Body: Committee of Adjustment Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: September 11, 2025 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of Adjustment/2025/Committee Of Adjustment - 11 Sep 2025 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Committee Of Adjustment Meeting Agenda TIME: DATE: PLACE:
7:00 PM, Thursday, September 11, 2025 Storrington Centre/Virtual Via Zoom .
Call to Order
a)
Resolution.
Adoption of Agenda
a)
Resolution.
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)
PowerPoint Presentation Staff has prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that will be displayed on the screen of the meeting, you can also follow along with the PDF version that is in the attachment of this agenda item.
Declaration of pecuniary interest
a)
There are none.
Approval of Minutes – August 14, 2025
a)
Resolution.
Consent Applications from a Previous Meeting:
a)
PL-BDJ-2025-0074 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District
3 - 32
33 - 38
39 156
Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Application PL-BDJ-2025-0074 is for the creation of one vacant residential lot on Quinn Road East. The lot would be 0.8ha (2.0 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (89.6 acres) with 64m frontage. b)
PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District
157 274
Page 1 of 311
Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Application PL-BDJ-2025-0075 is for the creation of one vacant residential lot on Quinn Road East. The lot would be 0.8ha (2.0 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (89.6 acres) with 64m frontage. 7.
New Consent Applications:
Minor Variance / Permission Applications from a Previous Meeting:
a)
PL-ZNA-2025-0076 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District
275 306
Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained lots of associated consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075. Each of the two severed lots are to have 63m frontage and the retained lot will have 64m frontage, whereas the RU zone normally requires 76m frontage. 9.
New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:
Other Business
a)
Delegated Authority Consent Report
Adjournment
a)
Resolution.
307 311
Page 2 of 311
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Thursday, September 11, 2025 7:00 p.m. Storrington Centre 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury, ON and Virtual on Zoom Page 3 of 311
Joining us on Zoom? Your camera won’t be turned on. Your microphone will stay muted unless you ask to speak during a comment period.
Roll Call Committee Members Norm Roberts Scott Trueman Ray Leonard Steve Pegrum
Patrick Diotte Alan Revill Brett Moreland Mike Howe
Staff Christine Woods, Manager of Planning Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk/ Secretary-Treasurer Page 4 of 311
Agenda • Call to Order • Adoption of Agenda • Meeting Information • Declaration of Pecuniary Interests • Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting • Hearings for Applications • Other Business
• Delegated Consent Granting Authority Report
Page 5 of 311
• Adjournment
Format for Each Hearing
Page 6 of 311
- Chair introduces application
- Planner presents application
- Applicant/agent permitted to address Committee
- Members of the public permitted to address Committee (maximum 5 minutes per individual)
- Staff and/or applicant to provide response to public comments / questions
- Questions from Committee members (no comments or debate)
- Secretary-Treasurer reads the resolution
- Committee discussion and vote
After the Meeting
Page 7 of 311
• Township staff will contact the applicant following the meeting. Where a decision is made, it will be forwarded to the applicant and anyone who requested to be notified within 15 days. • The applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body as defined by the Planning Act subsection 1(1) may appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The appeal must be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment within 20 days of the notice of decision. The notice of appeal must set out the reasons for the appeal and be accompanied by the fee required by the Tribunal. • If you have any questions after the meeting, please reach out to staff.
How to Speak to an Application
Page 8 of 311
• The Chair of the meeting will open the floor to public comments • In person • Raise your hand and wait for the Chair to acknowledge you • Move to the table and clearly state your name for the record • On Zoom • Click “Raise Hand” button to request to speak or dial *9 (star nine) when participating by telephone • The Chair will acknowledge you, and the Meeting Host will unmute you • Once you are done speaking or the Committee has no further questions, the Meeting Host will mute your microphone
In Case of Technical Difficulties • If a Committee member joining virtually disconnects from the meeting, the meeting will proceed if there is still quorum. The Committee member will attempt to reconnect. • If quorum cannot be met 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 if the meeting is postponed.
Page 9 of 311
Notice of Collection • Personal information is collected to gather feedback and communicate with interested parties about applications. • This information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act and in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. • With the exception of e-mail addresses and telephone numbers, all information and comments will become part of the public record and will appear on the Township’s website. • Meetings are broadcast live over the internet for the public to view. Your voice will be heard in the broadcast if you speak at the meeting. Broadcasts are archived and continue to be publicly available. Page 10 of 311
• Questions regarding the collection, use and disclosure of this personal information should be directed to the Township Clerk.
Declaration of Pecuniary Interests
Page 11 of 311
Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Page 12 of 311
Consent and Minor Variance Applications from a Previous Meeting
Page 13 of 311
Revised Consent Applications PL-BDJ-20250074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 Owner: Robert Pittman Agent: Elysia Ackroyd (Fotenn Planning + Design) Property: 3629 Quinn Road East
Page 14 of 311
Location
Page 15 of 311
Proposal • Two severed parcels • New residential lots • 0.8ha (2 acres) • 63m frontage
• Retained parcel
• Agricultural/residential lot • 36.3ha (89.6 acres) • 64m frontage
Page 16 of 311
• Minor variances required for frontages
New Rear Lot Lines
Watercourse in trees
Page 17 of 311
Frontage on Quinn Road East
Land between the road and watercourse
Planning Justification Report • Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025 • Assessed appropriateness in context of surrounding area • Assessed conformity to policy framework • Included minimum distance separation study for several existing livestock facilities
Page 18 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment • Ecological Services, August 6, 2024 • Confirmed there is no wetland on the severed parcels • Evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, woodland • Reviewed for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat • Recommendations
Page 19 of 311
• 30m development setback from watercourse • Maintain natural vegetated buffer / no clearcutting trees within 30m • No tree removal between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and roosting bats
Hydrogeological Assessment • BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025 • Two new dug wells • 6-hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment • Conclusion • Adequate supply of potable water available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot • Soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems
• Recommendations Page 20 of 311
• Water treatment (pre-filtration, UV sterilization, reverse osmosis, water softener) • Regular water testing • Minimum 45m between sewage systems and the dug wells
Page 21 of 311
Department, Agency and Public Comments • Public Services
• No objection • Adequate sight lines for driveway entrances on Quinn Road East • Road allowance widening may be required
• Cataraqui Conservation
• No objection • Recommended different lot configurations be considered to avoid watercourse • Potential for karst features on site
Page 22 of 311
• Public Comment • None Received
Discussion • Residential lot creation is allowed in Rural designation • Severed parcels would exceed MDS I setbacks from area barns • Severed parcels would be the required 0.8ha minimum • Severed and retained parcels would have 63-64m road frontage (76m minimum is required)
• Consistent with existing lot fabric • Good site lines along the road for safe entrances • Supporting study demonstrated adequate water services and site conditions for sewage systems • Sufficient land to achieve 45m separation between wells and sewage systems AND 30m setback from watercourse
Page 23 of 311
Recommendations • Approval • Minor variance for 60m lot frontage • Consents subject to conditions
Page 24 of 311
• Reference plan (survey) • Confirmation of lot areas and frontages • Road allowance widening • Cash-in-lieu of parkland • Development agreement – implement study recommendations, lot grading and drainage plans • Minor variance for reduced frontage
Questions & Comments
- Applicant/Agent
- Members of the Public
- Committee Member questions
Page 25 of 311
Committee Deliberation and Vote PL-BDJ-2025-0074 PL-BDJ-2025-0075 PL-ZNA-2025-0076
Page 26 of 311
Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0072 - Portland District • Granted August 18, 2025 • 1.15 acre lot addition from 4671 Bellrock Road to 4657 Bellrock Road • 4657 Bellrock Road o 3.28 acres
• 4671 Bellrock Road o 47.85 acres
Page 27 of 311
Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0071 - Storrington
District
• Granted September 4, 2025 • 0.5 acre lot addition from 3195 Sunbury Road to 3740 Battersea Road • 3740 Battersea Road o 1.15 acres
• 3195 Sunbury Road Page 28 of 311
o 83.9 acres
Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0084 - Portland District • Granted September 4, 2025 • Creation of one new residential lot from 2106 Bracken Road • Severed Parcel o 8 acres o 266m frontage on Wallace Rd and Bracken Rd
• Retained Lands Page 29 of 311
o 108 acres o 1340m frontage on Bracken Rd & 270m broken frontage on Yarker Rd
Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0042 & PL-BDJ2025-0043 - Loughborough District • Granted September 5, 2025 • Creation of two new residential lots from 3977 Sydenham Road • Severed Parcels o Each 0.9 ha (2.2 acres) in area o 149m frontage on Railton Road
• Retained Lands Page 30 of 311
o 1.1 ha in area o Frontage on Sydenham & Railton Road
Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0071 - Storrington
District
• Granted September 8, 2025 • Creation of one rural residential lot from 2078 Sunbury Road • Severed Parcel o 6 acres o 147m frontage Sunbury Road & 50m frontage on Dog Lake
• Retained Lands Page 31 of 311
o 7.6 acres o 144m frontage on both Sunbury Road & Dog Lake
Adjournment
Page 32 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025
Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Meeting # 2025-07 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Storrington Centre/Virtual Via Zoom Present: Alan Revill, Mike Howe, Steve Pegrum, Brett Moreland, Ray Leonard Absent: Scott Trueman, Norm Roberts Staff: Christine Woods, Manager of Planning; Noah Perron, Planner; Colin Herrewynen, Planner; Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer 1
Call to Order
a)
Resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-07-01 Moved by: Alan Revill Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the August 14, 2025 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac is hereby called to order at 7:01PM.
2
Adoption of Agenda
a)
Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-07-02 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT the Committee adopts the Agenda for the August 14, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried
3
Electronic Meeting Information
a)
The meeting was live streamed at the following link: http://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontenacTwp/
b)
Staff prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that was displayed on the screen of the meeting.
4
Declaration of pecuniary interest
a)
None declared.
