Committee Of Adjustment - 09 Jul 2020 - Agenda

Published July 9, 2020

Word Count 48736 words

Reading Time 229 min read

Body: Committee of Adjustment Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: July 9, 2020 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of Adjustment/2020/Committee Of Adjustment - 09 Jul 2020 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA TIME: DATE: PLACE: 1.

7:00 PM, Thursday, July 9, 2020 Council Chambers.

Electronic Meeting Information

a) 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. b)

5 - 159 During the Committee of Adjustment meeting staff will be following a PowerPoint Presentation, this presentation will be live-streamed on Facebook at the above noted link, but can also be viewed at the link below:

Call to Order

a) 3.

Adoption of Agenda

a) 4.

Declaration of pecuniary interest

Approval of Minutes – June 11, 2020

a) 6.

New Minor Variance Applications:

MV-43-19-B (Riddell) Location: Part Lot 16, Concession 3, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 397 Barr Lane, Bobs Lake Purpose of Application: To reduce the side yard setback from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 1.2 metres (4 feet) to permit the construction of a storage shed on an already developed property. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 10.3.2 Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone Regulations which requires a 3 metre (9.8 foot) setback from all interior side yard lines.

160 175

MV-02-20-L (Vanderhaar) Location: Part Lot 23, Concession 13, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, Twin Island Lane, Buck Lake. Purpose of Application: To reduce the rear yard setback from 10 metres (32.8 feet) to 6.5 metres (21.3 feet) to permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling with an attached deck and screened porch on the subject property. Also, to increase the allowable lot coverage for the principal building from 5% to 9.5%. The applicant is seeking

176 198

Page 1 of 399

relief from Section 10.3.1 Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone Regulations for the minimum rear yard setback and maximum lot coverage. c)

MV-06-20-B (Turney & Varthalitis) Location: Part Lot 24 & 25, Concession 10, being Part 1 on Plan 13R7305 and Parts 1, 2 & 4 on Plan 13R13675, 721A Lee Road, Wolfe Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To permit the construction of an accessory building, being a detached garage, in the projected front yard of a developed rural waterfront property located in conformity with the front yard setback as set out in the Rural Waterfront (RW) Zone. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 5.24.2 which requires accessory buildings to be located to the rear of the projected front or exterior side wall of the main building.

199 219

MV-08-20-B (Bumstead) Location: Part Lot 1, Concession 12, being Parts 10 to 12 on Plan 13R3809, 10 Barrett Lane, Buck Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 (a) and 8.3.3 to reduce the highwater mark setback from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 15 metres (49.2 feet) to permit the construction of a one-and-a-half storey single detached dwelling with a walkout basement and an attached deck on a residential waterfront lot.

220 243

MV-09-20-L (O’Leary) Location: Part Lot 16, Concession 3, being Part 1 on Plan 13R3284, 3865 Corkey Road, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, Loughborough Lake Purpose of Application: To reduce the waterbody setback from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 9.14 metres (30 feet) to permit the construction of a deck, to reduce the waterbody setback from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 16 metres (52.5 feet) to permit an addition on the second storey of the existing dwelling and to increase lot coverage from 5% to 8%. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 10.3 Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone Regulations and Section 5.8 Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards as they relate to the 30 metre setback from the high water mark and do not allow for an increase in living space or height of a legal non-complying structure, in addition to maximum permitted lot coverage.

244 268

MV-11-20-B (Arbeau & Westlake) Location: Part Lots 33 & 34, Concession 7, being Part 34 on Plan 13R167, 98 Mill Bay Lane, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.10.2 to allow an increase in living space to a Legal Non-Complying Structure, to vary section 5.8.2 a) and 10.3.1 to reduce the highwater mark setback from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 19 metres (62.3 feet) and to increase the allowable lot coverage from 5% to 8.2% to permit the demolition of the existing deck and main door landing and to permit the construction of an addition to the house in an ‘L’ shape with the dimensions of 4 metres (9.8 feet) x 7.3 metres (23.95 feet) x 8.5 metres (27.9 feet) and new deck with dimensions of 5.5 metres (18 feet) x 3 metres (9.8 feet) x 3 metres (9.8 feet) on a residential, limited services waterfront lot.

269 291

MV-12-20-P (Yateman)

292 -

Page 2 of 399

Location: Part Lot 7, Concessions 10 & 11, being Parts 1-3 on Plan 13R6322, 2098 Hambly Lane, Hambly Lake, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.10.2 to permit the reconstruction of the single detached dwelling, on the existing foundation with an increase in height, to be constructed in conformity with the maximum height allowable in the Limited Services Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) Zone, at the reduced highwater mark setback that currently exists on the limited services residential waterfront lot. The dwelling would be constructed as shown in the drawings.

310

MV-15-20-B (Mulder) Location: Part Lot 5, Concession 6, being Parts 8 on Plan 13R4370, 9088 Canoe Lake Road, Kingsford Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.25.2 to allow construction of an accessory building, being a detached garage in the front yard of a Residential Waterfront Property.

311 322

MV-16-20-L (Lackonick & Cole) Location: Part Lot 8, Concession 9, being Part 4 on Plan 13R15287, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1037 Senior Lane, Cronk Lake. Purpose of Application: To vary sections 5.8.2 a) & b) and 10.3.2 to allow the demolition of a dwelling and attached deck located at 4.9 metres (16 feet) from the highwater mark and 0 metres from the top of bank and to construct a shade structure with an attached deck located at 10.9 metres (36 feet) and 8.5 metres (28 feet) respectively from the highwater mark and 4.6 metres (15 feet) and 7 metres (23 feet) respectively from the top of bank.

323 344

MV-17-20-B (Fess) Location: Part Lot 23, Concession 5, being Lot 22 on Plan 1661, 810 Sunset Shores Lane, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.24.1 to permit the total lot coverage of an accessory building to exceed the lot coverage of the existing principal building.

345 358

MV-18-20-P (McNeely) Location: Part Lot 8, Concession 11, being Part 1 on Plan 13R2287, 1124 Storms Lane, Verona Rock Lake, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary sections 5.8.2 a) and 10.3.2, both of which require a 30 metre setback from the highwater mark, to permit construction of a 7.3 metre (24 foot) by 9.1 metre (30 foot) one storey garage to be located at 15 metres (49 feet) from the highwater mark of Verona Rock Lake on a Limited Services Residential Waterfront property.

359 369

MV-19-20-L (McDonald) Location: Part Lot 24, Concession 14, being Parts 1, 2 & 3 on Plan 13R15545, and Part 2 on Plan 13R19077, 1120 Pillar Lane, Buck Lake, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To reduce the highwater mark setback from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 24.5 metres (76 feet) and to reduce the side yard setback from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 1.5 metres (5 feet) to permit the demolition and re-construction of a single detached dwelling with attached deck, attached garage and sunroom. The

370 397

Page 3 of 399

proposed home with deck will be slightly larger and taller than the existing structure with attached deck, the construction will be in accordance with the sketch submitted with the application, attached hereto. The applicants are seeking relief from sections 5.8.2 a. and 10.3.1 both require a 30 metre setback from the highwater mark and section 10.3.1 which requires a 3 metre setback from the side yard. 7.

Other Business

Information Report - Delegated Consent Granting Authority Consents Approved

Adjournment

398 399

Page 4 of 399

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment Meeting Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Virtual Meeting 4432 George Street, Sydenham, ON Page 5 of 399

Welcome to Virtual Meeting for the Committee of Adjustment This is a hearing of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac. All members of the public are muted on our end and your cameras will not be turned on. Committee Members • Alan Revill (Chair of the Committee)

• Norm Roberts • Mike Nolan • Ray Leonard

Township Staff • Angela Maddocks (Clerk & Meeting Host) • Christine Woods (Senior Planner) • Anna Geladi (Planner) • Michelle Hannah (Planning Assistant & Secretary Treasurer) • Claire Dodds (Director)

• Mike Howe • Tom Bruce Page 6 of 399

• Ken Gee

• Randy Ruttan 2

Format for the Meeting

The Chair, will introduce the file
The planner provides an overview of the application
Committee members ask questions
Comments from the applicant or their agent
Comments or questions from the public
The Committee will then deliberate and vote on the application
The Chair will state whether the vote was carried

Page 7 of 399

Appeal Rights • If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the meeting or make written submissions to the Township of South Frontenac before a decision is made, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. • The applicant, the Minister, or any other person or public body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of making the decision or date of notice appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the committee by filing with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee a notice of appeal. • Township staff will be in contact with the applicant following the meeting. Where a decision has been made, the decision will be forwarded to the applicant and anyone who has requested to be notified within 15 days of this meeting.

• If you have any questions after the meeting, please reach out to staff.

Page 8 of 399

How to Speak Regarding an Application • The Chair of the meeting will open the floor to public comments • Click “Raise Hand” button to request to speak or dial *9 (star nine) when calling in by telephone • The Chair will recognize a member of the public, and the Meeting Host will unmute the member of the public • Once the member of the public is done speaking or the Committee has no further questions, the Meeting Host will mute their microphone

Page 9 of 399

In Case of Technical Difficulties • If a Committee member disconnects from the meeting, the meeting will proceed if quorum is met and the Committee member will attempt to reconnect. • Should all members of the Committee disconnect, members will be asked to reconnect.

• If the meeting cannot be restored within 15 minutes, the meeting will be postponed. • Staff will be in touch with applicants. • A notice will also be posted on the Township’s social media letting you know.

Page 10 of 399

Agenda • Call to Order

• Adoption of Agenda • Declaration of Pecuniary Interests • Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting • Minor Variance Applications • Other Business • Adjournment

Page 11 of 399

Minor Variance Applications Page 12 of 399

MV-43-19-B Page 13 of 399

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell Location of Property: Part Lot 16, Concession 3, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 397 Barr Lane, Bobs Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-43-19-B, subject to conditions.

Page 14 of 399

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Page 15 of 399

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Proposal:

The Applicants are requesting permission to construct an accessory building (garden shed), situated at 1.2 metres (4 feet) from the side lot line which is less than the minimum 3 metre (9.8 feet) setback from the side lot line required in the RLSW – Limited Services Residential Waterfront zone. Page 16 of 399

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Limited Services Residential - Waterfront (RLSW)

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 10.3.2 : RLSW Zone

Relief: To permit the construction of an accessory building (garden shed) with a setback of 1.2 metres (4 feet) from the interior side lot line, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 3 metres (9.8 feet) from the interior side yard.

Page 17 of 399

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act. 13

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Page 18 of 399

Riddell Property with existing cottage and shed 14

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Comments • Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. • KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. • Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, RVCA was not circulated.

Page 19 of 399

• Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public. 15

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Page 20 of 399

Application: MV-43-19-B Owners: Paul & Patricia Riddell

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted;

• A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-43-19-B is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 21 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 22 of 399

Comments from the Applicant and/or the Agent If you would like to speak: • Use “Raise Hand” feature at the bottom of your screen • If you are calling in by phone, please dial *9 (star nine) Please wait to speak until you hear your name and your microphone has been unmuted. Page 23 of 399

Comments & Questions from the Public If you would like to speak: • Use “Raise Hand” feature at the bottom of your screen • If you are calling in by phone, please dial *9 (star nine) Please wait to speak until you hear your name and your microphone has been unmuted. Page 24 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 25 of 399

MV-02-20-L Page 26 of 399

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar Location of Property: Part Lot 23, Concession 13, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, Twin Island Lane, Buck Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-02-20-L to allow time for staff to review comments and for the applicant to respond to comments received from the public, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, as well as Cataraqui Conservation.

Page 27 of 399

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Page 28 of 399

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Proposal

Page 29 of 399

• The applicants are requesting permission to construct a one-storey seasonal dwelling with a walkout basement and an attached deck and screened porch. • The dwelling would have a reduced rear yard and increased lot coverage. • The dwelling would be located a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark of Buck Lake. • A new tertiary septic system is proposed to be installed in a location that would comply with zoning requirements, including the minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark. 25

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Limited Services Residential - Waterfront (RLSW)

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 10.3.1 : RLSW Zone – Rear Yard and Lot Coverage

Relief: To permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling with: a) a minimum rear yard of 6.5 metres (21.3 feet), whereas the RLSW zone requires a minimum 10 metre rear yard

Page 30 of 399

b) A maximum lot coverage of 9.5%, whereas the RLSW zone allows 5% 26

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Page 31 of 399

Proposed location of dwelling relative to Twin Island Lane 27

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Page 32 of 399

View of property from top of bank 28

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Comments • Cataraqui Conservation – While the revised proposal is certainly preferable to the previous submission, staff continue to be concerned with the size of the building footprint … double the maximum allowable lot coverage. In the opinion of staff, the scale of development that is being proposed is simply too large for the lot. Staff recommend deferral to allow the applicant to consider a reduction to the size of the building.

Page 33 of 399

• MECP - The ministry fully supports the proponent’s work in moving the footprint of development (septic and dwelling) largely out of the 30 m setback from the high water mark. However, considering the “at capacity” status of the lake and the nature of its sensitivity to ongoing nutrient loading and encroachment pressures the ministry feels that lot coverage limits are an important planning tool that municipalities have to control the size and density of development that would be in keeping with the size of the lot in question. MECP fully supports the planning opinion and position of the Cataraqui Conservation Authority regarding encroachment concerns to the lake, particularly those of lot coverage. 29

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar

Comments • Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated.

• KFL&A Public Health – Following revisions to the site plan, KFL&A Public Health supports the proposed minor variance application. The sewage system is now proposed to be 30 metres from the high water mark of Buck Lake, and more than 15 metres from the top of bank. Further details regarding the sewage system will be addressed at the permit stage.

Page 34 of 399

• Public Comments – To date, 4 comments have been received from the public. Two of the comments are supportive of the proposal. One of the comments raise concerns for the impact of additional development on the lake and on Frontenac Provincial Park, as well as on potential precedence of reduced setbacks from the lane. 30

Application: MV-02-20-L Owners: Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar Location of Property: Part Lot 23, Concession 13, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, Twin Island Lane, Buck Lake

Page 35 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 36 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 39 of 399

MV-06-20-B Page 40 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis Location of Property: Part Lot 24 & 25, Concession 10, being Part 1 on Plan 13R7305 and Parts 1, 2 & 4 on Plan 13R13675, 721A Lee Road, Wolfe Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-06-20-B, subject to conditions.

Page 41 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Page 42 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Proposal:

An application for minor variance has been received, to permit the construction of a 133 metre2 (1,440 feet2) detached garage (accessory building) within the projected front yard of the subject property.

Page 43 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Relief Sought Zoning: RW – Waterfront Residential zone

Official Plan Designation: Environmental Protection Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.2:

Accessory Buildings

Relief: To permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage) in the projected front yard, whereas the Zoning By-law requires an accessory building to be erected to the rear of the projected front or exterior side wall of the main building.

Page 44 of 399

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act. 40

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Page 45 of 399

Proposed location of the garage 41

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Comments • Public Services Department – Public Services is satisfied that the location of the proposed detached garage is acceptable, given that it meets the minimum front yard setback for structures in the Residential - Waterfront zone. • KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated.

• Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objection to the subject application and it is the opinion of the reviewing planner that the requested variance is minor. • Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public. Page 46 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Page 47 of 399

Application: MV-06-20-B Owners: Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted; • A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-06-20-B is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning ByLaw 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 48 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 49 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 52 of 399

MV-08-20-B Page 53 of 399

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead Location of Property: Part Lot 1, Concession 12, Parts 10 to 12 on Plan 13R3809, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 10 Barrett Lane, Buck Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-08-20-B to provide additional time for KFL&A Public Health to review the proposal and to provide comment, and to receive comments from Cataraqui Conservation.

Page 54 of 399

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead

Page 55 of 399

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead

Proposal

Page 56 of 399

• The applicants are requesting permission to construct a one-and-a-half storey single detached dwelling with a walkout basement and an attached deck. • The dwelling would have a 15 metre setback from the high water mark of Buck Lake. • The existing cottage (0.9 metres to HWM) and shed (15 metres to HWM) would be demolished. • A new tertiary septic system is proposed to be installed in a location that would comply with zoning requirements, including the minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark. 52

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Waterfront Residential (RW-16)

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.8.2 a): Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards Section 8.3.3: Waterbody Setback

Relief: To permit the construction of a new singledetached dwelling with a minimum high water mark setback of 15 metres (49 feet), whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback from the high water mark for all buildings and structures.

Page 57 of 399

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead

Page 58 of 399

View of existing cottage and proposed location of dwelling.

Application: MV-08-20-B Owners: Jeff & Mary Bumstead

Comments • Public Services Department – The property accessed from a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. • KFL&A Public Health – Requested deferral as they required more information. • Cataraqui Conservation – comments have not yet been received. • Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public. Page 59 of 399

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-08-20-B to provide additional time for KFL&A Public Health to review the proposal and to provide comment, and to receive comments from Cataraqui Conservation.

Page 60 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 61 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 64 of 399

MV-09-20-L Page 65 of 399

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary Location of Property: Part Lot 16, Concession 3, being Part 1 on Plan 13R3284, , District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 3865 Corkey Road, Loughborough Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-09-20-L to provide additional time for the applicants to revise their proposal to address concerns expressed by Township staff and Cataraqui Conservation regarding the construction of a deck closer to the high water mark of Loughborough Lake than the existing structure. Page 66 of 399

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary

Proposal:

Page 67 of 399

An application for minor variance has been received to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres (98.4 feet) as required by section 5.8.2a and 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law to 9.14 metres (30 feet) to permit the construction of a deck. The applicants are also seeking a minor variance to permit an addition on the second story of the existing dwelling, increasing the height of a legal noncomplying structure and increasing lot coverage from 7% to 8% for the principal structure. 63

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.8.2a

Zoning: RW – Waterfront Residential zone

Relief: To permit the construction of a deck at 9.14 metres from the highwater mark whereas the Zoning By-law requires an 30 metres from the highwater mark.

Page 68 of 399

Section 5.10.2

Relief: To permit an addition on the second story of the existing dwelling, increasing the height of a legal noncomplying structure.

Section 10.3.1

Relief: To permit the construction of an deck at 9.14 metres from the highwater mark whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires an 30 metres from the highwater mark and an increase in lot coverage from 8% whereas the Zoning Bylaw allows for a maximum of 5%. 64

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary

Page 69 of 399

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary

Comments: Public Services Department – Given the nature of the application, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – KFL&A Public Health was not circulated due to the nature of the application. Cataraqui Conservation – Comments received from Cataraqui Conservation recommend denial based upon their consideration for natural hazards and water quality protection policies, the “at capacity” status of the West Basin of Loughborough Lake, and the nature of its sensitivity to ongoing nutrient loading and encroachment pressures resulting in cumulative impacts to the water quality of the lake. Cataraqui Conservation staff have provided further clarification that they have no objections to the second storey addition and converting an existing covered porch into living space. Cataraqui Conservation does not support the application due to the deck encroachment further into the water setback. Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) – MECP shares the same concerns as Cataraqui Conservation. MECP staff also recommended denial of the application. Page 70 of 399

Public Comments – To date, one comment from neighbours has been received.

Application: MV-09-20-L Owner: Bill O’Leary

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-09-20-L to provide additional time for the applicants to revise their proposal to address concerns expressed by Township staff and Cataraqui Conservation regarding the construction of a deck closer to the high water mark of Loughborough Lake than the existing structure.

Page 71 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 72 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 75 of 399

MV-11-20-B Page 76 of 399

Application: MV-11-20-B Owners: Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake Location of Property: Part Lots 33 & 34, Concession 7, being Part 34 on Plan 13R167, 98 Mill Bay Lane, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-11-20-B to allow the applicant time to reconsider their proposal and provide additional information. And to allow staff and agencies additional time to work with the applicants to modify the submitted plans.

Page 77 of 399

Application: MV-11-20-B Owners: Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake

Proposal: An application for minor variance has been submitted to permit the demolition of the existing deck and main door landing and to permit the construction of an addition to the house in an ‘L’ shape and add a new deck. The addition to the house and the new deck are proposed to be approximately 19 metres (62.4 feet) from the highwater mark in line with the current deck and existing setback. This proposal would see an increase in the lot coverage of the principal structure from 6.2% to 8.2%.

Page 78 of 399

Application: MV-11-20-B Owner: Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake

Page 79 of 399

Application: MV-11-20-B Owners: Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake

Comments: Public Services Department – Given the nature of the application, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – Comments from Kingston Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health (KFL&A) have indicated that they require more information on the sewage system. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) have provided comments recommending the Committee defer the application as they have concerns about hazards on site. It is recommended that a geotechnical opinion be obtained and reviewed by RVCA staff. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public.

Page 80 of 399

Application: MV-11-20-B Owners: Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-11-20-B to allow the applicant time to reconsider their proposal and provide additional information. And to allow staff and agencies additional time to work with the applicants to modify the submitted plans.

Page 81 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 82 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 85 of 399

MV-12-20-P Page 86 of 399

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman Location of Property: Part Lot 7, Concessions 10 & 11, being Parts 1-3 on Plan 13R6322, 2098 Hambly Lane, Hambly Lake, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-12-20-P, subject to conditions.

Page 87 of 399

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Page 88 of 399

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Proposal:

An application for minor variance has been received to permit the re-construction of the single detached dwelling with a walk-out basement. The dwelling is proposed to be built on the existing foundation with an increase in height to be constructed in conformity with the maximum height allowable in the RLSW - Limited Services Residential Waterfront zone. Page 89 of 399

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation: Rural and Environmental Protection

Zoning: Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) Zone

Section 5.10.2: Existing Buildings within 30 metres of a Waterbody or Watercourse

Relief: To permit the re-construction of a single detached dwelling, on the existing foundation with an increase in height, to be constructed in conformity with the maximum height allowable in the Limited Services Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) Zone.

Page 90 of 399

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act. 86

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Page 91 of 399

Existing home to be demolished and re-build on the same foundation (view from the waterfront)

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Comments • Public Services Department – Public Services was not circulated due to the nature of the application.

• KFL&A Public Health – KFL&A Public Health notes that the current sewage system is undersized. An application to install a new sewage system must be submitted to KFL&A Public Health before a building permit is issued. KFL&A Public Health has no objection to the proposed minor variance. • Quinte Conservation – Quinte Conservation staff are satisfied that there is sufficient area for development outside the flood hazard provided that the applicants stay on the same. Staff note that the owners will need to apply to the Conservation Authority for a permit prior to development (construction / filling/ excavation/ site grading) within 45 metres of the 1:100 year floodplain of Hambly Lake. Quinte Conservation has no objection to the application as presented. Page 92 of 399

• Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public.

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Page 93 of 399

Application: MV-12-20-P Owner: Leslie Yateman

Proposed Conditions of Approval •

The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted;

•

A development agreement will be required to be registered on title

•

Approval of an application to install a new sewage system must be obtained;

•

A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and

•

MV-12-20-P is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 94 of 399

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 95 of 399

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 98 of 399

MV-15-20-B Page 99 of 399

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder Location of Property: Part Lot 5, Concession 6, being Parts 8 on Plan 13R4370, 9088 Canoe Lake Road, Kingsford Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-15-20-B, subject to conditions.

Page 100 of 399

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Page 101 of 399

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Proposal:

An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage) within the projected front yard of the proposed single detached dwelling on the subject property.

