Body: Council Type: By-law Meeting: Regular Date: 2018 Collection: By-laws Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/By-laws/2018 By-laws/By-law 2018-30 - Site Plan Agreement with Corcoran and Benn.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAWNUMBER2018-30
BEINGA BY-LAWTO AUTHORIZETHE MAYORANDTHE CLERKTO EXECUTEA SITE PLAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENACAND HELENACORCORAN & JOY BENN.
WHEREASa Site Plan Agreement has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Townshipof South Frontenac and the Owners; AND WHEREAS the Owners have signed the Site Plan Agreement:
NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH
FRONTENACBY ITS COUNCIL,HEREBYENACTSAS FOLLOWS: 1.
THAT the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a Site Plan Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac and Helena Corcoran & Joy Benn, a copy of which is attached hereto forming part of this by-law.
THAT this By-law and Agreement shall be registered on title of the properties described as Part 2, Plan 13R-10429; Part of Lot 33, Concession VII, Storrington 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 first day of May, 2018. Read a first and second time this first day of May, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this first day May, 2018.
THE CORPORATIONOF THE TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
rr, Cterk-Administrator
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT made this
day
of May, 2018 between
HELENECORCORAN& JOYBENN
Hereinafter called the “Owner”
OF THE FIRSTPART -and-
THE CORPORATIONOF THETOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC Hereinafter called the “Municipality”
OF THE SECONDPART WHEREASthe Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of certain lands located in the Township of South Frontenac (the “Owner’sLands); AND WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality granted its approval to a zoning by-lawamendmentthat would permit new construction to be over the normally permitted lot coverage on the land more particularly described in Schedule"A”; ANDWHEREASit was a condition ofthe Council’s approval thatthe Ownerof the lands enter into this agreementwith the Municipalityon the terms set out; ANDWHEREASthe Municipality is authorizedto enter into this agreement and register it againstthe title to the severed lands, pursuantto section 41 of the PlanningAct; NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein, the parties agree each with the other as follows:
1.
The following schedules are attached to, and form part of, this agreement and no new building or 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. Site Plan
C. Environmental Report 2.
The Owner covenants that the Owner is the Owner in fee simple of the Owner’s lands described on Schedule “A” attached hereto.
The Owner shall perform all the work for the construction of a new dwelling with attached garage a maximum footprint of 3, 080 square feet in accordance with Schedule “B” attached hereto and in accordance with the
provisions of Special Waterfront Residential Zone (RW-40). 4.
The Owner shall remove the existing structures located within the 30 metre
setback from the lake prior to construction of the new dwelling. 5.
The Owner covenants and agrees with the Municipality as follows: 5. 1
Special Requirements
- 1
That any onshore or in-water works (e. g. dredging,
installation of a dock)will requirea permitfrom the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 5. 1.2 That any development, including any septic systems must be located a minimum of 30 metres from the hlghwater mark of Collins Lake and as shown on Schedule “B” attached hereto. Environmental Protection
1.3 That a building permit will not be issued for new development on the lands until the owner/applicant has received a permit from Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington Public Health.
1.4 That all roof and site run-off be directed to sites away from the lake, to allow for natural treatment and inflltration to take place.
1.5 That erosion control measures (e. g use of straw bales) be used
during anyconstruction and remain In place until any ground cover disturbed during construction has been re-established.
Ground cover will be re-established as soon as possible upon completion of construction.
- 1.6 That the property be managed prior to, during and following all development of the lands in a manner whereby the natural soil and vegetation is maintained within the water setback area
(minimum 98.4 feet/30 metres), except as approved by the
Townshipof South Frontenac, and that minimizesthe potential for soil erosion and the subsequent deposition of sediments and
pollutants in lake, creek, wetlands. If the natural vegetation had been disturbed and removed prior to the development of the lot, natural vegetation cover shall be restored within the water setback (minimum 98. 4 feet/30 metres) area. There shall be no
clear-cutting or constmctlon of roadways within the setback area.
