Special Council - 21 Aug 2014 - Agenda

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Special Date: August 21, 2014 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2014/Special Council - 21 Aug 2014 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

County Council Meeting – Special Meeting, August 21, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON Council will resolve into Closed Meeting and will reconvene as regular Council at 9:30 am.

AGENDA Page 1.

CALL TO ORDER

CLOSED MEETING Enter into Closed Session RESOLVED THAT Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole closed meeting as authorized under Section 239 (2) of The Municipal Act, to consider; (d) Labour relations or employee negotiations at it relates to the Chief Administrative Officer – Employment Status Rise from Closed Session RESOLVED THAT Council rise from Committee of the Whole closed session with the Warden reporting.

3-137

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS

REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 2014-124 Corporate Services County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft report, including the Third Draft of the County Official Plan dated August 2014;

Page 1 of 139

Page 6.

REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND FURTHER THAT Council endorse the Third Draft of the Official Plan based on changes from the MMAH comments; AND FURTHER THAT Council set the date, time, and location of the formal Public Meeting required under the Planning Act in September.

GIVING NOTICE OF MOTION

PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD

BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW

138-139

To Confirm the Proceedings of Council [Proposed number 2014-0036]

ADJOURNMENT

Page 2 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Report 2014-124 RECOMMEND REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly J. Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan Manager of Sustainability Planning

Date prepared:

August 15, 2014

Date of meeting:

August 21, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft report, including the Third Draft of the County Official Plan dated August 2014; AND FURTHER THAT Council endorse the Third Draft of the Official Plan based on changes from the MMAH comments; AND FURTHER THAT Council set the date, time, and location of the formal Public Meeting required under the Planning Act in September.

Background County Council endorsed the initiation of a County Official Plan process almost two years ago. At the meeting held on December 14, 2011 the following resolution was passed: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Sustainability – County Official Plan report; Recommend Report Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft August 21, 2014 Page 1 of 5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 3 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

AND FURTHER that Council endorse the initiation of the development of a County Official Plan with the goal to having a draft plan to be considered by Council for adoption within its current term; AND FURTHER that Council direct staff to prepare a detailed work plan and consultation program to be presented to Council in early 2012; AND FURTHER that a County Official Plan be prepared under the following parameters: (1) That the Official Plan be prepared as a ‘high level’ planning document using a regional planning perspective, recognizing that detailed planning policies are now in place for the four Townships’ Official Plans; (2) That the Official Plan use a systems-based approach and act as a guide for dealing with cross-boundary and cross-jurisdictional planning issues; (3) Ensure that the Official Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement while offering a solutions-oriented planning approach to deal with land use planning issues that are common to the Frontenacs; and (4) That community consultation regarding the vision and content of the Official Plan be extensive. A copy of the correspondence from MMAH is attached as Appendix “1”. A detailed review of the changes that have been made to the draft Plan, section by section, are attached as Appendix “1” The third draft of the Frontenac County Official Plan is attached as Appendix 2. The draft plan has been highlighted to identify sections of the plan that have been changed based on the One Window comments received from MMAH.

Comment Timeline – Evolution of the County Plan The County Official Plan project has been underway since the beginning of 2012 and has provided opportunity for public involvement: • • • •

Summer 2012 – Public Open Houses held across the County to discuss the concept of a regional plan based on County Council’s resolution promoting a ‘high level’ plan. February 20, 2013 – County Council passes a resolution on the County Official Plan endorsing the policy sections to be included in the first draft. June 19, 2013 – First draft of the Official Plan released to County Council and the public. Summer 2013 – Public Open Houses on draft Plan held across County.

Recommend Report Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft August 21, 2014 Page 2 of 5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 4 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

•

• • •

November 20, 2013 – Council receives Second Draft of Official Plan with changes based on recommendations from citizens, Townships, and various organizations. Following a detailed review at Committee of the Whole on December 4th, County Council adopts second draft on December 12th. January 10, 2014 – County planning staff meet with staff from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to deliver the second draft of the Official Plan and to initiate the Provincial ‘One Window’ review. June 26, 2014 – Comments received from MMAH. August 21, 2014 – Council review of Third Draft.

MMAH Comments The Ministry generally supports the regional plan that has been created for Frontenac County. The Ministry notes in its cover letter: “We appreciate the importance of an effective upper tier official plan in addressing economic and rural issues in the County, and the importance of balancing these needs with the priority of protecting and preserving natural heritage features, water resources and agriculture. The County’s focus within the Plan on issues shared throughout the region is expected to provide guidance and coordination to lower tiers, including the regional focus on roads and trails, tourism, servicing, housing and social services and environmental sustainability.”

Many of the proposed revisions are technical in nature and reflect some changes in planning policy that has occurred as a result of the new 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). County planning staff recommends that most of these modifications be incorporated into the Plan. There are other changes recommended by MMAH which County planning staff do not support as they are prescriptive in nature and do not complement the regional policy scale of the County Official Plan as envisioned by Council. These include:

Detailed mapping of prime agricultural land on the Official Plan Land Use Schedule; Setback requirements for “incompatible land uses” adjacent to aggregate deposits and operations; Delineation of each settlement boundary identified on the Land Use Schedule (which, if implemented, would require Official Plan Amendments to both Township and County planning documents if a boundary was to be changed). A limit of three consents for any lot of record in the County. Detailed policies with regard to cultural heritage protection, particularly archaeological investigations, which are better suited for inclusion in the Township Official Plans.

Recommend Report Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft August 21, 2014 Page 3 of 5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 5 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Many of the suggested changes to the draft Official Plan that are not recommended by staff fall into this category. As illustrated below, it is the goal of Council to create a more ‘strategic’ document that serves as a bridge between the PPS and local Official Plans.

Summary and Conclusions It is the opinion of planning staff that this Third Draft meets the balance of establishing a vision for a regional plan for the Frontenacs and at the same time being consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. The draft Plan as revised provides a clear understanding of how County Council will be involved in regional planning issues to help with the stability and growth of the Frontenacs, and in association with the PPS will guide the development of more detailed land use policies for the Township Official Plans. Next Steps Following the August 21st review by County Council, staff recommends that a formal Public Meeting date be set for some time in September. The Third Draft Official Plan will be presented to the public. Following this meeting there may be additional changes made to the document. A final draft will be brought to County Council at its October meeting. At that time Council may be in a position to formally adopt the Plan and send it back to MMAH for approval. This schedule will meet Council’s goal of having a County Official Plan approved and in place during this term Sustainability Implications Recommend Report Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft August 21, 2014 Page 4 of 5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 6 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

This project is specifically highlighted in the County’s Sustainability Plan. It touches on all four pillars of the plan: social, cultural, economic, and environmental. The development of a County Official Plan should be considered as one of the cornerstone efforts in the implementation of Directions for Our Future. It will serve as the County’s land use planning document that can be used to implement a number of regional studies such as the Municipal Housing Strategy, the Natural Heritage Study, Community Improvement Planning, Population Projections, the Seniors Housing initiative, and a number of economic development programs. Also, it will promote local decision-making and ‘Made in the Frontenacs’ solutions as County Council will become the approval authority for local Official Plan Amendments and five year updates to Official Plans. From a broader perspective, the County Official Plan will serve as a regional plan to help deal with some of the issues affecting the Frontenacs over the next twenty-five years. Financial Implications The 2012 budget included an allocation of $30,000 for the preparation of a County Official Plan. The unspent balance was carried forward in the 2013 budget. This budget has been developed to cover meeting costs, printing, and public consultation. To date, approximately $8,322 has been spent.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected All Four Townships Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing

Attachments Appendix 1 – MMAH Comments dated June, 2014 with County planning staff review and responses Appendix 2 – Third Draft of County Official Plan dated August 21, 2014

Recommend Report Corporate Services – County Official Plan – Review of Ministry of Municipal Affairs Comments and Proposed Third Draft August 21, 2014 Page 5 of 5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 7 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

FRONTENAC COUNTY

OFFICIAL PLAN (3RD Draft) MMAH ‘One Window’ Comments (June, 2014) County Staff Comments / Recommendations 21 August 2014

Page 1 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 8 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Note: This document includes the „One Window‟ comments issued by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on June 27, 2014 as well as County planning staff comments and recommendations on the endorsement of each proposed change. This document should be read in concert with the third draft of the County Official Plan document (August 2014) that includes the recommended changes to the plan as a result of the Ministry‟s review.

Page 2 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 9 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Ministry of Municipal Affairs And Housing

Ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement

Municipal Services Office Bureau des services aux municipalités Eastern Region Région de l’Est 8 Estate Lane 8 chemin Estate Rockwood House Maison Rockwood Kingston ON K7M 9A8 Kingston ON K7M 9A8 Phone: (613) 545-2100 Téléphone: (613) 545-2100 Fax: (613) 548-6822 Télécopieur: (613) 548-6822 Toll Free: 1-800-267-9438 Sans frais: 1-800-267-9438 June 27, 2014 Joe Gallivan MCIP RPP Manager of Sustainability Planning County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0 Re:

Frontenac County Draft Official Plan One Window Comments MMAH File No.: 10-OP-147822

Dear Mr. Gallivan: Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the draft of the first Official Plan for the County of Frontenac. We would like to commend the County for the hard work and effort that has gone into this exercise so far. The Plan is well supported with background material (e.g., Population forecasting, natural heritage system study) and is clearly and efficiently formatted, while also providing a wealth of local context. Continued consultation with a broad number of stakeholders will assist in the review process and will continue to shape the appropriate direction for the Official Plan. We appreciate the importance of an effective upper tier official plan in addressing economic and rural issues in the County, and the importance of balancing these needs with the priority of protecting and preserving natural heritage features, water resources and agriculture. The County’s focus within the Plan on issues shared throughout the region is expected to provide guidance and coordination to lower tiers, including the regional focus on roads and trails, tourism, servicing, housing and social services and environmental sustainability.

Page 3 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 10 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

We commend Frontenac County for the policies incorporated in this draft, particularly with respect to preserving the rural character for the farming community and in identifying the tourism benefit of establishing scenic routes, and for the recognition of the importance of the natural environment as a resource for economic development requiring careful protection. Recently, the Province has undertaken a number of initiatives that are the key to planning for the expected population growth in the Province of Ontario. The revised Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) includes enhanced policies for managing growth and for promoting efficient land-use and development patterns, particularly in rural areas. In keeping with our “One-Window” inter-ministry protocol, we have contacted and received comments from the Ministries of Natural Resources (MNR); Environment (MOE); Culture (MTCS); Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) and Transportation (MTO). We have also received and incorporated comments from Parks Canada and the Conservation Authorities (CAs). At this time, we are awaiting comments from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), and will provide additional comments as soon as they are available. Through our comments contained in Appendix A (policy) and Appendix B (schedules) attached to this letter, we are taking the opportunity to present a detailed summary of matters of provincial interest raised throughout the One-Window review of the draft Official Plan update. We are hopeful that, through continued dialogue, all matters of provincial interest can be addressed as required. We have also provided additional recommendations and information items in Appendix C. By providing detailed comments at this early “draft” stage, it is our intention that matters of provincial interest will be addressed prior to the County‟s adoption of the Official Plan, allowing for a streamlined approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. At this time, perhaps the most significant comments outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B relate to the new PPS 2014. Generally speaking, it is recommended to update references to the PPS 2005 to the more recent PPS 2014. Our comments reflect this version of the PPS and generally only minor changes are required in order to achieve an updated level of consistency. One area of change in the PPS 2014 that affects this Plan is the new framework for Rural Areas found in Section 1.1.4, Rural Areas in Municipalities. Under the PPS 2005, “rural areas” were not defined, and were essentially considered to be those lands left over after the identification of other areas. Under the PPS 2014, “Rural Areas” are identified and defined, as are “Rural Lands”. The definitions are as follows: Rural Areas: means a system of lands within municipalities that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and resource areas. Rural Lands: means lands which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas. Under this new framework, all of Frontenac County could be considered a Rural Area. Section 1.1.4 has been updated to clarify that “rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development” Page 4 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 11 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

(1.1.4.2), and when directing this development “planning authorities shall give consideration to rural characteristics, the scale of development, and the provision of appropriate service levels” (1.1.4.3). Additionally, “growth and development may be directed to rural lands” (1.1.4.4.) in accordance with the rural lands policies found in Section 1.1.5. Appendix A contains specific recommendations to reflect this new policy framework and its associated flexibility for Rural Areas, suitable to local contexts.

Stakeholder Engagement As the County moves into the next phase of the Official Plan review, we would encourage you to continue your efforts in engaging the range of stakeholders who have an interest in this important initiative. In this regard we encourage the County to continue to engage with First Nations groups to advise them of the County‟s new Official Plan and to provide an opportunity for detailed consultation. We note that the County has already undertaken consultation with First Nations groups, including the Algonquins of Ontario, and we commend these efforts. Given the level of detail provided in our comments, MMAH would be pleased to arrange a meeting with County staff to discuss any questions or concerns that may arise out of this One-Window Review. Thank you again for providing us the opportunity to pre-consult with you on this draft Official Plan. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the proposed changes requested herein. Should you have any questions or comments, or to set up a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at (613) 545-2112 or by email at andrea.gummo@ontario.ca. Yours truly,

Andrea Gummo, Planner Municipal Services Office – Kingston Encl. cc.

Liz Spang and Jesse Van Allen, MNR Jon Orpana, MOE Katherine Kirzati, MTCS John O’Neill, OMAFRA Stacy Sweezey and Heather Doyle, MTO Debbie Laidlaw, MNDM Christine Woods, CA comment coordinator Susan Millar, Parks Canada

Page 5 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 12 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendix A

General comments: A. There are a number of policy areas which leave policy detail referenced in the lower tier Official Plans. In some cases, inclusion of additional detail in this Plan would provide overall direction and coordination across the County, and would ensure consistency in the lower tier Official Plans. Recommended insertions are shown as bold italicized text. B. Some general notes on terms and phrases:

1. Consistent with lake trout management policies: Wording to do with lake sensitivity – highly or moderately sensitive – is dated and should be replaced with lake trout lake “at capacity” or lake trout lake “not at capacity”. Staff Comment: This modification clarifies lake trout protection policy and makes it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Recommendation: Endorse modification.
2. Consistent with the Ontario Heritage Act: The phrase “cultural heritage value or interest” should be used and replace older terms, such as “historical significance”, “architectural merit”, “contextual importance” and the like. The term “cultural heritage resources” includes built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources. Use this term when referring to the collective, as it eliminates the need for itemizing each resource. Staff Comment: This modification brings the wording for heritage resources up to date with the Ontario Heritage Act. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

Section-Specific Comments:

1. Introduction 1-2 In the heritage and culture paragraph of this section (page 15 of the Plan), it is recommended to replace “heritage buildings and cultural resources” with “cultural heritage resources”. Staff Comment: This modification brings the wording for heritage resources up to date with the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 6 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 13 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Recommendation: Endorse modification. 2. Economic Sustainability Agriculture – Section 2.1.1 2-1 a) It is recommended to add the following to Section 2.1.1.2, after the sentence “Local Official Plans shall identify and protect prime agricultural areas.” “These lands shall also be designated in the County Plan, as shown on Schedule (x).” It is recommended that policies be developed related to this designation. Once comments are available from the Ontario Ministry of Food and Rural Affairs, additional direction will be provided. Staff Comment: This proposed map change to add agricultural land use designations to the Land Use Schedule is not consistent with the „high level‟ policy approach of this regional plan. The agricultural policies of the PPS will ensure that Township Official Plans will illustrate the location of prime agricultural land. Recommendation: That Council not endorse the proposed modification. Mining and Mineral Aggregate Resources – Section 2.1.2 b) It is recommended to include mining and mineral aggregate resources on County Official Plan schedules, as well as in local official plans, and to provide additional detail to County policies, and in particular extent of influence areas. More detailed comments follow. Staff Comment: Mapping these resources across the County will help understand the regional scale of mining and mineral aggregates and serve as a guide for designation in local Official Plans Recommendation: Endorse change, however add as Appendices rather than amend the Official Plan Schedule.

c) The title for Section 2.1.2 is different from the one in the Table of Contents and it is recommended to change the title from “Mineral and Aggregate Resources” to “Minerals and Mineral Aggregate Resources” and to add some wording to support the protection of mineral resources. The following is suggested wording: “The County of Frontenac contains many unique minerals. Mineral deposits and mining operations will be protected. Local official plans will identify mineral resources, protect them from incompatible uses so their future use is ensured and establish buffer areas where incompatible development is not permitted.” Staff Comment: This modification ensures consistency with Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the PPS. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

d) Additionally, the first paragraph in this section lists mineral resources including aggregates (sand, gravel, limestone) currently being exploited but does not mention magnetite. Magnetite is Page 7 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 14 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

mined at the Tomclid Iron Mine in the Township of North Frontenac and should be included for completeness. Staff Comment: This modification ensures consistency with Section 2.4 of the PPS. Recommendation: Endorse modification (i.e., make changes based on above revision).

Mineral Mining – Section 2.1.2.1 (3) e) To distinguish between Minerals and Aggregates, it is recommended to clarify that the “proposed mining operation” referred to in the first sentence is a “mineral mining operation”. Since under the Mining Act mines are not licensed, it is recommended to remove “designated and licensed mines” and replace with the words “mineral mining operations” (second sentence). To clarify the roles of MNDM and the Townships in establishing an influence areas, it is recommended that the third sentence be amended as follows: “Local Official Plans shall establish the extent of an influence area in consultation with Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of the Environment.” This ensures MNDM will see applications within an ‘Area of Interest’. Staff Comment: This modification ensures consistency with Section 2.4 of the PPS. Recommendation: Endorse modification. Mineral Aggregates – Section 2.1.2.2 (3) Item 3 states that the Townships shall identify and protect all existing mineral aggregate resources. The following changes and wording are recommended to provide clarity and consistency across Frontenac County: f) In the first sentence, it is recommended to insert the words “operations” and “mineral” and delete the word “significant”, as follows: “The Townships shall identify and protect all existing mineral aggregate operations and known deposits of mineral aggregate resources…” Under the new PPS 2014, Section 2.5.1 has been expanded to state that “Mineral aggregate resources shall be protected for long-term use and, where provincial information is available, deposits of mineral aggregate resources shall be identified”. (underlined portion is new). Staff Comment: This modification ensures consistency with Section 2.5 of the PPS. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

g) Along with this new requirement, a new appendix map should be added. Mineral aggregate resources have been identified by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper (ARIP) for the County of Frontenac was recently updated (2012) and it is recommended that this mapping be reviewed and incorporated onto the appendices, with a policy as follows: Page 8 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 15 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

“Mineral aggregate resources identified in the Aggregate Resource Inventory Paper (ARIP) for Frontenac County are depicted on Appendix „x‟. The Townships shall identify and protect…” It is recommended that the County plan to conduct an aggregate resources study in the future as part of the next OP update in order to update the OP mapping taking into consideration local land use constraints. This would fit with the Regional planning role by ensuring consistent protection of resources across the County and identifying constraints to aggregate development in the same way. Staff Comment: Adding new appendices to illustrate the mineral and mineral aggregate resources across the County is similar to the Natural Heritage Resources maps that are currently part of the Official Plan and will illustrate the location of these resources across the region. Recommendation: Endorse modification to include Appendices.

h) It is recommended to insert the following at the end of Item 3 to ensure this section’s applicability to both existing operations and known aggregate deposits, regardless of significance. “Residential and other incompatible land uses will be prohibited within or adjacent to known aggregate deposits and adjacent to existing aggregate operations. In known deposits of mineral aggregate resources, and on their adjacent lands, new incompatible development may only be permitted under the following circumstances: -Resource use would not be feasible; or -The proposed land use or development serves a greater long-term public interest; and -Issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. An adjacent land distance of 500 metres shall be applied to all existing quarries and consolidated (bedrock) mineral aggregate resource deposits; and an adjacent land distance of 300 metres shall be applied to all existing pits and unconsolidated (sand and gravel) mineral aggregate resource deposits below the water table; and 150 metres for a pit above the water table. This area is considered to have the most impact on sensitive land uses from the pit or quarry operation. Environmental studies (ie. Noise, hydrogeology) should be required to assess the impact if new development is proposed within this influence area. This influence area should be applied reciprocally to new sensitive land uses encroaching on an existing extraction operation or lands committed for future extraction.” Staff Comment: This detailed level of policy should be included in the Township Official Plans.. Recommendation: No change. Section 2.2 Built Resources – Business Parks 2-2 The last item in this section, 2.2.3.3 (4) states that “municipal fiscal incentives to encourage new development such as the waiving of building permit fees or development charges” will be used to assist in the creation of a business park. It is recommended that the County ensure that this direction Page 9 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 16 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

is consistent with options available under the Municipal Act and the Planning Act‟s policies for Community Improvement. Generally, waiving of fees is not permitted, but grants can be made available to reimburse applicants for the costs of fees and charges. It is important that the County and the Townships be aware of the anti-bonusing provisions in Section 106 of the Municipal Act and to ensure that the specific undertaking being proposed complies. Therefore it is recommended to delete “the waiving of” and insert the words “grants to cover the costs of”. Staff Comment: This modification will ensure that the business park policies will not contradict Section 106 of the Municipal Act. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

3. Growth Management Growth Projections for Frontenac County – Section 3.1 3-1 a) We commend the County for its work on population forecasting, and note that 70% of growth is projected to be focused in South Frontenac Township due to its proximity to the City of Kingston. This section gives factors for allocations of growth among the lower tiers, but proportions are not given for any of the lower tiers except South Frontenac. It is necessary to include specific allocations for the other Townships as well, in order for the County to fulfil its role in regional growth management. Staff Comment: It is the opinion of staff that relative to other land use policy issues growth management is not relevant to regional planning in the Frontenacs, with the exception of South Frontenac Township. This is due to the relatively slow rate of growth across the County and the fact that there are no hamlets that have full municipal services that would attract new growth. In this context, allocating specific growth targets to each Township is an artificial exercise. Recommendation: See recommendation immediately below. Given that the Plan covers a 20-year timeframe, it is also recommended that the County replace the projection to 2036 with one for 2034. Township allocations must be based on this year as well. Staff Comment: This modification is required to cover the 20 year time period of the Plan which is expected to be approved by the Ministry in 2015. Recommendation: Staff will need to work with Watson & Associates to revise the growth projections to accommodate this request, and hope to have a 2034 projection completed prior to Council adoption of the draft Official Plan in October. A policy would also be added to revise these projections following the release of new Census data in 2016.

b) It is recommended to clarify point (c) to reflect the framework for rural growth (described in greater detail in the Settlement Areas and Rural Areas comments, below) as follows:

Page 10 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 17 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

“c) Rural residential development will continue to be an important component of household growth in the County, given that overall residential development is projected to be limited; and…” Staff Comment: This modification reinforces the conclusions of the Watson study which indicates that residential growth will continue in the rural areas of the Frontenacs. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

Settlement Areas – Section 3.2 3-2 a) This section requires some changes for consistency with the PPS, 2014. A broader discussion of some of the proposed changes is provided in the Rural Areas comments, below. b) Generally, it is recommended to provide a cross-reference to Section 4.2 Servicing within the settlement area policies. More specifically, it is noted that the reason given for Sydenham’s water servicing in 2006 was “to service the existing community and to allow for some additional development” (S. 3.2.1). This is not accurate, since water services were installed in the Village to correct an issue with contamination due to historic development patterns. The PPS 2014 continues to provide a hierarchy of services in which it is clear that partial service development is problematic and should only be used to support limited additional growth (see comments on Servicing – S. 4.2). Staff Comment: Section 4.2 (Servicing) has policies that are intended to apply to both rural lands and settlement areas. Recommendation: No change.

c) The last paragraph of 3.2.1, Introduction, is not consistent with the PPS 2014. The new framework for rural areas, discussed below, will allow the County to develop policies with a similar intent. Therefore, it is recommended to delete the last paragraph, beginning “Local Official Plans shall include policies that address the three types of settlement areas in the Frontenacs…”. This is because only the first item listed meets the definition of settlement areas under the PPS 2014: “Settlement Areas means urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets) that are: (a) built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses”. This definition does not apply to Rural Areas or Rural Lands per the PPS 2014, and in fact it contradicts the Plan’s later characterization of rural areas, which states: “The Rural designation comprises all lands outside of settlement areas in the County” (3.3.1). Staff Comment: The 2014 PPS includes a new definition of „rural lands‟ and „rural areas‟ which requires the Settlement Area policy section to be reclassified, including moving the „Waterfront Areas‟ policies under „Rural Lands‟. As a result, the proposal in the second draft of the Plan to develop policies for three settlement areas is redundant. Recommendation: Endorse modification and delete the last paragraph of Section 3.2.1. Page 11 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 18 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

It is recommended that the boundaries of settlement areas be shown on Schedule A of the County Plan. Staff Comment: The establishment of boundaries of settlement areas is a local issue, based on the growth allocation established at the regional level. Recommendation: That Council not endorse the proposed modification.

d) Section 3.2.2.2 provides criteria for review of lower tier settlement area boundary expansion proposals based on common considerations throughout the County. For clarity, it is recommended that the criteria listed for a comprehensive review in the PPS 2014 be listed as well, or at least referenced, to avoid the impression that these are the only factors requiring consideration. (See PPS 2014 Section 1.1.3.8 and definition of comprehensive review.) Staff Comment: In order to be consistent with the PPS (1.1.3.8) the requirement for a comprehensive review should be recognized. Recommendation: Endorse modification and add wording to Section 3.2.2.2 to ensure that any boundary expansion of a Township settlement area follow the criteria set out in the PPS. Rural Areas – Section 3.3 3-3 a) In the first line of this section, it is recommended to add the word “minerals” in the list of types of resource lands to ensure its differentiation from “mineral aggregates” and individual identification. Staff Comment: The proposed wording will clarify the types of uses included under „Resource Lands‟. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

b) This section will require updating in order to be consistent with the PPS, 2014. A new framework has been established using “Rural Areas” as an overarching descriptor, and “Rural Lands” as a more specific descriptor (which is actually more in line with the County’s use of the term “Rural Areas”). In fact, all of Frontenac County could be considered a “Rural Area” under the PPS, 2014, given the definitions: Rural Areas: means a system of lands within municipalities that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and resource areas. Rural Lands: means lands which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas.

