Committee Of Adjustment - 08 Aug 2024 - Agenda

Published August 8, 2024

Word Count 50107 words

Reading Time 236 min read

Body: Committee of Adjustment Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: August 8, 2024 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of Adjustment/2024/Committee Of Adjustment - 08 Aug 2024 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Committee Of Adjustment Meeting Agenda TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 8, 2024 Council Chambers/Virtual Via Zoom .

Call to Order

Resolution.

Adoption of Agenda

Resolution.

Electronic Meeting Information

The meeting will be live streamed at the following link: http://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontenacTwp/ Please visit the Virtual Committee of Adjustment Meetings page on the Township website for the link to register to be a participant in this meeting: https://www.southfrontenac.net/en/open-for-business/virtualcommittee-of-adjustment-meetings.aspx Instructions about participating via Computer, Laptop, Smartphone, Tablet and Telephone can be found at the above noted link as well.

PowerPoint Presentation Staff has prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that will be displayed on the screen of the meeting, you can also follow along with the PDF version that is in the attachment of this agenda item.

Declaration of pecuniary interest

There are none.

Approval of Minutes – July 11, 2024

Resolution.

Consent Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable)

New Consent Applications:

PL-BDJ-2024-0040 (Asselstine) - Portland District

4 - 10

11 - 52

Property Address: 4659 Holleford Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: The application is requesting consent to create a new lot within the settlement area of Hartington. The severed parcel is approximately 6.8ha in area with 85m of frontage on Holleford Road. The severed lands are farm fields and contain a barn. The retained lot is located outside the settlement area and will be approximately 9.5ha in area with 250m of frontage on Road 38. The retained lands are farm fields and contain a solar panel. The severed lands are designated Settlement Area and zoned RU. The retained lands are designated

Page 1 of 224

Agricultural and zoned AG. 8.

Minor Variance / Permission Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable)

New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:

PL-ZNA-2024-0026 (Kubes) - Storrington District

53 - 84

Property Address: 4725 Noble Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: To request permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling located within 30m of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The existing 1-storey seasonal dwelling with attached deck covers a ground area of 176sqm. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and build a new 2-storey dwelling with walkout basement, partially within the existing footprint. The proposed dwelling (153.9sqm) with attached garage (62.2sqm) and deck (33.3sqm) would have a ground area of 250sqm and a gross floor area of 331sqm. The proposed structure would improve upon the highwater mark setback of the existing (14.1m vs. 10.6m). Dwelling height would increase from 4m to 10.7m. The proposed dwelling would have a 9m rear yard setback whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum 10m. Finally, the proposal would facilitate the installation of a new septic system, setback a minimum 15m from the highwater mark. b)

PL-ZNA-2024-0083 (Dickinson) - Bedford District

85 150

Property Address: 158 Coyote Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The Owner proposes to construct a single detached dwelling on the property. The dwelling would be set back 10 metres from the top of bank. A minor variance is being requested to allow the dwelling to be set back less than 15 metres from the top of bank as required by the Zoning By-law. c)

PL-ZNA-2024-0087 (Adrain) - Bedford District

151 177

Property Address: 11 Doc’s Point Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The application seeks relief from Zoning By-law 2003-75 for the purpose of permitting a detached garage on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to build a 90.5sqm detached garage. The garage would be setback 8m from the front lot line, whereas the zoning by-law requires 20m. Further, the proposed garage would have a lot coverage value of 6%, whereas the zoning by-law stipulates a maximum lot coverage value of 5% for a detached accessory structures. d)

PL-ZNA-2024-0089 (Preston & Clayton) - Loughborough District

178 205

Property Address: 4652 North Shore Road

Page 2 of 224

Purpose & Effect of the Application: The owners intend to demolish all the existing buildings on the property, and to build a two-storey house, a sleeping cabin and a cabana. The house would be setback 25.4m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The sleeping cabin would be 11.4m from the lake and 6m from the top of bank. The cabana would be 12.6m from the lake and 6m from the top of bank. The sleeping cabin and cabana would be in the footprint of the old cottage. Minor variances are being requested (1) to allow the three buildings to be setback less than 30m from the highwater mark of the lake, and (2) to allow the sleeping cabin and cabana to be less than 15m from the top of bank. e)

PL-ZNA-2024-0095 (Donaldson) (Spellman) - Loughborough District

206 222

Property Address: Hinterland Lane (Johnston Point - Unit 2) Purpose & Effect of the Application: The owners propose to construct a house and sewage system on Unit 2 of the Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium. The RLSW-104 zone requires the house to be setback a minimum of 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of Loughborough Lake. It was determined during the review process that a small bay comes into the property making it impossible to achieve this setback. The house would be 9.5m from the floodline in the small bay. The plot plan suggests that points of the house may also intrude into the setback by 0.1m to 0.8m. A minor variance is being requested to allow the house to be setback less than 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of the lake.

Other Business

Delegated Authority Report

Adjournment

Resolution.

223 224

Page 3 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Meeting # 06 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers/Virtual Via Zoom Present: Norm Roberts, Doug Morey, Steve Pegrum, Randy Ruttan, Alan Revill, Brett Moreland, Kevin Fox, Mike Howe Absent: Staff: Tom Fehr, Planner; Noah Perron, Planner; Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer 1

Call to Order

Resolution. Resolution No. 2024-06-01 Moved by: Norm Roberts Seconded by: Kevin Fox THAT the July 11, 2024 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac is hereby called to order at 7:00pm

Adoption of Agenda

Resolution.

Carried

Resolution No. 2024-06-02 Moved by: Kevin Fox Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the Committee of Adjustment adopts the Agenda for the July 11, 2024 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried 3

Electronic Meeting Information

The meeting was live streamed at the following link: http://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontenacTwp/

PowerPoint Presentation Staff prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that was displayed on the screen of the meeting, you can also follow along with the PDF version that is in the attachment of this agenda item.

Page 4 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 4

Declaration of pecuniary interest

Deemed Personal Conflict declared by Committee member Brett Moreland regarding Agenda items 7. a) and 9. a) as the applicants are family members.

Approval of Minutes – June 13, 2024

Resolution. Resolution No. 2024-06-03 Moved by: Steve Pegrum Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves the minutes of the June 13, 2024 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried

Consent Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable)

New Consent Applications:

PL-BDJ-2024-0047 (Smith) - Storrington District Property Address: 3395 Moreland Dixon Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: Consent to sever for the purpose of creating one rural residential lot. The proposed severed lot would have 2 acres of area and approximately 84 metres of frontage on Princess Road. The retained parcel would have an approximate area of 89 acres with frontage on Princess Road and Moreland-Dixon Road. The severed lot is located within the influence area of an existing quarry operation. For this reason, an application for a minor variance (PL-ZNA-20240048) has also been submitted to permit residential land uses within 300-500m of the quarry operation. Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved with conditions. Randy Ruttan, Chair of the Committee inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee (None heard). Chair Ruttan gave members of the public the opportunity to speak to the application (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. (None heard). Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer read the resolution for conditional approval of the consent application. Chair Ruttan asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the resolution (None heard).

Page 5 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 Resolution No. 2024-06-04 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Steve Pegrum THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves consent application PLBDJ-2024-0047 for property municipally known as 3395 Moreland Dixon Road, to allow the creation of one new rural residential lot, being 2 acres in area and having 84 metres of frontage on Princess Road, subject to conditions. Carried 8 Minor Variance / Permission Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable) 9

New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:

PL-ZNA-2024-0048 (Smith) - Storrington District Property Address: 3395 Moreland Dixon Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: This minor variance application was submitted with Consent application PLBDJ-2024-0047 in order to permit residential land uses within 300-500m of the quarry operation. The proposed severed lot is approximately 380m from the licensed quarry area. Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved with conditions. Randy Ruttan, Chair of the Committee inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee (None heard). Chair Ruttan gave members of the public the opportunity to speak to the application (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. (None heard). Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer read the resolution for conditional approval of the minor variance application. Chair Ruttan asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the resolution (None heard). Resolution No. 2024-06-05 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Steve Pegrum THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0048 for property municipally known as 3395 Moreland Dixon Road, to allow for the creation of one new rural residential lot, being located approximately 380 metres from a licensed quarry operation, subject to conditions. Carried

PL-ZNA-2024-0061 (Szewerda) (Stokes) - Bedford District Property Address: 100 Maple Grove Crescent Purpose & Effect of the Application:

Page 6 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 To request permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling and attached deck located within 30m of the highwater mark of Bobs Lake. The existing single storey dwelling has a ground floor area of 66.8sqm and an attached deck with an area of 35.8sqm. The ground floor area of the proposed dwelling will be 80.3sqm plus a 15.7sqm covered deck and 8sqm open deck. The gross floor area of the proposed dwelling includes a full basement and partial second storey and will be 192.7sqm. The overall footprint of development will be increasing from 102.7sqm to 104.2sqm. The height of the dwelling will be increasing from 5m to 8.9m. The proposed dwelling will maintain the existing 22.9m setback from the highwater mark of Bobs Lake Tom Fehr, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions. Chair Ruttan inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to speak to the application. Rod Stokes, agent on the application, stated that he was available to answer any questions raised by the public or the Committee. Chair Ruttan inquired (3 times) as to whether there were any questions or comments from members of the public regarding this application. (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the agent regarding the proposal. (None heard). Ms. Kaestner read the resolution for approval of the application, subject to conditions. Chair Ruttan inquired as to whether there were any comments from Committee members regarding the resolution. (None heard). Resolution No. 2024-06-06 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Kevin Fox THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves application PL-ZNA-20240061 for property municipally known as 100 Maple Grove Crescent, to permit the enlargement of the existing legal non-conforming dwelling located within 30 metres of the highwater mark of Bobs Lake, subject to conditions. Carried c)

PL-ZNA-2024-0064 (Fraser) - Portland District Property Address: 3535 Desert Lake Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: The applicant seeks relief from Zoning By-law 2003-75 for the purpose of permitting a detached garage on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to build a 24ft x 20ft (480sqft) detached garage. The garage would be setback 10m from the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 20m.

Page 7 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved with conditions. Chair Ruttan inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee (None heard). Chair Ruttan inquired (3 times) if there were any members of the public who wished to speak to the application (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. (None heard). Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer read the resolution for conditional approval of the minor variance application. Chair Ruttan asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the resolution (None heard). Resolution No. 2024-06-07 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Kevin Fox THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0064, for property municipally known as 3535 Desert Lake Road, to allow an accessory structure, being a 480 square foot detached garage, to be setback 10 metres from the front lot line, subject to conditions. Carried d)

PL-ZNA-2024-0072 (Burt) (Goodberry) - Portland District Property Address: 6079 Short Street Purpose & Effect of the Application: The Owner proposes to construct an additional dwelling unit in an addition which is to be attached to the existing single detached dwelling on the property. The proposed addition would be a two storey addition with a garage on the lower level and the additional dwelling unit on the upper level. The Township Zoning By-law requires that additional dwelling units shall be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the principal dwelling. The gross floor area of the existing dwelling is 69sqm and the gross floor area of the proposed additional dwelling unit is 148sqm. A minor variance is requested to permit the additional dwelling unit to exceed the gross floor area of the existing principal dwelling. Tom Fehr, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved with conditions. Chair Ruttan inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee (None heard). Chair Ruttan gave members of the public the opportunity to speak to the application (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. (None heard).

Page 8 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer read the resolution for conditional approval of the application. Chair Ruttan asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the resolution (None heard). Resolution No. 2024-06-08 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Steve Pegrum THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0072 for property municipally known as 6079 Short Street, to allow the gross floor area of the proposed Additional Dwelling Unit to exceed the gross floor area of the existing principal dwelling, subject to conditions. Carried e)

PL-ZNA-2024-0074 (Franche) - Loughborough District Property Address: 1112 Old Mine Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: To request permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling and attached deck located within 30m of the highwater mark of Sigsworth Lake. The existing dwelling has a ground floor area of 89.2sqm and an attached deck with an area of 17.9sqm. The dwelling will be expanded with a 26.8sqm sunroom attached to the west side of the existing dwelling. The deck will be extended by 6.8sqm with an area of new decking proposed in front of the sunroom. The height of the dwelling will not be increased as a result of the development. The existing dwelling and attached deck are set back 20.4m and 18m from the highwater mark of Sigsworth Lake. The proposed sunroom and deck extension will maintain these setbacks and not encroach closer to the water. Tom Fehr, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with a staff recommendation that the application be approved with conditions. Chair Ruttan inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee (None heard). Chair Ruttan inquired (3 times) as to whether members of the public wished to speak to the application (None heard). Chair Ruttan asked Committee members whether they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. (None heard). Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer read the resolution for conditional approval of the application. Chair Ruttan asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the resolution (None heard). Resolution No. 2024-06-09 Moved by: Steve Pegrum Seconded by: Mike Howe

Page 9 of 224

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 11, 2024 THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves application PL-ZNA-20240074, for property municipally known as 1112 Old Mine Lane, to permit the enlargement of the existing legal non-conforming dwelling located within 30 metres of the highwater mark of Sigsworth Lake, subject to conditions. Carried 10

Other Business

Delegated Authority Report Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk, delivered her report to the Committee.

Adjournment

Resolution. Resolution No. 2024-06-10 Moved by: Kevin Fox Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the July 11, 2024 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac is hereby adjourned at 7:41pm to reconvene on Thursday, August 08, 2024 at 7:00 pm or at the call of the Chair. Carried

Randy Ruttan, Chair

Page 10 of 224

Page 11 of 224

pre—consultation

Planning

Upda

D6 D7 or

Act,

January

Deed

ted

Required

Rideau Please additional

Cataraqui Quinte

Agency: Township

application. application

. Agency applicable

Valley

application

requirement

re—

application

2023

transfer,

studies

fees

1990,

c. P.13

authorization

supporting

These fees if permit

onsite

form

prior

lot or

amended

for

Township

Information

are

ident

new on required

Staff

prior

lot this

review

the

at to

title

(if

agencies

lot)

documents

construction.

secure

that

So uth

y o u

The

applic able)

T O $ T 5 A $ 1 L 4 5 $ : 4 4 5 $ 5 5 0 0 0

$ 1 $ ,3 3 $ 2 4 5 0 7 6 .. payment, 0 0 with the .0 0 the in pay0 0 men t

new

Fee:

only:

(per

included

pre—consultation

any

acquire

include).

Township

wish

proof Township

the

may

to what recommended

lot addition) application or

cheque submitted to review fee may

sewage disposal or lot addition) lot addi on)

It is You

es application.

I $150.00

the

d complete. o

which

Application

commissioned.

considered

application

and

Application

payable

,347.00 $1 $320.00 $560.00

Planning

fee,

submission

not

Any

Consent

signed

will

application.

separate

Authority (per consultation

lot

new

are for applications

Frontenac (per (per new

Conservation

South Conservation Conservation

Note:

requiring

your

accepted

Question 25 details for and measurements. and crate the sketch. drafting of sketches.

with be

Fees applicable). (as A Conservation Authority, to is The on—site sewage disposal fee to the Township.

Conditions

Review

conditions

Type: Application

R.S.O.

circulation

Change Change

Consent

non—refundable

applicable

Application

The

fee

completed

meeting

this

not

of A Sketch your proposal (see drawn with accurate dimensions carefully to assemble the data a person who specializes the in

copy

may

submitted

meeting

hard

must information

One

Pre—consultation

required

items

Requirements

2 .

below

following

I: El

III

The the

Application

so U T H FRONTENAC

Page 12 of 224

What

… . .

Personal

Information:

OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC CONSENT

APPLICATION

when

to: of

development

matters of

application?

decision—making convenience and

the

reviewing

provincial

approval welfare of

interest

authority, the present

i n

regar future d,

have

referred

and

shall

Whether the severed proposed lot is or premature in the interest. public Whether the consent the conforms to intent the Plan of Official and a subdivision d (if any) j The suitability the of land the for for purposes which it is being severed a affordable lf units housing are the being proposed, the suitability of pro c affordable housing poe sed The location number, width, n and and proposed grades elevations road of t adequacy relation way in to roadway linking any proposed the severed proposed s established roadway system, The dimensions and of the shape lot. proposed restrictions Any on the land (or subject on the and buildings structures to be on restrictions abutting lands. any Conservation of natural resources and flood control. The adequacy utilities of and services. municipal The adequacy of schools. The area of land, if any, exclusive roadways, of that is to be conveyed or ded purposes (such as for parks). icat The physical configuration of new the lot having to conservation.ed regard energy Plan Site Control Frontenac County of Official Plan of South Township Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac By—Law Zoning Provincial Policy Statement

Act.

safety,

application,

health,

effect Planning

The

the and

considered

2224).

information requested on the application is under form required the Pla be used will the nni by Township the for of purpose the reviewing application. those to boards, Commissions, Authorities, and Persons Agencies having ng Any questions the regarding collection this of information should be directed the of Adjustment Committee of Box (P.O. 1 00, Sydenham, KOH Ont., 2T0,

considering In matters, to municipality

ext.

3027

Treasurer

matter,

available

information

Personal

Collection

TOWNSHIP

Page 13 of 224

Page 14 of 224

type

Addition

Easement

I:li_ot

(gown

Car

Pgrm

Please consenL/

water

Waterbody:

changes.

the

09$

(PIN):

well

back

wan/Pol

[0‘5

area

the

land a

per

the

name

need

reason

Title

r€a_aws

(O?g

distance,

Chem

why

£E§ CQ¢

you

(3c

ar e

wh Ai ? +hcy/ 1 m el’ rl‘

an +A/s /

PO +5? WFr i

a p pl ic a bl e) r: .

the (if

HQ!IE

(m):

czar

+103+haw£

x.)

{comer

the

Qibwimj

rear/l?

r‘rx

Indicate

Clomer:

road/lane

Road/Lane:

Doorrection EILease

Area(acres/ha):

Name

Frontage

The

£2

subject land and waterbody

Loughborough

Number(s):

road/lane

land:

00(30

Paid:

QY‘

APPLICATION

application?

Meeting:

Number:

Fee

this

CONSENT

e70 annrnKthOTE/(JJ

the

Part

Lot

Date

regarding

subject the of

application.

for:

Portland

Staff

FRONTENAC

()Ql—K)

your

applied

4 A

Mortgage

way)

Lot

description

—

t—J—O

and indicate

being

depth

land:

(HQng

Planning

SOUTH

( am OPEFG‘LI‘OH

brief

(“?ea—l»

—

Bedford

Number

(arge pa reel 4—th l3 $€:-

provide

New

(right

consent

(rn):

3L”n

Please

Township

subject

Number:

frontage(s),

IXICreationof

the

any

the

with

Chic

DCharge/Discharge

Select

Depth(m):

Name

Frontage

prior

Indicate

Plan

Identification

Number:

Property

Roll

Reference

Number:

Planner:

consulted

Address:

Concession

Civic

Yes

you

description

District:

The

Name

Have

TOWNSHIP

Page 15 of 224

P\O’\r+

mus

HES

woqu mks, wade», {n ~er Couture \p‘aJr $a>m¢ ‘faomeom waMed +0 bu?d a House. m wan+ H“ loco?redhear Jrhe road Or Jer m war? \J‘ doggr 4Q {#18, barn whmih‘5 O C‘lé+0“ce a MLH owwj DrMI‘ now be; nowhere near dec: loo‘oerx’on tum acme/one, mowcl WIN A .

[his

prewar/":8matstonlwte +0 ha USCG] Q0,— Cor man& t?cars th Cowmfn NOHH‘n? bansbum” Hmfv

Page 16 of 224

Lot:

the

Lot:

Buildings/Structures:

Proposed

P roposed Use of

Existing Buildings/Structures:

Use

Existing

list

(acres

Acres

Please

(m):

Depth ha):

existing

Waterbody:

Name

Fragntage

Water

Sigdelfgne:

LOT

information

NEW

:?:;7E:ngn(m)r

The following retained.

Create —

-5

Cxckcls

(Proposed

N/A N/A

born

‘gr‘m

Lot

USES

aa,re,$

new

lot):

STRUCTUR

new

lot):

ONLY

intended

Q0 00)

and

me+ra$

N/A N //4 920

land

section

FRONTENAC

(Proposed

HQ‘ \E‘Cg)rd

this the

SOUTH

Lot

regarding

proposed

Severed

and

Complete

Severed

TOWNSHIP

are

ES.

severed

you

CONSENT

none.

‘Brm

449%

germ

Retained

piheJ d

awards

. <07

“1/“ 920

4145

.Oi

Iv/zfi

I20 ad

gqq

cre ate and

Retained

(created)

applying

APPLICATION

Page 17 of 224

LOT

(m):

(acres

Depth

Acres

ha):

Water

(m):

Waterbody:

Name

Frontage (m):

Road/Lane:

Name

Road/Lane

Frontage

ha):

Water

(m):

information the receiving

(acres

Acres

following are

(m):

Depth

The which

information

ADDITION

Waterbody:

Name

(m):

Frontage

Road/Lane:

Name

Frontage Road/Lane

The following retained.

—

Complete

(Before

Lot

FRONTENAC

the

Addition)

Lot:

Benefitting

Addition

Lands

(Severed

this section ONLY the land intended to

SOUTH

Benefitting

Lot

regarding

addition.

Existing

lot

parcel):

regarding

Proposed

TOWNSHIP

are

Enlarged (After

known

severed

you

a lso

CONSENT

Lot

the

b e i n adde g

and

for

land

Lot with Addition)

Retained

applying (created)

APPLICATION

Page 18 of 224

Lot:

the

Other:

Lake

Privately

and

owned

water

and

—

WATER

operated

effect

Lands:

lands:

the

Complete

(Indicate

well

and

Privately

owned

water

will

and

are

pr o vi de d) :

Benefitti ng

operated

will

benefit:

system

Area:

ONLY

APPLICATION

you

that

which

water

Municipal

Parcel

property

section

Other:

method

the

Retained

the

and

Width:

this

Retained

Lands:

CONSENT

STRUCTURES.

FRONTENAC

easement

—

USES

SOUTH

WAY

Addition:

proposed

Depth:

system

Parcel

Proposed

Benefitting

Severed

water

RIGHT

Lot

and

right—of—way

purpose

Municipal

LOT)

Servicing

the

res:

existing

IIIDEIIII

(NEW

Number

Describe

Roll

Civic

Length:

address

EASEMENTS

Buildings/Structures:

Proposed

Proposed of Use

easement

12.Type

1 1

Lot:

list

Buildings/Structu

Existing

Existing of Use

Please

TOWNSHIP

Page 19 of 224

16.Are

Municipal

El Road

highway Road

Provincial

Municipal —

—

seasonally

maintained

the

land

subject

round

will

Way):

will

Privatel

by:

Ho I [9(2) ml

Yes

interest

its

the

right Water

land

Pit

effect:

Lane

20/

Yes

El D ‘3

and

Privy/Outhouse

Tank

bed

and

system

APPLICATION

Greywater

Holding

Leaching

system:

owned

owned system

covenant

property?

CI El I:I Cl

septic

Publicly

septic

Parcel

disposal

CONSENT sewage

Retained

covenants?

the

easement

maintained

year

land

each

the

whom

restrictive

Right

[200/4 access

addition

which

individual

(How

FRONTENAC

communal

Proposed

SOUTH

wells

accesses:

description

abandoned

(Class

operated

person(s)

easements

of the known):

lot:

(lot

whether

lot

lane

any

(if

Pit

indicate

retained

The

new

road

provide

existing

The

aware

please

name

leased

any

list

Tank

System

Bed

and

Parcel

Privy/Outhouse

Greywater

Holding

I:l CI El

you

Please

owned system:

Leaching

the

Privately

septic

system

owned

Severed

Disposal

I:|

there

Yes,

Name

15.Are

14.Please charged

Publicly

septic

Sewage

LOT)

(NEW

13.Type

TOWNSHIP

(see

n e xt

way

DU nkn own

(Class

operated

pr ov id ed operated ?):

Page 20 of 224

21.Is

Please

zoning

Lot:

water

only,

the

SOUTH

lands? (Check

explain:

application

Township that you

specific

current ha Q

Plan

aLn

Designation 1/

consistent

the

PEI Unknown

with

2020

how the application conforms applicable sections and Official Plan and Section do know. not

301

Official

legally

subject

Polio!

used and public Please

@113

be to nearest access.

sca

APPLICATION

lands?

Statement?

make Plan.

Official

& Countv Plan sure look to at are If you un su re,

/wh%rn ham/

and the deeded

Township the sections. Please the County Official

the

with

Provincial

sub

land

docking

CONSENT

www.frontenacma

MUST

and subject

FRONTENAC parking the

facilities from only properties

describe

subject

these of access

ree:n{en+i’ql and OSYIACMH‘MI’PC/

the

describe

the

DYes

the

indicate

20.Please

What

Retained

The

Lot:

for

water distance

New

The

confirmation.

18.What

access

approximate and Docking

TOWNSHIP

Page 21 of 224

25.Is

required

SKETCH guide required

“A

without

the

must be

completing survey shows including

Yes

the

Official

Planning

a lawyer’s the subject

land

for

the

Act

that

there

Unknown

the

land?

III

land

September

Application

consent?

than

retained

other

result

414810

since land.

for

land that

Yes

2000?

could

your

UDUUEIDD

ne w

sho w,

abutting

section

ap pr 5 ov 3 to an of al fi all applicabl ci e al

APPLICATION

of an application a consent under an amendment for order? Complete

Date

subject

property, the of

(0??

uses

statement land,

/ne

and

subject

Number

15‘ No

the

CONSENT

For more information on what the sketch needs to consent application form". If your application is approved different and location frontages, area than was a submitted, submission of a new and application fees“

provide

owner 50 of of

subject

Certificate

the

the section submitted

the

was!” 610/0

must

[car

Planning site of a Minister’s

Act, for or plan, zoning

FRONTENAC

currently.

Application

from transferee

by-law

for

SOUTH

or is the of approval

been, 51

severed name of

acquire

(

requesting

owner

(Q0

transfer;

Order

Amendment

previously

Zoning

applicant are owned contravening

—

applicant

current

If yes lands that

the

m Yes

been date of

Minister’s

By—law

Amendment

Approval

Zoning

Plan

23.Has land provide

24.Did

Subdivision

Variance

Type

Official

Site

Minor

Consent

Plan

Application

amendment

ever land under section variance, to the zoning

the subject subdivision of a minor Act, for

22.Has

TOWNSHIP

Page 22 of 224

Note:

The

III

[:1

The

if the

all

The it is

unopened

subject

may

wells

and road

top

the

affect

allowance,

name

will

from

septic drainage

require

natural

land

and

that

application

any

public

roads

the

nearest

owns

area

farm

please

road,

(as

road

h y wet d lan r ds,o

la n

the

such

land, or

indic ating right

application . above)

with

Distance

banks.

approximate

subject

the

roads.

and

originally

cros sin

fro nta ge s proposal.

switchi ng

is road

railway

the

that

your

listed

Minimum check

stream

railways,

property,

private

the

the indicate

features

abutting

surrounding

property of:

near

applicable)

bridge

Please

structure,

to complete issues.

pits

artificial

any

you

and

river

bridges,

application,

APPLICATION

the part hectares),

lands

the

location

subject

road,

other

(if

LABEL (acres

parcel

ditches,

systems,

within travelled

(if agricultural, new lot).

on the

also

the

page. property.

total

the

CONSENT

metric as are shown.

located on the the approximate

and

quarry’s

and

show

are

severed

land

property

whole the

compatibility of implications

barn

facility,

consider

information

nearby to

propane

the

that and

watercourses,

label

features

uses current uses commercial the from proposed the

width

indicate and

location,

any

opinion

include

agricultural barn structure

Please

applicant’s

Please

the

Buildings,

Please

order

regarding

Barns

Landfills,

and

same both

FRONTENAC

the unless

the of including waterbodies.

dimensions retained,

include

SOUTH

following:

North

the

must acceptable

land previously the subject land.

artificial

Existing

between

owner

Waterbodies,

areas

and be

each

existence

arrow with

sketch be

not

include

property.

the

will

for

and

owner

location

Calculation Department

The

must

distance

natural

subject

All

current

The

‘3

Indicate

that

feet

boundaries that

directional

part roads/lanes

the

[:1

note

and

sketch

The

Please meters

TOWNSHIP

Page 23 of 224

We.

