Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Special Date: August 24, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2016/Special Council - 24 Aug 2016 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
Special Council Meeting Wednesday, August 24, 2016 – 9:30 a.m. The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON
AGENDA Page 1.
Call to Order
Adoption of Agenda That the Addendum for the August 24, 2016 Special Council meeting be a) approved.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
Deputations and/or Presentations
5 - 21
a)
22 - 55
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address County Council on behalf of the Hartington Community Association with respect to Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer, clause a) that being report 2016-093, Planning and Economic Development, Frontenac County response to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding Hartington Plan of Subdivision – County File # 10T2013/002
Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer Staff Briefing: Michael Otis, Contract Planner, and John Pyke, a) Environmental Geoscientist with Malroz Engineering Inc. will brief Council with respect to Report 2016-093, Frontenac County response to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding Hartington Draft Plan of Subdivision – County File 10T-2013-002. [See Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer clause b)] b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County response to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding Hartington Plan of Subdivision – County File # 10T-2013/002 Recommendation:
Page 1 of 93
Page
Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an informed decision; Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Planning and Economic Development – Frontenac County response to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding the Hartington Settlement Area Draft Plan of Subdivision – County File 10T2013-002 And Further That Council endorse the approval of the Hartington residential subdivision development, including Draft Conditions of Approval attached to this report as Appendix A; 56 - 71
c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 Regarding Renewable Energy and Sustainability Recommendation: Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an informed decision; Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Planning and Economic Development - Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 regarding Renewable Energy and Sustainability report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan as contained in Appendix A.
72 - 79
d)
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force Recommendation: That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept Chief Administrative Officer – Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force report; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a by-law later in the meeting amending By-law 2013-0020, Schedule B to add Schedule B-5, Administrative Building Design Task Force attached as
Page 2 of 93
Page Appendix A to this report. 80 - 81
e)
2016-096 Planning and Economic Development Amendments to the K&P Trail Land Acquisition for Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 Recommendation: Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Planning and Economic Development – Amendments to the K&P Trail Land Acquisition for Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 report; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for lands described as Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 in the amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($13,250); And Further That staff be authorized to issue a donation receipt in the amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($13,250), once appropriate documentation has been received.
82 - 85
Communications From Charlie Labarge, Michelle Foxton, John Lesperance and Wade a) Leonard on behalf of the Hartington Community expressing concerns regarding the proposed Hartington Subdivision
86 - 87
b)
From Hanne and Dennis Saunders expressing concerns regarding the proposed Hartington Subdivision
Public Question Period
By-Laws – General By-laws and Confirmatory By-law a) First and Second Reading Resolved That leave be given the mover to introduce by-laws a) and b) that have been circulated to all Members of County Council and that bylaws a) and b) be read a first and second time. b)
Third Reading Resolved That by-laws a) and b) be read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed.
88 - 90
8..1 By-Laws To amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of the a)
Page 3 of 93
Page Council and its Committees, the Conduct of Members and the Calling of Meetings) as it relates to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force [Proposed By-law No. 2016-0028] 91
b)
To authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for Lands described as Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 [Proposed By-law No. 2016-0029]
92 - 93
c)
To Confirm the Proceedings of Council for its Special Meeting held August 24, 2016. [Proposed By-law No. 2016-0030]
Adjournment
Page 4 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
===~ Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc. ~~~~~~
219 - 50 Weslmount Road North . Waterloo . ON. N2L 2R5
Telephone : 519-888 -6570 - FacsimiJie: 519-888-6382 - E-mail : dmark@mldpi.ca
July 11, 2016 Michelle Foxton, P. O. Box 130, HARTINGTON ON KOH 1 WO Dear Ms. Foxton: Subject:
Hartington Community Association Review of Hartington Plan of Subdivision 1278804 Ontario Inc.
In response to your request, I have reviewed and the considered the matter of a proposed development in the Township of South Frontenac. Specifically, the subject lands are located partially within the designated Settlement Area of Hartington with the balance of the property located outside the settlement. I appreciate receiving the comprehensive file of material pertaining to this matter. Although the documentation is overwhelming, I did select the relevant information for my review. The purpose of this review is to provide an independent planning opinion regarding the merit of this application and whether it reflects good planning practice. Summary Opinion In my opinion, this planning application is premature and should not be approved. The uncertainties of the evidence supporting the application are sufficient to conclude that as a matter of precaution, the municipality and the Board should not approve this application. The Proposed Development The subject property is located in Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 (Portland). The area of the property is in the order of 44.41 hectares. The property has frontage on Boyce Road within the designated Settlement Area of Hartington.
1
——-~ Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
Page 5 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
The application for approval of a plan of subdivision was made to the County of Frontenac on November 15, 2013. The proposal was for 49 residential lots. On March 13, 2014, the applicant revised the plan of subdivision by creating 47 lots, and blocks to accommodate a municipal drain and stormwater management. On April 16, 2015, the owner made an application to the Township of South Frontenac for an amendment to the South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw. Township Council held its statutory public meeting on July 7, 2015 to consider public responses to both applications. The Public Meeting considered the proposal for 47 residential lots. I understand that, on August 4, 2015, the applicant revised the plan of subdivision to establish 13 residential lots and blocks for the Municipal Drain and stormwater management. I am not aware that the zoning application has been modified to reflect the revised plan of subdivision. Official Plan Issues Hartington is a designated Settlement Area in the South Frontenac Official Plan that came into effect in 2003, and was amended in 2013. In keeping with the provincial interest expressed in the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS2014), growth and development in the municipality is to be focussed in settlement areas. In the case of the Hartington Settlement Area, municipal services are not available and there, existing and new development is supported by private water supply and wastewater treatment systems. Regarding the subject development, the applicant intends to develop each lot with an individual private well and sewage disposal system. I attach two maps that illustrate the boundary of the Hartington Settlement Area and how the subject plan of subdivision relates to the Settlement Area. It is obvious that the subject property extends beyond the southerly limit of the Settlement Area. In particular, the proposed residential lots extend beyond the boundary of the Settlement Area. This is usually not acceptable, however, the revised plan of subdivision extends beyond the boundary. There are five proposed blocks that are located outside of the Settlement Area, and a proposed road right-of-way. 2
——–~ Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
Page 6 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
In my experience, all features supporting development should be located within the Settlement Area. Further there are proposed Blocks 14 and 20 outside the Settlement Area that are intended to be developed for residential in the future. The South Frontenac Official Plan clearly provides that the boundaries of settlement areas are intended to accommodate the planned 20-year growth. Provincial Policy Statement 2014 directs the municipality to designate the Settlement Areas according to the municipality’s growth forecast. A settlement area expansion needs to be justified by the municipality by undertaking a comprehensive review. The Official Plan and PPS2014 allow for “limited residential development” in Rural Areas of the municipality. In my experience and my interpretation of PPS2014, the future extension of the proposed plan of subdivision southerly to add perhaps 33 residential lots is not “limited residential development”. I conclude that the further extension of the plan of subdivision prejudices a settlement area expansion. In my opinion, the proposed plan of subdivision is not in conformity with the Official Plan and it is not consistent with PPS2014. The creation of a public road right-of-way beyond the settlement area boundary for the purpose of accessing the stormwater management facility, the Municipal Drain and public parkland opens the door to pressure the municipality to extend the plan of subdivision and prejudices any future comprehensive review of growth and development in the Township. Water Quality and Quantity The proposal was presented to the municipality in 2013, and there has been uncertainty whether there is sufficient potable water in the aquifer to supply the new dwellings, whether the characteristics of the underlying bedrock is secure to mitigate water contamination, and whether the Municipal Drain has the capacity to control surface water drainage within the subwatershed. The municipality, the community and agencies have expressed their interest in this matter. I am aware that there have been several water related studies and reports have been presented by ASC, Malroz, McIntosh Perry, esp, Quinte CA, and SOS during the past three years. Although I am not an expert in geology and hydrology, I am experienced in understanding the broader issues . In my opinion, there is clearly no consensus among the experts. 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !:J Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
Page 7 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
There is some certainty that the vertically fractured Gull River Formation bedrock is vulnerable. It is evident that Hartington is within a moderately to significantly vulnerable recharge area according to the Cataraqui Source Water Protection Assessment Report. There are serious suggestions that the bedrock may be characteristic of Karst. There is reported evidence from residents in Hartington that the existing groundwater source of potable water is contaminated and that the quantity of water in the area is not secure. The consequence of putting pressure on this likely Karst landscape is that the weathering and the collapse of the underlying limestone create enlarged openings in the bedrock. There is uncertainty where and how the water is moving underground in the area impacting other properties. I am aware that the Municipal Drain is a Regulated Area and that under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, development is prohibited within a minimum of 30 metres of the drain. The applicant needs to satisfy the Conservation Authority that this feature is conserved and protected in order to obtain the necessary permits. In my experience, this needs to be demonstrated when considering the approval of a plan of subdivision, in order to properly design the boundaries of the protected area. In my opinion, the issue of surface water and groundwater is critical to a decision whether to allow further development in the Hartington Settlement Area. This is a matter of public health and safety. In my experience, conditionally approving development, then requiring the demonstration that the individual dwellings can meet the tests for servicing is unwise in this case. This is particularly uncertain since one of the recommended requirements is that prior to development, each residential lot must be subject to an individual hydrogeological assessment. I wonder what happens if only some of the lots can be developed and what pressures will be placed on the municipality and the conservation authority to approve development that does not meet the surface water and groundwater tests. Since the science is uncertain, it is prudent to not approve the plan of subdivision.
4
——–~ Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
Page 8 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
The Appeals On February 10, 2016, the applicant appealed the lack of decision by the County and the Township regarding both the plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendment. The Notice of Appeal refers to the 13 lot plan of subdivision. I am aware that the Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference for September 6, 2016. I recommend that the community association requests Party status if it is a non-profit incorporated group. This will allow the community to bring forward its own expert evidence regarding the character of the community, the consequences of further development in Hartington, and to cross examine other like experts. As I understand, the County of Frontenac has not yet made a decision regarding the plan of subdivision although this matter is now before the Board. My Submission This opinion is based upon the public information provided to me. I have read and reviewed all of the relevant information including the minutes of Council and Committee of the Whole meetings, the available reports from the Township Planner, the record submitted to the Board by the County, and some of the technical documents submitted to the municipality. In many respects, this is a tentative opinion, however I am satisfied that the proposal is premature and should not proceed until there is scientific certainty. I will be pleased to further discuss this matter with you and your community members. Yours truly,
LvJ) Mark L. Dorfman, F.C.I.P., R.P.P.
5
——–~ Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
Page 9 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
.rr:>
vr Ontario
1.\· "
"
I NATURAL RESOURCES AND
Not
FORESTRY
Hartington
Make a Topographic Map .
.
…
~ :~~
j
i
•
‘I
••
c; …….i :! .,
“’lI!: " .
\
.
\ \
-’,
.’.~;>:. “-
'
.,. .
\I
'
,
……….,. -,
I
‘.
II
.
\I
,
I
“,
~
" : \
~ " !~ I
I
I
I,
I I
I
!
IIiI
I
"
i I I I I
,
.
\
‘.
\
I I
- ~ I
- I I
I:; I
I
I j
; I
"
I It
I
I
I
i-
f _.