Page 12 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 19 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Both terms should be included in the County’s rural policies, and it is expected that these changes will not substantially alter the intent of the current framework, but will clarify the policies in both the local context and the PPS context. It is believed that this new framework will provide greater flexibility than that afforded under the PPS, 2005. c) Generally speaking, current references throughout the Plan to “Rural Areas” should be changed to “Rural Lands”, as applicable. Rural Lands can form the basis for a rural land use designation, to be shown on Schedule A. Staff Comment: Changing the wording from „Rural Areas‟ to „Rural Lands‟ will ensure consistency with the new PPS but have no impact on the policy intent of the Plan. Recommendation: Endorse modification.

d) For clarity on how the current Plan can be adapted to work within this framework, the PPS 2014 states that “In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted” (1.1.4.2). However, this does not mean that development is only permitted in settlement areas. The PPS 2014 continues, “When directing development in rural settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.3 [settlement areas], planning authorities shall give consideration to rural characteristics, the scale of development and the provision of appropriate service levels” (1.1.4.3). The County Plan has already established an effective basis for these considerations. Further, the PPS 2014 states that “Growth and development may be directed to rural lands in accordance with policy 1.1.5 [rural lands in municipalities]” (1.1.4.4). Accordingly, PPS 2014 Section 1.1.5 provides guidance to development of rural lands. It lists the following permitted uses in 1.1.5.2: a) the management or use of resources; b) resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings); c) limited residential development; d) home occupations and home industries; e) cemeteries; and f) other rural land uses. Staff Comment: The permitted uses set out in Section 3.3 of the Plan should be updated to be consistent with the PPS. Recommendation: Update Official Plan to ensure consistency with permitted uses listed in Section 1.1.5 of the PPS. e) “Recreational dwellings” and “limited residential development” are not defined, and this is intended to provide flexibility to municipalities based on consideration of local context. “Recreation”, however, continues to be a defined term and “means leisure time activity undertaken in built or natural settings for purposes of physical activity, health benefits, sport participation and skill development, personal enjoyment, positive social interaction and the achievement of human potential.” The County Page 13 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 20 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

may wish to consider what these terms mean in the local context and provide additional direction to the Plan. Regarding “limited residential development”, it is recommended that the County Plan include provisions to clarify that rural residential growth will be limited to a total of three (3) consents from a lot of record. Staff Comment: Limiting rural residential growth to a total of three consents from a lot of record may be arbitrary in nature. Local circumstances (e.g., topography, water quality, adjacent uses, and the size of the lot of record) should be the primary consideration in determining the total number of consents that can take place from a lot of record. Local Official Plans can address this issue in more detail. Recommendation: Council not endorse proposed modification. Waterfront Areas – Section 3.4 3-4 a) Given the rural framework presented in the PPS 2014, it is recommended to make Section 3.4 Waterfront Areas a subsection of Rural Lands. This will allow the County to recognize the critical importance of consideration for its many lakes and rivers in development proposals, while also differentiating these areas from the County’s rural settlement areas, prime agricultural areas, and other rural lands – per the Waterfront Areas Introduction, Section 3.4.1. Staff Comment: Changing „Waterfront Areas‟ to a subset of the „Rural Lands‟ policies will ensure consistency with the new PPS but have no impact on the policy intent of the Plan. Recommendation: Endorse modification and revise Section 3.4 to Section 3.3.3.4 to be included under the Rural Lands policy section

b) It is recommended to revise the wording in the first paragraph of the Introduction (3.4.1) as follows: “as well as the southern section of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site.” Similarly, the following revisions are recommended for subsection 3.4.3 (3): “To protect and enhance the heritage character of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site and its associated cultural and natural heritage resources and scenic landscape setting.” Staff Comment: Parks Canada have requested these changes to ensure that the Rideau Canal system is formally identified. Recommendation: Endorse modifications. The PPS, 2014 includes a new definition for “cultural heritage landscape” that includes reference to UNESCO world heritage sites.

Page 14 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 21 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

c) Regarding how Waterfront Areas are identified, it is not clear what rationale is given for using those lands within 150 metres “from the ordinary high water mark of any lake, river or waterway”. It is noted that given the wealth of water features throughout the County, that this may not leave much in the balance of rural lands.

Given the number of waterfront descriptors in local planning documents (ie. 30 metre setback for development throughout the Townships, potential to increase the setback to 90 metres in South Frontenac based on the Rideau Lakes Basin Carrying Capacity and Proposed Shoreland Development Policies, and 300 metres for Central Frontenac’s Waterfront Designation) the addition of 150 metres could be problematic for local implementation, particularly given the options for interpretation built into the policy. It is also noted that many other considerations exist for development in a waterfront area such as natural heritage features and their adjacent lands, natural hazards, variable terrain and lake sensitivities. Staff Comment: The draft Official Plan clarifies the intent of setting 150 metres from a lake, river, or waterway as Waterfront Areas. The draft Plan notes that Waterfront Areas “. . . is a general boundary intended to recognize that development within this area may have an impact on lake quality and those impacts may be need to be considered for any development within that boundary” (4th paragraph, Section 3.4.1). Recommendation: No changes recommended. The last objective (7) of Section 3.4.3 deals with one natural heritage feature – fish habitat. It is recommended to include the protection of other natural heritage features and areas as an objective, particularly as these features often coincide with shorelines. Staff Comment: Amending 3.4.3(7) to recognize and protect additional natural heritage features will ensure consistency with the PPS. Recommendation: Amend 3.4.3(7) to include “natural heritage features” as defined by the PPS.

d) Section 3.4.4 (6) speaks to retention of a natural undisturbed buffer between the water’s edge and new development. This is an excellent requirement but is typically tied to the recommended 30 metre setback cited in (7) and (8). The following is provided for consideration: “For new lot creation, development, including the septic system tile bed, must be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark of the waterbody with non-disturbance of the native soils and very limited removal of shoreline vegetation. For existing lots of record, new development should be set back 30 metres if possible, otherwise as far back as the lot permits.” Staff Comment: This detailed policy is appropriate for inclusion in the Township Official Plans, but is unnecessary for a regional plan. Recommendation: Council not endorse modification. Page 15 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 22 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

This suggested wording would also help clarify point (7), the second sentence of which requires clarification in order to be consistent with the PPS 2014. This point states: “To maintain the shoreline character and water quality, Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws shall require that all new development and leaching beds be set back at least 30 metres (100 feet) from the ordinary high water marks of all waterbodies. Any proposed reduction to the 30 metre minimum setback shall be in accordance with policies in Local Official Plans which establish criteria for considering such reductions”. It is essential to clarify that reductions in the 30 metre water setback for development will not be considered for new lots of record. For waterfront lot creation proposals, it must be demonstrated that the proposed lot can accommodate future development outside of the 30 metre setback. Leaching beds are included in this requirement, but it may be useful to clarify that the 30 metre setback is an area of no site disturbance – including, but not limited to, development and leaching beds. Site disturbance within this area impacts water quality through sedimentation, erosion and nutrient loading. e) Additionally, it is recommended to include a statement that “A setback of greater than 30 metres from the ordinary high water mark may be required in some locations.” Staff Comment: This proposed policy addition serves as a reminder that in some circumstances a setback greater than 30 metres from a waterbody may be required. Recommendation: Endorse modification. f) It may also be useful to provide the following wording to address large development proposals: “Large development proposals (ie. Greater than 5 lots, resort/condominium development) must be supported with a site evaluation report in consultation with the Ministry of Environment. This is to ensure water quality protection. The study should take into consideration the existing water quality of the water body, surface water run-off, impact and loadings of phosphorous from septic systems, type of soils, stormwater management and nature of vegetation.” Staff Comment: The current subdivision/condominium review process can require an applicant to demonstrate water quality impacts, stormwater runoff, vegetation retention, and so on. It is unclear what defines a “site evaluation report” and it is not listed under Section 51 of the Planning Act regarding subdivisions. Recommendation: Council not endorse modification.

g) All waterfronts, regardless of the use they are designated for, form part of the criteria for areas of archaeological potential. It is therefore recommended that policies dealing with shoreline, waterfront, and foreshore development refer to the policies on heritage /archaeology or have a sentence indicating that the heritage/ archaeology policies shall apply. Suggested wording as follows: “In considering applications for waterfront development, Council shall ensure that cultural Page 16 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 23 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

heritage resources both on shore and in the water are not adversely affected. When necessary, Council will require satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts on significant cultural heritage resources.” Staff Comment: Recognizing the importance of protecting archaeological resources on all lands in the County is currently set out in Section 6 (Heritage Resources) of the draft Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. Crown Land – Section 3.5 3-5 It is recommended to delete the third sentence in this section and replace it with the following: “Local official plans will contain policies that state that where Crown land becomes privatelyowned, the policies of the Official Plan apply. Township official plans shall map Crown lands as a distinct land use category on their Schedules.” Staff Comment: This proposed change will formally recognize that when Crown Land is transferred to private land, the Official Plan and other planning documents will immediately apply for any development proposal. Recommendation: Endorse modification. 4. Community Building Roads – Section 4.1.1 4-1 a) It is recommended to include a policy in Section 4.1.1 – Roads that new private roads shall not be permitted unless facilitated by plan of condominium. Our experience has been that traditional responsibility agreements for private roads under the Municipal Act do not have the same legal standing as an agreement under the Condominium Act. We are aware of situations where they have not transferred with land sales and are no longer valid, or where municipalities have had difficulty enforcing maintenance provisions with private land owners and have faced increase pressure to assume these roads or provide municipal services resulting in increased costs to municipalities. While it is understood that local roads are administered by the policies of the local official plans, it is recommended that additional policies be included to provide direction on the mechanism by which future private roads should be approved.

Staff Comment: The purpose of Section 4.1.1 is to recognize the road system that has regional significance across the Frontenacs and support its long-term viability. Private road development is a local issue and should be dealt with by each respective Township. Recommendation: No change.

Page 17 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 24 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Long Range Planning for Municipal Services – Section 4.2.1 4-2-1 a) Section 4.2.1.3 objective 2 intends to improve the natural environment and maintain a clean and healthy level based on a watershed approach; however, more direction would be useful to clarify what would be maintained at a clean and healthy level. Staff Comment: Section 2.2.1 of the PPS provides policy direction in protecting water quality, including the application of a watershed area approach as per the draft County Official Plan. Recommendation: Modify the second objective of Section 4.2.1.3 to include wording from the PPS with regard to water protection.

b) Given that the entire County is serviced by on-site sewage services, and mostly on-site water services, it is recommended that the Official Plan include policies regarding private servicing in support of Sections 1.6.6.4 and 2.2 of the PPS. Reference should be made to the application of Ministry of the Environment regulations, guidelines and best management practices, including Procedures D-5-4 and D-5-5 and the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Staff Comment: These detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans. Recommendation: No change. c) As wastewater and septage management are topics that can cross municipal and watershed boundaries, it is also recommended to include overarching guidance regarding the responsibility of planning authorities to allow lot creation only if there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity. Suggested wording as follows: “Subject to the hierarchy of services, planning authorities may allow lot creation only if there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity within municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services. The determination of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity shall include treatment capacity for hauled sewage from private communal sewage services and individual on-site sewage services.” Staff Comment: Determining sufficient sewage capacity is a local issue and should be included in Township Official Plans rather than a regional plan. Recommendation: No change. Special Policies: Future Village Water Supply Protection – Section 4.2.1.4.5 d) Subsection 4.2.1.4.5 Special Policies: Future Village Water Supply Protection is an important inclusion to the Plan, and specifically the early identification of potential drinking water sources for villages and hamlets, as this represents sound planning for the future. e) In the preamble of this section, the County may wish to acknowledge that research has Page 18 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 25 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

identified the bacteriological contamination of groundwater as a local concern. Additionally, the reference to the Precambrian Shield should be revised to acknowledge “shallow soils overlying fractured bedrock” on both the Shield and limestone plain portions of the County, and also the presence of Karst topography. Staff Comment: This proposed change provides more information on the reasons to consider long term planning for water supply protection in those parts of the County that are on the Canadian Shield. Recommendation: Endorse change. f) The first bullet in 4.2.1.4.5 should ideally read “Facilitate the preparation, implementation and monitoring of source water protection plans” since the plans may be separate from the Provincially-mandated plans under the Clean Water Act, 2006. Recommendation: Endorse change.

g) This subsection deals with partial servicing situations, both existing (Sydenham) and potential future sites. It is recommended to include direction from the PPS 2014 regarding partial service development to provide lower tier municipalities with consistent guidance across the County. Suggested wording is as follows: “Partial services shall only be permitted in the following circumstances: a) where they are necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services in existing development; and b) within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and rounding out of existing development on partial services provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts.” Staff Comment: Partial services policies in the PPS make it clear that there can be negative impacts if significant new development takes place with only municipal water services in place. Recommendation: No change. PPS policies are very clear. Storm Water Management Planning – Section 4.2.2 4-2-2 a) The PPS 2014 now includes reference to storm water management, in PPS Section 2.2.1 (h), which states that “Planning Authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by ensuring stormwater management practices minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces.” b) It is important to note that stormwater management is appropriate for all development, not just new greenfield developments. The quality and quantity of stormwater runoff associated with development in rural and urban areas are concerns for watersheds. It can be considered at three different levels: watershed plan, master drainage plan, or site-specific stormwater management plan. The method of management depends on the size and type of development. For example, a single lot residential development could employ lot level controls such as discharging roof runoff onto grass and Page 19 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 26 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

maintaining vegetative buffers, while a residential subdivision or commercial development may require swales and ponds. c) In order to highlight the watershed planning approach advocated by the County, it is recommended that this section recognize watershed studies and lake management plans that may include recommendations on stormwater management. In Section 4.2.2.2, the second paragraph could be expanded as follows: “Storm water management plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (Ministry of the Environment, March 2003) and any watershed study or lake management plan for the area.” Staff Comment: Township Official Plans currently have policies regarding stormwater management requirements at all levels of development (i.e., subdivisions to single lot creation) Recommendation: Council not endorse change. Parks and Open Space – Section 4.6 4-6 It is recommended to identify Big Sandy Bay as crown land, as follows: “At the southern end of the Frontenacs, the public have the opportunity to visit the 400 hectare (1000 acre) Big Sandy Bay area on Wolfe Island, a crown land area which is managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Frontenac Islands Township.” Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. 5. Housing and Social Services 5-4 a) We applaud the County’s supportive policies for affordable housing (including secondary suites), seniors housing, accessibility and supported housing (group homes and homes for the aged). It is recommended that the County include a target for affordable housing. b) In Section 5.4.2 – Policies for Group Homes, we note that the third paragraph states that “Group homes may be subject to Site Plan Control by the local Townships to address such matters as ensuring that the site design is in keeping with the character of the area and that sufficient space is available to accommodate the needs of the residents.” In accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is important to ensure that planning provisions address land uses and not the users of the land. The PPS 2014 now includes reference to this requirement in Section 4.6. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has published a guide for planning authorities titled “In the Zone: Housing, Human Rights and Municipal Planning”. This guide is recommended as a reference for both the County and the Townships to ensure that policies dealing with supportive living arrangements, such as group homes, are not required to adopt restrictions or design compromises Page 20 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 27 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

that are not applied to other similar housing structures in the area. The Townships must avoid enacting zoning bylaws that restrict affordable housing development that serves people identified by Code grounds (like group homes) in certain areas while allowing other housing of a similar scale. Staff Comment: The intention of this section is to make it clear that a municipality may require site plan control for a particular group home development proposal. Site plans may be helpful depending on the scale of the proposal and are not intended to affect the approval of the use of a property as a group home. Recommendation: Council not endorse change.

6. Heritage and Culture a)

In the second opening paragraph, it is recommended to change the term „preservation‟ to “conservation” which is more inclusive, and includes practices including, rehabilitation, preservation and restoration.

Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. 6-1 b) In the first paragraph of Section 6.1 – General Policies, it is recommended to replace “built heritage resources and significant cultural resources” with “cultural heritage resources”. Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. c)In the second paragraph, it is recommended to use only the term “heritage impact assessment” as the industry standard and removing “conservation plan” and “cultural heritage impact assessment”. A conservation plan has no relation to assessing impacts; it is a document that is prepared after the impacts have been assessed to guide the conservation of a heritage resource. Therefore, its inclusion as an interchangeable term for impact assessment is incorrect. Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. d) Also in the second paragraph, it is recommended to insert “that contain or are” after “lands” in the first sentence. In the same sentence, it is recommended to remove “where such resources have been identified”. The PPS 2014 notes that the significance of some resources can only be determined after evaluation (see definition of “significant”). This is often the case with heritage and to leave this phrase in could lead to a potential cultural heritage resource being removed before it can be properly evaluated. Page 21 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 28 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. e) In the last paragraph, it is recommended to insert “protect” prior to “promote” and to add the following to the end of the sentence, “especially the adaptive re-use of old or heritage buildings”. Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. Archaeological Resources – Section 6.2 6-2 a) It is recommended to include more detail to Section 6.2 – Archaeological Resources, in order to promote the protection of these resources throughout the County and ensure that the policies within the Plan are applicable to the broadest range of cultural heritage resources. In particular, marine archaeological resources are considered particularly vulnerable and are recommended for inclusion due to the County’s extensive shoreline areas. Sample wording is provided: Designation: “The Townships are encouraged to utilise the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage resources in their municipality through the designation by bylaw of individual properties, conservation heritage districts and cultural heritage landscapes. Council shall participate in the conservation of cultural heritage resources by:  conserving and mitigating impacts to all significant cultural heritage resources, when undertaking public works;  respecting the heritage designations and other heritage conservation efforts by area municipalities” Staff Comment: This proposed additional wording to Section 6.2 provides additional details with respect to relevant legislation and conserving cultural heritage resources. Recommendation: Endorse change, but modify „Council shall participate…” to „Council shall encourage…” Heritage Impact Assessments: “Township and County Councils will require a heritage impact assessment to be conducted by a qualified professional whenever a development has the potential to affect a protected heritage property or a cultural heritage resource with heritage potential.” Archaeology: Page 22 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 29 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

“Areas of archaeological potential are determined through the use of provincial screening criteria, or criteria developed by a licensed consultant archaeologist based on the known archaeological record of the municipality and its surrounding region. Such criteria may include a range of environmental, physiographic and historical features, information from local stakeholders and the effects of past land use. Council shall require archaeological assessments to be carried out by consultant archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act, as a condition of any development proposal affecting areas containing a known archaeological site or considered to have archaeological potential. Any alterations to known archaeological sites shall only be performed by licensed archaeologists, as per Section 48 of the Ontario Heritage Act.” Marine Archaeology: “Council recognizes that, within the boundaries of the County, there may be marine archaeological remains from the pre-historic period through the modern era up to the last 50 years. These marine archaeological resources may include the remains of ships, boats, vessels, artifacts from the contents of boats and belongings of crew or passengers, weaponry, parts of ship construction, old piers, docks, wharfs, fords, fishing traps, dwellings, aircraft and other items of cultural heritage value. The remains may currently be under water or were, at one time, under water but are no longer submerged. Council shall, prior to approving a development proposal, require a marine archaeological assessment to be conducted by a licensed marine archaeologist to the satisfaction of the County and Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. Any marine archaeological resource that is identified must be reported to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport immediately.” Staff Comment: These proposed additions are local planning issues and have too much detail for a regional plan. Recommendation: Council not endorse changes to include additional policies on archaeology and marine archaeology. Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site – Section 6.4 6-4

a) The following revisions are suggested for the first paragraph of this section:

“The Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site, administered by Parks Canada, travels through the southeast portion of South Frontenac Township. The canal‟s value lies in a combination of the engineering and military achievement of the construction of the canal and the associated canal structures and buildings, the continuity and integrity of the lockstations, its continuous seasonal operation since 1832, and the unique historical environment, which together constitute a cultural heritage resource of national significance and outstanding universal value. Parks Canada‟s jurisdiction includes the bed of the canal up to the upper controlled water elevation and the lockstations.” Page 23 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 30 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

*Note: “outstanding universal value” is a specific term related to the Canal’s designation as a world heritage site. Staff Comment: This suggested change is at the request of Parks Canada and provides wording that clearly describes the value of the Rideau Canal as a National Historic Site and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Recommendation: Endorse change. b) It is important to note that any in-water and shoreline works on the Rideau Canal, such as docks, require an approved work permit from Parks Canada before work can proceed. In-water and shoreline works are guided by Parks Canada‟s Policies for In-Water and Shoreline Works and Related Activities. This could be referenced in Section 3.4.4 (3) dealing with Waterfront Areas, as well. Staff Comment: Local issue with respect to South Frontenac Township and should be considered as part of the Township‟s Official Plan update. Recommendation: No change. c) The Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy is an “initiative” which comprises studies of various sizes, for example, the recently completed landscape character assessment study. It is recommended to change the wording “study‟ to “initiative” for accuracy and clarity. Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. d) The following is suggested revised wording for the second paragraph of this section: “A goal of the Strategy is to develop and recommend planning and management tools for municipalities and other jurisdictions that….” Staff Comment: Technical correction. Recommendation: Endorse change. 7. Environmental Sustainability Natural Environment – Section 7.1 a) Generally, it is recommended to include adjacent land widths to natural heritage features and areas, since these are also protected under the PPS 2014. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) recommends using 120 metres for all features except Earth Science ANSIs, for which 50 metres is recommended. 7-1 b) In the second paragraph of Section 7.1.1 (Natural Environment) Introduction, it is recommended to add the term “coastal wetlands” in addition to the term “significant coastal wetlands”. Page 24 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 31 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

