2011-49 Site Plan Agreement with 1073650 Ontario Inc

Published January 1, 2011

Word Count 5562 words

Reading Time 27 min read

Body: Council Type: By-law Meeting: Regular Date: 2011 Collection: By-laws Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/By-laws/2011 By-laws/2011-49 Site Plan Agreement with 1073650 Ontario Inc.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2011-49

BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE CLERK TO EXECUTE A SITE PLAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC AND 1073650 ONTARIO INC.

WHEREAS a Site Plan Agreement has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac and signed by the proponent;

NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

THAT the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a revised Site Plan Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac and 1073650 Ontario Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law.

THAT this By-law and Agreement shall be registered on title of the property described as Part Lot 23, Concession III, Stomngton District, Township of South Frontenac.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force and effect in accordance with section 41 of

the Planning Act 1990, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by the said section 41. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this second day of August, 2011. Read a first and second time this second day of August, 2011. Read a third tune and finally passed this second day of August, 2011. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FRONTENAC

.^Hip^^^ro

^ \y

Wa e

Gary Davison, Mayor

erk-Administrator

THIS SITE PLAN AGREEMENT made this day of August, 2011. BETWEEN:

1073650 ONTARIO INC. hereinafter called the “Owner” OF THE FIRST PART

and -

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC hereinafter called the “Municipality” OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of certain lands

described in Schedule “A”, attached hereto, located in the Township of South

Frontenac (the “Owner’s Land”);

AND WHEREAS the Municipality is authorized to enter mto this agreement and register it against the title to the Lands pursuant to section 41 of the Planning Act and section 6.17 of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS the Municipality has passed by-law No. 2003-75 to designate all of the Township of South Frontenac as a “Site Plan Control Area”; NOW THEREFORE, TfflS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of

the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree each with the other as follows:

In this Agreement: “;

“Owner” includes a mortgagee inpossession, a tenant in possession pursuant to a leasehold interest, and encumbancer in possession and may mean more than one Owner specified in the Certificate of ownership.

The Owner covenants that the Owner is the Owner in fee simple of the Owner’s land.

The obligations imposed by this Agreement affect the land described in Schedule “A” hereto and any restrictive covenants expressed herein run with the land and

bind successors in title to the said property as well as the successors and assigns of the Owner.

The encumbrancer agrees to satisfy all the obligations imposed pursuant to this document if it should enter into possession of the said land.
The following schedules are attached to and form part of this agreement and no new building, structure or other facility shall be erected, altered or placed on the said land except in accordance with the attached schedules which consist of:

A. Legal Description of Lands B. c.

Site Plan

^^^^t^^e.E^luation RePortDated June 20,2009 prepared by

Ecological Services and recommendation report dated June 11,2009 from

the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

5’ Il^?^r-?allpjir?rm a11 ^e w?rk and Provide a11 the materials necessary for

teTuctionofa11 principal and accessory buildmgs andpnvate sewage facilities. All buildings existing as of the date of this agreement sMl be removed

prior to any new buildmg permit being issued.

The Owner may construct a single detached dwelling and accessory structures

k?ted.a nummT_of45metres (147 ft-) from the Ughwatermark o’ffnv7rary

Lake and with a septic system located in the rear yardle., behmdthedweUmg from the lake, generally as shown on Schedule “B”. 7.

^<;^^et^1et^^li^^t ?^jl^-^<Q<^!.slt^e^?^?. ?^p^rt^ sha11 be, constructed to minimum’ Township Standards’ for new private’lanes and it shall

be recognized that the lane is not subject to any mainten^ce of other

provided by the Municipality.

services

Development of the lot shall be in accordance with the recommendations from the

Environmental Site Evaluation Report and the Cataraqui Region Conservation

Authority as attached hereto as Schedule “C”

In the event of a sale of the improved lands, the new Owner will assume full and

complete responsibility for the continuing obligations under this Agreement. The enforcement of this Agreement is the responsibility of the Municipality. 10. The Agreement shall be registered against the title of the Lands and the

Municipality shall be entitled to enforce its provisions against the Owner and any and all subsequent owners of the Lands.