1
I,
I,:;;;
I »: "
I
i, I
I,
I
I
n I
\
___.. ———·—-1,
__________0.‘4 km The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any Information on this map . This map should not be used for. navigation, a plan of survey . routes. nor locations .
i I Projection: Web Mercator
Imagery Copyright Notices: Ontano Ministry of NalUral Resou rces and Forestry; NASA Lands; Program ; First Base Solutions Inc.• A~ro-Pholo (196 1) lnc .: DigHalGlobe nc .; U.S Geological Survey .
o Copyright fO( Ontario Parcel data is held by aueen’s Prinler for Ontario and itsliOen5Q(5anc C Queen’s Printer for Ontario . 2015
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou…
not be reproduced without permission.
Page 10 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
-, l l .
,,.1 1.£ l’
- " .
-,
. ‘. ~ . .. ~.
~.
‘. '
• • . • ..”.. .. ‘. " .
\ I . " I.
..
‘:
•
• .-
……
~
, ;’
..
‘- ‘.
~, ~
. ;
"
.
r
.
1:,<.• \ ’ 1'1
\
_
~-
I’ ..
…._ … .
l.an '
-:
'
(·
‘i
t’
!;
:
I- /
-~.. - f '
I
. u IU 1
.I 1
_,..
_”
~. .
i
. ..- j…. t;”/.., .~~".~ " .. .: ..’
.
~..
.
- –:- /""/. : /
.
.. -
:’ "
"
,,: _ f : Ir - .- ..· .. " f ‘. " .
…_… ••
..
" . ," …- .._ ’ ' .
I.
-"
~._
'
,
;
i! ….. J,
:’
..
.
.. ….:.- . ,.’
"
l
.;
’ ’ .. .
I "
.’.
f
t’..-’’"’:-1~ ,. .. . tl
I.
’ t
. ~ ;\ ;;; ’ .. ,.!.~-;.r"…,.. t"
, l.
‘f
t
•
Ii I
I
• ""
. f\
!)
“. ~ ,,
'
:,
•
il –. I. !!
- • •
I” jl;
.. ..~ .
,
Ii ,,’ ..;"-
’ :
• ’ .
i
.
-.
,
•
.
~.
i
.
;
r’ . { …. -• •’·,d I . . .’ , :
. _ …. ' -ji .r;;;,;••;••• ,;,:; •.,;; .,,;-;,; .;;; -;; -,;,;; .. “_’”
.
~ ;
..
- .
" ‘," -.1- ‘7"’ .\ I - '
.
.. .
:’ ,
l '
.••.
.
'
~ " .• .,.=. …… .. _….’.. I" • • . .Ji’" . . _ . ‘-t’ t ..··–··· ·– ~ ..·· ::: ~. !. . '
•
:
I
t ·. '
r
" . j
~:..I I' ~
-
,,\' ' . '
. ', .,, "'d
..
.; , ...
_
,. _
. .• . .. .
..
'
' .
r•
v •
"'j'o'\!! : ".....__._._...;,
" I
~ ~~ 1~3'
~; .
.
,
· · .UJ1.111
.
'
r ,
I
. :..- :....._ " '" 'J.r:
• 'I
_ ~..
····_·_··..··..··
1
:
....
~
. :
.-.-. ' .. ,
••,•. .. __ . ._
,
.
:'"
t ..
" 'j ' :.- .'. . . iz : rl"\ I
~ '1 ' . :i ->.:: v:
'~ "6"
' . _. - .....i . --. -,
-,
:
.
!
i · i oJ· ; ;
. cr " \ ' .' :' . ' - ' '' ' .
J ••
.
~l I
,,:
•
..._.,. _".....,...-._.,...- · T·~~1,. 1 1 i' I
' .
' , - ...
I i I [: ; \ j .i : i J i .-L . I il' :','- ""!T0 1 ;
:. ' . ' ,
,_
..
. 1-
~~nC2- ! «i?·t ---:-nf-:r-"~.!L .:_!. .~ \. t -]~
' ~. I
~: ;' ~, \!
., .....:
.
t~ ·1 .
. )_
t:
i
.
1
;
"
•
..
" .r
'\ .
, i :r
!l,
! i
_.......-..-... _·······i
I· r
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 11 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
To:
Michelle Foxton, Wade Leonard, Charlie Labarge and John Lesperance
From: Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.)
Re:
Memorandum Regarding Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) Contamination
in the Hamlet of Hartington, Ontario
Date: July 28, 2016
1) Introduction
I am writing to follow up on my report of May 10, 2016 which I prepared regarding a
proposed development in the hamlet of Hartington. In the course of preparing my report,
I had come across information about petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination from a
former gas station in the centre of the hamlet which raised significant concerns. Section 6
of my report outlined some of the concerns I had at the time I prepared the report.
I have reprinted Section 6 in italics below:
"6) Impacts of Proposal on Aquifer Contamination by Petroleum Hydrocarbons
In the materials presented to me for review, there is unsettling evidence that there is an area of
ongoing petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the Hartington Aquifer near the main
intersection in town (centered on the site of a former service station at Boyce Road and Highway
38). The contamination appears to have been caused by leakage of gasoline from the former
service station many years ago. Site investigation activities and some remediation have been
carried out in recent years.
I have real concerns about the adequacy of the investigation of the contamination site, and about
the remedial works which have been carried out to date. Some information has been provided
and further information will be sought through an Access to Information request.
In the meantime it appears (based on the currently available information) that the remediation of
the site may not have been properly completed, and that the site investigation and remediation
activities may have had the unintended effect of mobilizing the contamination which has been
detected spreading into the aquifer from the site.
page 1
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 12 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Current groundwater flow directions are poorly defined, but so far there have been no reports of
local domestic wells being contaminated. It is quite possible that the 30% increase in the
number of wells which the development proposal represents will reverse local groundwater flow
directions, and induce flow from the contaminant site toward the proposed subdivision. Impacts
on local wells appear likely if this scenario comes to pass.
The prudent thing to do would be to place a temporary moratorium on development in
Hartington until:
•
•
•
full details about the remediation which has been done to date have been made publicly
available and have been assessed for their adequacy,
the contaminant concentrations and the dimensions of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume
(and the threat it poses to local wells) have been adequately defined, and
any further remedial work which is considered necessary has been completed."
At this point (some 2 months after issuing my report) my concerns about the petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination in Hartington are even greater than they were at the time I
issued my report. I am concerned about the potential threat to public health and safety
which this contamination poses, and I am concerned that the responsible authorities may
not be responding as strongly and as quickly as I believe they should in response to this
threat.
My concerns include the following:
- I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been removed from the site,
and as a result I am concerned that the remediation of the site may be incomplete.
- I am gravely concerned by the fact that groundwater contamination levels appear to
have gotten worse following remedial works done at the site, and that the extent of the
groundwater contamination is currently not delineated. There is off-site contamination
moving through the groundwater in Hartington, and no one knows where it has gone.
- I am very concerned at the very limited testing of residential wells that has taken place
to date - much broader testing involving many more homes is urgently needed.
These issues are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Memorandum.
2) Incomplete Removal of Contaminated Soil from Site
I am currently not convinced that all of the contaminated soils which were found to be
present on-site have been removed. If there are still contaminated soils in the ground
then these will pose an ongoing potential threat to public health and safety.
page 2
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 13 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
One of the reasons I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been
removed is because of an unfortunate incident earlier on in the site investigation/
remediation process. As described in a September 28, 2015 report from Specialized Onsite Services (SOS) the investigation and excavation of contaminated soils began in
February 2015. Significant quantities of obviously contaminated material were first
excavated from the contaminated area, but then rather than taking the contaminated
material away for proper disposal the contaminated material was backfilled back into the
excavation by the property owner (the Township of South Frontenac). Subsequent
investigations in May and early June 2015 were hampered by the flow of contaminated
water from the previously excavated/backfilled contaminated soils.
Moreover, after the subsequent more extensive excavations/investigations were
completed on June 3, 2015 the “excavation area proceeded to be backfilled by a
contractor working for the Township at the direction of representatives of the Township”.
The wording of this section of the SOS report raises the concern that for a second time,
contaminated materials could have been re-deposited back into the area of investigation/
excavation by Township officials.
The site investigation/excavation process will have disturbed the contaminated soils - and
if these disturbed soils were simply dumped back into the excavation then contaminants
could leach from them more easily than they would have prior to the disturbance.
A subsequent letter of January 28, 2016 from SOS indicates that about 250 tonnes of
material were removed from the site in 2015. While this sounds like a lot of material, it
is only a small fraction of the quantity of contaminated material which would have been
present in the excavation.
The obvious question is what exactly has happened to all of the additional contaminated
soils which were found during the excavation/investigation? Attempts to date to get an
answer to this question since I issued my original report 2 months ago have not been
successful. Despite an Access to Information request to the Township, there has been no
disclosure in response to the request for records regarding off-site trucking and disposal
of contaminated materials from the investigation/excavation area. Access to Information
inquiries to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) have also
not yielded any information to date.
I am frustrated by the fact it has proven challenging to obtain relevant information about
the remediation of the PHC contamination site from the Township of South Frontenac
(which owns the contaminated property), in particular information which would shed
light on how much of the contaminated soils were actually removed from the site.
page 3
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 14 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
This information is important, because for as long as there are contaminated materials in
the ground these will be a source of groundwater contamination which can threaten
public health and safety in the community. It should be noted that in any event there are
also contaminated materials beneath adjacent roads which won’t be removed until
scheduled road work is carried out in coming years.
3) Groundwater Contamination is Getting Worse and Extent is not Delineated
Normally when a contaminated site is remediated there is a slow but steady improvement
in groundwater quality following the remediation. Unfortunately, at the contamination
site in Hartington groundwater contamination levels have gotten worse since the site
investigation/excavation work which was done in 2015.
Peak levels of the contaminant of greatest concern (benzene, which is a known
carcinogen) went up from 13.4 to 66.1 micrograms per litre (ug/L) following the
investigation/excavation - the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard (ODWQS) for
benzene is 5 ug/L, and will be dropping to 1 ug/L in 2017. A benzene level of 66.1 ug/L
is high enough that even with the attenuation (ie. reduction) of contaminant levels which
occurs as water moves through the ground, there is still a significant potential for
contamination of nearby residential wells to above the ODWQS.
What makes the current situation particularly unsettling is the fact that to date the
monitoring effort has not been adequate, and as a result the extent of the off-site
contamination is unknown. What is known is that badly contaminated groundwater is
present on the site of the former gas station - what is not known is which direction(s) it is
moving or how far off-site it has gone.
I am not confident that the additional 2 monitoring wells proposed by the Township will
be adequate to delineate the plume, and I recommend that the MOECC provide the
Township with further direction/guidance in this regard.
4) Precautionary Testing is Required
The fact that there is a PHC groundwater contamination plume in Hartington whose offsite extent and direction of movement have not been delineated means that precautionary
testing of nearby residential wells is required. My understanding is that the wells of 4
nearby private residences have been tested (with no contamination found) to date.
page 4
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 15 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
I strongly recommend that additional precautionary monitoring is warranted for
protection of public health and safety - given the questions surrounding the site
investigation/excavation, the fact that unremediated areas of contamination are still
present, and the fact that the off-site contaminants are not delineated. Testing should be
done on all homes within 300 meters of the boundaries of the former gas station property.