The PPS 2014 adds all coastal wetlands as a new feature, but with a different level of protection than significant coastal wetlands. This is relevant in Frontenac Islands Township. c) Accordingly, policies for the protection of all coastal wetlands should be added to Section 7.1.4.1. Proposed wording is as follows: “Development and site alteration in or within 120 metres of all coastal wetlands shall not be permitted unless it is demonstrated through and Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impacts on their features or functions.” Staff Comment: At the time of this report, the Province has not yet provided a clear definition of the parameters of “coastal wetlands”. County planning staff have been working with MMAH and MNR to achieve an understanding of the land areas to which the coastal wetland definition would apply as it could have significant impacts on waterfront development on both Howe and Wolfe Islands. Recommendation: No change at this time. Continue consultation with MMAH and MNR on the definition of “coastal wetland”.

d) Clarity is required in the third bullet of Section 7.1.4.1 (Policies) to convey that development and site alteration within Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) and coastal wetlands is prohibited. It is recommended to replace this bullet with the following: “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in provincially significant wetlands or significant coastal wetlands. These wetlands, and others where development and site alteration are prohibited, shall be identified in the Township Official Plans. At a minimum, provincially significant wetlands shall be identified as a designated land use on Township Official Plan schedules.” Additionally, it is recommended to include a policy to address adjacent lands to these features: “Where development is proposed within 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland or significant coastal wetland, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 3 of this Plan. Development shall not be permitted in the adjacent lands unless an EIS can demonstrate there will be no negative impact to the features or functions of the wetland.” Staff Comment: These detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. e) The PPS, 2014 includes direct support for requiring evaluation of features where warranted (Section 4.7). The following is recommended to be added in conjunction with the fourth bullet of Section 7.1.4.1 (Policies): “If development is proposed on or within 120 metres of an unevaluated wetland that has characteristics or contains components that are typical of a PSW, as determined through a scoped environmental impact study, an evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified person and submitted to MNR for approval to determine if it is a PSW.” Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. Page 25 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 32 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

f) We commend the County for completing a natural heritage system (NHS) analysis study as part of the County OP development, and we support the approach used in its development. We also support using the NHS to coordinate and target additional protection and/or stewardship at the local level. It is recommended to include this information as a Schedule to the Plan, rather than as an appendix. g) It is recommended that Section 7.1.4.1 – Wetlands acknowledge the role of Conservation Authorities in regulating development and site alteration within 120 metres of provincially significant wetlands through regulations pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Note that CRCA also regulates these activities in and within 30 metres of other wetlands within its jurisdiction. h) It is recommended to clarify in Section 7.1.4.2 that ANSIs also occur on private land, outside of Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. In addition to the current policy stating that no development is permitted within ANSIs, subject to a test of no negative impacts, it is also recommended to clarify that no development or site alteration is permitted in lands adjacent to ANSIs unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impact. It is recommended to define adjacent lands as 120 metres for life science ANSIs and 50 metres for earth science ANSIs. i) Subsection 7.1.4.3 requires additional detail to provide guidance to municipalities. It is recommended that the following be added at the end of the third bullet under “Policies”: “MNR‟s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criterion Schedules for the Identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat shall be used for guidance.” Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. Additionally, it is recommended to include the following to ensure that areas of significant wildlife habitat outside the boundaries of the Natural Heritage System will be identified and protected: “Outside the NHS, other areas of significant wildlife habitat may include: seasonal concentrations of animals (e.g. deer wintering areas, heronries), specialized habitats and rare vegetation communities, habitats of species of special concern. The significant wildlife habitat technical guide should be used by proponents to help identify significant wildlife habitat. Townships will require that proponents proposing the following types of development will be required to assess the site for the presence of significant wildlife habitat:  creation of more than three lots through either consent or plan of subdivision;  change in land use, not including the creation of a lot, that requires approval under the Planning Act;  shoreline consent along a large inland lake or large river (denoted on 1:50,000 National Topographic System maps as being two lined) that is within 120 metres along the shoreline of an existing lot of record or a lot described in an application for subdivision or consent; and Page 26 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 33 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)



construction for recreational uses (e.g. golf courses, serviced playing fields, serviced campgrounds and ski hills) that require large-scale modification of terrain, vegetation or both. “ Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change.

j) Subsection 7.1.4.4 Fish Habitat does not include policies for adjacent lands. It is recommended to include the following: “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within 120 metres of fish habitat unless it has been demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts to the features or functions of the habitat.” Staff Comment: This is a longstanding provincial policy approach that is important to reinforce at the regional level due to the County-wide importance of fish habitat protection Recommendation: Accept change.

k) Subsection 7.1.4.5 Endangered and Threatened Species contains a policy that requires some changes for consistency with the PPS 2014. The first sentence of the fourth bullet/policy should be revised as follows: “No new development or site alteration shall be permitted within the habitat of endangered or threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.” Staff Comment: Technical amendment to be consistent with the 2014 PPS. Recommendation: Accept change. Additionally, it is recommended to remove the fifth bullet under “Policies” and replace with the following: “If no records of Threatened or Endangered species are known, these species and habitat features may still be present because the available information is not complete. The Municipality will accept information regarding Threatened and Endangered species habitat from the MNR as it becomes available and will use this information, in confidence, to screen all planning applications for potential development constraints. The municipality will consult with MNR as appropriate. In order to determine the presence of Threatened or Endangered species and to assess the impacts that the proposed activities may have on the habitat of Threatened and Endangered species, a site assessment by a qualified professional is required to be completed at the appropriate time of year. The assessment must identify whether any endangered or threatened species are present and whether the proposed activities will have any impact on Threatened or Endangered species or their habitat and should propose appropriate measures to avoid impacts. MNR can be contacted for further direction regarding site specific proposals.” Page 27 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 34 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. Lake Trout Lakes – Section 7.1.4.4.1 l) The first bullet is more restrictive than required by provincial policy. If this is the intent of the Plan, the County is able to go above the minimum standards established by the PPS 2014. However, if the intent was to meet this requirement, it is recommended to replace the words “planning approvals” with “lot creation”, since only that type of planning approval is prohibited within 300 metres of an at-capacity lake trout lake. Other approvals such as official plan amendments, zoning bylaw amendments, minor variances and site plan control may be permitted on existing lots of record, subject to a 30 metre setback for development and along with other requirements. Staff Comment: The intent of this policy was to be consistent with the MMAH/MNR approach to not allow new lot creation within the 300m area of an at-capacity lake trout lake. Recommendation: Accept change to replace “planning approvals” with “lot creation”. m) The second bullet’s reference to the “Ministry of Natural Resources” should be changed to “Ministry of the Environment”. Staff Comment: Technical amendment. Recommendation: Accept change. n) The third bullet refers the specific policies to be included in Township Official Plans. For consistency and clarity, it is recommended that the following policy wording be considered for inclusion in the County Plan as well, particularly as it offers options for lot creation not currently contemplated by the Plan: “Generally, the creation of new lots, through the severance consent process or by plan of subdivision will not be permitted within 300 metres of a lake trout lake that is classified as “at capacity”, except on existing lots of record and under strict conditions where a proponent can demonstrate that there will be no impacts on lake water quality. This requires consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The following conditions are: a) to separate existing habitable dwellings, each of which is on a lot that is capable of supporting a Class 4 sewage system, provided that the land use would not change and there would be no net increase in phosphorus loading to the lake; or b) where all new tile fields would be located such that they would drain into a drainage basin which is not at capacity; or c) where all new tile fields are set back at least 300 metres from the shoreline of lakes; or d) where drainage from the tile fields would flow at least 300 metres to the lake. This must be supported by a report prepared by a qualified professional that is a licensed member of the Page 28 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 35 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario or a licensed member of the Professional Engineers of Ontario who is qualified to practice geoscience; or e) where a site-specific soils investigation prepared by a qualified professional demonstrates that phosphorus can be retained in deep, native, acidic soils on-site, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment.” Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. This policy section is currently in place in all three Township Official Plans that contain at-capacity lake trout lakes. Recommendation: No change. o) The reference in the last bullet point which states that “The townships are encouraged to identify the moderately sensitive at-capacity lake trout lakes in their Official Plans…” is problematic since the term “moderately sensitive” is no longer used, as discussed in the General Comments of this Appendix. It is, however, recommended to include lake trout lakes “not at capacity” and other recreational lakes, both warm and cold water. It is recommended that the County include a list of “not at capacity” lake trout lakes as an appendix to this plan. p) The following is recommended to be added as a fifth bullet in Section 7.1.4.4.1: “The classification of lakes in the Official Plan is subject to change and may change in the future based on factors such as an assessment of new water quality data and/or changes in water quality standards. Therefore, the possibility exists that a lake trout lake that is classified in the Official Plan as “not at capacity” or “at capacity” at a certain point in time may change during the life of the Official Plan. It is the responsibility of the property owners, including proponents of development proposals, to ensure that they are aware of the current classification of a lake at all times and in particular prior to submitting a planning application involving shore lands on lakes. The Ministry of the Environment and the local municipality have information on the current classification of a lake and it is recommended that either or both the Ministry and the local municipality be consulted prior to any actions being taken which may be affected by the classification of a lake.” Staff Comment: The draft Official Plan contains mapping (Appendix “1B”) that illustrates the location of the highly sensitive lake trout lakes. The intention is to work with MMAH and MOE on an annual basis to ensure that this mapping is up to date. Recommendation: No change.

Environmental Impact Study – Section 7.1.4.10 Page 29 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 36 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

q) In Section 7.1.4.10 - Environmental Impact Study, it is recommended that the second policy bullet and Appendix “3” should also speak to the need for ecological site assessment, evaluation of natural heritage features or areas and impact study to ensure that all aspects of the natural heritage system are considered, not just those that have already been evaluated. The PPS 2014 contains a new policy in Section 4.7 that states in part “Official Plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. To determine the significance of some natural heritage features and other resources, evaluation may be required.” It is recommended that the County include a policy requiring the evaluation of unevaluated wetlands to determine their significance prior to allowing development. It is noted that this links directly to a performance measure (number of hectares of wetland evaluated and protected) in the County’s NHS study report. Staff Comment: Detailed policies should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Policies requiring an EIS are already place in all of the Township Official Plans. Recommendation: No change. Stewardship Planning – Section 7.1.4.12 r) Section 7.1.4.12 - Stewardship Planning inaccurately suggests that the Provincial Policy Statement is focused on protecting rare landscapes in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greater Toronto Area. Refer to “An Introduction to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014: Rural Ontario (Draft for Discussion – February 2014)” and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (2010). We note that the County is part of a unique landscape as well – the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Water Resources – Section 7.2 7-2 a) The introduction for Section 7 specifies that Section 7.2 - Water Resources “includes policies recognizing the role of a watershed planning approach and of the importance of source water protection plans in ensuring safe and plentiful drinking water”, however, the section itself only includes text about source protection plans. It is recommended to include policies about other water resource topics such as watershed plans and groundwater protection.

The following are examples of Official Plan policies for the consideration of ground water: “The protection, conservation and careful management of groundwater resources is necessary to meet both the present and future needs of residents and the natural environment. As groundwater and aquifer contamination is extremely difficult and costly to rectify, prevention of contamination is the best strategy. The County shall:

1. Support and participate in initiatives that implement the Clean Water Act, as necessary and appropriate.
2. Assure that groundwater quality and quantity will not be negatively impacted by development. Page 30 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 37 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

3. Contribute and promote a culture of conservation among all public, private, community groups and local citizens and aim to reduce water use in all sectors.
4. Establish sector-specific targets for water use reductions.
5. Contribute and show leadership by considering water conservation and efficiency within its municipal culture, decision making, and operations. A detailed hydrogeological report will be required for proposals using a groundwater source for drinking water purposes to demonstrate that there is an adequate quantity and quality and that there will be no impact of septic system effluent (nitrates) on the groundwater.” Staff Comment: This policy set, in general, promotes the need to protect groundwater, which affects all watersheds in the Frontenacs. Recommendation: Endorse change with the exception of the last paragraph, as the requirements for hydogeological studies vary with the scale of the development and the features of the surrounding lands. Source Protection Plans – Section 7.2.1 b) The source protection plans for the County (i.e. Cataraqui, Mississippi-Rideau, Quinte) may be approved in 2014. The vulnerable areas in Frontenac County have been identified in approved assessment reports and no marked change is anticipated to the plan policies at this time. Therefore it would be appropriate for the County to consider the proposed plans when finalizing this Official Plan this year. The placeholder policy that supports source protection plans (when they take effect in the future) and watershed planning in general is a good start. In the interim, before source protection plans take effect, planning approval authorities must still demonstrate how they are striving to balance provincial interests and be consistent with the PPS. In order to demonstrate consistency with 2.2.1.e of the PPS 2014, the County should include mapping of vulnerable areas that were delineated in the local assessment report (Quinte, Cataraqui and Mississippi-Rideau assessment reports). The vulnerable areas delineated in the assessment report align with the designated vulnerable areas as defined in the PPS, 2014. The County could include high level goals, policies and objectives to protect vulnerable areas associated with municipal drinking water supplies and direct lower tier municipalities to provide detailed policies and mapping. To provide more direction, the mapping should also show the surface water intake protection zones at Kingston and Sydenham, and the highly vulnerable aquifers that have been identified across much of the County. A similar approach should be directed and taken in the local Official Plans. To provide clarity, the policies of the Official Plan could specifically identify that “designated vulnerable areas” have been identified around the municipal drinking water systems at Kingston and Sydenham – they include lands and waters in the Township of Frontenac Islands and the Township of South Frontenac, respectively. Additional clarity could be provided with policies stating that the Source Protection Plans include mandatory (“conform with” / “comply with”) policies within the Sydenham Intake Protection Zone and Page 31 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 38 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

other “have regard to” policies that apply in other portions of the County. These policies may restrict or prohibit land uses in vulnerable areas. The reader should be referred to the Source Protection Plans for more information about these policies. Staff Comment: County planning staff met with representatives of the Conservation Authorities in January, 2014 to discuss the draft Official Plan. At that time CA staff was satisfied with the current wording in the draft Plan. Once the Source Protection Plans are approved by MOE, the County intends to review the final documents with CA staff and, if necessary, update the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. c) The use of the term “sensitive areas” as a general descriptor is appropriate since it corresponds to “sensitive surface water features” and “sensitive groundwater features” in Section 2.2.1(e)(2) of the PPS. d) The text should read “within” sensitive areas rather “near” them. Staff Comment: Both (c) and (d) above are technical comments. Recommendation: Endorse change. Hazard Lands – Section 7.3 7-3 a) Section 7.3.2 – Natural Hazards Policies would benefit from a more detailed description of natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and hazardous sites, as well as where to get information to determine the extent of the hazards on properties. b)

It would be helpful for Section 7.3 to acknowledge the roles of Conservation Authorities in hazard lands management (i.e. flood forecasting and warning, data / mapping, plan review and regulation). Conservation Authorities regulate development and site alteration on lands that are subject to natural hazards, such as adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands, through regulations pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.

Staff Comment: The policies in Section 7.3 are taken directly from the 2014 PPS. Recommendation: No change.

c)

The County may be interested to know that the RVCA has updated 1:100 year flood elevations for Bobs Lake, and mapping will be available within the life of the Plan. There is also a scheme to expand hazard identification to other lakes. Staff Comment: This detailed 1:100 flood mapping update should be reviewed as part of any Official Plan or Zoning By-law review for the Township of South Frontenac. Page 32 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 39 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Recommendation: No change – Township issue. d) The PPS 2014 contains new policies (3.1.8) requiring the direction of development away from areas at risk of wildland fire. These hazards may be present in forested landscapes throughout the County. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is currently producing risk maps to help identify areas or forest types that are more at risk. For the time being, it is recommended to include a placeholder policy, and sample wording is provided below. Once more detailed guidance and risk mapping is available, further modifications may be appropriate. “Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of lands that are unsafe for development due to the presence of hazardous forest types for wildland fire. Development may be permitted in lands with hazardous forest types for wildland fire where the risk is mitigated in accordance with wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards.” Staff Comment: This is a new policy introduced as part of the 2014 PPS and at this time it is not clear how relevant it is with respect to the landscapes of Frontenac County. Recommendation: No change, however seek additional information from MMAH. Human-Made Hazards – Section 7.3.3 e) It may be useful to provide additional direction and information for contaminated lands. The legislation applies independent of this Plan, but the following policies support municipalities in integration of Planning Act approvals with Environmental Protection Act requirements. Including this information in official plans also provides important information to applicants. “Contaminated Lands and Brownfield Sites The development or redevelopment of potentially contaminated sites shall be assessed and remediated in a manner consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and relevant regulations, and the relevant Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines and procedures. Sites known or suspected to have soils contaminated with residues of current or previous industrial or commercial land uses must have the environmental condition of the site assessed. When managing development on potentially contaminated sites, A Record of Site Condition (RSC) either prior to the development approval, at the time of release of conditions of approval, or at the time of issuance of building permits, as required or stipulated by the municipality must be received. When considering applications for development which include sites suspected or known to be contaminated, the municipality will require at its discretion a Phase I ESA be undertaken by the applicant in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 as amended. If recommended by a Phase I ESA or mandated under Regulation 153/04, a Phase II ESA must be undertaken by the applicant in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. This would require sampling and Page 33 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 40 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

analysis of the site to confirm and delineate the presence or absence of contamination suspected by the Phase I ESA report. As a condition of approval, the municipality will require that remediation, where required, is undertaken to appropriate standards of the MOE, as specified in Ontario Regulation 153/04 and in the guideline Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, or other regulatory requirements of the MOE, as amended from time to time. Mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition in the Registry, by a qualified person, as defined in O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, is required for a change in use of a property from industrial or commercial to residential or parkland, as defined in the regulation, and will be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment. A site clean-up plan may be required and the site may need to be cleaned-up in accordance with the O. Reg. 153/04, as amended and with MOE guideline “Records of Site Condition – A Guide on Site Assessment, the Clean-up of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Records of Site Condition” dated October 2004 or associated guidelines.” A Record of Site Condition may, at the municipality‟s discretion, be a required condition of approval under this Plan. In addition to changes of use prescribed by the Environmental Protection Act as uses for which a Record of Site Condition is mandatory (a change of use to a more sensitive land use), the municipality may require a RSC to be filed where the application does not involve a change of use to a more sensitive land use as defined in the Environmental Protection Act. This requirement is to ensure, to the municipality’s satisfaction, that any remediation, or risk assessment and risk management, necessary to permit the intended use is to the satisfaction of the MOE.” Staff Comment: This policy set should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change.

8. Implementation Planning Applications – Consultation and Complete Application Requirements – Section 8.7 8-7 a) Bill 51 amended the Planning Act to allow municipalities to require preconsultation on any development application and to set out the requirements for a “complete application” in order to provide more certainty to the municipality and applicants. While most development applications are facilitated at the local level, it may be beneficial to include policies in Section 8.7 – Planning Applications – Consultation and Complete Application Requirements that encourage local plans to adopt policies that clearly state the requirements for preconsultation and complete application under the Planning Act. Further, it may be of benefit for the County to indicate its own requirements for any application to amend the County plan or for plans of subdivision for which the County is approval authority. Staff Comment: It is the opinion of staff that the existing policy 8.7 in the draft Official Plan already covers the issues raised by this comment. Page 34 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 41 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Recommendation: No change.

b) The PPS 2014 includes increased focus on fiscal sustainability and considering the longterm costs of infrastructure investments. The County may wish to include “Financial Impact Report” or similar to the list of required studies. Staff Comment: It is possible that some land use proposals will be of a sufficient scale to warrant a fiscal impact analysis as part of the planning review. Recommendation: Endorse change and add to information requirements listed in Section 8.7.

Land Use Compability – Section 8.9 8-9 a) In Section 8.9 – Land Use Compatibility, the third paragraph refers to setbacks for sensitive land uses. Where features are known (eg. Waterbodies, aggregate licenses), setbacks should also be prescribed in zoning by-laws to ensure adequate implementation. Additionally, other items are recommended to be added to the list of features requiring setbacks. It is recommended to include this reference as follows: “Township Official Plans and Zoning By-laws shall contain policies and guidance for setbacks for sensitive uses from features such as rail lines, mining and aggregate operations, heavy industrial operations, sewage/water treatment plants and solid non-hazardous waste disposal sites (open and closed).” b) A reference to the respective D-series guideline(s) may be included for further guidance. Staff Comment: These policies in (a) and (b) should be included in Township Official Plans rather than the County Official Plan. Recommendation: No change. Appendices (text) A. In Appendix “2” – Designated „At Capacity‟ Lake Trout Lakes, Silver Lake in Central Frontenac should also be added to the list as it is listed as “At Capacity”. B. The remaining lake trout lakes should be identified in a separate list as “not at capacity” for reference. They are: Big Clear – South Frontenac Birch – South Frontenac Brule – North Frontenac Canoe – South Frontenac Desert – South Frontenac Page 35 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 42 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Gould- South Frontenac Mazinaw – North Frontenac Palmerston – North Frontenac

Staff Comment: Both (A) and (B) above are technical comments. Recommendation: Endorse changes..

Page 36 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 43 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendix B: Schedules and Figures and map-based appendices

Figure 5 – Watershed Planning Approach It is recommended to revise the legend to specify “Watershed Boundary” instead of “Conservation Authority Boundary” since the intent is to describe the watersheds rather than jurisdiction, and since the Madawaska (1) and St. Lawrence River (6) watersheds do not have Conservation Authority jurisdiction. Figure 6 – Algonquin Land Claim Territory The legend of this figure is not legible at the printed size. Schedule “A” - Land Uses This schedule identifies settlement areas, the regional road network, and watershed boundaries; however, it does not include any of the other land uses specified in the Official Plan. Per Section-Specific comments made throughout this letter, it is recommended to include designations including rural lands, prime agricultural lands, mineral and mineral aggregate resources, settlement area boundaries, and natural heritage features and areas. It is also recommended to include the Natural Heritage System as a schedule, rather than an appendix. Appendix 1 – Natural Heritage System The scale at which Appendices 1A, 1B and 1C appear in the OP may not be appropriate to accurately depict the features which contribute to the County‟s natural heritage system. Appendix “1A” – Natural Heritage System The map legend should be changed to rename “Provincial Significance” to “Provincially Significant Wetland” We recommend that Conservation Reserves be depicted on Appendix 1A as an additional feature. These are areas of crown land that are regulated and protected under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act to protect their natural heritage values. Appendix “1B” – Natural Heritage System This map identifies “coastal wetlands” and “other wetlands”. Section 7.1.4 specifies that “other wetlands” that are not significant are identified on the Appendix, however, a number of the “other wetlands” identified on the Appendix are significant. The County should confirm that Coastal Wetlands are mapped based on the definition in the PPS as these features have new protection in the PPS, regardless of significance. The terminology “Highly Sensitive” for lake trout lakes should be changes to “At Capacity” to be Page 37 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 44 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

consistent with terminology used by the Ministry of Environment, and better reflect the development restrictions for these water bodies, as well as the policies in Section 7.1.4.4.1. The appendices do not show the natural heritage system extending beyond the County boundary. It should be identified since these features need to be evaluated and the impact of development assessed for proposals in the County. This would support the County‟s watershed planning approach.