In the event fliat the Owner fails to install or maintain the facilities covered by this

Agreement, then, upon Hie Ctuef Building Official or designate, giving seven days

w.itten-notlce-bLpre:PMdreglstercd ““ulto.the OWIler:the municipality> throu8h it’s employees, agents or contractors, may, without further, notice, enter upon the lands and proceed to supply all materials and to do all the necessary inspections and works in connection with the facilities including the repair or reconstruction

of faulty work and the replacement of materials which are not in accordance with

plans or specifications and to charge the cost thereof, together with the cost of engineering and any other expenses incurred by the municipality, against the Owner. Such entry and work shall not be deemed as acceptance or assumption of said facilities nor an assumption by the Municipality of any liability. It is

expressly agreed that die Owner or any person in possession shall not question the

cost incurred by the Municipality for labour, materials or any other costs

incidental to do the said work and this provision shall be deemed to operate as an

^f^?Jf ^c^e.]L!!LJ^^alZr^!l(Sr^s iJfis^(?T?°??. arechallenged or placed in question. The Owner agrees to permit the Chief Building Official, or agent, to

enter onto the Lands at any time to inspect the work. The Municipality may perform any of the required services and collect the cost for the enforcement of

this Agreement against the said Lands from the security.

12. The Owner covenants and agrees that the lands and premises more particularly described in Schedule “A” annexed hereto may only be used for those purposes specified by Zoning Amendment By-law No. 2009-52.

WITNESS the corporate seals of the respective corporate parties hereto, duly affixed under the hands of their respective signing officers, duly authorized in that behalf.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) In the presence of

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

/^-

Cler

SCHEDULE “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS

Parts 12,13,14, andJlS, Plan 13R-19911; Part of Lot 23, Concession IH, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac

SFHEDTTT^ “R” SITE PLAN rjw-mmc-rajwuuw [;

Sketch prepared to accompany

..^

BuHding Permit Application

^ p^L1e-<.^ «*»y l5P

port of Lot 23, Concession 3 Geographic Township of Loughborough in

pLAH#i<r rtf*

(formerly Towiahtp of Storrington)

Township of South Fronteng County of Frontenac

yp. ^

/m<tf!

ITS fM EMBOSSED onqNM-copY

a^ny

ISSUED BY

VCUNCV k HOPfUHg/ $umctwe Lio.y ^ ^

Scale : 1:1000 (metric)

1HS SKETCH S NOTVAUD

NOTE: ““TO” CFn«S«EimPREMnED FBOU UWB 1111.6 OTta RBMHDS SlffiWr; .» . AND ttU» OBSERVATIONS ^MTNOTFRONACTUM; LAm *

DBWHCES SHOW HEnEBH AHE 1 NE1RES H»CM BEOmwnCD TOREETBY DMDINO anr IMOW

^'^

Sf. ^y .oo »<-

PART

^<b«

PLAN 13R - f9S87

LOT

2 3

PART 6

t^:

vr. s/

r’. ^

<^ ^ d:

CONCESSION J ^

—-{ PART 8 1

PARCEL IN HEAVY OUTUNE CONSISTS OF PARTS 12. 13. 14 and IS, PLAN 13R-1B911

^ <

0 t-

f PAR / 9

i^.

» T3 BE HE-UKAIED

£>%
^-
t ^
;?: *<;

s’lgN %

^ /\

=SBtS=f-^^ /

‘c

S.IJ?

PART. 13

*..

¥
ta.a

HTOnO EASEMENT

-.r

1^?* vs *^

fr PART 11

‘0

.NT0

,»

40; N5WWHE.^ 5fi 18.83 /

“a

y£ M

15’*

p (? ^

« L ^

Y CLANCY A HOPKINS SURVEYING LTD. HAPANEE - ONTARIO

W. RonolO Oancy Chfa* tanrf Shrw>ur Jtora 20H

NO PERSON MAY COPY, REPRODUCE. USTOBUTC OR ALTER THIS PUW IN WHOL£ OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CLANCY A HOPKINS SURVETflNG LTD. 13aS~PMn^13LOVCUMO

SCHEDULE"CM

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE EVALUATION REPORT &

REPORT FROM CARARAQUI REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY r

Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario KOH 1MO Phone: (613) 376-6916; Fax: (613) 544-0072