Testing should also be done on the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in
Hartington, because this is widely believed to be the biggest water user in the hamlet making the movement of groundwater and contaminants in that direction more likely.
This testing could be done by any combination of the Township, the County and the
MOECC. In my experience it would be appropriate under the circumstances for the
County and the MOECC to assist the Township in ensuring that public health and safety
are protected through the recommended precautionary testing.
5) Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The wells of all homes within 300 meters of any boundary of the former gas
station should be tested within 30 days, with follow-up testing of homes 150
meters from the site being done twice per year thereafter and with follow-up
testing of homes within 150-300 meters being done once per year thereafter.
Testing should be done for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
(BTEX) with a detection limit of 50% or less of their respective ODWQS, as
well as for petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) fractions F1 through F4.
Recommendation 2
Tests should be done (for BTEX parameters and F1 through F4 PHCs) on
the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in Hartington.
Recommendation 3
Once they are available, test results should be shared with the respective
property owners, together with an explanation of the test results. Test
results should also be shared as soon as they are available on a confidential
basis with the professionals who are currently concerned with the
hydrogeology of the Hartington area.
page 5
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 16 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
6) Signature and Limitations
This memorandum has been prepared in its entirety by Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.).
It is based on my honest conviction and my knowledge of the matters discussed herein
following careful review of the available evidence and documentation.
This memorandum has been prepared for the use of my clients.
Signed on the 28th of July, 2016
W
i
l
7
D
L
T
d
6
u
9
e
e
6
n
H
l
e
p
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
6a
f
g
d
:
r
R
u
l
a
n
d
S
a
5
s
u
s
E
l
,
3
p
h
u
O
r
n
(
p
9
r
0
i
)
g
1
5
n
e
Page 17 of 93
(
t
6
S
.
4
@
8
g
AGENDA ITEM #a)
August 18, 2016
By E-mail
Township of South Frontenac
4432 George Street
Sydenham, Ontario
K0H 2T0
County of Frontenac
2069 Battersea Road
Glenburnie, Ontario
K0H 1S0
Attention:
Mayor Vandewal
Warden Smith
Township and County Councillors
Dear Mayor, Warden, Councillors and County Councillors:
Re:
Proposed Hartington Development – Part Lot 7, Concession 7, former
Township of Portland, now Township of South Frontenac
Since the initial disclosure of a proposal for a subdivision in the Hartington area, local
residents have asked significant questions about a number of issues surrounding this
application. Unfortunately, after a very long, arduous and costly process for the
community of Hartington, many of these questions remain unanswered and many of the
issues raised remain unresolved. These questions and issues are critical to a proper
assessment of this matter, yet adequate answers and assurances remain elusive.
The most recent communications from Malroz Engineering dated August 9, 2016, raise
even further questions:
HYDROCARBONS
1. Why does Malroz state “groundwater flow is easterly” at the site of the former gas
station (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), yet monitoring wells at the westerly extent
of the former gas station property and to the west of the tank location have some
of the highest contaminant readings, with MW2 (monitoring well 2) having
readings 66 times greater than the acceptable level that is to be introduced in
2017? (Cambium, January 4, 2016, MW1 & MW2)
2. After stating, as indicated above, that “groundwater flow is easterly”, why does
Malroz then state “the proposed development site is likely an area of recharge
and that groundwater has a downward component” and that “groundwater flow is
southerly, away from the Hartington Hamlet” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p 3 & 4)?
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 18 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
2
3. After Malroz stated, as indicated above, that “groundwater has a downward
component” in the subject area, why has Mr. Ruland’s recommendations for
testing to be conducted on residential wells within a 300m radius of the said
former gas station not been implemented?
4. Why does Malroz state they “consider the issue of the gas bar to be adequately
addressed” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), when the contamination plume has not
yet been delineated to MOECC’s satisfaction?
5. If Malroz “does not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed
development” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), why do they recommend further
testing of wells for PHC, BTEX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), indicative of contamination associated
with a rail line or gas bar (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p6)?
WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
6. Why has a conceptual model to describe the hydrogeology of the Hartington
Aquifer not been developed, in light of the obviously diverse conditions in this
area?
7. Why are ASC’s hydraulic conductivity figures, used to determine Karst, based on
the mean of only three, closely situated test wells (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3),
rather than the data available for all test wells?
8. Why does Malroz state they “do not see substantiated information that the site
requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of
septic systems” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3), yet they recommend at pages 5
and 6 of the same document:
a) pre-filtration and disinfection of drinking water systems;
b) a staggered well orientation to mitigate mutual well interference;
c) each well to be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality
and quantity;
d) that the proponent confirm the concentration of nitrates has not increased;
and
e) that the individual well assessment plan be clarified to include the
evaluation of nitrate and nitrite concentrations, and trends in concentration
and impact to potable groundwater supplies?
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 19 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
3
9. If Malroz believes there is adequate water supply at the subject site, why do they
recommend the following (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p5 & p6):
a) “each well at the proposed subdivision should be assessed by a qualified
hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity”;
b) “evaluation of mining of the potable water aquifer”;
c) production of “conclusions on the sustainability of the water supply aquifer
and water quality”; and
d) “neighbouring wells and/or nearby wells will be monitored during the
[additional] pumping test”?
10. Why has the proponent not been required to conduct proper pump testing,
involving the use of holding tanks for the pumped water, during stressed
conditions such as the current severe drought?
11. Why does Malroz continue to reiterate and rely on the proponent’s nitrate
calculations, which include data from TW12 (test well 12), which is located
outside of the proposed, revised site?
PLANNING
12. Why has the community received no response to the observations and
conclusions of the community’s planner, Mark Dorfman, that the proposed,
revised development is outside the boundaries of the Hamlet of Hartington and
that the development is premature?
SUMMARY
13. Prior to deciding on whether the subject proposal should be supported, why
would Council not first require Malroz’s recommended evaluations be completed
and the corresponding results be produced?
14. Why has Malroz not referenced in any of their reports the 2007 TROW Western
Cataraqui Region Groundwater Study or the February 9, 2010 Report from Frank
Crossly at MOECC characterizing the subject area as highly sensitive?
15. Given the amount of uncertainty surrounding the subject proposal, can Malroz,
the Township of South Frontenac and/or the County of Frontenac guarantee the
residents of Hartington & the surrounding area that they will not suffer any
adverse affects to the quantity & quality of their drinking water supply if the
proposed development is permitted to proceed?
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 20 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
4
16. In light of the overwhelming volume of materials alerting the municipalities to
known issues and risks associated with the proposed development and
hydrocarbon contamination in the Hartington area, have the Township and
County’s legal advisors provided advice with respect to issues of liability?
17. Why has there been no action taken on the numerous, specific and significant
recommendations advanced by expert hydrogeologist, Wilf Ruland?
With such fundamental questions still unanswered, we the citizens who will be most
affected by your decision ask you, in all conscience, to reject this proposed
development. Require the technical experts to first prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that no harm will come to us, our children, our land, our livestock, and our livelihoods.
The community of Hartington should not be asked or expected to move forward on a
“let’s hope this works out” basis. Were your health and safety, or your family’s or your
neighbors’, put at such risk, you too would ask for the same due diligence, caution and
rigorous consideration that we are asking for. It is far wiser to prevent a tragedy than to
attempt to recover from one.
Please vote with your conscience and refuse to support this proposal at this time!
Sincerely,
Charlie Labarge
Michelle Foxton
John Lesperance
on behalf of the Hartington Community
cc:
Wade Leonard
Wayne Orr, Township Clerk
Jannette Amini, County Clerk
Lindsay Mills, Township Planner
Joe Gallivan/Michael Otis (interim), County Planner
Ms. Michelle Foxton and Mr. Charlie Labarge will address Cou...
Page 21 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Report 2016-093
Council Recommend Report
To:
Warden and Members of County Council
From:
Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Michael Otis, Contract Planner
Date of meeting:
August 24, 2016
Re:
Planning and Economic Development – Frontenac County
response to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing
regarding Hartington Draft Plan of Subdivision – County File
10T-2013-002
Recommendation
Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral
submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an
informed decision;
Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the
Planning and Economic Development – Frontenac County response to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding the Hartington Settlement Area Draft Plan of
Subdivision – County File 10T-2013-002
And Further That Council endorse the approval of the Hartington residential subdivision
development, including Draft Conditions of Approval attached to this report as Appendix
A;
Background
At the County Council meeting held on March 16, 2016, the following resolution was
passed with respect to the Hartington Settlement Area draft plan of subdivision
application in South Frontenac Township:
Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac direct staff to prepare a
planning report for the Hartington Plan of Subdivision, County File # 10T2013/002;
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 22 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
And Further That Council direct staff to deliver a report for the April 20, 2016
Council meeting in order for Council to provide the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) with its position on the Hartington development prior to the Hearing
And Further That staff be directed to retain legal counsel to prepare for and
represent the County at the upcoming OMB hearing.
The subject lands are described as Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal
Township of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac. It is located
on the west side of the K&P Trail between Boyce Road and Petworth Road. The
northern portion of the property, which contains the proposed 13 lot plan of subdivision,
is within the Hartington settlement area. A map of the proposed development as
originally submitted with the application is attached to this report as Appendix B.
The proposal is for a Draft Plan of Subdivision containing thirteen (13) lots for single
detached dwellings. The current proposal – which is also the proposal that has been
appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) – was revised from the original
submission of a forty-nine (49) lot subdivision on a 44.8 hectare (111 acre) property. The
entire parcel was the focus of the former 49 lot draft plan of subdivision. On October 9,
2015, the applicant provided documentation intended to revise the original planning
rationale and reduce the size of the proposed subdivision from 49 to 13 lots. A planning
brief was submitted as planning justification for the 13 lot draft plan of subdivision. A
copy of the planning brief from Fotenn Consultants is attached to this report as Appendix
C.
A concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment was filed with the revised subdivision plan, and
has also been appealed to the OMB. The zoning amendment would change the
minimum lot frontage for the proposed lots to a minimum 46 metres.
Frontenac County deemed the application to be complete pursuant to the requirements
of the Planning Act on November 15, 2013.
At the direction of the County, South Frontenac Township has held two public meetings
with regard to the Hartington development to consider both the plan of subdivision and
the necessary Zoning By-law amendment. A formal public meeting was held on July 7,
2015. Following the public meeting the Draft Plan was revised to include 13 instead of
49 lots. A second public meeting was held on July 15, 2015 to discuss the revised
proposal.
On February 12, 2016 the applicant filed an appeal on the draft plan of subdivision and
zoning by-law for lack of decision within the 180 day time period required under the
Planning Act. Although Hearing dates have not yet been set (OMB File No. PL160168),
the Board has announced that a pre-hearing conference will be held at the Township of
South Frontenac offices on September 6, 2016. Such pre-hearing conferences are
mainly for administrative purposes and try to narrow down the important issues that will
be dealt with at the actual OMB hearing.
The purpose of this report is to formulate a planning position for the OMB on the 13 lot
draft plan of subdivision, as well as to recommend a set of appropriate draft approval
Recommended Report to Council
Frontenac County Response to OMB on Hartington draft plan of subdivision
August 24, 2016
Page 2 of 5
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 23 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
conditions. It is noted that the Township of South Frontenac is holding a similar Council
meeting to consider the draft plan of subdivision, the draft approval conditions and the
Township Zoning By-law amendment.