Page 38 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 45 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendix C: Other comments

General Comments A. We commend the County on its proactive attention to conservation topics in the Official Plan, such as watersheds, natural heritage systems, drinking water source protection and lake planning. In particular, the Conservation Authorities support the use of a watershed planning approach, in line with their own basis for operating within Frontenac County. The four watershed-based Conservation Authorities that cover most of Frontenac County share many common interests; for example, managing waterfront development in an appropriate and sustainable manner. Conversely, the three watershed-based source protection plans for the County vary somewhat in their scope and content. As such, the Plan could benefit from more detail or direction on what a watershed planning approach means to the County, as differences between watersheds will impact how the Plan may be implemented. For example, the Township of Frontenac Islands is in Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River and contains large open spaces generally associated with farmland and coastal wetlands. The majority of the remainder of the County is located on the Canadian Shield, as area with hundreds of inland lakes and expansive natural heritage. Watershed studies prepared for specific watersheds may include special considerations. For example, enhanced stormwater quality control is required for the Collins Creek watershed in the Cataraqui Region. The Conservation Authorities are available to support the County in identifying other topics that would benefit from having unique Official Plan policies in one watershed versus other watersheds. More broadly, however, the County may wish to discuss healthy watersheds in a general manner. Section 4.6 – Parks and Open Space indicates that balancing the protection of natural areas with opportunity for discovering the outdoors will result in “a healthy mix of managed forest, trails, farmland, wetlands and watersheds”. This would be an appropriate location to discuss healthy watersheds as well. Section-Specific Comments:

1. Introduction It is recommended to revise the wording in Section 1.1 – Context of the Plan to more accurately reflect the title of the Rideau Canal, as follows: “The Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site travels through the southeastern part of the County.”
2. Economic Sustainability The Introduction for the Tourism Section (2.2.2.1) could make reference to both the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site and the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Additionally, this policy offers a good list of of attractions that draw tourist from the local area and further afield to visit the Frontenacs. We note that the County has created a cultural map

Page 39 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 46 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

that depicts these facilities, providing tourist with a single document for ease of reference on www.frontenacmaps.ca, and applaud this effort. This could lead to the County undertaking, in future, a Municipal Cultural Plan, that scopes which cultural facilities have the greatest potential in specific locations and creates a strategy for promotion and tourism. 3. Growth Management Rural Areas – Section 3.3 Section 3.3.3 (2) states that “in recognition of the potential impacts that new growth and development may have on entire watershed systems, the County encourages communication between the local Townships within the same watershed area when a new development proposal is considered to have a potential impact on the quality and function of the watershed.” One of the purposes of Conservation Authorities is to consider the individual and cumulative impact of development on the quality and function of watersheds regardless of municipal boundaries, and the CAs could be useful in this regard. It is recommended to provide more direction on how this communication can occur. It would be useful to express what factors would be used to determine if there is a potential impact on the quality and function of the watershed (eg. Natural hazards, natural heritage, surface and ground water quality and quantity). Additionally, this policy applies to development in all designations. Waterfront Areas 3.4 The objectives for this section includes 3.4.3 (4) “To maintain or improve water quality on a watershed-wide basis”; however, it is not clear that the policies (3.4.4) address this objective directly. The PPS 2014 includes expanded direction to support planning authorities’ protection, improvement and restoration of water quality and quantity, including several items already included in the County Plan (see PPS Section 2.2). One area where the County may wish to add additional direction involves lakeshore development capacity of non-laketrout lakes, which supports consideration of cumulative impacts of development and consideration of lake capacity more broadly: “Lakeshore Development Capacity Lakeshore capacity refers to ability of a lake (cold water or warm water) to accommodate further development without adverse impacts to water quality. Inland lakes have both a finite and measureable capacity for development. Lakeshore capacity assessment encourages land-use decisions are undertaken that maintain or enhance water quality. In consideration of environmental lake capacity, lakeshore capacity assessment (Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook (May, 2010) may be considered in the following circumstances: • Developing or updating official plans; • If significant improvements to road access to a lake are being Page 40 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 47 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

considered, or have occurred, increasing the use of residences from seasonal to extended seasonal or permanent; • If development (i.e. new planning approvals) are being considered within 300 m of a lake or a permanently flowing stream within its watershed; • If significant or unusually large amounts of development are proposed for a lake beyond the 300 m boundary; • If water quality problems (such as elevated levels of phosphorus, loss of water clarity, or algal blooms) are noted; • If lake trout populations are present; • If changes in fisheries have been noted, especially diminishing populations of coldwater species such as lake trout; • If cottagers or year – round residents raise concerns about the effects of development on water quality.” The following is recommended for subsection 3.4.3 (5): “To ensure that the built form along the shoreline is not overly concentrated, minimizes interventions to the natural environment, and harmonizes with the surrounding natural landscape character.” For clarity, it is recommended to expand on the phrase “the visual objectives of shoreline management” in Section 3.4.4 (4). It is recommended to include lake management plans as supported by the County in addition to lake stewardship planning in Section 3.4.4 (5), per Section 7.1.4.13. More broadly, Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC), in partnership with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) and Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), is updating a document entitled “Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines”, which have been in use throughout the RVCA watershed since 1993. The intent is to update this document and expand its use to the neighbouring Conservation Authorities by the end of 2014. These guidelines were created as a tool to help ensure that any proposed development would reflect variable constraints imposed by site specific conditions (i.e. slope height, slope angle, soil depth and type as well as vegetative cover). The principles established therein have generally been supported by municipal approval authorities and have remained in municipal official plans throughout the RVCA watershed. We suggest referencing the “Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines” in Section 3.4 as a tool to be used in the review of waterfront development in Eastern Ontario‟s lake country, thereby meeting the objectives of the County Official Plan. An appropriate location for the policy would be after 3.4.4(6). Sample wording is provided below. “Site Evaluation Guidelines are recognized as a valuable tool in managing the long term health and integrity of the County‟s lakes and lake communities. These guidelines are intended to protect, improve, and restore water quality in the respective watersheds consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local Official Plan policies. Site Evaluation Guidelines will be supported as a tool to identify site specific constraints and ensure that new development is conducted in a manner that reflects variable constraints imposed by site specific conditions.” 4. Community Building Page 41 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 48 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

The RVCA (Meisel Woods, Victory Lake and McEwan Lands, Bobs Lake), QC (Depot Lakes) and CRCA (Gould Lake) own tracts of conservation lands in Frontenac County that the County may wish to identify as part of a parks and open space system. It is suggested that public water access points be acknowledged in the Plan. There are many existing, independently maintained public water access points in the County. It may also be useful to acknowledge snowmobile and ATV corridors and trails. We support the acknowledgment of the Cataraqui and Rideau Trails in the Plan. These connecting recreational trails involve co-operative arrangements between the CRCA and RVCA. The County may wish to insert a statement in Section 4.1.5 – Scenic Routes that encourages the lower tier municipalities to designated sections of roads with scenic views under the Ontario Heritage Act. It may be appropriate in Section 4.4.2 – Utility and Communication Facilities Corridors Policies to note compatibility with cultural and natural heritage resources such as the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site and the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Communications facilities such as cell towers along the Rideau have long been raised by the public as a concern due to its visual impact. It was again raised during the RCLS Landscape Character Assessment project. Recent concerns from the community in and around Beckett‟s Landing resulted in an increased setback from 200m to 900m from the canal, while still providing the communication necessity. 7. Environmental Sustainability The Introduction of this section mentions natural assets, natural sites, and natural attractions; however, this is not discussed elsewhere in the Plan. The meaning of these terms could be clarified. We suggest that this section include a policy requiring the Townships, in their Official Plans, to identify the natural heritage system, and to protect natural heritage features and areas and their adjacent lands in support of the PPS and the County Official Plan. Natural heritage systems are important parts of watersheds that should be recognized in the Official Plan as part of the County‟s watershed planning approach. This section would be strengthened by including text and policies about the natural heritage system, in addition to its individual (significant) components. The Plan references the Natural Heritage Reference Manual as the basis for the identified natural heritage system. We suggest that it should also be referenced as it relates to further evaluation and impact assessment that is required by some of the policies in the Plan. The County is located in Ecoregions 5E and 6E. Some of the natural heritage policies in the PPS only apply to natural features in Ecoregion 6E. The Official Plan could recognize this distinction, and specify whether the intent of the policies is to provide the same level of protection regardless of ecoregion. Regarding Section 7.1.4.6 policy number two, please note that the RVCA recently undertook a Page 42 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 49 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

classification of forest cover within the Tay watershed that could be used to refine the woodlands shown on Appendix “1C”. The County can contact the RVCA to obtain this information. Section 7.1.4.8 – It is recommended to define and provide criteria for biodiversity areas, as well as explaining the basis for distinguishing biodiversity areas from the existing natural heritage areas identified in the Plan and the Appendices, and provide the criteria for the identified linkages. Some additional description in the OP of the biodiversity areas (e.g. features, functions etc), the goal to be met by their protection (the why), and how they were identified would be useful for implementation. It is also recommended to expand on what would trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Study related to these features. In order to provide protection to biodiversity areas, it is recommended that a policy similar to that of the Linkage Areas be added, as follows: “The County of Frontenac encourages Lower Tier official plans to recognize Biodiversity Areas by incorporating them into their Official Plans.” And: “Notwithstanding the policies of the underlying land use designation of Lower tier official plans, the County encourages Lower Tier Official Plans to protect Biodiversity Areas by:” Given that the modelling approach uses best available land cover and soil/geology data combinations as a surrogate for biodiversity, we recommend including some additional policies that generally support field verification and inventory work in the identified biodiversity and linkage areas. This would enable future improvements to the NHS as more information is gathered. We also suggest including a general policy that supports future review and improvements to the NHS as new information becomes available. We recommend that the NHS Study document be specifically referenced in the text. We also note that the NHS Study lists a number of performance measures that are not mentioned anywhere in the Plan. The performance measures may add value in the Plan to help determine how well the NHS is being implemented. We also recommend that the NHS approach be used to help identify significance of component features for which identification is a municipal responsibility (e.g. woodlands, valleylands). With respect to Section 7.1.4.13 - Lake Management Plans, the RVCA recently prepared Catchment Reports for several lakes in Frontenac County that would make meaningful and valuable references in the Official Plan. These reports are available on the RVCA website. Conservation Authorities are involved in on-going resource inventories, studies and monitoring programs that could help with the implementation of these policies. For example, the RVCA landcover classification for the Tay watershed, the Rideau Lakes Study and Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines.

Page 43 of 43

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 50 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

County of Frontenac Official Plan Third Draft August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 51 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Introductory Note This document serves as the Third Draft of an Official Plan for Frontenac County. It is based on direction provided by County Council to develop a „high level‟ regional plan to deal with planning issues that cross political jurisdictions, unlike the Township Official Plans that are detailed and which focus on growth within their municipal boundaries. This Third Draft has been modified based on the Provincial „One Window‟ planning review from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (written comments were provided June 27, 2014). Changes between the second and third draft are highlighted.

Contact: Email: Telephone: Mail:

2014-124 Corporate Services

Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning jgallivan@frontenaccounty.ca 613.548.9400 ext. 350 County of Frontenac, 2069 Battersea Rd, Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0

Page 52 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

County Official Plan 3rd Draft (Revised August 2014) –Policy Outline Section 1 – Introduction 1.1 1.2

Purpose, Basis, and Context of County Plan………………………………….7 How to Read the Plan……………………………………………………………13

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability 2.1

Natural Resources……………………………………………………………….16 2.1.1 Agriculture 2.1.2 Mining and Mineral Aggregate Resources 2.1.2.1 Mineral Mining 2.1.2.2 Mineral Aggregates 2.1.3 Forestry 2.1.4 Renewable Energy 2.1.4.1 Introduction 2.1.4.2 Policies

2.2

Built Economic Resources………………………………………………………………….19 2.2.1 Commercial 2.2.2 Tourism 2.2.2.1 Introduction 2.2.2.2 Policies 2.2.3 Business Parks

Section 3 – Growth Management 3.1 3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Growth Projections for Frontenac County…………………………………….22 Settlement Areas……………………………………………………………….. 23 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 Settlement Area Policies 3.2.2.1 General 3.2.2.2 Settlement Area Boundary Expansions Rural Areas……………………………………………………………………….24 3.3.1 Introduction 3.3.2 Objectives 3.3.3 Policies Waterfront Areas…………………………………………………………………27 3.4.1 Introduction 3.4.2 Goal 3.4.3 Objectives 3.4.4 Policies Crown Lands……………………………………………………………………..29

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 53 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.1

Transportation…………………………………………………………………31 4.1.1 Roads 4.1.1.1 Introduction 4.1.1.2 Goal 4.1.1.3 Regional Road Network 4.1.1.4 Provincial Highway 7 4.1.1.5 Provincial Highway 41 4.1.1.6 Rural Public Transportation 4.1.1.7 Introduction 4.1.1.8 Goal 4.1.1.9 Policies 4.1.2 Pedestrian 4.1.2.1 Policies 4.1.3 Trail Development 4.1.3.1 Policies 4.1.3.2 Special Policies: K & P Trail 4.1.4.2.1 Policies 4.1.4 Ferry Services 4.1.4.1 Background 4.1.4.2 Policies 4.1.5 Scenic Routes

4.2

Servicing……………………………………………………………………….38 4.2.1 Long Range Planning for Municipal Services 4.2.1.1 Introduction 4.2.1.2 Goal 4.2.1.3 Objectives 4.2.1.4 Policies 4.2.1.4.1 Special Policies: Future Village Water Supply Protection 4.2.2 Storm Water Management Planning 4.2.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2.2 Policies Waste Management…………………………………………………………..41 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 Goal 4.3.3 Objective 4.3.4 Policies Utility and Communications Facilities Corridors………………………… 42 4.4.1 Introduction 4.4.2 Policies Community Improvement Plans ..……………………………………………43 4.5.1 Introduction 4.5.2 Goal

4.3

4.4

4.5

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 54 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

4.6

4.5.3 Objectives 4.5.4 Policies 4.5.4.1 Special Policy – Regional Community Improvement Plans Parks and Open Space………………………………………………………44 4.6.1 Introduction 4.6.2 Policies

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

Municipal Housing Strategy………………………………………………….46 5.1.1 Introduction 5.1.2 Policies Affordable Housing……………………………………………………………47 5.2.1 Introduction 5.2.2 Policies Seniors Housing……………………………………………………………….48 5.3.1 Introduction 5.3.2 Policies Group Homes………………………………………………………………….49 5.4.1 Introduction 5.4.2 Policies Homes for the Aged (Extended Care Complexes) ..……………………….49 5.5.1 Introduction 5.5.2 Policies Secondary Suites……………………………………………………………..50 5.6.1 Introduction 5.6.2 Policies Accessibility ……..…………………………………………………………….50 5.7.1 Introduction 5.7.2 Policies

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

General Policies Land Claim….………………………………………………51 Archaeological Resources……………………………………………………51 Algonquin Aboriginal Interest ………………………………………………..52 6.3.1 Policies Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site ……………………………..54 Frontenac Arch UNESCO Biosphere Reserve…………………………….54

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 7.1

Natural Environment …………………………………………………………56 7.1.1 Introduction 7.1.2 Goal 7.1.3 Objectives

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 55 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

7.1.4 Policies 7.1.4.1 7.1.4.2 7.1.4.3 7.1.4.4

7.2 7.3

Wetlands Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) Significant Wildlife Habitat Fish Habitat 7.1.4.4.1 Lake Trout Lakes 7.1.4.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 7.1.4.6 Significant Woodlands 7.1.4.7 Significant Valley Lands 7.1.4.8 Linkages and Biodiversity Areas 7.1.4.8.1 Linkages 7.1.4.8.2 Biodiversity Areas (Overlay) 7.1.4.9 Mineral Aggregate Operations 7.1.4.10 Environmental Impact Study 7.1.4.11 Land Uses and Zoning 7.1.4.12 Stewardship Planning 7.1.4.13 Lake Management Plans Water Resources…………………………………………………………………69 7.2.1 Source protection Plans Hazard Land Policies…………………………………………………………….69 7.3.1 Introduction 7.3.2 Natural Hazards Policies 7.3.3 Human-Made Hazards

Section 8 – Implementation 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9

Interpretation of Land Use Designation Boundaries…………………………72 Amendments to the Plan…………………………………………………………72 Amendments to the Township Official Plans………………………………….73 Public Participation………………………………………………………………73 Zoning By-laws.…………………………………………………………………..73 Subdivision Approvals and Agreements ………………………………………73 Planning Applications – Consultation and Complete Application Requirements Development Charges…………………………………………………………..74 Land Use Compatibility………………………………………………………….75

Schedule “A” – Land Use Map Appendices Appendices “1A to 1C” – Natural Heritage System Appendix “2” – Designated „At Capacity‟ Lake Trout Lakes Appendix “3” – Environmental Impact Study Requirements

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 56 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1

Purpose, Basis and Context of the Plan

Purpose The Frontenac County Official Plan creates the framework for guiding land use changes in the County over the next 20 years to 2034 by protecting and managing the natural environment, directing and influencing growth patterns and facilitating the vision of the County as expressed through its residents. This Plan also provides the avenue through which Provincial Policy is implemented into the local context. The Plan is also a major cornerstone in the implementation of Directions for Our Future, the County‟s sustainability plan. Basis The Official Plan for Frontenac County has its basis in the Planning Act; the Provincial Policy Statement (2005); and the four sustainability pillars identified in Directions for Our Future. Context of the Plan Without question Frontenac County is characterized by a predominantly rural landscape with small communities such as Plevna, Cloyne, Ompah, Sharbot Lake, Verona, Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Marysville, Howe Island and many more villages and hamlets throughout the geography. The County has one of the smallest populations of all counties in Eastern Ontario. The County surrounds the City of Kingston to the north and south and extends beyond Highway 7 northerly towards the Madawaska River and Renfrew County and to the south across Wolfe and Howe Islands to the United States border on the southern side of the St Lawrence River. In terms of surrounding local governments, the Frontenacs are bounded to the east by the Counties of Lanark and Leeds & Grenville, to the north by Renfrew County, and the west by Lennox & Addington County. In terms of municipal government, the County is composed of four lower-tier municipalities – the Townships of South, Central and North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands. (See Figure 1 – Local Municipalities) The small population (26,600) and the large geographic area of the Frontenacs (4,000 km2) result in a low population density. There are only small communities. Of the settlement areas in the County the largest villages have between 200 to 300 homes within their boundaries. In terms of demographics, the number of retirees is increasing as is the number of seasonal residents, in part because of the spectacular natural features of the County. On the other hand, the trends show young people continue to move away, to larger urban centres.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 7 of 87

Page 57 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 8 of 87

Page 58 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction Because the population lives predominately in villages or rural areas, municipal services, such as water and wastewater systems are not provided (with the exception of the water system in Sydenham). As a result, access to clean, reliable drinking water is an issue for some residents. The small size of the communities also means that residents may need to travel to urban centres for health and professional services, cultural and recreational opportunities. The County boasts some of the most beautiful natural features to be found in Ontario, possessing 1000 lakes, Wolfe and Howe Islands that form part of the 1000 Islands, and stretches of uninterrupted forests that include Frontenac and Bon Echo Provincial Parks. The attractiveness of these features draws seasonal residents, outdoor recreationists, and artists, artisans and craftspeople. These people all seek nature for their own reasons, whether it is for adventure and exploration, peace and solitude, or inspiration. The tourism sector is also strongly linked to a pristine environment. The Frontenacs are home to enviable natural resources such as numerous lakes and islands, protected areas, an uninterrupted night sky, and a world renowned biosphere. In addition to the many lakes within Frontenac, the major waterways of the Cataraqui, Salmon, Mississippi, Napanee, and Fall Rivers all cross through part of the County, and both Wolfe and Howe Islands along with a number of smaller islands are located on the St. Lawrence River at the exit from Lake Ontario. The Rideau Canal system, a designated UNESCO World Heritage site, travels through the southeastern part of the County. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve is one of sixteen biospheres in Canada and is designated under UNESCO‟s Man and Biosphere Programme; it covers parts of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville and Frontenac County, including portions of Central and South Frontenac Townships. All of these features reinforce the value of the natural heritage system we have in the Frontenacs. The wealth of our natural resources is reinforced by the amount of Crown land, lakes, rivers, and wetlands that are within the County. Figures 2 to 4 illustrate the location and amount of these resources throughout the Frontenacs. Frontenac County‟s history is rich in agricultural activity which continues today in the form of commodity farms, small family farms, hobby farms, horse ranches, forestry and other specialty farms. The agricultural roots of the community are celebrated in fairs, ploughing matches, church socials, and other events. Agriculture continues to play an important role in the County‟s economy. The Frontenacs are also at the forefront of renewable energy in Eastern Ontario, the most visible project being the eighty-six wind turbines located across Wolfe Island. Over the past few years, numerous ground-mounted and roof-mounted solar panels have been set up on homes, businesses and farms throughout the County.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 9 of 87

Page 59 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 10 of 87

Page 60 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 11 of 87

Page 61 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 12 of 87

Page 62 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction 1.2

How to Read the Plan

This Official Plan is prepared by the County of Frontenac to guide the actions of local municipalities and the County in policy planning and physical planning on a broad „high level‟ basis. It is based on a watershed planning approach as set out in Figure 5. The County Plan serves as the upper tier Official Plan for the County. It establishes a vision in which planning and sustainability protect and enhance the natural landscape, rural lifestyle, and sense of community for the Frontenacs. This document, hereafter is referred to as “the Plan” or “this Plan” implements a strategic approach to land use planning based on a watershed planning process. This Plan sets out the general direction for planning and development in Frontenac County by defining strategic goals, broad objectives and policies. It is the intention of the Plan to set the context for planning in the County as a whole and provide regional direction on planning issues. It is not the intention of the Frontenac County Official Plan to interfere with those planning matters which are considered to be the responsibility of the local municipalities. Local municipal Official Plans complement the Frontenac County Official Plan by providing detailed strategies, policies, and land use designations for planning and development at the local level. The structure of the Plan is based on six sustainability themes. Each of the themes is developed to function as part of the building blocks that encourage a sustainable balance between the economy, community building, and the environment. The Economic Sustainability theme highlights the natural resources of the Frontenacs and the best management practices for developing and managing those resources for future use. This theme also covers the built economy and how economic practices of commercial, tourism, and industrial type development should take place. Trying to develop a strong and diverse economy in Frontenac County is a major component of these building blocks.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 13 of 87

Page 63 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 14 of 87

Page 64 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 1 – Introduction The Growth Management theme deals with future residential development in the County, using the County-wide growth projections as a starting point. This section will include policies to support existing hamlets and new development in rural and waterfront areas. Community Building is a theme that has the goal of encouraging the development of our community through interaction, collaboration, and cohesiveness. This includes supporting a regional road system, trail development, and ideas for pedestrian movement and rural transit – all of these issues are essential to strengthening both communities and the strength of the economy. Housing and Social Services will focus on key regional housing issues that are recognized in the Kingston-Frontenac County Municipal Housing Strategy and which are especially important over the long term to the rural area, including seniors housing and affordable housing. The Heritage and Culture theme has the goal of encouraging identification and conservation of heritage buildings and cultural resources cultural heritage resources that are valued for the important contribution that they make to our understanding of the history of places, events, or people in the Frontenacs. This theme will also include policies with regard to the Algonquin Land Claim which covers a large portion of the north and central part of the County and which will result in a variety of potential land use changes in the future. The Environmental Sustainability theme identifies significant natural areas that need to be protected and managed to form a basis for future land use decisions. A level of protection for the environment is required under Provincial policy to ensure development is sustainable to ensure a healthy and high quality of life for existing and future residents of the County. Appropriate policies for each sustainability theme are included in the Plan to ensure all aspects necessary for a healthy community are protected, managed and made available to existing and future residents. In addition to the six themes that form the bulk of the policies in the Official Plan, there are two other sections which follow that complete the Plan: a) The Implementation and Interpretation section which describes interpretation and implementation tools available to the County through the Planning Act, public participation, and consultation for planning applications; and b) The Mapping section which contain Schedules which show the location of the Official Plan designations for all of Frontenac County as well as the regional natural heritage system.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 15 of 87

Page 65 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability

SECTION 2 – ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY The Economic Sustainability section is divided into two pieces. The first piece identifies policies relating to the natural resources of the County. The significant natural resources include agriculture, mineral aggregates, forestry, and renewable energy. The second subsection highlights policy directions relating to those economic activities stemming from the natural and built environment such as commercial, tourist and potential business park development. Both of these sections highlight the importance of these sectors to the economic health of Frontenac County. 2.1 Natural Resources 2.1.1 Agriculture Introduction A prime component of the County‟s economy is the extensive area of lands that are used for farming, both in prime agricultural and rural areas. Farming is fundamental to the economic base and rural lifestyle of the County. It is in the County‟s interest to preserve that lifestyle and to foster the agricultural community. The land base should be protected and the use of the lands must be predominantly agriculturally oriented to achieve these objectives. The farming community forms a core economic basis for the rural community Policies

1. The agricultural community should be fostered and protected to ensure its viability for the economic and social benefit of the County. In order to accomplish this the County will encourage the Townships to: a) protect the prime agricultural land for agricultural purposes; and b) encourage the development of agricultural support services within designated hamlets.
2. Local Official Plans shall identify and protect prime agricultural lands
3. Value-Added Uses – land uses that add value to farm products may also be permitted on farms in both Agricultural and Rural designations provided they are located in the farm building complex and primarily serve the surrounding rural and agriculture community. These uses may include processing, preserving, storing and packaging of farm products and outlets for the retail sale of agricultural products from the farm operation on the property. Facilities that add value to farm products may be used co-operatively; however, the scale of operations may not exceed the needs of the surrounding agricultural community and will be secondary to the farming activity of the property. The

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 16 of 87

Page 66 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability size of the building or facility for these uses will be limited in the implementing zoning by-law of each Township. 4. Lands containing legally existing non-agriculturally related uses as of the date of adoption of this Plan are recognized as being permitted in the Agricultural designation on the subject lands. 5. The standard for separating residential uses from existing, new or expanding livestock facilities shall be the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae, as revised from time to time. The MDS formulae shall also be used when considering the creation of new lots and new development in proximity to livestock facilities. Notwithstanding policies relating to new developments on existing lots of record, where there is a vacant lot of record that is impacted by MDS, a dwelling may be permitted provided the dwelling is located on the lot at the furthest distance possible from the impacted livestock facilities. 2.1.2 Mineral and Aggregate Resources Minerals and Mineral Aggregate Resources Mineral resources that are currently exploited in Frontenac County consist of aggregates such as sand, gravel, and limestone. The County of Frontenac contains many unique minerals. Mineral deposits and mining operations will be protected. Local official plans will identify mineral resources, protect them from incompatible uses so their future use is ensured and establish buffer areas where incompatible development is not permitted. These resources are identified in Appendices „1D‟ and „1E‟ of the Plan.