5
Approval of Minutes – July 10, 2025
a)
Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-07-03
Page 33 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT the Committee approves the minutes of the July 10, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried 6
Consent Applications from a Previous Meetings: (not applicable)
7
New Consent Applications:
a)
PL-BDJ-2025-0074 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Application PL-BDJ-2025-0074 is for the creation of one vacant residential lot on Quinn Road East. The lot would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Associated minor variance application PL-ZNA2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained lots because the RU zone normally requires 76m frontage. Christine Woods, Manager of Planning, gave an overview of applications PLBDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076. Ms. Woods advised the Committee that the applicant and their agent have requested that the applications be deferred, as they wish to consider comments brought forth by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority with respect to altering the proposed property boundaries as they relate to the watercourse that runs through the property. Steve Pegrum, Chair of the Committee asked if the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Neither were present. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether there were any questions or comments from members of the public. None heard. Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee, read the resolutions for deferral of the applications. Resolution No. 2025-07-04 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Ray Leonard THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby defers consent application PL-BDJ2025-0074, for lands municipally addressed as 3629 Quinn Road East, to allow the applicant or their agent time to consider reconfiguring the proposed property boundaries as advised by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Carried
b)
PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0075 is for the creation of one vacant residential lot on Quinn Road East. The lot would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m
Page 34 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025 frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Associated minor variance application PL-ZNA2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained lots because the RU zone normally requires 76m frontage. ** See Minutes Text for Agenda Item 7. a) Resolution No. 2025-07-05 Moved by: Ray Leonard Seconded by : Brett Moreland THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby defers consent application PL-BDJ-2025-0075, for lands municipally addressed as 3629 Quinn Road East, to allow the applicant or their agent time to consider reconfiguring the proposed property boundaries as advised by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Carried 8
Minor Variance / Permission Applications from a Previous Meeting:
a)
PL-ZNA-2025-0060 (Delage) - Bedford District Property Address: 282 Island Drive Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The minor variance would permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling and detached garage. The proposed seasonal dwelling with a footprint of ~182.9sqm and ~90sqm of attached decking requires zoning relief to permit a 15.3m setback from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake and the front lot line, a 5m setback from the top of bank and to establish a lot coverage of 8.5%. The proposed detached garage with a building footprint of ~111sqm requires zoning relief to permit a maximum building height of 8.3m. Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with the staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. The applicant did not wish to comment. The Chair inquired (3 times) as to whether any members of the public wished to comment or ask questions regarding the application. None heard. Mr. Pegrum asked Committee members if they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. None heard. Ms. Kaestner read the resolution for approval of the application, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to discuss the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-07-07 Moved by: Ray Leonard Seconded by: Brett Moreland THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0060, for property municipally addressed as 282 Island Drive Lane, permitting the construction of an approximately 183 square metre seasonal dwelling with approximately 90 square metres of decking to establish a
Page 35 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025 15.3m setback from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake and the front lot line, a 5m setback from the top of bank and to establish a lot coverage of 8.5%; and to allow a detached garage with a building footprint of approximately 111sqm to have a maximum building height of 8.3m, subject to conditions. Carried 9
New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:
a)
PL-ZNA-2025-0065 (Fischer) (Myers) - Loughborough District Property Address: 1179 Old Mine Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The following minor variance application is to permit the construction of a dwelling and attached deck with a maximum footprint of 2000sqft (~185.8sqm). The structure requires zoning relief to be setback 10m from the top of bank, whereas a 15m setback would be required. Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with the staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Neither the applicant nor the agent were present at the meeting. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether any members of the public wished to comment or ask questions regarding the application. None heard. The Chair asked Committee members if they had any questions for staff or the applicant regarding the proposal. None heard. Ms. Kaestner read the resolution for approval of the application, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to discuss the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-07-08 Moved by: Ray Leonard Seconded by: Brett Moreland THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0065, for property municipally addressed as 1179 Old Mine Lane, permitting the construction of a dwelling and attached deck to establish a 10 metre setback form top of bank, subject to conditions. Carried
b)
PL-ZNA-2025-0067 (Smith) - Storrington District Property Address: 4569 Stair Step Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: To request permission under section 45(2) of the planning act to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling within 30m of the highwater mark of Dog Lake. The applicant proposes to enlarge the existing 73.5sqm one-storey dwelling with a building height of 4.5m. The proposed enlargement would Involve adding a second storey addition to half of the dwelling of approx. 33 sqm and expanding the eave of the dwelling toward the lake by 1.5m. The enlarged
Page 36 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025 dwelling would have an approximate gross floor area of 107sqm, a building height of approximately 7.4m, and eave projection 1.5m toward the lake. The main building would maintain the setback of 16m from the highwater mark of Dog Lake. Colin Herrewynen, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee with the staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Hunter Smith, applicant, indicated to the Chair that he was present at the meeting but did not have anything to say at that time. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether there were any members of the public who wished to comment or pose questions regarding the application. (None heard). Mr. Smith (applicant) asked if, over the course of construction, it was determined that he had to rebuild some or all of the existing structure, whether this application would account for that or whether he would need to come back to the Committee to rebuild it. Ms. Woods advised that as long as he was rebuilding the structure as it currently exists, and not enlarging it in any way other than what was being presented through this proposal, he would not need additional planning approvals. Mr. Pegrum asked Committee members if they had any questions regarding the application. Ray Leonard, Committee member, inquired as to whether a demolition permit would be required for the dwelling if it needed to be replaced during construction. Christine Woods, Manager of Planning, responded that although the staff present were not experts on building code requirements, she believed that a demolition would be required in that situation. Mr. Leonard thanked Ms. Woods for her reply and stated that he just wanted Mr. Smith to be aware of this requirement should he determine that the existing dwelling needed to be rebuilt. Mr. Smith asked staff about the condition of a Development Agreement, and what that would entail. Ms. Woods explained that the Development Agreement is an Agreement that the applicant would enter into with the Township and that it gets registered on title and would apply to all subsequent owners of the property. There was discussion between Mr. Smith, Ms. Woods and Mr. Herrewynen with respect to the details of the Agreement and how it would relate to Mr. Smith’s project. Mr. Pegrum inquired as to whether there were any further questions from Mr. Smith or Committee members. None heard. Ms. Kaestner read the resolution for approval of the application, subject to conditions.
Page 37 of 311
Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment August, 14, 2025 Mr. Pegrum asked Committee members if they had any comments with respect to the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-07-09 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Ray Leonard THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves application PL-ZNA-20250067, for property municipally addressed as 4569 Stair Step Lane, granting permission to enlarge the existing legal non-conforming dwelling within 30 metres of the highwater mark of Dog Lake by way of a 2nd story addition being up to 35 square metres in area, and first floor eave projection of 1.5m towards Dog Lake, subject to conditions. Carried c)
PL-ZNA-2025-0076 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: The minor variance application is requesting reduced frontages for each of the lots created by associated consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PLBDJ-2024-0075. Both lots would have 63m frontage, and the retained lands would have 64m frontage whereas the RU zone normally requires 76m. ** See Minutes Text for Agenda Item 7. a) Resolution No. 2025-07-06 Moved by: Alan Revill Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby defers minor variance application PLZNA-2025-0076, for lands municipally addressed as 3629 Quinn Road East, to allow the applicant or their agent time to consider reconfiguring the proposed property boundaries as advised by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Carried
10
Other Business
a)
Delegated Authority Consent Report Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk, delivered her report to the Committee. There were no questions arising from the report.
11
Adjournment
a)
Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-07-10 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Ray Leonard THAT the August 14, 2025 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac is hereby adjourned at 7:45PM, to reconvene on Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 7:00PM or at the call of the Chair. Carried
Page 38 of 311
Consent Application Application Requirements The following items must be submitted with your application. Any application which does not include the below required information may not be accepted or will not be considered complete.
1. A pre-consultation meeting is a requirement prior to submission of the application. Pre-consultation meeting fee
$152.00
2. One hard copy of this completed application form signed and commissioned. 3. A Sketch of your proposal (see Question 26 for details on what to include). The sketch must be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. It is recommended that you take your time to carefully assemble the data and crate the sketch. You may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of sketches.
4. The applicable non-refundable application fee, payable to the Township of South Frontenac: Application Type: Consent Application Change of conditions Change of conditions requiring recirculation
FEE: $1,368.00 $325.00 $568.00
5. Agency Review Fees (as applicable). A separate cheque or proof or payment, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, is to be submitted to the Township with the completed application. The on-site sewage disposal review fee may be included in the payment of the application fee to the Township. Agency: Township of South Frontenac onsite sewage disposal review (per new lot) Cataraqui Conservation (per new lot or lot addition) Quinte Conservation (per new lot or lot addition)
FEE: $515 $445 $450
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (per new lot or lot addition) $500 Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; agencies may require additional fees if permit applications are required prior to any construction.
6. Required studies & Supporting Information identified at pre-consultation (if applicable) 7. Deed or transfer, or authorization for Township Staff to acquire title documents (if applicable) Updated January 2025 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
1 Page 39 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Collection of Personal Information: Personal information requested on the application form is required under the Planning Act. This information will be used by the Township for the purpose of reviewing the application. It may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 613-3763027 ext. 2224). What is considered when reviewing an application? In considering an application, the decision-making approval authority, shall have regard, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
The effect of development on matters of provincial interest as referred to in Section 2 of the Planning Act. Whether the proposed severed lot is premature or in the public interest. Whether the consent conforms to the intent of the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision (if any) The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is being severed If affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing The number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of roadways and their adequacy in relation to any proposed roadway linking the proposed severed area with the established roadway system. The dimensions and shape of the proposed lot. Any restrictions on the subject land (or on the buildings and structures to be erected on it) and any restrictions on abutting lands. Conservation of natural resources and flood control. The adequacy of utilities and municipal services. The adequacy of schools. The area of land, if any, exclusive of roadways, that is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes (such as for parks). The physical configuration of the new lot having regard to energy conservation. Site Plan Control County of Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-Law Provincial Policy Statement
2 Page 40 of 311
Page 41 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION 4. Have you consulted with Township Planning Staff regarding this application?
Yes
No
Date Fee Paid: _________________________
Christine Woods Name of Planner: _____________________
December 12th, 2022 Date of Meeting: ________________________
- The description of the subject land: District:
Bedford
Portland
Loughborough
Storrington
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Civic Address: ___________________________________________________________________ CON 3 Concession Number: _____________________
Part of Lot 6 Lot Number: __________________________
13R-7028 Reference Plan Number: ___________________
Part Number(s): _______________________
102908001013900 Roll Number: ____________________________________________________________________ 36140-0201 Property Identification Number (PIN): _________________________________________________
- Indicate the frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land. The subject land is the whole property prior to any changes. Please indicate the name of the road/lane and waterbody (if applicable). N/A Frontage on water (m):_________________
+/- 191 metres Frontage on road/lane (m): __________________
N/A Name of Waterbody:__________________
Quinn Road East Name of Road/Lane: _______________________
+/- 1,337 metres Depth(m): ___________________________
+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area(acres/ha): ___________________________
- Select the type of consent being applied for: Creation of a New Lot
Correction of Title
Easement (right of way)
Lease
Lot Addition
Other: _____________________________
Charge/Discharge of Mortgage 8. Please provide a brief description of your application. Indicate the reason why you are applying for a consent.
The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent
will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.
4 Page 42 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
- Create a NEW LOT – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying to create a new lot. The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot):
Retained Lot:
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
63.0 metres
64.6 metres
Name of Road/Lane:
Quinn Road East
Quinn Road East
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
+/- 170.8 metres
+/- 1,337.4 metres
Acres (acres or ha):
1.05 ha
35.8 ha
Please list the existing and proposed USES and STRUCTURES. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot): Existing Use of Lot:
Rural
Retained Lot: Rural
Existing None Buildings/Structures:
Single detached dwelling, and several accessory structures
Proposed Use of Lot:
Rural (no change)
Rural residential
Proposed Anticipated single detached dwelling Buildings/Structures:
None (no change)
5 Page 43 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
LOT ADDITION – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying for a lot addition.
The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Proposed Lot Addition (Severed parcel):
Retained Lot:
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Road/Lane:
N/A
N/A
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
N/A
N/A
Acres (acres or ha):
N/A
N/A
The following information is regarding the Benefitting Lands also known as the land being enlarged which are receiving the lot addition. Existing Benefitting Lot: (Before Lot Addition)
Enlarged Lot with added Land: (After Lot Addition)
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Road/Lane:
N/A
N/A
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
N/A
N/A
Acres (acres or ha):
N/A
N/A
6 Page 44 of 311
Page 45 of 311
Page 46 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION If access is by water only, describe the parking and docking facilities to be used and the approximate distance of these facilities from the subject land and the nearest public road. Parking and Docking for water access only properties MUST be legally deeded access. Please provide confirmation. N/A - not a water access lot The New Lot: __________________________________________________________________ N/A - not a water access lot The Retained Lot:_______________________________________________________________
- What is the zoning of the subject lands? (Check www.frontenacmaps.ca) Rural (RU) Zone
- What is the current Official Plan Designation of the subject lands? Rural
- Please describe how the application conforms with the Township Official Plan & County Official Plan by citing specific applicable sections and sub sections. Please make sure to look at Sections 5 and 7 in the Township Official Plan and Section 3 in the County Official Plan. If you are unsure, please indicate that you do not know. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.
- Is the application consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement?
Yes
No
Unknown
Please explain: Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.
9 Page 47 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
- Has the subject land ever been, or is currently, the subject of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, for a minor variance, for approval of a site plan, or for an amendment to an official plan, an amendment to the zoning by-law or a Minister’s zoning order? Complete all applicable Yes Application Type
No Application Number
Unknown Date of Application
Decision
Plan of Subdivision Consent Approved
1986
Minor Variance Site Plan Approval Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment Minister’s Zoning Order
- Has land been previously severed from the subject property, since September 5, 2000? If yes, please provide date of transfer; name of transferee and uses of the land. October 10, 1986, Yes ___________________________________
No
- Did the current owner acquire the subject land as a result of a consent? Yes
No
- Is the applicant requesting a Certificate of Official for the retained land? Yes
No
** If yes – the applicant must provide a lawyer’s statement that there is no land abutting the subject lands that are owned by the owner of the subject land, other than the land that could be conveyed without contravening section 50 of the Planning Act. 26. A SKETCH must be submitted. For more information on what the sketch needs to show, please see “A guide to completing your consent application form”. If your application is approved and then the required survey shows different frontages, area and location than was submitted, a new consent may be required including submission of a new application and fees.** 10 Page 48 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Please note that the sketch must include the same metric as on the application, switching between meters and feet will not be acceptable unless both are shown. The sketch must include the following:
A directional arrow with North at the top of the page. The boundaries and dimensions of the whole property. LABEL the part that is to be severed and the part that is to be retained, including the total area (acres or hectares), road frontages on all roads/lanes for each and waterbodies.
Indicate if the owner of the subject property also owns other lands near the proposal. The distance between the subject land and the nearest road, bridge or railway crossing The location of all land previously severed from the parcel (if applicable) originally acquired by the current owner of the subject land.
All natural and artificial features that are located on the subject property and on land beside the subject property. Please label and show the approximate location of: a.
Existing Buildings, wells and septic systems, bridges, railways, roads, hydro lines
b.
Waterbodies, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, wetlands, wooded areas
c.
Landfills, propane facility, quarry’s and pits
d.