Appendix D shows the general location of the proposed Hartington subdivision and
Appendix E shows the proposed Hartington subdivision within the settlement area as
well as adjacent land uses. Both appendices will be referred in the presentation.
Appendix F provides detailed timelines with respect to the Hartington subdivision
application.
Comments and Discussion
County Planning staff is in support of the 13 lot draft plan of subdivision and is
recommending that draft plan approval be granted based on the proposed draft plan
conditions as set out in Appendix A.
A. General Planning Comments
Planning staff offers the following comments for the consideration of County Council.
1. The proposed 13 lot draft plan of subdivision is significantly reduced from the
originally submitted draft plan which contained 49 lots and is now contained entirely
within the boundaries of the Hartington settlement area. It is noted that Section 5.6Settlement Areas of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan provides that “It is
Council’s intention that a majority of new growth in the municipality will be directed to
existing settlement areas, where it can be supported by existing servicing.” The
proposed plan of subdivision is therefore in conformity with the Township Official
Plan. The proposed subdivision is also consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) which provides that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth
and development-Section 1.1.3.1
Encouraging development to take place in designated settlement areas has many
benefits to a municipality. It serves to protect prime agricultural areas and mineral
aggregate reserves and operations from incompatible land uses, and helps to
support local businesses, and community facilities, as well as central sewage and
water infrastructure, which in turn can attract new development to the settlement
area.
2. The proposed 13 lots in the draft plan of subdivision are all a minimum of 0.8
hectares or approximately 2.0 acres and are similar in size to the 3 lots fronting on
the south side of Boyce Road. Many of the lots in the Hartington settlement area that
front on the north side of Boyce Road are significantly smaller and range in size from
0.3 acres to 0.6 acres. 2 acre lot are a commonly used standard for residential
development on private on-site sewage and water services and ensure that there is
sufficient area for the well, septic field and required setbacks between them. The fact
that the new lots are 46 metres (150 ft.) in lot frontage does not affect this. There
would also be substantial space for accessory facilities such as sheds and swimming
Recommended Report to Council
Frontenac County Response to OMB on Hartington draft plan of subdivision
August 24, 2016
Page 3 of 5
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 24 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
pools. Overall, the new lots in the proposed development are felt to be in character
and scale with existing development in the hamlet.
3. A Natural Heritage- environmental impact study was undertaken by Ecological
Services on behalf of the developer -Terry Grant Construction. The Consultant- Rob
Snetsinger concluded that there are no significant natural heritage features on the
subject site which has been used primarily as a farm field. The site contains no
threatened or endangered species or related habitat, no significant wetlands or
woodlands (the two small woodlots are not considered “significant”). Similarly, there
are no significant wildlife/habitat or areas of natural or scientific interest. It was also
noted that there are no similar natural heritage features within 120 metres of the site.
4. The developer also commissioned AECOM to undertake a traffic impact analysis of
the 13 lot plan of subdivision. It was concluded by Vanessa Skelton, the AECOM
traffic Engineer, that there would be minor impact on traffic flows on adjacent roads
such as Road 38. The total traffic that is expected to be generated from the
development would represent less than 10% of the total traffic along Road 38. The
consultant also concluded that left turns onto Road 38 would not be a problem as
there are sufficient gaps in the traffic along that Road to allow access with little delay.
5. Planning staff is in agreement with Appendix C – Fotenn Planning Brief
B. Draft Approval Conditions
The proposed draft approval conditions reflect the comments from the Township and
other commenting agencies such as Quinte Conservation, Bell Canada, Canada Post,
KFL&A Public Health, Frontenac Paramedics, etc. The Township subdivision agreement
will be the main document to implement these comments. While most of the draft
approval conditions are standard, Sections 5 E and F addresses the recommendations
from the letter from John Pyke dated August 9, 2016 from Malroz Engineering, the
County’s peer review consultant of the ASC Environmental Hydrogeological Report
(Appendix G). In that letter, Mr. Pyke makes a number of recommendations, all of which
are incorporated into the subject draft conditions. One of the recommendations is that
each well at the proposed subdivision will be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for
water quality and quantity. It should be noted that if Mr. Pyke is not satisfied with the
nitrate levels assessed by ASC Environmental then tertiary septic tank systems may
have to be employed as per draft condition 5F.
Mr. Pyke will be attending the August 24th Special Council Meeting to present his
recommendations and to respond to questions from County Council.
Based on the foregoing comments and discussion, County staff is of the opinion
that the draft plan of subdivision and related draft conditions can be supported.
Recommended Report to Council
Frontenac County Response to OMB on Hartington draft plan of subdivision
August 24, 2016
Page 4 of 5
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 25 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Public Consultation and Involvement
There has been significant public interest with respect to the draft Hartington draft
subdivision application. Through attendance at public meetings, delegations to
Township Council, correspondence and meetings with various agencies, citizens have
expressed concerns related to the proposed residential subdivision development
primarily related to possible water quantity and quality impacts. Planning staff is of the
opinion that much of this concern can be readily addressed through the
recommendations of the County’s peer review consultant, John Pyke as well as the
related draft approval conditions which deal with the water quality matters.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council endorse the 13 lot draft plan of subdivision development
including the attached Draft Conditions of Approval and proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment. This endorsement will serve to establish County Council’s position for the
upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
The application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), conforms to
the Frontenac County Official Plan, Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, will
comply with the Zoning By-law, and has been reviewed in accordance with the criteria of
Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act.
Policy and Sustainability Implications
One of the key focus areas of Directions for Our Future, the County’s Sustainability
Plan, is Land Use Planning and Management. When establishing ‘good planning’ it is
important the Council be provided with a professional planning opinion to make an
informed decision.
If Council supports the recommended planning position, the costs of legal counsel will
be required as well as retention of expert witnesses, such as John Pyke. There may be
a risk of the OMB awarding costs to the appellant from the County.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Township of South Frontenac
Quinte Conservation Authority and other commenting agencies
County departments such as Chief Administrative Officer, Clerk and GIS
Applicant’s consultants
John Pyke, Environmental Geoscientist, Malroz Engineering Inc.
Recommended Report to Council
Frontenac County Response to OMB on Hartington draft plan of subdivision
August 24, 2016
Page 5 of 5
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 26 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
Appendix A
CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL Revised 15AUG16
The conditions of approval for the draft plan of subdivision are as follows:
1. Approved Draft Plan:
A. That this draft plan approval applies to the draft plan of proposed subdivision
dated September 18, 2015 prepared and certified by Forefront Engineering
Inc., and Smith & Smith Surveyors, comprising a total of thirteen residential
lots, two blocks and a new street.
2. Subdivision Agreement:
A. That the owners of the subject land enter into a subdivision agreement with
the Township of South Frontenac, prepared to the satisfaction of the
municipality, to be registered on title of the subject land. A copy of the
subdivision agreement shall be provided to the County of Frontenac by the
Township of South Frontenac.
B. That the Subdivision Agreement include text to the satisfaction of the
Township, which text shall be registered on the title of all lots, that all
Agreements of Purchase and Sale include provisions advising that a farming
operation exists in the adjacent areas and that adverse effects may be
experienced.
3. Financial Requirements:
A. That the owner agree in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and
otherwise of the municipality concerning the provision/upgrading of roads,
installation of services and drainage, in accordance with the municipality’s
standards and procedures, and that this shall be reflected in the subdivision
agreement.
B. That the Owner shall reimburse the Township of South Frontenac and
County of Frontenac for all legal, engineering, planning, administrative
expenses and permit fees including the cost of any peer review that the
Township of South Frontenac or County of Frontenac may require in relation
to the plan of subdivision.
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 1 of 6
Page 27 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
4. Access
A. That the road allowance included in this draft plan shall be identified as
Street ‘A’ and shall be constructed to Township standards for new public
roads with paved asphalt surfacing and that the road be dedicated as a
public highway.
B. That the new internal road identified as ‘Street ‘A’ be named to the
satisfaction of the municipality.
C. That the applicant agree in the subdivision agreement that Boyce Road be
upgraded at the entrance to the subdivision to the Township’s satisfaction to
facilitate ingress and egress.
D. That the subdivision agreement shall provide that 0.3 metre reserves be
identified by survey at the following locations: (i) along Lot 13 where the lot
abuts the road allowance of Boyce Road; and (ii) around the circumference
of the turning bulb at the south end of Street ‘A’ to be held in trust by the
municipality for the purpose of denying additional access onto Boyce Road
and the undeveloped lands to the south.
E. That the Owner install a 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk along the east
side of the new road allowance from the northern limit of Street ‘A’ (i.e., from
Boyce Road), to the southern limit of Lot 7.
F. That the applicant agree in the subdivision agreement that all entrances to
the lots including entrance culverts be located and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Township.
G. That the subdivision agreement provide that a 3.0 metres wide Block, to be
provided to the Municipality, be provided along the south lot line of Lot 7 from
the south end Street ‘A’ to the K&P Trail to provide access from the
subdivision to the Trail, such walkway to be constructed to the satisfaction of
the County of Frontenac, to be constructed 1.5 metres wide with stone dust
surface. Landscaping and buffering along the full length of the walkway on
both the north and south sides shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
County of Frontenac
H. That, prior to final approval, the municipality shall be satisfied that all
servicing issues are resolved such as road, sidewalk and walkway
construction.
I. The Owner shall submit a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the
Township of South Frontenac, indicating appropriate tree planting and
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 2 of 6
Page 28 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
buffering, and said Landscape Plan shall be provided as a Schedule to the
subdivision agreement.
5. On-Site Sewage Disposal and Water Systems:
A. That, the subdivision agreement include a requirement that any abandoned
wells must be decommissioned according to MOECC guidelines.
B. That the recommendations outlined in the letter dated December 12, 2014
from KFL&A Public Health to Terry Grant Construction 1278804 Ontario Inc.,
be addressed to the satisfaction of the municipality for the thirteen lot
development.
C. That all requirements and recommendations specified in the Hydrogeological
Study, Servicing Options and Terrain Analyses Report, dated October 31,
2013, from ASC Environmental, updated by covering letter dated October 7,
2015 from ASC Environmental, and all associated drawings be complied with
for the thirteen lot development.
D. That the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Report, dated August 27,
2013 from Ecological Services, be complied with for as they apply to the
thirteen lot development.
E. That the County of Frontenac and its peer review agency, Malroz Engineering
Inc., be satisfied that all matters outlined in the letter from Malroz Engineering
Inc. dated August 9th, 2016, specifically under Section 2.0 ‘Summary and
Recommendations’ have been addressed.
F. That tertiary septic systems be installed for each lot in the thirteen lot
development.
6. Stormwater
A. That as part of the subdivision agreement a Final Stormwater Management
Report and detailed engineering drawings addressing grading, drainage and
stormwater management be submitted to the satisfaction of the Township and
Quinte Conservation Authority for the thirteen lot development. The site
drainage, design, construction and maintenance shall be in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the final Stormwater Management Report,
with all final designs incorporated into the subdivision agreement.
B. That all legal matters associated with tying the stormwater from the
development into the Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain system be resolved to
the satisfaction of the Township.