Page 102 of 399

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RU - Rural

Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.2: Accessory Buildings

Page 103 of 399

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act. 99

Application: MV-15-20-B Owner: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Page 104 of 399

Proposed location of the garage 100

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Comments • Public Services Department – Public Services has no concerns regarding the application. • KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. • Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, CRCA confirmed that circulation was not required. • Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no written comments had been received from the public. Page 105 of 399

101

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Page 106 of 399

102

Application: MV-15-20-B Owners: Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted;

• A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-15-20-B is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning ByLaw 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 107 of 399

103

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 108 of 399

104

105

106

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 111 of 399

107

MV-16-20-L Page 112 of 399

108

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole Location of Property: Part Lot 8, Concession 9, being Part 4 on Plan 13R15287, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1037 Senior Lane, Cronk Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-16-20-L, subject to conditions.

Page 113 of 399

109

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Page 114 of 399

110

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Proposal:

An application for minor variance has been received, to permit the construction of a shade structure, which requires relief from the highwater mark setback for an accessory building in the RLSW – Limited Services Residential Waterfront zone as well as relief from the general provisions on Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards. The shade structure would sit on a ground oriented wooden patio. Page 115 of 399

111

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RLSW – Limited Services Residential – Waterfront

Page 116 of 399

RU - Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.8.2a): Flooding and Shoreline Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade structure Erosion Hazards (screen structure) with a highwater mark setback of 11 metres (36 feet) whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (9.8 feet) setback from the highwater mark for all buildings and structures. Section 5.8.2b): Flooding and Shoreline Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade structure Erosion Hazards (screen structure) with a top of bank setback of 7 metres (23 feet, whereas the By-law requires 15 metres (49.2 feet) horizontal of the top of bank of any embankment. Section 10.3.2: RLSW Zone Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade structure with a highwater mark setback of 11 metres (36 feet), whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (98.4 foot) setback from the highwater mark for the accessory building.

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

112

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Page 117 of 399

Existing cottage placement to be replaced with shade structure

Concept photo of shade structure 113

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Comments • Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated.

• KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in relation to a septic system, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. • Cataraqui Conservation – Cataraqui Conservation staff have no objection to the approval of application MV-16-20-L based on their consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies. The applicant will be required to contact Cataraqui Conservation at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06

Page 118 of 399

• Public Comments – At the time of the writing of the report, no comments had been received from the public.

114

Application: MV-16-20-L Owners: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Page 119 of 399

115

Application: MV-16-20-L Owner: Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted; • A development agreement will be required to be registered on title • The existing metal shed and plastic shed within the 30 metre setback of the highwater mark shall be removed; • A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-16-20-L is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning ByPage 120 of 399

Law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

116

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 121 of 399

117

118

119

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 124 of 399

120

MV-17-20-B Page 125 of 399

121

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess Location of Property: Part Lot 23, Concession 5, being Lot 22 on Plan 1661, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 810 Sunset Shores Lane, Bobs Lake

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-17-20-B, subject to conditions.

Page 126 of 399

122

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Page 127 of 399

123

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Proposal:

An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage), which is larger than the existing principal dwelling.

Page 128 of 399

124

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation: Rural

Zoning: RLSW – Limited Services Residential – Waterfront

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.1: Accessory Buildings

Relief: To permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage) with a footprint of 121.94 metres2 (1312.6 feet2), which exceeds the lot coverage of the existing principal building of 85 metres2 (924 feet2).

Page 129 of 399

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act. 125

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Page 130 of 399

Proposed location of the garage 126

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Comments • Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated.

• KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. • Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, RVCA was not circulated. • Public Comments – To date, one comment from neighbours has been received. Page 131 of 399

127

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Page 132 of 399

128

Application: MV-17-20-B Owners: Martin & Merianne Fess

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted;

• A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-17-20-B is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning ByLaw 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 133 of 399

129

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 134 of 399

130

131

132

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 137 of 399

133

MV-18-20-P Page 138 of 399

134

Application: MV-18-20-P Owners: Jim & Jen McNeely Location of Property: Part of Lot 8, Concession 11, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac,

municipally known as 1124 Storms Lane, Verona Rock Lake

Page 139 of 399

135

Application: MV-18-20-P Owners: Jim & Jen McNeely

Proposal An application for minor variance was received to permit the construction of a 67 square metre (720 square foot) accessory building (one-storey detached garage) on a 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre) existing lot of record. The proposed setback from the new garage to the highwater mark of Verona Rock Lake is 15 metres (49 feet).

Page 140 of 399

136

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 141 of 399

137

138

139

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 144 of 399

140

MV-19-20-L Page 145 of 399

141

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald Location of Property: Part Lot 24, Concession 14, being Parts 1, 2 & 3 on Plan 13R15545, and Part 2 on Plan 13R19077, Buck Lake, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1120 Pillar Lane

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-19-20-L, subject to conditions.

Page 146 of 399

142

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Page 147 of 399

143

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Proposal:

Page 148 of 399

An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with an attached deck, attached garage and a sunroom on deck posts within the required 30 metre setback from the highwater mark, the required 30 metre front yard setback and the required 3 metre interior side yard. 144

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Relief Sought Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Limited Service Residential –Waterfront (RLSW)

Zoning Relief Requested:

Section 5.8.2 a): Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards

Section 10.3.1: Waterbody Setback, Front Yard and Interior Side Yard

Relief: To permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with a minimum highwater mark setback of 23 metres (76 feet), whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback from the high water mark for all buildings and structures.

Page 149 of 399

Relief: To permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with • a minimum setback of 23 metres (76 feet) from the high water mark, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback from the high water mark for the principal building; • a minimum front yard of 23 metres (76 feet), whereas the By-law requires a minimum 30 metre front yard and; • an interior side yard of 1.5 metres (5 feet) to the exterior wraparound deck attached to the dwelling whereas the By-law requires 3 metres (9.8 feet).

The application, as presented, meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

145

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Page 150 of 399

Existing dwelling and attached deck to be replaced

146

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Comments • Public Services – The property has an existing entrance on a private lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated.

• KFL&A Public Health – KFL&A Public Health received an application to install a new sewage system and have no objections to the proposed minor variance. • Cataraqui Conservation – Cataraqui Conservation staff recognize there is limited opportunity for all development to meet the 30 metre setback. However, they recommend deferral of MV-19-20-L to allow the applicant to consider alternatives that will meet the intent of the water quality policies, and to remove the portion of the deck that extends towards Buck Lake. Cataraqui Conservation staff had raised a concern about lot coverage. Lot coverage was reviewed by Township staff and was confirmed to be just under the 5% lot coverage permitted by the By-law.

Page 151 of 399

• Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks – Staff at the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks recommend deferral and support the planning opinion and position of the Cataraqui Conservation regarding encroachment concerns to the lake as the “at capacity” status of Buck Lake and the nature of its sensitivity to ongoing nutrient loading and encroachment pressure can result in cumulative impacts to the water quality. • Public Comments – To date, one comment from neighbours has been received. 147

Application: MV-19-20-L Owners: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Page 152 of 399

148

Application: MV-19-20-L Owner: Bruce & Kathy McDonald

Proposed Conditions of Approval • The Minor Variance is approved in accordance with plans submitted; • A Development Agreement shall be entered into and registered on title to the property; • A building permit is required for all demolition and construction on the property; and • MV-19-20-L is only applicable to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning ByLaw 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 153 of 399

149

Questions from Committee Members Upon the Chair asking if any members would like to speak to the matter, please remember to unmute yourself before you begin to speak.

Page 154 of 399

150

151

152

Resolution & Voting Upon the Chair asking if any member of the Committee is opposed to the Resolution, please advise if you are opposed. The chair will call if the vote is carried or is lost.

Page 157 of 399

153

Other Business Information Report: Consents approved by Delegated Authority: • S-29-19-L (Owner & Applicant) Edgar & Maureen Adams • S-05-20-P (Owner & Applicant) Jeffery Leroux • S-07-20-P (Applicant/Owner) Andrew & Ashley Cox (Applicant/Agent) Michael Veryzer

Page 158 of 399

154

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment Meeting Conclusion/Adjournment

Page 159 of 399

155

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-43-19-B Paul & Patricia Riddell Part Lot 16, Concession 3, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 397 Barr Lane Purpose of Application: To vary Section 10.3.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement to an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Limited Services Residential - Waterfront (RLSW)

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 10.3.2 : RLSW Zone

Relief: To permit the construction of an accessory building (garden shed) with a setback of 1.2 metres (4 feet) from the interior side lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 3 metres (9.8 feet) from the interior side yard.

Review This application:  Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (s. 3(5) Planning Act);  Conforms to the general intent and purpose of the County of Frontenac Official Plan;  Conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan;  Complies with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75 (or will comply subject to approval for the minor variance);  Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question; and  Is minor.

Proposal An application for minor variance has been submitted to permit the construction of an accessory building (garden shed), situated at 2.1 metres (4 feet) from the side lot line which is less than the minimum 3 metre (9.8 feet) setback from the side lot line required in the RLSW – Limited Services Residential - Waterfront zone. Page 160 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

The subject property is located on Barr Lane, approximately two kilometres from Green Bay Road, and is municipally known as 397 Barr Lane. The parcel is 1.27 acres (0.51 hectares) and contains an 80.2 metre2 (863 feet2) principal dwelling, which is setback approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet) from the highwater mark of Buck Bay on Bobs Lake. There is also an existing storage shed of 9.3 metre2 (100 feet2) on the property located approximately 22.86 metres (75 feet) from the high water mark. The proposed garden shed is 9.3 metre2 (100 feet2) in size and has a side yard setback of 1.2 metres (4 feet) to the north property line adjacent to the property addressed as 401 Barr Lane. The proposed location of the shed is in the side yard, to the rear of the existing dwelling, approximately 39.6 metres (130 feet) from Bob’s Lake. The proposed garden shed is 2.1 metres (7 feet) in height. The applicant has indicated in their application that there was previously a shed located in that area built in 2008. The previous owners of the subject property and the neighbouring property of 401 Barr Lane determined where they felt the property line was and with the approval of the neighbour at the time, a 3 metre x 3 metre (10 feet x 10 feet) garden shed was built 1.2 metres off the property line. The shed was previously built on deck blocks and patio stones. The applicant indicated that they have a new neighbour at 401 Barr Lane who intends to erect a wall along the property line. Prior to constructing the new wall, the lot line was surveyed and it was determined that the existing shed is located on the property line. The owner of the subject property intends to remove the existing shed and is seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment to place a new shed at it 1.2 metres (4 feet) from the northerly lot line. The applicant has indicated that their neighbour is in agreement with the proposed location of the new shed consistent with this minor variance application.

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, RVCA was not circulated. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

Planning Analysis Summary Under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act there are four tests a minor variance must meet. A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. As per Section 5.7, Lands designated Rural are characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural and seasonal residential communities to which the Settlement Areas provide basic services. The amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape. As per Section 5.7.7, limited service residential development is generally located in the Rural area of the Township on a body of water or a natural water course where the primary means of access is from a private road or a navigable waterway. Permitted uses include, single detached dwellings, seasonal residential dwellings, seasonal dwellings converted to permanent dwellings and home occupations. Page 161 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Furthermore, any proposed limited service residential development shall 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.

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed detached garage is consistent with the residential use of the property, within the Rural Area designation, which contemplates dwellings and accessory buildings on waterfront lots which are accessed by private lane.
Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Section 10 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for limited service residential waterfront development, including those regulations applicable to accessory buildings not attached to the principal building, which requires that building setbacks be a minimum of 3 metres (9.8 feet). The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw as the placement of the shed (accessory building) is a permitted in the interior and rear yard of a property that is zoned RLSW. The placement of the shed meets the setback requirements of the Limited Service Residential – Waterfront zone, with the exception that it is closer to the side lot line than the minimum required 3 metres (9.8 feet). The proposed location is practical given that there was previously a shed located in the same area.
Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question?  The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, as a detached garage is accessory to the existing dwelling. It is located a suitable distance from the front and rear lot lines and meets the setback requirements from the highwater mark in the RLSW – Limited Service Residential Waterfront zone.
Is the application minor? The variance is minor as it will not cause any negative impacts as a result of its size and location on the subject property, which is located on Barr Lane. The subject property has a total area of 1.27 acres (0.51 hectares) and the neighbours are agreeable to the location. The garden shed is located approximately 39.6 metres (130 feet) from Bobs Lake.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-43-19-B, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The minor variance is for the construction of a 9.3 metre2 (100 feet2) shed at a setback of 1.2m (4 feet) from the northerly lot ine, consistent with the drawings submitted with MV-43-19-B.
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.

Page 162 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Minor variance MV-43-19-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: July 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the Riddell property

Page 163 of 399

Page 164 of 399

Page 165 of 399

Page 166 of 399

Page 167 of 399

Page 168 of 399

Page 169 of 399

Page 170 of 399

Page 171 of 399

1995 u! swauueunseew 9LOZ ‘VZSUN!‘39190 .9 = .83‘ 9|93S L LXLL Jaded

€3’OU!9/!SS9J 01 me 17O0L’L96’€ L9 ||9PP!El

‘

9U9'|

Page 172 of 399

JJBEI./.68 QZ U0!19/\9|E|

e6e1J,oo1xeu01 ‘009 10] IUBOB/\

1S9JO:|

Jnoq6gaN

Q5; '

LL uoneAa|;|

‘

_ _

1,seJo:1 100} 008

6 U0!19/\9|E|

e?ed J,X9U uo dew ass pew d[L{SUMOJ, o1 LU)1

James

z XOJddV

e?ed lxeu uo pe5Je|ue eeJv

01 999 *

JSUJOO on,059

1004009

3U9'|

M98 168

e>|e| 0), ,()9L

917L 99

J,ueweeJ6e SJGUMO 9691100 Meu Jed 39

sungo ,1; on,xoeq ‘uoneoolpeus Meu

GU91 “B8 L07

Page 173 of 399

ped e1eJ0uoo ,zLx|,L

.17‘ ondes

‘B5009

OWL l

SJGUMO

sunJ9/\o JGUJOO “9 /?e/uns Jaye l

snog/\eJd Aq 9691100 9002 XOJddB

p9U!LUJ8J,Gp 39

9U!IJJ0 .17/<|l9U!5!J°

ugJ,ueuJeoe|d peqs pue

eun/(1.IedoJd leug?uo

/Re/v\e/!Jc|

/uns

Jed se I

uuA 3dOJd pas!/xea peoJ

pemqs

Page 174 of 399 II: was “HQ LYT

I-‘J 5vuaia

peoa Area119313 1 won;LU)| z xmddv j

6 -A

sue-|

“

ueg L59;

µ RIDDELL MV-43-19-B

BAR

R LA

Legend

Bobs Lake Riddell Property Bobs Lake

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

Page 175 of 399

While the Township 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 1:400 0

UTM Projection NAD 83

16 Meters

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING REPORT – MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION Report Date:

July 6, 2020

Application No: Owners: Location of Property:

MV-02-20-L Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar Part Lot 23, Concession 13, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, Twin Island Lane, Buck Lake Purpose of Application: To vary Section 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-02-20-L to receive comments from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, as well as from Cataraqui Conservation. Proposal An application for minor variance was received to permit the construction of a one-storey seasonal dwelling with a walkout basement and an attached deck and screened porch on the subject property. The 0.16 hectare (0.4 acre) property is currently vacant. The proposed dwelling would have a rear yard setback of 6.5 metres (21.3 feet) instead of 10 metres (32.8 feet), and would require an increase in the allowable lot coverage for the principal building from 5% to 9.5%. The dwelling would be located a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark of Buck Lake. A new tertiary septic system is proposed to be installed in a location that would comply with zoning requirements, including the minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark. KFL&A Public Health provided supportive comments on this minor variance application. Submitted by: Christine Woods, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visits: May 21, 2020 and June 24, 2020 Attachment: Map of the Vanderhaar property

Page 176 of 399

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

June 2, 2020 Date Received: _________________________ 1.

MV-02-20-L File No: _________________________

Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar Name of Owner(s): _____________________________________________________________ Full Mailing Address of Owner(s):

Phone number of Owner(s): __

Email Address of Owner(s): _

If the applicant is NOT the owner of the subject land, the written authorization of the owner that the applicant is authorized to make the application, must accompany the application. Name of Authorized Agent: ______________________________________________________ Full Mailing Address of Authorized Agent: _________________________________________

Phone number of Authorized Agent: _______________________________________________ Email Address of Authorized Agent: _______________________________________________ Agent as named above is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the owners for purposes of processing this application for Minor Variance.

Signature(s) of Owner(s)

The description of the subject land: District:

Bedford

Portland

X Loughborough

Storrington

Part Lot 23 13 Concession Number: _____________________ Lot Number: _____________________ Twin Island Lane Street Number: _________________ Name of Road/Street: ___________________________ FR218427 Reference Plan Number: ______________________ Part Number(s): ____________________ 102904004010300 Roll Number: _________________________________________________________________ 3

Page 177 of 399

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

The frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land. Frontage (on water):__________________ 38.83m (127.40ft)

31.63m (103.76ft) Frontage (on road/lane): ___________________

Depth: ___________________________ 46.66m (153.09ft)

1,612.69m2 (17,358.84 sq.ft.) Area: _______________________________

The current zoning of the subject land:

RLSW Limited Services Residential Waterfront

The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law: Reduction in setback from rear lot line from 10m to 6.5m for dwelling, 6.2m for septic tank, & 5.5m for septic field.

Increase in lot coverage from 5% to 9.5%.

The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law: To comply with the 30m set back from high water mark the proposed seasonal dwelling septic tank and septic field

will need to enchroach into the 10m rear lot line set backand. The 5% lot coverage provision on this existing undersized lot of +/-1613m2 only permits for a total of 80.7m2 (869sq.ft)

in stucutues on the lot. Dwelling unit, screen in porch, decks, sleeping bunkies, garages, sheds, etc. The proposed dwelling with deck and porch are the only proposed structures. No other structures will be added.

Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road? OR a privately maintained road? No X Yes

Yes

X No

Name of Road/Lane: Twin Island Lane

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. Not applicable

What are the existing uses of the subject land? Vacant recreational land

Please indicate whether there are any EXISTING buildings or structures on the subject land. (I.e. residence, garage, shed, etc.) Yes

X No

Page 178 of 399

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

If the answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure indicate: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Type of Structure (E.g. residence) 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)

Dimensions of Floor Area Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

The proposed uses of the subject land: Seasonal Dwelling with class 4 septic system

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

Page 179 of 399

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)

(2) Tertiary

(3)

(4) Attached

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

Seasonal Dwelling

Septic System Waterloo Biofilter

Attached Open Deck

Screened Porch

Setback from Front Lot Line

32.16m

30.18m (contact area)

30.00m

31.05m

Setback from Rear Lot Line

6.57m

5.92m (contact area)

12.84m

12.55m

South 3.28m North 25.41m (contact area)

South 16.67m North 3.72m

South 13.15m North 15.95m

N/A

1.77m

4.64m

12.32m X 3.05m

3.53m X 3.48m

Setback from Side Lot Line

South 11.38m North 3.07m

Height of Building 1 storey plus (Also indicate if it is one walk out basement story or two story) 5.84m Outside Dimensions of Building/Structure

17.30m X 7.25m

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

32.16m

2.87m X 8.36m (contact area)

30.18m (contact area

30.00m

31.05m

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. 16.

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

Yes

X No

If yes, please provide details:

Page 180 of 399

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

Do your plans include the RAISING of an existing structure?

Yes

X No

If yes, please provide details:

What are the uses of the proposed development? (a)

Increase in number of bedrooms

X Yes

(b)

Increase in plumbing fixtures

X Yes

(c)

Increase in living space

X Yes

(d)

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

Yes

X No

The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner: July 29 2019

The date the existing buildings and structures were constructed on the subject lands: Not applicable

The length of time that the existing uses of the subject land have continued: Not applicable, undeveloped lot

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: Proposed lake water intake

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: Proposed privately owned and operated individual Waterloo Biofilter septic system

Is storm drainage provided by sewers, ditches, swales or by other means? Existing natural overland drainage

Page 181 of 399

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

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

X No

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

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

X No

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

A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following: i)

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

ii)

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

iii)

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.

iv)

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

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.

**Note: ** The distances to on-site and abutting owners’ wells, septic fields and barns, from the property to be varied, IS REQUIRED to be shown. The SKETCH is of significant importance and should be prepared as carefully, neatly and accurately as possible.

