be adequately serviced with water supply and sewage disposal. Section 4.1.3 (G) encourages development to occur on existing approved lots before considering new development. The policy also promotes opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where it can be accommodated in the Hamlets through existing building stock, infill, on existing lots of record and through the rehabilitation and redevelopment of brownfields. Section 4.3.2 (B) states that in Rural areas, outside of Hamlets, residential development shall be adequately services with on-site water and sewage disposal. Section 4.3.2 (C) permits residential development where it has frontage on and direct access to year-round maintained roads, preferably the existing network of roads, or on private lanes, either of which must meet municipal standards for road construction. Section 4.3.2 (I) requires all residential development to meet all influence areas and minimum separation distances. Section 4.3.4 sets out polices that permit Tiny Houses as an alternative method of housing within the municipality. A Tiny House is defined as a building that is less than 37.2 square metres (400 square feet). Section 4.3. requires rural residential uses to comply with the Waterfront Area section of the Official Plan. Section 4.10 sets out the policies for the protection and enhancement of the Township’s Waterfront Areas. This section generally defines a Waterfront Areas generally include all lands extending 150 metres (500 feet) from the ordinary high water mark of any water body that measures more than 8 hectares in area, or a major river or waterway. The Waterfront Area is identified on the Land Use Schedule. The Waterfront Area designation identifies and describes the overall low-density shoreline development, which is composed of residential, waterfront, commercial and open space uses, and is related to the recreational and aesthetic opportunities presented by a significant water resource. Section 4.10.2.2(G) states that Settlement Areas are not subject to the Waterfront Area designation. Section 4.10.3 (D) states that limiting the density of buildings and structures in the Waterfront Area is an important part in protecting the character of the lakes and rivers in North Frontenac. Many factors affect waterfront character such as the number of structures, setbacks, shoreline vegetative buffers, height, size and form of buildings, size and location of shoreline structures,

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 9 of 11

Page 39 of 66

and the historic development of a particular lake or river. A strong vision through the policies in this Plan to limit density related to these factors is fundamental. Section 4.10.3 (E) requires the protection of the integrity of the natural environment, landscape, shorelines and water quality. Section 4.10.5 (N) requires development to be controlled on the waterfront such that it does not dominate the natural shoreline. Section 4.10.6 (E) sets out permitted uses in the Waterfront Area. Residential uses in the Waterfront Area must be limited to low-density residential development. Section 4.10.8 Sets out special policies for Lake Trout Water and At-Capacity Lakes. This section generally restricts the installation of new sewage systems within 300 metres (984 feet) of an at-capacity lake and requires special consideration for Lake Trout waters that are not atcapacity. Overall, this section seeks to limit development potential on the sensitive lakes in the Township. Section 4.12.2 (B) states that development within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant Wetland may require an Environmental Impact Assessment and consideration of the Provincial Natural Heritage Reference Manual. County planning staff are of the opinion that the policies proposed in this Official Plan Amendment and the accompanying servicing standards meet the general intent of the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan. Township of North Frontenac Zoning By-law Number 55-19 The Township Zoning By-law permits Tiny Homes as Single Detached Dwellings in all Zones that permit residential uses within the Township. Section 3.1.3 sets out rules for Secondary Dwelling Units in the Township. One significant change that the Official Plan policies presented in this report will effectively modify is Section 3.1.3 (e) which currently limits the size of a Secondary Dwelling Unit to 45% of the floor area of the Principal Dwelling, up to 100 square metres (1,076 square feet). Recognizing the variety of sizes of both existing lots and dwellings in the Township, County staff have proposed to remove this restriction under the proposed ARU policy. Secondary Dwelling Units are permitted in the following Zones: • • • • • •

Residential Multiple (RM) Hamlet (H) Rural (RU) Limited Service Rural (LSR) Rural Co-operative (CO) General Commercial (GC)

If this Official Plan is approved, the Township of North Frontenac will be required to do amendment to Section 3.1.3 of the Zoning By-law as well as the permitted uses in each Zone. North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 10 of 11

Page 40 of 66

The future Zoning By-law Amendment will be brought forward to a public meeting and Council approval at a future date.

Conclusion County planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) achieves the following: •

Provides flexibility in the on-site location, size, number, and type of ARUs within the Township.

•

Ensures that ARUs are adequately serviced without impacting adjacent wells and neighbouring properties.

•

Ensures that Waterfront Areas are protected from impacts related to additional development in the context of existing County and Township Waterfront Area policies.

•

Ensure that ARUs can be accessed by emergency services and do not place any undue burden on existing private lanes within the Township.

Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed policies are in-line with all applicable legislation and planning policies and recommend Council to approve the Official Plan Amendment for Additional Residential Units.

Financial Impact: None

Strategic Implications: None

Attachments Attachment 1: Draft By-Law to Amend the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan Attachment 2: Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units.

North Frontenac Township Council | Additional Residential Unit OPA – Recommendation Report - OP#01/25 Page 11 of 11

Page 41 of 66

Servicing Standards for Additional Residential Units. Purpose of this document: •

To serve as a technical servicing standard to support Planning Act applications that propose additional residential units.

•

To ensure that new residential uses are properly serviced with an adequate amount of water that is safe for human consumption for the long-term.

•

To ensure that the water supply on adjacent properties is not negatively impacted.