We,

with

the

than

municipality,

incurred exceed

days.

by the

from

been

the

AGREEMENT

fee,

to fees.

the

AND

subject

and/or

site

the

may

(or

Frontenac

acting

acting accurate enter proposed

parki ng deeded

the

ct payme nt)

corre

review ma need arise, y

proof

application

the

legal

agent

for

Form

REQUIREMENTS

the

agencies

South payment

INDEMNIFY

land.

legal

APPLICATION

DECLARATION

Application

owner(s)

ADDITIONAL

Township and additional

‘l 25%

the

per

month

with

upon and request in a deposit (over and time time to charge any fees the in hearing. If such a difference forthwith upon bei (15% on per accountsng annum) Municipality,

Tribunal. from participate the pay may,

Land

and shall

to provide Ontario Municipality prepare for

agrees to

from

indemnify

review

payment application

to Owner/Applicant at the rate

which

further appealed

Municipality the deposit, with interest

fee), the

has

Owner/Applicant

application application

The

property

the

CONSENT

show the location to demonstrate

save and harmless The of the Corporation all and costs expenses that the Municipality the of applicant’s under the Pl application for approval an ni such costs include all legal, will engineering, planning, n or by the Municipality payable to process the application incurred from or connection with the Municipality in be in to appear the hearing at of to the Lan any appeal Ontario dg Decision Delegated of or Council, Adjust Committee of ments, the as case the may be, hearing applicant’s application.

to Municipality")

agrees processing

(“the

hereby

the foregoing, limiting and charges fees incurred costs and expenses arising the requested by applicant, decision of the Council, any authority, designated approval

Without

this

Frontenac

property

AGREEMENT

the

affecting

documents

please

being the registered and/or property owner(s) that additional studies and/or peer review and/or as a the of part review of my/our application. Should the studies completing as order the requested in for

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

title

only,

FRONTENAC

in this Consent relevant commenting the appropriateness

registered

and

recorded

the

wells

easement

the

water

SOUTH

is by and

any

Township determining of

application of the payment commenting agency

applicant

connection

South

The

required

representing

Attached

abandoned

used,

being information

the purpose of

the undersigned, acknowledge

the

the by Township responsible for complete.

owner,

owner agree representatives for property

any

nature

land

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,

and

subject

TOWNSHIP

the

undersigned, that the

location

the

to facilities

location

PERMISSION,

The

facilities

If access docking

Page 24 of 224

a‘ s

Page 25 of 224

m 5448

Inset Map

4797

ROAEBB

1:1

5758 ROAD 38

HOLLEFORD RD

4759 HOLLEFORD RD

403 a,

4811(
,

' '

475g1 BOYCEROAD

ROAD HOLLEFORD

[[3

47*?8 HOLLEFORD

ROAD JAMIESON

[El

4808

HOLLEFORD RD 4798

5598 ROAD 38

R353; PETWORTHROAD

W‘\ —

4805 HOLLEEORDRD

HOLLEFORDRD

<//

HOLLEFORD RD

4738 HOLLEFORDRDj U

CON M PT LOT 6

4767

HOLLEFORD RD

V ‘

‘

4746 HOLLEFORD RD

HOLLEFORD RD

ROAD38

FRO NTE NAC PL-BDJ-2024-0040 (ASSELSTINE) 4659 HOLLEFORD ROAD

Subject Property Proposed Severance (Lot 1) Provincially Signi?cant Wetland Wetland 5568 ROAD 38

Wooded Area

Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

5567 ROAD 38

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

HOLLEFORD RD SSS4’ROAD

4723 HOLLEFORD RD

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody 5543 ROAD 38

Road

_ _ Township Boundary Retained Lands

D Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024.

While the County makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map. there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

5539 ROAD 38

Page 26 of 224

Scale: 1:4,500 O 5525 ROAD

5507 HlGHWAY 38

38%

5519 ROAD 38

5494 ROAD 38

37.5

-:—

150 m

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 2024—04-17

Page 27 of 224

Tom Fehr From: Sent: To: Subject:

planning May 14, 2024 11:35 AM Tom Fehr FW: PLBDJ20240040 objection 2

Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk Development Services Department Township of South Frontenac p: +613-376-3027 e: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net a: 4432 George St., Box 100, Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 www.southfrontenac.net

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: Doug Booth Sent: May 13, 2024 6:10 PM To: planning planning@southfrontenac.net Subject: Fwd: PLBDJ20240040 objection 2 The applicant is asking for a waiver to not drill a well. This is unacceptable and contrary to township policy Sent from my iPhone Doug Booth Vessel Support Systems Hartington, Ontario Begin forwarded message: From: Doug Booth Date: May 13, 2024 at 2:53:44 PM EDT To: planning@southfrontenac.net Subject: PLBDJ20240040 objection

Page 28 of 224

I object to this severance for the following reasons The contamination from the old gas station on the corner. We run out of water here now. A housing project or addition stress on the already limited water supply is not feasible. I believe that the severance is for something more to happen like multiple building lots in the future. I am at 5582 CR38 Sent from my iPhone Doug Booth Vessel Support Systems Hartington,

Page 29 of 224

Tom Fehr From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kate Kaestner May 17, 2024 1:17 PM Tom Fehr FW: PL-BDJ-2024-0040, Asselstine

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: Sent: May 17, 2024 1:09 PM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: PL-BDJ-2024-0040, Asselstine

Kate Kaestner Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON 1

Page 30 of 224

Page 31 of 224

Tom Fehr From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Kate Kaestner May 17, 2024 8:26 AM Tom Fehr FW: HCA objection to Consent Application PL-BDJ-2024-0040 Vol 1 - Trow - Western CR groundwaterExecutiveSummary.pdf; Vol 2 - Trow - Western CR groundwaterExecutiveSummary.pdf; 10-02-09 - Report from MOE (Crossley).pdf; 23-11-20 - Groundwater Assessment_ Township of South Frontenac - Final as issued.pdf; 16-05-10 - Initial Independent Review of Hartington Development Proposal.pdf; 16-07-28 - Memo from Ruland re PHC Contamination in Hartington.pdf; 16-10-05 - SF Council letter to OMAFRA.pdf; CELA Letter to South Frontenac Twp re severance (May 2024).pdf

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: planning planning@southfrontenac.net Sent: May 17, 2024 8:24 AM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: FW: HCA objection to Consent Application PL-BDJ-2024-0040

Page 32 of 224

Page 33 of 224

Twitter: @EcoLawyer_RDL Facebook: www.facebook.com/CanadianEnvironmentalLawAssociation CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This email may contain communications or attachments which are subject to solicitor-client privilege. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and immediately delete this email (including attachments) without saving, forwarding or distributing any copies.

Page 34 of 224

May 16, 2024

By Email to: planning@southfrontenac.net

Kate Kaestner Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Kaestner: Re:

PL-BDJ-2024-0040 – Asselstine Consent Application Notice of Objection

I am writing on behalf of the Hartington Community Association (HCA) concerning the abovenoted planning application and would request that the comments herein be placed before the Committee of Adjustment at the upcoming public hearing. The HCA understands that the applicant is proposing to create a new 20 acre lot from an existing 40 acre agricultural property. Please be advised that the HCA objects to the proposed consent application on the grounds of significant concerns for: (a) the quantity and quality of water in the hamlet of Hartington and surrounding area; (b) the preservation of agricultural lands; (c) the failure of the application to comply with the South Frontenac Township Official Plan and the provincial planning framework, as described below in more detail. Quantity and Quality of Water As the Township is aware, the hamlet of Hartington is in a highly sensitive groundwater area per the attached Western Cataraqui Region Groundwater Study by TROW Associates Inc. completed in April 2007, Volumes 1 and 2. Contamination from agricultural activity, sewage systems as well as commercial uses in the area are therefore a concern. Attached is correspondence from Frank Crossley of the then Ministry of the Environment dated February 9, 2010, which outlines such a contamination incident. As Mr. Crossley details in his correspondence, several residential wells located just south of Hartington and south of an agricultural use just to the south of Hartington were contaminated with e-coli. Mr. Crossley comments on page 7 as to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, and it is the HCA’s understanding that the Township was urged to consider same when reviewing further development. A further incident of contamination is discussed in the attached recent report from SOS On-site Services to the Township of South Frontenac dated November 20, 2023, which sets out the ongoing monitoring of the former Hartington gas station site at the corner of Hwy 38 and Holleford Road, Canadian Environmental Law Association T 416 960-2284 • 1-844-755-1420 • F 416 960-9392 • 55 University Avenue, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7 • cela.ca

Page 35 of 224

Letter from CELA - 2

which abuts the subject proposed severance parcel. BTEX (hydrocarbon) contamination was identified in the shallow groundwater around this site and the test wells to the west of this site continue to be monitored on a semi-annual basis as indicated in the said report. It further appears the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) continues to review the situation. Information was also brought to the Township’s attention regarding the sensitive nature of the area and the risk to both quantity and quality of groundwater in the Hartington area by hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland in his attached May 10, 2016 report concerning the then proposed subdivision on Boyce Road in Hartington. Mr. Ruland identified concerns including nitrate-nitrite and e-coli contamination risks due to agricultural activity as well as existing septic systems and the potential for the change in flow direction of contaminated areas due to increases in draw from development. Following Mr. Ruland’s initial report information regarding contamination at the former Hartington gas station site was brought to his attention and he provided follow up correspondence dated July 28, 2016, which was forwarded to the Township of South Frontenac and is also attached hereto. This document also discusses the potential for flow direction changes and the inherent risks to the community from a sensitive groundwater area. The above and attached information all points to the need for any new lot creation or development in the Hartington area to be scrutinized to the utmost degree for water quality and quantity, including the above-referenced severance application, and not only for any proposed development, but also as to the impact said development could have on existing residents. Water testing that monitors existing resident wells within a 300m radius, as proposed in Mr. Ruland’s July 28, 2016 correspondence, for both quantity and quality changes should be mandatory in order to protect the health and safety of the residents of the surrounding area. In the above-noted consent application, the applicant requests the waiving of the requirement for the installation and testing of a well on the proposed severed parcel on the basis that no development is presently being proposed. The HCA strenuously objects to the proposed severance proceeding on this basis for the reasons stated above and given the applicable provincial planning policies (see below). While the applicant claims that no development is being contemplated on the severed parcel at this time, there is no assurance or guarantee that the new parcel will not be subsequently conveyed for development if the severance is allowed. Preservation of Agricultural Lands The HCA also objects to the proposed severance on the basis that the applicant acknowledges the proposed severed lot contains a barn and may continue to be used for farming for many years. As the retained lands are zoned Agricultural, there appears to be no compelling reason for the lands, which in totality are used for agricultural purposes, to be broken up at this time. Furthermore, as noted below, provincial planning policies highlight the importance of ensuring the continued production and viability of agricultural land, which should be protected for the purpose of food security. On this point, the HCA notes that Township of South Frontenac also passed the attached motion on October 5, 2016, requesting OMAFRA reclassify Rural lands west of

Page 36 of 224

Letter from CELA - 3

Hartington as prime agriculture. This signifies a concern for the area’s farmland that is inconsistent with permitting the subject parcel to be separated when its indicated intended use remains agricultural and is not for the purpose of residential development within the hamlet. It goes without saying that any residential development would require the increased scrutiny set out above regarding water quality and quantity concerns. The HCA further notes that the South Frontenac Township Official Plan (OP) emphasizes the protection of agricultural lands, and the Zoning By-law stipulates minimum distance separation requirements to prevent incompatible land uses, which help in reducing land fragmentation. In the HCA’s view, the proposed severance would lead to further fragmentation of these vital agricultural lands, which contradicts the goals set forth in the township’s planning documents. Given the current zoning and the applicant’s intention to continue agricultural activities on the lot, the severance appears unnecessary and premature. South Frontenac Township Official Plan The “Agricultural and Rural Goal” of the current OP “is to preserve the Township’s established rural character and agricultural industry” (Policy 4.3). This Goal is to be achieved through various objectives, including the maintenance of “agriculturally productive lands in economically viable units by preventing the fragmentation of such land” (Policy 4.3(a)(ii), emphasis added). Under the current OP, the subject property is designated as Rural and Agricultural. As per Policy 5.1, the Agricultural designation is applicable to high quality agricultural lands: The Agricultural designation means that the predominant use of land in the areas so designated shall be for agricultural purposes and compatible uses which enhance the Township’s agricultural industry. The Agricultural designation has been applied to those lands that are considered to be provincially significant, that have a high capability to produce food and are generally large blocks of Class 1, 2 and 3 soils as identified in the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) for agriculture. The Agricultural designation may also include areas which exhibit established agricultural activity. Policy 5.1.5 of the OP goes on to establish prescriptive policies for three types of consents involving farms: Agricultural Consents Consents in the Agricultural designation shall conform with this section and the General Consent Policies of Section 7 of this Plan. Within the Agricultural designation, the following three (3) types of consents are permitted: (a) farm consents; (b) farm and infill related residential consents; (c) farm related industrial and commercial consents;

Page 37 of 224

Letter from CELA - 4

The following consent policies shall apply. (a) Farm Consents Farm consents shall only be considered where the municipality is satisfied that: (i)

(ii)

both the retained and severed lot are large enough to support a farm operation. The minimum lot size shall be established in the implementing Zoning By-law; the proposed consent does not create or promote inappropriate agricultural land fragmentation; and (iii) the farm buildings either existing or proposed will be sufficiently separated from buildings on adjacent lots to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae as amended from time to time

(b) Farm and Consents for Infilling Purposes Limited farm and infill residential consents may be permitted in the Agricultural designation. The property may be eligible for one (1) residential consent provided it relates to a farm operation of at least 35 hectares (86.5 acres) and complies with the Minimum Distance Separation I Criteria as amended from time to time. For the purpose of this Plan, a farm operation will include the total land holding (owned, leased or rented) of a farmer. However, only one parcel from within a farm operation will be eligible for a residential consent in accordance with the policies of this Plan. A residential consent may be for either a farm related or infill residential use in accordance with the policies of this Plan. Consents for lot adjustments which do not create new lots shall not make a lot ineligible for a residential consent so long as the intent of the Plan is maintained. New farm or non-farm residential consents shall be a minimum of 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with a minimum of 76 metres (250 feet) of public road frontage, except for waterfront lots which shall be a minimum of 1 hectare (2.5 acres) with a minimum of 91 metres (300 feet) of waterfrontage. (i)

Farm Related Residential Consents Consents for farm related residential use may be permitted for an existing residence considered to be surplus as a result of a farm consolidation where the consolidation results in a farm operation of at least 35 ha (86.5 acres) or where the lot is to be used for a retirement lot for a farmer. A farm retirement lot shall mean one lot from a farm operation for a full time farmer of retirement age who is retiring from active working life, was farming on or before January 1, 1994 and has owned and operated the farm operation for a substantial number of years.

(ii)

Infill Residential Consents

Page 38 of 224

Letter from CELA - 5

Consents for infill residential uses may be permitted in the Agricultural designation. The consent may be from any property existing as of the day of adoption of the Plan. In the Agricultural designation, infilling shall refer to situations where the lands under consideration front upon a public road, are between two existing non-farm residential lots (side lot lines form the boundaries of the area subject to infilling) separated by not more than approximately 100 metres (328 feet) and located on the same side of the road. (c) Farm Related Industrial and Commercial Consents Non-residential uses specifically referred to under Section 5.1.1 of this Plan may be permitted within the Agricultural designation. In granting consents related to such uses, regard shall be had for the following: (i)

a consent to a land severance may be considered by the Committee of Adjustment to allow the establishment of agricultural service and supply industries and other such uses as may be permitted provided such use does not jeopardize the viability of an adjacent farming operation and that the proposed use will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I as amended from time to time and is compatible with adjacent land uses;

(ii)

where possible, a lot created for farm related industrial or commercial purposes shall be encouraged to be located within areas of poorer quality soils; and

(iii)

a lot created under the provisions of this Section shall be conditional on the approval of an amendment to the implementing Zoning By-law rezoning the lands within an appropriate zone classification.

Given the paucity of detail contained within the above-noted consent application, it appears to the HCA that none of the foregoing consent criteria have been satisfied. Moreover, there is a significant internal inconsistency within the application. For example, with respect to previous severances, the Application at Question 22 asks “Has the subject land ever been, or is currently, the subject of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, for a minor variance, for approval of a site plan, or for an amendment to an official plan, an amendment to the zoning by-law or a Minister’s zoning order?” The applicant answered “No” for all. However, at Question 23 the Application asks “Has land been previously severed from the subject property, since September 5, 2000? If yes, please provide date of transfer; name of transferee and uses of the land.” The applicant answered “Yes 2006 (car wash) 2010 (residential). The applicant goes on to say at Question 24 that they acquired the subject land as a result of a consent.

Page 39 of 224

Letter from CELA - 6

The Provincial Planning Framework When deciding the consent application, the Committee must have regard to the matters of provincial interest listed in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the following: 2 The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as… (b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province… (e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water… (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities… (o) the protection of public health and safety (emphasis added). In addition, section 3(5) of the Planning Act stipulates that the Committee’s decision “shall be consistent” with the policies set out in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS): 3(5) A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, (a) subject to a regulation made under subsection (6.1), shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision The PPS 2020 is currently in effect and applies to the Committee’s forthcoming decision on the consent application. Among other things, PPS 2020 contains various environmental and waterrelated policies, such as: 1.1.1

Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by…

c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns… 2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve, or restore the quality and quantity of water by… d) identifying water resource systems consisting of ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including

Page 40 of 224

Letter from CELA - 7

shoreline areas, which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; e) maintaining linkages and related functions among ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas; f) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to:

protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and
protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions; 2.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions (emphasis added). The PPS also contains several stringent policies aimed at preserving productive agricultural lands, areas, and systems, including the following provincial directions: 2.3.1 Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, and any associated Class 4 through 7 lands within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority. 2.3.2 Planning authorities shall designate prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province, as amended from time to time. Planning authorities are encouraged to use an agricultural system approach to maintain and enhance the geographic continuity of the agricultural land base and the functional and economic connections to the agri-food network… 2.3.3.3 New land uses in prime agricultural areas, including the creation of lots and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 2.3.4.1 Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: a) agricultural uses, provided that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations;

Page 41 of 224

Letter from CELA - 8

b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that:

the new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; and
the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective; and d) infrastructure, where the facility or corridor cannot be accommodated through the use of easements or rights-of-way… 2.3.4.3 The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural areas shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 2.3.4.1(c) (emphasis added). Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, HCA objects to the consent application for the subject property. In HCA’s view, the proposed severance is unjustified, does not consider known water quantity and quality concerns in the Hartington area, fails to have regard for matters of provincial interest, is inconsistent with the PPS 2020, does not conform with the Township OP, does not represent good planning, and is otherwise not in the public interest. If the Committee has any questions arising from the HCA’s comments or the attached materials, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

Richard D. Lindgren Counsel Encl.

Page 42 of 224

Tom Fehr From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kate Kaestner May 21, 2024 9:44 AM Tom Fehr FW: Re:PL-BDJ-2024-0040

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: Building Department building@southfrontenac.net Sent: May 21, 2024 8:36 AM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: FW: Re:PL-BDJ-2024-0040

Thank you, Peggy Spafford Permit Intake Coordinator Building Services Township of South Frontenac 613-376-3027 pspafford@southfrontenac.net 4432 George St., Box 100, Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 www.southfrontenac.net

Page 43 of 224

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: Sandy Bell Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 8:53 PM To: Building Department building@southfrontenac.net Subject: Re:PL-BDJ-2024-0040

3995 Boyce Road Hartington, ON May 20, 2024 Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 4332 George Street, Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Madam: RE: PL-BDJ-2024-0040 Asselstine Consent Application Notice of Objection We are responding to the above-mentioned consent application and wish to raise our concerns. 4332 George Street, Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 The notice was vague as it does not state the intended use of the new lot. Should severance be granted, its intended use must be provided according to Sections 8 & 9 of the Consent Application. Apparently the applicant is requesting the requirements for a well and water testing be waived. Why?

Page 44 of 224

If the Township waives the requirement for a well, it sets a precedent that water quantity and quality does not have to be proven in order to sever or sell land; rules exist for a reason to protect, buyers, sellers and residents of South Frontenac Township. We reside near this area. Noting a recent visit to the adjacent car wash on the 18th of this month (May) there was unpleasant smell while using the water sprayer. It was unexpectedly off-putting and alarming. We must not disregard the historic and ongoing water issues in Hartington. The Township has a variety of reports that review the water issues in further detail. Please see the MOECC report dated 2/09/10 written by Frank Crosley which outlines the historic water issues in the area. The former gas station created BTEX contamination in the groundwater. See your reports from SOS dated 9/28/2015, 9/23/2016, 9/23/2017 & 11/20/2023. These reports speak to the continued flow, the direction, and state of monitoring for BTEX. According to that report, monitoring is still required. According to the application, the north-west point of a proposed new lot is right at the starting point of BTEX contamination. On the application the reason stated for waiving the well requirement is that that should someone build, the well required for severance may not be in the location where someone would necessarily build a home. On the surface, this seems logical, but it also reveals a hope to sever and sell the land, disregarding the rules. To waive the water and well requirements, knowing about these issues, is very concerning. Regards, Sandra and Dan Bell

Page 45 of 224

Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2024-0040 Application Number: ___________________________________________________

Scott Asselstine Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________

Portland 7 PT Lot 6 Lot: _______________District:

Concession: _________________ Road 38 and Holleford road Road: ________________________________________________________________

Road Maintenance:

✔ Year-round □

Seasonal □

Sight Lines: Are there adequate sight lines for the entrance?

✔ Yes □

No □

If no, what changes would be required to improve sight lines? RETAINED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES. SEVERED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES

Road Conditions:

Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?
Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.

Road Widening Required? ✔ To be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor □ Yes □ No □ Any specific requirement?

Local Road Urban classification. Ensure that there is a 20m (66ft road allowance) otherwise applicant to dedicate any shortfall of 10m from centerline.

Approved by the Public Services? ✔ Yes □ Yes, with conditions □ No □ If yes, with conditions, please describe conditions below.

Signature on behalf of Public Services

2024-04-30

Date

Page 46 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Tom Fehr, Planner

Report Date:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Consent Application PL-BDJ-2024-0040, Asselstine, 4659 Holleford Road, Portland District

Summary This application is for the creation of a new lot. This report recommends approval of the application. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on this application, as it is a disputed consent per By-law 2020-27 because there are unresolved issues or concerns from the public regarding the overall development proposal for the property. Background The application is requesting consent to create a new lot within the settlement area of Hartington. The purpose of the application is to separate the property into two with the new lot line corresponding to the Hartington settlement area boundary. The severed lands are within the settlement area and the retained lands are outside the settlement area. The retained lands contain a solar panel which the owner wishes to have on a separate parcel from the lands within the settlement area. The owner states in the application that the severed lands are no longer required for their farming operation. There is no development currently proposed on the severed parcel. Accordingly, the owner is requesting that the condition required to drill a well be waived. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications Application Details The severed parcel is approximately 6.8ha in area with 85m of frontage on Holleford Road. The severed lands are farm fields and contain a barn. No development is currently proposed on the severed lands. The retained lot is located outside the settlement area and will be approximately 9.5ha in area with 250m of frontage on Road 38. The retained lands are farm fields and contain a solar panel. The agricultural use of the retained lands is proposed to continue. Designation and Zoning The severed lands are designated Settlement Area and zoned RU. The retained lands are designated Agricultural and zoned AG in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 47 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2024-0040

Review This application:  Conforms to section 51(24) of the Planning Act;  Does not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality (s. 53(1) Planning Act);  Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (s. 3(5) Planning Act);  Conforms to the County of Frontenac Official Plan (s. 3.3);  Conforms to the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (s. 5.7.4 & 7.1);  Complies with Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 (or will comply subject to a standard condition of rezoning or minor variance); and X Has no unresolved objections/concerns raised from agencies or the public. Property Description The subject property is an agricultural property comprised of fields located in the southeast quadrant of Hartington. The property is 14 hectares in area with 85m of frontage on Holleford Road and 240m of frontage on Road 38. To the north and west of the property are a mix of residential and commercial uses within the settlement area. To the east and south are other agricultural properties. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reviewed the application and noted that there are adequate sight lines for an entrance for the severed and retained parcels. There are no special drainage/ditching concerns and the overall road condition is adequate to serve increased development. Road widening will be required to be deeded to the Township if the surveyor determined that the road allowance is less than 20 metres (65.6 feet) wide adjacent to the property. The owner will be required to dedicate the lands to obtain 10 metres as measured from the centre of the roadway. Public Services has no objection to the approval of the application. Cataraqui Conservation advised they had no comments on the application. Public Comments A number of letters of concern have been received from members of the public residing in Hartington. The comments raised concerns about the availability of water in the area and concerns about the impact additional development would have on the availability of water. Concerns were also raised with the request to not have a well drilled. There were also concerns with what the property might be used for as the application did not identify a proposed use for the severed parcel. Concerns were also raised about site contamination www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 48 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2024-0040

from the property at the corner of Road 38 and Holleford Road which was a former gas station. Wells are typically required to be drilled for new lot creations in order to meet the servicing policies of the Official Plan. The owner is requesting that this requirement is waived as they are not proposing to develop the property, and if they are required to drill a well now as a condition of consent, the well may not be in the location of where development on the property is to occur. Staff are recommending that a holding symbol be placed on the property that would require the demonstration of an adequate water supply prior to the property being developed. This recommendation is intended to address the concerns about the availability of water and the requirement for drilling a well. Regarding concerns about the site contamination at 5598 County Road 38, this is a brownfield site that had a former gas station that is now owned by the Township. Public Services confirmed that there is a water monitoring program of the site being carried out under the direction of the MECP. As the Township is actively monitoring the site, and staff are recommending that a holding symbol be placed on the severed lands to require demonstration of adequate water supply prior to development occurring on the property, staff are satisfied that this addresses concerns regarding site contamination of the adjacent property. Regarding the potential use of the property, no use was identified in the application. The property is currently zoned RU, staff are recommending the severed lands are rezoned by placing a holding symbol on the severed lands for demonstration of adequate water supply for the lot. The RU zone with a holding symbol will maintain flexibility in how the property is used once demonstration of water is addressed. Planning Analysis The Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the County of Frontenac Official Plan (Section 3.3) direct the majority of development in the Township to Settlement Areas. The subject lands are designated Settlement Area and Agricultural in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. There has been two previous lot created (2006 and 2010) from the subject property since the adoption of the Township Official Plan in September of 2000. In accordance with Section 5.6.6 of the Official Plan, the subject application is eligible as an additional severance. The subject application is splitting the property along the Settlement Area boundary. The proposed severed lands contain the entire area of the property currently within the Settlement Area and the retained lands contain the entire area of the property currently designated Agricultural. The OP states that it is the municipality’s intention that new lot development in Settlement Areas will generally occur by plan of subdivision. However, a maximum of three (3) severances may be permitted from a lot of record existing on the day of adoption of this Plan by Council where it is demonstrated that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the land and will not limit such development by plan of subdivision. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 49 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2024-0040

The subject application does not create a lot in the settlement area so much as simply dividing the lot into the Settlement Area portion and Agricultural lands portion. The application would not impact the ability of the severed land to be developed in the future. While no development is proposed for severed lands, the lot meets minimum area requirements for any residential or non-residential use permitted in the Settlement Area. Regarding the retained lands, agricultural consents are discussed in Section 5.1.5. The intent of the agricultural consent policies is to prevent fragmentation of agricultural land. The proposed consent does not result in the further division of any agricultural lands, only the separation of the agricultural lands from the settlement area lands. The severed and retained parcels have frontage on a public road. Section 7.1 of the Township Official Plan requires the ability of lots to be serviced by a private sewage disposal system and private well. Per the Building Services review, the severed parcel is large enough that servicing by a private sewage disposal system is not a concern. The applicant is requesting that the condition to drill a well not be required as condition of consent approval. As noted above, as no development is being proposed staff are instead recommending that rather than drill a well now that a holding symbol be placed on the property that requires adequate demonstration of water supply prior to the lot being developed. An existing livestock barn is located on the severed lands. However, as the lot is in the Settlement Area, minimum distance separation (MDS) is not applicable. Under the recommended UR-1 zoning existing agricultural use of the property is permitted to continue. The property is not subject to any designated natural heritage features. The proposed severance is not anticipated to have any adverse environmental impacts. With the recommended conditions the severed parcel complies with the land division policies, Settlement Areas and Agricultural land development policies of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan and any new development will need to comply with Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Application was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days before the applications were reviewed. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that application PL-BDJ-2024-0040 be approved for consent for a new lot from 4659 Holleford Road, Township of South Frontenac subject to the following conditions:

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 50 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2024-0040

Expiry Period

Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
The lands to be severed by Consent Application PL-BDJ-2024-0040 shall be for the creation of one new lot approximately 6.8 hectares in area with a minimum of 85 metres of frontage on Holleford Road. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with sketch submitted by the applicant attached to the decision as “Schedule A”. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
The surveyor or applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. Road Widening
The surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Holleford Road to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road for Holleford Road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 51 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2024-0040

c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule: The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 5. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 6. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1)]. 7. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Zoning 8. The applicant is required to apply for a zoning by-law amendment to rezone the severed parcel from Rural (RU) to Rural - H (RU-H). The holding symbol shall required the demonstration of an adequate water supply prior to development of the property. Please contact the Township Planning Department to begin this process. 9. Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 52 of 224

Page 53 of 224

Page 54 of 224

Page 55 of 224

Page 56 of 224

Page 57 of 224

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

If the answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate: (1) Type of Structure (E.g. residence) House

Setback from Front Lot Line

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Setback from Side Lot Line

Height of Building (Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

(2)

(3)

Garage

Deck

15.72 m

28.43 m

14.12 m

16.54 m

9.00 m

27.10 m

5.58 m & 9.00 m

5.88 m & 15.91 m

5.58 m & 15.14 m

9.398m 30’-10" - Roadside 12.039m 39’-6" - Waterside

7.823m 25’-8"

3.048m 10’-0"

Average Height 10.706m - 35’-1½"

33.26 m²

Overall:

153.87 m² 62.15 m² Outside Dimensions of 14.427m x 10.947m 7.848m x 8.331m Building/Structure 47’-4" x 35’-11" 25’-9" x 27’-4"

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

15.72 m

28.43 m

(4)

14.427m x 3.632m 15.659m x 22.237m 51’-4½" x 72’-11½" 47’-4" x 11’-11" 14.12 m

NOTES: 1) If the subject property is on waterfront, and on a private lane, the setback from the front lot line and the setback from the high water mark will be the same. 2) The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size of the completed building.