Page 182 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY Attached to this application is a cheque payable to the Township of South Frontenac in the amount of $747.00 representing payment of the application fee. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agrees that the information recorded in this Minor Variance Application Form is accurate. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agrees that representatives of the Township, Public Health and, where applicable, the appropriate Conservation Authority, may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agrees to reimburse and indemnify the municipality for all fees and expenses incurred by the municipality to process the application, including any fees and expenses attributable to proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board or any court or other administrative tribunal if necessary to defend Council’s decision to support the application. Without limiting the foregoing, such fees and expenses shall include the fees and expenses of consultants, planners, engineers, lawyers and such other professional and technical advisors as the municipality may, in its absolute discretion acting reasonably, consider necessary or advisable to more properly process and support the application. The Owner/Applicant/Agent further agrees to provide the municipality, upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, with a deposit (over and above the normal application fee), from which the municipality may, from time to time charge any fees and expenses incurred by the municipality in order to process the application. If such appeal expenses exceed the deposit, the Owner/Applicant shall pay the difference forthwith upon being billed by the municipality, with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) on accounts overdue more than 30 days, The Owner/Applicant/Agent further agrees that, until such requests have been complied with, the municipality will have no continuing obligation to process the application or attend or be represented at the Ontario Municipal Board or any court or other administrative proceeding in connection with the application: DATED AT THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Page 183 of 399

Disclaimer: BV Design & Drafting is not responsible for any misinterpretation of these plans & will not take responsibility for change(s) made by the owner(s), contractor(s) or any official(s) regarding this project. plan(s) are not to be scaled. report and change(s) or error(s) to “BV Design & Drafting prior to construction in order to receive revised drawing(s). these plans are the property of the owner(s) or contractor(s) mentioned below. “BV Design & Drafting” reserves the right to reuse these plans in part or in whole. the owner(s) or contractor(s) shall not reuse these plans in any form or shape other then for this project. these plans form the basis of construction & have been designed to 2016 obc. I, Brad Vanderhaar, declaire that I review and take responsibility for the design work on behalf of a firm registered under subsection 3.2.4. of Division C, of the Building Code. I am qualified, and the firm is registered, in the appropriate classes/categories

Individual BCIN: Firm BCIN:

Design & Drafting Brad Vanderhaar 278 Welborne Ave. Kingston Ont. K7M 4G6 (613) 929-5957 brad@bpedevelopment.com Description

Date:

05-28-2020

house/septic location revised

05-24-2020 03-19-2020

house/septic location revised house/septic location revised

issued for minor variance application Revisions

02-09-2020

Client

amanda & brad vanderhaar Kingston Ontario Project:

twin island LANE cottage Drawing Title:

Page 184 of 399

Plot Plan ——Drawn By: b.g.v. Date: 02-09-2020 Scale: 1/16”=1’-0” 1:200 metric

Page:

PL1

Individual BCIN: Firm BCIN:

Design & Drafting Brad Vanderhaar 278 Welborne Ave. Kingston Ont. K7M 4G6 (613) 929-5957 brad@bpedevelopment.com Description

Date:

05-28-2020

house/septic location revised

05-24-2020

house/septic location revised

house/septic location revised issued for 02-06-2020 minor variance application Revisions 03-19-2020

Client

amanda & brad vanderhaar Kingston Ontario Project:

twin island LANE cottage Drawing Title:

Page 185 of 399

Existing Conditions Topographic Survey —-Drawn By: b.g.v. Date: 02-06-2020 Scale: 1/16”=1’-0" 1:200 metric

Page:

TS1

Individual BCIN: Firm BCIN:

Design & Drafting Brad Vanderhaar 278 Welborne Ave. Kingston Ont. K7M 4G6 (613) 929-5957 brad@bpedevelopment.com Description

Date:

05-28-2020

house/septic location revised

05-24-2020

house/septic location revised

house/septic location revised issued for 02-06-2020 minor variance application Revisions 03-19-2020

Client

amanda & brad vanderhaar Kingston Ontario Project:

twin island LANE cottage Drawing Title:

Page 186 of 399

built to plane ——Drawn By: b.g.v. Date: 02-06-2020 Scale: not to scale

Page:

TS1

3654 Stage Coach Road RR#3 Harrowsmith, Ontario K0H 1V0 Tel: (613) 305-3863 rgenge@xplornet.ca

29 May 2020 Brad and Amanda Vanderhaar 278 Welborne Avenue, KINGSTON, Ontario. K7M 4G6 REGARDS: Preliminary EIA – MV -02-20-L; Twin Island Lane, South Frontenac Township, Loughborough District – Buck Lake (North Basin) Dear Brad and Amanda Vanderhaar: As a result of further revisions to your M.V. application, I am providing the following comments based on a review of the B.V. Design and Drafting drawings for the Plot Plan and the Existing Conditions Topographic Survey, revised as of May 28, 2020. Further to my previous letter dated March 19th past, and in review of the revised drawings, the comments below reflect my opinion and position with respect to the upgrade from a proposed standard Class IV septic system (initial proposal) to a tertiary treatment Waterloo Biofilter septic system and the location as indicated on the south side of the proposed residence (BV Design Plot Plan –May 28, 2020). The environmental and site observation discussion in the March 19 letter remains unaffected by these proposed revisions. The Proposal: The proposal is to construct a single story residence with a completed/finished walk-out basement. The entire residential structure can be located >30 metres from the HWM. In order to achieve this setback from the lake, relief from the minimum setback to the east property boundary will have to be approved. A tertiary treatment Waterloo biofilter septic tank (an anaerobic digester equipped with an electrode phosphorus precipitator) is proposed to be located on the south side of the residence > 30 m from the HWM; this is in an easily accessible location for septic pump out servicing; the two biofilter flat beds that receive treated effluent all located outside of the 30m setback distance from the water. Potential Impacts: Since this is an existing vacant lot of record and the proposal seeks relief from the east lot line setback in order to satisfy the 30m setback from the HWM, this is the best development scenario that can be achieved for this lot with the least environmental impact. The proposal includes a tertiary treatment Waterloo biofilter septic system with the tank and filter bed located >30m from the HWM. …. 2

Page 187 of 399

-2This proposal does not include any in-water or near-shore works; it does not include filling, excavating or drainage works near the water and therefore physical impacts on fish habitat are not expected. There are no impacts to critical habitats for species at risk (SAR) as a result of this proposal. Recommendations:  The potential for erosion from increased energy associated with runoff from downspouts can be mitigated by directing downspouts into French Drains or onto splash pads.  Appropriate construction methods to prevent erosion of soils and materials away from the building envelope during construction period must be in place.  All excavation materials excess to the needs of the building must be removed from the site and not used as fill downgradient from the building envelope.  The natural tree cover and understory in the area downslope from the residence, filter bed and contact area must be maintained in a natural state; the only grassed over area should be over the filter bed and contact area. The installation of sod over the contact area would stabilize the soil and prevent erosion in the event of a heavy rainfall event.  A stairway providing access to the water is expected and permitted. In my opinion, this development as proposed, inclusive of remediation recommendations, is the best that can be achieved on this lot. If you have any questions in the above regard, please feel free to give me a call. Respectfully yours,

Reginald Genge B.Sc. Ontario Lake Assessments 3654 Stage Coach Road RR #3 HARROWSMITH, Ontario K0H 1V0 rgenge@xplornet.ca 613-305-3863

PDF copy by email to: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services SFT (cdodds@southfrontenac.net) Christine Woods, Planner SFT (cwoods@southfrontenac.net) Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant SFT (mhannah@southfrontenac.net)

Page 188 of 399

Ln n

Ba ck Ba y L

She a Ln

MV-02-20-L VANDERHAAR

Buck Lake

TWIN ISLAND LANE

Buck Lake

in Ln

ey Os pr

Kis me tL n

Fi nn

r th Pe

Moun ta

Isl

Buck Lake

Inset Map

Legend Vanderhaar Property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetlands Wetland

Waterbody River/ Stream

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

Page 189 of 399

l Is

d an

Scale 1:600

0 2.75 5.5

16.5

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

Page 190 of 399

June 26, 2020

File: MV/FRS/40/2020 (revised submission)

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

Application for Minor Variance MV-02-20-L (Vanderhaar) Part Lot 23, Concession 13; Twin Island Lane Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Buck Lake

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed a revised submission for the above-noted application for minor variance and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration. The property was visited by staff on April 24, 2020. Summary of Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject property. The revised variance request is to: • •

Reduce the setback from the rear lot line from 10 metres to 6.5 metres for the dwelling, 6.2 metres for a septic tank, and 5.5 metres for a septic field. Increase lot coverage from 5% to 9.5%.

Site Description The property is located on the eastern shore of the north bay of Buck Lake. The topography of the site can be characterized as having a steep embankment at the shoreline, then continuing to rise less steeply toward Twin Island Lane to the east. Presently, the lot is wooded. The property is currently designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and ‘Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone’ (RLSW) in the implementing Zoning By-law for South Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 191 of 399

Page 2 of 4

Frontenac Township. Buck Lake is designated as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake in the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township. Discussion The main interest of Cataraqui Conservation in this proposal is the protection of the water quality of Buck Lake and the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline. Natural Hazards Flooding: Cataraqui Conservation does not have floodplain mapping for Buck Lake. The maximum recorded water level for Buck Lake is 133.16 metres geodetic. For Buck Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 (see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based upon elevation mapping data, the proposed development will be located outside of the setback from the regulatory flood plain. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the proposal from a flooding hazard perspective. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance for bedrock shorelines of 1 (vertical):1 (horizontal), plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Based upon observations and measurements taken at the site, staff estimate the total erosion hazard to be approximately 12 metres measured inland from the toe of slope. The proposed development will be located outside of the erosion hazard allowance. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the proposal from an erosion hazard perspective. Water Quality Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Accordingly, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect to how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. Similarly, the Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy (April 2015) contains provisions that seek to support these objectives.

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 192 of 399

Page 3 of 4

Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township suggests that a minimum 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality. Similarly, the CRCA Planning Policy recommends that new development and site alteration, including septic system tile fields and open or enclosed decks/patios attached to the main dwelling, be set back a minimum distance of 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody. The revised proposal places both the dwelling and the main components of the sewage system beyond the 30 metre water setback. The septic mantle is the only development proposed within the 30 metre water setback. While the revised proposal is certainly preferable to the previous submission, staff continue to be concerned with the size of the building footprint as the applicant continues to seek relief to double the maximum allowable lot coverage from 5% to 9.5%. The maximum lot coverage provisions in the Zoning By-law are intended to limit intensification on a waterfront lot in support of the water quality provisions of the PPS and the Official Plan, particularly when a property is located on a sensitive Lake Trout lake. This issue is not and cannot be addressed in the Preliminary EIA submitted with the application. Staff continue to recommend that the size of the development be reduced to have regard for the intent of the PPS and the Official Plan. In the opinion of staff, the scale of development that is being proposed is simply too large for the lot. Therefore, staff do not support approval of the minor variance application. Recommendation Staff recommend deferral of application MV-02-20-L to allow the applicant to consider a reduction to the size of the building. Ontario Regulation 148/06 The CRCA, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development (construction, filling, and site alteration) within 15 metres of a valley land. The valley of Buck Lake is considered to extend inland to the top of the slope. It appears that the proposed development is within the 15 metre adjacent lands to the top of valley, and therefore, a CRCA permit will be required for the proposed development. The applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 193 of 399

Page 4 of 4

Please notify this office of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, or by e-mail at aschmidt@crca.ca.

Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt Andrew Schmidt Supervisor, Development Review /as c.c.

Michelle Hannah, South Frontenac Township (via e-mail) Brad & Amanda Vanderhaar (via e-mail) Jon Orpana, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (via e-mail)

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 194 of 399

Page 195 of 399

Page 196 of 399

Page 197 of 399

Page 198 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-06-20-B Anna Marie Turney & Mario Varthalitis Part Lot 24 & 25, Concession 10, being Part 1 on Plan 13R7305 and Parts 1, 2 & 4 on Plan 13R13675, 721A Lee Road, Wolfe Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.24.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement of an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RW – Waterfront Residential zone

Environmental Protection & Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.2: Accessory Buildings

Review: This application:  Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (s. 3(5) Planning Act);  Conforms with the general intent and purpose of the County of Frontenac Official Plan;  Conforms with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan;  Complies with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75 (or will comply subject to approval for the minor variance);  Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question; and  Is minor.

Page 199 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Proposal An application for minor variance has been received, to permit the construction of a 133 metre2 (1440 feet2) detached garage (accessory building) within the projected front yard of the subject property. The subject property is located on Lee Road, and is municipally known as 721A Lee Road. The subject property has waterfront on Wolfe Lake, off the Wolfe Lake Complex which is provincially significant wetland. The parcel is 13.67 acres (5.5 hectares) and contains a 3 bedroom cabin, a storage unit and a single detached dwelling. The dwelling is a single storey in height with a walkout basement, and is located approximately 120 metres (394 feet) from the highwater mark of Wolfe Lake and is outside the 120 metre adjacent lands of the provincially significant wetland. The dwelling is approximately 353 metre2 (3800 feet2) and meets all the required setbacks from the RW – Waterfront Residential zone. The 3 bedroom cabin is one story in height, approximately 118 metres2 (1272feet2) and located approximately 25 metres (82 feet) from the highwater mark of Wolfe Lake. The cabin has an associated above ground pool. The cabin is proposed to be removed from the subject property and the applicant is working with title insurance and the building department to ensure removal of the cabin to bring property into zoning conformity. The storage unit is approximately 40.87 metre2 (440 feet2) and approximately 40 metres (131 feet) from the highwater mark of Wolfe Lake and is located within the 120 metre adjacent lands of the provincially significant wetland. The proposed detached garage is 133 metres2 (1431.4 feet2) in size, a single storey in height of 5.8 metres (19 feet), has a front yard setback of approximately 1232 metres (4042 feet) and a side yard setback of approximately 50.6 metres (166 feet) to the west property line. The garage would be located approximately 30 metres (100 feet) from the existing dwelling. The garage would be located off the circular drive and approximately 1 km from the road. The proposed detached garage would be located outside of the 120 metre (394 feet) adjacent lands of the provincially significant wetland and generally achieve a greater distance than 150 metres (492 feet) from the highwater mark. The applicant has noted that there is a hydro pole to the north and the elevation of the house being deep is the reason that the applicant has proposed to construct the garage in front of the existing house. The applicant is proposing the garage in a portion of the yard that is flat and it is adjacent to the existing driveway. Additionally, the applicant has noted moving the garage further to the rear of the property would cause the garage to be located inside the 120 metre adjacent lands of the provincially significant wetland.

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services Department – Public Services is satisfied that the location of the proposed detached garage is acceptable, given that it meets the minimum front yard setback for structures in the Residential - Waterfront zone. KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objection to the subject application and it is the opinion of the reviewing planner that the requested variance is minor. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? 

The subject property is designated Environmental Protection and Rural in the Official Plan. As per Section 5.7, Lands designated Rural are characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces Page 200 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT the historical relationship between Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural and seasonal residential communities to which the Settlement Areas provide basic services. The amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape. 



The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed development (detached garage) is consistent with the residential use of the property, and the character of Lee Road.

Section 5.2.5 Significant Wetlands speaks to all lands that have been evaluated through the Provincial Wetland Evaluation System as being Provincially Significant. No new development or site alteration within 120 metres (394 feet) of a provincially significant wetland, nor the expansion or redevelopment of existing development within or adjacent to a provincially significant wetland is permitted until it has been determined through an Environmental Impact Assessment, completed in accordance with Section 5.2.11 that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological features of the wetland. 

The proposed detached garage is proposed to be located outside of the 120 metre (394 feet) adjacent lands to a provincially significant wetland.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? 

Section 8 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for RW – Waterfront Residential zone, including those regulations applicable to accessory buildings not attached to the principal building. Section 5.24.2 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted location of accessory buildings where any accessory building which is not part of the main building shall be erected to the rear of the projected front or exterior side wall of the main building. 

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the location of the garage complies with the setback requirements of the RW – Waterfront Residential zone, with the exception that it is proposed within the projected front yard of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling has a walk-out basement, there are provincially significant adjacent lands in the projected rear of the dwelling, there is a hydro pole to the north and the dwelling is sloped and not suitable building location for the garage. The proposed location is adjacent to the existing circular driveway.

Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? 

The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, as a detached garage is accessory to the existing single detached dwelling. It is located a suitable distance from the front and side property lines, and meets the setback requirements for a single detached dwelling and accessory building in the RW – Waterfront Residential zone.

Is the application minor? 

The variance is minor as it will not cause any negative impacts as a result of its location within the projected front yard. The proposed garage does not exceed the maximum lot coverage for accessory structures and complies with the maximum permitted height of 6 metres (19.7 feet). The garage is setback sufficiently that it will not impede sight lines for any development on adjacent properties.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-06-20-B, subject to conditions.

Page 201 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The Minor Variance is for the construction of a one-storey detached garage of 132.98 metres2 (1431.4 feet2), to be constructed to the west of the existing single detached dwelling, as per the drawings submitted with MV-06-20-B. The garage will be approximately 1232 meters (4042 feet) from the front property line, approximately 50.6 metres (166 feet) from the side (west) property line, greater than 150 metres (492 feet) from the highwater mark of Wolfe Lake and outside of the 120 metre (394 feet) adjacent lands to the provincially significant wetland and generally 30 metres (100 feet) from the existing dwelling.
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance MV-06-20-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the Turney & Varthalitis property

Page 202 of 399

Page 203 of 399

Page 204 of 399

Page 205 of 399

Page 206 of 399

Page 207 of 399

Page 208 of 399

Page 209 of 399

Page 210 of 399

Page 211 of 399

Page 212 of 399

suoneno

1914118 UJOZL MSd

“-1959M1U9!“5!S‘lI9l°U!’\°-id

Page 213 of 399

aswanuouuanm

NOLLVDIAVN uo.-I aasnan01 LON SI dVW sun

L52’?3L

‘Kguoa3ua:a;aJ 10; 5; pue ans?ugddew uaumuyue wax;mdmuagezs paaexaua?Jasn e sgdew su.u_

‘3lq9!l3-I no ‘a)em:oe aq mu?ew JD Kewdew sgq1uo .IE3ddE 3eq1 male; meg

| 513331111‘-’l.’)lF0

‘P11dnwssuudw?oasapmmn 9

aJauds‘KIesIprnv”:o1maw‘qaM’v9s rsam

Page 214 of 399

Inset Map

Wolfe Lake

gs ig Br

er m m

Zim

Lee Bay Ln

Le e R

Tr L n Ea g le

M c ne

t Ln P o in

Wolfe Lake

lk n ap

Fo x

Lee

Ln nd rl a Ln Ga n ard Ma y

Topel Ln

Cra wfo rd

Green Lake

Sto Harding Ln ne ri d ge Ln

MV-06-20-B (Turney & Varthalitis) 721A LEE RD

il R d

Legend Turney & Varthalitis Property Parcel Fabric

Provincially Significant Wetlands Wetland

Waterbody River/ Stream

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township 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.

Page 215 of 399

B elknap Ln

Scale 1:5,000

Lee Rd

0 20 40

120

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

160

June 29, 2020 20-SFR-MVA-0008 (BEDFORD)

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment P.O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Attention:

Anna Geladi

TURNEY, Anne Marie & VARTHALITIS, Mario; Application MV-06-20-B – 721a Lee Road, Part Lots 24/25, Concession 10; Former Township of Bedford, Now the Township of South Frontenac; Roll Number: 10290100101981000000 ——————————————————————————————————————————Subject:

Dear Ms. Geladi, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has reviewed the subject application within the context of:

Section 2.1 Natural Heritage, 2.2 Water and 3.1 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act; The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (“Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses” regulation 174/06 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act); The Rideau Lakes – Wolfe Lake Catchment Report; The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan;

The Proposal The RVCA understands this proposal to be an application for a minor variance to seek relief to construct a 133.78 m2 (1,440 ft2) garage setback approximately 120 metres from the normal highwater mark of Wolfe Lake.

Page 216 of 399

The Property The subject property is indicated as being approximately 5.64 hectares with a frontage on Wolfe Lake of 106.68 metres. It is currently occupied by a single-detached dwelling. A review of our records indicated the presence of the Wolfe Lake Complex Provincially Significant Wetland in relation to the subject property. Steep slopes have also been identified, although it is understood that the proposed construction avoids these potential hazards. The property overlies a highly vulnerable aquifer as indicated in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan. Review Comments Provincial Policy Statement Our office does not have any concerns in respect of Section 2.1 or 3.1 of the PPS. Regarding Section 2.2, water, our office is of the opinion that standard best management practices can serve to ensure maintenance and possibly improvement to water quality. Recommendations regarding how to make this possible are included below. In summary, so long as the recommendations are included as conditions, our office is satisfied that section 2.2 of the PPS is respected by this development. Ontario Regulation 174/06 The applicants should be aware that about 25% of the subject property is regulated, either as a provincially significant wetland, adjacent lands or watercourse under Ontario Regulation 174/06 (please see the enclosed map depicting the extent of the regulated area). Therefore, prior written permission from our office is required in accordance with our regulation (Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses) made under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act in order to construct the garage in the location indicated. Rideau Lakes – Wolfe Lake Catchment Report The water quality report for Wolfe Lake is “fair” according to the Catchment Report. Nutrient concentrations are generally low to moderate according to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) with few exceedances. Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. This is particularly important for roadways and dwellings that border the lake. Residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper septic maintenance, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Wolfe Lake is characterized by warm water fish species. Opportunities for action within Wolfe Lake are indicated as being: • • •

Reduce pollutant loadings to Wolfe Lake through application of shoreline and stormwater best management practices, including consideration of low impact development methods. Proper septic system maintenance, Maximizing setbacks from the normal highwater mark as indicated in the Rideau Lakes Study.

Page 2 of 4

Page 217 of 399

Source Water Protection The subject property is identified as overlying a highly vulnerable aquifer. 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 ground water supplies. For this reason, care should be taken to avoid land uses and practices that may inadvertently lead to undesirable effects on groundwater. Some best practices that could be considered include increased well casing depths and increased distance of septic systems from drinking water wells. Discuss and Recommendations Should the Township allow the variance, the RVCA would have the following recommendations for conditions of any implementing agreement or as conditions of the variance in the absence of an agreement:

Surface and roof water runoff management shall be implemented by directing runoff from eavestrough placement and outlets to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas allow for maximum infiltration of roof runoff as much as possible away from the services, lake and wetland area.

Prior to construction, appropriate sediment and erosion controls (sediment fencing and/or mulch/straw bales) shall be set in place around the construction site, upland of the lake and wetland area prior to commencement of work and will remain in place until the site is stable and revegetated.

The following statement should be included in any agreement, should one be required as a result of this development: “Should any work be undertaken along the shoreline of Wolfe Lake or within the 120 metre adjacent lands from the Wolfe Lake Complex Provincially Significant Wetland, permits would be required by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority in accordance with Ontario Regulation 174/06 (“Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses”).”

Conclusions In conclusion, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objection to the subject application and it is the opinion of the reviewing planner that the requested variance is minor. The RVCA would like its comments and recommendations noted on any decision from the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (613) 812-1497 should you have any questions. Please advise us on the Committee’s decision respecting this application or any changes in the status of the application.

Page 3 of 4

Page 218 of 399

Yours truly,

Phil Mosher RPP MCIP Planner cc – Ms. Turney, owner cc – KFLPHA

Page 4 of 4

Page 219 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING REPORT – MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION Report Date:

July 6, 2020

Application No: Owners: Location of Property:

MV-08-20-B Jeff & Mary Bumstead Part Lot 1, Concession 12, Parts 10 to 12 on Plan 13R3809, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 10 Barrett Lane, Buck Lake Purpose of Application: To vary Sections 5.8.2 (a) and 8.3.3 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020

Submitted by: Christine Woods, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 24, 2020 Attachment: Map of the Bumstead property

Page 220 of 399

p_~/V-er\A~e:X 9-O‘‘Db TOWNSHIPor scum FRONTENACAPPucA‘ncN FOR MINOR VARIANCE “"\°‘*-1 Plinnlng Act, R.S.D. 199:1.c. as amended PA]

Dale Received:

File No:

NamealOwner(S)I

/flaw, Sen

Full Mailing Address

ni owner(s):

‘5

Xmux

Phone number ul Owner(s): _ Email Address of 0wner(s)’

Ifthe applimnl is NOT the mrmer of [he subject land, lhe written author-izaliun 07 the owner Ihal the apptimm is aulhurized to make the applicaliun, mus! accompany the applica?on.

Namet.1fAulhnt-izedAgenu

’/?\axl\nn~g S)

1 Egxxgxstln Q995,93) cu-'w\‘

Fun Mailing Address at Aumunzed Agent 7

Phone number of Aumunzed Agent: _ Email Address 0! Autnunzed Agent

Agent as named above 15 hereby authorized to an on Deha” nf the owners [or purposes at nmcessxna

this annlirziinn

lnr Minnr\I:r§:nr-n

The descnplinn 0! [he subjeci land. Dislncl;

xefarora )1

Concession Number street Numoen

Loughhornugh Lot Number:

yg)

NameolRoadlSlree|’

) 3 E 530%

Reference Plan Number‘ Roll Number.

Fnr?and

CHO 0'50

Slomngion

-23 3 Bgg;3\

Pan Numbens):

)r-.n~e ’\‘u \ ;

\kn”\”>O C5000 —

Page 221 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act. R-5.04 1950. :. PA: as amended The frunIage(s). depth and area at the subject lend.

Frunlage (on water)’ Depth:

3 2 ,,

Frontage (on roednene):

(. R

Area:

~\ an

The current zpnlng of the subject land:

“‘~?\t) \ k», —

The nature and exIent of the relief VromIhe Zoning By-law:

‘C<.¥-A/:1)xx

.;_e_Ne

4’

3’. \

seems < I27.

‘»\U

a—

The reason why the pmposed use cannot comply with the provisions niche Zoning By-law:

~~(\Mwe>.~~

Mas,-‘ee__\a

\g..§e.s\es,mee+A~e

, éraue axles, peemh gggke “L $3.. Q“,‘;.,“\3 ?ogg%%r®:L. Harms ;AV~6441_? $4|IA’<. be 4., e\e,a(=<k.e :50»…

\‘)-g

Does the subject propenyfrcnt on a munlclpally maintained ; No on a privately mainlained road? : ves

r~e._x

road‘?

yes

r\w.u_)

_ No t‘QQ§Y9e’

Name of Road/Lane:

K>\e.( t-~J<\Xi;

~e=

If access to the subject properly is by water only, please indicate the parking and ducking taeilities used or to be used and the approximate distance 0! these iaeilities irnrn the subjem land and the nearest public mad

Whal are the exisling uses of the Subject |and7

_3gg.s:me}~ 11.