Pre-Application Consultation: Anyone proposing to construct an additional residential unit must consult with Township Planning staff and their agents prior to the submission of a Planning Act Application. The purpose of the pre-application consultation is to establish the appropriate scope/level of analysis needed to support the application. Type of Servicing: Drilled wells are preferred. If a dug well is proposed, its use must be justified by a Qualified Person, and the accompanying report shall address how the dug well affects the suitability of the proposal. Levels of Analysis:

1. Additional Residential Units using the same well (existing or new) as the primary/principal dwelling. a. Water quantity test b. Water quality test c. Monitoring of adjacent wells if other wells are located within 150 metres (492 feet) of the subject well on the same or neighboring property. d. Confirmation that the water supply well complies with O. Reg. 903, as amended. e. Submission: Letter of Opinion from a Qualified Well Driller or Qualified Water Treatment Specialist or Professional Engineer or Geoscientist that:

Page 42 of 66

i. Clearly states that the yield of water from the well is adequate year around for the total demand of the dwellings. ii. The water quality is potable, and the water takings are unlikely to cause interference with other water users/wells. iii. Identifies any recommended water treatment. 2. Additional Residential Units utilizing a new or an existing standalone well located more than 150 metres (492 feet) from any existing well on the same or neighboring property. a. Water quantity test b. Water quality test c. Confirmation that the water supply well complies with O. Reg. 903, as amended. d. Submission: Letter of Opinion from a Qualified Well Driller or Professional Engineer or Geoscientist. i. Clearly states that the yield of water from the well is adequate year around for the total demand of the dwellings. ii. The water quality is potable, and the water takings are unlikely to cause interference with other water users/wells. iii. Identifies any recommended water treatment. 3. Additional Residential Units utilizing new wells within 150 metres (492. feet) of adjacent wells outside of a designated Settlement Area. a. Water quantity test b. Water quality test c. Monitoring of all adjacent wells within 150 metres (492.13 feet) of the subject well. d. Confirmation that the water supply well complies with O. Reg. 903, as amended. e. Submission: Letter of Opinion from a Qualified Well Driller or Qualified Water Treatment Specialist or Professional Engineer or Geoscientist that:

Page 43 of 66

i. Clearly states that the yield of water from the well is adequate year around for the total demand of the dwellings ii. The water quality is potable, and the water takings are unlikely to cause interference with other water users/wells. iii. Identifies any recommended water treatment. 4. Additional Residential Units utilizing new or existing well within 150 metres (492. feet) of an adjacent well(s) within a designated Settlement Area/Hamlet. a. Water quantity test b. Water quality test c. Monitoring of all adjacent wells within 150 metres (492.13 feet) of the subject well. d. Confirmation that the water supply well complies with O. Reg. 903, as amended. e. Submission: Scoped Hydo-Geological Assessment from a Professional Engineer / Geoscientist qualified in rural servicing. Minimum Standards. •

Water Quantity Parameters: o For dwellings with four (4) bedrooms or less: The well must achieve a minimum flow rate of 13.75 liters (3.5 gallons) per minute for two (2) hours. o For dwellings with five (5) or more bedrooms the well must achieve a minimum flow rate of 3.75 liters per minute multiplied by the number of bedrooms in the dwelling plus an additional bedroom. ▪

Example: for a five (5) bedroom house the minimum flow rate is 6 x 3.75 = 22.5 liters per minute for sustained for two (2) hours.

o For shared wells, the calculated flow rate shall be determined by the total number of bedrooms and fixtures that utilize the same well. o Where a test well can safely supply water at the calculated rate, pumping tests conducted at lower rates are not acceptable, nor is the subsequent recommendation of compensatory systems to address low well yields

Page 44 of 66

solely for the purpose of limiting the migration of poorer-quality water into the well. o Reduced pumping test rates may only be used where preliminary testing demonstrates that the calculated rate cannot be sustained over the long term. In such cases, systems intended to compensate for low well yields may be considered, and the yield requirement shall be applied to both the well and any compensatory system on a daily basis. o The Well Water Quantity Test must be performed in accordance with Section 4.3: Well Water Quantity Testing of Ontario Guideline D-5-5. •

Water Quality Parameters: o In accordance with the Groundwater Quality Parameter Tables 1, 2, and 3 found in the appendix of the Ontario Guideline D-5-5 o Other parameters that may be indicated such as through proximity to a Potentially Contaminating Activity (PCA) as defined in Ontario Regulation. 153/04, as amended.

•

Monitoring Parameters: o Select wells determined to be relevant shall be attempted to be monitored for interference within 150 meters (492 feet) of the subject well. o This should include regular manual or automatic water levels collected with a data logger. o The monitoring procedure shall be in-line with Section 4.3.1 Pump Test Procedure of Ontario Guideline D-5-5. o If the applicant or their agent is not permitted to test the neighboring well by the owner of the well, the applicant’s qualified professional shall submit a letter indicating that the owner of the well refused to test the well.

•

Reports o The report shall clearly provide data collected during the work. This includes appropriate tables and figures, laboratory certificates of analyses, water well records, logger data, etc. o The report shall include a clear statement that the well meets the requirements outlined in Ontario Regulation 903, and that the well provides a sustainable yield of potable quality water without interference.