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

✔ Yes

If yes, please provide details:

The three season cottage will be demolished, along with the sheds.

6 Page 58 of 224

Page 59 of 224

Page 60 of 224

Page 61 of 224

Page 62 of 224

Page 63 of 224

Page 64 of 224

331%. SOUTH FRONTENAC PL-ZNA-2024-0026

(KUBES) 4725 NOBLE LANE

SANDSROAD

Legend

Subject Property

V/// Provincially Signi?cant Wetland 4729 NOBLE

Wetland

LANE

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

[ml

Waterbody LANE

El gn$?QONSDNlTlElM

I Township Boundary Road

41679 NOBLE

LANE

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2022.

Page 65 of 224

NOBLE LANE

Scale: 1:500

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 2024-03-07

LOCATION PLAN

m±

.62 33

LEGEND X

11.9 6m±

PROPERTY LINE

5m ±

TP1

FENCING

EDGE OF SLOPE/TOP OF BANK BOTTOM OF BANK

5.19m±

56.03m±

10.63m±

EXISTING - POWER SUPPLY

WATERLINE SETBACK X

94m

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

0m X

21.5

NOTE: 1.60m±

PROPERTY LINES TAKEN FROM FRONTENAC GIS MAPPING. 6.00m± 1.25m± X

² ²

6.17 m

X X X

X X

REVISIONS

X X

No.

Description

Date

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

2024/01/18

REVISED AS PER TOWNSHIP COMMENTS

2024/05/28

40.68m±

TP2

BENCHMARK: LOCAL DESCRIPTION RIB AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY

D R

15.00m

ELEVATION 133.90m

AF T

X X

No. 1.

15.00m Client / Land Owner:

JESSIE & PAUL KUBES X

29.50m±

Project:

4725 NOBLE LANE ONTARIO

BATTERSEA Drawing Title:

EXISTING SITE PLAN Drawn by:

1 C-101

EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1:150

Checked By:

10 Scale:

Meters

Date:

Project Number:

GW-23046

24"x36" AS NOTED

Drawing Number:

C-101

Page 66 of 224

MAY 28, 2024

SHEET 1 of 2

LOCATION PLAN

± 3m 5 . 33

CALCULATIONS AS PER ONTARIO BUILDING CODE PART 8 DAILY SEWAGE FLOW DETERMINATION PROPOSED DWELLING

3 BEDROOMS = 1,600 L/D
FIXTURES NUMBER 29.5 > 20 = 475 L/D
TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 240m2 > 200m2 = 400 L/D USE LARGER OF 2 NUMBERS FOR FIXTURES/FLOOR AREA TOTAL (Q) = 2,075 L/DAY SEPTIC TANK SIZING RESIDENTIAL 2075 L/DAY x 2 = 4150 L MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK VOLUME = 4,150 L

±15.3

.72m ±15

EXISTING SOIL: T-TIME = 50 (CLAY OVER BEDROCK)

TYPE A BED CALCULATIONS FLOW RATE < 3000L/DAY X

TP1

INSY. 3.0m

.1 ±14

FY. 30.0m

STONE AREA = 30m2 → Q/75→ 2075 75 = 27.67m² (REQ’D)

x 50 SAND AREA = 261m2 → QT/400→ 2075 = 259.38m² (REQ’D) 400 X

5.58m

1.50m

3.87m

X X

9.00m

REVISIONS

X X

No.

Description

Date

ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION

2024/01/18

REVISED AS PER TOWNSHIP COMMENTS

2024/05/28

INSY. 3.0m

TP2

BENCHMARK: DESCRIPTION RIB IN SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY

6.50m

² 9.00m

D R

15.00m

ELEVATION 133.40m

AF T

RY. 10.0m

No. 1.

15.00m Client / Land Owner:

JESSIE & PAUL KUBES X

Project:

4725 NOBLE LANE ONTARIO

BATTERSEA Drawing Title:

PROPOSED SITE PLAN Drawn by:

1 C-102

PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1:150

Checked By: Scale: Date:

Project Number:

GW-23046

24"x36" AS NOTED

Drawing Number:

C-102

Page 67 of 224

MAY 28, 2024

SHEET 2 of 2

P:\AutoCAD Standards (working)\00 - Groundwork Templates\GW-TEMPLATE 2023 - [APRIL 2023].dwt 8/1/2014 10:36 AM

(A1855

JMEJK<WF§©N

Page 68 of 224

Page 69 of 224

AWKGMQ EQDN

Page 70 of 224

AWKGMQ EQDN

Page 71 of 224

AWKGMQ EQDN

Page 72 of 224

J%\WK<WF% @N

Page 73 of 224

J%\WK<WF% @N

Page 74 of 224

J%\WK<WF% @N

Page 75 of 224

J%\WK<WF% @N

July 30, 2024

File: MV/FRS/184/2024

Sent by E-mail Mr. Noah Perron, Planner Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Mr. Perron: Re:

Application for S. 45(2) Permission PL-ZNA-2024-0026 (Kubes) Pt Lot 7, Concession 9; 4725 Noble Lane Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for permission and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment. Proposal The proposal involves the expansion of a single detached dwelling on the subject property, which is currently set back 10.6 m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The existing 176 sq. m. seasonal dwelling with an attached deck is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a 250 sq. m. dwelling with an attached garage and deck. Permission is requested to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres, as required by Section 5.8.2.a) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law to 14.1 metres to permit the enlarged building. Relief is also requested to allow the dwelling to be located 9 metres from the rear yard and to allow the new septic system to be located 15 m from the highwater mark. Site Description The property is located on the south shore of the east basin of Loughborough Lake. The topography of the property can be described as having a low bank at the shoreline that levels out into a relatively flat area where the existing dwelling is located, then rising more steeply behind the dwelling toward Noble Lane to the south. The property is designated ‘Settlement Area’ in the Official Plan and is zoned ‘Limited Service Residential -Waterfront’ (RLSW) in the implementing Zoning By-law. Discussion Cataraqui Conservation’s scope of review for this proposal includes the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline of Loughborough Lake. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Flooding: The maximum recorded water level for Loughborough Lake is 125.1 metres geodetic. For Loughborough Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 41/24

Page 76 of 224

(see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based on topographic mapping and the site plan submitted with the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed development will be located outside of the flooding hazard and applicable setback. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation, in accordance with provincial technical standards, defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion (3 m), a stable slope allowance of 3:1 for till shorelines, plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Topographic mapping suggests that the shoreline embankment is roughly 0.5 m in this location, therefore staff have determined the total erosion hazard to be 10.5 metres measured inland from the stable toe of slope. Based on the site plan submitted with the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed development will be located outside of the erosion hazard limit. Staff have no concerns from a natural hazards perspective. If approved, staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. We also recommend the maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings/structures and the water, to help stabilize soils into the long-term. Recommendation In summary, staff have no objection to the approval of application PL-ZNA-2024-0026 based on our review of natural hazard and regulatory policies. We also recommend implementation of the above-noted best practice measures (in bold text) and advise the applicant that a CRCA permit will be required at the building permit stage. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06), which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. For this property, any development (buildings and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) within 15 metres of the floodplain and within 19 metres of the toe of slope is subject to O. Reg. 41/24. Therefore, a CRCA permit will be required for the development. The landowner(s) should contact CRCA’s office at the building permit stage for more information about permitting requirements under O. Reg. 41/24. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by email at jtreash@crca.ca. Yours truly,

Janelle Treash, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner

Page 2 of 2

Page 77 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Building Services 4432 George Street, Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 www.southfrontenac.net

Sewage System Review Comments To:

Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St, Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0

Application Number:

PLZNA20240026

Type of Application or Proposal:

Planning Sewage Review - Minor Variance

Applicant:

KUBES PAUL

(if applicable) Agent:

Location:

Comments:

102906005005500 4725 NOBLE LANE CON 9 PT LOT 7 LOUGHBOROUGH;LAKE

No objections to proposed sewage system location. The system location and type are both an improvement over the existing sewage system.

Building Inspector: Matthew Doyle Date:

July 24, 2024

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community

Page 78 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Permission Application (S. 45(2) of Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2024-0026, Kubes, 4725 Noble Lane, Storrington District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of this application for permission to enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions. Background The Committee of Adjustment granted a minor variance to construct a small addition to the existing cottage in 2018. The current application is being reviewed as a permit to enlarge a legal non-conforming use because the original cottage (pre-addition) pre-dates the Zoning By-law and is less than 30 metres from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The current application was originally submitted in March of 2024. Planning Staff outlined concerns to the applicants related to the scale of the proposed development and its impact on the functionality of the property. In response to these concerns, the applicants submitted a revised proposal in June of 2024. Revisions included re-orienting the proposed dwelling and removing a portion of the deck, thus improving the highwater mark setback distance. The location of the sewage tank was also moved to the west of the proposed dwelling to be on the same side as the leaching area, improving its overall functionality. Official Plan Designation: Settlement Area Zoning: Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Relief Requested The applicant seeks permission under section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling on the property within 30m of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. Relief is also sought from the 10m rear yard required in the RLSW zone. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 79 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0026

Property Description The subject property is an undersized parcel of land (1578sqm) with approximately 29.5m of frontage on Noble Lane, and 33.6m of frontage on the south shore of Loughborough Lake. Access to the subject property is via Noble Lane, which extends directly from Battersea Road to the south. Existing development is located in approximately the middle of the property and consists of a seasonal dwelling with attached deck, and a shed. Vegetation coverage varies slightly across the property. For example, the area adjacent to Noble Lane is well treed, the developed portion around the existing dwelling is mostly cleared, and the shoreline area features minimal mature tree and vegetation growth. Regarding topography, the shoreline area and developed portion near the dwelling are mostly flat. The area to the rear of the dwelling slopes upwards considerably towards Noble Lane. Finally, the surrounding area consists of similar style limited service residential development, in addition to some existing agricultural uses. Proposal The subject property is currently developed with a 133sqm one storey seasonal dwelling with 43sqm attached deck, setback approximately 10.6m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and a shed. They propose to build a four-season 2-storey dwelling with walkout basement. The proposed dwelling would be built partially within the existing footprint, with additional area being added to the south away from shoreline. The proposed dwelling (153.9sqm) with attached covered deck (33sqm) and attached garage (62.2sqm) would have a ground floor area of 250sqm and a gross floor area of 331sqm. The building would be setback a minimum of 14.1m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. Building height would increase from 4m to 10.7m. The proposed dwelling would have a 9m rear yard setback. The existing sewage system would be replaced with a new system that would be farther from the lake. Department and Agency Comments Cataraqui Conservation provided comment on July 30, 2024. CRCA Staff have no objection to the approval of the permission application based on consideration for natural hazards and regulatory policies. Staff note that the proposal is located in an area subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 under the Conservation Authority Act. Therefore, a CRCA development permit will be required for the proposed development. Building Services provided comment on July 24, 2024. Staff have no objection to the proposed sewage location. Further, it was noted that the system location and type are both an improvement over the existing sewage system. Public Services did not provide comment on the application, as the subject property is located on a private lane. Public Comments No public comments were received at the time of writing this report. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 80 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0026

Planning Analysis The Township Official Plan Schedule designates the subject property as Settlement Area and the property is zoned RLSW by Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The dwelling is a permitted use. Section 5.10.2 of the Zoning By-law states that existing buildings with less than the minimum 30m setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody may be repaired, renovated, or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. This provision prohibits the enlargement of these existing buildings, without seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment. The Zoning By-law considers the existing seasonal dwelling as a legal non-conforming building because it was constructed prior to the current Zoning By-law and is setback 10.6m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. Through its powers under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, the Committee of Adjustment may grant permission to enlarge the dwelling. The criteria for considering an application under Section 45(2) are: •

Whether the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property; and

•

Whether the application will result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighbourhood.

The existing seasonal dwelling on the subject property is setback approximately 10.6m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. Comparatively, the proposed four-season dwelling would have a highwater mark setback of 15.7m, with the attached covered deck being setback approximately 14.1m. Therefore, the proposed dwelling would improve upon the highwater mark setback of the existing. The existing dwelling is one-storey and has a gross floor area of 133sqm, whereas the proposed dwelling is two-storeys and would have a gross floor area of 331sqm. The building height of the dwelling would increase from 4m to 10.7m. In a latter section of this report, Township Staff will outline proposed mitigative measures to address potential visual impacts as a result of the proposed scale of development. The existing dwelling and attached deck have a footprint of approximately 176sqm, a lot coverage value of approximately 11.8%. The proposed dwelling with attached covered deck and attached garage would have a footprint of 250sqm, a lot coverage value of approximately 15.8%. The footprint of only the dwelling component of the building (i.e., no attached structures) would be increasing from 133sqm to 154sqm. A portion of the new dwelling would be built within the footprint of the existing, an overlap of approximately 90sqm. The proposed covered deck would be a similar size as the existing deck and would exist in a similar location with approximately 10sqm of overlap. The remaining area, including the attached garage, would be on the south side of the proposed dwelling, away from the shoreline. The proposed garage would have an approximately 62.2sqm footprint but would mostly be located outside of the 30m setback from the highwater mark. The proposed garage www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 81 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0026

would facilitate the removal of the existing storage shed. Finally, there would no longer be sufficient space on the property for any future accessory buildings or additions in the future. The proposed attached garage on the south half of the property is to be setback 9m from the rear lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 10m. The reduced rear yard setback is proposed in an effort to increase the setback distance from the shoreline. Setback 9m from the rear lot line, there would still be sufficient space for a vehicle to safely stop or park on the driveway between the garage and Noble Lane. Therefore, Planning Staff interpret this reduction as appropriate. The proposed dwelling would be serviced by a new sewage disposal system. The existing system is located on the east side of the property, with the treatment area being setback 17.8m from the highwater mark. The main treatment component of the replacement system would be located in the southwest corner of the property, setback 30m from the highwater mark. The improved location and treatment level of the replacement system should mitigate nutrient loading into the lake associated with the increased living space and transition in use from seasonal to year-round occupancy. In association with the replacement system, the recommended shoreline remediation plan will assist in filtering and slowing water down as it travels towards the lake. It is the opinion of Planning Staff that the proposed dwelling is large relative to the area of the property, as is evident from the increase in lot coverage. However, current zoning regulations cannot be considered when reviewing application to enlarge a legal non-conforming structure. Rather, Planning Staff must review the proposal in the context of appropriateness and the possibility for negative impacts. When assessing appropriateness, Planning Staff have regard for the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area. Historically, the surrounding area consisted primarily of seasonal residences. More recently, there has been a shift towards larger, year-round homes. For example, there are several properties in the surrounding area with year-round dwellings of comparable size. It should be noted that these comparable dwellings typically exist on larger properties but are also typically closer to the shoreline. Additionally, many properties in the area lack sufficient vegetative buffers along the shoreline. As such, the proposed development would not necessarily conflict with existing patterns of development in the surrounding area. However, it is the opinion of Planning Staff that the proposal should be used as an opportunity to promote more responsible shoreline development practices, and to improve the existing conditions of the subject property, where feasible. Planning Staff do have concerns related to the proposed development. Specifically, the increased scale of development, the loss of trees and vegetation and the existing substandard shoreline buffer area. To address these concerns, Staff feel that it is appropriate for the Committee of Adjustment to require the subject property to be placed under Site Plan Control. The required Site Plan Control agreement would address matters, including but not limited to, lot grading and drainage and shoreline remediation. A lot grading and drainage plan would ensure that the increased runoff associated with the proposed development is appropriately managed. The shoreline remediation plan should consist of a variety of native vegetation species, including low growing plants, shrubs and trees. The shoreline remediation plan would work in tandem with the lot grading and drainage planning, acting as www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 82 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0026

a filtering mechanism and reducing infiltration into the lake. Further, once the planted trees and vegetation have an opportunity to grow, they will act as a visual buffer from the lake. The shoreline remediation plan could facilitate the removal of existing impervious surface in the shoreline area (i.e., fireplace and rock wall) in favour of native vegetation. The agreement could also address lighting. The subject property is considerably undersized, and the proposed dwelling is large compared to the existing dwelling. However, there are components of the proposed development which would facilitate an improvement over the existing conditions of the subject property. For example, the highwater mark setback is being improved and a new sewage system would be installed. Additionally, Site Plan Control would facilitate the remediation of the shoreline area and ensure appropriate runoff control. The re-vegetated shoreline should mitigate negative impacts associated with the development and promote more responsible shoreline development practices. For these reasons, Planning Staff interpret the proposal as desirable for appropriate development of the subject property, and unlikely to result in undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties, the neighbourhood or Loughborough Lake. Conclusion It is the opinion of staff that it is appropriate for the Committee of Adjustment to grant permission to expand the legal non-conforming dwelling on the property, as described in this report. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve application PL-ZNA-2024-0026 for 4725 Noble Lane, subject to the following conditions.

Permission is granted to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling on the subject property. The location, area and height of the replacement dwelling shall be consistent with the Proposed Site Plan (Groundwork Engineering Inc, revision 2, dated May 28,

and building plans (Keith Almond, dated May 27, 2024) that will be attached to the Decision as Schedule “A”.

The applicant is required to submit an application for site plan control and enter into a Site Plan Agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 83 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0026

the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. Preparation of a lot grading and drainage plan. b. Preparation of a shoreline remediation plan. The purpose of the plan is to create and enhance the natural vegetative buffer within at least 5 metres of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The plan shall be reviewed by the Township prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit under the Ontario Building Code. The plan shall be implemented within 6 months of an occupancy permit being issued for the dwelling approved through application PL-ZNA2024-0026. c. The use of dark-sky compliant lighting. d. The use of appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated. e. The removal of any excavated materials from the site so that it is not used as fill downgradient from the building envelope. f. Roof runoff will be discharged into infiltration trenches or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads. g. Proper decommissioning of the existing sewage system. 3. A building permit is required for ALL proposed demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac. Report Prepared By: Noah Perron, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 84 of 224

Page 85 of 224

permit

South

applicable

Fee a Authority

that

Conservation

Valley

Rideau

Authority

Conservation

South

and and

purpose purpose of of

provisions

development

By-law

of cash,

this with

Authority

new

Review

sketch, debit by

the

sewage

alter passed,

Secretary—

stru ctur e

Application

byTreasurer a nonor refundab card cheque

the

was

non 1 —. conf ormi ng

Townshi

l ’l

onsite sewage ( application Sepa submitted with the rate an

review

Planning

Committee

structure by—Iaw

filed with accompanied credit card.

extend day

By—law.

Zoning

Plan,

Chapter p legal a

building

alter the

land.

appointed

of Official

the

provided

persons Act R.S.O. 45(2) s.

to Township when submitting Authority. are to

the

FRONTENAC

VARIANCE 45(2))

2023

use

the

or the the

application

Class

be for provided applicable) (where Conservation

together below Frontenac.

copy

to enlarge permission ding or on structure, by the by—Iaw.

Frontenac Only Performance WITH with in combination than a Class A system

Region

Variance Variance Variance other

payable

the

without

required

Conservation

building

Quinte

Cataraqui

Township Minor Minor Minor system

After

Type:

grant

intent intent

appropriate

Zoning

June,

MINOR (s.

SOUTH

eight Committee of 45 the Planning of under or permission

Updated

OF TOWNSHIP APPLICATION FOR OR PERMISSION

is a Section by—law

one that (1) Adjustment. with the chart

accordance the Township

the

bu’ land, prohibited

may

Requirements

purpose

any

It is required Committee

for

where

Committee

for

vary

zoning

general general nature

the the

Adjustment under

may

of formed from

ls desirable Maintains Maintains ls minor

Agglication 1 —3 Variances Variances 4+

variance:

Committee

variance

the

Application

The lands used

The that

minor

OUTH

FRONTENAC

Committee

The

\\-

’4‘;

Page 86 of 224

Information

Personal information requested herein is required under the Planning Act, 1990 as amended. This information will be used by the Committee of Adjustment/Land Division Committee for the purpose of reviewing the above referenced application, and may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (PO. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont, KOH 2T0, Phone 376-3027 ext.2224).

Collection of Personal

Each applicant shall provide a sketch showing the dimensions of the subject land and of all abutting lands as outlined in Question 29 of the application. The sketch should be accurately dimensioned and scaled in either Imperial or Metric measures. This sketch, in conjunction with the Application Form, is the basis for the analysis of the Minor Variance Application by the Committee of Adjustment. It is strongly recommended that the applicant spend the necessary time to carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and transfer the data to the sketch. It is Any important that the sketch be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. accepted. this In be may not required information above application which does not include the regard, the applicant may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of such sketches. A guide to answering the application questions is attached.

PLEASE READ THIS ITEM CAREFULLY

Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; these agencies may require additional permit applications and fees prior to any construction.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 87 of 224

Page 88 of 224

209 m

—

Limited Service Residential

96 m

Waterfront Zone

Area: 4.18 acres (169 hectares)

Frontage (on road/lane):

Yes

N/A

If access to the subject property is by water only, please indicate the parking and docking facilities used or to be used and the approximate distance of these facilities from the subject land and the nearest public road.

Coyote Lane

Name of Road/Lane:

OR a privately maintained road?

Yes

Require access north of the dwelling for crane equipment to raise prefabricated wall sections and roof trusses while avoiding hydro power line (Passive house walls arriving on flatbed and craned into place). 2) Provides the opportunity to service the well (located to the west of the dwelling), the septic bed / tank (located to the east of the dwelling) and the hydro pole (located to the north-west of the dwelling) with appropriate vehicles in the event of an incident. Without the variance approval, the dwelling is 0.6 meter from the hydro corridor setback.

The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By—law:

Requesting to locate a single detached dwelling 10 meters horizontal from the top of bank of an embankment compared to the 15 meter requirement as per Section 5.82 of South Frontenac Zoning By—law

The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law:

RLSW

The current zoning of the subject land:

Depth:

Frontage (on water): 110 m

The frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land.

Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road?

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 89 of 224

‘

(1)

(2)

(3)

indicate: (4)

14IAre any building(s) or structure(s), or additions to existing building(s) or structure(s), PROPOSED

Cottage

13.The proposed uses of the subject land:

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

Dimensions of Floor Area

(Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

Height of Building

Setback from Side Lot Line

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Setback from Front Lot Line

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

If the answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 90 of 224

NOTES:

Lakefront (South)

30 m

15.3 m x 10.24 m

(2)

(3)

(4)

If the subject property is on waterfront, and on a private lane, the setback from the front lot line and the setback from the high water mark will be the same.
The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size of the completed building.

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

Outside Dimensions of Building/Structure

(Also indicate if it is one story ortwo story)

Two Storey. 9.11m from top of slabfountation. 9.31 m from grade

(East)18 m (W930 57 m

Setback from Side Lot Line

Height 01’Building

125 m

teL ane (Nod/Sh)

Lakefront (South) 30 m

Cottage

Residential

(1)

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Setback from Front Lot Line

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

Ifthe answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 91 of 224

No No

Yes Yes

Yes

Increase in plumbing fixtures

Increase in living space

Will the addition or structure encroach on the existing septic system?

(b)

(c)

(d)

owned and Indicate whether sewage disposal is provided to the subject land by a publiCly‘ septic system, a communal or operated individual and owned privately a operated sewage system, privy, or other means:

Private well

Indicate whether water is provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated piped water system, a privately owned and operated individual or communal well, a lake, or other water body, or other means:

5 years, 5 months

21 .The length of time that the existing uses of the subject land have continued:

N/A. Construction date spring 2025

20.The date the existing buildings and structures were constructed on the subject lands:

2019-01-31

Yes

Increase in number of bedrooms

Yes

(a)

What are the uses of the proposed development?

N/A

If yes, please provide details:

Do your plans include the RAISING of an existing structure?

19.The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, 0. R13 as amended

Page 92 of 224

N/A

If the answer to question 25 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

N/A

Ifthe answer to item 27 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

The boundaries and dimensions of the subject land including the location of any existing and proposed buildings.

ii)

The approximate location of all natural and artificial features on the subject land and on the land that is adjacent to the subject land. Examples include buildings, railways, roads, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, barns, wetlands, wooded areas, wells and septic tanks. Show distance of these features from the applicant’s property lines.

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

The location of a reference point……i.e. distance between the subject land and the nearest township lot line or landmark such as a bridge or railway crossing.

ARROW AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. THE SKETCH MUST HAVE A NORTH

A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following:

Yes

If known, please indicate whether the subject land has ever been the subject of an application under Section 43 of the Planning Act (Minor Variance).

Yes

Please indicate whether the subject land is subject of an application under the Planning Act for approval of a Plan of Subdivision or Consent.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 93 of 224

Page 94 of 224

the Minor Variance Form

Reason why you can’t comply: In other words, why can you not meet the required setbacks. It could be, for example, because you are seeking a variance to add on to an existing structure

—

Nature and Extent of Relief: This question is asking what you are asking to do that requires the variance for example, it could be that you are asking to be 25 m rather than 30 m from the high water mark, or that you are asking to increase the height of a structure within 30 m of the high water mark, or that you are seeking a variance to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building.

Current zoning: You may not be aware of the zoning on your property and this can be determined when you come in for pre-consultation with planning staff.
Frontage, depth, area, acres: All parts of this question must be completed.

—

Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. lfthe numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford;if the numbers are 040-050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: if you are not sure, check your tax bill if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this c. Street Number: Your civic address space blank; d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: if your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.
You may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalfduring the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner’s must sign the authorization.
The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.

A Guide to Completing

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 95 of 224

19)Date land

acquired: When did you take possession of the property?

18)Uses of Development: Please answer each part of this question. An increase in living space would include anything with walls e.g. a screened porch would involve an increase in living space.

17)Raising of Structure: In other words, are you proposing to raise the building in order to construct a basement under it.

Demolition: All demolition requires a permit from the building department. In some instances, a proposed addition or increase in height cannot be accomplished without the removal of existing walls. If this is not made clear to the Committee at the beginning of the process, you may find that, although you are granted permission to add on to your residence, you can’t actually do it because you have not made it clear that there is demolition involved.
Description of new construction: ALL proposed new development must be described here. If you are proposing to construct an addition to a dwelling, and to add a deck, please show this information in separate columns.

—~

Proposed structures: If you are planning to build ANYTHING on the property, the answer to this question is “yes” This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.
Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”
Description of buildings and structures: You must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.
Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.
Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land
Parking and Docking: This question is only relevant is you can only access your property by water.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 96 of 224

being proposed

—

Agreement to Indemnify: Must be signed in front of a commissioner of oaths you may have this done before submitting the application, or sign the application in front of staff who can sign as commissioners. All owners must sign the application, or it can be signed by an agent if one has been appointed.
SKETCH: We cannot stress enough the importance of a detailed, accurate, and complete sketch. You do not necessarily need to contract with a professional to draw the sketch, but sketches that are not drawn to scale, do not show dimensions and distances, or are not drawn neatly (PLEASE USE A RULER), will not be accepted.
If yes: If there has been a previous variance granted on the property, please indicate the application number if known, and what the details of the variance were.
Minor variance: Has there ever been a minor variance granted on the property? Ifyou are longtime owner of the property, you will probably be aware of any other special permission granted for a variance to the zoning by—Iaw.If you are a new owner, the seller will probably have made you aware of this.
If yes: If there is a current application for severance or subdivision on the property, please indicate the file number. (Staff can help provide this information)
Application for consent: Is there currently an application for consent (severance) for the property?
Drainage: Are there specific ditches that have been constructed to deal with drainage; is there natural drainage, etc.?
Septic: in most cases the answer will be private sewage system, but there may be some privies.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

352% SOUTH FRONTENAC PL-ZNA-2024-0083 (DICKINSON) 158 COYOTE LANE Legend

D 162

m?NEN

Subject Property

V/A Provincially Significant Wetland Wetland

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

158 COYOTE LANE

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

19°C

COYOTE LAN E

Waterbody _

2’ Township Boundary Road

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024.