1.7 That any excavated materials, garbage, or debris created by development on the lands shall be taken to an area well removed from the lake.
1.8
Development must be in accordance with the conditions of the
Environmental Site Evaluation report, dated April 23, 2018 prepared by Ecological Services and attached hereto as
Schedule “C”. 6. This Agreement shall be registered against the title to the Lands, and the Municipality shall be entitled to enforce its provisions against the Owner
and, in respect of the obligations affecting the Lands, against any or all subsequent owners of the Lands. 7. If the Owner fails or refuses for any reason to comply with any
requirements ofthis agreement, the Ownershall be in defaultand the Municipalitymay, on seven (7) days notice, require the Ownerto remedy the default, failing which the Municipality may, without further notice and
withoutprejudiceto any other rights and remediesavailableto it, do such things and perform such work as is necessaryto rectify the default 8. Any account rendered by the Municipality for work done shall be paid by the Ownerwithin thirty (30) days of the day of billing, and. If the Owner tails to pay, interest shall be charged on the amount outstanding at the rate of one and a quarter percent (1. 25%) per month (15% per annum) on the first day of each calendar month following the date the account was due. Any payments received on accounts rendered shall be applied first to any outstanding interest, which may have accrued, and the balance shall be applied to reduce the principal amount outstanding. 9. If the Municipality incurs any expense arising out of the terms of this Agreement, the Municipality may recover the amount in like manner as
municipal taxes or by action, pursuant to Section 326 of the Municipal Act 10. All costs necessary to fulfill any condition of this agreement, and all costs incurred by the Municipality In connection with the preparation, execution, registration or enforcement of this Agreement shall be paid by the Owner. 11. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties.
IN WITNESSWHEREOF the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands
and seals as of the day and year first written above. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED In the presence of:
WITNESSS
OWNER
WITNESS
OWNER
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Per:
^3^ RON VAN0EWAL- MAYOR
^Jl
WAY’NJt
SCHEDULE"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LANDS Concession VII, Part Lot 33, District of Storrington, Township of South Fronteaac, Part 2 on Plan 13R-10429
SCHEDULE"B" SFTEPLAN
b^KEFIELD ROAD aB–6’N61D3'2°‘E
PROFOSEUIB12S RESIDENCE WTH I
iiewrw).
SCHEDULE"C" ENVIRONMENTALREPORT
Ecological Services R.R. ffl, 3803 Sydenham Road Blginburg, Ontario KOH 1MO
Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices. ca
Municipality:
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE EVALUATION Township of South Frontenac (District of Stomngton)
Lots:
Concession:
Municipal Address: 2713 Lakefield Drive Site District: 6E-10 Landowner: Joy Benn Planning Application Reference: Description of Application:
The applicant is proposing to remove the derelict building and other structures that
currently sit lessthan 10mfromtheshorelmeanddevelopIheproperty (a lotof approximately 0.5 ha) with a single-family residence that will be set back at least 30 m from the shoreline, with a septic system set further back, installed behind the house in orderto minimize impact. The stated intent isto maintain a natural shoreline. The
applicantalsoproposesto removethe substantialamountsofgarbageandcast-off buildingmaterialsthatarescatteredthroughouttheproperty, andto attemptto removethe invasive, non-native European Buckthom shrub that is spread throughout the lot. Site Description:
The subject property is located at 2713 LakefieldDrive, on<hewest site of Collins Lake
(Attachment 1). WevisitedthesiteonApril 11,2018andagainonApril 22, 2018.The property has been partially cleared in the past, possibly in association with the abandoned cottage and outbuildings sitting close (less than 10 m) to the shoreline (Attachment 2);