E-mail: ecoserv@kos.net

ENVERONMENTAL^ITEEVALUATION^JS^e -2^> -Z<?0<7 ^ Municipality: South Frontenac (geographic township of Stomngton) Lots: Part 23 & 24

Concession: III

Landowner: Jean Ilan (Gary Beach, agent)

Plamimg Application Reference: Severance application S-22-09-S Description of Application: applications to sever three lots with frontage on Inverary T nlr Q

The subject lands consist of approximately 120 acres, from which the applicant proposes to sever three five-acre (2 ha) lots. The land is located on the north shore oflnverary

Lake, approximately 2 km northeast oflnverary, Ontario (see Attachment 1). The three proposed lots would be located on the shore of Inverary Lake (Attachment 2). A. Ecological Land Classification

The site evaluation focused mainly on the area of the proposed severances, but

general Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping was prepared, using the methodology developed by Lee et al. (1998) for southern Ontario (see Attachment 3). The majority of the site was forest covered, a mixed forest (FOM) with varying proportions of the same predominant species: Sugar Maple, White Pine, _American Basswood, Red Oak, Ironwood, Bittemut Hickory, Red Cedar, and (particularly hear the shoreline) White Cedar. The shrub layer mcluded Gray Dogwood, Downy Anowwood, European Buckthom and Tartarian Honeysuckle (the latter two

non-native invasive shrubs). Understory species included various sedge species

(Carex pensytvanica, etc.), Common Blue Violet Canada Mayflower Bloodroot,

;

etc.; Garlic Mustard was noted, but was not abundant. There is some fragmentation of the woodlands, with an existing roadway down to the water and two small cabins located 5 and 8 m from the high water mark, respectively. Additionally, the woodland has some natural fragmentation in terms of its irregular ridge and trough

topography (some of which can be seen m Attachment 2). This is relevant in one area (toonmow to be mapped) where there was standing water during one of the site inspection. Dominated by Sensitive Fern, but with overstory hardwood trees, it is

probable that it dries up during the summer, but it should be considered to be swamp habitat (not part ofthe-evaluated wetland) and care will have to be taicen in the placement of the access road. If the access road is placed across the top of the lots, individual driveways will each cross the area.

r.<i:“y~’-’”-’: ^EW^?">t

Within the woodland is a ridge that wouldbe characterized as Treed Rock Barren (RBT) (tree cover between 25 and 60%). This is entirely on the retained lands and

would not be affected by the proposed lots other than being crossed by the access road (existing, but which will require upgrading). The site is moderately disturbed, reflecting its history of agricultural land use. Some areas have been farmed as recently as 15 years ago, and are starting to fill in wifh shrubs. These activities have resulted in Cultural Meadow (CUM) areas,

characterized by tree and shrub cover of less than 25% respectively, and dominated by non-native grass species (Poa pratensis and Poa compressa\ with Cow Vetch, Alsike Clover, etc. At the edges of the CUM areas, shrub species were invading what had once been open fields, resulting in Cultural Thicket (CUT) areas; these were dominated by Staghom Sumac, with Dandelions and Dame’s Rocket beneath.

There are some Shallow Marsh (MAS) areas associated with a dug pond in the north part of the property, and a narrow strip along the lake edge, part of the evaluated wetland. Bofh patches are entirely on the retained lands and will not be affected by the proposed lots other than the northern patch having the existing access road (which will require upgrading) pass by. An improved culvert will be required at the latter location, and it will be important to ensure that no sedimentation affects fhe adjacent pond and MAS area.

There is a narrow finger of Sensitive Fern dominated Meadow Marsh (MAM), which is too narrow to map accurately. This habitat type is dominated by emergent watertolerant plants, in an area fhat is seasonally flooded, but moist to dry by summer. It is created by the topography, occurring between two ridges, and is not part of the evaluated wetland. Placement of the access road along the north end of the lots will require a driveway crossing the wetland strip for Lots 1 and 2 (the wetland does not extend onto Lot 3). B. Soils

Soils depths on the property vary, as is typical of irregular terram. Most of the site is well vegetated, and soils are stable. The CUM areas have the poorest vegetation cover and, particularly where they are close to Inverary Lake, could be improved in effectiveness as buffers by active restoration (e.g., tree planting) or more simply by implementing a no-mow regime. C. Slopes

Topography is irregular, as mentioned above (see Attachment 2). On Lots \ and 2, the rise is steeper, and , then there is a large area of the site that is flatter (though still irregular). On Lot 3, the rise from lake level is more gentle (hence its use for hay fields) and it rises more steeply at the far north of the lot. On all three proposed lots

(and on the water frontage of the retained lands) there are relatively flat areas well set back from the lake that would offer suitable building locations.