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 3 of 6
Page 29 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
7. Parkland Dedication:
A. That the owner convey up to five percent of the land included in the plan to
the municipality for park purposes. Alternatively, the municipality may require
cash-in-lieu for all or a portion of the conveyance.
8. Human Remains:
A. The subdivision agreement shall contain a clause providing that any Owner(s)
be advised, and also that a notice be placed in the purchase and sale
agreement alerting any prospective purchasers that in the event that human
remains are discovered during construction or site development of a lot, that
the property owner shall immediately contact the OPP, the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the
Cemeteries Unit of the Ministry of Consumer Services (or the applicable
agencies at the time of final approval).
9. Archaeological Resources:
A. That all recommendations of the Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2)
Reports, dated September 16, 2013 by Archeworks Inc. be implemented to
the satisfaction of the Township for the thirteen lot development.
B. That if during the process of development any archaeological resources or
human remains of Aboriginal interest are encountered, the Algonquins of
Ontario Consultation Office will be contacted immediately at:
Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office
31 Riverside Drive, Suite 101
Pembroke, Ontario K8A 8R6
Telephone: (613) 735-3759
Fax: (613) 735-6307
email: algonquins@nrtco.net
10. Utilities and On-Site Works
A. That the applicant agree in the subdivision agreement that Centralized
Community Mail Boxes be installed at a location on the road allowance of
Street ‘A’ near the entrance to the development at Boyce Road along the
west side of the road allowance of the new road and to the satisfaction of the
Township and in accordance with Canada Post specifications.
B. That the applicant agree in the subdivision agreement that all servicing
including telephone, internet, Hydro, etc. generally be installed underground.
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 4 of 6
Page 30 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
C. That the applicant agree in the subdivision agreement that street signage
and lighting shall be installed to the satisfaction of the municipality including
lighting at the turning bulb at the south end of the development and at the
entrance to the development at Boyce Road such lighting to also illuminate
the mail boxes to be located there.
11. Revisions to Draft Plan:
A. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the Owner shall submit a revised
Block Plan, if required, to reflect any significant alterations caused from this
Draft Plan Approval.
B. That where final engineering design(s) result in minor variations to the Plan
(e.g., in the configuration of lots, etc.), these may be reflected in the Final
Plan subject to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac and the
County of Frontenac.
12. General conditions:
A. That prior to final approval, the County of Frontenac is to be advised by the
municipality that this proposed subdivision conforms to the Zoning By-law in
effect of the Township of South Frontenac.
B. That when requesting final Approval from the County of Frontenac, the
Owner shall accompany such request with the required number of originals
and copies of the Final Plan, together with a surveyor’s certificate stating that
the lots/blocks thereon conform to the frontage and area requirements of the
Zoning By-Law.
C. That the Owner submit a draft Plan of Subdivision Declaration for approval
by the Township and County to ensure all conditions of approval will be
satisfied.
13. Clearance Letters:
A. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County of Frontenac shall be
advised that all Conditions of Draft Plan Approval have been satisfied; the
clearance memorandum shall include a brief statement detailing how each
Condition has been met.
B. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in
writing by the Township of South Frontenac the method by which conditions
1 to 13 have been satisfied.
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 5 of 6
Page 31 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Applicant: Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants
Date of Decision:
Doug Prinsen, FOREFRONT Engineering Inc.
File No.: 10T-2013/002
Date of Notice:
Subject Lands: Hartington Subdivision
Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal Township of Portland, Township of South
Frontenac, County of Frontenac.
C. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in
writing by KFL&A Public Health the method by which condition 5B has been
satisfied.
D. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in
writing by the Quinte Conservation Authority the method by which condition
6A has been satisfied.
14. Lapsing Provisions:
A. That pursuant to Section 51(32) of the Planning Act, this Draft Plan Approval
shall lapse at the expiration of three (3) years from the date of issuance of
Draft Plan Approval if final approval has not been given, unless an extension
is requested by the Owner and, subject to review, granted by the approval
authority.
B. That pursuant to Section 51(33) of the Planning Act, the Owner may submit a
request to the approval authority for an extension of the Draft Plan Approval.
The extension period may be for a period of one (1) to three (3) years subject
to the approval by the County of Frontenac. Request for any extension shall
be provided no less than six (6) weeks prior to the lapsing date.
Appendix B to Report 2016-093
Conditions to Approval – County File #10T-2013/002
August 24, 2016
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 6 of 6
Page 32 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
FOREFRONT
Engineering Inc.
46.00m
46.4m
46.0m
46.2m
51.7
m
46.0
m
46
.0m
65.
4m
46.0m
66.2m
76.7m
BOYCE ROAD
METRIC
DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN
ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE
CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING
BY 0.3048
KEY PLAN
PETWORTH ROAD
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 33 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 34 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 35 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 36 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 37 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 38 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 39 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 40 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 41 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 42 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 43 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 44 of 93
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AGENDA ITEM #b)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
HARTINGTON SUBDIVISION
!
on
Ln
38
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
at i
Rd
!
!
ad
inte Con s erv
Qu
Hin
ch
in
br
oo
ke
±
Ro
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Holleford Rd
!
!
!
Trousdale Rd
!
!
!
!
!
Ro
ad
38
!
!
!
!
!
d
!
ke R
!
!
!
oo
br
in
ch
ry Rd
!
!
!
Hin
Quar
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ll e ford Rd
!
!
COUNTY
OF FROTNENAC
Hartington
Vanluven Rd
!
!
Ho
!
!
!
Holleford Rd
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Road 38
Boyce Rd
!
!
!
!
!
Watson Rd
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Tom Watson Rd
!
!
!
Jamieson Rd
!
!
Petworth Rd
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Petworth Rd
!
!
Road 38
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ellerbeck Rd
Wolfe Swamp Rd
!
!
!
!
!
Alton Rd West
!
!
st
Bradford Rd Ea
Graham Rd
!
!
Bradford Rd West
!
!
!
!
!
Park St
!
!
!
!
S
Wolfe
Road 38
Notre Da m
eS
!
t
!
!
w a mp
!
!
!
Rd
!
William St
!
!
Maria St
!
!
!
Harrowsmith
Harrowsmith Rd
Peters Rd
!
Babcook Rd
!
!
!
on
R
ston Rd
go
La
ng
!
Ottawa St
!
!
d
!
!
Colebrook Rd
Wilson Rd
Harrow smith Rd
Ki
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
!
!
!
!
Road 38
!
!
!
1,000
!
500
Metres
!
250
!
0
!
ilt
o
!
W
!
Rd
!
!
!
!
!
Mclean Rd
!
!
Parcel Fabric
!
Subject Property
Trail
!
Road
K& P
!
Frontenac K&P Trail
!
!
!
!
Fr otnenac
!
!
!
Legend
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Produced August 11th, 2016 by the County of Frontenac with data supplied under license by members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange and ESRI. The County of Frontenac disclaims all responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication. Inlcudes Material © 2014 of the Queen's Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
!
Page 45 of 93
!
!
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
AGENDA ITEM #b)
HARTINGTON SUBDIVISION
±
0.42
Acres
0.58
Acres
0.3
Acres
Frotnenac K& P Trail
0.61
Acres
0.61
Acres
0.53
Acres
0.42
Acres
0.39
Acres
Boyce Rd
Existing Residence
°
¬
Museum
2.01
Acres
Fire Station
Vacant
Service
Station
(Township
Parking)
Road 38
Existing Residence
2.01
Acres
Holleford Rd
Library
0.41
Acres
Lot 13
2.01
Acres
Road 38
88.48
Acres
Existing Residence
Lot 12
Active Service Station
Lot 1
Lot 11
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 10
Lot 4
Lot 9
Lot 5
Lot 8
Lot 6
Lot 7
Proposed Drainage Easement
COUNTY OF FROTNENAC
98.17
Acres
Existing Farm
Previous Farming
Legend
¬ Fire Station
°
Jamieson Rd
Active Service Station
Vacant Service Station
! Museum
< Library
!
Petworth Rd
Road 38
¸
!
¸
!
Road
!
!
!
Frontenac K&P Trail
Subject Property
Parcel Fabric
0
50
100
200
Metres
Produced August 11th, 2016 by the County of Frontenac with data supplied under license by members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange and ESRI. The County of Frontenac disclaims all responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication. Inlcudes Material © 2014 of the Queen's Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 46 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Report 2016-093 Appendix F
Hartington Plan of Subdivision – County File # 10T-2013/002
Approvals Timeline:
Discussions concerning the Hartington Plan of Subdivision development have been
ongoing for almost 3 years and have involved extensive public consultation and the
subject lands are described as Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, formerly municipal
Township of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac. It is located
on the west side of the K&P Trail between Boyce Road and Petworth Road. The
northern portion of the property is within the Hartington settlement area. A map of the
proposed development as originally submitted with the application is attached to this
report as Appendix B.
The proposal is for a Draft Plan of Subdivision containing thirteen (13) lots for single
detached dwellings. The current proposal – which is also the proposal that has been
appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) – was revised from the original
submission of a forty-nine (49) lot subdivision on a 44.8 hectare (111 acre) property.
On October 9, 2015, the applicant provided documentation intended to revise the
original planning rationale and reduce the size of the proposed subdivision from 49 to
13 lots (see Appendix C)
A concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment was filed with the revised subdivision plan, and
has also been appealed to the OMB. The zoning amendment would rezone the land
from ‘Rural (RU)’ to ‘Residential (R)' to recognize the residential development proposal.
An associated zoning by-law amendment proposal was submitted to the Township of
South Frontenac to rezone the lands to a special Residential Zone (R-28) to permit the
residential use of the lands and to recognize the frontages as proposed at only 46
metres.
Frontenac County deemed the application to be complete pursuant to the requirements
of the Planning Act on November 15, 2013.
At the direction of the County, South Frontenac Township has held two public meetings
with regard to the Hartington development to consider both the plan of subdivision and
the necessary Zoning By-law amendment. A formal public meeting on July 7th, 2015.
Following the public meeting the Draft Plan was revised to include 13 instead of 49 lots.
A second public meeting was held on July 15th, 2015 to discuss the revised proposal.
On February 12, 2016 the applicant filed an appeal on the draft plan of subdivision and
zoning by-law for lack of decision within 180 day time period required under the
Planning Act. Although Hearing dates have not yet been set (OMB File No. PL160168),
the Board has advised in correspondence to the County dated March 2, 2016 that all
Parties should be prepared to proceed at any time. Notice for prehearings and hearings
are generally mailed 35 days before the hearing and Notice for mediation meetings can
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 47 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
be given on shorter notice. Once dates are set, adjournments are not granted except
where compelling circumstances exist and with the consent of all parties and/or the
approval of the Board agency review.
2012
November 13, 2012 – Informal pre-consultation meeting with the Township, the
applicant and the applicants engineering consultant.
December 18, 2012 – Informal pre-consultation meeting with County staff, Malroz
Engineering, the applicant and the applicant’s hydrogeologist.
2013
January 11, 2013 – Pre-consultation meeting with the County and relevant agencies.
November 15, 2013 – Application filed for a proposed draft plan of subdivision (County)
and zoning amendment (Township).
November 28, 2013 – County deems proposed draft plan of subdivision application as
complete as per Planning Act requirements.