mostofthe shorelineareaoftheproperty is grass-coveredlawn,withscatteredtrees. The back(northend)ofthe lothassometreecover,primarilyWhiteCedar,withundergrowth species characteristic of cultural disturbance, e.g., European Buckthom. The shoreline is rocky, more characteristically lacustrine than wetland, with some evidence of past fish nesting occurring atthe edge ofthe lake. There also appears to be the remains of a crib dock, as evidenced by a distinct pile ofunifonn sizedrocks extending out from shore. Remnant garbage and cast-offbuilding materials are scatteredthroughout the entire lot (including cans, bottles, toys, scaffolding, and lumber) and onthe bottom ofthe nearshore area ofthe lake (including car tires and building materials). The applicant has expressed a desire to clean up the garbage left behind by previous owners. The property is bounded on both sides by other single-residence properties. A. Ecological LandClassification The ELC type Dry - Fresh Whhe Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC2-2) covers the
backofthe lot There are several deciduous tree species in additionto the cedar dominant, including White Ash, Black Cherry, and Hop-hombeam. The front of the site (i. e. the nearshore area) is cultural in nature: on the west side a Mineral Cultural Meadow Ecosite (CUM1) with scattered White Cedar, Black Cherry, and Manitoba Maple trees
Environmental Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
Ecotogical Services: April 23, 2018
around the existing building and on the east side a Mineral Cultural Woodland EcositT
(CUW1)containingsmall outbuildings. Severalgaiden-escapespeciesconstitutemuchof the ground cover at the fi-ont of the site.
B. Slope The entire site is fairly level.
C. Surface Water Quality and Quantity
Collins Lake appears to have good water quality. A nearby station intheprovincial Lake Partner’sProgramhasrecordeda phosphorouslevel of 15.5 |ig/Lin2016.This correspondswithmesotrophic (mediumnutrient) levels. A eutrophicornutrient-richlake is one thathas high levels ofphosphorous (35 to 100 t>g/L), based on current Canadian standards (CCME 2004). Another sampling station atthe north end ofCollins Lake recordeda similarphosphorouslevel in 2016.However, it shouldbenotedthatthesedata consist of a single sample day each. D. Setback Requirements
The landowner is proposing a development setback ofat least 30 m andthe maintenance
ofnatural vegetation coverbetweenthebuildingandthewater. Thesepticsystem
associatedwiththedevelopmentwill besetbackfurther,behindthehouse.It is our
opinionthatthisisanacceptable setback, andthatthe natural vegetation withinthe setbackwill actto protectthenaturalheritagefeaturesandfunctionsfoundinthearea. Isthe ProposedDevelopmenf A. Ina ProvinciallySignificantWetlandorCoastalWetland? Adjacentto a ProvinciallySignificantWedandor CoastalWetlandT
Yes
Yes
No No
Yes Yes Yes
No
Yes
No
TheCollinsCreekWetlandComplexisadjacentto theproperty, as much ofCollins Lake is considered to bepart ofthe PSW. It is our opinion that removing a close dwelling and setting new construction at
least30m backfromthewater,withtheassociatedsepticbeingeven farther removed, will provide a net gamto Collins Lakeandits PSW. And the maintenance ofa shoreline withnautuial vegetation, as is intended by the landowner, will provide sufficient protection. B. Ina ReeionallySignificantWetland? Adjacentto a RegionallySignificantWetland? C. In/adjacent to anUnevaluated Wetland?
Accordingto theNatural Heritage Information Centre mapping, there is an unevaluated wetland on the subject property. However, from visiting
thesitewedidnotfindtheecologyto beconsistentwitha wetland-type site. The White Cedar woodland on this property is anupland type, with characteristic upland plants, e.g. Solidago sp., andthere were no ephemeral pools or standing water present, which would be expected duringthe spring meh whenthe sitewasvisited. The designation ofan unevaluated wetland was likely a mapping error. D. In an Area ofNatural and Scientific Interest?
Adjacent to anArea ofNatural and Scientific Interest?
Theclosest ANSI is Collins LakeUpland Forest, located approximately
Yes DKI No
Environmental Site Evaluation; Joy Benn
EcologicalServices: April 23, 2018
645 m away,onthefarsideofCollinsLake. E. In the habitat of Species at Risk?