Page 45 of 66

o The report shall make recommendations regarding supplemental water supply systems, water treatment and any other items identified by the Qualified Person. Peer Review: The Township has an obligation to ensure that any technical assessment or letter of opinion submitted meets all required technical criteria as prescribed by this document or through consultation with the Township. All submissions are subject to peer review by the Township’s consulting qualified professional. All fees associated with the peer review of any technical documents must be paid by the applicant. Scoping of Hydrogeological assessment: Hydrogeological assessments shall be scoped on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the Township’s peer reviewer, ensuring that each assessment is tailored to the specific context, development type, and environmental sensitivities of the site. Scoping will be guided by the most appropriate and current Ontario guidelines, such as those issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), and will also draw upon recognized industry standards and best practices. This approach ensures that each assessment provides reliable data to support land use planning decisions, water supply verification, and long-term environmental protection. Key considerations during the scoping phase may include: •

Site characteristics (e.g., geology, hydrology, proximity to sensitive receptors)

•

Scale and type of proposed development

•

Existing water supply and infrastructure

•

Potential for cumulative impacts

•

Minimum water supply requirements as per applicable regulations and guidelines

The objective of the scoping phase is to define the scope and methodology of the assessment in a way that ensures regulatory compliance, scientific defensibility, and practical relevance to planning and development needs

Page 46 of 66

Report 2026-034

Report to the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee To: Chair and Members of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee From:

Kevin Farrell, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development

Date of meeting:

March 26, 2026

Re:

Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies

Recommendation Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends to County Council: That By-Law Number 2026-17 of the Township of North Frontenac, adopting Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to amend and update policies related to site plan control, be approved; and That the Official Plan of the Township of North Frontenac, as amended, be further amended as per Township By-Law Number 2026-17 in Attachment 1 to Report Number 2026-034, being Official Plan Amendment Number 3 for updated policies related to site plan control. Background On February 27, 2026, The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac passed Bylaw Number 2026-17 to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the current Official Plan, pursuant to Section 17 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make sure that the Township’s policies regarding site plan control comply with the Planning Act, including changes that have been made over the last several years through various provincial bills.

Page 47 of 66

Site plan control is a municipal planning tool used to ensure that development is well designed, safe, functional, and compatible with surrounding properties, while meeting municipal development standards. Under Section 41 of the Planning Act, municipalities may apply site plan control in areas designated in the Official Plan. The process includes a site plan agreement between the municipality and the property owner, which is registered on title and continues to apply even if the property is sold. Through site plan control, municipalities may review and approve matters such as building location and design, site layout, pedestrian and vehicle access, landscaping and buffering, lighting and servicing, grading and drainage, sustainable design features, and road access or widening requirements. Comment Proposal The current site plan control policies can be found in Section 6.9.10 of the Township Official Plan. The revised policies were adopted by By-Law Number 2026-17 and are included in Attachment 1 to this report. There were two key changes proposed with the amendment and draft policies:

1. Including wording that designates the entire Township of North Frontenac as a site plan control area. This is absent from the current policies and is required by the Planning Act.
2. Removing the list of land uses and types of development that are subject to site plan control. It is not a requirement of the Planning Act to list these in the Official Plan. Instead, the list of uses and types of development to be controlled are to be outlined in the municipality’s Site Plan Control By-Law. The additional policies in the amendment address what is required for a complete application, including what is to be shown on drawings, conditions that the municipality can impose on the property owner as part of any approval, and a requirement for the property owner to enter into an agreement with the municipality. Public Meeting and Agency Consultation The statutory public meeting required by the Planning Act was held by the Township on February 6, 2026. Notice to the public and technical agencies was given in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. No written comments were received about the proposed amendment, and at the public meeting, two questions for clarification were asked, one by a member of Council and another by a member of the public. Township Council approved the amendment on February 27, 2026. A Notice of Adoption was issued on March 6, 2026, and the formal package submitted to the County on the

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 2 of 4

Page 48 of 66

same date. At the time of writing this report, no public comments had been received by County staff about the adopted Official Plan amendment. Planning Analysis County planning staff reviewed the proposed Official Plan amendment against the requirements of the Planning Act, and the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) and the County of Frontenac Official Plan.

1. Planning Act Section 41 of the Planning Act permits municipalities to pass a site plan control by-law where the Official Plan designates all or part of the municipality as a site plan control area and identifies the types of development subject to site plan approval. The site plan control process allows municipalities to review matters such as building location and design, site layout, access, landscaping, lighting, servicing, grading and drainage, sustainable design features, and road access requirements. It does not apply to interior design, most exterior design matters, or construction methods and standards. The Planning Act also allows municipalities to require landowners to enter into a site plan control agreement, which is registered on title, and requires Council to delegate site plan approval authority to a municipal officer, employee, or agent. The revised policies in the adopted by-law in Attachment 1 meet the requirements of the Planning Act, including designating the entire Township as a site plan control area.
2. Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. It promotes efficient land use patterns that support strong, healthy communities, environmental protection, public health and safety, and economic growth. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, municipal planning decisions must be consistent with applicable provincial policy. The PPS establishes minimum policy standards that municipalities implement through Official Plans and planning tools such as site plan control. The site plan control process allows municipalities to review development proposals to ensure alignment with provincial policy directions related to growth and intensification, housing, infrastructure and servicing, environmental protection, climate resilience, public health and safety, land use compatibility, transportation, stormwater management, and cultural heritage. It is the opinion of County planning staff that the adopted site plan control policies are consistent with the PPS.
3. County of Frontenac Official Plan The County of Frontenac Official Plan provides a framework for guiding development in the County through the management and protection of the natural environment and by providing direction on growth patterns. It focuses on six themes: economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 3 of 4