The following policies are intended to address both mineral mining operations as well as mineral aggregate extraction. 2.1.2.1 Mineral Mining

1. Mining and related activities shall only be permitted outside identified settlement areas.
2. The creation of new mining and mining related activities shall be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Mining Act and the Environmental Protection Act, and shall be subject to local Official Plan policies and local Zoning By-law regulations.
3. An „Influence Area‟ shall be used in order to protect existing land uses in the vicinity of a proposed mineral mining operation. This „Influence Area‟ shall also be applied to protect designated and licensed mines mineral mining operations from the encroachment of incompatible land uses. Local Official Plans shall establish the extent of an influence area in consultation with Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of the Environment. Development may be permitted in an

„Influence Area‟ as set out in Local Official Plans and only where the impacts of a mining operation can be properly mitigated. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 17 of 87

Page 67 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability 2.1.2.2 Mineral Aggregates Frontenac County has a variety of mineral aggregate deposits. The County recognizes that these non-renewable resources are an important component of the economy of the County which must be protected for future use. It is also recognized that the extraction of the aggregates must be undertaken in an environmentally sound manner that adequately protects significant natural environment features and minimizes community disruption.

1. Mineral aggregate resources shall be recognized and managed by the Local Official Plans.
2. The Townships, in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines shall review development proposals with respect to mineral aggregate resources. The Townships shall identify and protect all existing mineral aggregate operations and known significant deposits of mineral aggregate resources from incompatible uses and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use, or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety, or environmental impact. 2.1.3 Forestry Council shall consider the incorporation of “good forestry practices” along with the impact of the development on the ability to provide a continuous, sustainable forestry industry in the County. For the purposes of this Plan, “good forestry practices” means the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental conditions under which they are being applied and that minimize detriments to forest productivity and health, and the aesthetics and recreational opportunities of the landscape. Good forestry practices will ensure that no forest values are diminished by protecting key stand components and by minimizing environmental damage during tree harvesting. Properly managed tree harvest activities shall assure the maintenance of all forest values and a continuous flow of forest products that provide for both short and long‐term economic benefits to landowners. Similarly, forest management plans should recognize and recommend mitigation measures on the impacts of forestry operations on the tourism industry and visual amenities of the County. In partnership with County and local governments, forestry operators will consider developing an inventory of forest resources. Forest operators will consider undertaking sustainable approaches and are encouraged to develop sustainable forestry plans which may include the development of a plan for rehabilitation and reforestation to preserve the biodiversity and ecological health of the region.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 18 of 87

Page 68 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability 2.1.4 Renewable Energy 2.1.4.1 Introduction One of the primary „focus areas‟ of Directions for Our Future deals with the future of energy demand and production in the Frontenacs. The objective is to reduce the amount of energy consumed over the next generation, combined with renewable energy production and encouragement. It is hoped that conservation measures combined with clean, low-impact electrical generation will contribute to a gradual shift away from the reliance on fossil fuels.

2.1.4.2 Policies The County is committed to further the community‟s vision of the „Energy Focus Area‟ in Directions for Our Future. The County and the Townships will be encouraged to work collaboratively to assist in Green Energy activities such as municipal solar installation, energy conservation, community power, and other related projects. The County will support the creation of a Community Energy Plan for the Frontenacs to encourage local energy production and increase community capacity with renewable energy. The County will support economic development opportunities in the local energy sector as they arise. The County will promote energy conservation to the public and will seek opportunities to facilitate conservation. 2.2

Built Resources 2.2.1 Commercial Commercial development in Frontenac County is identified under two general policy areas. Both types of commercial use are important for ensuring that a wide range of commercial opportunities as possible exist for County residents, seasonal and year round alike, as well as tourists staying in or traveling through Frontenac County. The two general types of commercial development are: a) Community Commercial which consists of the business district and historic crossroad or core of each urban area, and also includes highway commercial which serves both travelling and local public; and b) Resort Commercial uses which provide for commercial facilities and services for tourists and seasonal residents. The Townships will establish appropriate commercial land use policies in their respective Official Plans. 2.2.2 Tourism

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 19 of 87

Page 69 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability

2.2.2.1 Introduction Tourism and leisure opportunities are some of the key aspects to Frontenac County‟s economy. This sector includes, but is not limited to, golf courses, resorts, campgrounds, trailer parks, marinas, tourist accommodation facilities, museums, historical and scenic tours and heritage sites. The many lakes and rivers in the Frontenacs play a significant role in providing opportunities for tourism and leisure activities. 2.2.2.2 Policies The County will work with the local Townships, the Province, Frontenac Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC), the City of Kingston, and various tourism agencies and organizations to promote tourism activity. The County will continue to work on development of a regional trail network to help create a recreational use that will travel through the Frontenacs and act as a regional tourist destination. The County will work with and support tourism-related projects with all of the Townships that are of benefit to tourists and to the community. 2.2.3 Business Parks Frontenac County currently has a very small industrial base. The majority of industries make up small pockets of uses in the agricultural, rural, and hamlet areas. These uses include home-based activities. Directions for Our Future also recognizes the opportunity of a new business park in the County as a key economic pillar of sustainability. It notes that the possibility of developing a green business park would be beneficial in having infrastructure in place for businesses considering relocation and could also act as a catalyst by grouping businesses as a hub. There are very few planned business parks designated in the four Township Official Plans. This Plan recognizes the importance of the goal of attracting businesses to the County to encourage local job creation and investment in the rural economy.

The following policies should be considered as part of the location and development of a business park(s) in the Frontenacs:

1. In order to ensure appropriate and efficient access, business parks should be located on or close to one of the regional roads that are identified on Schedule „A‟ (Land Use);

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 20 of 87

Page 70 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 2 – Economic Sustainability 2. A business park development proposal should consider the following development policies:

1. Business parks may include buildings designed for individual or multiple occupancy on a leasehold or condominium basis;
2. Business park development may occur on a multiple lot basis or as a single land parcel with single or multiple buildings; and
3. Buildings in a business park should be designed to a similar and high-quality standard to promote an attractive setting.

3. The County and/or the Townships may assist in the creation of a business park in the following ways:

1. land acquisition and site preparation;
2. development of the infrastructure to prepare the business park for development, such as power, servicing, lighting, road construction, and broadband connection;
3. the preparation of any planning, engineering or other studies to ensure the business park is developed to appropriate standards; and
4. municipal fiscal incentives to encourage new development such as the waiving of grants to cover the costs of building permit fees or development charges.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 21 of 87

Page 71 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management Section 3 – Growth Management The Growth Management section sets out policies that are intended to help guide new development (residential and non-residential) across Frontenac County. The policies are intended to manage change from a regional level. The Growth Projections section sets out expected population and employment growth across the Frontenacs to 2036. The Hamlets section is intended to support and strengthen existing communities and their infrastructure. Rural Areas policies are intended to recognize the importance of the rural areas of the Frontenacs for future growth and to create guidelines for new development that will be sensitive to its surroundings. Waterfront Development policies will recognize the importance of the abundant lakes and rivers within the Frontenacs and the need to protect the natural environment and character of these areas for future generations and to also establish parameters for new development along or near the water. 3.1

Growth Projections for Frontenac County

In 2011 the County completed the Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs. The projections indicate that the permanent population base of the County is forecasted to steadily increase over the next 25 years from 26,375 in 2011 (Census Canada) to 37,700 in 2036. High-growth (40,000) and low-growth (34,400) scenarios were also explored. For the purposes of this Plan, the medium-growth scenario will be used. A share of the population and household unit growth is projected throughout the four Townships in the County. Also included is projected growth of the seasonal population of the County, which has a significant influence throughout the Frontenacs but especially in the northern portion. The future share of household growth is allocated upon a number of factors including: (a) Frontenac County‟s adjacency to the City of Kingston will allow some areas of the County, notably South Frontenac Township, to attract new growth. South Frontenac is projected to handle 70 % of the projected growth of permanent population in the County because of the employment opportunities available in the city; (b) The lack of full municipal water and wastewater services in any of the hamlets or villages of the County will constrain the ability to increase the density of these areas, or provide incentive to focus new development within these settlement areas; (c) Rural residential development will continue to be an important component of household growth in the County, given that overall residential development is projected to be limited; and County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 22 of 87

Page 72 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management (d) The population, housing and employment forecast will be monitored and reviewed periodically to determine its accuracy. Adjustments to the forecasted growth will be made during the five year reviews of the Official Plan. 3.2

Settlement Areas 3.2.1 Introduction As Frontenac County has developed over time, it contains of a number of small villages and hamlets, scattered rural housing, waterfront cottages and homes, and rural subdivisions. There is no village or hamlet that has full municipal services. The village of Sydenham had water servicing installed in 2006 to service the existing community. and to allow for some additional development. These settlement area policies are intended to set a planning framework that will encourage and support the existing Settlement Areas, both mixed use and primarily residential. The policies will allow each Township to have the ability to develop their communities based on local characteristics and needs, as well as fiscal capacity. The policies also recognize that due to the lack of municipal water and sewer services, the County supports new development in both the settlement areas as well as in rural locations. Settlement area locations are identified on Schedule “A“of this Plan. Local Official Plans shall include policies that address the three types of settlement areas in the Frontenacs:

1. Settlement Areas which consist of partially serviced or unserviced villages and hamlets as per Section 3.2.2. of this Plan;
2. Rural Areas which do not conflict with agricultural lands, as per Section “3.3 “ of this Plan; and
3. Waterfront Areas which consists of new development on lakes and rivers throughout the County, as per Section 3.4 of this Plan. 3.2.2 Settlement Area Policies 3.2.2.1 General Based on its historic settlement pattern, Frontenac County has many villages and hamlets scattered throughout the region. Some of these villages have a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses, while other hamlets are primarily residential and small in size. Traditionally, these communities have developed as residential, social and commercial centres serving the surrounding agricultural, mining, or forestry community. While this traditional role will continue to be encouraged, it is also recognized that changes and improvements to transportation facilities

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 23 of 87

Page 73 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management over time have lessened the emphasis on hamlets as rural service centres and increased their role as residential settlements. The following general policies shall apply to Settlement Areas which are identified on Schedule „A‟ of this Plan:

1. Local Official Plans shall designate Settlement Areas and determine their boundaries.
2. Efficient development patterns and road connections will be encouraged in Settlement Areas to optimize public services and to make the most efficient use of land and resources.
3. Local Official Plans shall, where feasible, promote mixed use development in Settlement Areas including residential, commercial, institutional, parks, and employment areas. 3.2.2.2 Settlement Area Boundary Expansions The County‟s long term prosperity, environmental health, and social wellbeing depend on wisely managing change and promoting efficient land use and development patterns. On this basis, Settlement Area boundary expansions shall be determined by the Local Official Plans and shall require an Official Plan Amendment to the Local Plan. As none of the Settlement Areas in the Frontenacs have full municipal services, a settlement area capability study (comprehensive review) is required by this Plan for any boundary expansion to determine: a. that the Settlement Area can adequately accommodate new development without having a negative impact on groundwater used for drinking purposes and/or the ability of the soils in the area to assimilate effluent; b. the potential impacts of new development on the road network and other municipal infrastructure such as community facilities; c. justification for the need to expand the settlement area; d. an analysis of alternatives that may be considered to settlement expansion, including redevelopment and infill; and e. a review to determine compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae. 3.3

Rural Lands Areas 3.3.1 Introduction The Rural designation comprises all lands outside of settlement areas in the County that are not:

• Waterfront Areas as described in Section 3.4;
• Natural Heritage Areas or other natural resources listed in Section 7;

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 24 of 87

Page 74 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management

Resource Lands such as minerals, mineral aggregate, forestry, and prime agricultural set out in Section 2.1.

Traditionally, these lands have been utilized as an alternative location for those persons preferring a rural residential lifestyle. These non-resource lands have also provided a location for commercial and industrial uses requiring a location in the rural area because of land use requirements and/or proximity to natural resources. The Rural designation also includes areas containing viable farming operations that need to be protected, through the application of the MDS I and II formulas. Low density residential development as well as rural-related commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional development is desirable, provided it is appropriately located. The Rural designation is intended to guide rural type development while at the same time protecting the rural character, heritage and natural resources of the County. In addition, the designation is intended to manage growth in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner. More specifically, rural lands shall permit uses such as: o The management and use of resources; o Resource-based recreational uses (including recreational/cottage dwellings); o Residential development of a limited scale; o Home based industries and home occupations; o Cemeteries o Other rural land uses that are compatible with the nature of the rural area. 3.3.2 Objectives (1) To preserve the open space, rural character, topography and landscape of the rural area; (2) To promote rural living in a manner sensitive to the ecological balance, sensitive to the farming and forestry communities and sensitive to the protection of groundwater and surface water quantity and quality; (3) To maintain economic stability in the County by considering factors such as municipal servicing limitations, environmental factors, compatibility of land uses, and land capability when reviewing development proposals; (4) To promote the tourism economy of the County by ensuring suitable lands are available to satisfy demands for tourism and tourism-related development; (5) To encourage economic diversification including greater flexibility for on-farm activities, home-based businesses, and agri-tourism, and new small scale industrial-type ventures that are connected to the farm economy such as milk processing, cheese factories, and craft breweries; and (6) To preserve the farming community as an important economic and cultural resource for the Frontenacs; County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 25 of 87

Page 75 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management

3.3.3 Policies (1) Although Section 3.3 above separates some rural-based land use activities into distinct policy sections in this Plan, the policies in this section may apply wherever relevant throughout the Count.y (2) In recognition of the potential impacts that new growth and development may have on entire watershed systems, the County encourages communication between the local Townships within the same watershed area when a new development proposal is considered to have a potential impact on the quality and function of the watershed. (3) Residential development is permitted in the Rural designation in accordance with the following policies: a. Lot creation should take place either through Plan of Subdivision, Plan of Condominium, or Consent; b. Rural residential development shall reflect the intent of preserving the rural, open space character of the County. This will mean that, to the extent possible, the appearance of such development should be unobtrusive and blend in with the rural landscape. c. New residential development should not be located on lands which would involve major public expense in opening up or maintaining access routes, providing drainage, or providing other public services and facilities, unless major public services, access, and/or facilities are provided at the developer‟s expense. d. It is recognized that the majority of existing and new rural residential development will be serviced by private wells and septic tanks; however, the County and the Townships may be interested in the investigation of new technologies and communal servicing options where it is deemed feasible for such areas and is supported by the Ministry of Environment. e. In determining the location and suitability of any proposed residential plan of subdivision, the following criteria shall be considered by both the County and the Townships: i. the design of the subdivision should provide for a range of lot sizes directly related to the site‟s topography, vegetation and soil and drainage characteristics; ii. based on the varying topography across the County, the Local Official Plans should establish a base minimum lot size; iii. the maximum average area of lot sizes should be determined by a hydrogeological study and a terrain analysis; iv. the subdivision should have direct access to a public road that is maintained year round and is improved to acceptable municipal standards; v. Lots need to be of adequate size to provide for proper installation of private services; County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 26 of 87

Page 76 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management vi.

vii.

viii.

viii.

3.3.3.4

Any proposed subdivision should not land lock any other adjacent parcel of land, and future connection links to adjacent properties shall be provided where determined appropriate; In order to maintain the rural character of the landscape, the development should be located in areas having natural amenities such as varied topography, mature tree cover, scenic views and should blend in with the natural landscape so that the rural environment is left relatively undisturbed; Rural residential development should avoid lands having significant agricultural capability and near areas where any significant impact on established agricultural activities will occur; and The use should be compatible with adjacent land uses.

Special Policies – Waterfront Areas

3.3.3.4.1

Introduction Frontenac County is blessed with hundreds of lakes and rivers covering its geography, including pristine lakes on the Canadian Shield, Lake Ontario and the Saint Lawrence River waterbodies surrounding Wolfe and Howe Islands, as well as the southern section of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site. part of the UNESCO-designated Rideau Canal waterway. In terms of sustainability, waterfront protection covers all four „pillars‟ contained in the County‟s sustainability plan, Directions for Our Future: social, cultural, environmental, and economic. Cottage development and tourist operations have developed on many of the County‟s lakes and rivers since the early twentieth century. While originally summer areas with basic cabin structures, more and more buildings have been converted to year round use and the majority of new development is being built to be habitable all year. Almost all of this development relies on private water and sewage systems. For the purposes of this Plan, Waterfront Areas shall generally include all lands extending inland 150 metres (500 feet) from the ordinary high water mark of any lake, river, or waterway. This is a general boundary intended to recognize that development within this area may have an impact on lake quality and those impacts may be need to be

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 27 of 87

Page 77 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management considered for any development within the boundary. Lands and land uses that are more than 150 metres from shore but which are physically or functionally relate to the Waterfront Areas shall be considered to be part of the Waterfront Area. All lands that are less than 150 metres from shore but which do not physically or functionally relate to the Waterfront Areas are not considered to be part of a Waterfront Area. The entire areas of islands, excluding Wolfe and Howe Islands, shall normally be considered to be part of a Waterfront Area. The Waterfront Area shall not generally extend into any Settlement Area identified in this Plan, or into any prime agricultural or other agricultural areas that are identified in the Township Official Plans. 3.3.3.4.2

Goal The overall goal of this Plan is to improve and protect the waterfront areas in Frontenac County as a significant cultural, recreational, economic, and natural environment resource and to maintain or enhance the quality of the land areas adjacent to the shore.