YesDK|No
Weobserved no Species at Risk during our visit to theproperty, and its cultural nature does not make it a strong candidate for providing SAR habitat.WeassessedthesiteforthepossiblehabitatofsomeSARnot reported to be associated withthe site but known to exist in the region. Welookedfor (Endangered)Buttemuttreesbutfoundnone. Manyspeciesofbatsin OntarioareSpeciesatRisk,andwill roostin cavitytrees duringtfaewarmseason.A copseofseveralWhiteCedar treesonthe edgeofthepropertywithin30m ofthe shorelinewas observed to contain two trees with woodpecker-produced cavities. These trees were surrounded by lawn andseparated by about30m of open ground from thetreed portion ofthe property, located further north. The presence ofcavity trees is not unusual asthey arefound within all woodlands inthe region, butthey still needto be considered inthe context ofbatmaternity androosting. However, we considerthis to be a low probability for these two trees because the cavities are not
highup on the trees, the trees are not large, andthey arenot within a woodland (see OMNRF Regional Operations Division 2015). Furthermore, there was a lack of cavities in the rest of the 0. 5 ha
property, andthe OMNRF notes that a site would need cavity/snag concentrations greater than 10trees per hectare to have a highpotential forbatmaternityuse.Theapplicanthasbeenmadeawareofthetrees, and it should be noted thatthey are notwithinthe proposed building envelope, and therefore do not need to be removed.
As there is a dilapidated building on site, the potential for Barn Swallow CIhreatened) nesting wasconsidered, becausetheywill use old structures asnesting locations. Wecould seeno evidence ofnesting from previous seasons around the eaves ofthe cottage andthe building is sealed from outside access.
It is our opinionthat any Species at Risk in this areawould most likely be associatedwith Collins Lake. Given the low density ofthe proposed developmentandtheproposedprotectionofthevegetativestateofthe shoreline, there is unlikely to be any impactto Species atRisk. Adjacent to habitatof Species at Risk?
TheNaturalHeritageInformationCenter(NfflC) databasereportedthe potential for two Species at Risk (American Eel and Least Bittem) in
the 1-km2UTM blockencompassingthe subjectproperty (18UQ8312); wealsocheckedthedatabaseforthesurroundingUTMblocks,which listed sightings ofthree additional Species at Risk (Piping Plover, EasternMeadowlark,andGrayRatsnake- FrontenacAxispopulation).
Yes|g|QNo
Environmental Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
Ecological Services: April 23, 2018
American Eel (Anguilta rostrata).
ThisfishisdesignatedasEndangeredunderOntario’sEndangered SpeciesAct (ESA) andas Threatened bythe Committee onthe Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). A migratory species of
theSargassoSeaandinlandeasternNorthAmericanrivers, inOntario, it is found in the Lake Ontario Watershed, the St Lawrence River
Watershed,andthe OttawaRiverWatershed.NfflCdidnotprovidethe datethe species was last observed in theUTM block, but Collins Lake
doesnotfall withm theknownpost-2000 orpost-1980 rangesofthe American Eel, only withinthehistorical range (MacGregor etal. 2013). TheCataraquiRegionConservationAuthority(2017)doesnotlistthe American Eel asa known species in Collins Lake. This suggests that presence is unlikely, but ifpresent this species would be associated with
the lake, adjacentto the subjectproperty. Theproposed 30m setback andmaintenance ofnatural vegetation withm that setback would provide suitable protection.
Least Bittem (Ixobrychus exilis) This bird is designated as Threatened under the Species at RiskAct of Canada(SAKA),theESA,andby COSEWIC.LeastBittemsarefound in a variety ofwetland habitats, witha preference for cattail marshes.