^TISSWf^ SfnW®^

D. Surface Water Quality and Quantity

Concerns with water quality in downstream Collms Lake led to a watershed study of the Collin watershed (which includes Inverary Lake) in the early 1990s. This heightened the scrutiny of development within the watershed. The decline in agricultural operations that permitted cattle to have direct access to the lake and

stream waters has improved the situation. The provision of an effective buffer to the waters oflnverary Lake for adjacent residential development is strongly recommended.

E. Setback Requirements

In general, the northern shoreline oflnverary Lake is well vegetated, which provides significant natural protection to the water quality and of natural heritage values of the lake. On the subject property, and on Lot 3 of the proposed severances particularly, cultural activity has resulted in a loss of some areas of native vegetation, and a decrease ui that natural shorelme protection. It is our opinion that an increased setback for all development would be appropriate, particularly on proposed Lot 1. In addition, subject to the comments of the Health Unit, it is recommended that the

septic facilities be put behind (north of) the residential dwellings if possible, such that drainage is initially to the north (away from the lake); this will increase the distance that septic outputs must travel before reaching the lake, increasing the effectiveness of terrestrial retention and uptake. It is noted that the septic system of Lot 1 may have to be placed to the west of the house depending on the available development space, but could optionally be placed to the north of the MAM area. On Lot 1, the finger of MAM vegetation creates some restriction to development. This vegetation community is not particularly sensitive, but it would be appropriate to ensure that development does not intmde within it (outside of a driveway crossing), so a 5 m setback is recommended. When combined with the 40 m setback from

Inverary Lake, the development envelope becomes more restricted. There appears to

be sufficient room on the lot to permit development (see Attachment 5), but it would be appropriate to have a surveyor confirm the development envelope, and to have development proceed under Township control (e.g., site plan control). Is the Proposed Development: A. In a Provincially Significant Wetland? Yes DKI No No development will occur below the high water level, or within

the Collins Creek Wetland Complex. Adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland? Collins Creek Wetland Complex is a wetland evaluated by Cutler et al. in 1984, and the subject of a desktop update by Brownell in

The shoreline in the area of the proposed severance is largely designated as (uWl/ an area of simple (one vegetation fomi) wetland, apparently unvegetated. The Township’s planning documents, however, recognize the whole oflnverary Lake’s shoreline as an Environmental Protection zone. J

3 .j

|(^W?^®i'3"ff^W’ “^ t

1->

Yes KID No

Our observations on site were consistent with the wetland mapping,

in that the shoreline was rocky (see site photos in Attachment 4), and there was no wetland vegetation apparent. There were a few small patches (too small to map) of riparian vegetation (bulrushes and cattails) skirting the shoreline, but nothing of sufficient size to meet the mapping criteria of the wetland evaluation system. Our conclusion was that this stretch of shoreline is not wetland.

Nonetheless, there are patches ofemergent wetland vegetation both northeast and southwest of the proposed lots, and these are part of the PSW, thus the subject lands are within 120 m of the wetland. It is our opinion that an increased setback from the high water level oflnverary Lake would be appropriate on the subject lands. We recommend that fhe setback be increased to 40 m, except for Lot 3, where the vegetation buffer is less effective, where we recommend a setback of 45 m. Additionally, we recommend that a condition of approval require that the setback area be maintained as a buffer, to protect the nearby wetland, and that this be maintained as a no-cut zone. There should be no disturbance of the vegetation or soil mantle (permitting the planting of native trees in Lot 1 if so

desired). Yes JENo Yes No

B. In a Regionally Significant Wetland? Adjacent to a Regionally Significant Wetland? C._tn/ad)acentto an Unevaluated Wetland?