Barns
Note: The existence of a nearby barn will require you to complete a Minimum Distance Separation Calculation in order to consider compatibility issues. Please check with the Planning Department regarding the implications of any farm structure, on your application.
Please include any information on natural and artificial features (as listed above) that in the applicant’s opinion may affect the application
Please indicate the current uses of land that is surrounding the property, such as residential, agricultural and commercial uses (if agricultural, please indicate the approximate distance of any barn structure from the proposed new lot).
The location, width and name of any roads within or abutting the subject land, indicating whether it is an unopened road allowance, a public travelled road, a private road or a right of way.
11 Page 49 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
If access to the subject land is by water only, please show the location of the parking and boat docking facilities to be used, and the title documents to demonstrate legal deeded use of these facilities
The location and nature of any easement affecting the subject land. The location of any abandoned wells on the property PERMISSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF APPLICATION I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner agree that the information recorded in this Consent Application Form is accurate and agrees that representatives of the Township and relevant commenting agencies may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner, acknowledge that additional studies and/or peer review and/or legal review may be required by the Township as a part of the review of my/our application. Should the need arise, I/we are responsible for completing the studies as requested in order for the application to be deemed complete. Attached to this application is payment to the Township of South Frontenac in the correct amount representing payment of the application fee, and additional payment (or proof of payment) for any required commenting agency review fees. AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY The applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac (“the Municipality”) from all costs and expenses that the Municipality may incur in connection with the processing of the applicant’s application for approval under the Planning Act. Without limiting the foregoing, such costs will include all legal, engineering, planning, and consulting fees and charges incurred or payable by the Municipality to process the application together with all costs and expenses arising from or incurred in connection with the Municipality being required, or requested by the applicant, to appear at the hearing of any appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal from any decision of the Council, Delegated Decision of Council, or Committee of Adjustments, of their designated approval authority, as the case may be, hearing the applicant’s application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees to provide the Municipality, upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, 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 to prepare for and participate in the hearing. 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. 12 Page 50 of 311
Page 51 of 311
3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE
1
August 19, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report
Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design was retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare applications for consent and minor variance at 3629 Quinn Road East. Applications were submitted on July 14, 2025 and a response was provided on July 16, 2025. The applications were scheduled for the August 14, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting but were deferred at the request of the applicant to reevaluate the lot configuration in response to comments made by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), and other site considerations. This letter is submitted in support of the revised applications. The applications are now proposed to be heard on the September 11, 2025 Committee of Adjustment agenda. The technical studies submitted in support of the application remain relevant and applicable.
Revised Proposal The revised application continues to propose consent to create two new rural residential lots fronting Quinn Road East, though now with reduced lot sizes. In this new proposal, each severed lot has been reduced from approximately 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha. The retained lands have been increased from approximately 35.89 ha to 36.37 ha. The application for minor variance to permit the reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone remains the same. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres, whereas a minimum frontage of 76 metres is required. The intention of this reduction is to preserve the tillable agricultural field located north of the proposed severances, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by CRCA through their July 31st comments. In these comments, staff recommended that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. The revised plan now proposes that the rear lot lines of the severed lots align with the northern extent of the 30 metre setback of the watercourse, thereby minimizing opportunity for crossing, as no development is permitted in this 30 metre setback.
KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com
Page 52 of 311
2
Figure 1: Revised Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The technical studies submitted in support of the July 14, 2025 applications remain valid. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study continues to apply as the relative location of proposed building envelopes and nearby livestock facilities has not changed, and the proximity of the severed lots to the MDS influence areas are now reduced as a result of the lot reconfiguration. The Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) remains applicable, as the revised lot configuration strengthens the original recommendations by aligning lot lines with the tributary and avoiding potential crossings, while maintaining a 30 metre buffer from development. Similarly, the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis continues to demonstrate that the proposed lots can be safely and sustainably serviced by private well and septic systems; the modest reduction in lot size from 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha should not affect groundwater supply, quality, or the feasibility of recommended setbacks. Collectively, these studies confirm that the revised proposal remains technically supportable and consistent with good planning. The revised application continues to satisfy the four tests of minor variance under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained as the proposal still represents limited rural residential lot creation that is compatible with surrounding uses, appropriately serviced, and protects against potential impacts on the watercourse. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is upheld, as the Rural (RU) Zone supports large rural lots with private servicing. While frontage relief remains necessary, all lots exceed the minimum lot area and continue to provide sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, wells, and setbacks. The variance remains minor in nature, as the reduction in frontage does not affect lot functionality, servicing, or compatibility with the established lot fabric. The variance is still desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as it enables the efficient creation of rural residential lots on existing road frontage while preserving rural and natural features, ensuring that the lots are both functional and sustainable.
Consent + Minor Variance
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 53 of 311
3
Conclusion The revised consent and minor variance applications at 3629 Quinn Road East addresses technical comments and enhances the protection of rural and natural features. The application will allow a form of appropriate rural residential development on the site which will complement the existing character of the area. The minor variance application continues to maintain the intent and purpose of the OP and zoning by-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question. It is our opinion that the proposed applications for consent and minor variance remain appropriate for the site and represent good land use planning. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 613.542.5454. Respectfully submitted,
Elysia Ackroyd, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
Consent + Minor Variance
Tara McInnes Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 54 of 311
Page 55 of 311
Page 56 of 311
Calculations 3609 Quinn Road E Farm contact information Kathy Huff 3609 Quinn Road E Harrowsmith, ON k0h1v0 613-372-1514
Location of existing livestock facility or anaerobic digestor County of Frontenac Township of South Frontenac PORTLAND Concession 3 , Lot 5 Roll number: 102908001013300
Total lot size 180.39 ac
Livestock/manure summary Manure Form
Type of livestock/manure
Existing maximum number
Existing maximum number (NU)
Estimated livestock barn area
Solid
Horses, Medium-framed, mature; 227 - 680 kg (including unweaned offspring)
10
10 NU
2500 ft²
Solid
Goats, Does & bucks (for meat; includes unweaned offspring)
100
12.5 NU
1500 ft²
Solid
Chickens, Layer hens (for eating eggs; after transfer from pullet barn), Floor Run
334
2.2 NU
334 ft²
Solid
Ducks, Muscovy
333 ft²
1.2 NU
333 ft²
Solid
Pheasants
333 ft²
1.2 NU
333 ft²
Setback summary Existing manure storage
V3. Solid, outside, no cover, >= 30% DM
Design capacity
27.2 NU
Potential design capacity
81.7 NU
Factor A (odour potential) Factor D (manure type)
0.73 0.7
Factor B (design capacity) 299.36 Factor E (encroaching land use) 1.1
Building base distance ‘F’ (A x B x D x E) (minimum distance from livestock barn)
169 m (554 ft)
Actual distance from livestock barn
506 m (1660 ft)
Storage base distance ‘S’ (minimum distance from manure storage) Actual distance from manure storage
No existing manure storage NA
Page 57 of 311
August 6, 2024
Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca
NATURAL HERITAGE SITE ASSESSMENT 3629 Quinn Road; LOT 6, CON 3 South Frontenac Township, Frontenac County Prepared for:
Robert Pittman
Prepared by:
Megan Snetsinger, M.Sc. megan@ecologicalservices.ca
Table of Contents 1.0
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
1.1
Property Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1.2
Description of Application ………………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.3
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.1
Present and Historical Land Use ………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.2
Ecological Land Classification ………………………………………………………………………….. 4
3.0
ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES ……………………………………. 6
3.1.
Wetlands………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.1.1
Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland …………………………………. 6
3.1.2
Locally Significant Wetland ……………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.1.3
Unevaluated Wetland ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
3.2
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest …………………………………………………………….. 6
3.3
Significant Woodland……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.4
Significant Valleyland ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
3.5
Surface Water and Fish Habitat ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
3.6
Species at Risk Habitat …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
3.7
Significant Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………. 8
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………….. 9
5.0
Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts ………………………………………….. 10
Attachment 1. Site Photos ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Page 58 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
1.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Property Location The subject property is on Quinn Road in South Frontenac, on Lot 6 / Concession 3 of the geographic township of Portland. The property is in EcoDistrict 6E-9: Havelock.
Figure 1. Topographic map, showing the relative location of the subject property, which is indicated by the black circle. Base map is an annotated detail from topographic map 31 C/07, Sydenham.
1.2 Description of Application Two severances are proposed from the subject property (Figure 2). Both proposed lots and the retained land have frontage on Quinn Road. The retained land has a driveway along the east side of the property to an existing single-family home and outbuildings north of the proposed severances; it is in poor condition and the retained land may be redeveloped. The proposed severances are not developed, and are proposed as residential lots.
2 Page 59 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Figure 2. Approximate boundaries of the subject property (solid white line) and the two proposed severances (broken lines). Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.
1.3 Methodology Ecological Services carried out field work and desktop research to determine if the proposed development will have a negative impact to the area’s natural heritage features and their associated functions. Our assessment of the property’s natural heritage features is based on the requirements laid out in section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as the South Frontenac Official Plan. We surveyed the property May 24, 2024 (personnel Megan Snetsinger and Mary Alice Snetsinger). The weather was sunny and clear, and the temperature was 24°C at 3:00 when we began our assessment. We identified habitat communities on and around the proposed development following the methodology outlined in the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) and when applicable, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (OMNR 2022). We considered significant natural features, fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat (SWH, as described in OMNRF 2015), and Species at Risk when performing our site investigation. Desktop research provided information on the presence of rare species and potential habitat on and adjacent to the subject property, from the following sources: • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data accessed via the Ontario Make a Map tool for natural heritage areas; grid square: 18UQ6715 • Ontario GeoHub for wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest • Fish ON-Line • Fisheries and Oceans Canada map of aquatic Species at Risk • Ontario Nature Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario Atlas • eBird • iNaturalist
3 Page 60 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
2.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Present and Historical Land Use The south end of the subject property is mostly in active/recent agricultural use, with a channel (likely a farm ditch) crossing the property. The southernmost field was ploughed at the time of our field visit, and the soil was bare. There is a new well dug on each of the proposed lots. We did not survey the north end of the retained land, as it is not adjacent to the proposed development, but we noted from satellite imagery that most of it appears to have tree cover, which is a combination of deciduous and mixed forest. In 1954, more of the property had open fields (Figure 3), although there is some tree cover at the north end. Figure 3. 1954 imagery of the subject property (outlined in red). Imagery from the University of Toronto Map & Data Library.
2.2 Ecological Land Classification The south end of the property, closest to Quinn Road, is characterized by Cultural (CU) communities, i.e., those maintained by anthropogenic-based disturbances. There is evidence of past agricultural use in the southernmost field (e.g., old stalks, corn cobs), but it is presently ploughed and largely bare of vegetation. The other fields on the property are in active agricultural use. Around the edges of the fields, as well as along the driveway and around the residential buildings, there are a variety of disturbance-tolerant species: e.g., Dog-Strangling Vine, Orchard Grass, Common Dandelion, Red Clover, White Clover, Virginia Creeper, Blueeyed Grass, Queen Anne’s Lace, Chickweed, Pigweed, King Devil, Field Cinquefoil. Along the driveway there are a variety of shrubs in a Cultural Thicket (CUT) community, including Common Lilac, European Buckthorn, Grey Dogwood, Prickly Ash, Red Cedar, Staghorn Sumac, and Apple. North of the ploughed field is another thicket with a similar assemblage of shrubs. This community also has some White Pine and Green Ash. It would likely have formerly been a forest ecosite, but the tree cover does not presently meet the definition of a forest community due to dieback of the ash trees. North of the channel, there is one patch of with sufficient tree cover to define as a Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) community, likely because fewer ash trees are present. White Pine is the dominant coniferous component to the forest, and with a mix of deciduous trees (e.g., Sugar Maple, White Oak, Shagbark Hickory). 4 Page 61 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
The channel is not large enough to map as a distinct ELC community, but there are different species along its extent. Reed-canary Grass is nearly monotypic in the channel, with some other species of wet environments along the edges: American Water Horehound, Meadowsweet, Awl-fruited Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Yellow Sedge, Retrorse Sedge. There is a muddy track used by vehicles to connect the ploughed field and the cropland to the north. The channel path has been torn up at this location, and we observed water pooling in the tire tracks, supporting some Water Plantain and Water Purslane.
Retained land
S01
S02
Figure 4. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping, in yellow, of vegetation communities on the subject property near the proposed severances. The white lines denote the approximate property outline (solid line) and the proposed severances (broken line). The channel across the property is indicated with a blue line. Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.
5 Page 62 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
3.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES On or adjacent to proposed development?