3.3.3.4.3

Objectives

(1) To encourage appropriate public access to Waterfront Areas where accessibility is permitted; (2) To permit shoreland development that allows for sustainable growth of existing and new tourist developments and innovative and appropriately designed new residential developments; (3) To protect and enhance the heritage character of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site system waterway and its associated historic, natural, and scenic setting Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site and its associated cultural and natural heritage resources and scenic landscape setting;

(4) To maintain or improve water quality on a watershed-wide basis; (5) To ensure that the built form along a shoreline is not overly concentrated or dominating to the detriment of the natural form; (6) To maintain, enhance and/or restore the majority of the developed and undeveloped shorelines in their natural state by promoting property stewardship; and (7) To preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat areas and other natural heritage features that are within and along Waterfront Areas. 3.3.3.4.4 Policies (1) The character of Waterfront Areas is linked to the natural and built form that is associated with the lakes and rivers in the County. Generally the natural form includes vegetated shorelines with thin soils over bedrock. The built form is County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 28 of 87

Page 78 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management predominated by residential development including resorts and marinas. In this context, new development or redevelopment occurring in the Waterfront Areas should, where possible enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to the area‟s character; (2) All Waterfront Areas should be considered to be a major recreation resource area that, where appropriate, should be accessible to both public and private users; (3) Shoreline alterations shall require approval by the municipality and/or the appropriate agency (Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada). Township Official Plans may include shoreline alteration policies that are more restrictive than those of the approval agencies; (4) The County may participate with the Townships and/or community groups and cottage associations in promoting public responsibility for water quality and the visual objectives of shoreline management on a watershed basis; (5) The County will encourage and support lake associations to conduct lake stewardship planning. Any such lake plan may be considered as part of the input to planning decisions at the Township level; (6) Tree cover and vegetation is encouraged to be retained along the shoreline to maintain the visual and environmental integrity of Waterfront Areas. Where development is proposed along shorelines, Township Official Plans should contain policies relating to the preservation of a natural undisturbed buffer between the water‟s edge and new development; (7) To maintain the shoreline character and water quality, Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws shall require that all new development and leaching beds be set back at least 30 metres (100 feet) from the ordinary high water marks of all waterbodies. Any proposed reduction to the 30 metre minimum setback shall be in accordance with policies in Local Official Plans which establish criteria for considering such reductions. A setback of greater than 30 metres from the ordinary high water mark may be required in some locations; and (8) Township Official Plans shall include criteria for determining an appropriate setback where an existing lot of record cannot achieve the minimum setback of 30 metres (100 feet). However, the greatest setback possible will be required. 3.4

Crown Lands

Crown lands are a significant resource for the County and most of the local Townships. The policies in this Plan are not binding on Crown land activities; use of Crown land will be determined by the Province with regard for established planning policies of the County and the local municipalities. Local official plans will contain policies that state that where Crown land becomes privately-owned, the policies of the Official Plan apply. Township official plans shall map Crown lands as a distinct land use category on their Schedules. to address the conversion of Crown lands to private ownership and use. Conversion will not require an amendment to the County Official County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 29 of 87

Page 79 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 3 – Growth Management Plan but change of use following disposition may require an amendment to the Local Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 30 of 87

Page 80 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building Section 4 – Community Building The Community Building section sets out policies that are intended to help ensure that the public infrastructure that ties the region together and is key to its sustainability can be maintained and possibly enhanced over the next twenty years. The provision of transportation, water, waste water, and solid waste is crucial to ensuring that Frontenac County can accommodate any future growth in a manner which is environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable. This Plan recognizes that it is the responsibility of the local municipalities to plan, construct, and maintain most of the public infrastructure. Continued efforts to find solutions to local infrastructure problems by local municipalities are considered appropriate and in conformity with the policies of the County Official Plan. County Council may also consider undertaking regional level studies in order to help plan future capital improvements. The Transportation section sets out the vision for a regional transportation system that is key for helping citizens and visitors move through the Frontenacs, including roads, transit, trail development, pedestrian safety, ferries, and important scenic routes. The Servicing section is intended to establish a long-term approach to dealing with servicing in some of the County‟s villages to ensure safe and plentiful drinking water. The section also contains policy direction for applying storm water management over a watershed area. Solid Waste Management policies are intended to recognize the importance of long term planning for waste management across the County and to support a collaborative approach to ensure a positive outcome from both an environmental, economical, and health perspective. Transmission Corridors and Communication/Telecommunication Facilities policies will establish a set of general policies for direction to Provincial and Federal agencies to reduce incompatibility with the existing County land base. The Community Improvement Plan policies will establish goals and objectives for creating new plans throughout the County, and supporting County Council‟s financial investment as a basis for local improvements. The Parks and Open Space policy section will recognize the importance of providing a full range of parks, open space, and recreational facilities for the enjoyment, health and welfare of Frontenac residents as a means of increasing the County‟s appeal as a tourist destination. It will also recognize the importance of Crown lands and Provincial Parks as recreation resource areas.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 31 of 87

Page 81 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.1

Transportation 4.1.1 Roads 4.1.1.1 Introduction Frontenac County is served by an extensive road network that includes municipal roads that serve both a local and regional purpose as well as Provincial Highways 7 and 41 which travel across the upper portion of the County. Following municipal amalgamation in 1998, more than 400 kilometres (250 miles) of Provincial Highways and County Roads were downloaded to the four Frontenac Townships. As a result, it is the responsibility of each Township to carry the financial cost of maintaining and repairing these roads, including those roads which handle regional traffic which were never designed for local traffic. The importance of our roads in maintaining and improving the economy of Frontenac County cannot be underestimated. The Frontenacs are dependent on the road system for the movement of goods and services, as well as for access to health and social services and for tourism use. 4.1.1.2 Goal The goal of recognizing a County-wide road network is to support the long-term viability of a regional road system to ensure access throughout the Frontenacs and connections to the surrounding region. 4.1.1.3 Regional Road Network This Plan identifies a regional road network on Schedule “A”. These are roads that are recognized as having regional importance in moving people and goods within and outside the County. It is recognized that these roads are owned and maintained by each of the four local Townships. It is the intention of County Council to recognize that this road system is an essential part of the infrastructure that supports the County. The County supports a cross-jurisdictional collaborative approach to managing and maintaining these regional roads, and to develop a transportation system that will encourage unity within the County and will satisfy local municipal transportation demands The County will investigate and support all senior government programs that will provide financial investment in the regional transportation infrastructure. The County supports collaboration with the City of Kingston on efforts to maintain and improve road connections between the County and the City.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 32 of 87

Page 82 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.1.1.4 Provincial Highway 7 Highway 7 is identified on Schedule “A“. Highway 7 is a Provincial Highway that runs east-west through the middle of the County just north of the main village of Sharbot Lake. Historically, Highway 7 has been an important transportation route within Frontenac County. As growth continues in the Greater Toronto Area as well as the Ottawa Region it is expected that Highway 7 will undergo changes and handle additional traffic. The County will support improvements to Highway 7 that enhance safety and convenience for its residents and the travelling public. Highway 7 is designated by the Province as a special controlled access highway. Any development adjacent to or impacting Highway 7 requires the issue of permits from the Ministry of Transportation so that the long term function of the highway is maintained. The Highway 7 / Highway 38 intersection is an important commercial node for both the travelling public and for local residents. The County supports the continued viability of this area and any policies or measures to strengthen the commercial uses at this intersection. The County will support and work with the Township of Central Frontenac on any measures to request the Ministry of Transportation to reduce speed levels through this area for safety and also to allow for easier access to the stores and gas stations at this intersection. 4.1.1.5 Provincial Highway 41 Highway 41 is identified on Schedule “A" and is the major north-south link in the northwestern part of the County. It provides access to Bon Echo Provincial Park and contains many services for residents and cottagers in the northern Frontenac County. Highway 41 is a Provincial Highway that provides access to Pembroke and beyond, and should continue to be maintained by the Province. 4.1.2 Rural Public Transportation 4.1.2.1 Introduction Providing public transportation options in a rural setting such as Frontenac County is challenging. The rural transportation problem is based on the fact that residents need mobility of some form in order to access their basic needs in a rural context, where distances are long and people and services are spread out. Transportation of some form is essential. Frontenac County is not unique in that reliable alternatives to the automobile to a large degree do not exist, and transportation access directly equates to personal vehicle access or ownership. Transportation provides access to social programs, pharmacies, banking facilities, post offices, and health centres. In terms of economic County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 33 of 87

Page 83 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building development, public transportation can provide access to training, education, and employment opportunities that allow people to remain living in the rural area of the Frontenacs. 4.1.2.2 Goal To provide a safe, convenient, effective transportation system for all citizens of Frontenac County, including those citizens who do not have access to a personal vehicle. 4.1.2.3 Policies The County will support efforts to develop a public transportation system that is sustainable in the long term and which is based on four cornerstones of a functional system: affordability; availability; accessibility; and acceptability. The County recognizes and supports the efforts of Frontenac Transportation Services (FTS) to provide volunteer-led transportation for individuals throughout the Frontenacs. County Council will consider a longer term investment (e.g., five years) to FTS to allow it to plan services beyond an annual basis. The County will explore alternatives and consider various rural transportation models that could be effective in the context of the rural density of the Frontenacs, including community-based models. The County will work with community groups such as community care organizations, charities, and volunteers to review their potential involvement and operation of a rural transportation system. The County will investigate various funding options from senior levels of government and other organizations to operate and maintain a public rural transportation system. The County will work with the Townships to support carpooling initiatives and the development of new and expanded carpool lots along major transportation routes, including the Road 38 corridor, Perth Road, Battersea Road, and/or Sydenham Road. The County will investigate collaborative operations with the City of Kingston to improve public transportation options into the rural area of the City and into the County. The County encourages the development of transit-supportive communities in order to increase the future potential of efficient rural transit in the Frontenacs. This includes the creation of active transportation connections within and between settlement areas and the County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 34 of 87

Page 84 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building clustering of transit-supportive uses such as schools, businesses, social services, and health facilities within settlement areas. 4.1.3 Pedestrian 4.1.3.1 Policies Providing facilities for convenient pedestrian movement is important. The provision of sidewalks on one side of local roads and both sides of collector and arterial roads is encouraged wherever practical. To encourage pedestrian travel, streetscapes in villages and hamlets should be safe, convenient, and attractive for pedestrians. This may include providing sidewalks, locating commercial uses at street level, providing appropriate lighting, street furniture, landscaping, and ensuring that it meets accessibility requirements. Sidewalks are encouraged in conjunction with the development of new roads within settlement areas. The County will encourage the development and enhancement of pedestrian trails throughout the Frontenacs, including multiple use trails. The County supports trail routes created by a linked system between community facilities and major parks and open space areas.

4.1.4 Trail Development 4.1.4.1 Policies County Council recognizes that trails (both for walking and cycling) can provide significant health, transportation, environmental, and economic benefits, including the following: o Active transportation modes use no fossil fuels and emit no gas emissions; o Cycling and walking provide an enjoyable, convenient, and affordable means of travel; o Physical activity improves cardiovascular and mental health, and is linked to the prevention of a number of diseases; and o Cycle tourism can benefit the economy of businesses across the Frontenacs. The County‟s goal is to establish a well-connected system of trails throughout the Frontenacs that will provide residents and visitors the opportunity to engage in active healthy lifestyles, to travel to key destinations, and experience the vistas provided by the County‟s natural features and cultural resources.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 35 of 87

Page 85 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building The County supports trail routes created by a linked system between community facilities and major parks and open space areas. The County will implement the County of Frontenac Trails Master Plan (2009) to direct trail development, uses, location, and implementation that will guide future development of a trails system for the next 20 years. The County will build on existing trail systems in the Frontenacs, including the Frontenac K&P Trail, the Rideau Trail, and the Cataraqui (TransCanada) Trail, to connect into the County‟s hamlets and villages, roads and waterbodies, with the goal of developing a user-friendly network. The public shall be consulted on trail development and the implementation of routes and facilities. The County will use the following trail selection principles as a basis for new trail creation: o Safety o Visibility o Destination-Oriented o Attractive and Scenic o Connectivity 4.1.4.2 Special Policies: K & P Trail The Frontenac K&P Trail is named after the Kingston & Pembroke Railway, a rail line that was built from Kingston to Renfrew between 1871 and 1885. The railway was established by a local group of Kingston businessmen who wanted to see the construction of a rail line north to the Ottawa Valley for the purpose of gaining access to the natural resources (logging and mining) and to potential markets in the north. The expected volume of rail activity never materialized and the railway was eventually purchased by the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1901. Over time the entire line was abandoned, with the final active portion between Tichborne and Kingston shut down in 1986. The Frontenac K&P Trail right-of-way runs in a north-south direction across the mainland of the County and into the City of Kingston. The County owns a large portion of the southern section of the right-of-way, other portions are owned by North and Central Frontenac Townships, and other portions are privately owned. To the south, the City of Kingston owns the K&P right-of-way and has converted the majority of it to an active trail which the County trail can connect into. Conversion of the rail right-of-way to an active trail began in 2012 with the trail developed between Orser Road – connecting with the City trail – north to Highway 38 just south of Harrowsmith. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 36 of 87

Page 86 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building

The main purpose of the Frontenac K&P Trail is to develop a trail spine through the Frontenacs that can provide linkages with other trails throughout the area. The completion of the Frontenac K&P Trail through to the developed portion of the K&P which starts in the Township of Central Frontenac at Sharbot Lake, travels through the Township of North Frontenac, into Lanark Highlands and finally meeting up with Greater Madawaska south of Calabogie, will greatly enhance trail systems in the Frontenacs and recognize our rich heritage. 4.1.4.2.1 Policies The County will use the K&P Implementation Plan (2009) as the guiding policy document to direct trail development, uses, land acquisition, and phasing program to guide the development of the K&P trail system. In conjunction with the Townships the County will endeavour to keep the trail continuous in order to make it more attractive to users and more identifiable as a linear trail. Re-routing may take place where the County does not own the property and an easement agreement cannot be established with the landowner. The County will work with the City of Kingston to ensure that the K&P trail system is maintained and/or enhanced to a common standard. 4.1.5

Ferry Services 4.1.5.1 Background The Township of Frontenac Islands relies on ferry services to access the mainland. Howe Island is served by two ferries: a fifteen car cable ferry located at the west end of the island that is operated by the County and owned and maintained by the Ministry of Transportation which operates on demand on a continual basis and docks at Howe Island Ferry Road in the City of Kingston; and a three car cable ferry (known as the Foot Ferry) located at the east end of the island which also operates on demand over an 18 hour period and which docks at Howe Island Ferry Road East in the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands. Wolfe Island is served by a fifty-five car ferry (Wolfe Islander III) that docks at the Island at both the village of Marysville and, in the winter, at Dawson‟s Point, and at the Barrack Street dock in downtown Kingston. Simcoe Island is served by a three car cable ferry that connects to Wolfe Island.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 37 of 87

Page 87 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building

There is also a privately operated ferry (Horne‟s Ferry) that runs from May to October from the south side of Wolfe Island to Cape Vincent, New York. 4.1.5.2 Policies County Council recognizes that the ferry transportation system is essential to the sustainability of these islands, and that this ferry service is an integral part of Frontenac County‟s regional transportation system. The County will support efforts by Frontenac Islands to maintain adequate service, including: o the monitoring of ferry capacity and usage; o the review, from time to time, of opportunities to improve the ferry service both through expanded capacity and improvements to infrastructure such as terminals and parking facilities; o seeking support from the Province of Ontario in the ongoing maintenance and possible future expansion of ferry operations; o consideration of public/private partnerships and development opportunities which would result in a net improvement to access to Wolfe and Howe Islands; and o pursue opportunities with neighbouring municipalities in seeking joint solutions which result in ferry access improvements. The County intends to support and work with the Township of Frontenac Islands in any identification, survey, analysis and design of any ferry facilities expansion or improvement on lands within the City of Kingston to ensure the provision of appropriate vehicle access, pedestrian and bicycle access routes which can be integrated into the City‟s transportation system. 4.1.6 Scenic Routes Frontenac County‟s location and scenic assets provide ample opportunities for creating scenic or heritage routes. These scenic routes draw both local residents and tourists to the scenic areas of the County. County Council supports the development of scenic routes across the County, and the development of a regional signage strategy to promote these routes. Scenic routes should be designated for roadways and also for trail systems throughout the Frontenacs.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 38 of 87

Page 88 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.2 Servicing 4.2.1

Long Range Planning For Municipal Services 4.2.1.1 Introduction The provision of municipal infrastructure such as roads, street lighting, and municipal water is necessary to support long term viability of the communities located in the Frontenacs. Frontenac County recognizes the importance of providing municipal infrastructure in a timely fashion and that the maintenance and sustainability of existing infrastructure assets is fundamental to the continued variety and growth of settlement areas across the County. This Plan recognizes that the responsibility for the planning, construction, and maintenance of municipal infrastructure is the responsibility of the Townships. This Plan also supports the continued revitalization of local infrastructure. 4.2.1.2 Goal To ensure that there is adequate provision of services and utilities consistent with the environmental, cultural, and economic goals of the County. 4.2.1.3 Objectives To encourage the provision of adequate municipal services to achieve and facilitate orderly growth. To improve the natural environment and maintain a clean and healthy level of water quality based on a watershed approach. To ensure that citizens of Frontenac County have access to potable drinking water. To promote waste reduction and waste management as per Section 4.3. To encourage techniques for energy conservation including measures set out in Section 2.1.4 To accommodate growth in an organized manner to minimize capital and operating costs for the Townships. 4.2.1.4 Policies All new development within Settlement Areas will be provided with appropriate services to sustain permanent occupancy.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 39 of 87

Page 89 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building The County supports and can work with the Townships to coordinate infrastructure and public service facilities such as potential municipal water and sewage, and will ensure that such facilities are strategically located to support effective and efficient delivery of services across Township boundaries. Accordingly, Frontenac County Council may authorize the development of regional level strategies in order to plan collaboratively for future capital improvements. Both the County and the Townships will monitor new technologies – in areas such as broadband, water treatment, and septic systems – that would be beneficial to residents and businesses and which would best be coordinated across municipal boundaries and will work together to develop strategies to ensure that optimal services can be provided in a timely and efficient manner. 4.2.1.4.5 Special Policies: Future Village Water Supply Protection With the exception of the village of Sydenham, not one of the villages and hamlets in Frontenac County has a municipal water supply. Villages such as Sharbot Lake, Marysville, Verona, Plevna, and Harrowsmith are historical settlements that date back to the mid-nineteenth century in development. Many of the building lots in the village cores are too small relative to today‟s health and safety standards with regard to the minimum lot size of approximately 1 hectare (2 acres) to ensure a long term potable water supply on private well and septic systems. The fact that most of the County is set on the Precambrian Shield, which is prone to cracking and seepage, increases the risk of septage movement over a large area. Scientific research has identified the bacteriological contamination of groundwater as a local concern in parts of the Shield area. Significant investment in public infrastructure is common in all villages in the Frontenacs including road maintenance, sidewalk construction, street lighting, signage, and parks and recreation facilities. Also, the majority of commercial assessment in the County is located in the villages. This reinforces the importance of the stability and improvement of all the County‟s villages which serve as community focal points for the surrounding region. To help ensure that these villages can sustain commercial and residential use and remain a valuable part of sustaining rural living, the County supports long-term planning for potential municipal water systems in villages. This planning shall include the following:  

Facilitate the preparation, implementation and monitoring of the Source Water Protection Plans; Work with the Townships to investigate and analyze lands adjacent to a village that could be purchased by the County or the

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 40 of 87

Page 90 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building

  

Townships for the future site of a municipal well; and further, if necessary, work with the Townships to apply land use controls to surrounding properties to ensure long-term protection of the water source. Prepare a region-wide review of villages and hamlets which could require municipal water systems in the future and develop a priority list for local government investment. Establishment of a reserve fund for drinking water protection that can be used in the investment of municipal infrastructure for water systems when required. Work with provincial and federal governments to seek funding to invest in municipal water systems.

4.2.2 Storm Water Management Planning (should be ‘4.2.2) 4.2.2.1 Introduction Storm water management plans are usually required for new Greenfield development. Many new Greenfield developments are proposed through a plan of subdivision or plan of condominium and are therefore subject to approval by Frontenac County Council. The purpose of such a plan is to develop methods to control flooding, ponding, erosion, and sedimentation. Storm water plans also help to protect water quality and aquatic habitat and other natural habitat which depend upon watercourses and other water bodies for their existence. This is especially important considering the many lakes within the Frontenacs and the continuing demand for waterfront lots. 4.2.2.2 Policies Storm water management plans may be required for any new development consisting of more than four lots or for commercial or industrial developments with large areas of impervious surface (e.g., asphalt parking and loading areas). Storm water plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Environment Guideline, Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. The retention of existing tree cover or natural vegetation and the provision of significant grassed and natural areas shall be encouraged to facilitate absorption of surface water into the ground.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 41 of 87

Page 91 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.3

Waste Management 4.3.1 Introduction One of the major infrastructure and land use planning issues that the Frontenacs will be dealing with over the next twenty years is planning ahead for waste management across the County. This Plan recognizes that each of the four Townships are proactive in their approach to reducing solid waste reaching landfill sites, and also working to continually increase the amount of materials that are being recycled. The challenge of innovation is affected to some degree by the financial capabilities of each municipality in balancing waste management with other infrastructure issues such as roads and the relatively low tax base to apply to capital investment. In the long term, a collaborative approach to waste management may lead to both a reduction in waste and cost efficiencies. With landfills reaching carrying capacity throughout the County, there is a need to plan to reduce the production of wasteful materials. This, combined with new and innovative waste management technologies, can establish the Frontenacs as leaders in responsible and timely action to mitigate County-wide issues relating to solid waste management. 4.3.2 Goal That the Frontenacs are part of an integrated waste management system that ensures environmentally responsible methods of waste management and reaches beyond its borders for solutions that are scaled to achieve regional efficiencies. 4.3.3 Objectives To ensure that all Frontenac County citizens have access to waste management facilities (or pick up) within close proximity to their homes and businesses. To continue to reduce solid waste to improve the environment. To encourage new methods of waste management to extend the life of existing landfill sites across the County. To encourage the governments of the Frontenacs to work together over the long term to develop a collaborative approach to waste management and recycling over the next twenty years. To recognize waste management as one of the primary focus areas of the County‟s sustainability plan, Directions for Our Future, and to explore a waste management approach that responds to local needs, with the ultimate goal of achieving „Zero Waste‟.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 42 of 87

Page 92 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.3.4 Policies This Plan encourages the principles of “reduce, reuse and recycle” in order to reduce solid waste disposal needs and increase the lifespan of landfill sites. A Waste Management Strategy will outline targets for waste reduction in accordance with Ministry of Environment requirements. The County and the Townships may collaborate on initiatives that support consider working together to create a region-wide Waste Management Plan that deals with recycling, diversion, collection, and disposal to accommodate present and future requirements. The Townships and the County may work together to explore new technologies and waste diversion options. 4.4

Utility and Communications Facilities Corridors 4.4.1 Introduction The sustainability, health, and safety of Frontenac residents and its economy is closely linked to the hydroelectric corridors and utilities networks and related facilities that serve the region. These facilities and corridors include a wide variety of utilities that are owned and operated by both public and private entities, including broadband and fibre optic networks. Also, some waterfront areas are serviced by underwater utilities. 4.4.2 Policies The development of utility and communications facilities and corridors are permitted throughout the County provided that they are in full compliance with applicable Federal or Provincial requirements. To ensure compatibility, the following criteria should be considered and brought to the attention of the public or private operator:  The use is necessary in the proposed location;  Due consideration has been given to alternative locations that may result in better compatibility; and  The proposed utility will be designed to be as compatible as practical with surrounding land uses. The multiple use of corridors, new or existing, shall be encouraged. Easements are preferred over severances in the establishment of utility corridors so as to prevent the unnecessary fragmentation of land.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 43 of 87

Page 93 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building 4.5

Community Improvement Plans 4.5.1 Introduction Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) are one of the many sustainable community planning tools found in the Planning Act. They can help communities and municipalities address challenges that prevent optimization of areas that are currently underutilized. This tool provides a means of planning and financing development activities that effectively assist in use, reuse and restoring lands, buildings and infrastructure. It is a tool that ties together economic development, infrastructure, and planning. The typical focus of these plans is on the revitalization and improvement of the main street of a town, village or hamlet. CIPs can also touch on a wide range of related topics including green energy, brownfields, and recreational opportunities. They are in wide use across the province and have recently been implemented for the first time in Frontenac County as a result of Council‟s investment arising from Directions for Our Future. CIPs allow municipalities to provide grants and loans to owners and tenants, with the goal of supporting the improvement and rehabilitation of a targeted area. This can include projects such as improving the facade of a main street store and providing incentives to redevelop vacant properties. CIPs can also help to coordinate infrastructure and public space improvements, and can be used by municipalities to acquire, rehabilitate and dispose of land (e.g., a former industrial site). County Council has recognized that there are a number of communities that could potentially benefit from a Community Improvement Plan and have begun investing in these communities through the sustainability plan. 4.5.2 Goal It shall be the goal of using Community Improvement Plans to promote the coordinated implementation of community planning and land use planning programs, comprised of maintaining, rehabilitating, and redeveloping the physical, social, and economic components of an area in the Frontenacs. 4.5.3 Objectives It is the intent of this Plan for the County to work with the Townships to provide for the on-going maintenance, improvement, rehabilitation and upgrading of residential, commercial, recreational, commercial and industrial areas in the region. 4.5.4 Policies This Plan supports the development of Community Improvement Plans in all areas of the Frontenacs, whether they are focused on one community or village, or whether they cover a larger area, including an entire Township.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 44 of 87

Page 94 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building It shall be a policy of County Council to provide a financial investment for at least one CIP in each of the four Townships to help facilitate investment by both property owners and the respective municipality. To support community revitalization and economic development, Council may consider investments in additional CIPs. County and Township Councils may collaborate with other public agencies such as the Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC) to seek additional investment opportunities in a designated CIP area. 4.5.4.1 Special Policy – Regional Community Improvement Plans There a number of planning and sustainability issues that may be better addressed at a regional level to allow for greater participation in a CIP program and to deal with cross-boundary community improvement issues (e.g., trails, renewable energy projects, transportation corridors). County Council shall seek to become a prescribed municipality for the purposes of Section 28 of the Planning Act immediately following approval of this Plan. 4.6

Parks and Open Space 4.6.1 Introduction Frontenac County contains a rich natural environment that is thriving. The Frontenacs strive to balance the protection of natural areas with opportunity for discovering the outdoors. The result is a healthy mix of managed forest, trails, farmland, wetlands and watersheds. Within this system, the Frontenacs contain a large number of regional public parks and open space systems that allow both citizens and visitors to enjoy the expansive natural setting. Four Provincial Parks are present in the County: Bon Echo, Sharbot Lake, Silver Lake, and Frontenac Parks. All provide access to lakes and allow for many recreational activities. The County also contains a large area of Crown Land, mostly in the northern half of the region. Crown Land and the lakes within them are used for a variety of purposes, including logging, hunting, backpacking, canoeing/boating, and trail use. North Frontenac Township also maintains almost 200 backcountry campsites and hiking trails on twelve lakes and they form another important part of public open space areas. At the southern end of the Frontenacs the public have the opportunity to visit the 400 hectare (1,000 acre) Big Sandy Bay area on Wolfe Island, a crown land area which is managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Frontenac Islands Township.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 45 of 87