Yes Cg|No Yes SNO

D. In an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest?

Adjacent to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest? E. In the habitat of Species at Risk? No species at risk are identified by the Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC 2009). The wetland evaluation data record (Cutler et al. 1984) reports the presence of Snapping Turtles, which are considered a species of Special Concern at fhe national (but not provincial) level. It also reports Least Bittem (a Threatened species), but the shoreline of the subject property does not contain appropriate habitat for this species, which restricts its activity to dense marsh grasses, so it is not expected that it occurs in

Yes

Yes CglNo None known.

this area of the wetland.

Adjacent to habitat of Species at Risk?

Yes DBNo

See above.

None known.

F. In significant wildlife habitat? The forested lands on the property provide good habitat for a variety of species, particularly song-bitds. The communities are common vegetation communities in this part of the province, however, and we found nothing to suggest that this habitat would

be considered to be significant for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2005). Adjacent to significant wildlife habitat?

Yes D

Yes a

F -1’ ,

S8S”..u^WW’*’ -,. .,

i:? ‘h.p

G. Within 90 m of a waterbody? Adjacent to Inverary Lake.

YesEONo

H. In fish habitat?

Yes D

No development will occur within the fish habitat associated with Inverary Lake. The small drainage course the crosses the road in

the northern part of the site does not appear to provide fish habitat, but sedunent control measures should be implemented when the access road is upgraded. Adjacent to fish habitat?

Yes

d No

Yes Yes

ENO D No

No development will occur within 30 m of the high water level, the

area considered to constitute adjacent lands for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement (MNR 1999). The two existing small cabins on Lots 1 and 2 will be removed, however, and both are

within adjacent lands. While we are of the opmion that removal of these buildings will be positive, sedunent control measures should

be unplemented and should remain in place until all disturbed soils are stabilized.

I. Adjacent to Highly or Moderately Sensitive Lake Trout Lake? J. In a significant woodland? The forest around Inverary Lake has not been identified as

significant by a plannmg authority, but it is our opinion that it would be considered to be significant, at legst at a local level. The

woodland retains a good degree of ecological integrity, although there is a moderate level of disturbance and loss of tree cover in

some areas. The forest vegetation communities are common ones

in Ontario, and the understory species unremarkable. It is noted that Buttemuts were not observed, but could potentially be present. Any future owners should be advised that this Endangered tree species could be present on the property. One of the most important ecological values of the woodland is its buffering of the adjacent lake and wetland. We note that the proposed lots are large, and that the density of residential development will be low, and do not feel that it will have a significant impact on the woodlands. We recommend, however, that the setback area be maintained as a buffer, as noted in A. above. The intent of this recommendation is

that tree removal will be minimized within the setback area (and vegetation cover improved m Lot 1), allowing access to the water,

but maintaining a forest cover, with diverse shrub and groundcover layers beneath. Adjacent to a significant woodland?

Yes KID No

See above.

K. In a significant valleylancT?

Adjacent to a significant valleyland?

Yes Yes

BNO BNO

In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to Yes D[>3 No demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development?

qess^:^f?^^^".W .r–.-.

If yes, which natural feature(s) should tiie assessment focus on? Recommendations for Mitigation:

Removal of the existing cabins should be a condition of approval.

2- placement ofthe access road must be determined to the satisfaction of the Cataraqui

Region Conservation Authority, being placed along Ac northern limit of the lots. The individual driveways on Lots 1 and 2 will cross theMAM area, and the site should be inspected during the summer to confirm the limits of the Sensitive Fern wetland between two ridges.

Sedimentation controls must be placed during culvert upgrading on the access road.
Increasetot setbacks above the mmimum set out in the Township’s By-law because of the proximity to an area designated as provincially significant wetland and because the

slopes_on several parts of the subject lands are moderately steep. We recommend a setback of 40 m on Lots 1 & 2 (and this would be appropriate also on the retained lands

to the west of Lot 1), and 45 m on Lot 3 (due to the-relatively poor effectiveness of the

vegetation in that setback, where the vegetation is characterized by grasses with only a narrow fringe of trees along the shoreline oflnveraiy Lake). Additionally, appropriate sediment controls should be implemented during removal of the existing cabins, to

remain in place until all disturbed soils are stabilized.