Page 49 of 66

culture, and environmental sustainability. Like the PPS, site plan control is a tool used by municipalities to ensure development aligns with Official Plan policies. It is the opinion of County planning staff that the adopted site plan control policies comply with the County Official Plan. Conclusion County planning staff are of the opinion that Official Plan Amendment Number 3 of the Township of North Frontenac meets all the requirements of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and complies with the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Strategic Priority Implications The changes proposed through this amendment are administrative in nature and are required to ensure that the Township complies with provincial legislation. There is no direct connection between this amendment and the goals and objectives of the County’s Strategic Plan. Financial Implications Official Plan Amendment 3 of the Township of North Frontenac was a Township-initiated administrative amendment. There are no financial implications for the County of Frontenac associated with this report. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Attachment 1 – By-Law Number 2026-17, being “A By-law to Amend the Official Plan of the Township of North Frontenac (Amendment Number 3, Site Plan Control Policies)

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 4 of 4

Page 50 of 66

Report 2026-035

Council Recommend Report To: Chair and Members of the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee From:

Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development

Prepared by:

Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development

Date of meeting:

March 26, 2026

Re:

Planning and Economic Development Municipal Accommodation Tax Feasibility Update

Recommendation Be It Resolved That staff continue to explore the potential for a Municipal Accommodation Tax in Frontenac County by carrying out the activities described in Report 2026-035. Background The Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) is a visitor-paid fee applied to short-term stays in eligible accommodations. If implemented, it would be collected by accommodation businesses from visitors and remitted to the municipality through an approved process. Provincial requirements include that a minimum share of net proceeds be directed to an eligible tourism entity (ETE) to support tourism promotion and development. To date, County staff and partners have undertaken four main streams of work:

1. Public information and updates: Development of a dedicated project webpage and plain-language materials (including FAQs and regular updates) to support transparency and consistent information.
2. Engagement: A mix of in-person and virtual opportunities for residents, hosts, and accommodation businesses to provide input and ask questions.

Page 51 of 66

3. Best-practices review: Review of how other Ontario municipalities structure governance, administration, and reporting, including use of third-party administrators and MSC models where appropriate. 4. Feasibility scoping: Initial assessment of MAT implementation, fairness considerations, governance options for an eligible tourism entity, and identifying practical administration pathways. Comment Accommodation Market Context Frontenac County’s accommodation market is dominated by short-term rentals. Based on the best available inventory estimate compiled through this project, the County has approximately 430 short-term rentals available during the summer season, compared to a smaller number of traditional roofed accommodation businesses – mostly cottage resorts and lakeside wilderness lodges. The average daily rate (ADR) for short term rentals is $269 while the industry average for traditional roofed accommodations in the area is closer to $150. This mix is an important feasibility consideration because it affects how any visitor-paid MAT would be collected, supported, and communicated. Accommodation type

Estimated number

Lodges & Resorts

53

Campgrounds

19

Hotels, Motels & Inns

11

Bed & Breakfasts

6

Retreat Centres

2

Short-Term Rentals

430

A significant share of Frontenac County’s accommodation businesses are small and seasonal. Many operators reduce hours or close during the winter months and operate with few or no staff. This has practical implications for any potential remittance process: requirements must be clear, simple to follow, and realistic for part-time operators who are balancing operations alongside other work. The region is also highly seasonal, which affects occupancy, revenue, and day-to-day operational choices. Peak demand periods can generate a large portion of annual revenue within a relatively short window. As a result, administrative tasks and

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 2 of 12

Page 52 of 66

compliance activities can be more challenging during peak season, and support resources (guidance, tools, reminders) need to reflect that reality. Engagement and project discussions also revealed that bookings are often managed through a mix of platforms and approaches. Many operators rely on third-party platforms (such as Airbnb), while others take reservations through a website, direct phone/email bookings, or a combination of methods. This mix matters because a MAT program needs to work consistently across different booking channels and point-of-sale practices, while still providing a fair and transparent approach across all roofed accommodations. To date, the feasibility work has relied on available STR market estimates and engagement input. A more complete economic profile of Tourism and accommodations in Frontenac County would strengthen the evidence base by describing the scale and seasonality of tourism and by improving local data from traditional roofed accommodations. This would support clearer engagement conversations with hosts and businesses and improve confidence in any future revenue range. Engagement Summary Engagement activities were designed to invite participation from residents, hosts, and accommodation businesses across Frontenac County and to test key feasibility questions (fairness, transparency, and practical administration). Engagement to date has included: • •

• • • •

In July and August of 2025, discussions were undertaken with Township administrative staff to determine interest, concerns, and other considerations In-person open houses in each of the four townships - 33 participants: o October 29, Marysville Town Hall on Wolfe Island o October 29, Verona Lions Centre, Verona o October 30, Township Administrative Offices, Plevna o October 30, Township Administrative Offices, Sharbot Lake A virtual public session was hosted on November 13, 2025 – 6 participants Online survey, Open for 8 weeks - 38 responses. One-on-one discussions with operators – 8 businesses Ongoing project webpage updates to document activities, questions received, and information shared.