Theyrequire permanent emergent wetlandvegetationto carryouttheir life cycle, andthis is notpresent of&hore ofthe subject property. As well, the Collins Lakepopulation isknownto havebeengreatly reduced or eliminated dueto habitat reduction (Weir 2008). TheNHIC observationdatesfrom 1904andrequiresnofurtherconsideration. Piping Plover (Charadriw melodus)
Piping Ploveis are designated anEndangered speciesunder boththe SARA,the ESA, andby COSEWIC.They require sandbeaches/dunes to carry out their life cycle, andthe only known location where nesting has recentlybeenobservedin theregionis inNorthBeachProvincialPark, withinPrinceEdwardCounty. TheNHICobservationdatesfrom 1903 and requires no further consideration.
Eastern Meadowlark (Stwnella magnet)
EasternMeadowlarks are designated as a Threatened speciesunderboth the SARAandthe ESA. This grassland budbreeds primarily in moderately tail grasslands, suchaspastures andhayfields, but also in other open areas. The most recent Eastern Meadowlark observation was
in 2001, butthis waslikely in theopenfields in some ofthe adjacent UTM blocks to 18UQ8312. There is not enough open land on the
subjectpropertyto be suitablehabitatforthisspecies. GrayRatsnake (Pantherophis spiloides) (Frontenac Axis population) The Frontenac Axis population ofthis snake is listed asThreatened
Bnvironmental SheEvaluation: JoyBenn
Ecological Services: April 23, 2018
underthe SARA, the ESA, and by COSEWIC.This species uses mosaic
habitats,movingbetweenforestsandforestedges.Femalesuserotten logs or compost piles to deposit eggs. Adult Gray Ratsnakes have high fidelity to their home ranges, particularly with respect to ovenvintering sites. Characteristic hibemacula occur in rock outcrops with subterranean geologic formations on south-facing slopes. The property does not contain indicative habitatfeatures for Gray Ratsnake use; the terrain is essentially flat providing no hibemation potential, the treed
part ofthe site is fairly scrubby, there are no unaltered forest-edge mosaics on the property (i.e. all ’edges’ to tree cover are at roads or cleared land), andthere are no suitable nesting sites. The observation in NfflC was from 2011, sothe snakes are active in the region, but while the species may bemoving throughAc area, the property itselfis not important Gray Ratsnake habitat. We did not find suitable habitat on the subject property for any of the
Species atRisk mentioned above, and it is our opinion thattheproposed development will have no impact on these species or their habitat Scant wildlife habitat?
Adjacent to significant wildlife habitat?
Without undertaking a detailed assessment, we consider it probable that Collins Lakewould support significantwildlife habitat(SWH). There is potential for significance through the provision of habitats of seasonal
concentrations of animals, specializedhabitatfor wildlife, habitat of species of conservation concern, and animal movement corridors (OMNR 2010). However, the small size and disturbed nature of the
subject property itselfmake it anunlikely candidatefor SWH. OUTreview oftheNHIC database foundthe listing of one species of conservation concern in the UTM block containing the subject property and one in an adjacent UTM block, discussed below. Broad BeechFern (Phegopteris hexagpnoptera) This fern is designated as a species of Special Concern under both the SASA,the ESA,andby COSEWIC. This fern grows in rich soils in deciduous forest such as Maple-Beech forests, which are not present on
the subject property. Olney’s Grimmia Moss (Grimmia olneyt) The NHIC observation dates from 1868 and requires no further consideration.
It seems most likely that SWH in this area would be associated with the
lake and associated wetland patches adjacent to the property. Given the considerations outlined above (low density ofthe proposed development and the maintenance of the natural vegetation), it is our
Environmental Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
Ecological Services: April 23, 2018
opinion that there will be no impact to SWH.
G. Within 120 m ofawaterbody? The majority ofthe lot is within 120 m ofCollins Lake.
Yes KID No
H. In fish habitat?
Adjacent to fish habitat? Collins Lake supports a wide variety of fish species (e. g. Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass, Northern Pike, etc. ).