Please indicate whetherthere are any EXISTING buildings or structures (Le. residence, garage, shed, etc.)

yr?

on the subject land

‘No

Page 222 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, 115.0. 1990, C4 E13 as amended

12 lime answerto

indicale:

item 11 is yes. for EACH building or struciure

(1)

(1) T ype o f SW cture

‘\

(4)

(3)

4‘, $, Q”"°wuJ

(E-9‘ residence)

aaJss¢sE;sr:r—

; i

Se_¢‘A’\§

Setback from From LO! Ll “”

Fix“;

Setback

from

Rear Lot Line

S°\ T‘‘5»;

$9. L‘

Side LDCLine

s1nry orlwn

LR . :2

‘

main S_e¢haI:k

[Also lndlczbe in

;

S1_..”’\»a

“10”

I‘

is owl

smiy)

C Dimensions 0 r Floor Area

,5 ‘9

5 ,5

99.6?-

s*\55

cx sm V»

Setback from High Water Mark

(lfapplicable)

13,The

\S.°i_\v\

.6 0\

3 -7

pmposed uses oi the subject land

Q~«:.§..,s}\\ 14 Are any bui|ding(s) or sIruc(ure(s). or additions in exisiing bu>|dIng(5) or s|ructure(s). to be built on the subject land?

PROPOSED

‘No

Page 223 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act. R.s.o. 1990. 2:. P13 as amandud 15.II the

item

‘

for each proposed add?ion, building or structure indicate:

is yes,

14 ap§werIu :9 Ed (1) (

Typeoistnrciure (E.g. residence)

(4)

(3)

(1)

seexae

’lles~tasM.s"beg.

; ‘

Setbackirom Front Lot Line

’~\

‘1“;

sethackirom RearLnt Line

! Setback from Side Lot Line

1'1 %v\

1'7 Us \Xs3te«~(

7‘

Heightoi?u

ding

(Alsa inuiaate it it Is one sturyoltwull?ly?

‘ q

outside ‘

Dimensions of Buildinglslrucmre

‘

.X\\ :S&"‘

setback from High water Mark

111I4.

(‘>\‘°"‘

(Ifapplicable)

‘

1 i

NOTES

h‘

7_“5\

‘”’

‘kt

“"

‘

’

5'3‘

P“““""‘ E“? ‘j“* 5‘*‘“"

rm v~ t

Q41-y\

If the subject property is on wateriront. and on a private lane, the setback from me iront lot line and the setback train Ihe high water mark will be me same.
The dimensions required in ttiis question relate to meNEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size oitiie completed truilding.

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

{?es

iiyes, please provide delails:

S }g

égh

Q3: E\¢\S\5»-re (E¥<Lé «A

()3; ‘\l\’L

o.{

‘?§\hQ .e_,\

Page 224 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Acl, R.s.o. 17.

I990, c. P.1:I as amended

Do your plans include me RAISING of an existing slructure?

Qfés

If yes, please provide details:

is.

g&gv~% “3

5%33¢

B§X3’»gi.\

g1)

SQg?g: Yes

ONE

Whal are the uses oflhe proposed development? (a)

Increase in number of bedrooms

(b)

increase

in plumbing ?xtures

zzés

(c)

increase

in living space

(d)

will me addition or structure encroach on me existing septic system‘?

‘

’

No No

Yes

19.The date me subject land was acquired by Ihe current owner

‘10 \ S 20.Tl’Ie da1e the existing buildings and slnlctures

were cons1rucIed on lhe subject lands:

Yb 9 21.Tl’Ie length of lime Lhal the existing uses of mesubject land have con?nued:

mix 22.

indicate wnetner waler is provided to me subieel land by a publicly owned and operated piped water system. a privately owned and operated individual or oommunal well. a lake. or olherwaler body. or omermeans: 1..

—

indicate whether sewage disposal is provided lo lhe subject land by a publicly owned and opeialed sewage syslem, a privalely owned and operated individual or communal septic system, a privy. or olher means:

(\3n\ =:S.~i| <3

5“

QJKAOE

w<«s

’#_>x-’-:Ln~~’/ 31 Eve

24.ls storm drainage provided by sewers, ditches, swales or by other means?

has

.J\o*<l§_._e-J—KLL\s.~.A\

Page 225 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.s.o. 19911, c. P.13 as amended

25.l=lease indicate wnetner the subject land is subject at an application under the Planning AC1lar appmval ofa Plan or Subdivision or consent L‘Yes

(/60

Ifthe answer to question 25 is yes, please give the ?le number of lhe application and the status crftne application.

if known, please indicate whether the subject land nas ever been the subject of an application under Section 43 of the Planning Act (Minor Variance). :’ Yes

3 No

2B. if the answer to item 27 is yes, please give the ?le number of the application and the status ol tne applimtian

A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following THE SKETCH MUST HAVE A NORTH ARROW AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE The boundaries

and dimensions ditne subject land including the ldiztion orany existing

and proposed buildings. The lncation of a relerenee point… Le. distance between me sublect land and the nearest township Int line or landmark such as a bridge or lailmmy crossing.

The lncatlon of all abutling (nelghbnurs’] lands. The approximate location of all natural and arti?cial features on the subject land and on the land that is adjacent tn the subject land Examples include buildings, railways, roads, watercourses,

drainage ditches. river or stream banks, barns, wetlands, wooded areas. or these ieatures From the applicant’s property

wells and septic tanks sndw distance lines

“Nate:

“

The distances to unvsite and abutting OWners’ wells, septic ?elds and barns, from the properly [0 be varied, IS REQUIRED to be shown. The SKETCH is oi signi?cant importance and should be prepared as carefully, neatly and accurately as possible,

Page 226 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF souTH FRONTENAC APPLlcA11lJN FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.$.o. 1990, c. F.13 as amended AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY

Attached In this applllzalion is a cheque payable In the Tuwnshlp of Smith Frurlmrlac representing payment of the applioaiicn lee. The OwrlerlApplicanlIAgentagrees that the infnrmallon recorded in this Minor variance Application Farm is agrees that representatives of the Township, Public Health and, where accurate. The owner/Applicant/Agent the appropriate conservation Authonly, may enter onto me subject properly for lhe purpose or appliaa deterrn mg the appropriateness oithe site for Lhe pmpased deve|opmenL The ownermpplicantmgent agrees In reimourse and indemnify the munlopality (or all fees and expenses incurred by the municipality to process the application. including any fees and expenses attriautahle lo pmceedings helore the ontario Municipal Board or any court or ulher administrative lritiunal if necessary to defend Council’s decision to support the apprtaation. without limmng the foregoing, such tees and expenses shall include lhe rm and expenses oi consultants, planners. engineers. lawyers and sumother proiessional and technllzl advisers as me municipality may_ in its ac?ng reasonably. consider necessary or advlsable to more properiy process and suppon aosolute screuon the application. lurther agrees to provide the municipality, upon request and in cases where an The owner/Applicant/Agent appealed to the ontario Municipal Board. with a deposit (aver and above the normal application has been municipality may. lrom time to time charge any fees and expenses incurred by iee). frum which the applimli me muni palily in order to process the application. If such appeal expenses exceed the deposit‘ the t shall pay the oilierenoe lorihwlth upon being billed hy the munlopality. with inleres1 at the rate owner/App month per (15% per annum) on smuunls overdue more than at) days, 1.25-/. of The OwrierIApplicantIAgent further agrees trial. unlil such requests have been complied wilh. the municipality at the Ontario will have no continuing obligation to process the application or atlerid or be represemed Municipal Board or any court or other administrative proceeding in connec?on with the applilztinn: DATED AT THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Page 227 of 399

roundwork

Page 228 of 399

A“

roundwork Engineering

7 Page 229 of 399

‘A T

OBIC DIGESTER DEIAIL

C PANLVSIMETER

DIAGRAM

’

@ PUMP CHAMBER DEYAIL

Page 230 of 399

Page 231 of 399

Page 232 of 399

u_:

Page 233 of 399

Page 234 of 399

Page 235 of 399

Page 236 of 399

De e r Va l ley

Country Ln

Inset Map n tL

t re

Pe r

Buck Lake

MV-08-20-B (Bumstead) 10 BARRETT LANE

Hillt op Ln

Ne va

Tall P i ne L

Buck Lake

Legend Bumstead Property

rr Ba

t et

Provincially Significant Wetlands

Wetland

River/ Stream

Pe r th

Parcel Fabric

Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake - Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity

Buck Lake

Waterbody

Buck Lake

Page 237 of 399

Scale 1:1,500

Buck Lake

0 5 10

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

June 26, 2020

Ms. Michelle Hannah Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Ms Hannah: Re: Mary & Jeff Bumstead Minor Variance MV-08-20B Part Lot 1, Concession 12, Bedford 10 Barrett Lane Township of South Frontenac KFL&A Public Health will have to defer the above-noted minor variance as we require more information from the homeowner. Thank you. Yours truly,

Joanne McGurn, C.P.H.I.(C) Public Health Inspector JMcG:ca cc: Mary & Jeff Bumstead RoxAnne Darling (Evergreen Concepts)

Page 238 of 399

Ju|y7 2020 Dear staff and committee

members.

I’m including this note with Mary and Jeff Bumstead‘s amended minor variance application as a bit of background. Mary and Jeff purchased the property at 10 Barrett lane in 2013, with the intention ofenjoying it as a seasonal cottage for a couple of years and then convening the property to their permanent dwelling. Currently the cottage is located 0.9 m from the water.

‘rmeline of application: Fall 2018: Mary and Jeff met with Township planner Lindsay Mills and were told they would require a small minor variance from the road, to meet the 30 m water setback but it would be a simple process. Feb of 2019: Mary and Jeff contracted with Evergreen Concepts to design their new home. 1500 sq ft with walkout and garage. Sept 2019: Acting as their agent I met Township planner Trudy Gravel in hopes of submitting the minor variance application. I was informed

that there was a range of issues with our proposal and was directed to confer with an environmental consultant and provide an EIA. We did all of that. It was suggested in the report that the consultant would only support redevelopment on the same dwelling footprint and replacement of the septic in the same location to minimize disturbance. Although disappointed

but accepting of that scenario, Mary and Jeff redesigned

their proposed house as per the Township planner suggestions. Jan 2020: I met with township planner and was assured we were on the correct path. We moved fonuard with an engineered septic design,

survey and site plan. I prepared and submitted a minor variance

Page 239 of 399

application on behalf of my client March 12, 2020. The application was scheduled to be heard on the April 9”‘ agenda. Then Covid. During the review of the application by yet another new acting planner, Tess Gilchrist I was asked why we did not move the dwelling back on the property. I explained it was not an option given to us. My clients very much wish to move the new dwelling back from the water

and install a new tertiary septic system. April 2020: we received input from the Conservation authority in favor of the dwelling being move back from the water. Please see attached. May 2020: I submitted an amended application, in hopes of being on the June agenda.

We are asking for relief from the 30 m water set back due to the topography of the property and to leave room to install a new tertiary septic system at the 30 m set back. Mary and Jeff had wished to build in the fall of 2019 then the spring of

2020 and now due to Covid they are looking at further delays. We hope the committee can empathize and ?nd a logical way to allow approval of this application tonight. that the Health unit is requesting a deferral due to requirement of more information. I spoke with Joanne McGurn and they are understandably swamped and just have not had time to review or conduct a site visit. She has also requested a complete septic permit application, although this request is unusual and not required with a submission of a minor variance application. We have honored her request and she has made arrangements with the engineer to conduct a site visit next Tuesday. It is also my understanding that the CRCAwas prepared to submit their comments but was pasted the cut off date to be included in the plannefs report. I absolutely understand I understand

Page 240 of 399

the extreme work load all departments are facing and are doing their best to process applications in a timely manner. This proposal has been reviewed by 3 different Township planners and changes have been made each time to correlate with each planners‘ requests. I do believe all the pieces of this application can come together without further complications and for that reason, with respect, we sincerely request approval of the proposed minor variance application, conditional on receiving an approved septic permit. Thank you for your dedication and time. I will do my best to answer any question the committee members may have. © RoxAnne Darling, on behalf of Mary and Jeff Bumstead.

Page 241 of 399

Andrew scinniar <ISchmrdx@m:: In crane, Fianms1,Jun. Jeff. in.

ra>

Wm. A5125 |?‘|l

Helo ierv

1eraaiierieyourprupenyairoaanenianeunFruay.Abrri24"mrnsper:nreurnuriaeveepnumurrbesireareimeaisiner poaennaiierrw-vuuwv-uni. eeveioprrrerrireguiaxiuniorrrario

neasarmemasiwrrmramperm-rurnueurqaenyireswnnnarareamai-eubjerarocniui-s Regimen

wosi.

nererere.ucizuipernnerequneaierreaeveibprruxbmreprupeny

a?evlfmvmanwwuxssislxiivlnletl. hazarl1s(e;g,?mdiIg:r1dirwum)

ThaIegl|alnn<haBp?mn?lyMmuIsmrm8H|deveb91m«l’sm|nbi|dmnanimI iwrnaieubupeanunemauannaigpenpearvcrnmymnunerrrsbaueineursnembun

Mwaterlluailynfmilakn.

Based upon my sire inspeciion, inwas observed

maxa paruunoi me exrsnngdeveloplnenl us wimin me

erosinn rrazani of Bunk Lake. More sbebrmauiy.Ihe ernire deck on mewaber side o?he

ixmage

is within

panama eoiiege ml. siriwyirmn n neguiaieryperepecrive, sran Hawever. them would be unabie re bsue a pennn for mereoorrsbueubn biine dedn. Having said IML remnsinxmerr or me rrrain pomonofme managean be pen-nmaauneeribe reguiaiian sinbe ii is not wrirrrn me hazard. eresreaIn rryrngin remain a nei impmvamenl in any L From a piannrng perspeerive, CRCA is ahuays mehazayd,

eireas mareeveibpnrerrr may have an walev Lwallly.pamwlariy when we are dealing with a big»; serrsnive Lake Tmm lake sum as Bunk Lake. In me amnionbisiaiv, rrmrng mestrucnn Dam, pernaps lo mearea inai is already deamd in me area mire axisling eepbr: sysiern, is mepvefecrad anemaiive io rebui ing an me same sue. This will auawlcra vegabeiea brnier beaween deveioprneni and me lake whim win asslswnm ?ltration Mtumients and pouuianrs. Although me mavelnenl uime development from meexisiing size In a new site will cause slmrhlerm riisrupbun. me longer rerrn benefns oldaing so are rnumgreaher. In eaerirbn. shun-Ierm impacts can be rniiigaien unmme existing sire is re-vegeiaied re enrranbe mebuffer lo me lake. This Is typkzlly bone irrrougrrsne pian mrnmi Iundevsunnfvumnvydvuaisiur?wlm?nlmmelhalymlavinvarwnmelleamnbawtlgltvz?zuwirabaiilnoinlfsewutm wmailsaxnsllanlHocKfoIvIirdInwMIAl\gwilhyoniIhm|5gh|tIepvo1£asnnwoesahvIg.

Piuseborrunnewvminavearryareasarrs

Rounne

Darling <nvam:Ienmx@gmaiI ra Yum mien. Jen, crane, Planner

Wed. ADIZQ, in 54 AM

cam)

Good mnrvllrlg Andrew, ana thank you roryaur ci7mmentS.. As rnenubnea aurrng bur nnurre canversauan, Mary and seware oven in muvmg the new aruezure ?rmer hack fmm me water. we dn nave a concern abuur ure location as nuiee where me errsrrrrg septic sysrenr is located. we will have [0 decammisslon me exrsrrng sysrenr and hnng in dean ?ll far are area, whim will mean in mu be drsrurbea sari. x have indude Turn in an rrnsernari also rbr nrs upinrun an mis matter. 1 would like to suggesr mar rrrnbvrng me new namehatk rs acceumble man we move in szrarr back in undisturbed soil where be shed is currenxly sitting and my dienls be auewea re develnp me area mm a runbaserrrerrr. ne—vegeiarrun be me existing severe and cbnage area WK"be done. i have ear. enjoy the Sunshine today

maruryeu naunne

Darling Dlllcz Managed:

zwareen conoepis mane 51:24; 572: air 5::

cat. 51: 402 5721.

257505

Page 242 of 399

Andnw scnnum <=scnma@cn= In me. vom‘ Jen, cum. mm:

-n-mum

Page 243 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING REPORT – MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-09-20-L Bill O’Leary Part Lot 16, Concession 3, being Part 1 on Plan 13R3284, , District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 3865 Corkey Road. Purpose of Application: To vary 5.8.2a, 5.10.2 and 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-09-20-L to provide additional time for the applicants to revise their proposal to address concerns expressed by Township staff and Cataraqui Conservation regarding the construction of a deck closer to the high water mark of 30 metres than the existing structure. Proposal An application for minor variance has been received to reduce the required setback from the highwater mark from 30 metres (98.4 feet) as required by section 5.8.2a and 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law to 9.14 metres (30 feet) to permit the construction of a deck. The applicants are also seeking a minor variance to permit an addition on the second story of the existing dwelling, increasing the height of a legal non-complying structure and increasing lot coverage from 7% to 8%. The subject property is located near the end of Corkey Road, is municipally known as 3865 Corkey Road and is approximately 0.4 acres (0.16 hectares) in area. The property contains an existing 121 metres2 (1303 feet2) single detached dwelling with a deck to the east side of the dwelling. The property has a setback of 11.58 metres (38 feet) from the high water mark of Loughborough Lake. The property also contains an existing 53.5 metres2 (576 feet2) garage located approximately 36.6 metres (119 feet) from the high water mark. The subject property is quite constrained and there is limited opportunity for all development to meet the 30 metre setback required by the Official Plan. As a result of the proposed development, relief is also required to increase maximum permitted lot coverage for the primary dwelling. Of importance to note is that the addition to the dwelling is not getting closer to the highwater mark and is only increasing the living space. The dwelling currently has a screened in porch facing the lake which will be completely enclosing and converting to living space. The applicants are proposing an addition of a second storey to their existing principal dwelling on the west side of the property. Comments received from Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park, as well as Cataraqui Conservation recommend denial based upon their consideration for natural hazards and water quality protection policies, the “at capacity” status of the West Basin of Loughborough Lake, and the nature of its sensitivity to ongoing nutrient loading and encroachment pressures resulting in cumulative impacts to the water quality of the lake. Cataraqui Conservation staff have provided further clarification that they have no objections to the second storey addition and converting an existing covered porch into living space. Cataraqui Conservation does not support the application due to the deck encroachment further into the water setback Township staff share similar concerns to Cataraqui Conservation staff with the proposal projecting a deck closer to the highwater mark of the west basin of Loughborough Lake. Township staff have no objections to the conversion of the covered porch into living space within the existing footprint of the dwelling. It is recommended that this application be deferred in order to allow the applicant to have some time to revisit the proposal and make modifications to address the concerns raised on this application.

Page 244 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the O’Leary property

Page 245 of 399

OF SOUTH FRONTENACAPPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE TOWNSHIP

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.‘l3 as amended

. Date Received:

File No:

Name of Owner(s): Full Mailing Address of Owner(s): _

Phone number of Owner(s):

Email Address of Owner(s):

if the applicant is NOT the owner of the subject land, the written authorization of the owner that

to make the application, must accompany the application. the applicant is authorized

CE U2,

Name of Authorized Agent: Full Mailing Address of Authorized Agent: _,

Phone number of Authorized Agent: _ Email Address of Authorized Agent: _ ‘u

Agent

“*‘

above is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the owners for purposes of named

The description of the subject land:

District:

D Bedford

Concession Number: l:CDl‘xi’ .. Street Number:

(:3

Reference Plan Number: Ro|lNumber:

rilrlibughborough

El Portland

Lot Number:L07

LEl4_3t’orrington (F)?-Mizuy)

Name of Road/Street:

/‘3 :5-74 J3 9’ ‘-1’ '

/0,2-61”‘ C7(0C’‘

03?

Part Number(s)

/at-E4‘ ’

‘

Page 246 of 399

TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINORVARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.’l3 as amended

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

Frontage (onwater): Depth:

land.

l

917

6;,9, ,, 77 ‘Q2

’-?~l;‘Y ‘i2;»es;io*acr/A’L—

Zn->N::’:

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

Co‘m<,m-agar ‘TC? i5‘ica2.g_aA<;ij E-xisag/41 £4:.A-:1 ‘/Al2._1’) See 7’ 13/3rC.l:€.–5‘; /’//gm?w;’e’r£rz”— New. 95%Own 7.

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

/7,»2_<;yesr£z7l¢/’

/Z1’?/M2 y/242?;

z3’;<‘r’z:*;arcuz DELL;

$5’: /3;g=x(;(«.’…EV’

13-Lg;/zc;,3.»:_H;-r;.~ -’

1.3L0’//O‘;""?/‘“7/H77)

Does the subject property front on a municipallymaintainedroad? a privately rnaintained road? pl’\Yes :1 No (‘$1 Name of Road/Lane:

OFt

I] Yes

‘,@iNo

’

and the nearest public road.

What are the existing uses of the subject land?

/2153goat,’ ‘73:/+2.. 11. Please indicate whether there areany EXISTINGbuildings or structures on the subject land. (l.e. residence, garage, shed, etc.)

E4es

Page 247 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

If the answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure (1)

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

Setback from Front Lot Line

(2)

(3)

indicate: (4)

/EE5ZDEMC,E_ _

‘:’°r“’V?”" ( 3/ .3747)

Ijxlgr-,0‘/LI‘

Setback from Rear Lot Line

) ( //r 39/44 ’

Pxtérgr/°’

Setback from Side Lot Line

( 5 / 8», )

Height of Building

U [27 I.’// ,, I

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

8.1?/5/‘) |

( _

‘2::2~:"::’:a° zsow

(

Setback from High Water Mark (If a pp Iicable )

/EXIST/Va gg, ‘ ,

{ /A V] am

13.The proposed uses of the subject land:

[?ner///c¢§

/Z/:19‘/‘Pl’?/I/7’//51/4.» ‘

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?

was

Page 248 of 399

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

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

(1) ‘9

(2)

£0’ mr -1)

(3)

(4)

’

EX’Ti:7éio/CK‘ F/C

/72¢‘/7’°-’/‘*9

/34/icy" . :e*b::“:L?m ( ron

Setback from Rear Lot Line

-7/. 07,41) _

/7/Zc.I,)(‘5K’1’)

.30;_ ( C/- ‘7

M) '

S etbac k from . . Side Lot Line ;

3 ‘

‘

. .

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

;

/),z i,-/7:. (7! L7

. 5) i

7’

—

( ()6Q5177) W ““9 7/4‘ 8 ‘/O L

[ at at/,1, ) ,

ogcp /Wlcxvcszcu I

Outside

Dimensions of Buildinglstructure

Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

8),»C Z:7 ;__O,_,/(

,,

Z): (‘,-‘7m Z)

/7’£°/cs/“7

35 3«U , [ q [VH7 \

NOTES:

lfthe subject propertyrs 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.

[1324

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

C] No

If yes, please provide details:

/%wz:/Z//3/“7£/W)rL /xcrzmr/d A/ 76 z5<“r1€A?~1o/“L

Page 249 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENACAPPLICATIONFOR MINORVARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1 990, c. P.13 as amended

Do your plans include the RAISINGof an existing ‘structure?

[I Yes

;I§No

Ifyes, please provide details:

What are the uses of the proposed development? (a)

Increase in number of bedrooms

II Yes

KNO

(b)

Increase in plumbing fixtures

3 Yes

EI§No

(c)

Increase in living space

El”¢es

C] No

(cl)

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

II Yes

@610

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

?/outmlogr 7,0 la_ 20.The date the existing buildings and structures were-constructed on the subject lands: ‘

M So’ 3

gm,2,3

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

IVISD‘S’ 22. Indicate whether wateris provided to the subject land by a publicly owned and operated piped water system, a privately owned and operated individualor communal well, a lake, or other water body, or other means:

;l’(\5IJ(<l\w\ 23.