Several consistent themes emerged from engagement activities: a. Clarity: Participants asked for clear, plain-language information about who pays (visitors), who remits (accommodation businesses), what types of accommodation are included, and how funds would be used and reported. b. Transparency: Many participants emphasized the need for clear separation of funds, visible decision-making, and public reporting on revenue, costs, allocations, and results. c. Fairness: Participants raised concerns about equitable application across roofed accommodations and the risk that compliant businesses could be disadvantaged if others Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 3 of 12

Page 53 of 66

do not participate. Concerns were also raised about losing customers to nearby jurisdictions that do not have a MAT. d. Geographic Balance: Participants wanted assurance that benefits are visible throughout the communities in Frontenac County, with attention to fair consideration across township partners and communities. e. Administration: Small operators raised concerns about time and administrative burden; there is interest in standardized tools and support to keep processes simple and consistent.

For a summary of engagement results, please see the report provided by Bannikin in Appendix A. Engagement results show that more work is needed before any decision is brought forward, particularly to ensure the approach is clear, fair, and workable for the full range of accommodation businesses. Participation to date represents only a small share of local businesses - a short economic profile—built with input from hosts and traditional operators—would help improve data quality and provide a clear, shared picture of tourism’s local role, supporting better engagement and more reliable estimates. However, the comments and engagement results to date provide some clarity on additional actions moving forward. To respond to what has been heard through the engagement process, it is recommended that the County take the following actions:

1. Industry Engagement As discussed above, conduct targeted engagement with hosts and accommodation businesses to increase participation and to discuss specific feasibility implications and benefits.
2. Strategic Communications Develop a plain-language communications approach to clarify misinformation and improve general knowledge regarding the MAT. Topics include: who pays, who remits, what is included (all roofed accommodations), what provincial requirements apply, and what transparency measures would be built in. This should include a consistent set of core social media messages, rack cards, posters, and ongoing webpage updates.
3. Advisory Group Establish an advisory group with a diversity of perspectives (geography, accommodator types, and other tourism businesses). The advisory group’s role would be to provide advice during feasibility and design. It would be disbanded if a formal organization is created to take on ongoing governance functions. Revenue Analysis This revenue estimate is preliminary and based primarily on short-term rental performance data. A complete estimate for all roofed accommodations will require additional information from traditional operators (room/unit counts, seasonal occupancy, and average rates) Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 4 of 12

Page 54 of 66

Appendix B summarizes a 2024 short-term rental revenue scenario by township partner, using 430 active listings and estimated occupancy and average daily rates to calculate reserved nights, total room revenue, and the implied MAT yield at a 4% rate. This data provides a reasonable estimate of potential MAT revenue from short-term rentals and shows how strongly results are shaped by where inventory is located, occupancy patterns, and nightly rates. 2024 short-term rental activity (estimated) •

Approximately 64,118 reserved nights.

•

Approximately $18.62 million in short-term rental room revenue.

MAT revenue at a 4% rate (short-term rentals only) •

Gross MAT potential: approximately $744,907.

•

If 70% compliance is assumed: revenue is approximately $521,434.

•

In the lower compliance scenario, the tourism entity share is approximately $260,717.

Occupancy patterns North Frontenac (50 listings) and Frontenac Islands (34 listings) represent a smaller share of total revenue, but show higher occupancy: •

North Frontenac: 49.8%.

•

Frontenac Islands: 48.8%.

•

Central Frontenac: 34.4% (for comparison).

Average daily rates (ADR) •

Frontenac Islands: approximately $232.

•

North Frontenac: approximately $278.

•

Central Frontenac: approximately $293.

•

South Frontenac: approximately $308.

Appendix B estimates potential MAT revenue from short-term rental hosts only. If additional occupancy and average daily rate information is gathered from other roofed accommodation businesses (e.g., hotels/inns, B&Bs, lodges/resorts), the overall MAT estimate would be expected to increase beyond the short-term rental range shown in Appendix A, because those accommodation categories would add additional room revenue to the base. Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 5 of 12

Page 55 of 66

As part of the next phase, staff propose developing an Economic Profile to improve this baseline and provide a clearer County-wide estimate that reflects the full accommodation mix and seasonal patterns. Acquiring this data will require additional effort to consult with local business representatives but would provide more accurate information related to potential revenues. This information could be collected alongside the industry engagement efforts described above. Eligible Tourism Entity A question explored during the feasibility process was how Frontenac County would meet the provincial requirement for an “eligible tourism entity”. Many municipalities rely on an existing destination organization; however, others have opted for creating a local entity focused on development within the municipality. In 2017, the Land O’ Lakes Tourist Association closed its doors after many decades of service to local attractions. Since that time, the County of Frontenac Economic Development department has worked to promote Tourism in Frontenac. As the County is not eligible to serve as a Tourism Entity, significant consideration is being given to the creation of a municipal service corporation to serve in this role. The potential benefits of a made-in-Frontenac solution: • • • • •

Provide clear separation and transparency for funds dedicated to tourism purposes. Enable industry participation and oversight regarding use of funds Ensure geographic representation and fairness throughout the region Establish governance links between municipal and industry interests Enable clear performance expectations, reporting, and accountability through service agreements with the County and its municipal partners.