We assessed the nearshore area for fish habitat The water depth directly offshore is approximately 1 m deep. It takes about 3 m of horizontal travel for the water depth to reach more than 2 m in most locations. The bottom substrate is firm and rocky, which suggests that
emergentvegetationgrowthwouldbemmimal, andremnantaquatic vegetation (possibly Sparganium) was only evident in one location
offshore. Duet» the substrate type, it is unlikely that fish nesting would be prevalent on this shoreline, although two possible remnant fish nests from 2017 were observed.
As there is no direct in-water work planned for the demolition ofthe outbuildings andthe derelict cottage, or for the construction ofthe new buildings and septic system greater than 30 m awayftom fish habitat, we do not anticipate any impacts to fishhabitat. Nevertheless, we do recommend the placement ofa sedimentation barrier (e. g., a silt screen) between the lake and any construction or demolition activities. With the maintenance of the natural vegetative state within the setback,
it is our opinionthatthepresence ofa single-family residence at least 30 m from the lake will have no impact on fish or fish habitat. I. In or Adjacent to Highly or Moderately Sensitive Lake Trout Lake?
Yes DKI No
J. In a significant woodland?
Yes DE] No
We found that the tree cover on site was consistent with historically cultural land use, and successional growth. There are no large areas of undisturbed woodland connected with the property. Adjacent to a significant woodland?
Yes |_B No
By land, the closest woodland connecting across a large area is over 1 km southwest of the property (or closer to 400 m if you include a
narrow strip oftrees running through light development). And across the lake, the Collins Lake Upland Forest ANSI is approximately 645 m away, as stated previously. K. In a significant valleyland? Adjacent to a significant valleyland?
In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to
demonstratetheappropriatenessoftheproposeddevelopment? If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on? Recommendations for Mitigation:
Yes_E No
Environmental Site Evaluation: JoyBenn
Ecological Services: April 23, 2018
- All development should be setbacka minimum distance of30 m from the highwater level. We recommend that the intervening land should be maintained in a natural
vegetativestate, andthattherebenodisturbanceto thevegetationcoverorthesoil mantle. Thisrecommendationis not intendedto preventuseoftheshoreline.For example, a walking trail (up to 3 m in width) to the water&ont is reasonable. Removal
ofany tree or shrub that is diseased or non-native/invasive or poses a hazard to health or property is acceptable (although removal oftrees should occur in fall or winter, if
possible,to beconsistentwiththeMigratoryBudsConventionAct).Newplantings near the shoreline, if desired, should be trees and shrubs native to Ontario.
The septic system should befurther removed from thehighwater line thanthe associated residence.
Weadditionallyrecommendthatthedemolitionoftheexistingbuildingoccurassoon aspossible,andthatit becheckedfornestingbirdspriorto thedemolition.
We recommend that a sedimentation barrier (e.g., a silt screen) beplaced between the lake and any construction or demolition activities.
The landowner (oranysubsequent purchaser) shouldbemadeawarethata permit will berequired from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority prior to undertaking anyworkinoradjacenttothewater, includinga floatingdock. Environmental Impact Statement: It is our opinion thatthe proposed
Yes BD No
undertakingwill havenonegativeimpactonthenaturalheritage features or ontheir ecological functions, andthat the proposal is consistentwiththe intentoftheProvincialPolicyStatement. Infact, cleaningtfaerefusefromthe siteandrelocatingthestructures further from tfae lake may have a modest net benefitto the site’s natural heritage values. Is monitoring recommended?
Yes
No
Contacts, References & Literature Cited:
CanadianCouncil ofMinisters ofthe Environment. 2004. CanadianWaterQuality Guidelines for the Protection ofAquatic Life: Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of Freshwater Systems. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 2004, CanadianCouncil ofMinisters ofthe Environment, Winnipeg. 6 pp. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 2017. Collins Lake:Lake Fact Sheet. <https://www. crca. ca/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/LakeReports/2017-FactSheetCollinsLake. pdfr- (accessed April 13, 2018).