Page 95 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building Also, there are the lockstations along the portion of the Rideau Canal within the County that serve as passive, recreational, and cultural heritage open spaces for both land and boating visitors alike. 4.6.2 Policies The County supports the continued operation and long term use of all regional park systems throughout the Frontenacs. The County will coordinate with the Townships, Ontario Parks (MNR), and other agencies on the establishment of regionally significant open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries that will complement local parks planning. The County will explore funding mechanisms to support regionally significant open space and parkland acquisitions. The County recognizes the possible creation of a new regional park that is proposed to be created around Crotch Lake as part of the Algonquin Land Claim, and supports public participation and involvement in the development of such a park.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 46 of 87

Page 96 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 4 – Community Building

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services The Housing and Social Services section contains policies that establish that Frontenac County is committed to providing a variety of housing types and social services to allow residents to enjoy a good quality of life. Services delivered include child-care, educational facilities and services, assisted living or long term care, employment services, affordable housing, transitional shelters, group homes, long term care and support services, and health facilities. The City of Kingston is responsible as the Service Manager for both the City and the County to make sure these services are available in the Frontenacs. Some of the social services are provided and funded directly by the Province or community agencies while others are provided through partnerships with the County. Volunteer groups also play an important role in the provision of social and health services within the community. The County will continue to partner with the Townships and various government and non-government agencies to deliver social services that are appropriate, effective and accessible. The Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) forms the basis for housing policy across the Frontenacs and in the City of Kingston as a result of its City/County approval. The MHS serves as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts, and is the foundation for the housing policies of this Plan. 5.1

Municipal Housing Strategy 5.1.1 Introduction County Council and Kingston City Council adopted the Municipal Housing Strategy in 2011. The Strategy will act as a guide to create a ten year housing plan as required by Provincial legislation. It will help provide guidance for County Council to ensure that the citizens of the Frontenacs are housed in affordable, safe, sanitary, and adequate accommodation. 5.1.2 Policies The Municipal Housing Strategy shall be considered the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts across the County. The County endorses the targets in the Municipal Housing Strategy for residential units to be added to the current housing stock over the next ten years and the goal of providing more affordable housing. This Plan acknowledges that the Municipal Housing Strategy is being updated in 2013 to include policies and strategies to reduce homelessness in both Kingston and Frontenac County. The County will work with the City as Service Manager to develop programs and projects to try to end homelessness in our region. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage the use of surplus municipal land or facilities for the provision of housing. Each Township may consider adopting a

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 47 of 87

Page 97 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services „Housing First‟ approach to coordinate surplus or disposal protocols for municipal lands and institutional agencies such as the local school boards. The Municipal Housing Strategy will promote the periodic identification and monitoring of demographic changes and housing needs within the County to determine whether housing demands and needs are not or will not be met. 5.2

Affordable Housing 5.2.1 Introduction Frontenac County contains many households where the annual income is below the Provincial average. This situation makes it challenging for people to find housing that is affordable within their budget. For the long term health of the community it is important that a wide variety of housing choices be made available. 5.2.2 Policies The County and the Townships will work jointly to provide for affordable housing by enabling a wide range of housing types to meet the projected demographic and market requirements of existing and future residents of the County. County Council will establish and monitor housing targets for affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the Frontenacs, with a focus on methods of providing housing for the low-income residents of the County. Where specific needs are identified, Council will work with the City of Kingston (service manager for all of Frontenac County and the City) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to meet identified needs. The local Townships will, where appropriate, promote intensification in settlement areas through their planning documents. Examples include: allowing for the conversion of single detached houses into multiple units and permitting land severances on large underutilized properties which will allow for new residential development on the vacant severed parcel. The County and the Townships will work to ensure a minimum 10-year supply of residential land across the Frontenacs at all times. County Council will encourage and facilitate the efforts of non-profit housing and co-operative housing to provide affordable housing. County Council will work with other levels of government to ensure that adequate resources are permitted to public sector housing programs and initiatives. County Council may participate in the provision of housing, both directly and indirectly, in accordance with the general policy and program directions

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 48 of 87

Page 98 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services established in the Official Plan and other specific direction as may be identified in the Municipal Housing Strategy as updated from time to time. County Council may assess different forms of housing design which make housing more affordable, and may investigate alternative dwelling design standards that may contribute to more affordable housing. Community Improvement Plans should consider initiatives to promote affordable housing projects in each Township. 5.3

Seniors Housing 5.3.1 Introduction The Municipal Housing Strategy has indicated that one of the biggest challenges across Frontenac County over the next twenty years to be confronted is providing housing choices for seniors who wish to remain in their community. With the existing residents aging, and with the migration of seniors settling in the County after converting their cottages to full time residential use, this issue will become a priority. The goal is to look at ways and means of finding housing types that will allow seniors to stay close to their communities and families. 5.3.2 Policies The County and the Townships may work jointly to provide opportunities for new development or redevelopment that is sustainable in a rural context and which encourages housing that will help address the evolving needs of an aging population. County Council supports the principle of aging in place as a way to address seniors housing options while at the same time encouraging more sustainable settlement areas. This plan encourages identifying affordable seniors housing projects at a variety of scales as an eligible community improvement activity in the creation of Community Improvement Plans. Where practical, it is the intent of this Plan to encourage the expansion of municipal servicing to help support appropriate multi-residential development to accommodate a seniors housing project. It is recognized that Zoning By-laws can be barriers to the development of housing for senior citizens if these types of dwellings are only allowed in certain areas of a community. Therefore it is the intent of this Plan that the County and Townships work together to create any necessary revisions to Zoning By-laws that will help facilitate the development of seniors housing on a consistent and inclusive basis across the Frontenacs.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 49 of 87

Page 99 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services 5.4

Group Homes 5.4.1 Introduction Group homes are generally defined as residences licensed or funded under a federal or provincial statute for the accommodation of three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living under supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well being. 5.4.2 Policies A group home shall be licensed and/or approved for funding under provincial statutes and in compliance with municipal by-laws. (Note: as defined under Section 163 of the Municipal Act). Group homes shall be permitted in the local Official Plans in all designations that permit residential use. Group homes may be subject to Site Plan Control by the local Townships to address such matters as ensuring that the site design is in keeping with the character of the area and that sufficient space is available to accommodate the needs of the residents.

5.5

Homes for the Aged (Long-Term Care Complexes) 5.5.1 Introduction There are currently no public long-term care complexes located in Frontenac County. There are two large-scale privately owned facilities nearby in Northbrook and in Perth that are used in part by Frontenac County residents. There are other small scale facilities scattered throughout the County. The Frontenac County home for the aged – Fairmount – is located in the rural area of the City of Kingston and accommodates Frontenac County residents. 5.5.2 Policies It is the intent of this Plan to recognize the value of long-term care complexes to residents of Frontenac County. The predominant uses for these complexes shall include resident rooms and beds, resident care and nursing facilities, therapy facilities, kitchen and dining facilities, offices, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, resident places of assembly, pharmacies, and open space areas. Complementary uses can include such facilities as residential dwelling units for the elderly, day care facilities, and parking lots.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 50 of 87

Page 100 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 5 – Housing and Social Services This Plan recognizes Fairmount Home as the County owned and operated long term care home that provides care for residents of Frontenac County, the City of Kingston, and other communities. 5.6

Secondary Suites 5.6.1 Introduction The provision of affordable housing in communities is now considered to be a provincial interest in the Ontario Planning Act. As a result, the provincial government now has changed legislation to facilitate the creation of second units in dwellings. 5.6.2 Policies Township Official Plans may include policies to allow, where appropriate, 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 c ontains 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 shall not apply to existing sleeping cabins or „bunkies‟ located on waterfront properties.

5.7

Accessibility 5.7.1 Introduction Frontenac County is committed to improve access and opportunities for persons with disabilities in accordance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. 5.7.2 Policies As part of the commitment to improve accessibility in the Frontenacs, the County will: a) Have regard to accessibility for persons with disabilities when considering draft plans of subdivision; b) Establish a process to identify barriers and gaps in by-laws, policies, programs, practices, and services; c) Continue to improve the level of accessibility of by-laws, policies, programs, practices, and services; d) Actively encourage input from the community and the Accessibility Advisory Committee appointed by the Frontenac County Council in the design, development and operation of new, renovated, purchased or leased municipal services and facilities; e) Improve accessibility to persons with disabilities to encourage their integration into the economic, political, social, cultural and educational mainstream; and f) Provide resources and support to obtain these objectives.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 51 of 87

Page 101 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture Section 6 – Heritage and Culture The County of Frontenac is rich with history, heritage, and culture, and as such it is recognized as one of the key focus areas in Directions for Our Future. Heritage is a crucial part of what makes the Frontenacs a great place to live. It has the power to allow citizens to understand where we have come from and helps promote an appreciation of local identity and shared community. In recognition of the non-renewable nature of cultural heritage resources, the County of Frontenac will encourage their conservation preservation in a manner that respects their heritage value, ensures their viability for the future, and allows them to continue their contribution to the character, community pride, tourism attraction potential, economic development, and historical appreciation of the region. 6.1

General Policies

It is the intent of this Plan that the County‟s significant cultural heritage resources built heritage resources and significant cultural resources be identified, conserved and enhance whenever practical and that new development take place in a manner that respects the County‟s rich cultural heritage. The cultural heritage resources of the County generally include: a) Built heritage resources; b) Cultural heritage landscapes; and c) Archaeological resources. Township Official Plans shall include policies that are intended to implement this policy direction, including the requirement of a heritage impact assessment or conservation plan and /or cultural heritage impact assessment prior to development taking place on lands that contain or are adjacent to cultural heritage resources where such resources have been identified. A heritage impact assessment should generally outline the context of the proposal, any potential impacts the proposal may have on the heritage resource, and any mitigative measures that are necessary to avoid or lessen the negative impact on the heritage resource. The Townships are encouraged to establish Municipal Heritage Committees pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. The Townships are encouraged to support the use of Community Improvement Plans under the Planning Act to help protect, promote and support cultural heritage resources, especially the adaptive re-use of old or heritage buildings. 6.2

Archaeological Resources

The County recognizes that there are archaeological resources of pre-contact and early historic habitation as well as areas of archaeological potential within the County that can be adversely affected by development or redevelopment. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 52 of 87

Page 102 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture

The Townships and/or the County will require archaeological assessments and the preservation or excavation of significant of significant archaeological resources in accordance with Provincial requirements. Designation: The Townships are encouraged to utilise the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage resources in their municipality through the designation by by-law of individual properties, conservation heritage districts and cultural heritage landscapes. Council shall encourage the conservation of cultural heritage resources by:  conserving and mitigating impacts to all significant cultural heritage resources, when undertaking public works;  respecting the heritage designations and other heritage conservation efforts by area municipalities

6.3

Algonquin Aboriginal Interests

This Plan recognizes that lands within the boundaries of the Frontenac County lie within the historic Algonquin Territory that is part of current Treaty Negotiations with the Federal and Provincial Crowns. Some lands within North Frontenac, Central Frontenac, and South Frontenac Townships are within the Algonquin land claim area. Figure 6 illustrates the general boundary of the land claim within the Frontenacs. As such, this Plan will respond to direction from the Federal and Provincial Crowns as to the progress of these negotiations and will incorporate any Official Plan requirements that arise from the Settlement Agreement. In the interim, the County will seek opportunities for mutually beneficial engagement with the Algonquins on matters that affect aboriginal history and culture. 6.3.1 Policies The County of Frontenac and/or the Townships may consult with the Algonquins of Ontario with regard to land use planning affecting any of the following matters within the land claim area: a) Protection of water quality and utilization of lakes and rivers including the Rideau Canal within the land claim area; b) Any development that would have an impact on navigable waterways and their waterbeds; c) Any archaeological studies related to proposed development where areas of Algonquin interest have been identified; and d) Any Environmental Impact Studies related to proposed development where areas of Algonquin interest have been identified.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 53 of 87

Page 103 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture

Figure 6 Algonquin Land Claim Territory

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 54 of 87

Page 104 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture

6.4

Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site

The Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site, administered by Parks Canada, travels through the southeast portion of South Frontenac Township. The canal‟s value lies in a combination of the engineering and military achievement of the construction of the canal and the associated canal structures and buildings, the continuity and integrity of the lockstations, its continuous seasonal operation since 1832, and the unique historical environment, which together constitute a cultural heritage resource of national significance and outstanding universal value. Parks Canada‟s jurisdiction includes the bed of the canal up to the upper controlled water elevation and the lockstations. The Rideau Canal is a World Heritage Site and a National Historic Site. It is managed within the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. A portion of the canal travels through the southeast portion of South Frontenac Township. Its value lies in the combination of historic engineering works and buildings, open spaces, natural features, the canal itself, and adjacent diverse landscapes, which together constitute a cultural heritage resource of outstanding national significance and universal heritage value. Parks Canada owns the land at lock stations along the canal, and also has jurisdiction from the bed of the canal up to the „upper controlled water elevation‟. In order to recognize and protect the cultural heritage resource significance of the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site, the County has participated in an initiative study, the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy, along with representatives from First Nations, federal and provincial agencies, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, property owners and others. A goal of the Strategy is to develop and recommend planning and management tools for municipalities and other jurisdictions that: The goal of this study is to recommend planning management tools that municipalities may choose to implement that: a) identify and protect the cultural heritage landscapes, Algonquin history, and built heritage resources of the waterway; b) explore the introduction of design guidelines that can be implemented through the site plan control process, for new development along the waterway; and c) identify measures to conserve the terrestrial and marine archaeological resources of the Rideau Canal. This Plan will recognize the policy directions coming out of this Strategy. 6.5

Frontenac Arch UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

The Frontenac Arch can be described as an ancient granite „bridge‟ between the Canadian Shield and the Adirondack Mountains. Due to both its rich natural environment and its human history it was recognized in 2002 as a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 55 of 87

Page 105 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture The Frontenac Arch Biosphere lies on the Central Canadian portion of the Frontenac Arch. It covers approximately 2,700 sq km and covers part of both Frontenac County and the Leeds-Grenville County, including communities such as Brockville, Gananoque, Westport, Harrowsmith, Verona and Godfrey. Figure 7 illustrates the Biosphere area and its coverage within the Frontenacs. It is the intent of this Plan to recognize the natural and historic value of the Frontenac Arch to our region and to promote its long term viability.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 56 of 87

Page 106 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 6 – Heritage and Culture

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 57 of 87

Page 107 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability The County of Frontenac covers a large geographic area which is comprised of a rich natural environment that makes the region a unique place to live, work and play. This natural environment includes natural assets, natural sites, and natural attractions. The value of the natural environment for the County is more than just ecological health; it contributes to our economy and our society as well. In addition to the Township Official Plans the following policy sections will apply:

7.1



The Environmental Sustainability section sets out policies that are intended to help ensure that the environment that is so valued by residents in Frontenac County can be maintained and enhanced for future generations, and the health of humans and of the environment is protected.



The Natural Environment section outlines the natural heritage system in the County and provides policies for protection of natural features in the Frontenacs.



The Water Resources section includes policies recognizing the role of a watershed planning approach and of the importance of sourcewater protection plans in ensuring safe and plentiful drinking water.



Hazard Lands Policies ensure that development is prohibited or strictly limited in areas that could have potential for natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Natural Environment 7.1.1 Introduction The County of Frontenac natural heritage system is defined as an ecologically based delineation of nature and natural function – a system of connected, or to be connected, green and natural areas that provide ecological functions over a long period of time and enable movement of species. Natural heritage systems encompass or incorporate natural features, functions and linkages as component parts within them and across the landscape. A natural heritage system also supports natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. The natural heritage system illustrated on Appendices “1A”, “1B”, and “1C” use current standards and procedures such as the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) and Provincial Policy Statement to identify natural features of interest, which include significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 58 of 87

Page 108 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability Responsibility for the environment is shared among Federal and Provincial governments, the County, Townships, the Conservation Authorities (Quinte Conservation, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, and Mississippi Valley Conservation) and private landowners. All have an important role in enhancing the natural environment within the County, and all have the responsibility to be good stewards. As a result, preserving a natural heritage system requires co-operation among agencies, private landholders and the wider community. The natural heritage system, and the ecological functions it provides, contributes to maintaining the environmental health of the County of Frontenac. This Section of the Official Plan establishes a policy framework for a co-operative approach to the identification of the environmental features that comprise the natural heritage system. It also outlines how provincially and regionally significant features should be maintained, enhanced or, wherever feasible, restored and encourages the establishment of linkages among elements of the natural heritage system. The natural heritage system is a layered approach to environmental protection comprised of features delineated on Appendices “1A”, “1B, and “1C”, and described in this section of the Official Plan. Each layer contains policies that provide appropriate protection to areas of environmental significance. Notably, the County of Frontenac‟s natural heritage system includes natural linkages and biodiversity areas. Through linkages and biodiversity areas, we acknowledge that our system is not an isolated one. We are interconnected to the natural heritage beyond our boundaries and we value our local biosphere – the Frontenac Arch – as well as our global biosphere, Earth. In this context it is important for Frontenac County to use a regional approach to ensure that significant natural heritage characteristics are protected for future generations. 7.1.2 Goal The goal of the natural heritage system is to work with the Province, Townships, the Conservation Authorities and private landowners to maintain, enhance and restore a comprehensive natural heritage system within the County. 7.1.3 Objectives To achieve the goal of maintaining and enhancing a comprehensive natural heritage system, this Official Plan will:  Identify and describe the component environmental features of the natural heritage system;  Incorporate policies addressing land use and environmental preservation, conservation, and management that conform to the Provincial Policy Statement;  Illustrate the natural heritage system on Official Plan mapping at the regional scale; County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 59 of 87

Page 109 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability   

Provide a mechanism for the refinement of the natural heritage system at the site-specific level; Identify, describe, and incorporate polices addressing County of Frontenacspecific natural linkages and biodiversity areas; and, Encourage local Townships to refine the natural heritage system to include important local features and linkages, where appropriate.

7.1.4 Policies 7.1.4.1 Wetlands Introduction Wetlands are an important part of the County‟s biodiversity. They provide a wide variety of ecological, economic and social benefits for both humans and wildlife. Wetlands help reduce erosion, decrease flood damage, improve and maintain good water quality, provide important fish and wildlife habitat, ensure a stable, long-term supply of groundwater (by contributing to the recharge and discharge), provide recreation and tourism opportunities, limit greenhouse gas emissions (by acting as carbon sinks), and provide valuable economic products, such as timber, commercial baitfish, wild rice and natural medicines. Council recognizes that the ecology of water systems contains a complex environment of plants, animals, and water which represents a highly valued resource in the Frontenacs, and that wetlands and riparian vegetation are part of the make-up of that ecology. Policies  The County of Frontenac recognizes the importance and value of wetlands in the County and supports their protection.  Appendices “1A”, “1B”, and “1C” illustrate the County-wide natural heritage system, and generally identify provincially significant wetlands, coastal wetlands and other wetlands.  The Township Official Plans shall identify and protect those wetlands where development and site alteration is prohibited. Including provincially significant wetlands and coastal wetlands.  If at any time during the duration of this Plan any additional provincially significant wetlands are identified in the County of Frontenac by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the policies in this Plan and the Township Official Plans related to significant wetlands shall apply and the appropriate schedules shall be updated to reflect the new provincially significant wetlands without amendment to the plan.  The County of Frontenac encourages local municipalities to adopt mechanisms (such as site plan control, consent or development agreements) that would minimize and control the removal of vegetation, and ensure the protection of naturally vegetated buffers adjacent to any provincially significant wetlands. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 60 of 87

Page 110 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 

Other wetlands have also been identified on the Natural Heritage mapping in Appendices “1A” and “1B” and may also be identified on the Land Use Schedules of the Township Official Plans. Impacts on these wetlands should be considered in the evaluation of development applications in or adjacent to them, and an Environmental Impact Study may be required if significant characteristics are observed and/or to demonstrate that appropriate alternatives have been assessed and negative impacts to the feature and its function have been prevented or minimized to the degree reasonably possible.

7.1.4.2 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) Introduction An ANSI is an area of land and water that contains natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education. ANSIs are a critical complement to Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves as they represent important natural features that are not found in protected areas. Policies  The County recognizes the importance and value of regionally and provincially significant ANSIs and supports their protection. Appendix “1A” generally identifies ANSIs within the County‟s natural heritage system.  The Township Official Plans shall identify and protect those regional or provincially significant ANSI‟s where no development shall permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the ANSI and its ecological function. 7.1.4.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat Introduction Wildlife habitat, as defined by the PPS, means areas where plants, animals and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populations. Wildlife habitats are important since they are areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle, and are areas which are important to both migratory and non-migratory species. Policies  The County of Frontenac recognizes the importance and value of wildlife and supports the protection of significant wildlife habitat  Appendix “1A" identifies the location of known wildlife habitat. Development and/or site alteration in or adjacent to significant wildlife habitat shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the significant wildlife habitat and its ecological function through an Environmental Impact Study. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 61 of 87

Page 111 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 



  

Wildlife habitats occur throughout the County but may not be shown on Appendix “1A" because the exact habitat location needs to be refined at the local scale by site specific field work. If development or site alteration is planned in or adjacent to the natural heritage system, the proponent of the development may be required to document for consideration by the local Township, whether there is potential for significant wildlife habitat to occur in the area and whether an Environmental Impact Study is required to identify significant wildlife habitat for consideration during Planning Act decisions. The local Townships shall adopt appropriate development controls to protect significant wildlife habitat. If development or site alteration is planned near these sites, the local Townships may contact the Ministry of Natural Resources for technical advice regarding the proposed development. Natural linkages shall be protected in order to maintain, restore and/or improve the diversity and connectivity of natural features and the longterm ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized in significant wildlife habitat areas. The County and local municipalities shall investigate ways to minimize and control the removal of vegetation for buildings, site alteration or accessory activities such as landscaping.