2014
March 3, 2014 – A revised draft plan of subdivision is submitted, reducing the total
number of lots to 47
2015
April 9, 2015 – The County’s peer reviewer, Malroz Engineering, issues a letter signing
off on the methodology of the Hydrogeological Study
April 22, 2015 – Application filed for a zoning amendment with the Township.
June 2, 2015 – Township deems zoning amendment as complete.
July 7, 2015 – Formal Public Meeting for both Plan of Subdivision application and
zoning by-law amendment held on behalf of the County by South Frontenac Township
Council.
August 4, 2015 – Revised Proposed Plan of Subdivision is presented to Township
Council by Mike Keene, Fotenn Consultants down to 13 lots
September 15, 2015 – South Frontenac Council passes resolution expressing its
serious concerns about the water quality and quantity at the Hartington Subdivision
proposal and directs that all correspondence from the community predating the June 24,
2015 Planning Report along with all later correspondence be included in the submission
to the County.
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 48 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
September 18, 2015 – Further amendments made to the draft plan restricting the
revised plant to 13 residential lots located within the settlement area.
October 9, 2015 – A Planning Brief, prepared by Fotenn Consultants Inc. is provided to
the County and Township along with a formal copy of the 13 lot draft plan and
addendum to studies necessary
November 24, 2015 – Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Township Planner
provided a Planning Report dated November 18, 2015 containing conditions of draft
approval that were recommended to be received by Council and forwarded to the
County.
2016
January 19, 2016 – At the Township Council meeting, Township Planner provided a
further Planning Report containing slightly revised conditions of draft approval but
continuing to recommend draft approval and forwarding the proposed conditions to the
County for their consideration. Township Council did not discuss the application at this
meeting stating that new information had been brought to their attention related to
ground water and soil contamination on a nearby property, owned by the Township
which was a former gas station.
February 12, 2016 – Applicant files appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for lack of
decision of the approval authority (Frontenac County) to make a decision within 180
days of the application being deemed complete under the Planning Act.
March 1, 2016 – Township planning report presented to Township Council meeting.
Includes recommended conditions for Draft Approval. Motion passed by the Committee
to direct Council to have the Township staff to engage an independent environmental
consulting firm to review the reports that have been submitted to date and make a
determination on the water quantity and quality in the proposed development and
surrounding areas and make recommendations as to any additional testing or
monitoring that should be conducted.
March 16, 2016 – County Council directs staff to retain legal counsel to prepare for and
represent the County at the upcoming OMB hearing via Report 2016-036.
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 49 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 50 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 51 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 52 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 53 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 54 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
2016-093 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac County ...
Page 55 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
Report 2016-094
Council Recommend Report
To:
Warden and Members of County Council
From:
Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Reid Shepherd, Community Planner
Date of meeting:
August 24, 2016
Re:
Planning and Economic Development – Approval of North
Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 regarding
Renewable Energy and Sustainability
Recommendation
Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral
submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an
informed decision;
Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the
Planning and Economic Development - Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan
Amendment Number 7 regarding Renewable Energy and Sustainability report for
information;
And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve North Frontenac
Official Plan Amendment Number 7 to the Township of North Frontenac Official Plan as
contained in Appendix A.
Background
The Township of North Frontenac has requested that an amendment to the North
Frontenac Official Plan be approved by the Council of the County of Frontenac. The
amendment introduces policies concerning renewable energy and clarifies the
municipality’s position on large-scale projects that would have a negative impact on the
landscape and character of North Frontenac.
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 56 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
At a meeting on July 22, 2016, the Council of the Township of North Frontenac
introduced a motion directing staff to prepare an amendment to their Official Plan that
would clarify the Township’s position on renewable energy and large-scale energy
projects in the municipality. On August 12, 2016, planning staff presented the proposed
amendment at a public meeting in North Frontenac. No member of the public spoke or
presented any written comments, and Council adopted the amendment later on during
the regular council meeting.
There is currently no land use policy direction in the Township of North Frontenac
Official Plan with respect to renewable energy projects and promoting sustainability
through their use.
The adopted Official Plan Amendment attached to this report is intended to provide
clarity through policy that the Township supports renewable energy projects, but does
not support development of these projects at an industrial scale of operation. The
adopted amendment recognizes that future economic development opportunities in the
region will be based on the sense of place of North Frontenac, and that the character of
the area should not be disturbed by these industrial operations.
Planning Policy Considerations
Frontenac County Official Plan
The County Official Plan has policies that support the use of renewable energy as
energy demand increases in Frontenac (Section 2.1.4). The plan recognizes that the
community has established a vision for local renewable energy as set out in the
County’s sustainability plan Directions for Our Future.
The adopted North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 is consistent with this
regional approach and support for small scale green energy activities.
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest related to land use planning and development. As a key part of Ontario’s policyled planning system, the Provincial Policy Statement sets the policy foundation for
regulating the development and use of land.
There are a number of sections of the PPS that support the policy intent of the adopted
Official Plan Amendment Number 7:
1.1.4 Rural Areas in Municipalities
This section of the PPS recognizes that rural areas are important to the economic
success of the Province and our quality of life. Rural areas are a system of lands
that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas,
natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas. In the case of
North Frontenac, all the lands and waters within the Township meet the definition
of ‘Rural Area’. The PPS notes that it is important to leverage rural assets and
Recommend Report to Council
Planning and Economic Development – Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 regarding
Renewable Energy and Sustainability
August 24, 2016
Page 2 of 4
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 57 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
amenities and protect the environment as a foundation for a sustainable
economy. It can be argued that both the Township Official Plan and its Strategic
Plan recognize the special nature and landscape character of the region and the
economic development potential that can be derived from these sense of place.
This strategy is supported by Section 1.1.4.1 of the PPS which recognizes that
the health and viability of a rural area should be supported by building upon rural
character, and leveraging rural amenities and assets. The adopted Amendment is
consistent with these policies as it supports future renewable energy projects that
are of a size and scale that do not disrupt this landscape character.
1.6.11 Energy Supply
Section 1.6.11.1 of the PPS states that planning authorities should provide
opportunities for the development of energy supply including electricity generation
facilities and transmission and distribution systems, to accommodate current and
projected needs. Section 1.6.11.2 requires that municipalities should promote
renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems, where feasible. The
adopted Amendment is consistent with this policy section as it promotes new
energy supply opportunities with the exception of large scale projects that could
have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
1.7 Long-Term Economic Prosperity
This section of the PPS is particularly relevant to the adopted Amendment as it
recognizes the balance necessary between supporting renewable energy
systems while at the same time maintaining a sense of place that can support
economic development.
The following subsections of this part of the PPS are applicable and supportive of
the adopted Official Plan Amendment:
1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:
a) Promoting opportunities for economic development and community
investment-readiness;
b) Optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources,
infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and
distribution systems, and public service facilities;
d) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form
and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define
character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage
landscapes;
g) Providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development;
h) Providing opportunities to support local food, and promoting the
sustainability of agri-food and agri-product businesses by protecting
agricultural resources, and minimizing land use conflicts;
i) Promoting energy conservation and providing opportunities for
development of renewable energy systems and alternative energy
systems, including district energy;
j) Minimizing negative impacts from a changing climate and considering
the ecological benefits provided by nature
Recommend Report to Council
Planning and Economic Development – Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 regarding
Renewable Energy and Sustainability
August 24, 2016
Page 3 of 4
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 58 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
In summary, the proposed ‘Renewable Energy and Sustainability’ amendment is
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Comment
The attached amendment has been reviewed to ensure consistency with the County of
Frontenac Official Plan and the current Provincial Policy Statement. As of the writing of
this report, no public comments had been received concerning the amendment. It is
recommended that Council approve Official Plan Number 7 regarding Renewable
Energy and Sustainability.
Sustainability Implications
One of the key focus areas of Directions for Our Future, the County’s Sustainability
Plan, is Land Use Planning and Management. From a sustainability perspective, this
involves an approach that ensures a clean and healthy environment, a strong economy,
and long term viability. Draft approval of this Official Plan Amendment will promote a
strong economy and long term viability by promoting rural-based recreational
development.
Financial Implications
There are no direct financial implications to this approval.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Township of North Frontenac
Recommend Report to Council
Planning and Economic Development – Approval of North Frontenac Official Plan Amendment Number 7 regarding
Renewable Energy and Sustainability
August 24, 2016
Page 4 of 4
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 59 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 60 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 61 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 62 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 63 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 64 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 65 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 66 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 67 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 68 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 69 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 70 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
2016-094 Planning and Economic Development Approval of North...
Page 71 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
Report 2016-095
Recommend Report to Council
To:
Warden and Members of County Council
From:
Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk
Date of meeting:
August 24, 2016
Re:
Office of the CAO – Establishment of an Administrative Office
Design Task Force
Recommendation
That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Chief Administrative Officer –
Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force report;
And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a by-law later in the
meeting amending By-law 2013-0020, Schedule B to add Schedule B-5, Administrative
Building Design Task Force attached as Appendix A to this report.
Background
At the regular meeting of County Council held July 20, 2016, Council considered report
2016-086, Office of the CAO, Administrative Office Space Review - Report #2 and
passed the following resolution, being Recommend Reports from the Chief
Administrative Officer, clause h):
Motion #: 127-16
Moved By:
Seconded By:
Warden Smith
Councillor Doyle
Be It Resolved That Council establish an Administrative Office Design Task Force:
And Further That Councillors’ Nossal, Inglis and Deputy Warden Vandewal be
appointed to the Administrative Office Design Task Force;
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 72 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
And Further That the Clerk be directed to bring forward a by-law at the next Council
meeting to amend By-law 2013-0020, Schedule B to reflect this new Task Force.
CARRIED
The report was subsequently deferred through the following resolution:
Motion #: 125-16
Moved By:
Seconded By:
Councillor Higgins
Councillor Doyle
That a design task force be established with three members of County Council and
senior staff to recommend the design team and to work with the architect to bring back
design options/costing for Council consideration.
DEFFERED
To the Administrative Building Design Task Force
Comment
The purpose of this report is to present County Council with a proposed Mandate and
Terms of Reference for the Administrative Office Design Task Force for its
consideration. The draft by-law amending By-law 2013-0020 to incorporate the new
Task Force is attached to this report as Appendix A.
Staff are proposing the following Mandate and Committee Composition for the Task
Force as noted in the draft By-law:
Mandate
a)
To carry out a space review and analysis of the County of Frontenac
Administrative Building
b)
To review and consider options for the Administrative Building and make
recommendations to Council
c)
If necessary, to review any proposals and recommend to Council a design team
for any refurbishing of the Administrative Building
d)
If necessary, to work with the architect to bring back design options/costing for
Council consideration
e)
If necessary, to periodically receive updates and provide input on the final
details of the refurbishing/construction phase of the Administrative Building
Recommend Report to Council
Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 2 of 4
Page 73 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
Composition of the Committee
Council Liaison to Corporate Services
Councillor Tom Dewey
Three (3) Members of County Council:
Councillor Natalie Nossal
Councillor John Inglis
Councillor Ron Vandewal
As noted in Report 2016-086, staff had recommended the establishment of a design
task force with three members of County Council and senior staff to recommend the
design team and to work with the architect to bring back design options/costing for
Council consideration. It should be noted that senior staff will provide administrative
support and guidance to the Task Force but will not form part of the Task Force
composition.