3.1. Wetlands 3.1.1
Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
The Millhaven Creek PSW is the closest to the subject property, over 1 km to the east. It is not adjacent. 3.1.2
Locally Significant Wetland
There are no locally significant wetland identified by the Township or any evaluated non-significant wetlands adjacent to the subject property. 3.1.3
Unevaluated Wetland
Ontario mapping data includes a layer of unevaluated wetland, which is procedurally-generated mapping of potential areas of wetland. On the proposed severances, there is an area mapped as unevaluated wetland within the CUT/FOM2 area around the channel. There are several factors that define wetland under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, including that in wetlands must have over 50% relative coverage of wetland plants. We assessed the area, and found that the assemblage of vegetation is dominated by upland species and facultative species (i.e., those that tolerate a variety of conditions). This is not wetland. The channel has more wetland or facultative species, but this is a riparian community rather than wetland. There are also patches of unevaluated wetland mapped adjacent to the property, including along the channel to the east and west and on the property across Quinn Road. We cannot access other properties to assess them for wetland presence, but we can review satellite imagery. In our opinion, some of these adjacent areas of unevaluated wetland do appear to be wetland (e.g., across Quinn Road and almost 120 m west). The proposed severances are unlikely to impact these adjacent areas of wetland, given intervening distance and topography. 3.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest The Harrowsmith Bog Life Science ANSI is the closest to the subject property, over 3 km to the northwest. It is not adjacent. 3.3 Significant Woodland The FOM2 patch north of the channel is about 0.3 ha, which is too small to meet any criteria for significance.
6 Page 63 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? The woodland south of Quinn Road is on adjacent lands that we did not assess, but a measurement of the area based on satellite imagery puts it close to 60 ha. It likely is significant for size and interior habitat, and could have other ecological functions or uncommon characteristics depending on what is in the woodland. The proposed severances and development of residential lots north of Quinn Road is unlikely to impact this woodland. 3.4 Significant Valleyland
Yes
No
Yes
No
The land where the severances are proposed does not meet the morphological characteristics of a valleyland. There are no Environmental Protection or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (which would include significant valleyland) mapped by South Frontenac Township adjacent to the subject property. 3.5 Surface Water and Fish Habitat The watercourse that crosses the property is a straight line that appears to have been channelized (Figure 5). It is likely an old farm ditch. The channel width is variable, between 2-4 m across. During our site visit there was some water in the channel with no sign of flow. Most of the channel length has dense growth of monotypic Reed-canary Grass, with some bare patches on the west side of the property. We observed no sign of fish. Given the dense vegetation the potential for fish presence appears low, although if there is direct connection to fish habitat there could be some marginal habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that development on the proposed lots meet a 30 m setback from the channel, as recommended in the South Frontenac Official Plan. The concept plan for this development includes a 30 m setback from the channel.
Figure 5. Ontario Make-a-map satellite imagery of the subject property (red outline). Note the straight line of the channel across the property through the thicket.
7 Page 64 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? We also observed what may be a hand-dug well about 15 m south of the channel near the west side of the property (see Attachment 1). This is not a natural heritage feature, and is located within the recommended setback. 3.6 Species at Risk Habitat
Yes
No
Yes
No
There are no Species at Risk (Endangered or Threatened) records from Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data. Our other database searches did not indicate any nearby SAR. We did not observe any SAR during our field visit. 3.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat (SWH) constitutes locations where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their life cycle, where rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat is present, and areas important to migratory or non-migratory species (animal movement corridors), as well as to the habitat of rare species (including any species of conservation concern not covered above). The criteria (OMNRF 2015) for most SWH categories were not met on or adjacent to the proposed development. Our discussion is limited to potentially relevant SWH. Bat Maternity Colonies. Maternity colonies require large-diameter cavity trees in deciduous or mixed forest habitat; snags are preferred. This SWH is found in forest ELC ecosites, which includes FOM. The small patch of forest north of the channel on the proposed severances is about 0.3 ha, which is technically too small to identify as a distinct ELC community (we mapped it to distinguish features on a smaller site), so it may not be large enough to categorize as SWH. However, as the forest patch is almost entirely within the recommended setback from the channel, any bat roosting trees present are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed severance. We recommend that the forest patch should remain standing (i.e., not be clearcut). We also recommend that any tree cutting outside of the forest should take place outside of the bat roosting season (April 15 to September 30) to mitigate any potential harm to bats that may be roosting on the property. Raptor Wintering Areas. The criteria for this SWH require confirmed, regular use by specific raptor birds of combined forest and open habitat of over 20 ha. The criteria schedule suggests that raptors prefer least disturbed sites for winter hunting grounds, in extensive fallow fields (>15 ha) that are windswept with little snow accumulation. The woodland south of Quinn Road is large and has several open fields around its south and east sides, although there are not many eBird records around the woodland for the associated species. The proposed severances are unlikely to impact any raptor wintering activity in the adjacent woodland. 8 Page 65 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs). This SWH requires treed wetland. There is no suitable habitat on the subject property, and we observed no stick nests on any of the dead-standing trees. There is a NHIC record of a Mixed Wader Nesting Colony in the relevant UTM block, which is associated with this type of SWH. However, NHIC grid squares are large; this habitat is likely associated with an area of wetland from another part of the square. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species. There is one rare species from NHIC data: Wood Thrush. In our other database searches, there are nearby eBird records for Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-pewee. We did not observe any rare species during our site visit. Woodland birds: Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) – designated as Threatened1 under the SARA and as Special Concern under the ESA; and Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens) – designated as Special Concern under the SARA and under the ESA. These bird species are typically found in deciduous or mixed woodland habitat. On the subject property, the woodland is small and fragmented from the adjacent woodland. It is also less extensive than it would have previously been, due to the die-back of the ash trees in the CUT. There is a much larger area of woodland (with a deciduous component) south of Quinn Road, which is likely to be more attractive to woodland birds. The proposed development is unlikely to impact habitat in the adjacent woodland. The woodland on the proposed severances falls within 30 m of the channel, which is the setback we have recommended. Outside of that setback, development on the severances would not be in woodland habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that any tree cutting should be done outside of the breeding season (April 1 to August 31), to comply with the intention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, to mitigate any direct harm to these or other nesting songbirds.
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development?
Yes
No
If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on?
1
Although this species has a Threatened designations, the Provincial Policy Statement refers to Ontario designations when discussing SAR. So we have grouped it with other rare/Special Concern species.
9 Page 66 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Recommendations for Mitigation
- Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 m from the channel.
- The land within 30 m of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
- No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. Environmental Impact Statement: It is our opinion that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions, and that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Yes
No
Is monitoring recommended?
Yes
No
Signature:
5.0
Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts
Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Aquatic species at risk map. Web site maintained by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, compiling critical habitat and distribution data for aquatic species. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/map-carte/index-eng.html Fish ON-Line. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with information on element occurrences. <https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/ FishONLine/Index.html?site=FishONLine&viewer=FishONLine&locale=en-US> Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Technology Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Natural Heritage Information Center. Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with species rarity rankings and information on element occurrences. <https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/Natural_Heritage/index.html?viewer=Natural_ Heritage.Natural_Heritage&locale=en-CA> . MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section. 10 Page 67 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 2nd edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. 239 pp. OMNRF, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E. OMNRF Regional Operations, Peterborough, Ontario. 38 pp. Provincial Policy Statement. 2020. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Province of Ontario. 53 pp. Township of South Frontenac: Official Plan. March 2003. Consolidated January 2024. University of Toronto Libraries. Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/ collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index
11 Page 68 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Attachment 1. Site Photos
Photo 1. The channel across the subject property, dense with Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both sides by thicket (CUT).
Photo 2. The channel across the subject property, at the west end where there are patches without Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both by thicket (CUT) on the south/left and by forest (FOM2) on the north/right.
12 Page 69 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Photo 3. The channel across the subject property, facing west from the driveway, with the thicket (CUT) around it.
Photo 4. The dead ash trees in the thicket (CUT) community, which was likely formerly a treed community.
Photo 5. The forest (FOM2) north of the channel.
13 Page 70 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Photo 6. The hand dug well observed 15 m south of the channel.
Photo 7. The driveway on the retained land, to the existing house. The active agricultural fields are visible in the background.
Photo 8. The ploughed field on the proposed severances. Development on the lots is proposed on this site.
14 Page 71 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment Quinn Road, Frontenac County, Lot 6, Concession 3
Prepared for: Robert Pittman 3629 Quinn Road East Harrowsmith, ON K0H 1V0
Prepared by: BluMetric Environmental Inc. 1682 Woodward Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3R8
Project Number: 240360 July 30, 2025
Page 72 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Table of Contents 1
Introduction __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2
Scope of Work _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Description ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Surrounding Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 3 Proposed Severances _______________________________________________________________ 4
Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.1 Background Information ____________________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Test Pitting _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Aquifer Testing _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.1 Test Wells _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.2 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.3 Aquifer Tests __________________________________________________________________ 6 2.4 Water Sampling ____________________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Well Owner Interviews _____________________________________________________________ 7
3
Geology and Hydrogeology ____________________________________________________________ 7 3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage _____________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Surficial Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 7 3.3 Bedrock Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.1 Water Well Records ____________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination ____________________________________________ 12 3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity ____________________________________________________ 12 3.4.4 Groundwater Quality __________________________________________________________ 13 3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity ________________________________________________________ 17
4
Development Considerations __________________________________________________________21 4.1 Water Treatment __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Testing of Treated Water __________________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ________________________________________________ 22 4.3.1 Sewage System Design ________________________________________________________ 23
5
Conclusions and Recommendations ____________________________________________________24
6
Limiting Conditions ___________________________________________________________________25
7
References ___________________________________________________________________________27 i
Page 73 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:
Test Wells Summary ____________________________________________________________ 5 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 Summary of MECP Water Well Records ________________________________________ 11 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results ____________________________________ 16 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1)__________ 17 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2)__________ 17 Observation Well Responses ___________________________________________________ 18 Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) ___________________________________________________________ 19 Summary of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity ________________ 19 Tile Bed Clearances ___________________________________________________________ 23
List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:
Site Location ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Layout____________________________________________________________end of text MECP Wells __________________________________________________________end of text Conceptual Lot Development Plan _____________________________________end of text
List of Appendices Appendix A: Well Records Appendix B: Lab Certificates of Analysis Appendix C: Aquifer Analysis Appendix D: Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations
ii
Page 74 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
1
240360 July 2025
Introduction
BluMetric Environmental Inc. (BluMetric®) was retained to conduct a hydrogeological assessment to support an application for a two-lot severance at 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario (Roll #: 102908001013900). The site location is indicated in Figure 1. The proposed severances cover approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is in a rural area (a municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment system is not available) and the proposed severances will be serviced by private residential water supply wells and individual onsite septic sewage systems. Test wells TW1 and TW2 were used as the test well on the western and eastern lots to be severed, respectively. This study was conducted with regards to the following regulations and guidelines: •
• •
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems, Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment (MOEE, 1996). Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells, Water Supply Assessment (MOEE, 1996b). Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903), 1990, Wells.
1
Page 75 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Figure 1:
240360 July 2025
Site Location
1.1 Scope of Work The scope of work of this assessment included the following components: • • •
Desktop review of background information (water well records, geological databases, hydrology information, topography, known water uses). Inspect the lot for shallow groundwater/surface water conditions. Conduct a 6-hour pumping test at two new dug wells (TW1 and TW2) and monitor water levels at the pumping wells during pumping and recovery. The 6-hour pumping test occurred during low recharge conditions between late June to early September. Test well recoveries could be measured over multiple days. Water levels from the well on the retained lot was monitored during the pumping test.
2
Page 76 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
•
•
240360 July 2025
Collect and submit groundwater samples at the end of the 6-hour pumping test from TW1 and TW2 for laboratory analysis of parameters outlined in the D-5-5 technical guidance in addition to organic nitrogen, phosphorus and metals. Water quality results were compared to Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Analyse pumping test data to determine aquifer parameters.
1.2 Site Description The site is located approximately 20 kilometres northwest of Kingston, Ontario along the northern side of Quinn Road east of County Road 38 (Figure 1). The site is comprised of gradually sloping open fields, forested areas wetland areas. The proposed lands to be severed include two 1.05 ha plots located in the south corner of the site. Residential development is proposed to take place on both lots and dug wells have been constructed for each.
1.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses within 500 m of the subject site are described below: • North o Rural residential o Agriculture o Woodlot • East o Rural Commercial (Sugar Shack) o Agriculture o Woodlot o Rural Residential • South o Wetland o Woodlot o Quinn Road • West o Rural Residential o Agriculture o County Road 38 o Wetland o Woodlot
3
Page 77 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
All existing development in the area are supported by the use of private individual water supply wells and onsite septic sewage systems. All neighbouring water supplies are derived from drilled wells while the onsite water supplies will be derived from dug wells (well records provided in Appendix A). The construction of dug wells was to obtain the best water quality and quantity as recommended to Robert Pittman by BluMetric.