Page 97 of 224

148 MCEWEN LANE

While the County makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Scale: 1:1,500

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 202407-10

Page 98 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report 158 Coyote Lane May 28, 2024 Prepared for: Graham Dickinson

Cambium Reference: 18758-001

CAMBIUM INC. 866.217.7900 cambium-inc.com Page 99 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….1

1.1

Reviewed Documents ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

2.0

Site & Project Description …………………………………………………………………….2

2.1

Site Description …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

2.2

Project Description ………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

3.0

Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………..4

3.1

Test Pit Investigation ……………………………………………………………………………………… 4

3.2

Site Survey …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

3.3

Physical Laboratory Testing ……………………………………………………………………………. 5

4.0

Subsurface Conditions …………………………………………………………………………6

4.1

Surface Soils ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

4.2

Sand to Silty Sand …………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

4.3

Excavator Refusal …………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

4.4

Groundwater…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

5.0

Slope Stability Assessment ………………………………………………………………. 10

5.1

Assessment and Observations ………………………………………………………………………. 10

5.2

Existing Slope Rating …………………………………………………………………………………… 11

5.3

Opinions on Potential for Instability ………………………………………………………………… 11

5.4

Opinions on Setback Requirements ……………………………………………………………….. 11

5.5

Construction Recommendations for Slope Stability…………………………………………… 12

6.0

Geotechnical Design Considerations …………………………………………………. 14

6.1

Site Preparation…………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

6.2

Frost Penetration …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

6.3

Excavations ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

6.4

Dewatering …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

6.5

Foundation Design ………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

Cambium Inc.

i Page 100Page of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

6.5.1

Reinforced Slab on Grade …………………………………………………………………………….. 17

6.5.2

Strip and Isolated Foundations ………………………………………………………………………. 17

6.5.2.1

Slab on Grade …………………………………………………………………………………………. 18

6.6

Backfill and Compaction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 19

6.6.1

Engineered Fill ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

6.7

Buried Utilities …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

6.8

Design Review and Inspections …………………………………………………………………….. 20

7.0

Closing …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

8.0

Standard Limitations …………………………………………………………………………. 22

Cambium Inc.

ii Page 101Page of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

List of Tables Table 1

Existing Surface Material Thicknesses and Types………………………………………… 7

Table 2

Particle Size Distribution Analysis – Sand to Silty Sand ………………………………… 8

Table 3

Depth of Excavator Refusal and Bedrock Elevations…………………………………….. 8

List of Appended Figures Figure 1

Site Location Plan

Figure 2

Test Pit Location Plan

List of Appendices Appendix A Test Pit Logs Appendix B Physical Laboratory Results Appendix C Slope Stability Rating Chart

Cambium Inc.

Page 102Page of iii224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

1.0

Introduction

Cambium Inc. (Cambium) was retained by Graham Dickinson (Client) to complete a geotechnical investigation in support of the proposed developments located at 158 Coyote Lane in South Frontenac, Ontario (Site). The approximate site location is shown in Figure 1. This report presents the methodology and findings of the investigation at the Site and addresses requirements and constraints for the design and construction of the development.

1.1

Reviewed Documents

The following project documents were received and reviewed during the drafting of this report: [1] Quantum Passivhaus. – 8 Peck Street, Minden, ON (K0M 2K0) PROGRESS SET – Project Name: Bob’s Lake, Project #: 23002, Sheet #: A-000 – E1.1, Dated: August 9th, 2023. [2] Quantum Passivhaus. – 8 Peck Street, Minden, ON (K0M 2K0) SITE PLAN – Project Name: Bob’s Lake, Project #: 23002, Sheet #: A-002, Dated: September 25th, 2023.

Cambium Inc.

Page 103Page of 1224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

2.0

Site & Project Description

2.1

Site Description

The proposed development property is located at 158 Coyote Lane in South Frontenac, Ontario. The property contains a steep slope towards the south side and is currently unoccupied and undeveloped with the exception of the existing driveway, hydro poles, and temporary structures in proximity to the shoreline. The property is bound to the immediate north, east, and west by forested lands and to the south by Bobs Lake. The surface of the Site consists of gravel within the driveway area while grass or topsoil is generally present at the surface throughout the remainder of the property. The immediate investigation limits are variable between test pit locations but were generally flat within the areas of investigation.

2.2

Project Description

It is Cambium’s understanding that the proposed developments include the addition of a new two-storey residential building addition to be located within the tableland at the top of the slope. In addition to the building, it is understood that a septic system is proposed to be located east of the proposed building. The geotechnical investigation was required to confirm the existing subsurface conditions, groundwater conditions, and soil bearing capacity as input into the design and construction of the proposed developments. Geotechnical recommendations such as the potential re-use of soils, frost penetration, groundwater elevation, and dewatering are provided along with Site Plans, including test pit locations, in Figure 2 of this report. A wastewater investigation and septic system design was requested and completed in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation. Results and analysis from the wastewater investigation are to be presented under a separate cover to be issued by Cambium. This report should be read in conjunction with the wastewater report to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the existing site conditions and recommendations for the proposed developments.

Cambium Inc.

Page 104Page of 2224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

It is understood that the Client is considering a minor variance application to allow the proposed building to be constructed approximately 10 meters from the existing top of slope and within the 15-meter top of slope setback. To support the variance application, it is understood that the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has requested a slope stability analysis. As such, this report has been updated to include findings and analysis from the visual slope stability assessment, completed simultaneously with the geotechnical investigation, and opinions on the feasibility of the proposed developments with relevant construction recommendations.

Cambium Inc.

Page 105Page of 3224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

3.0

Methodology

The geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment were conducted at the Site by Cambium on September 26, 2023. Test pits were advanced nearby the proposed development footprints as shown in Figure 2.

3.1 Test Pit Investigation A total of seven test pits, designated as TP101-23 through TP107-23 were strategically placed and advanced throughout the site at locations approved by the Client to depths between approximately 0.3 to 1.2 meters below ground surface (mbgs). Test pits were terminated after excavator refusal was encountered. Excavating and sampling of the test pits was completed using an excavator operating under the supervision of a Cambium technician. Soil samples were collected whenever a change in soil type occurred, starting directly from the surface material. The encountered soil units were logged in the field using visual and tactile methods, and samples were placed in labelled plastic bags for transport, future reference, possible laboratory testing, and storage. Open test pits were checked for groundwater and general stability prior to backfilling. All test pits were backfilled, and the property was reinstated to pre-existing conditions. Test pit logs are provided in Appendix A. Site soil and groundwater conditions are described, and geotechnical recommendations are discussed in the following sections of this report.

3.2

Site Survey

Test pit locations are shown in Figure 2. The location of each test pit was referenced locally by a Cambium technician using a Total Station surveying unit. UTM coordinates and relative elevations are included on the test pit logs provided in Appendix A. A nail installed within an existing hydro pole was used as a benchmark for the survey. The benchmark is depicted as ‘BM’ on Figure 2 and was assigned an elevation of 100.00 m.REL. A 15 m top of slope setback and a 30 m high water mark setback were surveyed and staked out in the field, as requested by the Client. All relevant setbacks are depicted on Figure 2.

Cambium Inc.

Page 106Page of 4224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

3.3 Physical Laboratory Testing Physical laboratory testing, consisting of three sieve analysis (LS-702) was completed on selected soil samples to confirm textural classification and to assess geotechnical parameters. Moisture content testing was completed on all soil samples. Results are presented in Appendix B and are discussed in Section 4.0.

Cambium Inc.

Page 107Page of 5224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

4.0

Subsurface Conditions

The stratigraphy encountered in the test pits is indicated on the attached test pit logs in Appendix A. It is noted that the conditions indicated on the test pit logs are for specific locations only and can vary between and beyond the test pit locations. The soil boundaries indicated on the test pit logs are inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations during excavations. These boundaries are intended to reflect approximate transition zones and should not be interpreted as exact planes of geological change. In addition, the descriptions provided in the test pit logs are inferred from a variety of factors, including visual observations of the soil samples retrieved, laboratory testing, measurements prior to and after excavating, and the excavating process itself. The subsurface conditions at the Site generally consisted of a gravel or topsoil surface material underlain by sand to silty sand soils that extended to test pit termination depths. Excavator refusal was encountered in all test pits advanced. The various soil strata are described in detail below and are identified on the test pit logs included in Appendix A.

4.1 Surface Soils Test pits TP103-23, TP104-23, and TP107-23 were advanced through the existing gravel surface material while the remaining test pits were advanced within grassed areas through organic materials. The encountered surface material thicknesses are summarized in Table 1 below.

Cambium Inc.

Page 108Page of 6224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Table 1

Existing Surface Material Thicknesses and Types Test Pit

Thickness (mm)

Surface Material

TP101-23

200

Topsoil

TP102-23

200

Topsoil

TP103-23

150

Gravel

TP104-23

150

Gravel

TP105-23

125

Topsoil

TP106-23

100

Topsoil

TP107-23

400

Gravel/Topsoil

Analysis of the organic content within the topsoil materials was beyond the scope of this investigation.

4.2 Sand to Silty Sand Underlying the surficial gravel or topsoil, sand to silty sand soils were encountered in all test pits advanced. The sand to silty sand soils generally contained trace to some gravel content in addition to trace amounts of clay content and extended to termination depths in all test pits. The sand to silty sand soils were light brown to reddish-brown in colour and were moist at the time of the investigation with natural moisture content ranging between 5.2 to 16.5% based on laboratory testing. Laboratory particle size distribution analysis was completed for three samples of the sand to silty sand soils, taken from the test pits and depths indicated below. The analysis results, based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) scale, are summarized in Table 2 with full results provided in Appendix B.

Cambium Inc.

Page 109Page of 7224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Table 2

Particle Size Distribution Analysis – Sand to Silty Sand Depth

Sample

(mbgs)

TP102-23, GB1 TP105-23, GB1 TP107-23, GB1

Soil Sand some Gravel

0.2 – 0.5

0.1 – 0.8

some Silt Silty Sand trace Gravel

0.4 – 1.1

Silty Sand some Gravel

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Moisture

Clay (%)

(%)

12.7

11.6

7.5

4.3 Excavator Refusal Excavator refusal was encountered in all the test pits advanced. Excavator refusal was caused by granitic bedrock. Table 3 shows the depths of excavator refusal and associated bedrock elevations for each test pit. Table 3

Depth of Excavator Refusal and Bedrock Elevations Test Pit Elevation

Practical Refusal Depth

Practical Refusal

(mREL)

(mbgs)

Elevation (mREL)

TP101-23

98.08

1.22

96.86

TP102-23

98.37

0.76

97.61

TP103-23

99.17

0.51

98.66

TP104-23

98.78

0.30

98.48

TP105-23

98.12

0.76

97.36

TP106-23

98.49

0.41

98.08

TP107-23

98.22

1.07

97.15

Test Pit ID

Cambium Inc.

Page 110Page of 8224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

4.4 Groundwater At the time of the investigation, groundwater seepage was not encountered within any test pit advanced during the investigation. Based on these results, it is inferred that the stable groundwater level is located within the bedrock. It should be noted that groundwater levels at the Site may fluctuate seasonally and in response to climatic events.

Cambium Inc.

Page 111Page of 9224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

5.0

Slope Stability Assessment

A visual slope stability assessment was completed at the Site where Cambium observed the existing slope conditions and determined the slope stability rating as per the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Technical Guide - River and Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (henceforth referred to as the MNR Technical Guide) guidelines. For the purposes of this report, the slope evaluated extends from south of the existing tableland (top of slope) to the Bobs Lake shoreline or north of the shoreline (toe of slope), as shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that the locations of the evaluated top and bottom of slope are approximate and were determined based on visual observations and measurements made during the assessment. General information pertaining to the existing slope features such as slope profile, slope drainage, vegetation cover, structures on or in the vicinity of the slopes, erosion features, and potential slope slide features were noted during the inspections. A summary is provided in the sections below.

5.1 Assessment and Observations The existing slope contains a maximum height of approximately 6.5 m with the maximum gradient of the slope measuring approximately 20º (1V:2.8H). The tableland within the vicinity of the existing and proposed structures was relatively flat with minor changes in elevation. The surface of the tableland contained grass, bush, and occasional trees along the perimeter. The tableland was devoid of structures with the exception of existing hydro poles and a gravel driveway. No permanent structures were observed along the slope face or at the toe of slope. A seasonal dock was observed at the shoreline of Bobs Lake. Gentle landscaping features such as a natural walking path were observed along the slope crest, face, or toe during the field investigation. Assessment of the soil stratigraphy at the property was based on visual observations and test pits excavated within the proposed development footprints at the tableland. Based on the observations made during the investigation, the soil cover on the slope consists of a thin layer

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 112 of10224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

of organic topsoil (generally less than 0.3 m) overlying bedrock. In some locations, exposed bedrock was observed directly at the surface along the slope face. The slope face was noted to be heavily vegetated with a mixture of mature trees and undergrowth that has resulted in a healthy root system across the entire face of the slope. Weathered bedrock outcrops were frequently observed throughout the tableland, face, and toe of slope. No active erosion was noted along the slope toe, face, or crest. No evidence of drainage or seepage associated with instability was noted throughout the slope toe, face, or crest at the time of inspection. Water course features were not observed. There are no previous signs of landslide activity.

5.2 Existing Slope Rating Based on Section 4.3.2. in the MNR Technical Guide, the existing slope has a rating of 18. Overall, the slope is considered to have a low risk of global instability. A copy of the completed rating chart is provided in Appendix C.

5.3 Opinions on Potential for Instability Based on the results of our site inspections and measurements, it is anticipated that the factor of safety of the subject slope in its existing configuration significantly exceeds the 1.5 minimum required to allow for active land use near the slope crest, as per Section 4.3.3.1. in the MNR Technical Guide. Further analysis using accepted software technologies is not considered necessary for the slope in question given the composition of the slope face. Further construction recommendations are provided in the following sections.

5.4 Opinions on Setback Requirements As per Section 3.0 in the MNR Technical Guide, the system observed within the proposed development property can be classified as a confined system. As such, the Erosion Hazard Limit, or Limit of Hazardous Lands, can generally be determined as the sum of the Toe Erosion Allowance, Stable Slope Allowance, and Erosion Access Allowance.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 113 of11224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

As per Table 3 in Section 3.1 of the MNR Technical Guide, the Toe Erosion Allowance can conservatively be taken as 1 m from the toe of the bank. As per Section 3.2 of the MNR Technical Guide, the Stable Slope Allowance can be used to determine the long-term stable slope crest (LTSSC). Based on the overburden material consisting of a thin layer of organic material overlying bedrock along the slope face, Cambium considers the Stable Slope Allowance or LTSSC as an invisible line extending from the existing slope toe at a 1H:1V angle to the top of the slope or the existing top of slope, whichever is greater. As the grades of the slope in question are flatter than 1H:1V, the existing slope crest or top of slope can be considered the LTSSC. As per Section 3.3 in the MNR Technical Guide the Erosion Access Allowance can generally be taken as 6 m behind the Stable Slope Allowance or LTSSC. As such, given that the LTSSC is considered the existing slope crest or top of slope for this Site, the Erosion Access Allowance can be taken as 6 m landward from the existing slope crest or top of slope. Based on the allowances described above and considering that the Stable Slope Allowance and LTSSC were determined using Cambium’s engineering judgement and experience, the Erosion Hazard Limit or Limit of Hazardous Lands for this Site can be taken as approximately 6 m landward from the existing slope crest or top of slope. As such, provided the proposed building is constructed a minimum of 6 m from the existing top of slope, the existing slope should remain stable in its current condition. It is Cambium’s understanding that the proposed building is to be constructed a minimum of 10 meters from the existing slope crest or top of slope. Therefore, it is Cambium’s opinion that the proposed developments will not impact the stability of the existing slope in its current configuration and a reduced setback requirement of 10 m from the existing top of slope is suitable for the proposed developments.

5.5 Construction Recommendations for Slope Stability Based on the results of the investigations, it is Cambium’s opinion that the proposed building will not impact the stability of the slope or result in the introduction of active erosion. However,

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 114 of12224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

construction operations should consider the following recommendations to maximize the longterm stability and integrity of the existing slope: •

•

Construction activities should be conducted in a manner which do not result in surface erosion of the thin layer of overlying soils on the slope. Site grading and drainage should be designed to prevent direct concentrate or channelized surface runoff from flowing directly over the slope.

•

Upon completion of the construction of the proposed building, vegetation cover is to be provided for all new or disturbed surface material at the top of the slope.

•

Water drainage from down-spouts, rain gutters, sumps, and the like should not be permitted to directly flow over the slope crest as channelized runoff.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 115 of13224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

6.0

Geotechnical Design Considerations

This section of the report provides engineering information on, and recommendations for, the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the test pit information, the laboratory test data, and our understanding of the project requirements. The information in this portion of the report is provided for planning and design purposes for the guidance of the design engineers and architects. Where comments are made on construction, they are provided only to highlight aspects of construction which could affect the design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own independent interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Cambium will not assume any responsibility for construction-related decisions made by contractors based on this report.

6.1 Site Preparation Any topsoil, organic fill, and any other disturbed material or native soils encountered should be excavated and removed beneath the proposed development footprints; additionally, this material should be excavated and removed to a minimum distance of 1 meter around the proposed footprint. Any topsoil and materials with significant quantities of organics and deleterious materials (i.e., construction debris, asphalt etc.) are not appropriate for use as fill. Utility trench subgrades should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to construction of the proposed developments. Any exposed subgrades should be proof-rolled and inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to placement of any granular fill. Any loose/soft soils identified at the time of proof-rolling that are unable to uniformly be compacted should be sub-excavated and removed. The excavations created through the removal of these materials should be backfilled with approved engineered fill consistent with the recommendations provided below.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 116 of14224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

The encountered sand to silty sand soils can be unstable if they are wet or saturated. Such conditions are common in the spring and late fall. Under these conditions, temporary use of granular fill, and possible reinforcing geotextiles, may be required to prevent severe rutting on construction access routes. Where possible, any existing roadways should be used for construction access routes.

6.2 Frost Penetration Based on climate data and design charts, the maximum frost penetration depth below the surface at the site is estimated at 1.6 mbgs given the building type and subsurface conditions encountered. Utilities should be founded at or below a depth of 1.6 mbgs, upon free-draining granular fill extending to below 1.6 mbgs or be adequately insulated. Intensely fractured and weathered bedrock is considered frost susceptible. If encountered at footing subgrades, the material should be excavated to moderately fractured bedrock to ensure footings are placed on non-frost susceptible, clean, sound bedrock which is not frost susceptible. Any services should be located below this depth or be appropriately insulated.

6.3 Excavations All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the latest edition of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and Ontario Regulation 213/91 (as amended). Soils above the groundwater table can be considered Type 3 soils and as such, excavation side slopes should be no steeper than 1H:1V. Soils below the groundwater table should be treated as Type 4 soils and therefore excavation side slopes should be decreased to 3H:1V in these areas. Given that groundwater was not encountered within the investigation and is unlikely to be encountered during construction operations depending on the proposed depth, all soils can be considered Type 3 soils. Where the side slopes consist of more than one soil type, the soil shall be classified as the type with the highest number among the soil types present. Please note that the soil type

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 117 of15224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

classifications indicated above are provisional and are subject to change based on field observations of the actual conditions at the time of exposure. Excavation slopes should be protected during construction from precipitation, runoff, or snow/ice melt and should be inspected regularly for signs of instability. If localized instability is noted during excavation or if wet conditions are encountered, the side slopes should be flattened as required to maintain safe working conditions or the excavation sidewalls must be fully supported (shored). Stockpiles of excavated materials should be kept at least at the same distance as the excavation depth from the top edge of the excavation to prevent slope instability. Care should also be taken to avoid overloading of any existing underground services/structures by stockpiles.

6.4 Dewatering Based on the results of the investigation, groundwater seepage is unlikely to be encountered during excavations and the installation of underground services or foundations depending on the proposed design. Groundwater was not encountered within any test pit advanced during the investigation. Standing water was not observed within any open test pit. Given this, it is inferred that the stable groundwater table is embedded within the underlying bedrock. Unless excavations extend into the bedrock, it is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during construction operations. If groundwater is encountered during excavations due to surficial run off, it should be manageable with filtered sumps and pumps and a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) is not anticipated to be required based on the assumed typical excavation depths. Any patterns of groundwater flow trends were not recognized based on the test pit observations and a hydrogeological study would be required to understand groundwater patterns and specific dewatering requirements throughout the site.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 118 of16224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

It is noted that the elevation of the groundwater table will vary due to seasonal conditions and in response to heavy precipitation events.

6.5 Foundation Design 6.5.1 Reinforced Slab on Grade It is understood that the Client is proposing to utilize a reinforced slab on grade overlying approximately 12 inches of EPS product. Based on the provided drawings, the EPS product is to be underlain by engineered fill which will extend to native material or bedrock. Based on the bedrock depths encountered throughout the building footprint, Cambium recommends excavations for the slab extend to bedrock. A minimum of 300 mm of engineered fill shall be placed and compacted as outlined in Section 6.6.1 directly on a clean, sound bedrock surface. A reinforced slab on grade designed as outlined above may be designed using a bearing capacity of 125 kPa (SLS) and 150 kPa (ULS). A reinforced slab on grade bearing on engineered fill overlying bedrock and designed using the bearing capacities noted above will have a settlement potential at the above-noted SLS loadings of less than 25 mm.

6.5.2 Strip and Isolated Foundations Should the proposed design be altered, from a geotechnical perspective, the proposed building can generally be supported on standard strip and/or spread footings founded on competent bedrock, depending on the proposed design. Foundations bearing on competent bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 500 kPa at ultimate limit state (ULS). Considering bedrock is non-yielding the load required for 25 mm of compression would exceed the capacity of the founding element. Therefore, the geotechnical reaction at SLS should be assumed equal to the factored geotechnical resistance at ULS for design purposes.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 119 of17224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Under no circumstances will the foundations be placed directly on organic materials, loose, frozen subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Footings and walls exposed to frost action shall be backfilled with OPSS 1010 Granular B Type I. The quality of the subgrade should be inspected by Cambium during construction, prior to constructing the footings, to confirm bearing capacity estimates. 6.5.2.1 Slab on Grade If a conventional strip and isolated foundation system is utilized and slab on grades are required between foundations, all organic material and deleterious material must be removed prior to constructing the slab on grade. It is recommended that the slab be provided with a capillary moisture barrier. This is made by placing the slab on a minimum 200 mm layer of clear stone and nominally compacted by vibration to a dense state. Alternatively, the capillary moisture barrier can be composed of a 200 mm thick layer of OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular A, compacted to a minimum 98% of the SPMDD. Under slab drainage is not required beyond the capillary moisture barrier provided the floor slab elevation is set at 300 mm or higher than the exterior grade. The modulus of subgrade reaction appropriate for slab on grade design on the soils at the site is as follows: Subgrade Material

Underlying Material

Subgrade Reaction

Granular A / Clearstone

Engineered Fill Over Bedrock

30 mPa/m

The subgrade for the slab must be inspected and approved by Cambium, prior to the placement of an aggregate base. If there are areas containing excessive amounts of deleterious/organic material or moisture, they must be locally sub-excavated and backfilled with approved clean earth fill or Engineered Fill such as OPSS Granular B (Type I or II) and compacted to a minimum of 98% SPMDD.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 120 of18224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

6.6 Backfill and Compaction Excavated native soil not containing organics or significant deposits of silt may be appropriate for use as fill below grading areas, provided that the actual or adjusted moisture content at the time of construction is within a range that permits compaction to required densities. Some moisture content adjustments may be required depending upon seasonal conditions. Geotechnical inspections and testing of engineered fill are required to confirm acceptable quality. Onsite materials containing significant deposits of silt and clay may be re-used for landscaping purposes at the discretion of a landscape architect. Foundation wall backfill, if any, should consist of free-draining imported granular material as required. If onsite soils are not sufficiently free draining, this should be accomplished using well graded Granular B Type I or II material complying with OPSS 1010. If a drainage layer membrane is used against the foundation, then Granular B material may not be required, but the proposed backfill material should be inspected and approved by a geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness and compacted to 98% of SPMDD. Placement of engineered fill should be verified by onsite compaction testing during construction.

6.6.1 Engineered Fill When the fill is treated as an engineered fill to support structural elements such as foundations and or floor slabs, the following is recommended for the construction of engineered fill: I.

Remove any and all existing vegetation, surficial topsoil/ organics, organic fills or fills and any loose soils to a competent subgrade for a suitable envelope;

II.

As a minimum, the area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally 1 meter beyond the outside edge of the foundations then extend downward at a 1:1 slope to the competent native soil;

III.

The subgrade or base of the engineered fill area must be approved by Cambium prior to placement of any new fill, to ensure that suitability of subgrade conditions;

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 121 of19224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

IV.

Place approved OPSS 1010 SSM or Granular ‘B’ Type I material at a moisture content at or near optimum moisture in suitable maximum 200 mm thick lifts, compacted to 100% of SPMDD. Any frost penetration into the fill material must be removed prior to placement of subsequent lifts of fill and reviewed by Cambium;

Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required for it to be used as a founding material, as outlined in Section 4.2.2.2 of the Ontario Building Code.

6.7 Buried Utilities Trench excavations above the groundwater table should generally consider Type 3 soil conditions, which require side slopes no steeper than 1H:1V, otherwise shoring would be required. Any excavations below the water table should generally consider Type 4 soil conditions which require side slopes of 3H:1V or flatter or shoring. Bedding and cover material for any services should consist of OPSS 1010 Granular A or B Type II, placed in accordance with pertinent Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings (OPSD 802.013). The bedding and cover material shall be placed in maximum 200 mm thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 98% of SPMDD. The cover material shall be a minimum of 300 mm over the top of the pipe and compacted to 98% of SPMDD, taking care not to damage the utility pipes during compaction. If bedding is being placed in wet conditions consideration should be given to using 19 mm crushed clear stone underlain by a geotextile (Terrafix 270R or similar).

6.8 Design Review and Inspections Testing and inspections should be carried out during construction operations to examine and approve subgrade conditions, fill material, compaction of pipe bedding, trench backfill, granular base courses, and asphaltic concrete. We should be contacted to review and approve design drawings to ensure that all pertinent geotechnical-related factors have been addressed. It is important that onsite geotechnical supervision be provided at this site for excavation and backfill procedures, deleterious soil removal, subgrade inspections and compaction testing.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 122 of20224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

7.0

Closing

Please note that this work program and report are governed by the attached Qualifications and Limitations. If you have questions or comments regarding this document, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (613) 389-2323. Respectfully submitted, Cambium Inc.

Farhan Imtiaz, E.I.T. Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training, Project Coordinator

Mackenzie Garrison, M.Eng., P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer, Senior Project Manager – Team Lead

Stuart Baird, M.Eng., P.Eng. Director of Technical Operations, Services MG/sb P:\18700 to 18799\18758-001 Graham Dickinson - GEO - Part Lot 23, Concession 2\Deliverables\REPORT - GEO\Draft

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 123 of21224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

8.0

Standard Limitations

Limited Warranty In performing work on behalf of a client, Cambium relies on its client to provide instructions on the scope of its retainer, and, on that basis, Cambium determines the precise nature of the work to be performed. Cambium undertakes all work in accordance with applicable accepted industry practices and standards. Unless required under local laws, other than as expressly stated herein, no other warranties or conditions, either expressed or implied, are made regarding the services, work or reports provided. Reliance on Materials and Information The findings and results presented in reports prepared by Cambium are based on the materials and information provided by the client to Cambium and on the facts, conditions and circumstances encountered by Cambium during the performance of the work requested by the client. In formulating its findings and results into a report, Cambium assumes that the information and materials provided by the client or obtained by Cambium from the client or otherwise are factual, accurate and represent a true depiction of the circumstances that exist. Cambium relies on its client to inform Cambium if there are changes to any such information and materials. Cambium does not review, analyze, or attempt to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information or materials provided, or circumstances encountered, other than in accordance with applicable accepted industry practice. Cambium will not be responsible for matters arising from incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information or from facts or circumstances that are not fully disclosed to or that are concealed from Cambium during the provision of services, work, or reports. Facts, conditions, information, and circumstances may vary with time and locations and Cambium’s work is based on a review of such matters as they existed at the particular time and location indicated in its reports. No assurance is made by Cambium that the facts, conditions, information, circumstances, or any underlying assumptions made by Cambium in connection with the work performed will not change after the work is completed and a report is submitted. If any such changes occur or additional information is obtained, Cambium should be advised and requested to consider if the changes or additional information affect its findings or results. When preparing reports, Cambium considers applicable legislation, regulations, governmental guidelines, and policies to the extent they are within its knowledge, but Cambium is not qualified to advise with respect to legal matters. The presentation of information regarding applicable legislation, regulations, governmental guidelines, and policies is for information only and is not intended to and should not be interpreted as constituting a legal opinion concerning the work completed or conditions outlined in a report. All legal matters should be reviewed and considered by an appropriately qualified legal practitioner. Site Assessments A site assessment is created using data and information collected during the investigation of a site and based on conditions encountered at the time and particular locations at which fieldwork is conducted. The information, sample results and data collected represent the conditions only at the specific times at which and at those specific locations from which the information, samples and data were obtained and the information, sample results and data may vary at other locations and times. To the extent that Cambium’s work or report considers any locations or times other than those from which information, sample results and data was specifically received, the work or report is based on a reasonable extrapolation from such information, sample results and data but the actual conditions encountered may vary from those extrapolations. Only conditions at the site and locations chosen for study by the client are evaluated; no adjacent or other properties are evaluated unless specifically requested by the client. Any physical or other aspects of the site chosen for study by the client, or any other matter not specifically addressed in a report prepared by Cambium, are beyond the scope of the work performed by Cambium and such matters have not been investigated or addressed. Reliance Cambium’s services, work and reports may be relied on by the client and its corporate directors and officers, employees, and professional advisors. Cambium is not responsible for the use of its work or reports by any other party, or for the reliance on, or for any decision which is made by any party using the services or work performed by or a report prepared by Cambium without Cambium’s express written consent. Any party that relies on services or work performed by Cambium or a report prepared by Cambium without Cambium’s express written consent, does so at its own risk. No report of Cambium may be disclosed or referred to in any public document without Cambium’s express prior written consent. Cambium specifically disclaims any liability or responsibility to any such party for any loss, damage, expense, fine, penalty or other such thing which may arise or result from the use of any information, recommendation or other matter arising from the services, work or reports provided by Cambium. Limitation of Liability Potential liability to the client arising out of the report is limited to the amount of Cambium’s professional liability insurance coverage. Cambium shall only be liable for direct damages to the extent caused by Cambium’s negligence and/or breach of contract. Cambium shall not be liable for consequential damages. Personal Liability The client expressly agrees that Cambium employees shall have no personal liability to the client with respect to a claim, whether in contract, tort and/or other cause of action in law. Furthermore, the client agrees that it will bring no proceedings nor take any action in any court of law against Cambium employees in their personal capacity.