The intent of the Administrative Building Design Task Force Mandate is to permit the
Task Force to continue on through any refurbishing/construction phase of the
administrative building through to its completion in order to address any issues that may
arise that would require changes or amendments to the original design.
Staff are also recommending that the Council Liaison for Corporate Services form part of
the committee composition for the task force, as under Schedule D of the Procedural bylaw, the purpose of the Council Liaison is to act as a conduit between Council and
senior leadership. The Council Liaison will be the primary spokesperson for issues
related to the operation of the department and direction. In particular, working with the
Director and Chief Administrative Officer with respect to regulatory compliance and
alignment with Council strategic direction and the expectation is to become familiar with
the legislative framework, operations, projects, reports, budgets and risks of the
Department and participate in meetings, workshops and events related to the
Department and to participate on ad hoc committees and related operations teams.
Council Liaisons are included in the committee composition of all Advisory Committees
of Council save and except for the Planning Advisory Committee, which was done in an
effort to eliminate one township having greater voting capacity over another. A copy of
Schedule D to By-law 2013-0020 is attached as Appendix B.
Pursuant to section 26.9 of the procedural by-law, the Warden is an Ex-officio Member
of all Committees and Task Forces.
Sustainability Implications
Communications with citizens is a key component of the Directions for Our Future plan
which states:
“It (the Plan) underlines the commitment made by the County to engage many
people and organizations and to communicate with our communities throughout
the process. This was a commitment made at the outset and it remains a guiding
Recommend Report to Council
Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 3 of 4
Page 74 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
principle as we move into a future we can all be proud to leave as a legacy to our
children and grandchildren.” (page 8)
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications associated with this report; however depending on
the number of meetings of the Task Force, mileage costs will be incurred.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Marian VanBruinessen, Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Recommend Report to Council
Establishment of an Administrative Office Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 4 of 4
Page 75 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
By-Law Number 2016-0028
of
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
being a by-law to amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of the
Council and its Committees, the Conduct of Members and the Calling of Meetings) as it
relates to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
Whereas Section 238(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (the
Act) provides that Council shall pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place
and proceedings of meetings;
And Whereas By-law No. 2013-0020, being a bylaw to provide for governing the
proceedings of the Council and its committees, the conduct of members and the calling
of meetings, was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac
on May 15, 2013;
And Whereas By-law No. 2013-0020 allows Council to establish Committees, their
memberships, mandates and reporting practice, with said committees forming part of
By-law 2013-0020 as Schedule B;
And Whereas The Corporation of County of Frontenac deems it expedient to amend
By-law No. 2013-0020 as it relates to the establishment of an Administrative Building
Task Force;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council for The Corporation of the County of
Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:
1. That By-law 2013-0020 be amended to add Schedule B-5 attached to this by-law
hereto as Appendix A:
2. That this amending by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of final
passing.
Read a First and Second Time this 24th day of August, 2016.
Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 24th day of August, 2016.
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
Frances Smith, Warden
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Jannette Amini, Clerk
Page 76 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
Appendix A to By-law 2016-0028
SCHEDULE B-5 – ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE NAME:
Administrative Building Design Task Force
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
(i)
The County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force shall be
comprised of three (3) members of County Council appointed by County Council
(ii)
The members of the County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task
Force shall hold office from the date of their appointment, at the pleasure of
Council, up to the end of the term of Council and who shall be named in this
Schedule;
(iii) The Administrative Building Design Task Force shall meet as required.
(iv) The County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force shall adhere
to the County’s Procedural By-law No. 2013-0020 and any amendments thereto,
specifically Section 26 – Committees for the conduct of all Meetings.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
(i) Goal/Mission
The mission of the County of Frontenac stated in its Mission Statement is the
effective, efficient and sustainable delivery of service to its citizens. Within the
context of the Values and Principles detailed, the Administrative Building Design
Task Force will be guided by the Mission Statement:
(ii) Mandate
a)
To carry out a space review and analysis of the County of Frontenac
Administrative Building
b)
To review and consider options for the Administrative Building and make
recommendations to Council
c)
If necessary, to review any proposals and recommend to Council a design team
for any refurbishing of the Administrative Building
d)
If necessary, to work with the architect to bring back design options/costing for
Council consideration
e)
If necessary, to periodically receive updates and provide input on the final
details of the refurbishing/construction phase of the Administrative Building
By-law No. 2016-0028 – To Amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (Council and Committee Procedural By-law) as it relates
to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
Page 2 of 3
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 77 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Council of the County of Frontenac hereby appoints the following members of
Council to the County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force:
Council Liaison to Corporate Services
Councillor Tom Dewey
Three (3) Members of County Council:
Councillor Natalie Nossal
Councillor John Inglis
Councillor Ron Vandewal
By-law No. 2016-0028 – To Amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (Council and Committee Procedural By-law) as it relates
to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
Page 3 of 3
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 78 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #d)
Appendix B to report 2016-095
Term:
Eligibility:
Description:
SCHEDULE D – COUNCIL LIAISONS
(Added by By-law 2015-0002)
Appointed by Council for a four (4) year term, at the pleasure of Council.
Only second member County Councillors are eligible to be appointed to a
Council Liaison position.
A total of four (4) appointments will be made by Council to act as a Council
Liaison with Directors and the Chief Administrative Officer.
The four positions are as follows:
Expectations:
Council Liaison – Emergency and Transportation Services
Council Liaison – Long-term Care (Fairmount Home)
Council Liaison – Corporate Services
Council Liaison – Planning & Economic Development
The purpose of the Council Liaison will be to act as a conduit between
Council and senior leadership. The Council Liaison will be the primary
spokesperson for issues related to the operation of the department and
direction. In particular, working with the Director and Chief Administrative
Officer with respect to regulatory compliance and alignment with Council
strategic direction.
Meet with the Director and CAO at a minimum of once per month.
o Meeting to be scheduled for the first Wednesday of each month.
Become familiar with the legislative framework, operations, projects,
reports, budgets and risks of the Department.
Monthly, provide an overview of the Departmental activities to County
Council.
Meet with Warden as required to provide background and insight.
Participate in meetings, workshops and events related to the
Department.
Participate on ad hoc committees and related operations teams as
follows:
o Emergency and Transportation Services
Emergency Management Program Committee
o Council Liaison – Long-term Care (Fairmount Home)
Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee
o Council Liaison – Corporate Services
Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee
o Council Liaison – Planning & Economic Development
Trails Advisory Committee
Sustainability Advisory Committee
2016-095 Office of the CAO Establishment of an Administrativ...
Page 79 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #e)
Report 2016-096
Council Recommend Report
To:
Warden and Members of Council
From:
Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Anne Marie Young, Manager of Economic Development
Date of meeting:
August 24, 2016
Re:
Planning and Economic Development – Amendments to the
K&P Trail Land Acquisition for Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307;
Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1
Recommendation
Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Planning and
Economic Development – Amendments to the K&P Trail Land Acquisition for Con 1 PT
Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1
report;
And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and
Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for lands described as Con 1 PT
Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 in
the amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($13,250);
And Further That staff be authorized to issue a donation receipt in the amount of
Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($13,250), once appropriate
documentation has been received.
Background
At the May 18, 2016 regular Council meeting, County Council passed the following
resolution that was reported out from closed session:
Motion #: 81-16
Moved By:
Seconded By:
Councillor Higgins
Councillor Inglis
That Council authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and
Sale, and any other required documents, in a form satisfactory to the County Solicitor,
2016-096 Planning and Economic Development Amendments to the...
Page 80 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #e)
for the purchase of Con.1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and a 4.23 acre property with
the legal description of Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1 in
accordance with the directions and instruction provided to staff by Council when it
considered Report Number 2016-065 at its closed session meeting of May 18, 2016, in
the amount of $13,225 cash and $13,225 donation plus legal fees and closing costs.
CARRIED
Comment
The resolution that was passed at the May 18, 2016 Council meeting was pursuant to a
recommendation made by staff through report 2016-065. The price was based on the
assessed MPAC value of the land at $26,000; however during the drafting of the
recommendation, staff inadvertently miscalculated both the cash and donation value by
$25 each.
Staff requires Council authorization to amend the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to
reflect the correct amount of $13,250 as well as authorization to amend the donation
receipt to reflect the correct amount of $13,250.
Sustainability Implications
This project supports a number of focus areas adopted in Directions for Our Future and
is directly identified in Sustainable Actions under the economic pillar of sustainability as
Trail Network Development. The project supports the development of a network of trails
in the County facilitating recreation and transportation networks and promoting active
lifestyles.
Financial Implications
The amended amount of $25.00 fits within the land acquisition for the K&P Trail within
the budget allotment for 2016 and development is funded through the Investing in
Ontario Fund and the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk
Marian VanBruinessen, Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Recommend Report to Council
2016-096 Planning and Economic Development Amendment to K&P Trail Land Acquisition
August 24, 2016
Page 2 of 2
2016-096 Planning and Economic Development Amendments to the...
Page 81 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
August 18, 2016
By E-mail
Township of South Frontenac
4432 George Street
Sydenham, Ontario
K0H 2T0
County of Frontenac
2069 Battersea Road
Glenburnie, Ontario
K0H 1S0
Attention:
Mayor Vandewal
Warden Smith
Township and County Councillors
Dear Mayor, Warden, Councillors and County Councillors:
Re:
Proposed Hartington Development – Part Lot 7, Concession 7, former
Township of Portland, now Township of South Frontenac
Since the initial disclosure of a proposal for a subdivision in the Hartington area, local
residents have asked significant questions about a number of issues surrounding this
application. Unfortunately, after a very long, arduous and costly process for the
community of Hartington, many of these questions remain unanswered and many of the
issues raised remain unresolved. These questions and issues are critical to a proper
assessment of this matter, yet adequate answers and assurances remain elusive.
The most recent communications from Malroz Engineering dated August 9, 2016, raise
even further questions:
HYDROCARBONS
1. Why does Malroz state “groundwater flow is easterly” at the site of the former gas
station (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), yet monitoring wells at the westerly extent
of the former gas station property and to the west of the tank location have some
of the highest contaminant readings, with MW2 (monitoring well 2) having
readings 66 times greater than the acceptable level that is to be introduced in
2017? (Cambium, January 4, 2016, MW1 & MW2)
2. After stating, as indicated above, that “groundwater flow is easterly”, why does
Malroz then state “the proposed development site is likely an area of recharge
and that groundwater has a downward component” and that “groundwater flow is
southerly, away from the Hartington Hamlet” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p 3 & 4)?
From Charlie Labarge, Michelle Foxton, John Lesperance and W...
Page 82 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
2
3. After Malroz stated, as indicated above, that “groundwater has a downward
component” in the subject area, why has Mr. Ruland’s recommendations for
testing to be conducted on residential wells within a 300m radius of the said
former gas station not been implemented?
4. Why does Malroz state they “consider the issue of the gas bar to be adequately
addressed” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), when the contamination plume has not
yet been delineated to MOECC’s satisfaction?
5. If Malroz “does not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed
development” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), why do they recommend further
testing of wells for PHC, BTEX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), indicative of contamination associated
with a rail line or gas bar (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p6)?
WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
6. Why has a conceptual model to describe the hydrogeology of the Hartington
Aquifer not been developed, in light of the obviously diverse conditions in this
area?