Nd]

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

Is storm drainage provided by sewers, ditches, swales or by other means?

Page 250 of 399

TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENACAPPLICATIONFOR MINORVARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

whether

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

ClYes

MNO

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

,4.

whether

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

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

ll/is 29. A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following: i)

THE SKETCH MUST HAVE A NORTHARROW AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

ii)

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

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

The locationof allabutting (neighbours’)lands. The approximate location of all natural and artificialfeatures 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. **Note: **

The distances to on-site and abutting owners’ wells, septic fields and barns, from the property to be varied, IS REQUIRED to be shown. The SKETCH is of significant importance and should be prepared as carefully, neatly and accurately as possible.

Page 251 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINORVARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. as amended

F.‘I3

AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY

Attached to this application is a cheque payable to the Township of South Frontenac representing payment of the application fee. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agrees that the informationrecorded in this MinorVariance Application Form is accurate. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agrees that representatives of the Township, Public Health and, where applicable, the appropriate Conservation Authority, may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. The Owner/Applicant/Agent agreestoreimburse and indemnify the municipality for all fees and expenses incurred by the municipality to’ process the application, including any fees and expenses attributable to proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board or any court or other administrative tribunal if necessary to defend CounoiI’s decision to support the application.

Without limiting the foregoing, such fees and expenses shall include the fees andexpensesof consultants, planners, engineers, lawyers and such other professional and technical advisors as the municipality may, in its absolute discretion acting reasonably, consider necessary or advisable to more properly process and support the application. The Owner/Applicant/Agent further agrees to provide the municipality. upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, with a deposit (over and above the normal application fee), from which the municipality may, from time to time charge any fees and expenses incurred by the municipality in order to process the application. If such appeal expenses exceed the deposit. the Owner/Applicant shall pay the difference forthwith upon being billed by the municipality, with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) on accounts overdue more than 30 days, The Owner/Applicant/Agent further agrees that, until such requests have been complied with, the municipality will have no continuing obligation to process the application or attend or be represented at the Ontario MunicipalBoard or any court or other administrative proceeding in connection with the application:

Page 252 of 399

MNOR RENOVATION NEW EXTERIOR DECK (MINOR VARIANCE) OWNER/CLIENT:

U O L

MR. BILL O’LEARY & MS. LEAH TORRES 3865 Corkey Lane Inverary, Ontario, KOH 1X0 Tel: 613-929-3779 Email: bill@havenhomeclimatecare.ca

B H G

O R O

H G U

E K A

D K SE EC ) PO R D ‘-0” O O 8 PR ERI " X T ‘-0 EX (23

AREA OF WORK

RY O ST L 2 TIA G N IN DE ING t2 T IS ESI ILD 03 f X E R BU 13 A= E

C AN

T EN

KEY MAP

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC ZONING BY-LAW (FOR SINGLE DETACHED OR SEASONAL DWELLING)

ITEM

ONTARIO BUILDING CODE DATA MATRIX

OBC REFERENCE

AG R A G 4’) G N x2 TI 24’ S I (

Page 253 of 399

SITE PLAN

SK0

Page 254 of 399

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

EXIST./DEMO. MAIN FLOOR PLAN

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN

PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN

SK1

Page 255 of 399

EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION

EXISTING WEST ELEVATION

EXISTING EAST ELEVATION

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION

SK2

Page 256 of 399

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION

PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION

SK3

Ontario Lake Assessments

Ontario KOH 1V0 Tel: (613) 305-3863 rgcngc@xplornet.ca

3654 Stage Coach Road RR#3 Harrowsmith,

..2

Site Observations: This site is a heavily impacted lot with regard to development near the shoreline. The entire structure is located closer to the water than 30m (100 ft); it is entirely within the normal 30m buffer.

Nutrients that reach the lake result in the growth of more algae (phytoplankton) which under severe conditions can impact lake trout habitat by way of oxygen loss during the period when the lake is stratified. Through in-situ water quality monitoring and lake modelling, Loughborough Lake has been determined to be highly sensitive to oxygen loss as a result and that sets the ‘at capacity’ designation. The ‘at capacity’ designation prevents the creation of new waterfront lots with the exception of sites that may meet very strict geochemical and physical conditions that prove total containment of nutrients. For existing vacant lots of record and for re-development the OP and Zoning By-law seek to maintain or improve the level of impact regarding nutrient migration from these sites, essentially developmentmay occur on these sites with a view to achieve the least impact possible.

This property is located on the south shore of the west basin of Loughborough Lake; the lake is designated ‘at capacity’ by the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MOECP) and as such protective measures are included in the South Frontenac Township Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law. The planning documents take direction from the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS gives guidance to municipalities with regard to protecting matters of Provincial interest, in this case the water quality and lake trout ?shery of Loughborough Lake and in addition the habitats of species at risk (SAR). The SAR locally are Blanding’s turtles and gray rat snakes and their habitats. The protective measures in the OP are intended to either maintain or reduce the nutrient loading to the lake that result from shoreline development sources. Shoreline development sources include nutrient migration away from septic beds, lawns and hardened surfaces like rooftops, patios and decks. The removal of near-shore trees within the 30m setback (30m buffer) is a contributing factor; the trees act to intercept nutrient plumes and also stabilize near-shore slopes to prevent erosion to the lake.

Thank you for joining me on a site visit to the above location on December 14, 2019. At the time of the site visit the snow that had fallen the previous week had melted such that the ground and all surfaces were clear and easily observed. Photos were recorded during the site visit.

Dear Bill O’Leary:

REGARDS: Preliminary EIA for building application at 3865 Corkey Lane; Storrington District; South Frontenac Townshi - Lon hborou h Lake

Mr. Bill O’Leary 3865 Corkey Lane Inverary, Ontario KOH lXO

07 January 2020

& Environmental Education Services

GL/+\

Page 257 of 399

-2-

Trudy Gravel, Planner Township of South Frontenac 4432 GeorgeSt. Box 100 Sydenharn, Ontario KOH 2T0

Copy to:

rgenge@,xplornet.ca 613-305-3863

Ontario Lake Assessments 3654 Stage Coach Road RR #3 HARROWSMITH,Ontario KOH 1V0

If you have any questions in the above regard, please feel free to give me a call.

In my opinion, this deck addition as proposed, inclusive of remediation recommendations,will not cause a measurable impact on Loughborough Lake and therefore should be considered minor.

This property would bene?t from some shoreline re-naturalization 0 Environmentally,this property would bene?t from a remediationmeasure to re-naturalize the area between the lake and the proposed residence (the buffer strip) with native trees and shrubs. In time, these trees will act to intercept and sequester nutrient movement toward the lake into their biomass as well as diminish the urban appearance from the water.

There are no impacts to species at risk (SAR) as a result of this proposal. The proposed footprint of this elevated deck does not contain habitats for the species indicated.

Potential Impacts: This proposal does not include any in—wateror near~shorework; it does not require ?lling, excavating or drainage works near the water; that work was all done under previous ownership when the gabion baskets were installed.

The Proposal: The proposal is to add a 25 ft. x 9 ft. elevated deck to the front of the residence on the lake side. The proposal will increase all-season living space by converting the existing screened in porch area to all-season use. The proposal does not increase the number of bedrooms but will allow for a recon?guration of living space.

The area between the front wall of the residence and the lake is devoid of natural vegetation and is converted to a lawn. There are two wooden retaining walls (constructed of rail road ties) between the residence and the shoreline that create terraces. The entire lake front shoreline has been ‘stabilized’ with gabion baskets ?lled with crushed rock and then back?lled to create a lawn area. An existing detached garage is located to the southwest side of the permanent residence.

Page 258 of 399

3654 Stage Coach Road RR#3 Harrowsmith, Ontario K0H 1V0 Tel: (613) 305-3863 rgenge@xplornet.ca

July 6, 2020 Anna Geladi, Planner Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 REGARDS: Development Impacts on Water Quality from Hardened Surfaces MV-09-20-L O’Leary Loughborough Lake Dear Anna Geladi: I continue to receive correspondence from the Municipality and the CRCA that refers to the impact on water quality from the creation of hardened surfaces like decks. For the above mentioned application and for many others where I have prepared EIA(s) and concluded that there would be ‘no water quality impact’, the Municipality and the CRCA continues to cite water quality as the limiting or controlling factor when it comes to the approval decision making. This position is not defendable from a scientific perspective. I understand that there are new planning staffs at South Frontenac Township and new C of A members who may not be aware that the Municipality forced this very issue before the OMB in 2009 on Devil Lake (also a designated at capacity lake trout lake) (see OMB Decision PL090355). The Municipality and the CRCA cited water quality as the controlling factor to deny an addition within the 30m setback from the water. The decision was appealed to the OMB and the board ruled against the municipality’s position. I am providing below some discussion to help the planning staff and the C. of A. members to understand that small area hardened surfaces do not play a role in impacting water quality and should not be used as justification for denial of an application; there may be other complicating factors but water quality is not one of them. Using the O’Leary application (MV-09-20-L) as an example, the proposed new deck area is 17.1 m2; the annual atmospheric deposition rate for phosphorus in eastern Ontario is 16. 7 mg/m2 (taken from the Ontario Lakeshore Capacity Model and confirmed by V. Castro at MECP) so in a year’s time there would be 285.62 mg of phosphorus deposited on the deck. Just to be clear the 16.7 mg/m2 value is important in the lake impact modelling exercise. It is used to calculate the atmospheric loading of phosphorus directly onto the lake surface; it is often a larger load than the anthropogenic load. There is no provision in the Ontario Lakeshore Capacity Model to calculate the supply of phosphorus from impermeable surfaces. The reason for this is that it is infinitesimally too insignificant. So, for a worst case scenario, I assume that all of that phosphorus goes directly to the lake. It then becomes diluted by the total volume of water in the basin (109,045,000 m3) to become 0.0000026 ug/L. I calculate and report this in ug/L because that is how MECP report the measured TP values for the lakes. ….2

Page 259 of 399

-2The actual mean measured value for Loughborough Lake is 13.3 ug/L (MECP Lake Partner Program data 2002-2007). The smallest unit that MECP analyze TP for is ug/L; it is simply the best that can be achieved and a worst case scenario as assumed above predicts a value a million times smaller than what we are currently able to measure; it is simply unmeasurable. In order to address the cumulative impact argument of a 17.1 m2 deck being added to every residence on the lake, including all the residences that could be placed on existing vacant lots of record, I will use MOE/MNR data published in the Inland Lake Trout Management in Southeastern Ontario (1993) report. The 425 residences with deck expansions would result in a phosphorus increase of 0.0011 ug/L for Loughborough Lake, again an unmeasurable amount; it is at least 1000 times lower than what we can actually measure. Attached find the complete calculations to help clarify the position that denials of this type of application on the basis of water quality impacts does not stand the test of scientific scrutiny. For some applications, I recommend that eves troughs and down spouts be directed to French drains or soak-way pits; these are used principally to reduce flow energy and therefore erosion into the lake. The EIA completed for this application makes observations regarding the area between the structure and the shoreline and makes recommendations for remediation work to be done to re-naturalise this space. It has some merit as a condition of approval that addresses both nutrient containment from all up-gradient sources as well as aesthetics by reducing the urbanized appearance of this piece of shoreline. I ask that this letter and the attachment be included as an addendum to the PEIA. If any of the planning staff or the C. of A. members have questions regarding this addendum, I will be pleased to address them by telephone during the meeting of July 9, 2020. Respectfully yours,

Reginald Genge B.Sc. Ontario Lake Assessments 3654 Stage Coach Road RR #3 HARROWSMITH, Ontario K0H 1V0 rgenge@xplornet.ca 613-305-3863 This correspondence by email to: Dodds Claire - cdodds@southfrontenac.net Anna Geladi - ageladi@southfrontenac.net Michelle Hannah - mhannah@southfrontenac.net Bill O’Leary - bill@havenhomeclimatecare.ca

Page 260 of 399

THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF TP LOADING FROM HARDENED SURFACES - ONTARIO LAKESHORE CAPACITY STUDY (OLCS)

-Proposed increase in deck 8’ x 23’ (184 ft2) = 17.10 m2

TOTAL INCREASE IN AREA

17.10 m2

ANNUAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHOROUS IN EASTERN ONTARIO = 16.7 mg/m2 *

- -The atmospheric deposition rate is taken from the Ontario Lakeshore Capacity Study -Trophic Status Report (p. 17) and a more recent update by Patterson et al. (2006) (p.9). The 16.7 mg/m2 value is also corroborated by Victor Castro at MOE (Kingston).
- ANNUAL ATMOSPHERIC PHOSPHOROUS THAT WOULD BE DEPOSITED ON THE PROPOSED DECK WOULD BE:

16.7 mg/m2 x 17.10 m2 = 285.62 mg 4) - THE VOLUME OF LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE (West Basin) IS 109,045,000 m3*

MNR and MOE REPORT 1993 - Inland Lake Trout Management in Southeastern Ontario p. 112 & 113

- To determine the concentration divide the projected load (mg) by the volume (m3).

285.62 mg / 109,045,000 m3 = 0.0000026 mg /m3 1.0 mg = 1000 ug; therefore 0.0000026 mg/m3 = 0.0026 ug/m3 1.0 m3 = 1000 L ; therefore 0.0026 ug/m3 = 0.0000026 ug/L 6) - Assuming that the phosphorous from this hardened surface goes directly to the lake without the benefit of soil adsorption or the benefit of uptake by the buffer strip and without calculating the portion that would be lost through the outlet (outflow volume) and without calcualting the portion that would would be lost due to sedimentation, the increase in phosphorous concentration to the lake would be 0.0000026 ug/L. 0.0000026 ug/L = 0.0000026 ppb (parts per billion)or 0.0026 ppt (parts per trillion) or 2.6 ppq (parts per quaddrillion) The actual measured mean value for Loughborough Lake is 13.3 ug/L, so this deck would potentially increase the TP concentration to 13.3000026 ug/L.

Page 261 of 399

WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT ?

- TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENCES & EXISTING VACANT LOTS OF RECORD = 425*

MNR AND MOE REPORT 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in Southeastern Ontario

- ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ATMOSPHERIC PHOSPHOROUS DEPOSITED ON THE SAME SIZED RENOVATION TO ALL 425 RESIDENCES or POTENTIAL RESIDENCES

285.62 mg X 425 COTTAGES OR HOMES = 121,388.5 mg 9) - The following assumes a worst case scenario, that there is no nutrient containment in any of the on-site soils and no nutrient uptake and storage by any of the shoreline buffer strip. It assumes all the phosphorous goes directly to the lake and that none is lost through the outlet (outflow volume) and that none is deposited out in the sediments.

- THE VOLUME OF LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE (WEST BASIN) IS 109,045,000 m3 MNR and MOE REPORT 1993 Inland Lake Trout Management in Southeastern Ontario

121,388.5 mg / 109,045,000 m3 = 0.0011 mg /m3 1.0 mg = 1000 ug; therefore .0011 mg/m3 = 1.1 ug/m3 1.0 m3 = 1000 L ; therefore 1.1 ug/m3 = 0.0011 ug/L 11) - If this proposed renovation were added to all 425 properties on Loughborough Lake (West Basin) and all the resulting atmospheric deposition of phosphorous to the hardened surfaces is assumed to go directly into the lake and assuming no phosphorous is carried out of the lake at the outlet and no phosphorous is sedimented out in the sediments it would result in an increase in TP concentation in the lake of .0011 ug/L or 1.1 ten-thousandth of a part per billion (ug/L). 0.0011 ug/L = 0.0011 ppb or 1.1 parts per trillion

- AVERAGE TP VALUE FOR LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE (W.B.) FOR PERIOD 1975 - 1989 is - 24.0 ug/L *

- MNR and MOE REPORT 1993 - Inland Lake Trout Management In Southeastern Ontario AVERAGE TP VALUE FOR LOUGHBOROUGH LAKE (W.B.) LAKE FOR THE PERIOD 2002 TO 2007 is 13.3 ug/L** ** MOE LAKE PARTNER PROGRAM

Page 262 of 399

So for a worst case scenario where all the phosphorus, from every residence on the entire lake getting a deck of the size goes directly to the lake, the predicted TP value would increase by 0.0011 ug/L . This would be added to the actual mean measured value of 13.3 ug/L (13.3011 ug/L)

1 PART PER BILLION (ppb) IN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH and the MOON THE KNOWN DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON IS 384,000 km. (384,000,000 m) 1.0 ug/L is one part per billion (ppb) (e.g. 1.0 ppb of Total Phosphorus) The hardened surface from the renovation would result in only an increase in TP concentration of 0.0000026 ppb = 0.0026 ppt = 2.6 ppq .0000026 ppb in the distance between the earth and the moon is 384,000,000 / 2,600,000,000,000,000 which is equal to 0.15 metres

REFERENCES: MOE / MNR REPORT INLAND LAKE TROUT MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN ONTARIO - January 1993 - Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Canada ISBN 0-7778-0224-4 160 pp. MMA report LAKESHORE CAPACITY STUDY - TROPHIC STATUS Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Canada ISBN 07743- 8077- 2 89 pp. Paterson, A.M. et al. 2006. A review of the components, coefficients, and technical assumptions Ontario Lakeshore Capacity Model. Lake and Reserv.Manage. Vol22(1):7-18.

Page 263 of 399

Inset Map

Cork ey Rd

Loughborough Lake

MV-09-20-L (O’Leary)

Latim er Rd

3865 CORKEY RD

Legend O’Leary property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetlands Wetland

River/ Stream Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake - Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity Waterbody

Page 264 of 399

Corkey Rd

Scale 1:700

0 3.25 6.5

19.5

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

June 29, 2020

File: MV/FRS/117/2020

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

Application for Minor Variance MV-09-20-L (O’Leary) Part Lot 16, Concession 3; 3865 Corkey Road Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake (West Basin)

•

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 9.14 metres in order to permit the construction of a deck. Increase lot coverage for the principal dwelling from 7% to 8%.

Site Description The subject property is located on the southern shore of the west basin of Loughborough Lake. The topography of the site can be characterized as having a relatively steep slope up from the shoreline to the existing dwelling, then continuing to rise less steeply toward Corkey Road to the south. Presently, the lot contains a singlefamily dwelling, a garage and associated development.

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 265 of 399

Page 2 of 4

The property is currently designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and ‘Waterfront Residential Zone’ (RW) in the implementing Zoning By-law for South Frontenac Township. The west basin of Loughborough Lake is designated as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake in the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township. Discussion The main interest of Cataraqui Conservation in this proposal is the protection of the water quality of Loughborough Lake and the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline. Natural Hazards Flooding: Cataraqui Conservation does not have floodplain mapping for Loughborough Lake. 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 148/06 (see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based upon elevation mapping data and site observations, the proposed development will be located outside of the setback from the regulatory flood plain. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the proposal from a flooding hazard perspective. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance for bedrock shorelines of 3 (horizontal):1 (vertical), plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Based upon observations and measurements taken at the site, staff estimate the total erosion hazard to be approximately 12 metres measured inland from the toe of slope. Staff note that the proposed development will encroach into the erosion access allowance portion of the total erosion hazard limit. Water Quality Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Accordingly, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect to how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. Similarly, Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy (April 2015) contains provisions that seek to support these objectives. Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 266 of 399

Page 3 of 4

Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township suggests that a minimum 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality. Similarly, the CRCA Planning Policy recommends that new development and site alteration, including septic system tile fields and open or enclosed decks/patios attached to the main dwelling, be set back a minimum distance of 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody. Staff recognize that, due to lot constraints, there is limited opportunity for all development to meet the 30 metre setback required by the Official Plan. In these cases, Section 6.1.7 c. of Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy is applied which suggests that development may be supported within the water setback area on existing, constrained lots based upon the circumstances of a given proposal and site, where the proposed development expands or replaces an existing building or structure, or is new development on a vacant lot, and: i) the new building or structure is set back as far as possible from the highwater mark of a waterbody and all inland setbacks are minimized; ii) the footprint of the new building or structure is minimized, with consideration for municipal maximum lot coverage provisions; iii) suitable methods to minimize negative impacts on surface water and riparian lands are incorporated into the development. The proposal is seeking relief to increase the maximum lot coverage for the principal dwelling from 7% to 8%. The maximum lot coverage provisions in the Zoning By-law are intended to limit intensification on a waterfront lot in support of the water quality provisions of the PPS and the Official Plan, particularly when a property is located on a sensitive Lake Trout lake, such as the west basin of Loughborough Lake. Staff note that the total lot coverage (principal building plus accessory structures) is increasing from 10% to 11%. In addition, the proposal involves the construction of a lakeside deck that encroaches 2.44 metres closer to the water than existing development. As noted above, Loughborough Lake is identified as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake, and as such, the waterbody is afforded additional protections to ensure development does not negatively impact the water quality of the lake. Section 5.2.7 b) ii) 3) of the Official Plan states that “in no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark.”

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 267 of 399

Page 4 of 4

Based upon the discussion above, staff do not support approval of the minor variance application. Recommendation Staff recommend denial of application MV-09-20-L based upon our consideration for natural hazards and water quality protection policies. Ontario Regulation 148/06 Cataraqui Conservation, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development (construction, filling, and site alteration) within 15 metres of a valley land. The valley of Loughborough Lake is considered to extend inland to the top of the valley. If the minor variance is approved, the applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Please notify this office of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, or by e-mail at aschmidt@crca.ca.

Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt Andrew Schmidt Supervisor, Development Review /as c.c.

Michelle Hannah, South Frontenac Township (via e-mail) Anna Geladi, South Frontenac Township (via e-mail) Bill O’Leary, applicant (via e-mail) Jon Orpana, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (via e-mail)

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 268 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING REPORT – VARIANCE APPLICATION Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-11-20-B Chris Arbeau & Carolyn Westlake Part Lots 33 & 34, Concession 7, being Part 34 on Plan 13R167, 98 Mill Bay Lane, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Sections 5.10.2, 5.8.2a) and 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-11-20-B to allow the applicant time to reconsider their proposal and provide additional information. And to allow staff and agencies additional time to work with the applicants to modify the submitted plans.

Proposal An application for minor variance has been submitted for the property located at Part Lots 33 & 34, Concession 7, being Part 34 on Plan 13R167, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 98 Mill Bay Lane (see attached map) to permit the demolition of the existing deck and main door landing and to permit the construction of an addition to the house in an ‘L’ shape and a new deck. The addition to the house is proposed to be 4 metres x 7.3 metres (9.8 feet x 23.95 feet) and will be approximately 19 metres (62.4 feet) from the highwater mark in line with the current deck and existing setback. The deck is proposed to be 5.5 metres x 3 metres (18 feet x 9.8 feet) maintaining its existing set back to the highwater mark of Bobs Lake at 19 metres (62.4 feet). The legal non-complying structure will be increasing in size from 102.7 metres2 (1105 feet2) to 135 metres2 (1453 feet2) by adding an addition and deck to the existing house. This proposal would see an increase in the lot coverage of the principal structure from 6.2% to 8.2%. The subject property is located on Bobs Lake. The topography of the property consists of steep slopes. The applicants have made considerable effort to slow the rate of erosion and vegetate the slope. The applicants have raised a number of concerns about the ability to locate an addition elsewhere on their property due to constrains that exist on-site and with the existing interior layout of the dwelling. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal and together with the Conservation Authority we are working towards finding an alternate location for their expansion. Comments from Kingston Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health (KFL&A) have indicated that they require more information on the sewage system. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) have provided comments recommending the Committee defer the application as they have concerns about hazards on site that may mean that this proposal is not consistent with Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement. It is recommended that a geotechnical opinion be obtained and reviewed by RVCA staff. RVCA staff also have raised concerns about the development not being consistent with the Township’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Township staff are of the opinion that it is advisable for the Committee to defer making a decision on the application to allow for additional time to provide KFL&A Public Health with the information they require. For the applicant consider alternate locations for expansion and to obtain a geotechnical review of their proposed development. The deferral will provide additional time for planning staff to work with the applicants to modify their plans based on the preliminary review of the application.