Cambium Inc.

Page Page 124 of22224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Appended Figures

Cambium Inc.

Page 125 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GRAHAM DICKINSON 158 Coyote Lane Frontenac, Ontario

LEGEND Crow Lake

Major Road Minor Road

Leggat Lake

Railway Watercourse Provincial Park Water Area Wooded Area Built Up Area

LO NG

L AKE

SITE

Notes:

Features on map are Produced under License with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry @King’s Printer for Ontario, 2022
Distances on this plan are in metres and can be converted to feet by dividing by 0.3048.
Cambium Inc. makes every effort to ensure this map is free from errors but cannot be held responsible for any damages due to error or omissions. This map should not be used for navigation or legal purposes. It is intended for general reference use only.

ES T

194 Sophia Street Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1E5 Tel: (705) 742.7900 Fax: (705) 742.7907 www.cambium-inc.com

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Page 126 of 224

O:\GIS\MXDs\18700-18799\18758-001 Graham Dickinson - GEO - Part Lot 23, Concession 2\2023-10-05 Geotechnical investigation.aprx

Bobs Lake

Project No.:

Date:

November 2023

18758-001 Rev.:

Projection: 1:100,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Figure: Created by: Checked by: MG MAT

Scale: 0

5 km

FRONTENAC

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Page 127 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Appendix A Test Pit Logs

Cambium Inc.

Page 128 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.08 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953953

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP101-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845303

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.1

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 TOPSOIL: 200 mm Topsoil 97.88

(SM) SILTY SAND: light brown, moist, trace gravel, trace clay

97.6

0.5

97.1

0.2

increase in gravel content

5.2%

5.5%

96.86

Borehole terminated @ 1.2 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

96.6

1.5

96.1

95.6

2.5

95.1

94.6

3.5

94.1

Test pit terminated on bedrock. Test pit caving not observed, Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

1.22

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL DISTRIBUTION

SAND

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 129 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.37 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953945

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP102-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845296

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.4

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 TOPSOIL: 200 mm Topsoil 98.17

(SM) SILTY SAND: reddish-brown, moist, trace gravel, trace clay

97.9

0.2

0.5

5.1%

97.61

Borehole terminated @ 0.8 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

97.4

96.9

1.5

96.4

95.9

2.5

95.4

94.9

3.5

94.4

Test pit terminated on bedrock. Test pit caving not observed. Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

0.76

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL 3 DISTRIBUTION GB1

SAND 78

SILT 16

CLAY 3

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 130 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 99.17 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953944

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP103-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845290

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

99.2

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 (GP) GRAVEL: 150 mm Gravel 99.02

(SP) SAND: reddish-brown, moist, some gravel, some silt

98.7

Borehole terminated @ 0.5 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

97.7

1.5

97.2

96.7

2.5

96.2

95.7

3.5

95.2

12.7%

98.66

0.5

98.2

0.15

Test pit terminated on bedrock. Test pit caving not observed. Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

0.51

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL 7 DISTRIBUTION GB1

SAND 81

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 131 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.78 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953936

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP104-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845276

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.8

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 (GP) GRAVEL: 150 mm Gravel 98.63

(SP) SAND: reddish-brown, moist, some gravel, some silt

Borehole terminated @ 0.3 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

98.3

0.5

97.8

97.3

1.5

96.8

96.3

2.5

95.8

95.3

3.5

94.8

0.15 98.48

10.1%

Test pit terminated on bedrock. Test pit caving not observed. Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

0.3

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL DISTRIBUTION

SAND

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 132 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.12 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953931

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP105-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845279

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.1

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 TOPSOIL: 125 mm Topsoil (SM) SILTY SAND: light brown, moist, trace gravel

97.99 0.13

11.6%

97.6

0.5

97.36

Borehole terminated @ 0.8 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

97.1

96.6

1.5

96.1

95.6

2.5

95.1

94.6

3.5

94.1

Test pit terminated on bedrock. Test pit caving not observed. Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

0.76

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL 5 DISTRIBUTION GB1

SAND 74

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 133 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.49 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953934

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP106-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845286

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.5

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 TOPSOIL: 100 mm Topsoil (SM) SILTY SAND: reddish-brown, moist, trace gravel

98.39 0.1 16.5%

98.08

0.5

97.5

1.5

96.5

2.5

95.5

3.5

94.5

Borehole terminated @ 0.4 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

Test pit terminated. Test pit caving not observed. Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

0.41

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL DISTRIBUTION

SAND

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 134 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Client: Graham Dickinson

Project Name: 158 Coyote Lane

Contractor: Canadian Environmental Drilling Project No.: 18758-001

Elevation: 98.22 mREL

Location: 158 Coyote Lane

UTM: 18T

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

4953929

SPT (N)

% Recovery

Type

Description

Number

Lithology

Depth

(m)

Elevation

TP107-23

Page:

1 of 1

Date Completed:

Sept. 26, 2023

E: 845275

SAMPLE Atterberg Limits (%)

98.2

Log of Borehole:

Method: Test Pit

LL PL

Shear Strength Cu, kPa

nat V. rem V.

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

% Moisture

SPT (N)

25 50 75

20 40 60 80

Well Installation

Log Notes

0 (GP) GRAVEL: 150 mm Gravel 98.07

TOPSOIL: 300 mm Topsoil

0.15

97.81

97.7

97.2

0.5

(SM) SILTY SAND: light brown, moist, some gravel

1.5

96.2

95.7

2.5

95.2

94.7

3.5

94.2

7.5%

97.15

Borehole terminated @ 1.1 mbgs due to excavator refusal.

96.7

0.41

Test pit terminated. Test pit caving not observed, Groundwater not encountered. Standing water not observed.

1.07

GRAINSIZE SAMPLE GRAVEL 7 DISTRIBUTION GB1

SAND 79

SILT

CLAY

1m = 45 units

Logged By: FI

Input By: FI

Peterborough, Barrie, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa

Page 135 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Appendix B Physical Laboratory Results

Cambium Inc.

Page 136 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Grain Size Distribution Chart Project Number:

18758-001

Client:

Graham Dickinson

Project Name:

GEO - 158 Coyote Lane

Sample Date:

September 26, 2023

Sampled By:

Farhan Imtiaz - Cambium Inc.

Location:

TP 103-23 GB 1

Depth:

0.2 m to 0.5 m

Lab Sample No:

S-23-1635

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAND (<4.75 mm to 0.075 mm)

CLAY & SILT (<0.075 mm)

MEDIUM

FINE

GRAVEL (>4.75 mm) COARSE

COARSE

FINE

PERCENT

RETAINED

PASSING

100

0 0.001

0.01

0.1

100

DIAMETER (mm)

MIT SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CLAY

FINE

SILT

MEDIUM

COARSE

FINE

SAND

MEDIUM

COARSE

BOULDERS

GRAVEL

Borehole No.

Sample No.

Depth

Gravel

Sand

TP 103-23

GB 1

0.2 m to 0.5 m

Silt

Clay

Moisture

12.7

Description

Classification

D60

D30

D10

Sand some Silt trace Gravel

0.330

0.150

Additional information available upon request

Issued By:

(Senior Project Manager)

Date Issued:

Cambium Inc. (Laboratory) 866.217.7900 | cambium-inc.com 194 Sophia St. | Peterborough | ON | K9H 1E5

October 5, 2023

Page 137 of 224

Form: L6V.2 - Grad.Hydo

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Grain Size Distribution Chart Project Number:

18758-001

Client:

Graham Dickinson

Project Name:

GEO - 158 Coyote Lane

Sample Date:

September 26, 2023

Sampled By:

Farhan Imtiaz - Cambium Inc.

Location:

TP 105-23 GB 1

Depth:

0.1 m to 0.8 m

Lab Sample No:

S-23-1636

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAND (<4.75 mm to 0.075 mm)

CLAY & SILT (<0.075 mm)

MEDIUM

FINE

GRAVEL (>4.75 mm) COARSE

COARSE

FINE

PERCENT

RETAINED

PASSING

100

0 0.001

0.01

0.1

100

DIAMETER (mm)

MIT SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CLAY

FINE

SILT

MEDIUM

COARSE

FINE

SAND

MEDIUM

COARSE

BOULDERS

GRAVEL

Borehole No.

Sample No.

Depth

Gravel

Sand

TP 105-23

GB 1

0.1 m to 0.8 m

Silt

Clay

Moisture

11.6

Description

Classification

D60

D30

D10

Silty Sand trace Gravel

0.265

0.110

Additional information available upon request

Issued By:

(Senior Project Manager)

Date Issued:

Cambium Inc. (Laboratory) 866.217.7900 | cambium-inc.com 194 Sophia St. | Peterborough | ON | K9H 1E5

October 5, 2023

Page 138 of 224

Form: L6V.2 - Grad.Hydo

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Grain Size Distribution Chart Project Number:

18758-001

Client:

Graham Dickinson

Project Name:

GEO - 158 Coyote Lane

Sample Date:

September 26, 2023

Sampled By:

Farhan Imtiaz - Cambium Inc.

Location:

TP 107-23 GB 1

Depth:

0.4 m to 1.1 m

Lab Sample No:

S-23-1637

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAND (<4.75 mm to 0.075 mm)

CLAY & SILT (<0.075 mm)

MEDIUM

FINE

GRAVEL (>4.75 mm) COARSE

COARSE

FINE

PERCENT

RETAINED

PASSING

100

0 0.001

0.01

0.1

100

DIAMETER (mm)

MIT SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CLAY

FINE

SILT

MEDIUM

COARSE

FINE

SAND

MEDIUM

COARSE

BOULDERS

GRAVEL

Borehole No.

Sample No.

Depth

Gravel

Sand

TP 107-23

GB 1

0.4 m to 1.1 m

Silt

Clay

Moisture

7.5

Description

Classification

D60

D30

D10

Sand some Silt trace Gravel

0.500

0.165

Additional information available upon request

Issued By:

(Senior Project Manager)

Date Issued:

Cambium Inc. (Laboratory) 866.217.7900 | cambium-inc.com 194 Sophia St. | Peterborough | ON | K9H 1E5

October 5, 2023

Page 139 of 224

Form: L6V.2 - Grad.Hydo

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Moisture Content Project Number: Project Name: Client: Date Taken:

Lab Number: Date Tested: Tested By:

18758-001 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson 2023-09-26

Borehole Number

Sample Number

Sample Depth (m)

Water Weight (g)

Water Content (%)

101

0.20-0.71

8.9

5.2

101

0.71-1.24

7.7

5.5

103

0.15-0.51

39.2

12.7

104

0.15-0.30

12.8

10.1

105

0.13-0.76

67.3

11.6

106

0.10-0.41

15.3

16.5

107

0.41-1.07

53.8

7.5

Page 140 of 224

1 – Contains organics 2 – Contains rubble 3 – Hydrocarbon Odour 4 – Unknown Chemical Odour 5 – Saturated – free water visible

S-23-1634 2023-10-02 K. Dickson

Additional Observations

6 – Very moist – near optimum moisture content 7 – Moist – below optimum moisture 8 – Dry – dry texture – powdery 9 – Very small – caution may not be representative 10 – Hold sample for gradation analysis

NR NR NR

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

Geotechnical Investigation Report - 158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Cambium Reference: 18758-001 May 28, 2024

Appendix C Slope Stability Rating Chart

Cambium Inc.

Page 141 of 224

DocuSign Envelope ID: B3E75EF6-B111-44E2-A533-726CA5685412

158 Coyote Lane Graham Dickinson Farhan Imtiaz

18758-001 September 26, 2023 Sunny, Clear

Page 142 of 224

a t D a t e : F i l e : R V

August 6, 2024 24-SFR-MVA (BEDFORD) PL-ZNA-2024-0083 Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment P.O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Contact: Attention:

Tom Fehr

Subject:

Graham & Mary Dickinson (Owners) Application for Minor Variance – PL-ZNA-2024-0083 Concession 2 Lot 23 Former Township of Bedford, Now the Township of South Frontenac Civic Address: 158 Coyote Lane ———————————————————————————————————–Dear Mr. Fehr, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has reviewed the subject application within the context of:

Section 3.1 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act,
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority O. Regulation 41/24 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act),
The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan. THE PROPOSAL The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority understands the subject application is seeking a minor variance to allow a dwelling to be setback less than the 15 metres for the top of bank as required by the zoning by-law. The dwelling would be sent back 10 metres from the top of bank. RVCA COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Review Comments Provincial Policy Statement Regarding 3.1 of the PPS, there are no natural hazards that would preclude this application. The site has steep slopes and a report titled, “Geotechnical Investigation Report – 158 Coyote Page 1 of 3

Page 143 of 224

Lane, dated May 28, 2024 and prepared for Graham Dickinson, by Cambium Inc, Reference: 18758-001” was produced to assess the slope hazard. Based on the report, “Overall the slope is considered to have low risk of global instability”. Based on Cambium’s research, using MNR Technical Guide; “As such, provided that the proposed building is constructed a minimum of 6 m from the existing top of slope, the existing slope should remain stable in its current condition. It is Cambium’s understanding that the proposed building will be constructed a minimum of 10 metres from the existing slope crest or top of slope. Therefore, it is Cambium’s opinion that the proposed developments will not impact the stability of the existing slope in its current configuration and a reduced setback requirement of 10 m from the existing top of slope is suitable for the proposed developments.” Ontario Regulation 41/24 The shoreline of Bobs Lake and 15m inland is regulated under Ontario Regulation 41/24. As such, should any alterations or modifications to the shoreline be proposed, prior written permission is required in accordance with our regulation the Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits Regulation made pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O., 1990, chapter 27, as amended. For this application there is no approval under the aforementioned regulation required. Mississippi Rideau Source Water Protection Plan Most of South Frontenac has been identified as a highly vulnerable aquifer as stated in the catchment report and indicated in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Water Protection Plan. These are aquifers that are vulnerable to surface contaminants due to thin or absent soils overlying bedrock that may be fractured. Where these conditions exist, it may be possible for contaminants to enter drinking groundwater supplies. For this reason, care should be taken to avoid land use and practices that may inadvertently lead to undesirable effects on groundwater. Some best practices that could be considered include: •

increased well casing depths,

•

increased distance of septic systems from drinking water wells,

•

ensuring wells are located upgradient of septic sewage disposal systems,

•

ensuring that wells and septic systems are properly maintained,

•

avoiding use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

Discussion & Recommendations From a natural hazard perspective, the reduced setback for the proposed development is supported by a report that is authored by accredited professional engineers with an accredited engineering consulting firm. Conclusion In conclusion, the RVCA does not object to the approval of the minor variance as presented. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions. Page 2 of 3

Page 144 of 224

Please advise the RVCA on the committee’s decision regarding this application or of any changes in its status.

Yours truly,

Michael Yee Environmental Planner & Biologist, RVCA 613-692-3571 X 1176

Cc:

Graham & Mary Dickinson (Owners) Emma Bennett - RVCA

Page 3 of 3

Page 145 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Minor Variance Application (S. 45(1) of Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2024-0083, Graham and Mary Dickenson, 158 Coyote Lane, District of Bedford

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a single detached dwelling, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: RLSW Proposal The Owner proposes to construct a single detached dwelling on the property. The dwelling would be set back 10 metres from the top of bank. A minor variance is being requested to allow the dwelling to be set back less than 15 metres from the top of bank as required by the Zoning By-law. Zoning Relief Requested Section 5.8.2(b) – to permit a single detached dwelling to be setback a minimum of 10 metres from the top of bank, whereas a minimum 15 metre setback is required for all buildings and structures. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act. Property Description The subject property is vacant and is 1.7 hectare in area and has 107 metres of frontage on Bobs Lake. The property is accessed by Coyote Lane which abuts the property along the north property line. The property rises up from Coyote Lane to a high point roughly in the www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 146 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0083

middle of the property, after which the property slopes down steeply to the shoreline of the lake. The property contains mature tree cover and is located in an area of similar waterfront residential development. Department and Agency Comments The application has been circulated to Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, no comments have been received at the time of writing this report. Public Comments No public comments have been received at the time of writing this report. Supporting Documentation A Geotechnical Investigation and Slope and Erosion Assessment (Cambium, May 28, 2024) was submitted in support of the application. The consultant assessed the shoreline slope for type of bedrock, angle, and stability which found that the slope is composed of 0.3 m of overburden topsoil and fill overlying bedrock extending down to the slope toe and beyond. Based on these conditions and the existing slope configuration, the slope is currently stable. The report concluded that the proposed development will not impact the stability of the existing slope in its current configuration and a reduced setback requirement of 10 m from the existing top of slope is suitable for the proposed developments. The report recommended the following construction practices be implemented to further protect the slope from instability:

No trees are to be removed from the existing slope face and the existing slope may not be steepened in any way with fill material. Where fill material is placed to level out the grades around the proposed building, it should be placed to maintain the existing slope gradient or provide a shallower gradient. Fill placed on top of bedrock should be secured by utilizing a retaining structure dowelled or keyed into the bedrock surface. Construction activities should be conducted in a manner which do not result in surface erosion of the thin layer of overlying soils on the slope. Site grading and drainage should be designed to prevent direct concentrate or channelized surface runoff from flowing directly over the slope. Upon completion of the construction of the proposed building, vegetation cover is to be provided for all new or disturbed surface material at the top of the slope. Water drainage from down-spouts, rain gutters, sumps, and the like should not be permitted to directly flow over the slope crest as channelized runoff.

Page 147 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0083

The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan related to waterfront residential development, and development adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The variances would facilitate construction of a dwelling on lands that are designated Rural in the Official Plan on Schedule A. The topography of the proposed lot is challenging and characterized by a number of changes in elevation. The proposed dwelling is located in the only relatively level area on the property – this location is close to the top of bank of a steep slope. Section 5.2.4 of the Official Plan states that the Township will direct development or site alterations away from lands identified by the municipality which may be subject to shoreline erosion hazards. This is typically done through the implementation of a 15 metre setback from the top of bank, as required by the Zoning By-law. A Slope and Erosion Assessment was completed that determined that it would be safe for the proposed dwelling to be setback only 10 metres from the top of bank. The proposed location of the building envelope, and the size of the dwelling, minimizes site alteration required and the development complies with the setback from highwater mark, as intended by section 5.2.7(b) of the Official Plan. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The proposed dwelling is a permitted use in the RLSW zone. The dwelling was designed to comply with the setback from both the highwater mark and all other applicable setbacks. Also, the setback of the sewage system complies with the setback from the highwater mark. The reduced setback from the top of bank is supported by a Slope and Erosion Assessment. The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question? The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed dwelling and sewage system locations are located in a relatively level area of the property that will minimize site alteration and vegetation removal required (e.g. maintain topography, soil mantle and existing vegetation), and ensure the development is located more than 30 metres from the highwater mark. Is the variance minor? The requested variance is minor as it maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. They are not anticipated to impact the existing or planned functionality of the property and adjacent properties. Trees and vegetation maintained along the shoreline and top of bank www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 148 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0083

would provide visual screening and buffering to the lake. The requested variances are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-083 for 158 Coyote Lane, subject to the following conditions.

The minor variance is for a single detached dwelling. The dwelling is permitted to establish a minimum 10 metre setback a minimum from the top of bank. The location of the dwelling on the property must be consistent with the application sketch provided with the application.
The Owner is required to enter into a Development Agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) must be used during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated. b. Roof runoff will be directed away from the lake and discharged to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas to maximize infiltration or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads to reduce the velocity of runoff. c. A natural vegetated buffer must be maintained in its natural state within 30 metres of the lake and along the steep slope, except in the immediate area of the building envelope.
A building permit is required for ALL proposed demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance PL-ZNA-2024-0083 is applicable only to Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 149 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0083

Report Prepared By: Tom Fehr, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods, RPP MCIP, Senior Planner

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 150 of 224

Page 151 of 224

Committee

Rideau

Quinte

Cataraqui

system

Minor Minor

Minor

Township

After

Conservation

Valley

permit

South

a that Fee Authority the applicable

ing

Conservation

Authority

Conservation

June,

Authority

Review a new

day

extend

use of Official Zoning

the

the the

the

Class

to Township when submitting Authority, are to the

sewage

’

sewage

cation with

Agplication

AsmHnJFo/i

an app submitted

review

—

ca Planning

Pre

stru ctur e

alter passed,

Secretary—

( Sepa the rate

byTreasurer a non— or refundab card cheque

the

was

building

by Townshi Chapter p P. legal non a 13 —. conf Committee ormi ng

structure by-Iaw

By—Iaw.

the land. Plan.

provided

45(2)

alter to

be with filed application the sketch, accompanied or by debit credit card, cash.

this with

for be provided (where applicable) Conservation

together below Frontenac.

copy

enlarge to or on structure, by the by—Iaw.

of of

provisions

development purpose purpose

By-Iaw

persons Act R.S.O.

appointed

FRONTENAC VARIANCE 45(2))

2023

SOUTH MINOR (s.

Committee of eight the Planning of 45 or under permission

and and

permission

Frontenac Only Performance WITH combination with in than a Class A system

South

Region

Variance Variance Variance other

It is required Conservation to payable

without

Type:

Zoning

that (1) one of Adjustment, with the chart

Requirements

required

grant

is Section by—Iaw

Updated

TOWNSHIP OF FOR APPLICATION OR PERMISSION

appropriate intent tent I

b land, prohiblted

may

accordance to the Township

building

vary

zoning

the for the general the general nature in

under

Adjustment

may

from

any purpose

Committee

Application 1 ~13 Variances Variances 4+

where

for

Application

used

lands

formed

ls desirable Maintains Maintains minor Is

The

variance:

Committee

the

that

The

an‘Irr’ENAc

Committee minor variance

The

iii?

Page 152 of 224

. Collection of Personal Information

Each applicant shall provide a sketch showing the dimensions of the subject land and of all abutting lands as outlined in Question 29 of the application. The sketch should be accurately dimensioned and scaled in either Imperial or Metric measures. This sketch, in conjunction with the Application Form, is the basis for the analysis of the Minor Variance Application by the Committee of Adjustment. It is strongly recommended that the applicant spend the necessary time to carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and transfer the data to the sketch. It is Any important that the sketch be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. application which does not include the above required information may not be accepted. In this regard, the applicant may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of such sketches. A guide to answering the application questions is attached.

PLEASE READ THIS ITEM CAREFULLY

Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; these agencies may require additional permit applications and fees prior to any construction.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 153 of 224

Page 154 of 224

(0Om

N [A Area:

THE Pgopg’i‘l

‘a

POINT LANE

MYes No

Yes

)1No

LINES

NlA

Doc’s

Name of Road/Lane:

OR a privately maintained road?

Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road?

RUNNINGr Tmeoueit

MD)

gig-(Em (LOT COVERAGE? BY—IAN OF‘THE ZONING

me NOT @MPLY Wl’lilzl

1+3”)

The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By—law:

Wall’s

Q. Liam

Frontage (on road/lane):

The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law:

3 EA soN AL.

The current zoning of the subject land:

Depth:

Frontage (on water):

The frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 155 of 224

N (A

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

N [A

(3)

indicate: (4)

14.Are any building(s) or structure(s), or additions to existing building(s) or structure(s), PROPOSED

DETACHEDGARAGE

13.The proposed uses of the subject land:

$q,. m .

SO,-VYI

q 8’ \

Dimensions of Floor Area

(Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

1+ m

rlNo sh: FY one sh: r)’

‘7 5 m

Height of Building

8 qm

8 3m

Setback from Side Lot Line

(Om

SH ED

(2)

393m

a 5m

CUT-FAG E—

(1)

Eiilafé‘tfi?l‘;llp?m

Setback from Front Lot Line

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

lfthe answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 156 of 224

Height of Building

NOTES:

N [A

+WDSbr),

‘7. 53m

(2)

(3)

(4)

If the subject property is on waterfront, and on a private lane, the setback from the front lot line and the setback from the high water mark will be the same.
The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size of the completed building.

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

Outside Dimensions of Buildin 9 lStructure

(Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

[0‘8m

Bbm

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Setback from Side Lot Line

c; FIRAGE

ED DETA’CH

(1)

Setback from Front Lot Line

Type of Structure ‘E. 9 . residence ’

If the answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 157 of 224

jaNo

3N0

Yes Yes

Yes

Increase in plumbing fixtures

Increase in living space

Will the addition or structure encroach on the existing septic system?

(b)

(0)

(d)

yNo

Indicate whether sewage disposal is provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated sewage system, a privately owned and operated individual or communal septic system, a privy, or other means:

DRILLED \N ELL.

lndicate whether water is provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated piped water system, a privately owned and operated individual or communal well, a lake, or other water body, or other means:

Haves.

21.The length of time that the existing uses of the subject land have continued:

3007-

20.The date the existing buildings and structures were constructed on the subject lands:

act) to MARCH

tjl No

pgNo

Yes

Increase in number of bedrooms

Yes

(a)

What are the uses of the proposed development?

If yes, please provide details:

Do your plans include the RAISING of an existing structure?

19.The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 158 of 224

The location of a reference point… …i.e. distance between the subject land and the nearest township lot line or landmark such as a bridge or railway crossing.

iii)

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

The boundaries and dimensions of the subject land including the location of any existing and proposed buildings.

ii)

iv)

THE SKETCH MUST HAVE A NORTH ARROW AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following:
lfthe answer to item 27 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

p1No

If known, please indicate whether the subject land has ever been the subject of an application under Section 43 of the Planning Act (Minor Variance).

Yes

If the answer to question 25 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

91No

Yes

25.Please indicate whether the subject land is subject of an application under the Planning Act for approval ofa Plan of Subdivision or Consent.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 159 of 224

Page 160 of 224

the Minor Variance Form

Reason why you can’t comply: In other words, why can you not meet the required setbacks. It could be, for example, because you are seeking a variance to add on to an existing structure

—

Current zoning: You may not be aware of the zoning on your property and this can be determined when you come in for pre-consultation with planning staff.

Frontage, depth, area, acres: All parts of this question must be completed.

—

Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. lfthe numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford; if the numbers are 040-050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: if you are not sure, check your tax bill if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this c. Street Number: Your civic address space blank. d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: If your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.
You may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalfduring the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner’s must sign the authorization.
The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.

A Guide to Completing

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 161 of 224

19)Date land acquired: When did you take possession of the property?

18)Uses of Development: Please answer each part of this question. An increase in living space would include anything with walls e.g. a screened porch would involve an increase in living space.

‘

17)Raising of Structure: In other words, are you proposing to raise the building in order to construct a basement under it.

Demolition: All demolition requires a permit from the building department. In some instances, a proposed addition or increase in height cannot be accomplished without the removal of existing walls. Ifthis is not made clear to the Committee at the beginning of the process, you may find that, although you are granted permission to add on to your residence, you can’t actually do it because you have not made it clear that there is demolition involved.
Description of new construction: ALL proposed new development must be described here. If you are proposing to construct an addition to a dwelling, and to add a deck, please show this information in separate columns.