The recommendation of this report is to develop a business plan and governance framework for a Municipal Service Corporation to serve as the County’s Eligible Tourism Entity. This business plan would be created with input from industry and municipal partners and brought back to committee for future discussion. Development of the business plan does not preclude other options for an eligible tourism entity to be considered. Should a qualified and appropriate partner or organization be identified as a potential eligible tourism entity, additional effort will be undertaken to provide fair consideration to that organization. Administration A second feasibility consideration is the administrative approach. Engagement highlighted the need for a process that is simple for operators while also supporting fairness and consistent documentation. Discussions with Township administrative staff revealed a desire to externalize any potential administrative requirements related to MAT collection in addition to ensuring any costs incurred can be addressed within the MAT program. Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 6 of 12

Page 56 of 66

With these considerations in mind, third-party administration is being explored as a practical approach that could: • • • •

Support standardized remittance processing for accommodation businesses, including tools, guidance, and customer support. Assist with compliance identification and documentation in a consistent manner. Provide regular reporting to the County and township partners as required. Distribute prescribed shares to lower-tier municipalities and the eligible tourism entity separately, where directed, to reduce administrative handling and improve transparency.

The Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) has provided this administrative capacity to many municipalities across Ontario, including South Bruce Peninsula, Collingwood, Lincoln, Gravenhurst and Lambton Shores. In this model, there is an initial setup fee of $3000 for each municipality, and then annually 2% of the MAT revenues from traditional accommodations and 5% of the MAT revenues from shortterm rental accommodations. This is a cost-effective approach compared to establishing appropriate staff and technology within one or more municipalities. Other organizations provide similar services, however this example demonstrates that a significant portion of administrative burden and customer support can be provided by a third-party. This report recommends further investigations into these service options. Should a MAT be implemented and the need for third party administrative services arise, all procurement would be subject County and Township policy and process. Short Term Rental Oversight Short Term Rentals are typically rentals of a single dwelling, such as a cottage or vacation home, usually booked over an online platform such as VRBO, AirBnB or similar. Information acquired through the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport estimates approximately 450 short term rental operations taking place across Frontenac County, which constitutes the majority of accommodations in the region. Unlike other commercial accommodations businesses, they do not need approval from authorities such as building officials, public health or fire departments. While there has been some public discussion and exploration of licensing programs at various townships, at this time short term rental hosts are not directly regulated in any of the Frontenac municipalities through bylaws, licensing or other means. Engagement raised repeated questions about fairness and consistent participation, particularly from commercial accommodations with regard to short-term rentals. In addition, in order for a third-party MAT administrator to incorporate short-term rentals, a full list of these operations is required. As capacity and cost concerns also exist with respect to municipal licensing and management of short-term rentals, it is recommended that the County explore options for implementing a centralized, County-wide process for tracking short-term rentals, with

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 7 of 12

Page 57 of 66

options for minimal, moderate and maximum oversight, and to determine which systems could support consistent information, compliance readiness, and public confidence. Best Practices Review As part of the feasibility work, County staff spoke with a range of Ontario municipalities and accommodation-sector partners, including (among others) Haliburton County, Township of Lake of Bays, Town of Huntsville, Bay of Quinte, Renfrew County (including Pembroke/Petawawa context), Town of The Blue Mountains, City of Brockville, City of Kingston, and Kingston Accommodation Partners. These discussions confirm that there is no single “Ontario template” for establishing MAT. Communities have advanced MAT in different ways depending on local conditions—through Council direction, a structured community process, or accommodation-sector interest in strengthening tourism promotion and visitor experience investments. The role and structure of the eligible tourism entity also varies significantly. Some communities designate a single destination organization or tourism association (for example, Bay of Quinte Regional Marketing Board as the eligible tourism entity for member municipalities). Others establish an arms-length governance model, such as a municipal services corporation, to manage the tourism-directed share and provide clearer separation, accountability, and industry participation (for example, Haliburton County’s MSC approach). In several communities, the “tourism share” arrangement is also tailored to local structures and historical obligations. For example, the Town of The Blue Mountains publicly describes a split involving the Town, the Blue Mountain Village Association, and the Town’s destination marketing organization, with a statutory share arrangement reflected in their published distribution table. Brockville similarly notes that MAT funds are split between a destination marketing organization and eligible tourism entities, reflecting a multi-entity approach. Across municipalities reviewed, MAT revenues are commonly described as supporting local tourism priorities and visitor experience investments—such as tourism marketing and promotion, events and festivals, tourism product development, and visitor-facing infrastructure—often with the municipal share directed to community priorities that also benefit residents. Overall, the practices observed in other Ontario communities reinforce three conditions that are consistently associated with smoother implementation: (1) clear, plain-language communications for operators and visitors; (2) a credible governance and accountability structure for the tourism-directed share; and (3) a practical administration and reporting approach that supports consistent remittance and documentation across the full range of accommodation providers Success Stories This section highlights smaller Ontario communities where MAT revenues are described publicly as being reinvested into community priorities and used in ways intended to Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 8 of 12