Page 269 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Page 270 of 399

Page 271 of 399

FOR MINOR VARIANCE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENACAPPLICATION

Planning Act, R.8.0. 1990. 0. E13 Ii amended

The “’°"‘399(S). depth and area at the subject lend.

F’°’“399 (on water):

D’’”"‘3 5-

‘//rL

Frontage (on road/lane)‘

Area:

1»,

—‘

‘L

3770/”

The current zoning of the subject land:

§A/fzzmzgnzzz. 6.

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

/70/2

/11/7///V

0/5

r//E

//AM

/7//at(un?t

ra Aaowio ¢a£_&z/‘v.a2é!

‘Amms;

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

’

‘égmm,-dé Hop/r/cw

z -4

QC3% as «.95; 70 /7’. LU/(L

15/iv

3’

$1 QF cor Fraemvg

gmgg‘

/400

Does the subject property trout on e munictpelly maintainedroad? I I No OR a privately maintained road? Mfes

‘*-

t/No

1 Wes

Name of Road/Lane:

.104. 24,9Y M»:

It’access to the subject property I: by water only. please indicatethe parking and decking facilities used or to be used and the approximate distance at these facilities from the suhject land and the nearest public road.

What are the existing uses of the subiectland?

?zemgwr/ac. 11

Please indicate whether there are any EXISTINGbuildtnge or structures on the subject lend (I e residence, garage, shed, etc.)

?es

i i No

Page 272 of 399

TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATIONFOR MINORVARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. R13 is amended 12

If the answer In item 11 is yes. for EACH building or structure indicate.

TYPeof Structure

J (E.g.residancej ,\

(2)

DECK

mW’/)4”

W (3),-4/“D/A/4 Kr, *°‘

£’ma:—»z:

5 Kb

k F::n(a|EolfL°lrTe 220m 5 lb

22’? R:ara|.c:t’|:i°r: ‘

S_etb:ck[ram

Side Lat Line

Height of Buildlng (Aiso indium

ifit is one storvortwaslory)

1 Dimenslonsof FInorArea

‘7‘r

75 W5‘ SW35’is SP/XE

2‘?Y M

208

Z5 0

‘

cmu. “79

‘3

HK 77 go”

“8‘3’D

/7-(ll

:20“/my

i Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable)

mac.

:1 V,

428

F,,,,,f

Z 28/“L

2%‘g

Zza

13.The proposed uses 01the subject land:

/5770

»»’1’l/<1-L

14 Are any bui|ding(s) or structure(s), ar additions to existing bui|ding(s) or structure(s), PROPOSED to be built an the subyect land?

4/(es

i No

Page 273 of 399

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R,S.O. 1990, 6. R13 as amended 15 If the answer to item 14 is yes, lor each proposed addition, Duilding or structure indicate

Type 0 fstr II exUfe (E.g. residence)

(1)?

(2)

[KM ‘pm’

D5¢/<

fesmega

Setback tram Front Lot Line

,9 I77

Setback from Rear Lot Line

Z6 rv;

3° /*7

:25

Z 215

Seth: Side

kt m lfot Sine

Height or Building (Also indium

story

it it is an.

two story)

Outside Dimensions of Buildinglstructlure

/44mwA6( :M (Lamas:

’ 5’”""‘1 >75 ’

pgwbgp?rg

I 7 pr) '

Aw?m

8?; L” 33 4‘,

Q $5130

Setback from High Water Mark (lfapplicalale)

(4) (3)IAXl?E/955 70

‘

/l:- 53, "

/7”‘

/5/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 willbe the same. 2) The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTIONONLY. and NOT to the total size of the completed building. 16

Do your plans include any DEMOLITIONof existing structures?

Wes

l l No

If yes‘ please provide details.

?mc we 6}/Sr/vs

Dior

¢—

Z./M0/U6//L ?74«~

Deva

Page 274 of 399

Page 275 of 399

Page 276 of 399

Page 277 of 399

Page 278 of 399

. ‘“””

1’….….-…__..

”’[""“””

““’””’

..…

“"“i“"‘ . -%_.__.. ____..

“4

-~L-_L.._L.. J I 1

…-

. .

.H.4,

mwm

Page 279 of 399

Page 280 of 399

:3 %%A.<*»<23 \‘\‘C«_3,OCl\7.‘C”‘>“v’f;;‘1‘a. ~tu:v‘r:um

Page 281 of 399

Page 282 of 399

:3»

33/0312 ‘x-;\21 0:‘

.)‘:”\

Page 283 of 399

Page 284 of 399

“-CW

m W» “f“°‘ i»<\-f.“‘.‘+’

Inset Map D B ra s h L

Ba yL

do Ba

ill

n rL D

n rL de

Cro w

Is la nd M ic aP oi n tL n

Bl uff s

Lo ne

n eL dg Ri

Oa k

r R

rs te at

Badou

ift Dr

La ke

d Al

Sh erb ro

ss R C ro

MV-11-20-B (Arbeau & Westlake) 98 MILL BAY LANE

Legend

ll Mi

y Ba

Arbeau & Westlake Property

Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetlands Wetland River/ Stream Waterbody

Page 285 of 399

Scale 1:1,100

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

June 26, 2020

Ms. Michelle Hannah Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Ms Hannah: Re: Chris Arbeau and Carolyn Westlake Minor Variance MV-11-20B Lot 34, Concession 7, Bedford Township of South Frontenac KFL&A Public Health will have to defer the above-noted minor variance as we require more information on the sewage system. Thank you. Yours truly,

Joanne McGurn, C.P.H.I.(C) Public Health Inspector JMcG:ca cc: Chris Arbeau and Carolyn Westlake

Page 286 of 399

June 29, 2020 20-SFR-MVA-0009 (BEDFORD)

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment P.O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Attention:

Anna Geladi

ARBEAU, Chris & WESTLAKE, Carolyn; Application MV-11-20-B – 98 Mill Bay Lane, Part Lot 34, Concession 7; Former Township of Bedford, Now the Township of South Frontenac; Roll Number: 10290300209333000000 ——————————————————————————————————————————Subject:

Dear Ms. Geladi, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has reviewed the subject application within the context of:

Section 2.1 Natural Heritage, 2.2 Water and 3.1 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act; The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (“Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses” regulation 174/06 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act); The Tay River – Bobs Lake Catchment Report; The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan; The Rideau Lakes Study

The Proposal The RVCA understands this proposal to be an application for a minor variance to seek relief from the required 30 metre setback from the normal highwater mark of Bobs Lake to construct a new addition at a setback of 19 metres from the normal highwater mark. The proposed addition is indicated as being 102.2 m2 and appears to be proposed closer to the normal highwater mark than the existing dwelling setback of 22 metres.

Page 287 of 399

The Property The subject property is indicated as being approximately 0.189 hectares in area with a water frontage of 41.2 metres. A single-detached dwelling with projecting deck were observed. A site visit was undertaken at the subject property on June 29, 2020. During this visit, steep slopes were observed in the vicinity of the proposed addition. These slopes were estimated using digital mapping products to be approximately 45%. The soil type in the area appears to be sandy soils and some erosion was observed at the toe of the slope. Efforts to slow the rate of erosion were also observed and the slope was well vegetated. The existing cottage structure is setback approximately 8 metres from the top of the slope. It was understood following the site visit that the services for the dwelling are located south of the right-of-way and north of the existing dwelling. A review of our records also reveals that the property is adjacent Bobs Lake which is considered to be a watercourse for the purposes of our regulation. Bobs Lake has a regulated flood level of 163.07 metres above sea level (geodetic). A review of our records did not reveal the presence of any wetlands. The property is indicated as overlying a highly vulnerable aquifer as identified by the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan. Review Comments Provincial Policy Statement Our office does not have any concerns in respect of Section 2.1 of the PPS. Regarding Section 2.2, water, our office is of the opinion that standard best management practices to manage silt and erosion would be required as a condition of approval. Regarding Section 3.1, natural hazards, our office is of the opinion that potentially hazardous sites may be present in the form of the existing steep slope. The PPS indicates that development shall generally be directed to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to small inland lake systems. The PPS defines hazardous sites to include lands that could be potentially unsafe for development due to naturally occurring processes, such as unstable soils. At this time, information has not been forwarded to our office commenting on whether these hazards actually exist and whether construction of the proposed addition would have an impact on the steep slope. Ontario Regulation 174/06 The applicants should be aware that the shoreline of the subject property is regulated as a watercourse under Ontario Regulation 174/06. Therefore, prior written permission from our office is required in accordance with our regulation (Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses) for any future shoreline alterations, including dock installation or erosion stabilization works. Tay River – Bobs Lake Catchment Report Water quality ratings in the Mill Bay area of the catchment have been rated from “poor” to “good” during the 2006-2017 monitoring period. In the most recent monitoring data, the rating is Page 2 of 5

Page 288 of 399

indicated as being “fair” from 2015-2017. Total phosphorus and total kjeldahl nitrogen in the 2006-2017 period had average concentrations of mg/l of 0.016 mg/l and 0.439 mg/l, respectively. These aggregated values are below the upper recommended limits for these nutrients and most samples taken during the monitoring period are also below the limits. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms, excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff. Bacterial contamination (E. coli) is not a significant concern in Mill Bay. Key recommendations from the catchment report indicate: • Consistently implement land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection adjacent Bobs Lake; • Utilize the Rideau Lakes Study to inform decision making about setbacks on lots with shallow soils, bedrock, steep slopes and sparse vegetation; • Use the 1:100 year flood elevation of 163.07 masl as an additional factor to be considered when assessing development setbacks at the shoreline; • Aim to have development meet a 30 metre setback. Source Water Protection The subject property is identified as overlying a highly vulnerable aquifer. 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 ground water supplies. For this reason, care should be taken to avoid land uses and practices that may inadvertently lead to undesirable effects on groundwater. Some best practices that could be considered include increased well casing depths and increased distance of septic systems from drinking water wells. Rideau Lakes Study It is difficult to utilize the study in the context of this application. What can be said is that the study was first designed to advise on appropriate setbacks from waterbodies considering the factors of slope angle, soil type, depth of soil and vegetative cover of a property. Were the document applied to this property as a greenfield site, a recommended setback would be 60 metres from the normal highwater mark for all buildings and services (based on observed wellgraded sand at a depth of 75-100 cm on a slope greater than 25% consisting of somewhat disturbed woodlands and shorelands). Clearly that is not feasible for the proposed parcel and the buildings and services already exist. Township Official Plan In reviewing this application, the planner referred to the Township’s Official Plan. It is noted that Section 5.2.7(b)(i) classifies all lands within 90 metres of the highwater mark of all lakes and rivers which are not designated environmental protection as environmentally sensitive areas. Where development and site alterations are proposed in environmentally sensitive areas, it is the intent of the Plan that all buildings not related to the use of the water be well setback from the highwater mark. More specifically, a minimum setback of 30 metres from the highwater mark shall apply. The planner also notes that a specific point provided for development within the 30 metre setback indicates that:

Page 3 of 5

Page 289 of 399

“proposals to construct additions to existing dwellings that are already within the 30 metre setback may be permitted…but in no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark.” – Section 5.2.7(b)(ii)(3) Township Zoning By-law The planner also referred to referred to the Township’s Zoning By-law. It is noted that section 5.8.2(b) states: “no building or structure, or septic tank installation including the weeping tile field shall be located….within 15 metres horizontal of the top of bank of any embankment, the slope of which is greater than 30% from horizontal.” For this reason, the planner recommends that before a decision is made on the application, an opinion be offered from a qualified geotechnical engineer demonstrating the grade of the slope and that there is no geotechnical hazard as a result of any proposed addition to the existing steep slope. Also, before such a study is commissioned, the Township and Committee should determine if they would permit development with a favourable opinion given Section 5.8.2(b) above. Discussion Based on the PPS, the observations of the slope, the Township’s Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw, it is the opinion of the planner that not enough information has been forwarded to substantiate construction of the proposed addition. Also, the planner is of the opinion that if a variance is ultimately approved, proposed structures should be located no closer than the existing dwelling. It may be that the Township considers the deck to be the structure that establishes the legal non-complying water setback. However, in the experience of the planner, decks are normally constructed as projections to the main structure (being the dwelling) and in his experience, the dwelling should establish the extent of the legal non-complying setback. In addition, a qualified geotechnical professional should offer an opinion on any proposed addition prior to the Committee making a decision. Such an opinion would need to be drafted in keeping with the Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide “Understanding Natural Hazards”. During the site visit with the applicant, alternatives to the current proposal were discussed. It may be that a more appropriate proposal could be forwarded which would be able to receive support from the RVCA, however our office cannot support the proposal as received. As indicated to the applicant, the planner remains open to continued discussions about alternative proposals.

Page 4 of 5

Page 290 of 399

Conclusions In conclusion, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority recommends that the Committee defer a decision on the subject application as: • • • •

The proposed development is not consistent with Section 3.1 of the PPS as hazardous sites may be present; A geotechnical opinion has not been forwarded discussing the slope and making recommendations for construction; The proposed development does not appear to be consistent with Section 5.2.7(b)(ii)(3) of the Township’s Official Plan as the proposed addition would encroach further into the non-complying setback; The proposed development does not appear to conform to Section 5.8.2(b) of the Township’s Zoning By-law as it would be located closer to the top of the slope than required.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (613) 812-1497 should you have any questions. Please advise us on the Committee’s decision respecting this application or any changes in the status of the application. Yours truly,

Phil Mosher RPP MCIP Planner cc – Ms. Westlake & Mr. Arbeau, owners cc – KFLPHA

Page 5 of 5

Page 291 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-12-20-P Leslie Yateman Part Lot 7, Concessions 10 & 11, being Parts 1-3 on Plan 13R6322, 2098 Hambly Lane, Hambly Lake, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac. Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.10.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

zoning relief for construction of a new structure 

zoning relief for replacement to an existing structure zoning relief other than new construction denied

Official Plan Designation: Rural and Environmental Protection

Zoning: Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) Zone

Section 5.10.2: Existing Buildings within 30 metres of a Waterbody or Watercourse

Proposal An application for minor variance has been received to permit the re-construction of the single detached dwelling with a walk-out basement. The dwelling is proposed to be built on the existing foundation with an increase in height to be constructed in conformity with the maximum height allowable in the RLSW - Limited Services Residential - Waterfront zone. The subject property is located on the west side of Hambly Lane, a private lane which is accessed from Hinchinbrooke Road and is approximately +/-1.06 acres (+/-0.43 hectares) in area with water frontage Page 292 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT on Hambly Lake. The subject property also has three sheds. The first shed (beach shed) is approximately +/-9 metre2 (+/-98 feet2), located approximately +/-10.7 metres (+/-35 feet) from the dwelling and approximately +/-3 metres (+/-10 feet) from the high water mark. The remaining two sheds, a tool shed and a tin shed are both approximately +/-5.76 metres2 (+/-64 feet2) and located on the east side of the property in the rear yard. The septic bed is located directly to the east of the existing dwelling. The dwelling currently has a deck that is proposed to be removed and not replaced. The topography of the property slopes towards the waterfront. The surrounding area contains existing seasonal and year round dwellings located along the shoreline of Hambly Lake in proximity to this site. The applicant noted that the original dwelling will be demolished to the foundation and they plan to rebuild on the existing foundation. The foundation is located approximately +/-47 metres (+/-153 feet) from the rear lot line and is set back approximately +/-17 metres (+/-56 feet) from the west interior side lot line and +/-14.3 metres (+/-47 feet) from the east interior side lot line. The dwelling is proposed to be reconstructed at the highwater mark setback that the existing dwelling is currently located, being +/-15.24 metres (+/-50 feet) from Hambly Lake. The proposed dwelling will be re-constructed with a total floor area of approximately +/-216.5 metres2 (+/-2330 feet2), reduced from the previous total floor area of approximately +/-285.4 metres2 (+/-3073 feet2) as the basement (walkout) will be reduced in size. The proposed dwelling will be increased in height with the lakeside of the home increasing from +/-6.6 metres (+/-21.6 feet) to +/-9.5 metres (+/31 feet) and the driveway side increasing from +/-4.2 metres (+/-13.6 feet) to +/-7.5 metres (+/-24.3 feet) as the elevation of the property rises towards the lane. The applicant also noted that storm drainage is provided by weeper and swales and that the increase in height is due to the raising of the ceiling in the walk-out basement and main floor.

Agency Analysis and Public Comments KFL&A Public Health – KFL&A Public Health notes that the current sewage system is undersized as per the performance review application #LO-31-20. An application to install a new sewage system meeting the requirements of the Ontario Building Code must be submitted to KFL&A Public Health before a building permit is issued. KFL&A has no objection to the proposed minor variance. Quinte Conservation – Quinte Conservation staff are satisfied that there is sufficient area for development outside the flood hazard provided that the applicants stay on the same. Staff note that the owners will need to apply to the Conservation Authority for a permit prior to development (construction / filling/ excavation/ site grading) within 45 metres of the 1:100 year floodplain of Hambly Lake. Quinte Conservation has no objection to the application as presented. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

Planning Analysis Under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act there are four tests a minor variance must meet. A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?  The variance conforms to the general intent of the Official Plan as the proposed reconstruction of a dwelling with a walk-out basement are consistent with the residential use of the property within the Rural Area designation, which contemplates dwellings and accessory buildings on waterfront lots that are accessed by private lane. The intent to re-build the dwelling on the same foundation as the existing dwelling, further conforms to the general intent of the Official Plan as which encourages limited service residential development to be designed as to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes.
Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?  The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the reconstruction of the single detached dwelling complies with the renovation of a legal noncomplying structure with the exception that it increases in height. The proposed dwelling is Page 293 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT decreasing in gross floor area and the proposed location is not being developed any closer to the highwater mark than the current location. 3. Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question?  The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property as the proposed dwelling is being built on the existing foundation and is decreasing the lot coverage for the principal dwelling from 6.7% to 5% which brings the subject property in conformity with the allowed lot coverage for the RLSW zone. There are no immediate neighbours that are affected. 4. Is the application minor?  The variance is minor because the proposal seeks to maintain the highwater mark setback given the location of the existing dwelling, well and septic system and does not cause any negative impacts as a result of its size and location on the subject property. The proposed dwelling is being replaced on the existing foundation and will not impact any surrounding neighbours. The lot coverage for the proposed dwelling will be more in line with zoning requirement, meets all zoning provisions regarding setbacks and height.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-15-20-B, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The Minor variance is for the construction of a dwelling with a footprint of 216.5 metres2 (2330 square feet) to be constructed as per the drawings submitted with MV-12-20-P. A minimum setback of 14.3 metres (47 feet) must be maintained from the highwater mark to the closest portion of the dwelling.
A demolition permit shall be obtained for the existing dwelling to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
Approval of an application to install a new sewage system meeting the requirements of the Ontario Building Code must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance MV-12-20-P is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the Yateman property

Page 294 of 399

Page 295 of 399

Page 296 of 399

Page 297 of 399

Page 298 of 399

=n,.mmmM~,~.,.mm

mn%u.n..oo.m<v

“~..?

m..

Page 299 of 399

Page 300 of 399

Page 301 of 399

Page 302 of 399

Page 303 of 399

0’

Page 304 of 399

Page 305 of 399

Page 306 of 399

/m\

Page 307 of 399

Inset Map Verona Lake

YATEMAN MV-12-20-P

p’ s m ra

N e sb

oo d

Hardwood Creek

Sp rin g Lake

n kL

l ve

bl y

oc rR

Ha m

le Map

Little Mud Lake

Ce d

ar w

2098 HAMBLY LANE

Hambly La ke

ore Mo

Fa rm Ln

Legend Road Subject Property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetland Waterbody

Ham

bly L

Wetland

Hambly Lake

Page 308 of 399

Scale 1:1,000

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

Imm_:..

.m>.:..

_.___o__n

§a__n

n.8«

cmq.

.§3_:8_ m

Sm mzsm

u 5-?-~o. znmzoz

W mm<m.83

omm 333

H.8 w

msmn

u__n:mm:..nm

Page 309 of 399

Q U I NT E C O NS ER V AT I O N - P L AN N I NG A C T R EV I EW QC File No. PL0127-2020 Municipality:

Township of South Frontenac

Owner

Leslie Yateman

Location:

2098 Hambly Lane

Roll #:

10290800401740000000

Application Description:

Minor Variance File No. MV-12-20-P

Feature:

Hambly Lake

Lot 7, Concession 10

Portland

Minor Variance for relief of building height

Planning Act - Natural Hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Quinte Conservation Planning Act Review policy Conservation Authorities have Provincially delegated responsibilities to represent Provincial interests regarding natural hazards under section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (2020). Natural hazards include areas subject to flooding, prone to erosion, dynamic beaches and unstable bedrock. Generally the policies of the PPS direct development to areas outside of hazards lands. Staff are satisfied that the application as presented is consistent with section 3.1 of the PPS as there is sufficient area for development outside the flood hazard provided that the applicants stay on the same footprint of the current dwelling and that there is not an increase in square footage.

Comments:

Ontario Regulation #319/09 (Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses The subject lands lie within the regulated area of Hambly Lake (by virtue of Ontario Regulation #319/09 – Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). Please note that the owners will need to apply to the Conservation Authority for a permit prior to development (construction / filling/ excavation/ site grading) within 45 metres of the 1:100 year floodplain of Hambly Lake. Quinte Region Source Protection Plan Quinte Conservation provides Risk Management services as prescribed by the Clean Water Act, 2006 on behalf of member municipalities. Part of this is reviewing building and planning applications to ensure no new significant drinking water threats as outlined in the Quinte Region Source Protection Plan are created. Policies for significant threats in the Quinte Region Source Protection Plan are not applicable as the subject property lies outside of an intake protection zone or wellhead protection area for a municipal drinking water system. As such no Section 59 Clearance Notice is required. Planning Act - Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement Section 2.1 of the Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement protects features including (but not limited to); Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands and significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. The subject lands do not lie within a Provincially Significant Wetland, or within an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest.

Final Comments:

Quinte Conservation has no objection to the application as presented.

June 30, 2020 Date

Elizabeth Lowe Planning and Regulations Technician

Sharlene Richardson Regulations Officer

Page 1 of 1

Page 310 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-15-20-B Thomas, Nancy & Caleb Mulder Part Lot 5, Concession 6, being Parts 8 on Plan 13R4370, 9088 Canoe Lake Road, Kingsford Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.24.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement of an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RU - Rural

Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.2: Accessory Buildings

Proposal An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage) within the projected front yard of the proposed single detached dwelling on the subject property.