—-

Proposed structures: Ifyou are planning to build ANYTHINGon the property, the answer to this question is “yes” This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.
Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”
Description of buildings and structures: You must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.
Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.
Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land
Parking and Docking: This question is only relevant is you can only access your property by water.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 162 of 224

being proposed

—

Agreement to Indemnify: Must be signed in front of a commissioner of oaths you may have this done before submitting the application, or sign the application in front of staff who can sign as commissioners. All owners must sign the application, or it can be signed by an agent if one has been appointed.
SKETCH: We cannot stress enough the importance of a detailed, accurate, and complete sketch. You do not necessarily need to contract with a professional to draw the sketch, but sketches that are not drawn to scale, do not show dimensions and distances, or are not drawn neatly (PLEASE USE A RULER), will not be accepted.
If yes: If there has been a previous variance granted ontheproperty, please indicate the application number if known, and what the details of the variance were.
Minor variance: Has there ever been a minor variance granted on the property? If you are long— time owner of the property, you will probably be aware of any other special permission granted for a variance to the zoning by-law. If you are a new owner, the seller will probably have made you aware of this.
If yes: If there is a current application for severance or subdivision on the property, please indicate the file number. (Staff can help provide this information)
Application for consent: Is there currently an application for consent (severance) for the property?
Drainage: Are there specific ditches that have been constructed to deal with drainage; is there natural drainage, etc.?
Septic: in most cases the answer will be private sewage system, but there may be some privies.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Inset Map

352%

R0 W

17 GULL

14 DOCS POINT LANE

BAY LANE

SOUTH FRONTENAC

Docs POINT LANE

PL-ZNA-2024-0087 (ADRIAN)

265 MICA POINT LANE

11 DOC’S POINT LANE Legend

Subject Property

WA Provincially Significant Wetland Wetland

11 DOC’S POINT LANE

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

5 GULL BAY LANE

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody

2’ Township Boundary Road

MICA POINT LANE

23 DOCS POINT LANE

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024.

286 MICA POINT LANE

Page 163 of 224

Scale: 1:500

MICA POINT LANE 50 DOCS POINT LANE

E—m 290 MICA POINT LANE

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 202407-16

SCALE: 1:250

SITE PLAN

Page 164 of 224 ’

‘

“35 “If

&;§

6g 6‘29 Q Q 1‘

I I

SYSTEM _I\

: II EXISTING SEPTIC

MTNG DweumG 1.056ft , (98.1 m2WITH, PORCH)

86m2

(QQSnF)

OP E [5.62] P2’STOREY 5&6;wa GARAGE 975 II2

[4%

‘

z e R“ U“

PROPE

‘3;

”WE PO\N1 000 .5

u o f

I st lg

[6.80 ]

EXISTING SHED TO BE REMOVED

29-016” [ 794 ]

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-0"

FOUNDATIONPLAN

Page 165 of 224 +7

a},

7’

8” _

5-8"

,,,,,,

10’

RECESS FOUNDATION To a“ BELOWFINISHEDGRADE. OVERLAPSLAB.

10’

PYLEXSCREW PIL FOR STRINGER SUPPORT. CONFIRM EXACT LOCATION

WELDED

5’-3"

TYP. - 10 O SONOTUBEWITH24 CICR 24'124'18" FOOTINGTO 5’ BELOWGRADE —/’L~ OR INSULATED BELOWWITHR10 40 PSI INST

34 - GARAGESLAE ABOVE 4" POUREDCONC. SLAB(32 MPa) clw 6"x6"x6 GA WIREMESH

W??WMIAHWll???mmm????V/A

2—.

I.v

-’

‘1

N‘

]

_ j

3°

31 I_4II

TYPICALFOUNDATIONHEIGHT:5'4)" TYPICALFOOTINGSIZE:24"x8" FOUNDATIONREBAR:2-16M CONTINUOUST/O WALL FOOTINGREBAR12-16MCONTINUOUS

W-

. ..

‘.

‘

..1

i ‘9‘! .

DIAL-..“

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-o"

MAINFLOOR PLAN

Page 166 of 224 %.,

E”

‘5

‘

“’7’

8’

—

i’f

’

P3 P3

H—u—F— ’—‘—f‘fi

—

31‘-4”

—

3-2X10 —

3-2x10

GARAGE (NOT CONDITIONED) 975 :12

2-2x10

B‘XTOVERHEADDOOR

P3 P3

5.0.- x 550..

31.4

CIW1 Q” WOOD NAILINGBOARD

“-i—‘?

6‘x7‘OVERHEADDOOR

P2 FROM ABOVEYYP. 177,77

1’-8”

15: ‘8 n

____~__VV3LOX3§?BE?M£1’L_H

”

~—

—

’

8’

—

“”‘1

3-2x10

P2 FROM ABOVE~ TYP.

85(7’ OVERHEADDOOR

m U)

rn g”

TI ‘0

jog

g c;r?

8 a; 1’

(9&3

15 ‘8

…

1 ‘8 ”

P 3

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-o"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

Page 167 of 224 *,?

5..6..

7‘

K 7! Z N

“swim

FINN

rum

WOIJ.MD.UJ€T|OVB

IEHIUJEAYEAVEI HDVAUEII WUALLE AV ALLVAUEVLWA INTI

31‘1"

5-0" x M“

5-0" x 420"

10.2..

2-2x10

WAVE COUDFEDETPATE HE R00!

-nu :mmm mass HFNJELW moi n06! Um wwn “5|me I unaware: m as”; sue!

meanmm? MEIERan. mm! Mom“ To E “mum. lluceoma consent”!!! “manure” via names! A

10.4”

wermmm uauuomu Dmmso on 0.999511!toes or DE puma Ion mosvsmum? uov LEa‘rwuuu 0’ the Hun ammo: mun: mmvmnmim? or NW Inca NDVKJV155: mm a! or TH: mm clamo- Loam) Ar n: wnou or we now sues 9;qu ALLloot anal mvE AYLEHVON! Eur.

SEU’ MIN)

“WMTLRER!

Manama:

mass to as Magma momma autumn PER -FlED-‘Q-P&IE

w ‘

umu n0! alum-m

10 I! u FER

ma Plamanaamusa WE MAKE REIERM DULYALLPISEHO Winona. amen»

mm mm

4:12 PRE - ENG. TRUSSES @ 24” 0.0. HEEL AS PER MANUF.

STORAGE 975 ftz

ACCESS HATCHTO ATTICSPACE EXACTLOCATIONAS PER CLIENT. (500mm) x 27 g-(700mm) MIN.19%”

2-2x10

6’-0" x M"

7’

fi‘f

5._6..

2.4..

42" HIGHWOOD GUARD& AS HANDRAIL PER SPECS

2-2X10

17-4”

750..X 4L0"

31"4"

7._ou X 4I_0u

““

‘E”

I?!

‘0.

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-0"

VINYLSIDING

—\

CORNER TRIM

ALUM.FASCIAAND VENTEDSOFFITS

8’x7’OVERHEAD GARAGEDOOR. EXACT STYLETBC

WEST ELEVATION

Page 168 of 224 \r—

8‘x7‘

GL.

:I GL.

60" x48“

8’x7‘

GL.

60" x48"

GL.

PROVIDE(2) 15M ”L"SHAPED DOWELINTO FOOTING
(10Hx60V)

TYP. - 10W SONOTUBEWITH CNV(2) 15M REBAR EACH WAY. FOOTING TO 5’ BELOWGRADE. 24"x24'5(10"

8’x7’

GL.

60" x48"

MIN.2 ?’ 0F VENTINGREQUIRED AT TOP OF ROOF. EXACTLOCATIONSOF VENTS TBC ON SITE. REMAINDER OF REQUIREDVENTING TO BE THROUGHVENTEDSOFFITS.

SCALE: 1/4"=1’—0"

EAST ELEVATION

Page 169 of 224 VINYLSIDING

CORNERTRIM

ALUM.FASCIAAND VENTEDSOFFITS

‘2‘

x3°.

,, 54.. x46"

54.. x48

MIN.2 n1OF VENTINGREQUIREDAT TOP OF ROOE EXACTLOCATIONS0F VENTS TBCON SITE. REMAINDER OF REQUIRED VENTING TO BE THROUGH VENTEDSOFFITS.

’

x60"

80,.

‘

—

Tsc BASED ON DROP CEILING

HEIGHT: HEAD OF WINDow _

… x46

5°

x48"

54"

‘

3" x

1._4..

i 4

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-o"

SUPPORT

PYLEXSCREW FILE FOR STRINGER

32" EXT. INSLDOOR. EXACTSTYLETBC

VINYLSIDING

CORNER TRIM

ALUML FASCIAAND VENTEDSOFFITS

SOUTH ELEVATION

Page 170 of 224 I

“

II‘TI

_\I\J

TJILI

L-

JI I

II“II

III II Ina I

I L II

L L ITII

W—

16 RISERS @ 73" 15 RUNSQ10"

…

I I I | l I I I | I

I I

ALI“ T 7'1‘ 14 ____ % T’9_

e I

. \§54 .,

_ __

45° 6x6 BRACING

BOLTEDTOP1$

( 10H60 x V)

PROVIDE (2) 15M “L"SHAPED DOWEI.INTOFOOTING

TYPL- 10% SONOTUBEWITH 24"x24"x10"CAN(2) 15M REBAR EACH WAY‘FOOTINGTO 5‘ BELOWGRADEL

“"

42" HIGH P.T. wooo GUARD" As PER GENERALSPECS

6x6 P.T. POST WITH GALV. STEEL 7QSUITABLE CONNECTORS

_“

I I I l/H | I I I I

WW…

‘_ /‘! ' N B _; Q @§ EQ Y QH _ W L

_–

TJT‘L II‘IJIIIITTITTWiT

{F L..I__.L__._1

4,4

I—Lr I

32" EXT.INS. DOOR._____,_ EXACTSTYLE“SCA—

«JV

SCALE: 1/4"=1’-0“

vvamomG

CORNERTmM

A,___

—\\

ALUM.FASCIAAND VENTEDSOFFITS

NORTH ELEVATION

Page 171 of 224 W

‘x

»-A-

T] T

I ‘

I I

“MAM“.MMA““A“..“iu.w"_…u.w_w.v…w L

1.4 %

W_w—I I -,J1--w

J_ Q SJ §_

J__ __ D Q E §

;

I ;

I I

Page 172 of 224 7

cgumuous ‘ “w” 7°”

\— _“

’

IIIIIIII’.II’I’I‘I’I’I’I’I’I’I’I I I.<

“I ‘Sggm?ggg:

“E”

(1) IRI

n TYPICALWALLSECTION w Scale.. 1/4 0 -

—_____—

—

–—

‘

T/Q.SUB_I_=LOOR k s_J SL3 A

T/O WINDOW

.. __ UISTRUSSES .. _ .. _ __ .. ‘

‘

TOIIIIINRNB

TYVEKARGWEATMERBARMER TNRCUGHWALLTO SELL RETURNED

LVEmRm

AIWBMRIER T010? PLATEFOR cwmumonm BARRIER

WHO” NW“ 3%,,“ mm? mkm’VEVsWE‘

ALUMIFASCIAAVEIITEDALUM “L 50m”

CDIYINUCUSTYVEKNRAWEATHERBARRIER

H‘

TYPIC? DECK

$2 GARAGESLAB 4- POURED ooNc, SLAB My new a GA VVELDED \MRE MESH

. .5/4 DECKING

F.T, 2x8 JOISTS @ I6’ 0.0.

ATTACHEDTO 2x8 LEDGERAS FER DETAIL

F-

. eI’

FINISHEDFLOORING 5m- SUBFLOOR TJI JOISTS @ w on W/ R~22 INSIAT RIMBOARDS

he DROPPED was As REQ’D
R-sI BATTINSULATION
1x4 STRAPPING@16‘ QC.
6 MILPOLY. VAPOUR BARRIER
l/2’ GYPSUMBOARD

ASSEMBLYTYPES

SEN. wmuuous 5 MIL POLY WALL VAPOURBARRIERTO TOPPLATE

R-I R O 36' O

R
IN O “2' G O HA
PR CU SRE
SO G
MI Ix
L 1/ '

‘ 1

To BARRERSTA?‘LiEsD IIBTII

BMILPOLYVAPDUR

US SUBFLOORALLOW5“ FFIcIEM

IIIsuwIOI

VAPOUREMRIER SEALED TOPLATE

m: Bm

;

(HTERIOR AIRBARRIERSVSTEH)

FD—I- 8’ FWNDATION WALL

FARGINGON EXPOSEDCONC. T0 BELOWGRADE
6’ OONCIFOUNDATIONCM (2) 16M CONTINUOUSREBAR4’ FROMTOP -24’xe’ smp rooms cum) ISM CONTINUOUSFOOTINGREBAR

[+22

W“"‘55

‘

BAIT INSULATION BMILPOLY,VAPouR BARRIER . 1r2’ GYPSUMBOARD

9“”

MEMBRANE WPED OVERDRIPEDGE

W~I - SIDING EXTERIORWALL(R221 ~SIDINGAs PER ELEVATIONs ~de STRAPPING@ Ia- 0.0, As REQ‘D

AIRM/EATHERBARRIER
2x3 swns @ 16’ OC 0. FJ, 2x6 PLATE z mcuon sous C/WSILI. GASKET @ MAX7’-I0’ o,c.

‘ “N‘UF‘CNRER

5’ FEELA’ID STICKICE5 WATER

TYPICALDETAILm FLOOR

w Scale: 1/2” 1"0’

muss smE,PITcM.avERuAIIaA-ID

M‘

NEELIIEIGSHMMHI7’NEEQASPERRDOF

TYPICALDETAIL m EAVES

w Scale: 1/2” 1’-0"

‘

RAFFLESBETWEEN 141331;??sz

SPECIFICATIONS

WOODROOF FBAMIIIG:

or [LEAIME ENEEY MATERIAL muses“ ALLJOEITSSMALLIE. THEAIRBARRETT SEALEOWT‘H cOMPATTeLE MATeRuLaucMAS TAPEOR ILEAOLE SEALANT,OR LAPPEO NOT LessmAII In: MMAID mupeo‘ EUCHA! IEMEEN rRAMmO IEMEER!‘’WIHNG OR amcxm AM)

. Roar YI’UH MAIMAcTORER IO DEITOIImosses

SUPPORTmO MASow TIE! SMALLIEFAITEO TO mu.

mu. IE MTAuEO HOLES WATER Resmrre BEITEATRVEEP FARR/ER IAIWMH

FLquAIn

rusmm AIoTAPEO TO

Am)

BARRERTO SE LAPPEO Olen

DEUMORMLV mmmeo

257- Or TOYALREDUEED Veumn

IIOTEB

nowew

TROM THE

. . Ensuaa Posmve ORAIIME PATH WADOW Am DOOR OPEImOBIo BI!VUINEOAS PER men

PIsTAuATIOII

woe

(cOTIsmoOTTON OR ACOUSMAUTo Be mwvoc -ALL SEALAITTA To u Low VOO .ALLPATH’TB ARLNrLAmIIO UPVIALLO Mrwuu AT SAcmne Or TYVEKTAPE10m PREATIMNEOCAMEO 9(HAUST vem (HALL DR50"" WHEREAPPUCARLE -EvER1 Ame SPAOE TO HAVEAIIAccESs KATE" or mu 541: mm 1 TWO cOTmRM RSO VAN MAmt, “A FAN TO BE mum dimlcfuiéo WITNEVERT EATERIORDOOR INETALLCOIITmoUsMEMBRAM"Alma STARTERsYW/TTGWON FMEKHJ AT use or MANIIG AT rm LAN/I4 BARRERATAPE TO ILASmIO TO

AID cam-OE IVI‘ITAUATTON of OMB MR! VURYMEYI W?‘ER

or western BAImoou wuu

PER!" MWE

rem-tare»:

PROVIDE 21 EWCK’NO N lAWWHWAU—SYD

Iwommmwmoou . PRWIDEWATER mw?unmmmvo

To ALLOWPROPER VENTILATION

As PER u: I 1m

IAIN-E! TO BEIIETAuEOBETMENROOrTRwEEs

BATHROOM:

Roar

Emmy

OS TIE Roar (ROOT VEmnAP-? MNMLSAm. TAOMm! EOTTOMOP THE POOP IPAOE (VEITTEOSOTmEz . TOP Vem ATTIO SPAcE TO Mm Irma! CEILSIOAAEAton ROOT: z TIATO OREATER PTTCNI/TIOIOR ROOTB Less mm 2 I: PRGA Of skew. RASIAwIRsecTs vVEFITB SMALLIE MEDIEDYO PAEVEIIT TIE .. See No! PLAII70R VENOM: REOLAREITEMTSexAchem Lennon: Tee 0" SITEImus! mTEO OTPERmsE

VEImIIOTO

VENTILAIIOI

.couwswu

we: OI me R007 TOR EROS: VETmMMIIWmI Imam OIIOPPOSTTE

THANYHEIREREITSTANOE RATIM ReomTeo TORTIC—ME EIPARATIM TIREETOP A9 PER CAILULOEII5.‘IIHEYEBVI Oi mesTOO “new. mm A PReque NIEREImALOP IO PAEETWEEIIT»: EXPOSEDAAOL‘T-‘EXFDEED SOESMTTH‘OIE NEWERPPEBSUREON THEBPOEEO EDE Pym: WATERmsTRmmI TO BEsEALEOAT me FEI-‘EYRATPONWTNA nAE OTOP N COIIPORMAIcE Wm EEII’TENCEI LI I (I) -A OOcT WY IENETRATEBANAESEVSLVREOUPEO TO as A We SEPARATIONsTuLLEE EWPPEOPATH A TIRE OAMPERN COIOORVANLE MATH050 ARTICLES 3TH ARDIT n OUTDOOR EHAKEEXHAUSYVEMTII sTIAILcOIEMM O ac In In

I(OI:

mm PROOF uO .. INSIAuTAmAImVEInwO TOR Au. LAWOOIISA! PER on I n new ELECWLWHB‘W MUSTBETOTALLYEmLosEO PI Renown/aw: RACEWAYI comma METAsteATvEO CABLESMATHCOMNIYIILE .IAEAETw-‘O PROVIDEOTNETABLE!ARENOT THATAFEMORETHAN AREPERMITTEOT OHOWEDAMDAIE SPAceOA want: 0! Ir APART. . ELEOTRTCALWOE!OR cABLEs, “IOLE on OAOUEEO. OF Mm cOMSumELe IIsLLATIOnOR .LAcAeTmOTHAT IS mT TOTALLYEILLOBEOOI RALEVIAVB mmwwsvu IIATERIAusPERMITTED IsLess W” II we OVERALLDIAMETER T .. Emma ELECTRICALIIUSY E: M! STOPPED ATTHEPELETRATION PIPINGPETETRATAOIIO m?DUON FIRESEFAMmNS TO EE sEALEO ATTHEPELETRATIOTIBV AM: STOP THATHAS An I RATmO none” ALL COMILETVIL!

memo

RE MT: TLOOII DRAFH ENALLEE PROVIDEDN BASEMENT(WTERE comechOnAs PER LOCALsV-LAIAs wmATIOIIWALL ORALIIAOETO Al PER on: I It TO a: (O DRAOIWITHTm E COVEROI CLEARy: STONEOR BOOM PROVIDEA CUTEED IWPWTTHAHO AUTOMATICPwPIOR OBOHAROM WATERmo SEWER. WJIIAEE MON OR DRTI‘TELLWWERE ORAVTTV ORAL-«OE In IIOTPRACTICALmm P” SHALLHAVE

Memé?t.

1mm.“ “an PARTA -OE.ARIWATEIIKAT REOOVERVUISTOTO IE IImALLEO mlqu 2 women owns Am ELECTROLSERVIOEA SKALLBELMATED 0H ETTEET (“MERE CLEIMNCES Am emAuATTON ENALLBE ASFER LOCALCODE

. ELECYRLALIHSTALLAI’IOMI. or we “PROPANE ImwOM ALLD,S1RMJTIONPAIEIL TmLRE Am WTLETI SMALLCOHFOMITDTHEReauaeuemu PROVImzALAIm MWCVFALSTAMES.YNZCAIIAD‘ATI One In Rea “no Otrmm HTDRO A: Auemen TEL-IMHO TM?! ELECTROALEODE ..ALLSTAIoARD ELECTRIOILWRM To BE COPPER mam SYSTEMSAALLOOIR’OIOITo “LE PRuVme ur mum REGULATIONS, DE Asmc cANAuAII CODEAM: one TOREOM 399A! AMemEO

MECHANICAL8. ELECTRICALSERVICE: MERE Armour)

ENSUREPOSITIVE Immune

APART rLAstI

-weeP MOLE!SHALLas PROVOEDAT In: OOTTOMCOURSEOF ME cAvrTVAIIo OVERWE-Oo?lumkm?s‘ mT MORETHAII JI‘ APART -TE! To SE rAaTeLeoI-ITTNCORROSIONAEIIsTANT: IS MD‘MI SCREWS OR SPIRAL mus RAVI”: A moo DETENTION or NOT Less TILL-I)2 rm»

WEEPHOLE! CINHORTAR OVERIERS SHALLIE PROVTOEOAT THEIOTIOM EOLRSE OI THEOAVITVAID O’I‘ERWHOM! ANOOa 000915.940!HORE THANIr

suns

SHALLBEPaaeo WITHARusT-Bmmve PAM TO PROTECTPROMCORRDMON TIES Am TAEIEhERI TO SE OORROSTOMREOOTAM. .IIAsOIITV VEREER Am NOTLEBBTHANOm mTNcAAMO :2 “WW

i’TEELLII?lL!

ABOVEGRADEMASONRYVENEER: MERE ”WW-ET -§‘TEELWYELB MPOR’IL‘I’J MAsOIm veneenABOVE OPEImOs SMLLHAVE A uwuw Em SEAROIOor R ANDIEARM OM KAsOILRVT cONcRETE OR STEEL

, TRusses

OPTION!

PI COIIORMAME

WW wasechII

SA,

semmcem0? SM

muse movnec WITHAREMOVAILESEALANDLAOELEOTO IIVOJOATE TOR’ SOILOA! REMOVALOILV'

WIMOE MAIIITAIIIEmTM OVERALLSITE ORANAOEAwAV FROM PERTMETER N Ié‘mowmmuwus FOWOATIDN ORAIIIAEELATERTOEE PLATOIIOR éOLI’V‘ RmAuEO As PER MANUTACYWESREOOMMEIoATIOM /DETA>Ls seAs PEROBO I H: AID m I ~wawweunRAPIAOETO

SITEWORKMID DRAINAGE

I «L POLV, AIR/VAPOL-RlARFAeRBELOW EIABcoMPLVeIO TO OAIIcOAESIJul TO BE LAPPEO uemw u ATJOMB RETURNVAPMIIARRER u? TmOAnOII I AM: seALTO cOucRETe BIPPEPARAMNPOR sue POLR SLAB TO IE SEALEO ALLFET’EWATIOHSTPROLGNTIE

comma):

ORAIIULARJM)

MAXME I-m (IN-mum

To Mama

E‘T?w

IO :OMFLVVITYH 201: one ORAB PROVIDED E’T0M5”

7 ELEARAmEAYI‘IALLI I! THEWALL SURIAEE semen I! ABRAETVE IIV «AT TOP AIa BOTTOMT’DR PLauc was

MIDMII:

\“

”(M

”315’“

*4 I

Tum-IN“

/4|

(WAERE

NH)

D(CEPI’R ELDWEIEONLIAEERT

To EH03 0R STUDGRADESPF C R FRWDE “5143‘ EMOIGN-D PIE BIwREE‘ OROIRIO COVER Aeove I’ GROUM) COVERABOVE TOPOFFOO AL NG$UI ~ PROYEUT WGWEB FROMWA Io UPNSTB TB‘ W BLALT V EMA NT

6155‘ ‘M‘a? RID WLTAWTWE E FOUNDATION ORTO wPPoaTRIu B W PLATESTOBE NSCWREYOFDOTIN E -m In TO BeQB EAva IMOFA’ A

i FR O

FSLRL3R: OLQRED LELE‘

mmx?sggcoucnae

) FOR (300 Ts) (19m pi) FOR

(15w

AXONOHETRIC

)3: )

( WHERE

EOCIG SHALLCOIIEOWTO CH ITEI’AREOF nIEaOCKOFNOTM:L E GENERALIEUGTURAL NSS rse WIPPCIL FWIIOAI‘IOM VIRLLTO HT FOR TIPE NI!) Tmcmem AI’ JOUIIOATIOIImam EXIEIIO V r GRADE WES SIOMI ON‘Ihf? E sJPPORIEI ,mLREIIEoRcEO MR3)R comm WOPBIWGE WITHE DOOR OPENPIOSAREmow: III co

WHERE EXTER’OR GRADEI3 HIG II SHIU. BEWPPROOFED was HER c
REMORCIIT‘G STEE. SHALCONF R VIELOEO ORMYOCG wae LESMEWLLCWI AQSG -AU. wzomnXN REOIFORCOIS E WTHHII’WT? com?Rs NIKE TT -PRCMOE~01 IESBTHANA’Com EE \WBAETNEMATERIAL I5 CLEAN s. CL vS -PRWDE LEVELHIG O LATE 0F CC m WORKSHALLCO ILLCOTIERETE MP M H VSORIWA‘IElP IIFORMT AC BA mum TE W A L LL OG
FWIION WALLEA’QEYOBER L’ G -THISPWMTATIOIIHAS E94 DES RE 0‘ EXCAVATION ‘0 WWW THEN KIH GM m. MATERIAL -ALLISM-M WISEU EO EAIM a TVPETORINM‘U!” 0R GJUA’IULAR U
GEO’IEENHC-IL ‘IO INS ERIN-EB?TN PE THE“£9806an NIT OVII‘J?WO RWD FRWTNE FOUIIDA’RM: CT r ALLORAWI’V LONEICQIFOOIFR 70 GEWR?D MTT Is ET OT RAFTERlFLooR DESIGN
FLOOR J0151 DESIGN. WtHE W

ST
R
POURED??o??! E’ U
COIMRE’ESMALLBE
DERGPEO
C
COTTETRUCIION
FORNNSTIG
.
THECOAWESSIW SYREI-‘GI‘
UF
pd HOFGARAGE
MP.
I
a 201A?FORINTERORL
R: )EOMPFOUMM’ ?t”? A! VSCM‘GETO EEOIM ION JMXMUMEYE COARSEAGG TOSL AMISS AEGIDBFENIGVAYERN. REOATE WM LT , GONGREI‘EILOO :

we»: mum»;

DECK LEDGER BOARD FASTENER SPACING

tnlralroc

{BOLT-awe:

O?‘rr-‘n Tame M‘IM It: MI

“Wm Lube

Cmmmx

mm:rm. : mammm waunmnInm wmmummm mmuumu mmwn um

tumm Imam IIOKV “Baum” Aim muWmM uspag

MYi??h’h/

N GUARDPOSTA’I’I’ACHMENT.OBC 55-7 DETAILE8A2(WHERE REQUIRED

PLAN

3%“

5‘

Emu.” PROVIDEDWIIEIIT? OWEREIICE RIELEVATIONA:HOE TPAII If EeTweEII TREVIALKMsmTAce AM) we ADJACENT SURFACEALI. HTENOR EYAJRSMORE THANIMEAs, LAMOOIOSOR TLOORLEVELAROLm THESTARI‘IELLTM‘I moor PROTEOTEOBTAVIALL ALLGUARDSTO BEA MIMILN I? wonEXCEPTFOR MERE THEEAVEKORWAWIO SuaTAce ALOTNE AOJASEIITO’Iwm LEVELIs NOT OREATERWII MIAnewmcn A IRNAI’E Imeumo INT TWEYMAV BEA Immw BELOWOAMEE some! II- HON oPeImOs EETWEEN wARO PIOAETOMUSTBEEPAEEDL555 THAIIr no cuMuAaLEELEuEIITsEEWTEEIIr AMI Mr ABOVE7WD EWAEE QUAIL)!

59AM

EMA”

ALWRAILSOREWI. N IEION’I

REQUIIEDVMSNEXTERIORsums RAVEMORE mm: msERs sum MAvEMOREmm 1 RLSERS Rewaevwnemmems

. If as as .