1.4 Proposed Severances The proposed severances involve the creation of 3 residential lots on 37.9 ha (Figure 1). The proposed severances are described as follows: • • •
2
Lot 1 (Severed A) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Lot 2 (Severed B) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Retained Lot – 35.89 ha, 64.6 metres of frontage open field and forested area, existing dug well.
Methodology
2.1 Background Information A review of available background information was conducted including: • • • • • •
MECP water well records; Topographic Databases; Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) online geology mapping databases; Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre mapping database; County of Frontenac Interactive Mapping Online GIS Portal; Ontario Watershed Information Tool (OWIT).
2.2 Test Pitting Four (4) test pits were advanced at the site as part of the investigation. The test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced by BluMetric to describe soil stratigraphy using a hand shovel on October 18, 2024, on each of the lots to be severed.
4
Page 78 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The soil profile at each test pit was logged by direct examination of the sides and bottoms of the test pits. Representative samples were collected in clean plastic bags. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 4.
2.3 Aquifer Testing 2.3.1 Test Wells Two residential supply wells, A350546 and A350547, were constructed in 2023. Supply well A350546 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 metres below ground surface (mbgs) by Frank’s Drilling and Blasting LTD. Supply well A350547 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 mbgs by Franks Drilling and Blasting LTD. Both test wells are situated along a topographic high and are advanced into bedrock as summarized in Table 1. Table 1:
Test Wells Summary
Well ID
Year of Installation
Depth to Bedrock (m)
Casing Depth (m)
TW1 (A350546) TW2 (A350547)
2023 2023
1.4 1.5
6.53 6.53
Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m) 3.0 3.0
Total Depth (m) 6.53 6.53
2.3.2 Observation Wells One water well was selected for use as an observation well during a second aquifer test. Aquifer tests were conducted on August 7, 2024, and August 8, 2024, and are detailed in section 2.2.3. One observation well (dug well) is located on the retained lot however a well record is not available to verify the details of its construction. Data recording of water levels at pumping wells and observation wells commenced one day prior to pumping and terminated three days post pumping. The residents were asked to not use their wells during the time of the pumping test. Table 2:
Observation Wells
Well ID 3629 Quinn Road (Dug well)
Year of Installation
Depth to Bedrock (m)
Casing Depth (m)
Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m)
Total Depth (m)
Unknown
5
Page 79 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
2.3.3 Aquifer Tests BluMetric staff conducted the first six-hour, constant discharge aquifer tests at supply well A350546 on August 7, 2024, and at supply well A350547 on August 8, 2024. Each well was pumped at a rate of 25 L/min for 360 min with a combined total of 18,000 litres of groundwater pumped from the aquifer. The testing program included observation of three wells (the pumping well and two observation wells) for each pumping test as required by Ontario Guideline D-5-5 for land parcels of 15 ha or less. A second 3.5-hour constant discharge aquifer test was completed on October 3, 2024, by BluMetric staff. The second test included the pumping of one test well (A350547) at a rate of approximately 41 L/min. A combined total of 8,610 litres was pumped during the second pumping test. Water levels were recorded during aquifer testing by manual methods (water level sounding meters) and with pressure transducer/datalogger units (Solinst Level Logger™). Post pumping observation was acquired with pressure transducers for a minimum of 24 hours to assess groundwater recharge. Results of the aquifer tests are provided in Section 3.4.6.
2.4 Water Sampling All wells were disinfected prior to the six-hour constant rate discharge pumping and any subsequent resampling event by shock chlorination. A water sample was collected in laboratory provided containers at the end of each aquifer test and placed immediately into a cooler with ice and transported to Caduceon laboratory in Kingston, a CALA accredited laboratory. Samples were analyzed for the list of chemical and microbiological parameters specified in Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996b). Further sampling of well A350547 was carried out on October 3, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 9, 2024, to confirm microbiological parameters following initial exceedances in TW2. Laboratory certificates are appended in Appendix B. Field measurements for temperature, pH, conductivity, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were carried out using a YSI™ Professional series multimeter. Free chlorine residual and turbidity measurements were collected using a Hanna HI93414 calibrated to 1.0 mg/L chlorine solution and turbidity standards of <0.1 and 15 NTU. Colour measurements were collected using a Hanna 96727 calibrated with 0 and 250 PCU standards. Microbiological quality sampling was conducted after the free chlorine residual concentration reduced to non-detectable or below the instrument’s limit of detection of 0.01 mg/L.
6
Page 80 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
2.5 Well Owner Interviews A standard well owner interview form was sent to the neighboring property owners along Quinn Road prior to conducting the pumping tests. The well-owner interview form requests details from neighboring water well users regarding well water quality and quantity and onsite wastewater treatment systems. All of the solicited neighboring water well users declined to fill out the interview form.
3
Geology and Hydrogeology
3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage The Site is geographically situated within two catchments. The western and northern parts of the Site are situated within the Wilton Creek-Little Creek Napanee River Catchment, while the southern and eastern parts of the site are situated within the Millhaven Creek Catchment (OWIT, 2024). Surface water drainage at the Site is diverted to a ditch located on the south end of the site. The northern part of the site drains south towards the ditch, while the southern end of the site (including the lots to be severed) drains north towards the ditch. This ditch then flows east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek.
3.2 Surficial Geology Four (4) shallow test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced using a hand shovel by BluMetric on October 18, 2024. Test pit locations are indicated on Figure 4. The following is a summary of stratigraphy encountered at the test pit locations. TP1 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.53 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY CLAY with some gravel Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.53 m Test pit was terminated at 0.53 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
7
Page 81 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
TP2 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.63 m: 0.63 to 0.66 m:
(hand dug using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown/grey SILTY CLAY with some gravel damp, grey CLAY with some black sand Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.63 m Test pit was terminated at 0.66 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
TP3 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.41 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown CLAYEY SILT/SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.41 m Test pit was terminated at 0.41 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
TP4 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.35 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.35 m Test pit was terminated at 0.35 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
240360 July 2025
The Ontario Geological Survey (2024) classifies the site as exposed bedrock with areas of less than 1.0 m of drift consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and diamicton. Well records for test wells TW1 and TW2 indicate that bedrock was encountered between 1.4 m and 1.5 m bgs at both locations. Soils stratigraphy on both well records show topsoil from ground surface to 0.3 m bgs followed by loam from 0.3 m bgs to bedrock at approximately 1.5 m bgs. Descriptions of soil stratigraphy at test pits TP1 to TP4 are generally consistent with the findings of the water well records search where overburden thickness varies between 0 m to 2.4 m.
3.3 Bedrock Geology Geological mapping information from the OGS Earth website (OGS, 2024) shows that the site is located within a sequence of horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary rocks. The uppermost bedrock unit is the Shadow Lake Formation which is of Ordovician age. The bedrock is
8
Page 82 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
described as limestone and dolostone (towards base). The site is in an area of inferred karst as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2024).
3.4 Hydrogeology An unconfined water table does not appear to exist in the overburden unit as evidenced by the test pits which remained dry over two days after their excavation. Drainage / infiltration within the overburden unit is expected to be influenced by topography and is inferred to have an easterly component towards Millhaven Creek. The primary water supply aquifer in the vicinity of the site occurs within the horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary bedrock. The bedrock aquifer has water bearing fracture zones (i.e., horizontal bedding plane fractures) that occur between sedimentary layers of bedrock. Permeability within these strata is controlled by fractures. The primary porosity (i.e. the ‘primary fracture network’) is associated with horizontal bedding plane fractures. A secondary porosity is associated with subvertical fracturing. The direction of regional groundwater flow in bedrock at the site is inferred to be to the to the east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek. Information from the Ontario Source Protection Atlas, (MECP, 2023) website indicates that the site is: • • • • •
Not within a wellhead protection area; Is not within an intake protection zone; Is not within an issue contributing area; Is not within a significant groundwater recharge area; A highly vulnerable aquifer does not occur beneath the site.
3.4.1 Water Well Records A total of 8 MECP water well records from the MECP Water Well Information System (WWIS; MECP, 2024) were reviewed (individual well records are provided in Appendix A). Wells selected within 500 m of the proposed severance are depicted on Figure 3 and summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that that well record locations are based on the database coordinates and may be subject to varying degrees of error. Well depths, overburden thickness, depth of casing, aquifer interception points and well yield related information were reviewed in detail and included Table 3. The review of water well records within 500 m of the subdivision provided the following relevant information:
9
Page 83 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
• • • • • • • • •
240360 July 2025
Depth to bedrock varies from 0 m bgs to 2.4 m bgs; Bedrock is reported as shale and/or limestone in all of the well records; Static water levels in the identified water wells range from 0.3 mbgs to 21.0 mbgs; The only dug wells in the MECP WWIS 500 m map area are those constructed at the Site; One of the 8 wells identified in the MECP WWIS were dry at the time of construction; Reported well pumping rates for drilled wells range from 0 L/min to 23 L/min; Six of the records produced water described as “clear”; The well record for supply well A350546 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L; The well record for supply well A350547 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L.
10
Page 84 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Table 3:
240360 July 2025
Summary of MECP Water Well Records MECP Water Well Record Summary
Well Record ID
Depth to Bedrock (m)
2203354 2204349
0.0 0.6
2205784
2.4
2205787
0.9
2210419
0.3
2211332
2.0
2212789
0.3
2214857
0.0
Overburden Material
Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Clay Loam / Gravel
Bedrock Material
Casing Depth (m)
Depth to Water Bearing Zone(s) (m)
Static Water Level (m)
41.1 10.4
Limestone Limestone
3.0 2.1
30.5 2.4
18.3 3.0
Drawdown after Drillers Pumping Test (m) 41.1 9.4
36.6
Limestone
6.7
14.0
5.2
20.4
Limestone
2.1
2.1
33.5
Limestone
2.4
25.6
Limestone Shale / Limestone Shale / Limestone
Total Depth (m)
9.1 24.7
Recommended Pumping Rate (L/min)
Dug/Drilled
Comments
14
Drilled Drilled
Clear Cloudy
36.6
0
Drilled
0.3
20.4
23
Drilled
2.7
0.9
33.5
23
Drilled
6.7
25.0
15.2
7.3
7.3
5.5
9.1
18
Drilled
7.6
22.6
21.0
22.9
0
Drilled
Drilled
Clear Clear Clear Untested Clear Clear
Page 85 of 311
11
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Taken collectively this information shows that the wells in the area can provide a suitable water supply. A review of the MECP Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database was carried out within a 5 km radius of the site. PTTW information was obtained directly from the MECP interactive GIS system (MECP, 2024b). No permits were identified within the search area.
3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination The following potential onsite sources of contamination at the site were identified (Drage, 2022): •
• •
•
The proposed parcels to be severed have historically been used for agricultural purposes based on aerial imagery, namely the growing and harvesting of hay, which may have necessitated the use of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as an agricultural practice. Dug wells are vulnerable to shallow groundwater contaminants originating from agricultural practices (fertilizers, livestock), the application of road salt, and septic system effluent. Groundwater in dug wells often contains microbial contaminants because the short groundwater flow paths do not allow microbes to be removed by natural filtration within the aquifer. Dug wells are also prone to elevated concentrations of decomposed plant matter within soil and organic carbon.
The following potential offsite sources of contamination were identified: • •
Agricultural activities at neighbouring may be a source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Application of road salt along Quinn Road East is expected to have caused some limited impacts to the area immediately bordering the road and ditches. No onsite impact is expected as a result of road salt application activities.
3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity The subject lands are within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’ as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2023). No obvious karst traits were found based on review of local Lidar data for the site; therefore a site-specific karst assessment was not deemed necessary. The water well records show that the overburden thickness within 800 m of the subject property varies from 0 to 2.4 m and has an average thickness of 0.8 m. The overburden material is primarily described in well records as loam. The well record for test well TW1 shows that the depth to bedrock is 1.4 m and the well record for test well TW2 shows that depth to bedrock is 1.5 m. The onsite test
12
Page 86 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
pits varied in depth from 0.35 to 0.66 mbgs and the material encountered was silty clay and silty sand. The most suitable source of potable groundwater for the proposed lot is the bedrock aquifer. The thin overburden layer will not provide any degree of isolation between bedrock and effluent from the septic systems which are proposed for the lots to be severed. Based on the terrain analysis findings, the site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin soils, so protective measures (extra depth of well casing and extra setback between wells and septic beds) are discussed and recommended in Sections 5 and 6. Mitigative measures for protection of water quality include imposing a minimum 45 m separation distance between well and septic system and mandating well water quality treatment with ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection.