Page 58 of 66

strengthen the local tourism economy. Examples are included to illustrate approaches that align with the key themes heard in Frontenac County: visible local benefit, clear use of funds, and practical supports for tourism businesses. Gravenhurst Gravenhurst’s MAT funding guidelines describe using funds to support new visitor experiences and to enhance existing experiences, with explicit outcomes tied to tourism business benefit—attracting visitors from outside the area, increasing length of stay, increasing visitor spending, and strengthening year-round visitation. This is a direct, practical “industry benefit” model because it uses MAT revenue to fund industry led projects that can improve market reach and visitor outcomes for local operators. Huntsville Huntsville’s MAT program directs a majority share of net revenue to a dedicated organization focused on tourism promotion and development. Funding priorities include attracting visitors through sports and cultural events, product development, and enhanced attractions and outdoor activities, as well as a sponsorship application process for to support tourism events and projects. Huntsville also uses its MAT to support the recruitment of healthcare professionals, recognizing the additional stress that seasonal tourism places on the local healthcare system. Town of The Blue Mountains The Town describes using MAT revenue to promote tourism and to support tourismrelated activities and projects that are used by visitors and residents. Public materials reference investments and supports connected to community assets and services such as roads, transit, beaches, parks and natural areas, culture, and recreation. This is a clear municipal framing of MAT reinvestment as supporting visitor-facing priorities that also benefit residents. The Town has also established a clear, open and transparent process for how municipal projects may be funded with MAT revenues. Prince Edward County Prince Edward County’s annual Tourism Management Plan guides the municipality in investing a portion of MAT in improvements to community services and amenities, with a focus on managing peak-season impacts. This provides a municipal example of using MAT to support community readiness and visitor management in a high-demand, seasonal destination. Visit The County is described publicly as a Municipal Services Corporation funded by a portion of MAT revenue. Its mandate is destination marketing and tourism management, with public materials positioning MAT-funded work as supporting a strong local economy year-round and describing governance and transparency functions. This is a strong example of an arms-length structure that channels the tourism-directed share into destination marketing and tourism management.

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 9 of 12

Page 59 of 66

Conclusion Work completed to date has strengthened the County’s understanding of how a Municipal Accommodation Tax could function in Frontenac County and has helped identify the conditions that would need to be in place for any future implementation to be credible and workable. Engagement with local businesses and discussions with other Ontario municipalities consistently point to three priorities:

1. Clear and transparent management of any funds collected,
2. A fair approach that applies consistently across roofed accommodations,
3. A simple remittance process that is practical for small and seasonal operators. Before any formal recommendation is brought forward, additional effort is required to connect directly with a broader range of hosts and other accommodation providers and to gather missing market information from traditional operators (including room/unit counts and occupancy patterns). This will allow the County and its township partners to refine the revenue range and test practical options for governance, third-party administration, and County-wide oversight of short-term rentals. Next Steps The following chart summarizes the recommended follow-up and next steps to further understand how a MAT would be implemented, should a decision be made to move forward. These activities would improve engagement outcomes, provide additional information and allow for industry and partners to further understand how a MAT would contribute to Tourism in Frontenac County. Staff will report back on progress in Q2 of

Task

Scope

Timing

1. Targeted outreach to accommodation businesses and hosts

Reach out to more operators and hosts directly; gather practical input; summarize what was heard and how it affects the feasibility work.

May – October, 2026

2. Develop and deploy plain-language communications

Update key messages and FAQs; explain who pays, who collects, and what is included; provide consistent public information updates.

May – October, 2026

3. Seek consultant support to develop an Economic Profile and

Prepare a high-level picture of May – October, tourism activity and seasonality with a 2026 view to understanding economic

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 10 of 12

Page 60 of 66

seasonal tourism analysis

impact; improve local data from nonSTR accommodations

4. Third-party administration options (e.g., ORHMA)

Compare service options for collection and distribution of MAT remittances.

5. Create an Industry advisory group

Set up a short-term, project-based advisory group with diverse representation across the tourism sector to provide feedback and insight into potential MAT development.

May 2026: Recruitment June 2026: 1st meeting

6. Draft a Tourismfocused Municipal Service Corporation business plan

Develop the MSC concept in detail: mandate, governance approach, accountability, reporting, and highlevel operating and financial model.

Septeember to December 2026

7. Explore options for County-wide ShortTerm Rental oversight

Explore whether a shared Countywide approach is feasible and report back to committee with options and recommendations.

May – October, 2026

Strategic Priority Implications Insert text. Financial Implications Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Bannikin Township of South Frontenac Township of Central Frontenac Township of North Frontenac Township of Frontenac Islands Haliburton County Brockville Tourism Tourism Kingston Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 11 of 12

Page 61 of 66

Kingston Accommodation Partners Township of Lake of Bays Town of Huntsville Town of Blue Mountain Bay of Quinte Marketing Board County of Renfrew Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association

Recommend Report to PEDAC Planning and Economic Development Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan – Site Plan Control Policies March 26, 2026 Page 12 of 12

Page 62 of 66

The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac By-Law Number 2026-17 A By-Law to Amend the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac (Amendment Number 3 – Site Plan Control Policies) Whereas a Public Meeting was held regarding this amendment on February 6, 2026; And Whereas the Council of the Township of North Frontenac deems it appropriate to amend the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac, as it relates to policies regarding Site Plan Control; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of The Corporation of the Township North Frontenac, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.c.P.13, as amended, enacts as follows:

1. The Township of North Frontenac Official Plan is hereby amended by the following changes, which shall constitute Amendment Number 3 to the Official Plan for the Township of North Frontenac: a. Delete Section 6.9.10. “Site Plan Control – Section 41” of the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan in its entirety and replace it with the new text shown in Schedule ‘A’ to this by-law.