RISE. 4.1»!

mo BITERrOm’IoCOMPLVWI‘INRESPEVYNE ALLNew STAN NATERWR PARTI On PART I oneIECTION EATEROR STEPSAS REOLAREOBV ORAOE(we commou BEEPLAN!FOR MATERIALS)

MAXJMI li‘??n?tuil?wlw I‘ … MIIINOsmO ATTIMEAOROOMALB um HAIIORALKEIOn-rs :4:

SEE

STAIRS,GUARDS& MAIDRAILB:

mm PMIELS

LEAAAOE

PVc we Romnmrmouamm FLOOR BLAEAOIAOEITT I. A Town wueTeR AHEXTEA’DRWALLOOMEOTEDTO A CORRUOATEOPLABTIOEOILOAs PIPE cemea IN OOERORMmcEvnTH sunsecnous z SENTENCE! (01)me Exrewm umeRTHE EMBANDVERUL‘LAYM AT OR Lemme (a OS SM. unqu mun ORAIMM MATEROLTOR A RADm MTLEEQYHAN 3334M cemEReO ON Ire PIPE NTNTIE IOTTDM or me POE OPEMO The A

Oec Su-

RADOI GAB MTIGATIOII:

(B;

De wPER ENDor me We

«MERE

MAImATORVRAOON OAsIesIm

amen ResmAm

OAB Am: amusTTuMEs

-WHSRE TMEAIR BARRERcOTIEsTB Or HIAR-WFERIAEABIE IuIELTVPE MATER‘AL ALLJOL’J’I’SSHALLBE SEALEDTO meaEAm

. .

PRO/ID!

ANDEROONOARETO a: DHIDNEO IIIAccOROuIcEWO‘H THEPROV-SW”? OT TPE aw OB c vaavme OI OIIIARO WINS! WI WWTROE SNALLIEAKTNE iTAMPor A PROTESSTOIIALEIIOweenuaemeomms wuss SOPPLER II‘IO SUPPLY 5m! ORAVAIIOBTo me EOITTRAOTORTORREVIEIV, snow MTRUS! SUPPLJERHeme Auo SITE mermms. THE OOImIAOTOR mLPROVDE TIIEEETIE OaAquB muss ATROOTTJRALEITOsImER PILOR To meTRLss “L51 :5 ONECAEDn A PROPESOTOIIAL IAIMATION OEEON LOADSARETO SI IIIACCMWICE FAOOEEOWTLTKE ORAVAIIOs mvE Mm me OmARIO uuLmIO EOOE PART I TAuss TAMIOATIOMSMALLTIOI‘ EEEIIcwecAEu AN’OAPFROVED,THEREMITEO TO me EONTRACTOIR ~ TRUSSEBTO I! DEMMiD FDRTIE BFECIVEOWTO LPuTT (AEIER To Iacc Tm ETMTURALCOMMEIITA‘TTEs,1.3 Our;

VIRAL Roof/ORDER TITLES LAVOMTEV SuerveR MAV IEOUOTEMOOJIOATIOIIETO TRAum PIOIOATEO N PLAu FRUITDE Inn on EETween STEATREIOmin NETAumO. As PER oac 92: Tu

FIRE a.SAFETY: -SLFIIE=EITTSMOKEALARM: SHALLSE PISTALAEOsOTNAT THEREIS AT LEAGYOMEEMOIcEALARMOHEACHFLDDK LEVEL«4:11:0an BAEEMEIITO. ANDEAEII ILOOR LEVELTuATIsMr ORMOIIEAEOVE OR EELONAIIAIJJAOEIITILOOR LEVEL

A SMOKEALAINmm VISUALsIOmLA‘IGCOMPOIIem WILEE AIOTALLEOmEveRV IEOROOM (ELEEPBTOHMMJANO SLEEPIIIO IIIA LOCATIONBETWEEN R00“! Am WE REMAMER OI m! STOREV‘AmT?“E eLeePeTO ROOIIS AREOEAVEOuA muyIAv. IE LOCATEDN THEMHWAYT A SMOKEALAINAMALI.
A cARIOII MOIIomE DETECTORSILILLOEAIsTALLEOAwAcEMTIO EAORSLEEPTIIO AREAAm ON EACHLEVELmAT CONTANS A SLEEPING AREA
ALAIN: AvmDETECTORSBMALLAE OOIEECIED TOAN ELECTRICALoRcuTAID BEWIEROOIIATEOTEO sO TM.” TN! AOT‘NAIIONOr ONEALARII PERVAI-EITTLV me mum TO SOuaD OR OETEcmeLLEAuSE OR OETEm’OstmIII ALLALAITIA:
m! COMMIT women Me SEPARATIOIL OT A me SEPARATIONSMILES MAImAIIEDvMEREII ABUTH A TLOORA CEILING,A ROOT OAAII EXTERIORWALL ABSEMSLV.oPeNIIOs m REOuREO nRe SEPARATIONS SHALLBE PROIEOTEOWITNcLOsuTEO EWORMMI TO SuesecTIOM TDII or THE2m Oec Tue OARAOEAM?LIV-HOsun In PROVIOEANerrecwe BARRETTIo OOIO’ORMM TO wasEOIION I 25: Emu. IEIMYAUEO BETWEEN AII AIR uRRu

EOWALEM EMFEON STRONOTE FACE “WITJOISTKAJKIERE FOR OIMEIIsmIILLLMEER OI SHNOLE. WRLE Am TRIPLE PLV FLUSH man

PROVIDESOLIOmomma we HM PAVTHOFTM-ESOPPORTEO IIEuBeR umeRALLcOIacEIITRATeO LOAOs oecxmTo us P.T. LUMBERSPAEEO III APART Is Im oestIsea TORTHE ”PM?! maximum at HIT Tues LOAD3Am DECKSTRUCTUREWOULDITEEDTOSEVEATTEDBVA autumn PROSEssOIIAL EIIOTTEER .ALLLOAO IEAMIO PARnTIOmTO HAVEA DOUBLETOP PLATE ~51LPLATE! TO BE AIMOIEOTO we quwmonmm NOT LlSsTHAm)OAImIOR Ions iPAtEO NOT HOPE MAMMIT O O or WOODOUARO: mm. OOIRORTI To use ”A AH.) mPLEuEITTARr S‘TATDARGSM ueTAL nuARIzBTo BE -CQ‘I‘STN€TIOHAIO I-IOTALLATIOII PREEWIEEREO BVIAITLSAOTURER AImTO SE PMVDED wrm STAMPEO nmPoaAwms MOISTUREHANER :mLLEE PROVDEO IN ALLAPEASMEREWOOO IT m oOmAcT WITHcOmReTE OKLA’IT MAIOIRVT .1: 0 MILFOLYTmeets To ae PLACEDBETWEEN aAsEMem mAuOTOACON; SLAB 5 VIL POLV, TO IE PLAOEOEEMEEII MERvOII FARTIT’ION’AM) EATERIORWALLIRAmI-O

-ALL!£AIIm

.AanIEAuOM

MOER (mm, Be :1 OR A: EFF, [X04 DRASD) u-LEIO OTVL-ERMEBPEOIIEO Jams, DIHELEYO ARE MEASAREDTROMTIREIAce O; TILEsTw TO STOO.OR TACE or AND TO use or CONCRETE(was: OMEITMSE NOTED] memo! DMLE READEROR 50m) ELOEKNOmy 0 0 AT ms OUTSIOEWAu, men TLOORIRAIAOIORIM: PAMLLELIOTHE nmsmeWALL mus OVERM’ IO 12W TO HAVEcammols HORIZONTALMOCNNJ U NO AT MIOPOIIIT Au. LOADEEAIuIO mus (WEN my To MVE WNZOM‘ALILDCKMIO EOIranIIs AT men ROMA PRO/TOE MEMIRATE DASIGY EEn‘IEEIIALLTIIAmNcAID OOIIEPET: .ALLSEAIIB POmETEOmo CONCRETEBNMLMM‘Eum I uARa-‘O IMTALLMEMBRANE maAET BETWEEN CONCRETEAWWOOMTEEL ACNTETMHOTILWEER TORAm EXTERIORbeau. JOIsTe‘IEAMB,remes, F0815 Am TRAMM uEMBeRs Wu. IE PRESSURE HEATED MEER COI‘PLETE WTTNALLENOCUTS TREATEO, OR :EoAR MILES: OTI-ERWTSBLINED) new cu” m PRESME THEAYEDVNDOSHAH.ae PROIEOTEOVATMAnew IISE PRESERVATTVE, ERUSMZDM mm: on EAPOSEOEm ALLVASYEIMB USEOAI CONTACYWITMFESEUIE TREATEOVVOODSHALLEEemeR mT-uPPeO aALVAII1ED,sTAIMEus STEELOR MATMACNRER

, AUJMMWO

FRAMIIG:

Page 173 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Minor Variance Application (S. 45(1) of Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2024-0087, Adrain, 11 Doc’s Point Lane, Bedford District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a detached garage, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: Limited Service Residential (RLS) Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a 90.5 square metre detached garage, with a second floor storage area. The garage would be setback 8m from the front lot line and would have a lot coverage value of 6%. The variances are being requested to accommodate the proposed structure on the property. Zoning Relief Requested Section 5.24.1 – To permit a detached accessory building to have a lot coverage value of 6%, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum lot coverage value of 5% for all detached accessory buildings and structures. Section 9.3.2 – To permit a detached accessory building to have a front yard setback of 8 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum 20 metres setback from the front lot line. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 174 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0087

Property Description The subject property is a small parcel of land (~0.4 Ac) with approximately 43 metres of frontage on Doc’s Point Lane. Existing development consists of a seasonal dwelling with attached front porch and rear deck and detached storage structure. A hydro line cuts through the subject property, extending along the western and southern boundary of the seasonal dwelling, forming an “L” shape. The area of the driveway, seasonal dwelling and hydro line are cleared of trees and vegetation. The remainder of the property, particularly along the existing lot lines, is well vegetated and features many mature trees. The area to the west of the seasonal dwelling is slightly elevated from the remainder of the property. The subject property exists in an area characterized by both limited service residential waterfront and non-waterfront uses. Department and Agency Comments Rideau Valley Conservation did not provide comments for this application as the proposed detached garage is not located in close proximity to Bob’s Lake. Building Services and Public Services did not provide comments for this application due to the nature of the proposal. Specifically, the proposed garage would not encroach within the area of the existing septic system and the subject property is located on a private lane. Public Comments No public comments were received at the time of preparing this report. Planning Analysis The proposal needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposal meets the four tests as explained below. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The variance would facilitate the construction of a detached garage on lands designated Rural on Schedule A of the Township Official Plan. The type and amount of development on rural lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage, and cultural landscape of the Township. The proposed detached garage is accessory to the permitted residential use of the subject property. It is the opinion of Township Planning Staff that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the policies related to rural residential development. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? An accessory structure is a permitted use within the RLS zone. The proposed detached garage complies with all requirements of the Zoning By-law except maximum lot coverage for a detached accessory building and minimum setback from the front lot line. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 175 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0087

Section 5.24.1 establishes a maximum lot coverage value of 5% for all detached accessory structures, whereas the proposed garage would have lot coverage value of 6%. The maximum lot coverage value is intended to control the scale and density of development and avoid an overdeveloped appearance. The proposed garage is large relative to the size of the subject property. However, the proposed garage would facilitate the removal of an existing storage structure and the addition of a second floor storage area. Therefore, there would be no need for additional storage building on the subject property. Additionally, this scale of development would not conflict with the existing patterns of development in the neighbourhood. For example, several surrounding properties with similar lot areas are developed with cottages near the shoreline with similar sized detached garages adjacent to the travelled laneway. The subject property differentiates from these properties, as it does not contain waterfrontage. The Zoning By-law permits the principal structure to have a larger lot coverage value in the RLS Zone (10%) compared to the RLSW Zone (5%). The Zoning By-law also permits an additional 5% lot coverage for detached accessory structures in all zones. Therefore, it is the intent of the Zoning By-law to permit all buildings and structures on a property zoned RLS to have a maximum lot coverage value of 15%. The existing dwelling with all attached structures has a lot coverage value of approximately 8%. With the additional lot coverage provided by the detached garage (6%), there would be a total lot coverage value of 14%. Therefore, the larger garage can be permitted while still maintaining the general intent of the RLS Zone. Section 9.3.2 requires all structures to be setback a minimum of 20m from the front lot line of a property. The purpose of this setback is intended to control development adjacent to private laneways and avoid an overdeveloped appearance in rural areas. The proposed detached garage would have an 8 metre setback from the front lot line. Due to the location of the existing driveway, to the west of the proposed location, the garage would be accessed from the side, as opposed to directly from the laneway. The subject property features physical constraints which would limit the ability to build a detached garage in a compliant location. The proposed location is likely the only feasible location on the subject property where the garage could be built. This is due to the locations of the existing dwelling, sewage system and hydro line, combined with the property’s narrow width. There is existing mature tree and vegetation growth along the frontage on the subject property. Setback 8m from the front lot line, there would be an opportunity to maintain some of the existing tree coverage to visually screen the garage from Doc’s Point Lane. It is the opinion of planning staff that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question? The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. The increase in lot coverage is modest and would not impact the functionality of the property or impact the surrounding area. The location of the proposed garage is likely the only feasible location on the subject property and would connect directly to the existing driveway from Doc’s Point Lane. When considering the 8m setback and location of the driveway relative to the garage, there would be enough space for a vehicle to safely stop of park in the area between the garage and the lane. Finally, existing tree coverage along the frontage and www.southfrontenac.net Page 176 of 224 South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0087

eastern side lot line should mitigate any visual impacts associated with the size and location of the proposed garage. Is the variance minor? The requested variances are minor as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The requested variances are also desirable for the appropriate development of the land. It is anticipated that there will be no negative impacts on surrounding properties or the private lane as a result of the proposed garage. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0087 for 11 Doc’s Point Lane, subject to the following conditions.

The minor variance is for a 90.5 square metre detached garage. The detached garage is permitted to have a maximum lot coverage value of 6%, and to establish a minimum 8 metre front yard setback. The location of the detached garage should be consistent with the sketch submitted by the applicant.
A building permit is required for ALL proposed demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance PL-ZNA-2024-0087 is applicable only to Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Report Prepared By: Noah Perron, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 177 of 224

Page 178 of 224

Are —:

FR°NTENAC

required

Valley

Rideau

Authority

Conservation

and and

eight

development purpose purpose

of of

provisions

extend day

Zoning

new

Authority

Review

Conservation

Class

for be provided (where applicable)

the

passed,

alter

str uct ure

Secretary— le

with

sewage

Agplication

review onsite an application be submitted

sewage

( Sepa the rate

byTreasurer a non— card or refundab cheque

the

was

building

Committee

structure by—Iaw

land, Plan. By—Iaw.

Planning

to Township when submitting Authority. are to

the

JUL

gTo ?l altelx? wns hipm in g

ArgE

appointed ‘.O.1990s

the

provided

person Act R s. 45

2023

45(2)

FR. VAR

use of Official

or the

or the the

of the Planning under permission

By—law

Committee

June,

SOUTH MINOR (s.

copy this be ?led with of application together with the accompanied sketch, by credit or below debit in card, cash. Frontenac.

Performance WITH with combination in than system a Class A

Region

Variance other

Quinte

Cataraqui

system

Frontenac

Only

South

Township Minor Minor Minor

Variance Variance

Fee a that Authority the applicable

It is required Conservation payable to

permit

South

one (1) that Adjustment, with the chart

without

Tlpe:

accordance the to Township

intent intent

appropriate

Zoning

by»law

Section

Updated

TOWNSHIP OF APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION OR

grant to enlarge permission building on or structure, land, by the by—law. prohibited

may

Requirements

any purpose

Committee

AEplication VarIances 173 Variances 4+ building After

for

where

Committee

the

vary

general the general the in nature

for

may

Adjustment under from a zoning

of formed

desirable ls Maintains Maintains Is minor

Committee variance:

the

Application

The lands used

The that

The Committee is Committee minor variance

““\

:2;

Page 179 of 224

. Collection of Personal Information

Each applicant shall provide a sketch showing the dimensions of the subject land and of all abutting lands as outlined in Question 29 of the application. The sketch should be accurately dimensioned and scaled in either Imperial or Metric measures. This sketch, in conjunction with the Application Form, is the basis for the analysis of the Minor Variance Application by the Committee of Adjustment. It is strongly recommended that the applicant spend the necessary time to carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and transfer the data to the sketch. It is important that the sketch be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. Any application which does not include the above required information may not be accepted. In this regard, the applicant may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of such sketches. A guide to answering the application questions is attached.

PLEASE READ THIS ITEMCAREFULLY

Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; these agencies may require additional permit applications and fees prior to any construction.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 180 of 224

Page 181 of 224

273’

What are the existing uses of the subject land?

Yes

K] Yes

North Shore Road

Name of Road/Lane:

OR a privately maintained road?

Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road?

There are many topographical constraints on the property.

The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law:

3.17 acres

Area:

Frontage (on road/lane):

The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law: See attached cover letter.

The current zoning of the subject land:

Depth.

Frontage (on water):

The frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 182 of 224

47—6"(west)

30-3 1/2"

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable) 30’-3"

150 sq. ft.

440 sq .ft.

12’ 1 storey

12’ 1 storey _

216’ (west)

12713" (west)

N/A

211'

Garage

(5)

, 2“

. .. 52 -2

253S.ft. q

11'

52 sq .ft.

54’~8"(n) 11026"(w) 70’-3" (wI)

210’ (n)

(north) 189’—3"

214’-10" (north)

5222"

Shed

N/A

0'4)"

Boathouse

N/A

N/ A

3023"

Bunkie

(4)

14.Are any building(s) or structure(s), or additions to existing building(s) or structure(s), PROPOSED to be built on the subject land?

SingleFamilyResidential

13.The proposed uses of the subject land:

773 sq. ft.

Dimensions of Floor Area

(Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

227—10"(north)

Setback from Side Lot Line

24’ 1.5 storey

N/ A

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Height Of Building

30v_3 “2"

Main Cottage

(3i .(2) . . , All EXIStlngbulldmgs to be demolished

Setback from Front Lot Line

Type of Structure (E-Q- reSIdence)

(1)

Ifthe answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure indicate:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 183 of 224

, ,,

83 —6

110 -1"x43‘~11"

—

37’_6"

19’x14’-4"

14’-10" 1 storey

10m 2 storey

69’-5" (west)

234’—31/2"(north) 51’-2" (west)

N/A

37"6"

Bunk‘e

103’-7 1/2"(north)

N/A

83I‘6"

Dwelling

(2)

411_5n

19’ x 1424"

—

14’—10" 1 storey

(north) 225’—2" (west) 70’—6"

N/A

411—5"

Cabana

(3)

(4)

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

Outside Dimensions of Building/Structure

(Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

Height of Building

Setback from Side Lot Line

setbaCk from Rear Lot Line

setback Front Lot Line

fro-m

e o fSt ruc t ure (g9. residence)

(1)

If the answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

E Yes

Increase in living space

Willthe addition or structure encroach on the existing septic system?

(0)

(d) til No

Since being built

21 .The length of time that the existing uses of the subject land have continued:

19605?

20.The date the existing buildings and structures were constructed on the subject lands:

July 2023

Yes

El Yes

Increase in plumbing fixtures

(b) No

@Yes

Increase in number of bedrooms

Yes

(a)

What are the uses of the proposed development?

If yes, please provide details:

Do your plans include the RAISING of an existing structure?

19.The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner:

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended X No

Currently holding tank new spetic system proposed

Indicate whether sewage disposal is provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated sewage system, a privately owned and operated individual or communal septic system, a privy, or other means:

Currently from the lake new well proposed

Indicate whether water is provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated piped water system, a privately owned and operated individual or communal well, a lake, or other water body, or other means:

Page 184 of 224

Page 185 of 224

Ifthe answer to question 25 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

i: No

X No

The boundaries and dimensions of the subject land including the location of any existing and proposed buildings.

ii)

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

The location of a reference point… …i.e. distance between the subject land and the nearest township lot line or landmark such as a bridge or railway crossing.

THE SKETCH MUST HAVE A NORTH ARROW AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following:
If the answer to item 27 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application.

Yes

If known, please indicate whether the subject land has ever been the subject of an application under Section 43 of the Planning Act (Minor Variance).

Yes

Please indicate whether the subject land is subject of an application under the Planning Act for approval of a Plan of Subdivision or Consent.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 186 of 224

Page 187 of 224

—

Reason why you can’t comply: In other words, why can you not meet the required setbacks. It could be, for example, because you are seeking a variance to add on to an existing structure from the water would be developing

—

Nature and Extent of Relief: This question is asking what you are asking to do that requires the variance for example, it could be that you are asking to be 25 m rather than 30 m from the high water mark, or that you are asking to increase the height of a structure within 30 m of the high water mark, or that you are seeking a variance to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building.
Current zoning: You may not be aware ofthe zoning on your property and this can be determined when you come in for pre—consultation with planning staff.
Frontage, depth, area, acres: All parts of this question must be completed.
Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. lfthe numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford; if the numbers are 040-050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: ifyou are not sure, check your tax bill if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this c. Street Number: Your civic address space blank. d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: If your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.

authorization.

You may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalf during the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner‘s must sign the
The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.

A Guide to Completing the Minor Variance Form

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 188 of 224

sure,

best estimate.

19)Date land acquired: When did you take possession of the property?

space.

—

18)Uses of Development: Please answer each part of this question. An increase in living space would include anything with walls e.g. a screened porch would involve an increase in living

17)Raising of Structure: In other words, are you proposing to raise the building in order to construct a basement under it.

Demolition: All demolition requires a permit from the building department. In some instances, a proposed addition or increase in height cannot be accomplished without the removal of existing walls. Ifthis is not made clear to the Committee at the beginning of the process, you may find that, although you are granted permission to add on to your residence, you can’t actually do it because you have not made it clear that there is demolition involved.

information in separate columns.

Description of new construction: ALL proposed new development must be described here. If you are proposing to construct an addition to a dwelling, and to add a deck, please show this

—

Proposed structures: If you are planning to build ANYTHINGon the property, the answer to this question is “yes” This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.
Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”
Description of buildings and structures: You must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.
Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.
Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land

water.

Parking and Docking: This question is only relevant is you can only access your property by

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

Page 189 of 224

—

Agreement to Indemnify: Must be signed in front of a commissioner of oaths you may have this done before submitting the application, or sign the application in front of staff who can sign as commissioners. All owners must sign the application, or it can be signed by an agent if one has been appointed.
SKETCH: We cannot stress enough the importance of a detailed, accurate, and complete sketch. You do not necessarily need to contract with a professional to draw the sketch, but sketches that are not drawn to scale, do not show dimensions and distances, or are not drawn neatly (PLEASE USE A RULER), will not be accepted.
If yes: If there has been a previous variance granted on the property, please indicate the application number if known, and what the details of the variance were.
Minor variance: Has there ever been a minor variance granted on the property? If you are longtime owner of the property, you will probably be aware of any other special permission granted for a variance to the zoning by—Iaw.Ifyou are a new owner, the seller will probably have made you aware of this.
If yes: If there is a current application for severance or subdivision on the property, please indicate the file number. (Staff can help provide this information)
Application for consent: Is there currently an application for consent (severance) being proposed for the property?
Drainage: Are there specific ditches that have been constructed to deal with drainage; is there natural drainage, etc.?
Septic: in most cases the answer will be private sewage system, but there may be some privies.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

July 20, 2024 RE 4652 North Shore Road – Committee of Adjustment

4652 North Shore Road is a 3.17 acre property on the east basin of Loughborough Lake. The property has approximately 795’ of shoreline on the lake. Currently, there are several buildings on the property, most of which are in disrepair. There is a cottage with deck, a boathouse, a bunkie, 2 sheds and a garage. All of these buildings (minus the garage) are built within the 30 meter water setback and are therefore non-conforming to the current by-law. Our plan is to remove all of the existing buildings and to construct a new main dwelling, a bunkie and a cabana. We are proposing to construct the main dwelling further back on the property so that it mostly conforms with the water setback. We will be asking for a variance from the ‘high water mark setback’ for a small part of the dwelling – a screened porch which protrudes from the building. We would also like to construct a bunkie and a cabana in the same location as the existing cottage. The combined area of these two buildings will be less than the footprint of the existing cottage, and they will be 1 story in height (as opposed to 1.5). These buildings will also require a variance for ‘high water mark setback’, as well as for ‘accessory building in a front yard’ and ‘setback from top of bank’. The extreme topography of this property dictated a lot of our design decisions. Even though it is a large property, there are not many locations on which to build. The full eastern half of the property is essentially inaccessible, so it made sense to keep the construction to the areas we are proposing. All told, we will be eliminating 1694 square feet of non-conforming structure and replacing this with two small buildings – each at 272 square feet. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

Page 190 of 224

Inset Map

4702 NORTH SHORE RD

351%

WALSHROAD

SOUTH

4668 NORTH SHORE RD

FRONTENAC PL-ZNA-2024-0089 (PRESTON) (CLAYTON) 4652 NORTH SHORE ROAD

KElR ROAD

Legend

Subject Property

V/A Provincially Significant Wetland 4791 NORTH SHORE RD

Wetland

4652 NORTH SHORE RD

4529 NORTH SHORE RD

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

E l Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity i

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody DUFF ROAD

2’ Township Boundary Road

4644 NORTH SHORE RD Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024.

Page 191 of 224

4642 NORTH SHORE RD

Scale: 1:1,250

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 202407-22

A-‘lb

\l \1

18 / O7 / 24

Page 192 of 224

‘

,2“

;

' I

‘

DECKL~~~ To BE REMOVED

EXIST.DOCK

,7~I-:XIanO

-.. I,

EXISTING BUNKIE TO BE REMOVED

1/32”=1'

‘

—

U‘ “‘

to;

2»:

SITE PLAN ENLARGED

LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE

/<‘ /’I

PROPOSEDI I CABANA ‘I‘\J /

.. \\\

TO BE REMOVED

’>

EXISTING BOATHOUSE TO BEREMOVED

4652 NORTH SHORE ROAD

///

18/07/24

Page 193 of 224

1/8"=I’

—

FRONT (WATER) AND REAR ELEVATIONS DWELLING

IIIIIIII

4652 NORTH S H O R E

A-3

18/07/24

Page 194 of 224

1/4"=1‘

FRONT (WATER) ELEVATION BUNKIEANDCABANA

4652 NORT H

CABAN A

A—1

18/07/24

Page 195 of 224

1/64”=1'

SITE PLAN OVERVIEW

LAKE LOUGHBOROUGH

NORTH SHORE ROAD

4652 NORTH SHORE ROAD

A-1b

18/07/24

Page 196 of 224

o r‘

EXIST.DOCK

EXISTING

To BE REMOVED

,,,,, _____

‘1

7‘\‘EXISTING DECKL‘~~ I

/ I

Emanc BUNWE BE REMOVED

,,.-7/To

1/32"=1'

944‘217

SITE PLAN ENLARGED

LOUGHBOROUGI—ILAKE

<:’/

_P\J

I CABANA

PROPOSED!