Page 311 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT The subject property is located on the east side of Canoe Lake Road, south of James Wilson Road, and is municipally known as 9088 Canoe Lake Road. The subject parcel is 4.3 hectares (10.64 acres) and a single detached dwelling is currently under construction. The property is adjacent to Kingsford Lake, with a steep drop off to the wetland below. It is heavily treed, but the driveway and building envelope have been cleared. The proposed development of the property includes the construction of a new single detached dwelling, septic system and detached garage. The proposed single detached dwelling and associated septic and the detached garage all achieve the required 30 metre setback from high water mark of Kingsford Lake and all other provisions in Section 7 of the Zoning By-Law Rural Zone. Due to the topographical challenges of the site, the detached garage is proposed within the projected front yard of the dwelling. The proposed detached garage is 111.5 metres2 (1200 feet2) in size, a single storey with a height of approximately 5.97 metres (19 feet 6 inches), has a front yard setback of 25 metres (82 feet) to Canoe Lake Road, a side yard setback of more than 30 metres (98.4 feet) to the north property line and is located approximately 50 metres (164 feet) from the high water mark of Kingsford Lake. The garage will be approximately 3 metres (10 feet) from the proposed dwelling. The Committee dealt with a similar application on this property earlier this year (MV-04-20-B). MV-0420-B was approved by the Committee and permitted the construction of a garage at a minimum of 36.5 metres (120 feet) from the front property line and Canoe Lake Road. On further review – the contractor realized that the distance provided from Canoe Lake Road on the original minor variance (36.5m/120 feet) is not able to be achieved. Now that they have reviewed the site conditions are proceeding with a new application and are requesting that a detached garage be placed with a front yard setback of 25 metres (82 feet) from Canoe Lake Road.

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services Department – Public Services has no concerns regarding the application. KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, CRCA confirmed that circulation was not required. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? •

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed garage is consistent with the residential use of the property, within the Rural Area designation, which contemplates single detached dwellings and accessory structures.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? •

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw as the location of the garage complies with the setback requirements of the Rural zone, with the exception that it is proposed within the projected front yard of the subject property. The proposed dwelling and septic system achieve the 30 metre highwater mark setback, which is paramount for the development of this property. The proposed location of the detached garage is adjacent to the proposed driveway which is located on the western side of the property and generally follows the natural topography of the site. There is no opportunity to Page 312 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT locate the proposed garage within the side or rear yard of the proposed dwelling, as that is where the septic system is located and there is a steep slope down to the waterfront. 3. Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? •

The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, as a detached garage is accessory to the proposed single detached dwelling. It is located a suitable distance from the front and side property lines, and meets the setback requirements for a single detached dwelling in the Rural zone.

Is the application minor? •

The variance is minor as it will not cause any negative impacts as a result of its location within the projected front yard. There are no immediate neighbours on the abutting properties. The proposed garage does not exceed the maximum lot coverage for accessory structures and complies with the maximum permitted height of 6 metres (19.7 feet). The garage is setback sufficiently from Canoe Lake Road and is screened from view with existing trees.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-15-20-B, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The Minor variance is for the construction of a one-storey detached garage of 111.5 metres2 (1200 feet2) and a single storey with a height of 5.97 metres (19 feet 6 inches), to be constructed to the northwest of the proposed single detached dwelling, as per the drawings submitted with MV-15-20-B. The garage will be located a minimum of 25 metres (82 feet) from the front (west) property line, at least 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the side (north) property line, at least 25 metres (82 feet) from the front property line and Canoe Lake Road and approximately 50 metres (164 feet) from the high water mark of Kingsford Lake.
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
The previous decision of the Committee of Adjustment on MV-04-20-B that applies to 9088 Canoe Lake Road is hereby replaced by the decision on Minor Variance MV-15-20-B.
Minor variance MV-15-20-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: Attachments: Map of the Mulder property

Page 313 of 399

Page 314 of 399

Page 315 of 399

Page 316 of 399

Page 317 of 399

Page 318 of 399

Page 319 of 399

Page 320 of 399

Page 321 of 399

Inset Map

Canoe Lake

d James Wilson R Eel Lake

Ca noe La ke Rd

e s Wilson Rd Jam

Kingsford Lake

od wo g Do

Clearwater Lake

Birch Lake

MV-15-20-B MULDER CANOE LAKE ROAD

Legend Mulder Property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetlands Wetland Waterbody River/ Stream

Ca n oe La ke

Kingsford Lake

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

Page 322 of 399

Scale 1:2,000

0 5 10

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 6, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-16-20-L Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole Part Lot 8, Concession 9, being Part 4 on Plan 13R15287, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1037 Senior Lane, Cronk Lake. Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2a, 5.8.2b and 10.3.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement of an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RLSW – Limited Services Residential – Waterfront

RU - Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.8.2a): Flooding and Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade Shoreline Erosion Hazards structure (screen structure) with a highwater mark setback of 11 metres (36 feet) whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (9.8 feet) setback from the highwater mark for all buildings and structures. Section 5.8.2b): Flooding and Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade Shoreline Erosion Hazards structure (screen structure) with a top of bank setback of 7 metres (23 feet, whereas the By-law requires 15 metres (49.2 feet) horizontal of the top of bank of any embankment. Section 10.3.2: RLSW Zone

Relief: To permit the construction of a new shade structure with a highwater mark setback of 11 metres (36 feet), whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (98.4 foot) setback from the highwater mark for the accessory building.

Page 323 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Review: This application:  Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (s. 3(5) Planning Act);  Conforms with the general intent and purpose of the County of Frontenac Official Plan;  Conforms with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan;  Complies with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75 (or will comply subject to approval for the minor variance);  Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question; and  Is minor.

Current Proposal An application for minor variance has been received, to permit the construction of a shade structure, which requires relief from the highwater mark setback for an accessory building in the RLSW – Limited Services Residential - Waterfront zone as well as relief from the general provisions on Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards. The shade structure would sit on ground oriented wooden patio. The subject property is located near the end of Senior Lane, off of Gordon Lane, from Bedford Road and is municipally known as 1037 Senior Lane. The parcel is approximately 0.94 acres (0.38 hectares) and contains a seasonal dwelling with a wrap-around deck that is approximately 54.6 metre2 (587.7 feet2) in area. This dwelling and deck are setback approximately 5 metres (16 feet) from the highwater mark of Cronk Lake. There are also two existing sheds; a metal shed (+/-7.29 metre2) and a plastic shed (+/-2.52 metre2) located on the property each approximately 21.3 metres (70 feet) from the highwater mark. The existing cottage and wrap-around deck as well as both sheds are proposed to be demolished. The original application was amended to propose a one storey shade structure and ground oriented wooden patio within the footprint of the existing cottage and deck that will be demolished. The proposed shade structure will be 5.2 metres by 5.2 metres (17 feet 4 inches by 17 feet 4 inches) in area and set back at least 11 metres (36 feet) from the highwater mark of Cronk Lake, whereas the existing cottage and deck cover an area that is approximately 12 metres by 11 metres (39 feet by 36 feet) and is located approximately 5 metres from the highwater mark. The shade structure would be set back 7 metres (23 feet) from the top of bank, whereas the existing cottage and deck are set back approximately 1 metre (3 feet) from the top of bank. The proposed ground oriented wooden patio will be a minimum of 8.5 metres (28 feet) from the highwater mark and a minimum of 4.6 metres (15 feet) from top of bank. The patio will be a maximum of 17 centimetres (7 inches) above grade. The patio will require a building permit since it forms part of the shade structure. The applicants indicated in their application there are site constraints and existing topography that do not allow enough space for the structure outside of the minimum 30 metre (98.7 feet) setback from the highwater mark. It is also understood from the applicants that they will be constructing a new dwelling on the property in the coming year outside of the minimum 30 metre (98.7 feet) highwater mark setback and will be replacing the septic system at that time. The applicants noted that the exterior wood components of the screen room will be made from rough-cut lumber to naturalize the aesthetic as much as possible. The applicants further noted that the intention is not for this structure to be enclosed by walls as a sleep cabin would be. Rather it is intended to be a screened room. The applicants supplied elevation drawings to show the proposed shade structure and ground oriented wooden patio.

Original Proposal The original proposal put forth by the applicants involved the construction of the same shade structure and associated patio within the footprint of the existing cottage and deck. However, the shade structure was proposed to be set back 8.2 metres (27 feet) from the highwater mark of Cronk Lake and 3.5 metres from the top of bank. The patio was proposed to be 1 metre (3 feet) from the top of bank. Page 324 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in relation to a septic system, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. Cataraqui Conservation – Cataraqui Conservation staff have no objection to the approval of application MV-16-20-L based on their consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies. The applicant will be required to contact Cataraqui Conservation at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Cataraqui Conservation, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development within 15 metres of a flood plain and/or erosion hazard. 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. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the public.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? 

The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. As per Section 5.7, lands designated Rural are characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural and seasonal residential communities to which the Settlement Areas provide basic services. The amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape.



As per Section 5.7.7, limited service residential development is generally located in the Rural area of the Township on a body of water or a natural watercourse where the primary means of access is from a private road or a navigable waterway. Permitted uses include, single detached dwellings, seasonal residential dwellings, seasonal dwellings converted to permanent dwellings and home occupations. Furthermore, any proposed limited service residential development shall be designed to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes, such as tree coverage, varying topography, and scenic views for the benefit of future residents.



The proposed variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, as the proposed shade structure is consistent with the residential use of the property, within the Rural Area designation, which contemplates dwellings and accessory buildings on waterfront lots which are accessed by private lane. The proposed structure is within a disturbed area of the property and at the recommendation of staff has been reduced in its size and pushed farther back to gain an increased setback from the highwater mark than what was originally proposed.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? 

Section 5.8.2 a) of Zoning By-law 2003-75 prohibits development within 30 metres (98.4 feet) of the highwater mark of a waterbody. Section 5.8.2b) of the Zoning By-law prohibits development within 15 metres (49.2 feet) horizontal of the top of bank. Section 10.3.2 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for limited service residential waterfront Page 325 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT development including those regulations applicable to accessory buildings not attached to the principal building, which requires that an accessory building be located a minimum of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the highwater mark. 

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the location of the shade structure (accessory building) is a permitted use and complies with the setback requirements of the Limited Service Residential – Waterfront zone, with the exception that it requires relief from the minimum 30 metres setback from the highwater mark and the top of bank. The applicant is proposing the shade structure to be constructed within the footprint of the existing cottage and deck which are proposed to be demolished. The proposed location is appropriate for the shade structure as there will be no enlargement of floor area and there is already an existing footprint. The proposed location and orientation of the shade structure is practical given the topography of the subject property with significant elevation and grading constraints. The proposed location leaves room for the main access path mitigating impact on the functionality and overall landscape. The location of the shade structure is also being considered in relationship to plans that the applicant has to build a dwelling at a setback beyond 30 metres from the highwater mark. When the lot is redeveloped with a dwelling placed at 30 metres from the highwater mark, there is a limited area to place a shade structure that would maintain a view of the lake beyond 30 metres.

Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? 

The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, as a shade structure is accessory to the proposed dwelling. It is located on the footprint of the existing cottage which is proposed to be demolished and meets the setback requirements for an accessory building in the Limited Service Residential – Waterfront zone with the exception of the highwater mark and top of bank. The proposed dwelling will be setback beyond the 30 metre highwater mark setback and the footprint of the shade structure and deck is considerably less than the combined footprint of the existing cottage and two sheds that are proposed to be removed from within the 30 metre highwater mark setback. In addition, the proposed shade structure is moved further from the highwater mark by approximately 3 metres than the original proposal and the existing structures. The shade structure has been reduced in size to be more in line with what the Township defines to be a “sleeping cabin” which has a maximum footprint of 27.9 metre2 (300 feet2). The shade structure is to be screened in and not have any exterior walls and the exterior wood components will be made of rough-cut lumber to naturalize the aesthetic as much as possible.

Is the application minor?

 The variance is minor as the proposed location is reasonable for its purpose, and there will be minimal disturbance to the shoreline as a result of the development. The proposed location is outside of any natural hazard or natural heritage area. The development will not cause any additional negative impacts as a result of its size and location on the subject property, which is located off Senior Lane. There will be no negative impact on surrounding properties as the result of constructing a new shade structure and patio at the proposed location.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-16-20-L, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision Page 326 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

The Minor Variance is for the construction of a shade structure with a maximum ground floor area of 27.9 metres2 (300 ft2) , to be constructed with a design and materials substantially consistent with the elevation drawings submitted in support of MV-16-20-L on July 6, 2020, by Wentworth Landscapes. A ground oriented wooden patio consistent with the plans submitted to support MV-16-20-L with a maximum footprint of 27 metres2 (290 feet2) set back a minimum of 8.5 metres from the highwater mark. The shade structure will be set back a minimum of 11 metres (36 feet) from the highwater mark of Cronk Lake and set back 7 metres from the top of bank, consistent with the placement shown on the plan submitted in support of MV-16-20-L dated July 6, 2020, prepared by Wentworth Landscapes.
A demolition permit be obtained to remove the existing cottage and deck from the property.
The existing metal shed and the plastic shed shown on the plan submitted in support of MV16-20-L dated July 6, 2020, prepared by Wentworth Landscapes, be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance MV-16-20-L is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the Lackonick & Cole property

Page 327 of 399

HORTICULTURAL TRADES ASSOCIATION

Page 328 of 399

Page 329 of 399

Page 330 of 399

Page 331 of 399

Page 332 of 399

Page 333 of 399

Page 334 of 399

Page 335 of 399

Page 336 of 399

Page 337 of 399

Page 338 of 399

Page 339 of 399

Page 340 of 399

Gould Inset L a k e Map

Glassy Lake

Rd Be dfo rd

Co le

tz L Shu l

Cronk Lake

Little Dev il Lake

ni Se

or Ln

LACKONIC & COLE MV-16-20-L Li ttl e L ong L

a ke

1037 SENIOR LANE Cronk Lake

Legend

Sy denham Lak e

Road Subject Property Parcel Fabric

Provincially Significant Wetland

Col

Waterbody

d Gor

Wetland

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

Page 341 of 399

nio Se

Scale 1:1,000

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

June 26, 2020

File: MV/FRS/118/2020

Sent by Email Ms. Claire Dodds Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Dodds: Re:

Application for Minor Variance MV-16-20-L (Lackonick / Cole) Lot 8, Concession 9; 1037 Senior Lane Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Cronk Lake

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for minor variance and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration. The property was visited by staff on June 25, 2020. Summary of Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a shade structure on the subject property. The variance 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 8.2 metres in order to permit the construction of a shade structure. Site Description The property is located on the north side of Senior Lane. The property has water frontage onto Cronk Lake. The topography of the site can be characterized as having a 2 metre high bank adjacent to the lake that flattens out in the location of the proposed shade structure and then continues to rise in a westerly direction away from the lake. The property is currently designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and ‘Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone’ (RLSW) in the Zoning By-law for South Frontenac Township.

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 342 of 399

Page 2 of 3

Discussion The main interests of Cataraqui Conservation with respect to this application are the avoidance of natural hazards associated with the shoreline of Cronk Lake, and the protection of its water quality. There were no natural heritage features identified on the subject property. Natural Hazards Flooding: Cataraqui Conservation does not have floodplain mapping for Cronk Lake. However, due to the difference in elevation between the highwater mark of Cronk Lake and the top of bank, flooding is not expected to occur inland of the top of bank. Therefore, the proposed location for the shade structure is considered to be outside of any area of potential flood risk. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 (see description below) suggest that a 6 metre access allowance is required from a flood plain. Staff note that the proposed structure will be within the 6 metre access allowance from the flood plain. However, since the structure is located outside of the flood plain and it is replacing an existing structure, it is not considered to be aggravating the hazard. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy (April 2015) suggests that the erosion hazard limit is defined as being the sum total of an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance defined as being no steeper than 3(h):1(v) for till shorelines, plus a 6 metre access allowance. Staff observed no evidence of toe erosion at the site. The bank was estimated to be approximately 2 metres in height which results in a total erosion hazard limit of 12 metres measured from the stable toe of slope. Staff note that the proposed structure will be within the erosion access allowance. However, since the structure is located outside of the stable slope allowance and it is replacing an existing structure, it is not considered to be aggravating the hazard. Water Quality Section 5.8.2 (1.) of the Zoning By-Law for South Frontenac Township suggests that a 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality. The Official Plan also requires that this buffer area be maintained as a natural vegetative buffer strip adjacent to the water’s edge to filter pollutants from runoff. Similarly, Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy recommends that new development and site alteration, including septic system tile fields and open or enclosed decks/patios attached to the main dwelling, be set back Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 343 of 399

Page 3 of 3

a minimum distance of 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody. However, in this instance, the principal development (i.e. the new cottage) is proposed to be moved back beyond the 30 metre water setback and the footprint of the shade structure will be considerably less than the combined footprints of the existing cottage and the two sheds that are proposed to be removed from within the 30 metre water setback. Based upon the discussion above, staff consider this proposal to be an improvement to the existing condition and support the application for minor variance. Recommendation Staff have no objection to the approval of application MV-16-20-L based on our consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies. Ontario Regulation 148/06 Cataraqui Conservation, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development within 15 metres of a flood plain and/or erosion hazard. 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. The applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Please notify this office of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244 or by e-mail at aschmidt@crca.ca. Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt

Andrew Schmidt Supervisor, Development Review /as c.c.

Ms. Michelle Hannah, Township of South Frontenac (via e-mail) Dianne Lackonick & Greg Cole, applicants (via e-mail)

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 344 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 2, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-17-20-B Martin Fess Part Lot 23, Concession 5, being Lot 22 on Plan 1661, Bobs Lake, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 810 Sunset Shores Lane Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.24.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement of an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning: RLSW – Limited Services Residential – Waterfront

Rural Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.24.1: Accessory Buildings

Proposal An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of an accessory building (detached garage), which is larger than the existing principal dwelling. The accessory building is proposed to be 121.94 metre2 (1312.6 feet2) which exceeds the size of the principal dwelling. The principal dwelling has an area of 85 metre2. (924 feet2). Page 345 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

The subject property is located on Sunset Shores Lane, off Green Bay Road and is municipally known as 810 Sunset Shores Lane. The subject property is 3.13 acres (1.267 hectares) and contains a seasonal dwelling with a footprint of 85 metres2 (924 feet2), which is setback approximately 60 metres from the highwater mark of Green Bay on Bobs Lake. The proposed detached garage is 121.94 metre2 (1312.6 feet2) in size and has a side yard setback of 15 metres (49.2 feet) to the north property line. The proposed location of the garage is in the rear yard to the existing dwelling, approximately 89 metres (291 feet) from the high water mark of Green Bay on Bobs Lake. The detached garage is proposed to be a single storey and is approximately 5.48 metres (18 feet) in height. The proposed height complies with the existing zoning by-law provisions for height of an accessory building. The proposed detached garage is located 3 metres (9.8 feet) both east and west from an embankment and 15 metres (49 feet) from the neighbouring lot line to the north. The applicant has indicated in their application that the detached garage would facilitate for dry storage for boats and a tractor. The detached garage will not have water or electricity. It is also understood from the applicant that the proposed site of the detached garage is located in a valley. Due to setbacks and site characteristics, the garage should not be visible from Bobs Lake or Sunset Shores Lane. The applicant has also indicated that the garage should not be visible to any other neighboring dwellings.

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services Department – The property is located on a lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – No development is proposed in proximity to the septic system on the northwest side of the existing dwelling for this minor variance application, therefore KFL&A Public Health was not circulated. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) – Given the location and scope of the proposed development, RVCA was not circulated. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. As per Section 5.7, Lands designated Rural are characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural and seasonal residential communities to which the Settlement Areas provide basic services. The amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape. As per Section 5.7.7, limited service residential development is generally located in the Rural area of the Township on a body of water or a natural water course where the primary means of access is from a private road or a navigable waterway. Permitted uses include, single detached dwellings, seasonal residential dwellings, seasonal dwellings converted to permanent dwellings and home occupations. Furthermore, any proposed limited service residential development shall 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. •

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed detached garage is consistent with the permitted residential use of the property, within the Rural Area designation, which contemplates dwellings and accessory buildings on waterfront Page 346 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

lots which are accessed by private lane. It is located well back from Bobs Lake, outside the setback from the high water mark. 2. Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Section 10 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for limited service residential waterfront development, including those regulations applicable to accessory buildings not attached to the principal building. Section 5.24.1 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted lot coverage for accessory buildings. •

The variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the location of the garage (accessory building) is a permitted use on the subject property and complies with the setback requirements of the Limited Service Residential – Waterfront zone, with the exception that it has a larger footprint than the existing principal dwelling. The total lot coverage for the garage is 0.96% and the total lot coverage for the seasonal dwelling on the subject property is 0.64%. Collectively there is less than 2% of lot coverage on the subject property and neither dwelling exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage of 5% per primary or accessory structures. The proposed location and orientation of the detached garage is practical given it is located in a valley and setback away from the highwater mark.

Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? •

The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, as a detached garage is accessory to the existing dwelling. It is located a suitable distance from property lines, far exceeding the setback requirements for an accessory structure in the RLSW zone, including the minimum setback from the highwater mark of Bobs Lake. There are no immediate neighbours that are affected. Furthermore, the total lot coverage on the subject property is minor, collectively being less than 2%. The accessory building will store the equipment necessary to maintain the private lane. With these considerations it is reasonable that it is a slightly larger garage.

Is the application minor? •

The variance is minor as it will not cause any negative impacts as a result of its size and location on the subject property, which is located on Sunset Shores Lane. It meets all setback requirements and is proposed in a practical location on the property. Furthermore, the existing dwelling has a footprint of 85 metres2 (924 feet2) and approximately 0.64% lot coverage, which is significantly less than the allowed maximum of 5% lot coverage for a primary use in the RLSW zone. The proposed detached garage will have a footprint of 121.94 metre2 (1312.6 feet2) and approximately 0.96% of lot coverage. The total lot coverage on the subject property is approximately 2%.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-17-20-B, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The minor variance is for the construction of a one-storey detached garage of approximately 121.94 metre2 (1312.6 feet2), to be constructed to the west of the existing seasonal dwelling, as per the drawings submitted with MV-17-20-B. The garage will be placed in general conformity with the drawings submitted with application MV-17-20-B and shall maintain a distance of approximately 89 metres (292 feet) from the highwater mark of Bobs Lake. Page 347 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

A building permit shall be obtained for the accessory structure (detached garage).
A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
Minor variance MV-17-20-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.

Page 348 of 399

Page 349 of 399

‘0’.)