FrontenacCounty InteractiveMappingViewer.2018.Websitemaintainedbythe County of Frontenac. <ittp://www. fiontenacmaps. ca/Html5Viewer/index. html?viewer =PubliO (accessed April 18, 2018). Kraus, T., B. Hutchinson, S. Thompson and K. Prior. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis spiloides) - Carolinian and Prontenac Axis
Environmeirtal Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
EcologicalServices: April 23, 2018
populationsin Ontario.OntarioRecovery StrategySeries.Preparedforthe Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, vi + 23 pp. Lee,H.T., W.D.Bakowsky, J.Riley, J.Bowles, M. Puddister, P.Uhlig andS. McMuiray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First
Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Mmistry ofNatural Resources,
SoutfacentralScienceSection,ScienceDevelopmentandTechnologyTransfer
Branch.SCSSFieldGuidePG-02.225pp.
MacGregor, R.,J. Casselman, L. Greig, J.Dettmeis, W.A. Alien, L. McDennott, andT. Haxton. 2013. Recovery Strategy fortheAmerican Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in
Ontario. OntarioRecovery Strategy Series.PreparedforOntarioMinistry of
Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, x + 119pp.
Natural Heritage Infonnation Centre. 2018. Websitemaintained bythe Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources andForests, with species rarity rankings in Ontario, and information on reported element occurrences.
<http://www.gisappUcation. lrc.gov.on.ca/mamnh/Index. html?site=MNR NHLUP S_Natura[Heritage&viewei=NaturaIHeritage&locale=en-US > (accessed April 13, 2018).
Ontario LakePartnerProgram. 2016. Websitemaintained bytheOntario Ministty ofthe Environment andClimate Change,withtotalphosphorous andwaterclarity records. <https://www. ontario. ca/data/ontario-lake-partner> (accessed Aonl 13.
2018).
'
, — ,—. ^…. -,
OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources. 2010.Natural Heritage Reference Manual for NaturalHeritagePoliciesoftheProvincialPolicyStatement,2005. 2ndedition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp.
Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources andForestry (OMNRF) Regional Operations Division. 2015.TechnicalNote: SpeciesatRisk(SAR) Bats.June2015.
ProvincialPolicyStatement.2014.IssuedunderSection3 ofthePlanningAct Province ofOntario. 50 pp.
Weir,R.D.2008.BirdsoftheKingstonRegion.SecondEdition.QuarryPressInc. Kingston, Ontario.
Environmental SiteEvaluation Completed By: Megan Snetemger DateofSiteInspection: April 11, 2018andApril 22, 2018 DateofReport:April 23. 2018 Signature:
B
I I Subject property
/
8?
0
§
Attachment 1. SectionofStomngtonDistrictin theCountyofFrontenacfrom theFrontenacCounty interactivemappingviewer. The approxunate location of the subject property is noted.
I.
I
t K g
Environmental Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
EcologicalServices: April 23, 2018
Attachment2. Satelliteimageofthesubjectproperty (approximatelot outlinedin yellow), showing existing andproposed features, aswell asthe division ofELC types (broken yellow lines). The broken white line indicates an approximate setback of 30 m from the shoreline. Base image from Google Earth.
10
Environmental Site Evaluation: Joy Benn
Ecotogical Services: April 23, 2018
Attachment 3. Site photographs, taken on site April 11, 2018. Photo 1. The White Cedar forest at the north end of the
property. Note
the garbage, typical ofthis site.
^ 71 ‘. :. il
f- Tv n
Photo 2. Looking across Ifae Cultural Meadow towaid Collins Lake, to the southeast.
The measuring tape shows the distance of 30 m to the shoreline. Note that the existing cottage falls within that
30m.
11
Environmental Site Evaluation: JoyBenn
Ecological Services: April 23, 2018
Photo 3.
Looking across the Cultural Meadowto the northwest, from
the edge ofthe lake. Note the existing cottage and the stake
markingthe property line.
Photo 4.
Viewalongthe shoreline of the property at Collins Lake. Note the rocky quality ofthe
shorelineandtheproximityof the existing cottage and other structure to the lake.
12