\\\

EXISTING SHEDS

TO BEREMOVED

(
\

// \

,’

4652 NORTH SHORE ROAD

EXISTING BOATHOUSE TO BE REMOVED

3 0' 0 ” ”

18/07/24

Page 197 of 224

1/8"=1'

FRONT (WATER) AND REAR ELEVATIONS DWELLING

4652 NORTH S H O R E

A—3

18/07/24

Page 198 of 224

1/4"=1'

—

FRONT (WATER) ELEVATION BUNKIEANDCABANA

BUNM;

4652 NORT H

CABAN A

August 7, 2024

File: MV/FRS/192/2024

Sent by E-mail Ms. Christine Woods, Senior Planner Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Woods: Re:

Application for Minor Variance PL-ZNA-2024-0089 (Preston & Clayton) Pt Lot 20, Concession 5; 4652 North Shore Road Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for minor variance and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment. Proposal The proposal involves the demolition of all the existing buildings on the subject property, and the construction of a new residential dwelling, a sleeping cabin, and a cabana. Permission is requested to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres, as required by Section 5.8.2.a) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law, to 25.4 metres to permit the construction of the dwelling, 11.4 metres to permit the construction of the cabin, and 12.6 metres to permit the construction of the cabana. Permission is also requested to reduce the setback from the top of bank from 15 metres, as required by Section 5.8.2.b) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law, to 6 metres, to permit the sleeping cabin and cabana. Site Description The property is located on the north shore of the east basin of Loughborough Lake. The topography of the property can be described as having a high and steep bedrock embankment, that rises quickly from the shoreline, levels out around the area where the existing buildings are located, and rises again up towards North Shore Road. Staff visited the site on July 23, 2024. The property is designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and is zoned ‘Waterfront Residential’ (RW) in the implementing Zoning By-law. Discussion Cataraqui Conservation’s scope of review for this proposal includes the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline of Loughborough Lake. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Flooding: The maximum recorded water level for Loughborough Lake is 125.1 metres geodetic. For Loughborough Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 41/24 (see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from

Page 199 of 224

the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based on topographic mapping and the site plan submitted with the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed development will be located outside of the flooding hazard and applicable setback. Erosion: Section 5.8.2.b) of the South Frontenac Zoning By-law requires that all buildings and structures be set back at least 15 metres horizontal from the top of bank of any embankment, the slope of which is greater than 30% from horizontal. Due to the bedrock embankment, and in accordance with provincial technical standards, the slope is considered stable, and Cataraqui Conservation defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to be 6 metres from the stable top of bank, to provide an allowance for access between new buildings and the shoreline. Based on the site plan submitted with the application and observations taken on site, staff are satisfied that the proposed dwelling, sleeping cabin, and cabana will be located outside of the erosion hazard limit. Staff have no concerns from a natural hazards perspective. If approved, staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. We also recommend the maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between all buildings/structures and the water, to help stabilize soils into the long-term. Recommendation In summary, staff have no objection to the approval of application PL-ZNA-2024-0089 based on our review of natural hazard and regulatory policies. We also recommend implementation of the above-noted best practice measures (in bold text) and advise the applicant that a CRCA permit will be required at the building permit stage. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06), which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. For this property, any development (buildings and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) within 15 metres of the floodplain and within 15 metres of the top of bank is subject to O. Reg. 41/24. Therefore, a CRCA permit will be required for the development. The landowner(s) should contact CRCA’s office at the building permit stage for more information about permitting requirements under O. Reg. 41/24. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by email at jtreash@crca.ca. Yours truly,

Janelle Treash, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner Page 2 of 2

Page 200 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Minor Variance Application (S. 45(1) of Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2024-0089, Preston and Clayton, 4652 North Shore Rd, Storrington District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a single detached dwelling, sleeping cabin, and accessory building, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: Waterfront Residential (RW) Proposal The owners intend to demolish all the existing buildings on the property, and to build a house with attached garage, a sleeping cabin and a cabana. The two-storey house would have a 3,256 square foot footprint. The house would be setback 30m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake, with the exception of a porch that would be setback 25.4m. The 272 square foot sleeping cabin would be 11.4m from the lake and 6m from the top of bank. The 272 square foot cabana would be 12.6m from the lake and 6m from the top of bank. The sleeping cabin and cabana would be in the footprint of the old cottage. Two separate buildings are proposed because the footprint of the sleeping cabin is limited by the Zoning By-law definition for sleeping cabin. The proposed sewage system would be setback at least 30m from the lake. The main components of the system would be setback at least 30m from a watercourse, however, the mantle may be closer to the watercourse.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 201 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0089

Variances are being requested to allow the three buildings to be setback less than 30m from the highwater mark of the lake, and to allow the sleeping cabin and cabana to be less than 15m from the top of bank. Zoning Relief Requested Section 5.8.2(a) and 8.3.3 – to permit a single detached dwelling, sleeping cabin and accessory building (cabana) to be setback a minimum of 25.4m, 11.4m and 12.6m respectively from the highwater mark of a waterbody, whereas a minimum 30 metre setback is required for all buildings and structures. Section 5.8.2(b) – to permit a sleeping cabin and accessory building (cabana) to be setback a minimum of 6m from the top of bank of the shoreline, whereas a minimum 15m setback is required for all buildings and structures. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act. Property Description The property is located on the north shore of the East Basin of Loughborough Lake, and is accessed off North Shore Road. It is a triangular shape, 3 acres in area and with about 220 metres frontage on the lake. Frontage on the road is limited to the driveway entrance. It is bordered to the west by a waterfront residential property and to the north by an unopened road allowance. The entire property is forested. The east half of the property is not accessible due to a deep valley and the unopened road allowance. The valley contains an intermittent watercourse. The topography on the west half of the property is stepped. There are three plateaus each separated by slopes downward from the road to the lake. There is an old garage on the top plateau near the road. The existing cottage, sleeping cabin and storage shed are located on the lower plateau near the lake. There is reportedly a sewage holding tank on the property. Department and Agency Comments The owner consulted with Cataraqui Conservation before submitting the application, in order to determine their regulatory requirements. Cataraqui Conservation requires a minimum 6m setback from the top of bank. The proposed sleeping cabin and cabana would meet this requirement. Formal comments will be received prior to the public hearing. Public Comments No comments were received at the time this report was written.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 202 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0089

Planning Analysis The proposal needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposal meets the four tests as explained below. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan related to waterfront residential development, and development adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The variances would facilitate construction of a dwelling and related sewage system, as well as permitted accessory buildings, on lands that are designated Rural in the Official Plan on Schedule A. The proposed dwelling would be located on the middle plateau. It would be pushed close to the upper slope, so that it would comply with the minimum 30m setback from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake, with the exception of a porch that would be setback 25.4m. The setback would be maximized as intended by section 5.2.7(b) of the Official Plan. The associated sewage system would be setback at least 30m from the lake from the watercourse that is in deep valley to the east. This represents an improvement over the existing reported holding tank that is close to the lake. All the existing buildings on the property would be demolished. The proposed sleeping cabin and cabana would be located within the footprint of the existing cottage, and outside the shoreline erosion hazard. The combined area of these two buildings would be less than that of the existing cottage. Staff consider this a positive change on the property. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The proposed single detached dwelling, sleeping cabin and cabana (accessory building) are permitted uses in the RW zone. The dwelling was designed to fit on the middle plateau between two slopes so that it could maximize the setback from the highwater mark. It also takes advantage of the plateau and slope to the east for a new sewage system that would be at least 30m from the lake and the watercourse, and which could be gravity fed. The proposed cabin and cabana would maintain or exceed the setback of the existing cottage from the highwater mark. The buildings would be setback at least 6m from the top of bank, as required by Cataraqui Conservation, and meeting the intent of the Zoning Bylaw for new development to avoid natural hazards. Lot coverage associated with the dwelling would be 2.4%, which is less than the 5% permitted in the RW zone. The total lot coverage of all buildings would be 2.8%. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 203 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0089

The proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question? The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The design and location of the proposed dwelling on the property ensures that the required setback from the highwater mark would be maximized. All the existing buildings (including a boathouse) within 30m of the highwater mark will be demolished and replaced with two smaller accessory buildings, resulting in a positive change on the property. If the sleeping cabin includes a washroom, the sewage would be pumped to the new sewage system that would be at least 30m from the lake. Is the variance minor? The requested variances are minor as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The existing natural vegetation on the property, and particularly along the shoreline, should be maintained to help mitigate visual impacts when viewed from the lake. The buildings will be located in appropriate areas where there are no impacts anticipated on the subject or abutting properties. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0089 for 4652 North Shore Road, subject to the following conditions.

The minor variance is for a single detached dwelling, a sleeping cabin and a cabana (accessory building). The porch on the dwelling is permitted to establish a minimum 25.4m front yard and setback from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The sleeping cabin and cabana are permitted to be setback 11.4m and 12.6m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake, respectively. The sleeping cabin and cabana are also permitted to be setback a minimum of 6m from the top of bank. The location and size of the buildings must be consistent with the submitted application and site plan.

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 204 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0089

The Owner is required to enter into a Development Agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) must be used during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated. b. Roof runoff will be directed away from Loughborough Lake and/or discharged to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas to maximize infiltration or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads to reduce the velocity of runoff before it enters the lake. c. A natural vegetated buffer must be maintained in its natural state within 30 metres of Loughborough Lake, except in the immediate area of the building envelopes.
A building permit is required for ALL proposed demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance PL-ZNA-2024-0089 is applicable only to Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 205 of 224

Page 206 of 224

Page 207 of 224

1D.

Please

(Le.

used

Indiczne

vacant

the

residence.

subject

to be public

whether

Yes

garage.

v.-

a.“

area

are

.wmm

shed.

there

uses

a home

adhered to

any

subject

EXISTING

land?

an.“

bull!

with veg!

the

nu:

Mmin

E.’ No

buildings

(La,

new

structures

the faclllues

parameters

footprint

125.1m garage.

lndlcale these

road?

the

lImlIed

provisions

the

acms

road/lane):

MINOR FOR amended

mama.

please distance

only.

4‘03

(on

By—law: area wet

malnlalned

Qlaced

comply

.mna.

«an

small

”.03.“.

Area:

Frontage

land.

Zonan

water by approximate

Yes

APPLICATION P.13 c.

1990,

the

nun

:- munlclpally

the

are

the

etc.)

property used and road.

Ford’l

cannot

for

n. m-

the

subject

from her“

from renal

and

allow

road?

iron!

not

use

«A

the

land:

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

rellel‘

semack

lne

subject

945K

required

wIII

resldsntial

existing

and

proposed

property

setback

Alla

locaIk-m

SOUTH

Planning

the

9.5

maintained

the

Lane

nearest

are

currently

What

If access facilities and the

40m

why

huu

mqulmmnl

9.-

extent have

Road/Lane:

privately

Hinterland

and

depth water):

zoning

subject

new

Thls

the

reason

“aros-

Due

Name

Does

The

u: wmr

m…

nature requesung

the

curreni Rst—1D4

Al-n

The

Deplh:

(on

l’rontagets).

Fronmge

The

TOWNSHIP

the

I‘rom

an d lh e

hous e

subj ect

Zoning

can-nu

parklng

Yes

ou?on

the

an.

contour)

164

VARIANCE

Page 208 of 224

Structure

answer

any buIII

on ihe

uses

bulldlng(s)

proposed

Residential

The

14VAre

on.

HIgI’I

story]

setback Irom Water Mark applicable) (If

Floor

Building

Line

rrom

from Line

Area

91-

indicat-

Dimensions

story

[Also

Height

Side

Lot

setback Rcar

sokback

Lot

setback Front

residence)

II the

Type (E.g.

TOWNSHIP

yes.

subject

SOUTH Planning

IzYes

land?

s!ructure(s).

the

subject

item

OF lbr

land:

additions

(2)

EACH

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act.

bulldlng

exlstlng

Indicate:

FOR MINOR alnended

Dulldlng(s)

(3)

s‘ructurb

APPLICATION P.13 c.

stmclure(s).

(4)

VARIANCE

Page 209 of 224

If the

nary two

outside

Indium.

stow:

In:

your

‘1 yes.

and

please

plans

OF is

24'9”

40m

yes.

Include

provide

33275

[or

each

(2)

proposed

FRONTENAC Act, R.S.O.

details:

any

DEMOLITION

on mark relate

existing

building.

and

(3)

[he

privale will

FOR

Yes

CONSTRUCTION

setback

(4)

fr o m

indicat e:

VARIANCE

structure

the lane. same.

NEW

the

MINOR

alnendsd

building

structures?

addition.

. P.13

APPLICATION

on is vvaterl’rom. property water setback from the high thls question required in completed total 0" (he size

9.5

+I— 8m story

the

SOUTH

Planning

Rasldence

40,“

subject

item

The dimensions to Ihe NOT

line

and

If the

lo! 2)

on.

Setback from Water Mark applicable)

(If

High

NOTES:

Line

from

Line

from

Lin.

from

Bulldlng

Building/sxructure

Dlmcnslons

(Also

LO‘

s-mack Slda

Height

Lot

setback

Rear

LO!

resin-Jane.)

structure

answer

Setback Front

Type (E.g.

TOWNSHIP

Page 210 of 224

The

length

that

Indicate

ls design

drainage

yes.

stonn

other septic

sewage

whether

private

privy.

operated

?nalized

the

provided

means:

system.

sewage

means:

well

other

body.

Private

was

provided

fixtures

bedrooms

the

and

swales

ditches.

provided owned

current

utilized

subject operated

the

swales will

owner:

structure?

have

land

other

individual

the

Yes

well.

and

operated or

lake.

lands:

a publicly owned or communal se pti c means?

owned

Yes

3N0

Yes Yes

5 Yes

VARIANCE

subject

MINOR

continued:

a publicly or communal

land

FOR

as amended

constructed

land Individual

subject

were

and

the subject operated

uses

sewers. ditches

encroach

development?

structures

and

privately

by but

disposal

owned

existing

APPLICATION P.13 c.

R.S.O.

or structure system? septic acquired

existing

buildings

land

water privately

time

existing

system.

whether

subject 2021

water

Indicate

The

the

living

plumbing

number

space

RAISING

Act.

FRONTENAC

proposed

addition existing

the the

Increase Will

(0) (at

the

Increase

the details:

(b)

uses

SOUTH Planning

Increase

the

provide

include

(3)

Applicable

date

August

date

What

plans please

are

your

If yes.

Not

The

1B.

TOWNSHIP

Page 211 of 224

Please

”Note:

”‘

The the

distances

and

properly importance

The

lines.

wells

be and

septic

approximate land that

location

watercourses.

The

the

and

location

abutting

should

the

……

all the

natural

(neighbours)

and

abutting

REQUIRED be prepared

subject

ARROW

ever

carefully.

banks.

from

the subject building; the

rail

way wood eds.

signi?ca nt as po ssi bl e.

barns.

applicant’s

wetlands.

location

th e

PAGE.

and

an d

Planning

subject land crosslng.

the

‘l’I-IE

subject

fields and is SKETCH and accurately

septic neatly

The

features

Include barns.

features

TOP

the

VARIANCE

application

the

the railway

including

“Fl-IE

between or bridge

wells. shown.

these

been

under

FOR MINOR alnended

or the

number

artificial Examples

stream

owners’ be

and land.

lands.

as application

land

number

has

tile

Le. dlstance as such

the

file

following:

the

NOR‘I’I—I

landmark

point

give

land

the

Variance).

give

or an

APPLICATION P.13 c.

subject

subject (Nlinor

subject river ditches. distance Show

on-slte IS varied.

tanks.

adjacent drainage

all

the

please

showing

Consent.

Act

dlmenslons

R.§.O.

land

please

yes.

Act.

FRONTENAC

HAVE

reference Ilne lot

buildings.

yes.

Planning

MUST

subject

whether

submitted

the

townsnlp

location

nearest

The

lli)

boundaries

proposed

and

item

indicate

SKETCH

must

SOUTH Planning

Subdivision

question

The

SKETCH

Yes

answer application.

THE

the

II’ the

Il‘ kncvwn. please under Section

RVCP

application.

whether of Plan

Yes

answer

Indicate

If the 01 the

approval

TOVVNSHIP

Page 212 of 224

=�

SOUTH

FRONTENAC PL-ZNA-2024-0095 (DONALDSON) (SPELLMAN) HINTERLAND LANE UNIT 2 Legend c::::J Subject Property � Provincially Significant Wetland

!,’ tlh:§1 Wetland

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity

Waterbody

Road

Printer for Ontario, 2024.

Page 213 of 224

While the County makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is �n inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Scale: 1:1,500 0

12.5

50 m

UTM Zone 18 NAO 83 Date: 2024-07-26

Page 214 of 224

August 1, 2024

File: MV/FRS/196/2024

Sent by E-mail Ms. Christine Woods, Senior Planner Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Woods: Re:

Application for Minor Variance PL-ZNA-2024-0095 (Donaldson)(Spellman) Pt Lot 23, Concession 6; Unit 2, Johnston Point Condominium Hinterland Lane, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake and Loughborough Lake Provincially Significant Wetland Complex

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for minor variance and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment. Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a single detached dwelling and septic system on Unit 2 of the Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium. The RLSW-104 zone requires the house to be set back a minimum of 40 metres from the highwater mark or floodline of Loughborough Lake. A small bay comes into the property along the southern shoreline, causing the highwater mark and floodline to extend inland significantly. Relief from the zoning by-law is requested to allow the dwelling to be located 9.5 metres from the floodline of Loughborough Lake. The plot plan also suggests that the house will encroach into the 40 metre setback, on the northern side of the house, by 0.8 metres. Site Description The property is located on the southern end of the Johnston Point plan of condominium development on the west side of the peninsula. The topography can be characterized as being relatively flat, gradually rising towards the interior of the property. Staff visited the site on July 23, 2024, and observed some preliminary grading work has already occurred in the area of the proposed dwelling. There are mature trees and vegetation growth along the riparian areas, and wetland habitat in the bay connected to the lake. Discussion Cataraqui Conservation’s scope of review for this proposal includes the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline of Loughborough Lake and the protection of the provincially significant wetland. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Flooding: The maximum recorded water level for Loughborough Lake is 125.1 metres geodetic. For Loughborough Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered

Page 215 of 224

flood plain. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 41/24 (see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based on the site plan submitted with the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed development will be located outside of the flooding hazard and applicable setback. Erosion: Along the bay area, Cataraqui Conservation, in accordance with provincial technical standards, defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion (0 m), a stable slope allowance of 3:1 for till shorelines, plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Topographic mapping and observations taken on site suggest that the shoreline embankment is roughly 1 metre high in this location, therefore staff have determined the total erosion hazard to be 9 metres measured inland from the stable toe of slope. Based on the site plan submitted with the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed development will be located outside of the erosion hazard limit. Loughborough Lake Provincially Significant Wetland Complex: The northern shoreline on this property contains portions of the Loughborough Lake Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. CRCA’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 41/24 require new development and site alteration to be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the limit of a provincially significant wetland, to protect the hydrologic function of wetland. Based on the site plan submitted with the application, the proposed dwelling will be located outside the minimum 30 metre setback from the PSW. Staff do not anticipate any negative impacts to the hydrologic function of the wetland on the lot as a result of the proposal. Staff have no concerns from a natural hazards / regulatory perspective. If approved, staff recommend that proper sediment and erosion controls be incorporated into construction plans. We also recommend that the 9.5 metre buffer between the dwelling and the bay should be maintained as a healthy riparian area of native vegetation. Site alteration (i.e. excavation, grading, placement of fill) will be required to meet the applicable regulatory setbacks noted above, so any fill currently within this setback will need to be removed, and the buffer remediated. Recommendation In summary, staff have no objection to the approval of application PL-ZNA-2024-0095 based on our review of natural hazard and regulatory policies. We also recommend implementation of the above-noted best practice measures (in bold text) and advise the applicant that a CRCA permit will be required at the building permit stage. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06), which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. For this property, any development (buildings and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) within 15 metres of the floodplain, within 18 metres of the toe of slope, and within 30 metres of the provincially significant wetland is subject to O. Reg. 41/24. Therefore, a CRCA permit will be required for the development. The landowner(s)

Page 2 of 3

Page 216 of 224

should contact CRCA’s office at the building permit stage for more information about permitting requirements under O. Reg. 41/24. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by email at jtreash@crca.ca. Yours truly,

Janelle Treash, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner

Page 3 of 3

Page 217 of 224

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Minor Variance Application (S. 45(1) of Planning Act) PL-ZNA-2024-0095, Donaldson (Spellman), Hinterland Lane, Unit 2, Loughborough District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a single detached dwelling, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background The subject lands are Unit 2 in the Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium. This condominium is highly regulated through an Environmental Benefit Permit under the Endangered Species Act, a condominium agreement and a master site plan agreement. The master site plan agreement requires individual agreement for each unit. These tools specify the maximum amount of construction, site alteration and vegetation clearing that is permitted on each unit, and where it can occur on each unit. The approved master site plan agreement includes a conceptual site plan for Unit 2 (attached). The proposed development is consistent with the conceptual plan. However, the conceptual plan failed to recognize that there is a small bay and floodplain that comes onto the property. This bay and floodplain makes it impossible for the dwelling to achieve the minimum 40m setback from the highwater mark or floodline required on Unit 2 without zoning relief. Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning: Special Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW-104) Proposal The owners propose to construct a house and sewage system on Unit 2 of the Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium. The RLSW-104 zone requires the house to be setback a minimum of 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of Loughborough Lake. It was determined during the site plan review process that a small bay comes into the property making it impossible to achieve this setback. While the house would be 40m from the www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 218 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0095

highwater mark of the lake along most of the shoreline, it would be 9.5m from the floodline in the small bay. The plot plan suggests that points of the house may also intrude into the setback by 0.1m to 0.8m. A minor variance is being requested to allow the house to be setback less than 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of the lake. Zoning Relief Requested Section 10, RLSW-104 – to permit a single detached dwelling to be setback a minimum of 39.2m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake and 9.5m from the floodline, whereas the Zoning By-law requires buildings to be setback a minimum 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of a waterbody. Related Applications The lands are subject to Site Plan Control Application PL-SPR-2024-0081. Property Description The property is located on the north shore of the East Basin of Loughborough Lake. It is at the end of Hinterland Lane, which is off North Shore Road. The property is on a peninsula, so it has a long shoreline. There is a small bay that comes into the south end of the property. The entire property is forested, with the exception of the driveway and the area that has been cleared and prepared for development. Department and Agency Comments The owner consulted with Cataraqui Conservation before submitting the application, in order to determine their regulatory requirements. Cataraqui Conservation requires a minimum 6m setback from the floodline. The proposed house would exceed this requirement. Formal comments will be received prior to the public hearing. Public Comments No comments were received at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The proposal needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposal meets the four tests as explained below. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The subject lands are designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan on Schedule A. The type and amount of development on ‘Rural’ lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage, and cultural landscape in the Township. The proposed dwelling and related sewage system are a permitted use on the property. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 219 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0095

Section 5.2.7(b) of the Official Plan requires buildings and structures to be setback a minimum of 30m from the highwater mark of lakes and rivers. Vegetation within this area should be disturbed as little as possible and the soil mantle is also not to be altered. The site-specific zone for Unit 2 requires a minimum 40m setback for buildings and a 50m setback for sewage systems. The purpose of these measures is to minimize environmental and visual lake impacts by reducing phosphorus inputs, preventing erosion and by maintaining a natural appearance of shorelines. Also, Section 5.7.7(ii)(e) requires limited service residential development to be designed to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes, such as tree coverage, varying topography, scenic views, etc. for the benefit of future residents. There is a condominium agreement and master site plan agreement registered on the title of the property that address these requirements and in addition to other protections. It is the opinion of Township staff that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the policies on limited service residential development, and development within environmentally sensitive areas. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The proposed single detached dwelling is a permitted use in the RLSW-104 zone. This zone requires buildings to be setback a minimum of 40m from the highwater mark or floodline of a waterbody, and septic systems to be setback a minimum of 50m from the highwater mark or floodline of a waterbody. Where a zone says “highwater mark or floodline”, the more restrictive of the two is applied. This provision did not account for the small bay and floodplain on Unit 2, which Frontenac Maps suggests encroaches onto the property at least 30m. The dwelling was designed and located to achieve the minimum 40m setback from the highwater mark when measured from the main shoreline. An Ontario Land Surveyor verified the staked building location as required by the master site plan agreement. They determined that one corner of the dwelling, one corner of the attached deck, and one corner of the garage would encroach on the required setback by +/- 0.1m. This is within an acceptable margin of error. They also determined that a corner of the porch would encroach +/- 0.8m. It is the opinion of staff that a 0.8m variance for the corner of the porch would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The Ontario Land Surveyor located the 125.1m elevation which corresponds with the floodline for Loughborough Lake, and determined that the dwelling would be setback 9.5m from the floodline. Cataraqui Conservation indicated that this setback would be sufficient to maintain access around the building in the event of flooding. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance from the floodline would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question?

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 220 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2024-0095

The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development is consistent with the conceptual plan of the approved master site plan agreement. The development will be subject to individual site plan control, which would require re-establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the dwelling and the floodline, and consideration for managing roof runoff. Is the variance minor? The requested variances are minor as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. It is anticipated that there will be no negative impacts as a result of the proposed development. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2024-0095 for Unit 2 in Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium, subject to the following conditions.

The minor variance is for a single detached dwelling. The porch on northeast corner of the dwelling is permitted to be setback a minimum of 39.2m from the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The dwelling is permitted to be setback a minimum of 9.5m from the floodline around the small bay. The location and size of the building must be consistent with the submitted application and site plan.
A building permit is required for ALL proposed demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance PL-ZNA-2024-0095 is applicable only to Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Attachment: Johnston Point Master Site Plan - Conceptual Site Plan Unit 2 Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 221 of 224

Unit specific plans included with the Master Site Plan are for conceptual purposes only and have not been tested or verified by consultants as will be required in the case of individual site plan applications. ZanderPlan assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or viability of the conceptual unit site plans that are subject to all municipal requirements, engineering studies, the requirements of the benefit permit, the requirements of the condominium agreement, and the requirements of the declaration.

Johnston Point Conceptual Site Plan - Unit 2 (Two Septics)

Part Lot 23, Concession 6 Geographic Township of Loughborough Township of South Frontenac COUNTY OF FRONTENAC Ln

Construction Areas (595sq.m) Primary Septic Location (300sq.m)

Loughborough Lake (Long Bay)

Alternate Septic Location (150sq.m) Proposed Driveway 30m High Water Mark / Flood Line Setback 40m High Water Mark / Flood Line Setback

50m High Water Mark / Flood Line Setback 127

b Peb

Nor

re Sho

Unit Boundary

The co-ordinates used for the preparation of the Master Plan are reproduced from the draft plan of condominium and accuracy of that plan is verified by an Ontario Land Surveyor.

Emerald

Unit Location Plan

Legend

Hydro Lines

125

55.4m

2 13

128

Block 16

126

9 12

34.8m

3 13 5

.0m

Alternate Septic - 150m2 (Sized for a Tertiary System)

(PSW ) ack b t Se

136

.3m

m 30

tic Sep y r a Prim 300m2

132

6 12

5.0m

Proposed 16,675m2 51.0m 298.2m 40.0m 138.0m 18.7m TBD TBD < 11m Building – 40.0m Setback from High Water Building – 40m Primary Sep�c – 50.0m Mark or Flood Line (min)* Sep�c – 50m Alternate Sep�c – 55.4m Uses Permi�ed Within 40m Walkway and Dock Walkway and Dock Number of Docks (max) 1 1 Dock Area (max) 20m2 20m2 Dock Length (max) 8m 8m Walkway Width (max) 1.5m 1.5m

- Yard Setbacks Measured to 595m2 Construc�on Area on Plan

5.0m

6m 1

3.0m

Requirement 10,000m2 50m 91m 30m 10m 3m 59m2 5% 11m

131

3.2m

Unit 2 Site Sta�s�cs – RLSW-104 Zone

Provision Lot Area (min) Lot Frontage (min) Water Frontage (min) Front Yard (min)* Rear Yard (min)* Interior Side Yard (min)* Gross Floor Area (min) Lot Coverage (max) Height (max)

18.7m

54.7m

ack

40m Setb 29

42.5m

15.0

Proposed Well 127 (Location TBD)

m 0.0

ack

30m Setb

4.0m

56.4

ck 50m Setba

613-264-9600

1.5m

129

2 on 5m cti 59 tru a ns re Co A

Page 222 of 224

File No. 19-005

125

Final dwelling size & location, septic size & location, dock location, and the pathway to the water will be determined through a future site plan control application for the unit. All site improvements shown in the conceptual master plans, including but not limited to driveway locations, have been placed without regard to topography or feasibility of design or construction of such features in locations shown and may change or be relocated subject to all restrictions in the zoning, condominium agreement, declaration and master site plan agreement.
The driveway on-site will also be used by Unit 1 for access.
Per the Overall Benefit Permit exclusion fencing has been shown along the PSW area to deter wildlife from crossing onto the road.
Lands within the 30 metre setback from the High Water Mark / Flood Line for the lot will comprise a shoreline protection area / no cut zone. All vegetation with the exception of invasive species shall be retained and maintained in a natural state.
Lands within the 40 metre setback from the High Water Mark / Flood Line of the lot will comprise a Tree Protection Area to ensure all living trees greater than four inches in diameter at breast height shall be maintained unless approved for removal. Vegetation clearing for development including driveways, building and septic fields shall not occur between April 1st and October 30th. Clearing may only occur during this period if a qualified professional is present on-site.
The proposed dock must only be a pole dock or floating dock. Removal of aquatic vegetation is not permitted.
Prior to the submission of the individual site plan confirmation of the voltage of the hydro line needs to be confirmed in order to determine the appropriate septic setback from the hydro line under the Ontario Building Code.

40 Sunset Boulevard, Perth, ON

.0m

Path to W ate

Notes:

Version Date: December 16, 2021

42.2m

127

u Lo

Unit 3

126

u ro bo

Proposed Dock - 20.0m2 (2.5m by 8.0m)

a hL

126

127

Exclusion Fencing

Unit 1

Loughborough Lake

0 5

50 Metres

100

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Report Date:

August 8, 2024

Subject:

Decisions on Delegated Consents

Summary This report is an information report to the Committee of Adjustment summarizing the Consents that have been approved by Delegated Authority since the last Committee of Adjustment Meeting.

Background The authority to grant undisputed consents is delegated to the Director of Development Services under By-law 2020-27. This report lists the applications which met the criteria for being considered as an undisputed consent and have received provisional consent approval. Committee of Adjustment is notified for information.

Discussion/Analysis a) PL-BDJ-2024-0041 (Snetsinger) (Mills) – Loughborough District This undisputed consent was granted provisional consent on July 30, 2024. The purpose of this consent application was for the creation of one new rural residential lot from property addressed as 3803 Sydenham Road. The newly created parcel will be 3.5 hectares in area with 155 metres of frontage on Railton Road.

Attachments Appendix A – Mapping of application(s) Report Prepared By: Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk Report Approved By: Brad Wright, Director of Development Services

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 223 of 224

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report – Decisions on Delegated Consents

APPENDIX A

www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 224 of 224

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.