3.4.4 Groundwater Quality The severed lots are proposed to be serviced by dug wells. Water quality was assessed at both the western lot (via test well TW1) and eastern lot (via test well TW2) to be severed. Laboratory analytical results from the groundwater samples collected at the end of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 along with field measurement data are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix B. A review of the analytical data summarized in Table 4 indicates that all tested water quality parameters were below the health and aesthetic related ODWSOG with the exception of the following: Well A350546 (TW1) • Sodium • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids Well A350547 (TW2) • Escherichia Coli • Total Coliforms • Fecal Coliforms • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids
13
Page 87 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Hardness - Hardness was reported at 237 mg/L in well A3350546 (TW1), and 286 mg/L in well A350547 (TW2), both exceeding the ODWSOG OG of 80-100 mg/L. Hardness is caused by dissolved calcium and magnesium and is expressed as the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. Hardness levels below 500 mg/L in drinking water are considered generally acceptable for most domestic purposes and can be treated using a conventional water softener system. Softening using a domestic water softener increases the sodium level in drinking water. Total Dissolved Solids - The average TDS concentration measured of the two groundwater samples collected as part of this study is 627 mg/L. The analytical results for TDS at test wells TW1 and TW2 were measured to be 731 mg/L and 522 mg/L, respectively, both of which exceed the aesthetic objective (AO) limit. TDS is a measure of the inorganic substances dissolved in water. The principal constituents of TDS are chloride, sulphates, calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonates. The effects of TDS on drinking water quality depend on the levels of the individual components. Excessive hardness, taste, mineral deposition, or corrosion are common properties of water with elevated TDS. Water with a TDS concentration above 500 mg/L may not be palatable. Procedure D-5-5 does not provide a treatability limit for TDS, but it does require a written rationale that corrosion, encrustation, or taste problems will not occur. A Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) and Ryznar Stability Index (RSI) of 0.83 and 6.4, respectively, was calculated from the water quality results indicating the water is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and scale forming may occur. Water softening, already recommended for hardness, will remove calcium in the water supply and reduce the potential for mineral deposition and corrosion to plumbing fixtures. Sodium - Sodium concentrations are reported at 217 mg/L in test well TW1 and 108 mg/L in in test well TW2. A concentration exceeding 20 mg/L is to be reported to the local Medical Officer of health so that this information can be communicated to local physicians for their use with patients on sodium restricted diets. Potassium chloride can be used in place of sodium chloride to reduce the sodium content in water softening applications. Measured sodium levels exceed the ODWSOG aesthetic objective guideline of 200 mg/L. It is recommended that an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. Total and Fecal Coliforms, Escherichia Coli – The analytical results for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli measured in the groundwater sample collected from test well TW2 on August 7th, 2024, were above the ODWSOG limit (between 15 and 22 counts / 100 mL). Procedure D-5-5 indicates that the ODWSOG limit for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli is used as an indicator of inadequate disinfection within distribution systems. For private water wells the MECP 14
Page 88 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
and Health Units have historically used the limit of <5 counts /100 mL in the absence of a chlorine residual as indicating acceptable water quality concerning total coliforms, and D-5-5 indicates total coliform counts of less than 6 per 100 ml are acceptable. A second groundwater sample was collected by BluMetric from test well TW2 on October 3rd, 2024, at the end of a 4-hour pumping test and was analyzed for microbiological parameters. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4, satisfying the ODWSOG. Two (2) additional groundwater samples were collected on December 2nd and December 9th, 2025, by the property owner at 3629 Quinn Road East via grab sampling methods to confirm the previous sampling results. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample continued to show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4.
15
Page 89 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Table 4:
240360 July 2025
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Parameter
Units
RDL
ODWSOG
TW1
TW2
TW2
TW2
TW2
6 hours
6 hours
03-Oct-24
02-Dec-24
09-Dec-24
15 22 15
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0.2 0.1 0.06 0.71 108 0.003 0.0003 1.17 0.0006
Microbiological Parameters (Health) Escherichia Coli
ct/100 mL
0
0MAC
0
Total Coliforms
ct/100 mL
0
MAC
0
0
Fecal Coliforms
ct/100 mL
0
not specified
0
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
1.5MAC
Turbidity (Lab)
NTU
0.1
5 AO
0.7 1.2
N-NO2 (Nitrite)
mg/L
0.1
1MAC
<0.05
N-NO3 (Nitrate)
mg/L
0.1
10
Sodium
mg/L
1
20 / 200
217
Manganese
mg/L
1
AO
0.05
0.014
Arsenic
mg/L
1
new MAC
0.0005
Boron
mg/L
1
5 IMAC
Uranium
mg/L
1
0.02
Chemical Parameters (Health)
0.29
MAC
MA
0.01
AO
MAC
2.28 0.00063
Chemical Parameters with Aesthetic Objectives/ Operational Guidelines N-NH3 (Ammonia)
mg/L
0.02
not specified
1.47
pH
no units
1
6.5-8.5
8.10
Hardness as CaCO3
mg/L
1
100
237
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
5
500
TDS (COND - CALC)
mg/L
1
500
731
Calcium
mg/L
1
55.8
Chloride
mg/L
1
250AO
82.8
Colour
TCU
2
AO
5
<2
Conductivity
uS/cm
5
1350
DOC
mg/L
0.5
5
Hydrogen Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
Sulphate
mg/L
Tannin & Lignin Magnesium Potassium
AO
0.05
<0.01
1
AO
500
247
mg/L
0.1
<0.5
mg/L
1
23.7
mg/L
1
Iron
mg/L
0.03
0.3
Manganese
mg/L
0.01
0.05
0.014
2.21 7.95 286 302 522 74.6 55.3 <2 979 3.1 <0.01 143 <0.5 24.2 15.6 0.008 0.003
pH
no units
0.01
7.63
7.43
Chlorine Residual
mg/L
0.01
0
0
Conductivity
uS/cm
0.1
6.5-8.5AO non detectable
1297
Turbidity
NTU
0.01
5
AO
0.26
Colour
TCU
10
AO
5
0
Temperature (oC)
oC
0.1
942 0.15 0
AO
OG OG AO
AO
349
3.9
20.8 AO AO
0.015
Field Parameters
Notes: Bold and shaded indicates results exceed criteria RDL - Reported Detection Limit ‘-‘ – Not Tested/Reported Hydrogen Sulphide is reported as a calculated value based on the Sulphide concentration determined by colorimetric method. MA = Medical officer of health advisory if sodium exceeds 20 mg/L. Sodium AO is 200 mg/L Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003/2022. Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended.
16
Page 90 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity As part of the 6-hour pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 were pumped by BluMetric on August 7 and August 8, 2024, at a constant rate of 20.5 L/min continuously over a period of six hours. Pressure transducer/datalogger were installed inside the dug wells at the retained lot on 3629 Quinn Road to measure groundwater interference during pumping of test well TW1 and TW2. A summary of the water levels measured over the course of the 6-hour pumping tests is included in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5:
Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1) 07-Aug-24
08-Aug-24
12-Aug-24
Test Well ID
Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)
Borehole Depth (mbgs)
Static Water Level (mbtoc)
Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)
Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
TW1
1.40
6.53
1.46
1.68
1.53
1.17
Table 6:
Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2) 08-Aug-24
09-Aug-24
12-Aug-24
Test Well ID
Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)
Borehole Depth (mbgs)
Static Water Level (mbtoc)
Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)
Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
TW2
1.50
6.53
1.57
1.76
1.49
1.22
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the static water levels prior to the start of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 was 1.46 m btoc and 1.57 m btoc, respectively. Water levels at test well TW1 and TW2 prior to pump shutoff after 6 hours of pumping were 1.68 m btoc and 1.76 m btoc, respectively. Based on these water level measurements, total drawdowns of 0.22 m and 0.19 m were observed at the end of the 6-hour pump tests. Based on static water level measurements and well depths shown on the well records (recommended pump depths were at the bottom of the well), test wells TW1 and TW2 have available drawdowns of 5.07 m and 4.96 m, respectively. At the end of the 6-hour pumping test, test wells TW1 and TW2 had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump.
17
Page 91 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, water levels at test wells TW1 and TW2 had recovered to 1.53 m btoc and 1.49 m btoc approximately 24 hours following pump shutoff, indicating that both test wells recovered to approximately 68% and 142%, respectively, of the initial static water levels measured immediately before the start of the 6-hour pumping test. Recovery water levels above 100% four (4) days after pump shutoff are likely due to a combination of precipitation (13.2 mm and 20.8 mm of precipitation was measured at the Environment Canada weather station in Hartington, Ontario, on August 8th and 9th, respectively, located approximately 5 km from the site) and/or natural variations in water levels. A summary of measured water levels at observation wells that were monitored during the two sixhour pumping tests is included in Table 7. Table 7: Pumping Well TW1 (6-hr test) TW2 (6-hr test)
Observation Well Responses
TW2 3629 Quinn Road
Radial Distance (m) 100 190
Drawdown After 1 hour (m) 0.02 0.01
Drawdown After 2 hours (m) 0.04 0.02
Drawdown After 6 hours (m) 0.11 0.08
TW1 3629 Quinn Road
100 120
0.02 0.03
0.03 0.04
0.09 0.1
Observation Well
As shown in Table 7, the worst-case drawdown observed after 6 hours of continuous, constant rate pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min was 0.11 m. As per procedure D-5-5, discussed in more detail below, the daily water demand for a 4-bedroom dwelling is 2,250 L/day, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 2 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.04 m based on Table 7). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014), also discussed in more detail below, indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 1 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.03 m based on Table 7). Based on the worst-case drawdowns observed in neighboring water wells after 1 hour (0.03 m) and 2 hours (0.04 m) of the constant rate pumping test, which are representative of daily water use scenarios of the future dwellings on the proposed lots to be severed, negative impacts associated to well interference are not anticipated. As summarized in Table 8, the amount of groundwater pumped out of test wells TW1 and TW2 over the course of the 6-hour pumping test was approximately 7,358 L per well. Based measured drawdowns of 0.22 meters and 0.19 meters at the end of the 6-hr pumping test, the calculated volume of water pumped from test wells TW1 and TW2 were approximately 7,362 L and 7,351 L,
18
Page 92 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
respectively, assuming that both test wells are cylindrical and have casing radiuses of 0.46 meters. It is also assumed that both test wells have additional groundwater storage outside the immediate vicinity of the casing (representing the dug well excavation that was backfilled with porous sand/gravel) that extends to a radius of approximately 3.2 meters. Based on a 24-hr recovery of 0.15 meters and 0.27 meters, the calculated volume of water produced by test wells TW1 and TW2 over a 24-hr period was calculated to be approximately 4,967 L and 10,331 L, respectively. Table 8:
Test Well ID
Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) Volume of Water Pumped During 6-hr Pumping Test (L; Flowmeter)
Calculated Volume of Water Pumped During 6-Hour Pumping Test (L)
Height of Water Column Recovery After 24 hrs (m)
Volume of Water Produced After 24hrs of Recovery (L)
TW1 7358 7362 0.15 4967 TW2 7358 7351 0.27 10331
- Calculated volumes assume both test wells are cylindrical, have casing radiuses of 0.46 m and additional water storage extending to a radius of 3.2 m.
Analyses of the 6-hour pumping test conducted on test well TW1 were conducted using AquiferTest 10.0 software in order to estimate aquifer parameters. Aquifer parameters were calculated using the Theis (1935) method for an unconfined aquifer as summarized in the table below. Appendix C includes pumping test analysis reports for drawdown and recovery phases of the pumping test for the pumping well and selected observation wells. Table 9:
Summary of Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity
Well
Type
TW1 TW2 3629 Quinn Road
Pumping Well Observation Well Observation Well Mean
Drawdown 2x101 3x101
T (m2/d) Recovery 4x101 5x101 4x101
Mean 4x101 3x101 3x101 3x101
K (m/s) Mean 8x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-4 9x10-5
S 6x10-4 2x10-4 4x10-4
The calculated aquifer parameters for pumping well TW1 and observation wells TW2 and 3629 Quinn Road are similar to published literature values for coarse/medium sand (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990), however values are likely representing a composite of fractured limestone and gravel, consistent with the construction materials of dug wells.