The alteration of the soil mantle and vegetation within the setback area should be strictly limited in order that the setback can act as an effective buffer between residential

development and the adjacent wetland, in order to protect water quality, fish habitat,

wetland habitat and species, and to maintain the stability of the soils and slopes. To this

end, the 30 m adjacent to Inverary Lake should be maintained as a minimum cut area, within which disturbance of the soil or vegetation cover, including cutting of trees and shrubs should be generally prohibited, excluding removal of dead or diseased trees, particularly where they may pose a risk to health and safety, and the creation of access to the water, to which a route no wider than 4 m can be created. It is not intended that this

prohibition be interpreted to prevent planting of trees and shrubs, if so desired, on the

meadow area at the front of Lot 3. The portion of the setback area between 30 m and

40/45 m should have no development, but may be cleared, as deemed necessary, to create lawn or garden features or other non-structural uses associated with the residential use.

It is recommended that a survey be obtained to confirm the existence of a sufficient building on the lots, particularly on the westernmost Lot 1 .
It is recommended that the Township require the severances to be subject to site plan control or a preferred approach to ensure that the recommended setbacks are implemented, and an appropriate Conclusion:

The proposed lots will be large, and the density of development low, with sufficient room 6

RTp? ^;r. F^W..CTS^ f» *-. r

to provide good setbacks (minimum 40 m) from Inverary Lake. Restrictions on vegetation clearing within the setback areas will ensure that the areas can act as effective

buffers. The removal of the two existing cabins will be an improvement, as these structures are located too close to the lake. The exact placement of the access road

should be determined in consultation witih the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Literature Cited:

Brownell,V. 2004. Desktop update. Prepared for MNR. Data record updated, but no new mapping prepared.

Cutler, Cathie, Gavm Humphries, Elaine Mallory and Alison Bougourd. 1984. Lower Collins Lake - Inverary Lake Complex. Prepared for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Wetland data record and mapping.

Lee, H.L, W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Natural Heritage Information Center. 2009. Web site maintained by the Minisby of Natural Resources at <www.iihic.gov. on.ca/nhic_.cfm> This web site provides species information, rarity rankings, and species at risk occurrences in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, came into effect March 1,2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 127 pp.

Environmental Site Evaluation Completed By: Mary Alice Snetsinger Date of Site Inspection: May 25 & 26,2009 Signature: I

Report Date: Junel 1, 2

pi^^W^‘1 .^T-,f

^ t ‘r

06./11/20Q9 17:31

B135476474

CATARAQUI REGION C.A

CATARAQUI REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 1641 Perth Road, RO, Box 160 Glenbumie, Ontario KOH 1SO Phone: (613) S46-4228 Fax: (613) 547-6474

June 11,2009

Sent by fax Ms. Anne Levac, Plaxuiing As^stant

Township of South Frontenae P,0. BOX 100

Sydenham,ONKOH2TO (613)376-3027 Dear Ms. Levac:

Re: Additional Comments

ApplkatioDs for Consent to Sever S-20-09-S, S-21-09-S, S-22-09-S (Ilan) Lot 23, Concession 3; Storrington District Off Round Lake Road / Inverary Lake Further to OUT letter dated Juae 10^ 2009, staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Auttiority (CRCA) have reviewed a revised EnviTOTunNrtal Site Evaluation (Ecological

Services, dated June 11, 2009) and provide the following comments for the Committee’s consideration. T

StafTaxe satisfied with the revised report as it has adequately addressed the issues relating to the proposed “no-cut zone” and the presence of the fern swamp area, Staff have no objection to applications S-20-09-S, 5-21-09-S andS-22-09-5 prodded that the following conditions of approval be required:

That all buildings and structures located on the proposed lots to be severed are removed
That the recommendations from page 6 of the Environmental Site Evaluation

(Ecological Services, June 11,2009) be incorporated into a development agreement to be entered into between the Township and landowner of the lots to be severed, namely that: .

Placement of the access road must be determined in consultation with the CRCA and

should be located outside of the swamp area, along the northern property boundary for

the lots to be severed

Member of

SB n

Page 1 of 2 Conservation ONTARIO Nmrt..(Ou,,,,J^7

PAGE 02

06/11/2009 17:31

6135476474

CATARAQUI REGION C.A

Ms. Levac (S-20-09-S, S-21-09-S, S-22-09-S) June 11.2009 » .