Page 350 of 399

Page 351 of 399

Page 352 of 399

Page 353 of 399

Page 354 of 399

Page 355 of 399

Page 356 of 399

Page 357 of 399

Inset Map

µ FESS MV-17-20-B

S un s e t S hore

s Ln

Bo bs Lak e

810 SUNSET SHORES LANE

Legend Road Subject Property r Sho se t Sun

Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetland

L es

Waterbody

Wetland

Bobs Lake

Page 358 of 399

Scale 1:1,250

0 5 10

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING REPORT – MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION Report Date:

July 6, 2020

Application No: Owners: Location of Property:

MV-18-20-P Jim & Jen McNeely Part of Lot 8, Concession 11, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1124 Storms Lane, Verona Rock Lake Purpose of Application: To vary Sections 5.8.2 (a) and 10.3.2 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and that the Committee of Adjustment defer making a decision on application MV-18-20-P to receive comments from Quinte Conservation. Proposal An application for minor variance was received to permit the construction of a 67 square metre (720 square foot) accessory building (one-storey detached garage) on a 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre) existing lot of record. The proposed setback from the new garage to the highwater mark of Verona Rock Lake is 15 metres (49 feet). The proposed location of the garage is the only location on the lot that would not infringe on the existing power line, septic system and well. The proposed garage would be set back farther from the highwater mark than the existing single detached dwelling. There are also two storage sheds on the property. The applicants have removed an existing wooden shed that overlaps with the proposed location of the garage. Submitted by: Christine Woods, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 24, 2020 Attachment: Map of the McNeely property

Page 359 of 399

Page 360 of 399

Page 361 of 399

Page 362 of 399

Page 363 of 399

Page 364 of 399

Page 365 of 399

Page 366 of 399

v’ .x ‘LPage 367 of 399

Page 368 of 399

Inset Map

Vanluven La ke

Verona Lake

l ve Si Hardwood Creek

oc rR

n kL

bly Ln

McNEELY MV-18-20-P

Hin ch inb roo ke R

Little Mud Lake

Ha m

Wat er S

Carleton Dr

Roa d 38

ne Pi

ge id

rm s

Sto

Ea s y

1124 STORMS LANE

Sp rin g Lake

Legend

Hambly Lake

Road Subject Property Parcel Fabric

Verona Lake

Provincially Significant Wetland Waterbody Wetland

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

Page 369 of 399

rm Sto

Scale 1:800

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR VARIANCE – PLANNING REPORT Report Date:

July 3, 2020

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-19-20-L Kathy and Bruce McDonald Part Lot 24, Concession 14, being Parts 1, 2 & 3 on Plan 13R15545, and Part 2 on Plan 13R19077, Buck Lake, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 1120 Pillar Lane Purpose of Application: To vary Sections 5.8.2a and 10.3.1 of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Date of Hearing: July 9, 2020 Recommendation: That provisional approval be: 

granted with conditions (attached) deferred denied

Purpose:

_ zoning relief for construction of a new structure zoning relief for replacement to an existing structure zoning relief for other

Official Plan Designation:

Zoning:

Rural

Limited Service Residential –Waterfront (RLSW)

Zoning Relief Requested: Section 5.8.2 a): Flooding and Shoreline Erosion Hazards

Section 10.3.1: Waterbody Setback, Front Yard and Interior Side Yard

Relief: To permit the construction of a new singledetached dwelling with a minimum highwater mark setback of 23 metres (76 feet), whereas the By-law requires a 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback from the high water mark for all buildings and structures. Relief: To permit the construction of a new singledetached dwelling with  a minimum setback of 23 metres (76 feet) from the high water mark, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback from the high water mark for the principal building;  a minimum front yard of 23 metres (76 feet), whereas the By-law requires a minimum 30 metre front yard and;  an interior side yard of 1.5 metres (5 feet) to the exterior wrap-around deck attached to the dwelling whereas the By-law requires 3 metres (9.8 feet).

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT  Complies with the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75 (or will comply subject to approval for the minor variance);  Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question; and  Is minor.

Proposal An application for minor variance has been received to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with an attached deck, attached garage/cold storage and an attached sunroom on deck posts within the required 30 metre setback from the highwater mark, the required 30 metre front yard, and the required 3 metre interior side yard. The subject property is located at the end of Pillar Lane, off Norman Lane, off of Perth Road. The property is addressed as 1120 Pillar Lane. The subject property is approximately 1.63 acres (0.66 hectares) and has water frontage on Buck Lake. Buck Lake is a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake. The topography of the site has a steep embankment at the shoreline and rises less steeply towards Pillar Lane. The subject property contains an existing 250 metre2 (2,695 feet2) single detached dwelling with attached garage and deck, a 48.3 metres2 (520 feet2) detached garage and a 4.8 metres2 (52 feet2) wood shed. The applicants propose to demolish the existing dwelling with attached garage and deck, and to construct a new dwelling with attached garage and deck in the same general area as the existing building. There is a proposed increase in the floor area and height of the dwelling and garage, an increase in the floor area of the deck, and the addition of a sunroom. A portion of the deck would be covered. The single detached dwelling with attached garage, deck and sunroom will have a gross floor area of approximately 322 metres2 (3,469.6 feet2). This proposal would result in 4.9% lot coverage. The proposed sunroom will be located on the south side of the dwelling. The sunroom will be approximately 24.7 metres2 (266 feet2), 5.5 metres (18 feet) from the south lot line and 29.4 metres (96.5 feet) from the highwater mark. The existing deck is located on the north and the west (waterfront) side of the existing dwelling. The northeast corner of the existing deck and the proposed replacement deck beside the garage is set back a minimum of 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the north lot line. The northwest corner of the proposed deck would be 4 metres from the north lot line due to the orientation of the development relative to this property line. The existing deck is approximately 24.5 metres (80.4 feet) from the highwater mark. The applicants propose to modify the waterfront deck by removing a 3 foot portion of the northern half of the deck, adding a 4 foot portion at the covered deck, and adding a 2 foot portion to the southern section of the deck. An 11 foot by 13 foot deck would also be added on the south side of the dwelling. The closest section of the proposed deck will be approximately 23 metres (76 feet) from the highwater mark of Buck Lake with other portions being approximately 23.7 metres (78 feet) and 25 metres (83 feet) from the highwater mark. The applicants propose to make several improvements to their property to offset the waterfront deck encroaching approximately 4 feet farther into the required setback from the highwater mark. The improvements include:  re-orienting the deck stairway parallel to the deck so that it will be farther from the high water mark,  removing the concrete patio at grade to reduce impervious surface under the deck, installing French drains or soak away pits,  preparing and implementing a shoreline planting plan to re-naturalize the land between the deck and the shoreline, and  installing a new septic system on the south east side of the lot in front of the dwelling.

Page 371 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT The applicants submitted a preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (Ontario Lake Assessment, 09 June 2020) which is supportive of the development proposal subject to remediation recommendations.

Agency Analysis and Comments Public Services – The property has an existing entrance on a private lane and therefore, Public Services was not circulated. KFL&A Public Health – KFL&A Public Health received an application to install a new sewage system and have no objections to the proposed minor variance. Cataraqui Conservation – Cataraqui Conservation staff recognize that, due to lot constraints, there is limited opportunity for all development to meet the 30 metre setback required by the Official Plan. However, they recommend deferral of application MV-19-20-L to allow the applicant to consider alternatives that will meet the intent of the water quality policies, and to remove the portion of the deck that extends towards Buck Lake. Cataraqui Conservation staff cite section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Township Official Plan which suggests that a minimum 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality. Also, section 5.2.7 b) ii) 3) which states that “in no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark.” Cataraqui Conservation staff also noted that the proposal is seeking relief to increase the maximum lot coverage provision to 5.6% and provided the opinion that the footprint of the proposed building could be reduced slightly to meet the maximum allowable lot coverage specified in the Zoning By-law. Township staff discussed this comment with Cataraqui Conservation Staff. It was clarified that the proposed lot coverage is just under the 5% allowable lot coverage specified in the Zoning By-law. Lot coverage is no longer a concern to Cataraqui Conservation staff. Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks – Staff at the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks recommend deferral and support the planning opinion and position of the Cataraqui Conservation regarding encroachment concerns to the lake as the “at capacity” status of Buck Lake and the nature of its sensitivity to ongoing nutrient loading and encroachment pressure can result in cumulative impacts to the water quality. Public Comments – At the time of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received from the public.

The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. As per Section 5.7, lands designated Rural are characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural and seasonal residential communities to which the Settlement Areas provide basic services. The amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape. As per Section 5.7.7, limited service residential development is generally located in the Rural area of the Township on a waterbody or a natural watercourse where the primary means of access is from a private road or a navigable waterway. Permitted uses include single detached dwellings, seasonal residential dwellings, seasonal dwellings converted to permanent dwellings and home occupations. Furthermore, any proposed limited service residential development shall be designed to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes, such as tree coverage, varying topography, and scenic views for the benefit of future residents.

Page 372 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

The proposed minor variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed development (reconstruction of single detached dwelling with attached garage, deck and sunroom) is consistent with the permitted residential use of the property, and the character of Pillar Lane.

Section 5.2.7 b)(i) Policies for Development and Site Alterations Adjacent to Lakes and Rivers speaks to all lands within 90 metres (295 feet) of the high water mark of all lakes and rivers which are not designated Environmental Protection are included as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Where development and site alterations are proposed in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a minimum setback of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the high water mark shall apply for all buildings and structures. Furthermore, Section 5.2.7 b)(ii) 3) Policies for Development and Site Alterations Adjacent to Lakes and Rivers requires that proposals to construct additions to existing dwellings that are already within the 30 metre setback may be permitted but will be evaluated on the merits of the proposal based on the following: a) The ultimate gross floor area, building footprint and lot coverage being proposed; b) The closeness of the existing dwelling to the high water; and c) The capacity of the lot to accommodate new development at a greater setback from the high watermark. In no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark. The gross floor area for the existing dwelling is approximately 250 metres2 (2,695 feet2) which is increasing to 322 metres2 (3,469.6 feet2). The lot coverage of the proposal is approximately 4.9%, just under the maximum 5% permitted lot coverage. The proposed dwelling and attached deck would have a setback of approximately 23 metres (76 feet) at the closest point to the high water mark of Buck Lake, whereas the current deck is located approximately 24 metres (80 feet) from the highwater mark. While projecting closer to the lake in one portion, this is off-set by reducing deck in another area. The applicants propose to make improvements to their property to offset the waterfront deck encroaching approximately 4 feet farther into the required setback from the highwater mark. The improvements include:  re-orienting the deck staircase parallel to the deck so that it will be farther from the highwater mark than the existing staircase,  removing the concrete patio at grade to reduce impervious surface under the second storey deck, installing French drains or soak away pits,  preparing and implementing a shoreline planting plan to re-naturalize the land between the deck and the shoreline, and  installing a new septic system on the south east side of the lot in front of the dwelling.
Section 5.2.8 Lake Trout Lakes identifies Buck Lake as a Highly Sensitive Lake Trout Lake. All development or site alterations proposed within 30 metres (98.4 feet) of the high water mark require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.11. This policy is consistent with Section 5.2.8 (a)(iv) Highly Sensitive Lake Trout Lakes which requires that minor variance applications be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 5.2.11. 

The applicant provided a Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Ontario Lake Assessments, 09 June 2020) in support of the proposed dwelling, attached elevated wraparound deck and sunroom. According to the EIA, the majority of the proposed development lays outside the 30 metre buffer with the exception of the covered porch on the lake side, the extension of a portion of the west wall by 0.6 metres (2 feet) and a small portion of the proposed sunroom. The report determined that the proposed new and upgraded septic system is a significant improvement. The report noted that there are no impacts to species at risk as a result of this proposal. The reports notes that although the increase in runoff from the proposed Page 373 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT increase in footprint has the potential to increase the migration rate of nutrients towards the rate, they can be offset by implementing the following recommendations:  The potential for erosion from increased energy associated with runoff from downspouts can be mitigated by directing downspouts into French Drains or soak way pits.  Environmentally, this property would benefit from a remediation measure to re-naturalize the area between the lake and the proposed residence (the buffer strip) with native trees and shrubs. In time, these trees will act to intercept and sequester nutrient movement toward the lake into their biomass as well as diminish the urban appearance from the water.  Appropriate construction methods to prevent erosion of soils and materials way from the building envelope during construction period must be in place.  All excavation materials excess to the needs of the building and septic system upgrade must be removed from the site and note used as fill downgradient from the building envelope. The report concludes that the proposed development inclusive of remediation recommendations will not cause any measurable environmental impact on Buck Lake (North Basin). Does the application conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? 

Consistent with Official Plan policy, Section 5.8.2 a) of Zoning By-law 2003-75 prohibits development within 30 metres (98.4 feet) of the high water mark of a waterbody. Section 10 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for limited service residential waterfront development.



The intent of the Zoning By-law is to seek to maintain or improve the level of impact regarding nutrient migration and to maintain a shoreline buffer of 30 metres in an effort to preserve water quality of the Township’s waterbodies and watercourses. The proposed variances conform to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as the proposed single detached dwelling is a permitted use on the property and is located as far away from the waterbody as possible. Due to the location of the septic on the south-east of the dwelling there is no room to push the dwelling further away from the high water mark. The proposed dwelling is within the permitted lot coverage of the property, which indicates that the proposed footprint is appropriately proportionate to the size of the property. Additionally, the applicants are implementing measures to help off-set any negative impacts to the shoreline and to lake water quality including:  re-orienting the deck stairway parallel to the deck so that it will be farther from the high water mark,  removing the concrete patio at grade to reduce impervious surface under the deck, installing French drains or soak away pits,  preparing and implementing a shoreline planting plan to re-naturalize the land between the deck and the shoreline, and  installing a new septic system on the south east side of the lot in front of the dwelling.



Section 10 of the Zoning By-law details the permitted uses and zone regulations for limited service residential waterfront development, which requires that building setbacks be a minimum of 3 metres (9.8 feet) from interior side lot lines. The reduction of one of the interior side lot lines to 1.5 metres (5 feet) conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw as the placement of the wrap-around deck that connects to the house is being built in the same location of the existing deck. A setback of 1.5 metres (5 feet) continues to allow for access to the structure for maintenance purposes. Due to the location of the septic on the south-east of the dwelling there is little room to push the house further away from the northern lot line. In addition, the lot lines are angled where the dwelling needs a variance of 1.5 metres (5 feet) towards the north east however towards the end of the deck near the north west lot line the distance between the deck and the north west lot line is greater than 3 metres (9.8 feet).

Page 374 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Is the application desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? 

The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as the proposed single detached dwelling is consistent with the intended residential use of the property and the proposed dwelling is located in the same general footprint as the existing dwelling. Given that the septic is located between the dwelling and the private lane, there is no opportunity to improve the setback from the high water mark of the dwelling that extends past the existing footprint. The applicants are implementing measures to help off-set any negative impacts to the shoreline and to lake water quality. These measures are listed above.

Is the application minor? •

The variances are minor, as there will be no negative impact on surrounding properties as a result of constructing a single detached dwelling at the proposed location on the property. The proposed detached dwelling is in a reasonable location for its purpose and the reduction in distance to the high water mark has been offset with the removal of an existing portions of the deck and other mitigating factors described above.

Conclusion It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment received comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application MV-09-20-L, subject to conditions.

Recommended Conditions Conditions are a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the conditions below are recommended. The final approved conditions will be included in the signed decision

The Minor variance is for the construction of a 322 metre2 (3,469.6 feet2) singled detached dwelling with attached garage, deck and sunroom (all included in the aforementioned dimensions). The covered portion of the deck shall be located no closer than 23 metres from the high water mark of Buck Lake, with a maximum area of 252 metre2 (2,713 feet2) as per the drawings submitted with MV-09-20-L. The remaining portion of the attached deck will have a minimum setback of 23.7 metres (78 feet) from the highwater mark, a minimum front yard setback of 23.7 metres (78 feet) and a minimum northern interior side yard of 1.5 metres (5 feet) as per the drawings submitted with MV-09-20-L, attached to the Decision as Schedule “A”.
The applicant 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. A shoreline remediation plan to be prepared for the waterfront on Buck Lake to minimize nutrient run-off and facilitate the natural revegetation. The shoreline remediation plan shall be reviewed by the Township, in consultation with the Conservation Authority, prior to the completion of final inspection under the Ontario Building Code. b. Removal of the concrete patio which runs the length of the cottage underneath the deck and replacement with a more porous material such as gravel or paving stones. c. Directing downspouts into French Drains or soak way pits. d. Appropriate construction methods to prevent erosion of soils and materials way from the building envelope during construction period must be in place. e. All excavation materials excess to the needs of the building and septic system upgrade must be removed from the site and not used as fill downgradient from the building envelope.

Page 375 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3. A building permit is required for ALL construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without the approval from the Township of South Frontenac. 4. Minor variance MV-09-20-L is applicable only to Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws. Submitted by: Anna Geladi, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Date of Site Visit: June 25, 2020 Attachments: Map of the McDonald property

Page 376 of 399

Page 377 of 399

Page 378 of 399

Page 379 of 399

Page 380 of 399

Page 381 of 399

Page 382 of 399

Page 383 of 399

Page 384 of 399

14 ft N

4 ft

9 ft

5 ft

21 ft

Legend

7.5 ft

Porch

June 2, 2020 1120 Pillar Lane - Sketch #2 Proposed House Garage/cold storage

5.5ft

Deck & Walkway 3 Season Sunroom on Deck Posts Front Porch

Garage and Cold Storage

12.5 ft 24’ 2”

2.5 ft

14ft

Sunroom 28 ft

27.5 ft

on deck posts 3 Season

Proposed Main Floor

24’ 8”

2 ft

30 ft

Open Covered Deck 14’ x 18’

6.5 ft

14 ft 12 ft 5.5 ft 18 ft

Stairs

Page 385 of 399

~ 76 ft to water from deck edge Buck Lake

13 ft

6.5 ft

5 ft

2 ft

19 ft

11 ft

13 ft

96.5 ft to water

Page 386 of 399

Page 387 of 399

Page 388 of 399

Page 389 of 399

Ln Fr ye

Le le

Inset Map

Labelle Big Clear Lake Lake

Ln Bu ck Lak e

Ne v aL

McDONALD MV-19-20-S

1120 PILLAR LANE

ma n

Ba y

Nor

Pe r t

g hin Fis

Sh ad y

Iris h L

Ln Sa w mil l Ln

llar L

Lake

Labe ll e

n ini L To M ot y Ln

Milk Lake

Pi ll

Buck Lake

Legend Road Subject Property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetland Waterbody Wetland

Ln Iri sh

Page 390 of 399

Scale 1:1,250

5 10

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

June 29, 2020

File: MV/FRS/119/2020

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

Application for Minor Variance MV-19-20-L (McDonald) Part Lot 24, Concession 14; 1120 Pillar Lane Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Buck Lake

• •

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 23.16 metres in order to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling. Reduce the setback from the northern side lot line to 1.2 metres. Increase lot coverage to 5.6%.

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 391 of 399

Page 2 of 4

The property is currently designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan and ‘Limited Service Residential – Waterfront Zone’ (RLSW) in the implementing Zoning By-law for South Frontenac Township. Buck Lake is designated as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake in the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township. Discussion The main interest of Cataraqui Conservation in this proposal is the protection of the water quality of Buck Lake and the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline. Natural Hazards Flooding: Cataraqui Conservation does not have floodplain mapping for Buck Lake. The maximum recorded water level for Buck Lake is 133.16 metres geodetic. For Buck Lake, the maximum recorded water level is used in lieu of an engineered flood plain. Cataraqui Conservation’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 (see description below) requires that all development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the regulatory floodplain of a waterbody. Based upon elevation mapping data and site observations, the proposed development will be located outside of the setback from the regulatory flood plain. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the proposal from a flooding hazard perspective. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance for bedrock shorelines of 1 (vertical):1 (horizontal), plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Based upon observations and measurements taken at the site, staff estimate the total erosion hazard to be approximately 11 metres measured inland from the toe of slope. The proposed development will be located outside of the erosion hazard allowance. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the proposal from an erosion hazard perspective. Water Quality Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Accordingly, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect to how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. Similarly,

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 392 of 399

Page 3 of 4

Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy (April 2015) contains provisions that seek to support these objectives. Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Official Plan for South Frontenac Township suggests that a minimum 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality. Similarly, the CRCA Planning Policy recommends that new development and site alteration, including septic system tile fields and open or enclosed decks/patios attached to the main dwelling, be set back a minimum distance of 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody. Staff recognize that, due to lot constraints, there is limited opportunity for all development to meet the 30 metre setback required by the Official Plan. In these cases, Section 6.1.7 c. of Cataraqui Conservation’s Environmental Planning Policy is applied which suggests that development may be supported within the water setback area on existing, constrained lots based upon the circumstances of a given proposal and site, where the proposed development expands or replaces an existing building or structure, or is new development on a vacant lot, and: i) the new building or structure is set back as far as possible from the highwater mark of a waterbody and all inland setbacks are minimized; ii) the footprint of the new building or structure is minimized, with consideration for municipal maximum lot coverage provisions; iii) suitable methods to minimize negative impacts on surface water and riparian lands are incorporated into the development. The proposal is seeking relief to increase the maximum lot coverage provision to 5.6%. The maximum lot coverage provisions in the Zoning By-law are intended to limit intensification on a waterfront lot in support of the water quality provisions of the PPS and the Official Plan, particularly when a property is located on a sensitive Lake Trout lake. In the opinion of staff, the footprint of the proposed building could be reduced slightly to meet the maximum allowable lot coverage specified in the Zoning By-law. In addition, the proposal includes extending the lakeside deck an additional 1.2 metres toward the lake. As noted above, Buck Lake is identified as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake, and as such, the waterbody is afforded additional protections to ensure development does not negatively impact the water quality of the lake. Section 5.2.7 b) ii) 3) of the Official Plan states that “in no case shall an already encroaching structure be permitted to encroach further on the setback from the highwater mark.”

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 393 of 399

Page 4 of 4

Based upon the water quality discussion above, staff do not support approval of the minor variance application. Recommendation Staff recommend deferral of application MV-19-20-L to allow the applicant to consider alternatives to the proposal that will meet the intent of the water quality policies noted herein. Ontario Regulation 148/06 Cataraqui Conservation, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development (construction, filling, and site alteration) within 15 metres of a valley land. The valley of Buck Lake is considered to extend inland to the top of the slope. The applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Please notify this office of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, or by e-mail at aschmidt@crca.ca.

Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt Andrew Schmidt Supervisor, Development Review /as c.c.

Michelle Hannah, South Frontenac Township (via e-mail) Bruce & Kathryn McDonald, applicants (via e-mail) Jon Orpana, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (via e-mail)

Cataraqui Conservation 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 394 of 399

Page 395 of 399

Page 396 of 399

Page 397 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:

July 9, 2020

REPORT DATE:

July 2, 2020

SUBJECT:

Decisions on Delegated Consents

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of Adjustment and Council receive this report for information. 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. COMMENTS: a) S-29-19-L (Owner & Applicant) Edgar & Maureen Adams, Part Lot 3, Concession 2, Part 2 on Plan 13R21968, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac, 3593 Stagecoach Road This undisputed consent was granted provisional consent on June 29, 2020. The purpose and effect of this application is for the creation of a new residential lot. The proposed land to be severed is approximately 1.06 hectares (2.56 acres) and has existing structures including a house and garage. The land to be retained is approximately 18.21 hectares (45 acres) consisting of vacant land. b) S-05-20-P (Owner & Applicant) Jeffery Leroux, Part Lot 12, Concession 3, being Parts 1 & 2 on Plan 13R799 and Part 2 on Plan 13R6664, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 4264 Yarker Road. This undisputed consent was granted provisional consent on June 29, 2020. The purpose and effect of this application is for the creation of a new residential lot. The proposed land to be severed is approximately 1.40 hectares (3.45 acres) and has existing structures on it, including a house, attached garage and three sheds. The land to be retained consists of approximately 47.98 hectares (118.55 acres) of vacant farmland. c) S-07-20-P (Applicant/Owner) Andrew & Ashley Cox (Applicant/Agent) Michael Veryzer, Part Lot 10 Concession 10 being Part Lot 3 West Side of Frontenac Street and South Side Of River Plan 35 and Part Lot 4 west side of Frontenac Street and South Side of River Plan 35 and Part Lot 5 north side of Frontenac Street, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, municipally known as 6467 Road 38. This undisputed consent was granted provisional consent on June 29, 2020. The purpose and effect of this application is for consent for a lot addition from 6467 Road 38 owned by Andrew and Ashley Cox, to an abutting property municipally known as 6475 Road 38, owned by Linda & Michael Veryzer. The area to be severed from 6467 Road 38 is approximately 0.0071 hectares (0.02 acres) of vacant Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader” Page 398 of 399

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT land to be conveyed to 6475 Road 38 to formalize what the owners have always thought was their land and has been maintained as such by the owner of 6475 Road 38 for their entire ownership of the land (since 1987).

ATTACHMENTS: None Submitted/Approved by: Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant and Secretary Treasurer of Committee of Adjustment

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader” Page 399 of 399

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.