7. Why are ASC’s hydraulic conductivity figures, used to determine Karst, based on
the mean of only three, closely situated test wells (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3),
rather than the data available for all test wells?
8. Why does Malroz state they “do not see substantiated information that the site
requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of
septic systems” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3), yet they recommend at pages 5
and 6 of the same document:
a) pre-filtration and disinfection of drinking water systems;
b) a staggered well orientation to mitigate mutual well interference;
c) each well to be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality
and quantity;
d) that the proponent confirm the concentration of nitrates has not increased;
and
e) that the individual well assessment plan be clarified to include the
evaluation of nitrate and nitrite concentrations, and trends in concentration
and impact to potable groundwater supplies?
From Charlie Labarge, Michelle Foxton, John Lesperance and W...
Page 83 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
3
9. If Malroz believes there is adequate water supply at the subject site, why do they
recommend the following (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p5 & p6):
a) “each well at the proposed subdivision should be assessed by a qualified
hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity”;
b) “evaluation of mining of the potable water aquifer”;
c) production of “conclusions on the sustainability of the water supply aquifer
and water quality”; and
d) “neighbouring wells and/or nearby wells will be monitored during the
[additional] pumping test”?
10. Why has the proponent not been required to conduct proper pump testing,
involving the use of holding tanks for the pumped water, during stressed
conditions such as the current severe drought?
11. Why does Malroz continue to reiterate and rely on the proponent’s nitrate
calculations, which include data from TW12 (test well 12), which is located
outside of the proposed, revised site?
PLANNING
12. Why has the community received no response to the observations and
conclusions of the community’s planner, Mark Dorfman, that the proposed,
revised development is outside the boundaries of the Hamlet of Hartington and
that the development is premature?
SUMMARY
13. Prior to deciding on whether the subject proposal should be supported, why
would Council not first require Malroz’s recommended evaluations be completed
and the corresponding results be produced?
14. Why has Malroz not referenced in any of their reports the 2007 TROW Western
Cataraqui Region Groundwater Study or the February 9, 2010 Report from Frank
Crossly at MOECC characterizing the subject area as highly sensitive?
15. Given the amount of uncertainty surrounding the subject proposal, can Malroz,
the Township of South Frontenac and/or the County of Frontenac guarantee the
residents of Hartington & the surrounding area that they will not suffer any
adverse affects to the quantity & quality of their drinking water supply if the
proposed development is permitted to proceed?
From Charlie Labarge, Michelle Foxton, John Lesperance and W...
Page 84 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
4
16. In light of the overwhelming volume of materials alerting the municipalities to
known issues and risks associated with the proposed development and
hydrocarbon contamination in the Hartington area, have the Township and
County’s legal advisors provided advice with respect to issues of liability?
17. Why has there been no action taken on the numerous, specific and significant
recommendations advanced by expert hydrogeologist, Wilf Ruland?
With such fundamental questions still unanswered, we the citizens who will be most
affected by your decision ask you, in all conscience, to reject this proposed
development. Require the technical experts to first prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that no harm will come to us, our children, our land, our livestock, and our livelihoods.
The community of Hartington should not be asked or expected to move forward on a
“let’s hope this works out” basis. Were your health and safety, or your family’s or your
neighbors’, put at such risk, you too would ask for the same due diligence, caution and
rigorous consideration that we are asking for. It is far wiser to prevent a tragedy than to
attempt to recover from one.
Please vote with your conscience and refuse to support this proposal at this time!
Sincerely,
Charlie Labarge
Michelle Foxton
John Lesperance
on behalf of the Hartington Community
cc:
Wade Leonard
Wayne Orr, Township Clerk
Jannette Amini, County Clerk
Lindsay Mills, Township Planner
Joe Gallivan/Michael Otis (interim), County Planner
From Charlie Labarge, Michelle Foxton, John Lesperance and W...
Page 85 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Jannette Amini
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
handen@xplornet.ca
Friday, August 19, 2016 10:45 AM
Jannette Amini
Hartington Subdivision
Proposed Hartington Subdivision
Ms. Amini,
This letter is intended to go on the record as a submission for the August 24th special meeting. Please
acknowledge receipt of this submission.
We have written numerous letters outlining our concerns, and they are on record. Our main concerns, as
decision time approaches, boil down to the following:
What happens if a particular well fails its assessment? Does all subsequent development stop?
The conditions as outlined in the latest Malroz report sound like putting the cart before the horse. The
uncertainties that lead to these conditions should be resolved, one way or the other, before deciding
whether to approve this proposal.
Who is liable if this subdivision goes forward and our water supply is either depleted or contaminated?
What is the backup plan if this occurs?
Access to water is a basic human right, a matter of public health and safety. It is part of your mandate to
protect public health and safety. You have the choice now to either reject this proposal, and do your part
to protect our water, or support this proposal, and take unnecessary risks with our health and safety.
At least two reports have been submitted to you that outline a myriad of reasons to reject this proposal.
We refer to the reports by Mr. Ruland and Mr. Dorfman. There are also reports that indicate just the
opposite. Here, we refer to the latest report from Malroz Engineering. We urge you to consider the
credentials of those who have compiled these reports, as well as their experience.
In a February 9, 2010 report on E-coli contamination of well water at 3 homes in Hartington, Mr. Frank
Crossley who is a hydrogeologist for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has
stated that the following:
“The study area is classified as “environmentally sensitive” due to the geology.The thin to nonexistent
overburden cover provides minimal attenuation capabilities. The overburden overlies fractured bedrock.
Contaminants on or near the surface migrate vertically with gravity through the thin soils with
minimal attenuation and into the fractured bedrock to the underlying aquifer. The contaminants then
migrate with the shallow groundwater flow”.
Considering all the red flags raised by Mr. Ruland and Mr. Dorfman, as well as the MOECC, and the lack
of consensus among the experts, we feel it would be irresponsible of you to give your support to this
proposal. We have made a written submission to the Township Council meeting to be held August 23rd.
We are concerned that, due to the short time between that meeting and the County Council meeting
August 24th, you will not have sufficient time to study and consider the outcome of the Township meeting.
We sincerely hope that you are going into the meeting on the 24th with a degree of open-mindedness.
1
From Hanne and Dennis Saunders expressing concerns regarding...
Page 86 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Hanne and Dennis Saunders
4034 Boyce Road
613-376-3874
2
From Hanne and Dennis Saunders expressing concerns regarding...
Page 87 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
By-Law Number 2016-0028
of
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
being a by-law to amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of the
Council and its Committees, the Conduct of Members and the Calling of Meetings) as it
relates to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
Whereas Section 238(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (the
Act) provides that Council shall pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place
and proceedings of meetings;
And Whereas By-law No. 2013-0020, being a bylaw to provide for governing the
proceedings of the Council and its committees, the conduct of members and the calling
of meetings, was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac
on May 15, 2013;
And Whereas By-law No. 2013-0020 allows Council to establish Committees, their
memberships, mandates and reporting practice, with said committees forming part of
By-law 2013-0020 as Schedule B;
And Whereas The Corporation of County of Frontenac deems it expedient to amend
By-law No. 2013-0020 as it relates to the establishment of an Administrative Building
Task Force;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council for The Corporation of the County of
Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:
1. That By-law 2013-0020 be amended to add Schedule B-5 attached to this by-law
hereto as Appendix A:
2. That this amending by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of final
passing.
Read a First and Second Time this 24th day of August, 2016.
Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 24th day of August, 2016.
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
Frances Smith, Warden
To amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of ...
Jannette Amini, Clerk
Page 88 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Appendix A to By-law 2016-0028
SCHEDULE B-5 – ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE NAME:
Administrative Building Design Task Force
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
(i) The County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force shall be
comprised of three (3) members of County Council appointed by County Council
(ii) The members of the County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force
shall hold office from the date of their appointment, at the pleasure of Council, up to
the end of the term of Council and who shall be named in this Schedule;
(iii) The Administrative Building Design Task Force shall meet as required.
(iv) The County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force shall adhere to
the County’s Procedural By-law No. 2013-0020 and any amendments thereto,
specifically Section 26 – Committees for the conduct of all Meetings.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
(i) Goal/Mission
The mission of the County of Frontenac stated in its Mission Statement is the
effective, efficient and sustainable delivery of service to its citizens. Within the
context of the Values and Principles detailed, the Administrative Building Design
Task Force will be guided by the Mission Statement:
(ii) Mandate
a)
To carry out a space review and analysis of the County of Frontenac
Administrative Building
b)
To review and consider options for the Administrative Building and make
recommendations to Council
c)
If necessary, to review any proposals and recommend to Council a design team
for any refurbishing of the Administrative Building
d)
If necessary, to work with the architect to bring back design options/costing for
Council consideration
e)
If necessary, to periodically receive updates and provide input on the final
details of the refurbishing/construction phase of the Administrative Building
By-law No. 2016-0028 – To Amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (Council and Committee Procedural By-law) as it relates
to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
Page 2 of 3
To amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of ...
Page 89 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #a)
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Council of the County of Frontenac hereby appoints the following members of
Council to the County of Frontenac Administrative Building Design Task Force:
Council Liaison to Corporate Services
Councillor Tom Dewey
Three (3) Members of County Council:
Councillor Natalie Nossal
Councillor John Inglis
Councillor Ron Vandewal
By-law No. 2016-0028 – To Amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (Council and Committee Procedural By-law) as it relates
to the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force
August 24, 2016
Page 3 of 3
To amend By-law No. 2013-0020 (to govern the proceedings of ...
Page 90 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #b)
By-Law Number 2016-0029
of
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
being a by-law to authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and
Sale for Lands legally described as Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1 and Hinchinbrooke
Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1
Whereas in the fall of 2013, County Council approved the Frontenac Trail K&P Trail
Implementation Plan – Tichborne to Sharbot Lake, and
Whereas a negotiation process was necessary with current landowners of the abandoned rail
bed between Tichborne and Sharbot Lake; and,
Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it appropriate to purchase lands to
develop the K&P Trail from Tichborne to Sharbot Lake:
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of
Frontenac enacts as follows:
1.
That the Warden and Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement of Purchase and
Sale with Peter Gilbert in the amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty
Dollars ($13,250), for lands legally described as Con 1 PT Lot 26 RP 13R7307; Part 1
and Hinchinbrooke Con 1 PT Lot; 26 RP 13R9630 Part 1; and further,
2.
That the Treasurer be authorized to issue a tax donation receipt to Peter Gilbert in the
amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($13,250) once
appropriate documentation has been received; and further,
3.
That this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.
Read a First and Second Time this 24th day of August, 2016.
Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 24th day of August, 2016.
The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
Frances Smith, Warden
Jannette Amini, Clerk
To authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an Agreement of...
Page 91 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
By-Law No. 2016-0030
of
The Corporation of the County OF Frontenac
being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on
August 24, 2016
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 July 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 24th, 2016 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 24th, 2016 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 24th, 2016 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.
To Confirm the Proceedings of Council for its Special Meetin...
Page 92 of 93
AGENDA ITEM #c)
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 24th day of August 2016.
Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 24th day of August 2016.
The Corporation of the County Of Frontenac
Frances Smith, Warden
Jannette Amini, Clerk
By-Law No. 2016-0030 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council
August 24, 2016
To Confirm the Proceedings of Council for its Special Meetin...
Page 2 of 2
Page 93 of 93
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.