19
Page 93 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
In order to calculate the productive capacity of test wells TW1 and TW2, the Farvolden (1959) method was used to estimate a sustainable pumping rate for 20 years without exceeding the available drawdown in the test wells. The Farvolden (1959) method is defined by the following equation:
Where: T = Transmissivity (m2/day) HA = Available drawdown (m) Q20 = 20-year safe yield Using a mean transmissivity value of 3x101 m2/d and an available drawdown of 5 m, the Farvolden (1959) method suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 71.4 m3/day, or 50 L/min. The suitability of test wells TW1 and TW2 to supply an adequate amount of water for the proposed severances was assessed using the methodology provided in MECP Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996), which indicates the number of people per dwelling is the number of bedrooms plus one. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that future residences on the proposed severances will be a fourbedroom single family homes, therefore the number of persons residing in each residence is assumed to be five. Procedure D-5-5 indicates the minimum ‘per-person water requirement’ is 450 L/day, which is 2,250 L/day per dwelling. Procedure D-5-5 also indicates that ‘peak demand’ is assumed to occur over a 120-minute period and is to be based on a per person usage rate of 3.75 L/min during that period. Using this information, the ‘peak demand rate’ per four-bedroom house is 3.75 x 5 = 18.75 L/min for a total of 2,250 L over a 120-min period. The pumping rate used for the pumping tests at TW1 and TW2 was 20.5 L/min therefore a total of 7,358 L was pumped from each test well in 360 mins and still had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump. The Farvolden (1959) method, calculated using measured aquifer parameters of the test wells, also suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 50 L/min. Based on the recovery data measured during the two 6-hr pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 can supply between 4,967 L and 10,331 L of groundwater over a 24-hr period for domestic use.
20
Page 94 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Based on this information, both test wells can satisfy the requirements to accommodate both daily and peak water demand requirement for a four-bedroom house based on the D-5-5 procedure (2,250 L/day per dwelling). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014) indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 225 L per person per day (1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house). Current Ontario Building Code requirements (OBC, 2012) for water conservation specify that toilet and shower consumption must now comply with lower use requirements (OBC Table 7.6.4.2.A & B and Table 7.6.4.1). Based on the new requirements, toilet water demand is assumed to be 4.8 L/flush. Shower consumption is assumed to be 7.6 L/min. Toilet use accounts for approximately 25% of total domestic water use, and shower use accounts for approximately 20% (CMHC, 2014). The OBC efficiencies will result in an average per person domestic water usage of 163 L/day. This suggests that the daily household water demand could often be less than 815 L/day.
4
Development Considerations
4.1 Water Treatment The new severed lots will be serviced by dug wells therefore the following water treatment items are recommended: • • •
Pre-filtration (25 and/or 10 micron and 5 micron) followed by absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization. UV sterilization with a National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Class-A (NSF, 2019) device. Under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets.
Since filtration and disinfection both contribute to the removal or inactivation of waterborne pathogens, both treatment processes are recommended, along with a service contract with a qualified contractor to ensure the on-going maintenance and performance of the water treatment system. The water within the overburden aquifer has elevated hardness. Installation of a residential grade water softener would reduce the concentrations of hardness and extend the lifespan of the UV sterilization system. Conventional water softeners introduce sodium into the water supply.
21
Page 95 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The concentration of sodium in the water supply already exceeds the ‘medical notification limit’ of 20 mg/L for people on a sodium reduced diet, so a conventional water softener is not recommended. Softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. Sodium can also be removed from drinking water by using reverse osmosis or by distillation.
4.2 Testing of Treated Water Treated water from the proposed dug wells for the proposed two-lot severance should be tested on a regular basis for bacteriological parameters. Free microbiological testing for water wells is available through Public Health Ontario. Details regarding sample bottle pickup and sampling procedures can be accessed at the Eastern Ontario Health Unit website (https://eohu.ca/en/my-environment/wellwater-testing). Sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest, (e.g. early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rain/flooding).
4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal MECP’s Procedure D-5-4 (MOEE, 1996) provides a methodology for assessing the risks associated with individual onsite sewage systems. Developments consisting of lots which average 1 hectare (with no lot being smaller than 0.8 hectares) may not require a detailed hydrogeological assessment if it can be demonstrated that the area is not hydrogeologically sensitive. The lot sizes of the proposed lots to be severed are approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is also considered hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin overburden and is located within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’, therefore an assessment of the potential impact of effluent from a wastewater treatment system (i.e., a nitrate dilution calculation) was conducted. The assessment is based on a reasonable estimate of groundwater recharge by infiltration from precipitation. The method relies on estimates of evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff and inputs regarding surficial soil type, vegetative ground cover and topography. A nitrate effluent concentration of 40 mg/L and a wastewater flow of 1,000 Litre/day per lot is used (based on OBC Table 8.2.1.3.A, which indicates a daily rate of 2,000 L/day for 2 x 4-bedroom dwelling). A mean annual precipitation value (net of evaporation and evapotranspiration processes) of 965.6 mm/year was used (Environment Canada, Climate Normals 2022 – Centreville).
22
Page 96 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
An estimation of infiltration was calculated based on site specific information and the infiltration factors provided in the document MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995). The calculations are provided in Appendix D. The assessment shows that the nitrate impact for the proposed severances will be approximately 5.8 mg/L. This assessment shows that nitrate in effluent from proposed development will have an acceptable impact on receiving water quality.
4.3.1 Sewage System Design Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), a fully raised tile bed is anticipated for the proposed severed lot. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. Sewage systems are designed according to Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC, 2012). The OBC sets out minimum design and construction standards for all approved classes of sewage systems. It is proposed that this site be serviced with traditional Class 4 sewage systems consisting of a septic tank and separate leaching bed. Wherever possible, leaching beds should be located down gradient from any nearby wells or surface water bodies. The Ontario Building Code stipulates minimum clearance distances for in-ground and raised tile beds. Table 6 gives clearances for the various types of beds. In order to provide a safety margin, it is BluMetric’s recommendation that an offset of at least 45 m (1.5x minimum clearance) be observed between an onsite wastewater treatment system and TW1 and TW2. The septic system and bed should be placed in a downgradient or side gradient location relative to the planned dug well. Clearance distances in Table 6 also apply to wells and sewage systems located on neighbouring lots. A conceptual lot development plan showing setbacks is included as Figure 4. Table 10:
Tile Bed Clearances
Minimum Clearance (m) In-ground Partially Raised Fully Raised Water supply well with a watertight casing to a depth of 6 m 15 16.5 18 Any other water supply well (including dug wells) 30 31.5 33 Surface water body* 15 16.5 18 Structures 5 7.5 8 Lot boundaries 3 4.5 6 Source: Table 8.2.1.6B of O.Reg. 332/12, as amended (Ontario Building Code) and increased for a 1.5 m fully raised leaching bed as required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11). Surface Feature
23
Page 97 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The homeowner is advised to have the on-site wastewater system inspected regularly and to follow a wastewater system management program to minimize the risk of failure and impact to the groundwater. Existing tile bed drainage system should be disconnected prior to installation of future septic bed systems. Best management practices are recommended such as regular pumping of the septic system, cursory inspection of break-out, consideration as to what materials are being discharged to the septic. It is recommended that homeowners take all reasonable measures to conserve water and promote infiltration of water into the subsurface within each of their lots. The homeowner shall consult the following guides available at: https://www.oowa.org/homeowner-resources/ • •
5
A Guide to Operating & Maintaining Your Septic System About Your House: Buying a House with a Well and Septic System
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the investigations and analyses contained within this report: • •
•
• • •
The dug wells TW1 (on the western lot) and TW2 (on the eastern lot) are suitable for the purpose of characterizing the bedrock aquifer at the subject site. TW1 on the proposed western lot and TW2 on the eastern lot to be severed will provide a sufficient quantity of water for a four-bedroom household based on daily and peak water demands outlined in the D-5-5 procedure. In BluMetric’s professional opinion the probable well yield determined on the basis of this investigation is representative of the yield which residents of the proposed lots to be severed are likely to obtain from existing dug wells in the long term. The water quality at TW1 and TW2 was found to satisfy the health-related limits of the ODWSOG. Pre-filtration and absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization is recommended. Treated water should be tested on a regular basis to ensure the efficacy of the water treatment system. Samples should be tested for bacteriological parameters, and sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest (e.g., early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rains/flooding).
24
Page 98 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
•
•
• •
•
6
240360 July 2025
The laboratory analytical results for hardness exceeded the Operational Guideline limit (a non-health related parameter). Elevated hardness can be treated with a residential grade water softener. Water softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can potentially be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. The laboratory analytical results for sodium exceeded the Aesthetic Guideline limit (a nonhealth related parameter). Elevated sodium can be treated with under-the-counter reverse osmosis systems installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. The proposed lots to be severed are suitable for development at the proposed occupancy based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), raised tile beds are anticipated for the proposed severed lots. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. The site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to the need for dug wells as the only source of potable water. As a precautionary measure, the setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 m.
Limiting Conditions
The conclusions presented in this report represent our professional opinion and are based upon the work described in this report and any limiting conditions in the terms of reference, scope of work, or conditions noted herein. BluMetric makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by others, or of conclusions and recommendations predicated on the accuracy of that information. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion. BluMetric makes no representation as to compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies established by regulatory agencies.
25
Page 99 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
This report has been prepared for Robert Pittman. Any use a third party makes of this report, any reliance on the report, or decisions based upon the report, are the responsibility of those third parties unless authorization is received from BluMetric in writing. BluMetric accepts no responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any unauthorized third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.
Respectfully submitted, BluMetric Environmental Inc.
Erik Lalonde, M.Sc., P.Geo Hydrogeologist
Michael Melaney, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineering
26
Page 100 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
7
240360 July 2025
References
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 2000 (Revised 2014). Household Guide to Water Efficiency. Drage, J. 2022. Domestic Wells Introduction and Overview. The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada, 2022. Canadian Climate Normals and Averages website: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Environment Canada, 2010. Meteorological Service of Canada. Compiled moisture surplus values for Ottawa, Lachute, Mason Anger, Morrisburg National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) / American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 2019. NSF/ANSI 55-2019 Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems. Ontario Building Code (OBC), 2012 as amended. O. Reg. 332/12: Building Code under Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992. Ontario GeoHub, 2024. Ontario Watershed Boundaries (OWB) GIS portal at: https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/mnrf::ontario-watershed-boundaries-owb/ Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), OGS Earth website, 2024. Various authors. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2022a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS map. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003. Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended/revised under Ontario Regulation 169/03, 2021. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-169-03/latest/o-reg-169-03.html https://wcwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Technical-Support-Document-for-OntarioDrinking-Water-Standards-Objectives-and-Guidelines.pdf
27
Page 101 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1994. Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2015. Water Supply Wells Requirements and Best Management Practices, (Revised April 2015) website at: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4410/a-wwbmp-title-master-table-of-contentschapter-1.pdf Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS and database. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024b. Permits to Take Water (PTTW) online GIS. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-permits-take-water Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Regulation 319/09, 2009. Quinte Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-319-09/latest/o-reg-319-09.html Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32 Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Revised Statute of Ontario (R.S.O.), Ontario Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903), 1990, Wells. Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. American Geophysical Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.
28
Page 102 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Thornthwaite, C. W., and Mather, J.R., 1957: Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publications in climatology, Volume 10(3), Laboratory of Climatology. United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2022. Geographic information system (GIS) at: https://alacarte.prescott-russell.on.ca/Html5Viewer/Index.html?Viewer=Public
29
Page 103 of 311
Figures
Page 104 of 311
Lot 2
Lot 1
Retained Lands
Indicates Proposed Lot Severances
Indicates Retained Lands
Figure 2 – Site Layout
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 105 of 311
Retained Lands
Lot 1
Lot 2
Indicates Well Record Location and ID Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Inferred Regional Drainage Direction Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow and Drainage Direction
Figure 3 – MECP Well Locations
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 106 of 311
A32158-TW2
Lot 2
TP1 TP4
TP3
TP4
Indicates Test Pit Location (August 6, 0.6 m 2024) and depth in metres
TP2
Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Indicates Supply Well Location
Indicates Recommended Residence Location 45 m
Denotes minimum 45 m separation setback between well supply and septic system
Indicates Recommended Septic System Location Inferred Shallow Groundwater and Drainage Flow Direction
Inferred Regional Groundwater Flow Direction Well Location
Figure 4 - Conceptual Lot Development Plan
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 107 of 311
Appendix A Well Records
Page 108 of 311
Page 109 of 311
Page 110 of 311
Page 111 of 311
Page 112 of 311
Page 113 of 311
Page 114 of 311
Page 115 of 311
Page 116 of 311
Page 117 of 311
Page 118 of 311
Page 119 of 311
Page 120 of 311
Appendix B Laboratory Certificates of Analysis
Page 121 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 130104
REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-14 Ground Water
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:
Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)
Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA
Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN
Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid) Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA
BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS KDIBBITS PLUSSIER
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01
Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C
COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01 NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01
SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4
Page 122 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Parameter
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Units
R.L.