Dwellings and septic systems be located, a minimum of 5 m &om the swamp area Sedimentation controls must be implemented during culvert upgrading to the existing access road

Setbacks of 40 m from the highwater mark of Lnveraiy Lake will be required for Lots 1 and 2 and a setback of 45 m will be required for Lot 3 Al1:eration to the soil maatle and vegetation should be prohibited within 30 m offtie shoreline for fhe lots to be severed with fhe exception of limited removal of dead or

diseased trees and for a 4 m access path to the lake .

A survey shall be completed prior to the development of Lot 1 demonstrating that

there is a suitable buitdmg envelope (for a dwelling, septic system and parking area) south of the swamp area

That future development on the lots to be severed occur through Site Plan Control;, for which approval by the CRCA will be required
That permission from the CRCA under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference ‘witfa Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelmes and Watercourses, be required prior to any development or site alteration within 120 m of the ProvinciaUy Significant Wetland and for any in-water works including ciossings for driveways fb-ough the swamp area
That ftiture division of land on the lot to be retained occur through a Plan of Subdivision

Please inform this office in writing of any decision made by the Committee with regards to^ these applications. If you have any questions please contact fhe undersigned at(613) 546-4228 extension 258 or by email at indakm@cataraqiuregion.oa.ca.

Yours truly,

^ r-

Michael Dakin, M.P1. Ecological Planner, Interim

ec: Mary Alice Snetsinger, Ecological Services, via fax (613-544-0072)

attachment: Excerpt from Environmental Site Evaluation (pg. 6 Recommendations)

Page 2 of 2

PAGE 03

06/11/2009 17:31

^Kc^ t / Y^<to^ ?

&135476474

< .I

CATARAQUI REGION C.A

PAGE 04

^-l^^.^,^.f^,

<=^t

^ fl,^ f yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on?

Recommendations for Mitigation:

Removal of the existing cabins should be a condition of approval,
Placement of the access road must be determined to the satisfaction of the Cataraqui

Rj&gion Conservation Authority, being placed along the northern limit of the lots. The individual driveways on Lots 1 and 2 will cross the MAM area, and the site should be inspected during the summer to confirm the limits of the Sensitive Fern wetland between two ridges.

Sedimentation controls must be placed during culvert upgrading on the access road.
Increase lot setbacks above the minimum set out in the Township’s By-law because of the proximity to an area designated as provmchlly significant wetland and because the slopes on several parts of the subject lands are moderately steep. We recommend a setback of 40 m on Lots 1 & 2 (and this would be appropriate also on the retained lands to the west of Lot 1), and 45 m on Lot 3 (due to the relatively poor effectiveness of the vegetation in that setback, where the vegetation is characterized by grasses with only a narrow fringe of trees along the. shoreline of Inverary Lake). Additionally, appropriate

sediment controls should be implemented during removal of the existing cabins. to remain in place until all disturbed soils are stabilized. 5. The alteration of the soil mantle and vegetation within the setback area should be strictly limited m order that the setback can act as an effective buffer between residential development and the adjacent wetland, in order to protect water quality, fish h&bitet, wetland habitat and species, and to maintain the stability of the soils and slopes. To this end, the 30 m adjacent to Invcrary Lake should be maintained as a minimum cut area, within which disturbance of the soil or vegetation cover, including cutting of trees and shrubs^ should be generally prohibited, excluding removal of dead or diseased trees, particularly where they may pose a risk to health and safety^ and the creation of access to the water, to which a route no wider fhan 4 m can be created. It is not intended that this

prohibition be interpreted to prevent planting of trees and shrubs, if so desired^ on the meadow area at the front of Lot 3. The portion of tile setback area between 30 m and

40/45 m should have no development, but may be cleared, as deemed necessary, to create lawn or garden features or other non-stnictural uses associated with the residential use>

It is recommended that a survey be obtained to confirm the existence of a sufficient building on the lots,, particularly on the westernmost Lot 1.
It is recommended that the Township require the severances to be subject to site plan control or a preferred approach to ensure that the recommended setbacks are

implemented, and an appropriate Conclusion:

The proposed lots will b& large, and the density of development low, with sufficient room 6

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.