The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Frontenac for the approval of Official Plan Amendment Number 3 for The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date that Official Plan Amendment Number 3 is approved by the Council of The Corporation of the County of Frontenac, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990.c.P.13, as amended.

Read a first and second time February 27, 2026. Read a third time and finally passed this February 27, 2026.

Gerry Lichty, Mayor

Tara Mieske, Clerk

Page 63 of 66

Township of North Frontenac Schedule ‘A’ to By-Law Number 2026-17 6.9.10. Site Plan Control

1. Site Plan Control will be used by the Township as a means of achieving high quality design, functional and accessible sites and developments, and sustainable communities, in accordance with the Planning Act and the policies of this Plan.
2. The entire area within the Township of North Frontenac is designated as a Site Plan Control Area.
3. The Township’s Site Plan Control By-Law, as amended from time to time under Section 41 of the Planning Act, may affect all or part of the Site Plan Control Area, and will outline the land uses and types of development that are subject to Site Plan Control. The Site Plan Control By-Law may also identify specific developments considered to be minor or exempt from Site Plan Control where the Township considers that such approval would serve no useful purpose due to the scale and type of development or where the development is otherwise exempt by the Planning Act.
4. Applications submitted under the Site Plan Control By-Law will be subject to the provisions of the By-Law, and any guidelines prepared by the Township to guide its implementation.
5. In addition to the policies of this section, individual land use designations in this Plan establish criteria for the review of Site Plan Control applications and will be referred to as part of the review of any Site Plan Control application.
6. In accordance with the Planning Act and the policies of this Plan, an applicant may, at the Township’s discretion, be required to submit the following as part of a complete application for Site Plan Control: a) Plans showing the location of all buildings and structures to be erected and showing the location of all facilities and works (i.e., physical infrastructure), including all facilities designed to have regard for accessibility for persons with disabilities. b) Drawings showing floor plans, elevations, and cross-section views of each building (including a building to be used for fewer than 25 dwelling units located on any lands in the Township) that are sufficient to display:

1. The massing and conceptual design of the proposed building;
2. The relationship of the proposed building to adjacent buildings, streets, and exterior areas to which members of the public have access;
3. The provision of interior walkways, stairs, elevators and escalators to which members of the public have access from streets, open spaces and interior walkways in adjacent buildings;

Page 64 of 66

4) Exterior access and design of the building(s) or portions of the building(s) containing affordable housing; and, 5) Facilities designed for persons with disabilities. c) Drawings showing sustainable design elements on any adjoining highway under a municipality’s jurisdiction, including without limitation, trees, shrubs, hedges, plantings or other ground cover, permeable paving materials, street furniture, curb ramps, waste and recycling containers and bicycle parking facilities. d) Drawings showing all elements of site design, including, but not limited to:

1. All vehicle access points;
2. All walkways, ramps, and pedestrian access points;
3. All off-street loading spaces and parking areas;
4. Location of all lighting structures;
5. Landscaping of the property for the protection and/or screening of adjoining lands, water bodies or natural heritage features, including the type of vegetation and techniques to be used, the existing vegetation that is to be preserved, and any structures such as walls, fences or barriers that are to be used; and,
6. The location and type of facilities and enclosures for the storage of recyclables, garbage, and other waste materials. e) A grading plan for the property to illustrate how storm, surface and waste waters will be disposed of to prevent erosion or flooding, including the period during construction of the project. Plans will show the location and connections for all services to municipal services, including elevations and inverts. f) Any other drawings, plans, studies, and information listed in Section 6.9 of this Plan and/or identified through Pre-Application Consultation.

7. As a condition to the approval of the plans and drawings referred to in Section 6.9.10.6, a municipality may require the owner of the land to: a) Provide to the satisfaction of, and at no expense to the municipality, any or all of the following:

1. Widenings of municipal-owned roads that abut the subject property, in accordance with Section 5.2.9 of this Plan.
2. Subject to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, facilities to provide access to and from the land such as access ramps and curbings and traffic direction signs.

Page 65 of 66

3) Off-street vehicular loading and parking facilities, either covered or uncovered, access driveways, including driveways for emergency vehicles, and the surfacing of such areas and driveways. 4) Walkways and walkway ramps, including the surfacing thereof, and all other means of pedestrian access. 5) Facilities designed to have regard for accessibility for persons with disabilities. 6) Facilities for the lighting, including floodlighting, of the land or of any buildings or structures thereon. 7) Walls, fences, hedges, trees, shrubs or other groundcover or facilities for the landscaping of the lands or the protection of adjoining lands. 8) Vaults, central storage and collection areas and other facilities and enclosures for the storage of garbage and other waste material. 9) Easements conveyed to the municipality for the construction, maintenance or improvement of watercourses, ditches, land drainage works, sanitary sewage facilities and other public utilities of the municipality or local board thereof on the land. 10) Grading or alteration in elevation or contour of the land and provision for the disposal of storm, surface and waste water from the land and from any buildings or structures thereon. b) The Township shall require an owner subject to Site Plan Control to enter into one or more agreements – at the owner’s sole risk and expense – to ensure the required works and facilities are provided, properly maintained, and that the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans. Site Plan Control agreements shall be registered against the title of land to which they apply. 8. In the review of Site Plan Control applications, the Township may circulate to municipal departments and outside agencies that are considered to have a vested interest for their comments prior to the approval of any Site Plan Control application or Site Plan Control agreement.

Page 66 of 66

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.