7.1.4.4 Fish Habitat Introduction Fish habitat, as defined by the Fisheries Act, means spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes. The aquatic ecosystem is most often described as fish habitat since fish communities are important resources, and as such, have a long history of being used as indicators of aquatic ecosystem health. Aquatic habitat is an integral part of the watershed‟s ecosystem as it provides feeding, breeding and rearing areas for resident and migratory fish and invertebrate species. Policies  The County of Frontenac recognizes the importance and value of the fisheries in the municipality and supports protection of their habitat.  Development and/or site alteration in fish habitat shall not be permitted except in accordance with federal and provincial legislation and can be demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impact on fish habitat and its ecological function.  Development and site alteration in fish habitat shall require an Environmental Impact Study, to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the fish habitat or on their ecological functions. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 62 of 87

Page 112 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 

 

New development along watercourses and waterbodies which have demonstrated no negative impact on the fish habitat or on their ecological functions shall require a minimum setback of 30 metres. These setbacks shall remain undisturbed and naturally vegetated, where possible. The County encourages the use of best management practices, stewardship and habitat management that promotes healthy fish habitat and natural riparian areas. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within 120 metres of fish habitat unless it has been demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts to the features or functions of the habitat. 7.1.4.4.1 Lake Trout Lakes Preamble Lake trout lakes are rare. While only about one percent of Ontario‟s lakes (i.e. approximately 2,300) are designated by policy and managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources for lake trout, this resource represents 20-25% of all lake trout lakes in the world. The lake trout is an important fishery resource in Ontario and Frontenac County and is a preferred species among many anglers. The lake trout is the only major, indigenous sport fish in Ontario that is adapted to “oligotrophic” lakes (i.e. lakes with low levels of nutrients, high dissolved oxygen levels and typically deep areas with very cold water). The lake trout‟s slow growth, late maturity, low reproductive potential and slow replacement rate make it a unique species in the province. As a top predator, the lake trout is an important part of the province‟s natural heritage and an excellent indicator of the health of these fragile aquatic ecosystems. Approximately 5% of the province’s lake trout populations have already become extinct. Lake trout and lake trout lakes are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of human activities including harvesting, increased phosphorus inputs from cottage septic systems and other sources of nutrient enrichment, acidification, species introductions, and habitat destruction. Development on lake trout lakes may result in habitat degradation, diminished lake trout populations and a lower quality fishing experience. The Frontenacs, therefore, have a great responsibility to manage them wisely. The lake trout is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of human activities and is an indicator of the health of aquatic ecosystems. Special protection is required for these lakes and their lake trout populations.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 63 of 87

Page 113 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability

Policies  New lot creation planning approvals shall not be allowed within 300 metres of at-capacity lake trout lakes located in Frontenac County. The list of such designated lakes are identified on Appendix “1B” and listed in Appendix “2” and shall be included in Local Official Plans.  In consultation with the Ministry of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources, the County will review and revise the list of atcapacity lake trout lakes in Appendix “2” on annual basis.  Township Official Plans shall contain policies to protect these lakes, including the following: o Exceptions to the prohibition of development near at-capacity lakes, such as tile field setbacks; o Under such exceptional circumstances, new development requiring approval under the Planning Act that would, for example, prohibit removal of vegetation, require a 30 metre setback for all new buildings, or prohibit the use of fertilizers.  The Townships are encouraged to identify the moderately sensitive at-capacity lake trout lakes in their Official Plans with policies addressing development around these lakes to ensure their longterm sustainability. 7.1.4.5 Endangered and Threatened Species Preamble Endangered and Threatened species, as defined by the PPS, means a species that is listed or categorized as an “Endangered or Threatened Species” on the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources‟ official species at risk list, as updated and amended from time to time; Saving Endangered and Threatened species is important for their sake, and for ours since humans are dependent on the earth‟s diversity of species for our own survival. The existing habitat sites of any endangered or threatened species in the County are not identified in this Plan or in Local Official Plans in order to protect endangered or threatened flora or fauna. Policies  The County of Frontenac recognizes the importance and value of the endangered and threatened species in the County and supports their protection.  Significant habitat of endangered or threatened species is approved by the Province or the Federal government. This habitat is necessary for the maintenance, survival and/or recovery of naturally occurring or County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 64 of 87

Page 114 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability













reintroduced populations of endangered or threatened species, and where those areas of occurrence are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s) of its life cycle. Mapping of the habitat of these species are not shown on Appendix “1C” in order to protect such species and their habitat, or because the exact location and habitat needs to be refined by site specific field work. The County and the Townships will work with the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop a mutually acceptable protocol for sharing available and threatened species habitat information, and how best to apply this information to the large amount of undisturbed lands within the County. No new development or site alteration shall be permitted within the habitat of endangered or threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. No new development or site alteration shall be permitted within the significant portions of the habitat of endangered or threatened species. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on the adjacent lands of endangered or threatened species, unless it has been demonstrated through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified. New development proposals shall require an appropriate level of site assessment to identify potential presence or absence of endangered or threatened species and their potential habitats as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Where potential habitat is identified, a more detailed site assessment may be required by an Environmental Impact Study to provide information on current habitat conditions, to address any applicable permit requirements under the Endangered Species Act (as appropriate), and to delineate significant habitat for approval by Ministry of Natural Resources. No new development and/or site alteration shall be permitted within 120 metres of significant habitats of endangered and threatened species unless it has been demonstrated that there would be no negative impacts on the natural features or its ecological function. If development or site alteration is planned near these sites, the local Township shall contact Ministry of Natural Resources for technical advice regarding the proposed development.

7.1.4.6 Significant Woodlands Preamble Woodlands, as defined by the PPS, means treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 65 of 87

Page 115 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels. Woodlands are important for their aesthetic value, economic value, as species habitat, to minimize erosion, to mitigate greenhouse gases (as a carbon sink), and as providing animal species with corridors for movement.

Policies  The County recognizes the importance and value of woodlands and supports the protection of significant woodlands. These woodlands have value in the County, both natural and human. Examples include maintaining and/or improving the air quality, preventing soil erosion, helping to retain water and recharge ground water, producing economic value (firewood, maple syrup, lumber), providing recreational opportunities, and contributing to the overall beauty of the Frontenacs.  Appendix “1C” identifies all woodlands within the County, but does not identify any significant woodland.  Development and/or site alteration in or adjacent to significant woodlands located in the majority of South Frontenac and all of Frontenac Islands (i.e., within MNR Ecoregion 6E of the PPS) shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the significant woodland and its ecological function.  When new significant woodlands are identified, consideration and protection of the areas shall be assessed prior to approving new land use planning applications.

7.1.4.7 Significant Valleylands Preamble Valleylands, as defined by the PPS, means a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year. Valleylands are often defining landscape features essential to the character of an area, help buffer waterbodies from the effects of human settlement, provide linkages to the rest of the watershed, and provide important corridors allowing the dispersion of plants and movement of animals. Policies  The County recognizes the importance and value of valleylands and supports the protection of significant valleylands.  Significant valleylands are not shown on the Natural Heritage System mapping and can be identified in consultation with the Townships and/ County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 66 of 87

Page 116 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability





or the local Conservation Authority based on local factors and conditions. The Township Official Plans shall contain policies that ensure that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant valleylands and its adjacent lands unless it has been determined, via an Environmental Impact Study, that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The Township Official Plans shall contain policies that ensure that when new significant valleylands are identified, consideration and protection of the areas shall be assessed prior to approving new land use planning applications.

7.1.4.8 Linkages and Biodiversity Areas Preamble The County of Frontenac‟s natural heritage system as mapped in Appendices “1A”, “1B”, and “1C” includes natural linkages and biodiversity areas. Through linkages and biodiversity areas, we acknowledge that our system is not an isolated one. We are interconnected to the natural heritage beyond our boundaries and we value our local biosphere – the Frontenac Arch – as well as our global biosphere, Earth. 7.1.4.8.1 Linkages Preamble The County of Frontenac is home to wildlife that traverses eastern Ontario and by identifying linkages; the County is able to support the valuable wildlife that contributes to the County‟s high quality natural environment. The County has undertaken a geographic information systems (GIS) analysis to determine regional scale linkages. Policies  Linkages mapped in this plan on Appendix “1A” are intended to promote regional connectivity in the natural heritage system and the County of Frontenac encourages municipalities to establish and maintain linkages by incorporating them into their Official Plans.  Where appropriate, the Townships are encouraged to add local linkages which facilitate greater connections between natural features of the natural heritage system.  Linkage mapping has been completed at a regional scale, and the boundaries are intended to be refined at the site level. When development is proposed within a linkage, this plan encourages that linkages be incorporated into the development, retained in its natural state and an Environmental Impact Study be completed to document management recommendations for the protection of the linkage. County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 67 of 87

Page 117 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 



Linkages may be considered as priority areas for ecological stewardship projects, re-naturalization projects, or environmental land acquisition projects, or as potential lands for conservation easements granted to the municipality by the property owner. Existing development and activities within linkages may continue.

7.1.4.8.2 Biodiversity Areas (Overlay) Preamble The County of Frontenac benefits from having a large undeveloped area that is rich in natural heritage and contains a wide range of species, habitats and ecosystems. Biodiversity Areas protect species, habitat and ecosystems that are representative of the County‟s natural heritage system. Protecting biodiversity is a way to promote stewardship and ensure that impacts to the environment through challenges such as climate change are mitigated. The County has undertaken a geographic information systems (GIS) analysis to determine specific areas for the protection of biodiversity. Policies  Biodiversity areas are identified on Appendix “1A”.  Biodiversity areas may receive priority consideration for the creation of new conservation areas, conservation easements, or new ecological stewardship programs;  Notwithstanding the policies of the underlying land use designation, lands within Biodiversity Areas may be: o Discouraged from lot severance or subdivision unless immediately abutting existing development; o Discouraged from the creation of new buildings unless on an existing previously undeveloped lot; and, o If developed, encouraged to develop by minimizing changes to topography and vegetation, and by using materials and a built form that integrates well with a natural area. 7.1.4.9 Mineral Aggregate Operations Policies  New mineral aggregate operations may be permitted in the natural heritage system where the policies of this plan and the Township Official Plans allow and: o progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction; o the assessment of the natural features and restoration plan taking into account the natural heritage system will be incorporated into County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 68 of 87

Page 118 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability the Natural Environment Report required under the Aggregate Resources Act.

7.1.4.10 Environmental Impact Study Preamble An Environmental Impact Study is an important tool used during the development review process which helps delineate, characterize, analyze, and plan for the protection and conservation of the natural heritage system and its components. Policies  Where the policies in this Plan provide for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study EIS), it is understood that, on the basis of consultation with the appropriate review agency, the EIS may be scoped or eliminated in those instances where the potential impact of development is reduced or is non-existent. 



Where County Council is the planning approval authority, it shall require an impact assessment for development and site alteration proposed in designated natural heritage features and adjacent lands. An Environmental Impact Study shall be prepared to support land use planning applications and prior to the approval of the proposed development or site alteration. Depending on the type of planning application and the approval authority, the County, Townships and/or the Conservation Authorities will co-ordinate the requirements for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study which shall be undertaken in accordance with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual and any other applicable guidelines. The potential scope required for the preparation of an EIS is listed in APPENDIX “3”.

7.1.4.11 Land Uses and Zoning Policies The County of Frontenac encourages the Townships to identify appropriate land uses and other performance standards in their Zoning By-laws that provide for protection of the features identified in the natural heritage system and which are compliant with the PPS. 7.1.4.12 Stewardship Planning Introduction One of the key factors that make Frontenac County such a unique place is that it is largely undeveloped, especially when compared to other parts of Ontario. The PPS has been designed to cover all development across County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 69 of 87

Page 119 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability Ontario; in the case of natural heritage it is focused on protecting „rarity‟ in landscapes to deal primarily with urban growth in the Toronto / Golden Horseshoe area. This perspective does not apply to the Frontenacs, which are rich in natural resources. In this case, a stewardship plan may provide the most suitable perspective on dealing with our ecosystem.

Policies The County supports the development of a regional stewardship plan in order to provide a broad prospective on protecting ecosystems and managing landscapes. This Plan recognizes that connectivity of landscapes and ecosystems is important for the long term resilience of the natural environment in the Frontenacs. 7.1.4.13 Lake Management Plans Introduction A Lake Management Plan (LMP) is an approach by a lake association to identify and protect the physical and environmental values of a lake or river system. A LMP can result in a long range vision for the lake community that can be implemented through stewardship direction and potential land use policies. County Council endorses the development of LMPs by lake associations, particularly those lakes that may be experiencing development pressure. Policies  Lake Management Plans may include a number of components, including: o A lake capacity assessment to help determine the carrying capacity for development and for opportunities to improve water quality; o An inventory of existing and proposed development by type, and characteristics of sewage and water services; o A shoreline capacity assessment to help determine lands which are suitable for development based on such features as slope, vegetation cover, and depth of overburden; o A fish habitat assessment; o The nature of public access and the use of the lake for aquatic and boating activities; o Road access to the lake or river for shoreline development; o Shoreline management practices that can provide direction for appropriate conservation or retention of natural features; o Identification of special attributes of the lake; o Public education; and o An implementation and monitoring program.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 70 of 87

Page 120 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 

7.2

Township Official Plans may include policies that identify Lake Management Plans that have been completed, recognizing that the primary use of these plans is for stewardship purposes.

Water Resources 7.2.1 Source Protection Plans This Plan is based on a watershed planning approach. In this context, Source Protection Plans are key planning documents that help to protect drinking water supplies from potential contamination by limiting certain uses and activities within near sensitive areas. The County supports the development of Source Protection Plans for each major watershed in the Frontenacs, including the Quinte Source Protection Plan, Cataraqui Source Protection Plan, and the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan. The Townships shall include relevant Source Protection Plan policies and standards in their Official Plans and Zoning By-laws as part of the implementation of source protection plans. The protection, conservation and careful management of groundwater resources is necessary to meet both the present and future needs of residents and the natural environment. As groundwater and aquifer contamination is extremely difficult and costly to rectify, prevention of contamination is the best strategy.

Policies 

7.3

The County shall: o Support and participate in initiatives that implement the Clean Water Act, as necessary and appropriate; o Assure that groundwater quality and quantity will not be negatively impacted by development; o Contribute and promote a culture of conservation among all public, private, community groups and local citizens and aim to reduce water use in all sectors; o Establish sector-specific targets for water use reductions; o Contribute and show leadership by considering water conservation and efficiency within its municipal culture, decision making, and operations. Hazard Lands

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 71 of 87

Page 121 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability 7.3.1 Introduction The County of Frontenac’s long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being partly depends on reducing the potential for public cost or risk to Frontenac residents from natural or human-made hazards. Development should be directed away from areas of natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property damage. 7.3.2 Natural Hazards Policies 7.3.2.1 Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of:  hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards;  hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream and small inland lake systems which are impacted by flooding hazards and/or erosion hazards; and  hazardous sites. 7.3.2.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within:  the dynamic beach hazard;  defined portions of the one hundred year flood level along connecting the St Lawrence River  areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards, unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard; and  a floodway regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land not subject to flooding. 7.3.2.3 Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is:  an institutional use associated with hospitals, nursing homes, preschool, school nurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, the elderly, persons with disabilities or the young during an emergency as a result of flooding, failure of floodproofing measures or protection works, or erosion;  an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergency as a result of flooding, the failure of County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 72 of 87

Page 122 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Section 7 – Environmental Sustainability



floodproofing measures and/or protection works, and/or erosion; and uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances.

7.3.2.4 Where the two zone concept for flood plains is applied, development and site alteration may be permitted in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. 7.3.2.5 Further to policy 7.3.2.4, and except as prohibited in policies 7.3.2.2 and 7.3.2.3, development and site alteration may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor so as to be managed or mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, as determined by the demonstration and achievement of all of the following:  development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards, and access standards;  vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies;  new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and  no adverse environmental impacts will result.

7.3.3 Human-Made Hazards Development on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards; oil, gas and salt hazards; or former mineral mining operations, mineral aggregate operations or petroleum resource operations may be permitted only if rehabilitation measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are under-way or have been completed. Contaminated sites shall be remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effects.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 73 of 87

Page 123 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices Section 8 – Implementation The intent of the Implementation section is to provide guidance when interpreting and implementing the policies of this Plan. This section includes policies relating to boundary interpretation, Official Plan amendments, subdivision and condominium applications, public participation, complete application requirements, land use compatibility, and development charges. These policies are intended to give direction to proponents when considering projects requiring approval by County Council, and to provide clarity to staff and Council when processing and evaluating development proposals. 8.1

Interpretation of Land Use Boundaries

It is intended that the boundaries of the land use designations shown on Schedule “A” be considered as approximate except where bounded by major roads, railways, water bodies, legal lot lines or other geographical features. Therefore, amendments to this Plan will not be required in order to make minor adjustments to the land use boundaries provided the general intent of the policies of this Plan is preserved. 8.2

Amendments to the Plan

Amendments to this Plan shall be considered in accordance with related policies elsewhere in this Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Planning Act, and with general land use planning principles. Amendments shall only be considered when they are justified and when the required supportive information is provided as stated in the policy sector proposed for revision. Proposed amendments to this Plan shall be accompanied by sufficient information to allow County Council to fully understand and consider the following: 1. the relationship to and impact of the proposed change on the goals, objectives and policies expressed in this Plan; 2. the need for the proposed change and the benefit to the County; 3. the effect of the proposed change on the need for public services and facilities; 4. the physical suitability of the land for the proposed use and the effect of the proposal on the natural environment; and 5. compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement and other applicable policy and legislation Applications to amend this Plan will not be considered complete until the information and materials required under the Planning Act and Regulation 543/06, along with any other information and materials identified by the County have been provided. The County may request the Minister to amend Ontario Regulation 525/97 to be exempt from ministerial approval of future amendments to the County Plan.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 74 of 87

Page 124 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices 8.3

Amendments to the Township Official Plans

Amendments to Township Official Plans shall be considered in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, the policies in the County Official Plan, related policies elsewhere in the applicable Township plan, the Planning Act, and with general land use planning principles. Amendments shall only be considered when they are justified and when the required supportive information is provided. Nothing in this Plan shall prevent the Townships from adopting more restrictive policies or standards than those outlined in this Plan, provided such policies are consistent with the general intent of this Plan. 8.4

Public Participation

Council shall consult with the public for amendments to and reviews of the Plan. The consultation process shall include the provision of adequate information in a timely manner, as well as opportunities for members of the public, review agencies, and other stakeholders to discuss this information with County staff and to present views to Council and to Township Councils. When considering planning applications that are specific to one Township, the County will generally request that the Township hold any public meetings on the County‟s behalf. Under exceptional circumstances, Council may forego the requirement for a public meeting when refusing an amendment to its Official Plan. 8.5

Zoning By-laws

The preparation and amendments to Township Zoning By-laws shall be the responsibility of each Township Council. Each Zoning By-law shall reflect the policies established in the Township Official Plan. 8.6

Subdivision and Condominium Approvals and Agreements

The County of Frontenac is the approval authority for plans of subdivision and plans of condominium in the County under Ontario Regulation 477/00. This can include subdivisions for development in settlement areas, rural residential, commercial, and business park/industrial. Council may delegate all or any part of the approvals process by By-law to a committee of Council or to staff. Township Official Plans shall contain policies to guide the review of plans of subdivisions and plans of condominium.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 75 of 87

Page 125 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices Applications for plans of subdivision and condominium will not be considered complete until the information and materials required under the Planning Act and Regulation 544/06, along with any other information and materials identified by the County have been provided. Planning Applications – Consultation and Complete Application Requirements

8.7

In situations where County Council acts as the planning approval authority, the County shall request additional information and material that it needs when considering development proposals or Planning Act applications. Such information may include but is not limited to any of the following:                             8.8

Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Report Water Supply Assessment Groundwater Impact Study Surface Water Impact Study Storm Water Management Report/Master Drainage Plan Environmental Impact Study/Statement Environmental Site Audit/Assessment Flood Plain Management/Slope Stability Report Lake Capacity Study Boat Capacity Study Transportation/Traffic Impact Study Municipal Servicing Capacity Reports Servicing Options Report Archaeological Resource Study Cultural Heritage Impact Statement Natural Heritage Evaluation Aggregate study Noise/Dust/Vibration Study Agricultural Soils Assessment Study Minimum Distance Separation calculation Market Study Planning Rationale Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Concept Plan showing ultimate use of land Previous Land Use Inventory Financial Impact Report Any other studies required by the County which are not reflected in the above list Any other studies identified in the Township Official Plans Development Charges

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 76 of 87

Page 126 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices The County and any of the Townships may pass Development Charges By-laws in accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997. Council may request that the City of Kingston collect development charges for applicable services provided by the County within the City‟s boundaries. 8.9

Land Use Compatibility

Land use conflicts should be avoided as much as possible. Policies in Official Plans, setbacks in Zoning By-laws, and strategic design and layout of development applications can reduce the potential for conflicts by providing adequate mitigation measures to address issues before they arise. Township Official Plans shall contain provisions addressing impacts such as noise, dust, contamination, odour, and other impacts that may result from a change in land use or proposed development. Township Official Plans shall contain policies and guidance for setbacks for sensitive uses from features such as rail lines, mining and aggregate operations, and heavy industrial operations.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 77 of 87

Page 127 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 78 of 87

Page 128 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

APPENDICES

79

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 129 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 80 of 87

Page 130 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 81 of 87

Page 131 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 82 of 87

Page 132 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 83 of 87

Page 133 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 84 of 87

Page 134 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices APPENDIX “2” – DESIGNATED „AT CAPACITY‟ LAKE TROUT LAKES 

Shabomeka (Buck) Lake, Kishkebus (Dyers) Lake, Little Green Lake, Buckshot (Indian) Lake, Lucky Lake, Mosque (Mosquito) Lake, Big Ohlmann (Rock) Lake, Mackie Lake, Reid (Boundary) Lake, Round Schooner Lake, and Camp (Little Mackie) Lake, Big Salmon Lake, Bobs (Green Bay) Lake, Buck Lake, Crow Lake, Devil Lake, Eagle Lake, Garter Lake, Hungry Lake, Knowlton Lake, Loughborough (West Basin) Lake, Potspoon Lake, and Sharbot (West Basin) Lake, and Silver Lake.

“NOT AT CAPACITY” LAKE TROUT LAKES 

Big Clear Lake, Birch Lake, Brule Lake, Canoe Lake, Desert Lake, Gould Lake, Mazinaw Lake, and Palmerston Lake.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 85 of 87

Page 135 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

APPENDIX “3” – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS 





The County, in consultation with the Province, the local Townships and the Conservation Authorities may require the completion of a single comprehensive Environmental Impact Study where: o development or site alteration is proposed on multiple adjacent properties containing elements of the natural heritage system; o a comprehensive community planning process is being undertaken; o environmental studies are required to support the proposed expansion of the Township Urban Area or settlement boundary; or, o as deemed required by the County of Frontenac. An Environmental Impact Study is intended to provide for an assessment of the potential impact of a proposed development or site alteration on a particular natural heritage feature and shall be used to determine whether the proposed development, redevelopment or site alteration should or should not be permitted. The Environmental Impact Study will be undertaken by the proponent of the development and/or site alteration. The components of the Environmental Impact Study shall be tailored to the scale of development and may range from a simplified assessment (scoped assessment) to a full assessment. The County may consult with the conservation authority having jurisdiction and the Ministry of Natural Resources in determining information requirements and the type and content of an Environmental Impact Study. The following is intended to provide an initial guideline on the potential scope of an Environmental Impact Study: o a description (including a map) of the study area and landscape context (including natural features and areas, and ecological functions); o a description of the development proposal; o date of field visits; o identification of the natural features o species lists of flora and fauna recorded for the site; o assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on natural features or areas and on their ecological functions for which they have been identified; o identification of alternatives and avoidance measures implemented to reduce impacts; o identification of mitigation, monitoring and contingency requirements;

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 86 of 87

Page 136 of 139

AgendaItem#6a)

Appendices

 

o quantification of residual impacts (those that cannot be mitigated) if any; o recommendations on how to implement mitigation measures; and, o conclusion(s) on the environmental impact(s). The County of Frontenac may prepare a comprehensive guideline for the preparation of and Environmental Impact Study which further implements this plan‟s Environmental Impact Study policies. The Environmental Impact Study must be undertaken by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency / approval authority.

County of Frontenac Official Plan THIRD DRAFT August 2014

2014-124 Corporate Services

Page 87 of 87

Page 137 of 139

AgendaItem#9a)

BY-LAW NO. 2014-0036 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on August 21, 2014 WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; and; WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2 subject to certain provisions, and; WHEREAS Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and; WHEREAS the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:

1. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on August 21, 2014 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.
2. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on August 21, 2014 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.
3. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on August 21, 2014 except those taken by by-law and those required by by-law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law. By-law No. 2014-0036 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council on August 21, 2014 Page 1 of 2

To Confirm the Proceedings of Council

Page 138 of 139

AgendaItem#9a)

4. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the final passing thereof. Read a First and Second Time this 21st day of August 2014. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 21st day of August 2014.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Bud Clayton, Warden

Kelly Pender, Deputy Clerk

By-law No. 2014-0036 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council on August 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2

To Confirm the Proceedings of Council

Page 139 of 139

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.