Total Coliform (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
0
E coli (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
0
Heterotrophic Plate Count
CFU/1mL
10
10
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100mL
1
0
Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5
mg/L
5
349
TDS (Calc. from Cond.)
mg/L
3
731
Conductivity @25°C
uS/cm
1
1350
pH @25°C
pH units
8.10
Colour
TCU
2
<2
Turbidity
NTU
0.1
1.2
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
0.7
Chloride
mg/L
0.5
82.8
Nitrate (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.29
Nitrite (N)
mg/L
0.05
<0.05
Sulphate
mg/L
1
247
Phosphorus (Total)
mg/L
0.01
0.01
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
1.5
Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)
mg/L
0.05
1.47
Organic Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
<0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
mg/L
0.2
3.9
Tannin & Lignin
mg/L
0.5
<0.5
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4
Page 123 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Phenolics
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Hardness (as CaCO3)
mg/L
0.02
237
Barium
mg/L
0.001
0.066
Boron
mg/L
0.005
2.28
Calcium
mg/L
0.02
55.8
Iron
mg/L
0.005
0.015
Magnesium
mg/L
0.02
23.7
Manganese
mg/L
0.001
0.014
Potassium
mg/L
0.1
20.8
Sodium
mg/L
0.2
217
Strontium
mg/L
0.001
7.88
Zinc
mg/L
0.005
0.005
Antimony
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Arsenic
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Beryllium
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Cadmium
mg/L
Chromium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Cobalt
mg/L
0.0001
0.0002
Copper
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Lead
mg/L
0.00002
0.00028
0.00001 5
<0.000015
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4
Page 124 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Molybdenum
mg/L
0.0001
0.0008
Nickel
mg/L
0.0002
0.0007
Selenium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Silver
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Thallium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00012
Uranium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00063
Vanadium
mg/L
0.0001
0.0004
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4
Page 125 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 108631
REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-15 Ground Water
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:
Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)
Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA
Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN
Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid)
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA
BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS YLIEN PLUSSIER
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12
Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)
Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01
Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C
COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01
SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B ICPMS Test SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B
NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4
Page 126 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Parameter
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Units
R.L.
Total Coliform (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
22
E coli (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
15
Heterotrophic Plate Count
CFU/1mL
10
530
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100mL
1
15
Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5
mg/L
5
302
TDS (Calc. from Cond.)
mg/L
3
522
Conductivity @25°C
uS/cm
1
979
pH @25°C
pH units
7.95
Colour
TCU
2
<2
Turbidity
NTU
0.1
0.1
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
0.2
Chloride
mg/L
0.5
55.3
Nitrate (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.71
Nitrite (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.06
Sulphate
mg/L
1
143
Phosphorus (Total)
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
2.2
Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)
mg/L
0.05
2.21
Organic Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
<0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
mg/L
0.2
3.1
Tannin & Lignin
mg/L
0.5
<0.5
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4
Page 127 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Phenolics
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Hardness (as CaCO3)
mg/L
0.02
286
Barium
mg/L
0.001
0.071
Boron
mg/L
0.005
1.17
Calcium
mg/L
0.02
74.6
Iron
mg/L
0.005
0.008
Magnesium
mg/L
0.02
24.2
Manganese
mg/L
0.001
0.003
Potassium
mg/L
0.1
15.6
Sodium
mg/L
0.2
108
Strontium
mg/L
0.001
9.19
Zinc
mg/L
0.005
0.007
Antimony
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Arsenic
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Beryllium
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Cadmium
mg/L
Chromium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Cobalt
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Copper
mg/L
0.0001
0.0010
Lead
mg/L
0.00002
0.00018
0.00001 5
<0.000015
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4
Page 128 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Molybdenum
mg/L
0.0001
0.0007
Nickel
mg/L
0.0002
0.0026
Selenium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Silver
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Thallium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00022
Uranium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00060
Vanadium
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4
Page 129 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 130297
REPORT No: 24-030803 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-07 Ground Water
Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid)
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON
Authorized BBURTCH BBURTCH BBURTCH
Date Analyzed 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03
240360 Lab Method ECTC-001 FC-001 HPC-001
Reference Method MECP E3407 SM 9222D SM 9215D
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Parameter
Total Coliform (DC Media)
E coli (DC Media)
Background (DC
Heterotrophic Plate
Media)
Count
Fecal Coliform
Units
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
CFU/1mL
CFU/100mL
R.L.
1
1
1
10
1
Client I.D.
Sample I.D.
Date Collected
TW2
24-030803-1
2024-Oct-03
0
0
0
10
0
Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1
Page 130 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
DW 132970
REPORT No: 24-037978 - Rev. 0
Report To: Private Kingston ,
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Robert Pittman
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Dec-10 2024-Dec-11 Drinking Water
Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid)
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1
Site Analyzed KINGSTON
Authorized BBURTCH
Date Analyzed 2024-Dec-10
Lab Method ECTC-001
Reference Method MECP E3407
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Parameter
Total Coliform (DC Media)
E coli (DC Media)
Units
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
R.L.
1
1
Client I.D.
Sample I.D.
Date Collected
3629 Quinn Rd.East Well
24-037978-1
2024-Dec-09
0
0
Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1
Page 131 of 311
Appendix C Aquifer Analysis
Page 132 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Pumping W ell: TW 1 Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
TW 1 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
Analysis Date: 2025-03-11
t/t’ 1
10
100
1000
0.00
residual drawdown [m]
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
TW1
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
4.22 × 10
-4
7.82 × 10
-5
0.45
Page 133 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
TW 2 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E0 2E-1
residual drawdown [m]
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
t/t'
1E1
1E2
1E3
2E-1
1E-1
8E-2
4E-2
0E-1 TW2 Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
TW2
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
6.02 × 10
-4
1.11 × 10
-4
99.03
Page 134 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
3629 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E0 1E-1
residual drawdown [m]
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
t/t'
1E1
1E2
1E3
8E-2
6E-2
4E-2
2E-2
0E-1 3629 Quinn Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
3629 Quinn
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
6.67 × 10
-4
1.23 × 10
-4
189.77
Page 135 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Test Conducted by:
Test Date: 2025-03-12
Analysis Performed by:
3629 Quinn - Drawdown
Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m
Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
Time [s] 10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.00
Drawdown [m]
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Calculation using COOPER & JACOB Observation Well
3629 Quinn
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
[m²/d]
[m/d]
2.75 × 10
1
5.00 × 10
Storage coefficient
Radial Distance to PW [m]
0
1.65 × 10
-4
189.77
Page 136 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Test Conducted by:
Test Date: 2025-03-12
Analysis Performed by:
TW 2 - Drawdown
Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m
Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E1 2E-1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
Time [s] 1E3
1E2
1E4
1E5
2E-1
[m]
1E-1
8E-2
4E-2
0E-1 TW2 Calculation using Theis with Jacob Correction Observation Well
TW2
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
[m²/d]
[m/d]
2.22 × 10
1
4.04 × 10
Storage coefficient
Radial Distance to PW [m]
0
5.71 × 10
-4
99.03
Page 137 of 311
Appendix D Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations
Page 138 of 311
Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Thornthwaite Calculation Thornthwaite Method (1957)
Potential Evapotranspiration
‘Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems’ 4th edition by Ram S. Gupta, 2017 Et month = 1.62 (10Tm)/I)^a where: a = 67510^-9I^3 - 771 10^-7I^2 +17910^-4 * I + 492*10^-3 Ii = sum (Tm/5)^1.514 Canada Climate Normals Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario Month January Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Temp C
Ii
frozen frozen frozen 1.4877 2.9527 4.2984 6.3385 7.0714 9.0708 8.7189 10.5471 7.9723 9.8887 5.3836 7.4537 2.1934 3.9049 0.3501 1.0420 frozen 37.476 51.198 a= 1.0901 Note: Daylight Factor is an adjustment factor for possible hours of sunshine based on latitude. Monthly temperature from Environment Canada Climate Normals website at: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
-7.7 -6.9 -1.5 6.5 13.1 18.2 20.9 19.7 15.2 8.4 2.5 -4.1
Et (cm) unadjusted
Daylight Factor
Et (mm) adjusted
1.13 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.21 1.04 0.94 0.79
0.0334 0.0811 0.1170 0.1382 0.1197 0.0775 0.0367 0.0082
0.612 metres
965.6 mm
Potential Evapotranspiration (PE)
612 mm
Surplus Water (Precipitation - PE)
354 mm
Page 139 of 311
Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Predictive Nitrate Impact Assessment PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Infiltration Factors
Infiltration Factors
0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated
Topography Soil Cover Total
0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated
Topography Soil Cover
0.6
Total
Site Characteristics
0.6
Site Characteristics 21000 m
Area of Site :
2
Area of Site :
21,000
2.10 hectares Area of each roof: Total of roof areas: Length of roadways: Width of roadways: Total area of roadways:
10 m 5 m 2 100 m
Impervious Area
2 700 m
Percent Impervious Area = Infiltration Area =
21,000
m2
Septic Effluent
m2
2.10 hectares 2 300 m 2 600 m
3.33 %
Infiltration Area =
20,300
m2
Septic Effluent
Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =
40 mg/L 3 0 m
Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation
Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =
40 mg/L 3 2 m
Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation
Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) =
0 mg/L
Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
965.6 mm/yr
Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) = Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)
354 mm/yr
Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)
Factored Surplus Water =
212 mm/yr
Factored Surplus Water =
3 4,458 m
Total volume of Infiltration
0 mg/L 965.6 mm/yr 354 mm/yr 212 mm/yr 3 4,309 m
Total volume of Infiltration
mm/yr 3 12 m /day
Infiltration flow entering the system (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)
3 12 m /day
Infiltration Flow Entering the System (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)
CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration
CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration
Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area
3 0 m /day
Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area
3 0 m /day
Cb = background nitrate concentration
0 mg/L
Cb = background nitrate concentration
0 mg/L
Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield
3 0 m /day
Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield
Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent
40 mg/L
Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate CT = Estimate Number of Lots
3 2 m /day
Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent
40 mg/L
3 12 m /day
Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration
3 12 m /day
0 mg/L
Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate
0 mg/L
0.0 mg/L 1 lots
CT = Estimate Number of Lots
5.8 mg/L 2 lots
Page 140 of 311
1682 Woodward Dr. O awa, ON K2C 3R8 Canada
The Tower, 4 Cataraqui St. Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 Canada
3B-209 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2M7 Canada
825 Milner Ave. Toronto, ON M1B 3C3 Canada
T 877.487.8436 O awa@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Kingston@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Kitchener@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Toronto@blumetric.ca
6-410 Falconbridge Rd. Sudbury, ON P3A 4S4 Canada
260-15 Taschereau St. Ga neau, QC J8Y 2V6 Canada
200-1500 Du College St. Saint-Laurent, QC H4L 5G6 Canada
27 Parker St. Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4T5 Canada
T 877.487.8436 Sudbury@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Ga neau@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Montreal@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Dartmouth@blumetric.ca
4916–49th St. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1P3 Canada
200-4445 SW 35th Terrace Gainesville, FL 32608 USA
T 877.487.8436 Yellowknife@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Gainesville@blumetric.ca
Page 141 of 311
Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2025-0074 Application Number: ___________________________________________________ Robert Pittman Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________
3 PT Lot 6 Portland Lot: _______________District:
Concession: _________________ Quinn Road East Road: ________________________________________________________________
Road Maintenance:
✔ Year-round □
Seasonal □
Sight Lines: Are there adequate sight lines for the entrance?
✔ Yes □
No □
If no, what changes would be required to improve sight lines? RETAINED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES. SEVERED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES
Road Conditions:
Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?
Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.
Road Widening Required? ✔ To be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor □ Yes □ No □ Any specific requirement?
Local road - rural classification. Ensure that there is a 20m (66ft road allowance) otherwise applicant to dedicate any shortfall of 10m from centerline.
Approved by the Public Services? ✔ Yes □ Yes, with conditions □ No □ If yes, with conditions, please describe conditions below.
Signature on behalf of Public Services
2025-07-22
Date
Page 142 of 311
July 31, 2025
File: SEV/FRS/172/2025 SEV/FRS/173/2025 MV/FRS/174/2025
Sent by E-mail Christine Woods Manager of Planning Development Services Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Woods: Re:
Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Lot Creation) & Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 3629 Quinn Rd East; Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: unnamed tributary of Millhaven Creek & unevaluated wetlands
Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted applications for consent and minor variance. The applications involve the severance of two 1.0 ha parcels of vacant land from an existing 37.8 ha rural property for the purpose of creating two new building lots. Future residential development is planned for the 35.8 ha retained parcel. A minor variance is necessary to permit reduced lot frontages for each lot. Discussion CRCA’s scope of review with respect to this application is the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the unnamed watercourses and wetlands on the subject property and protection of the hydrologic function of wetlands. We offer the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration, based on our role as a commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Surface Water Features Cataraqui Conservation, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits requires development (building and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) to be located outside of natural hazard areas and set back a minimum of 30 m from surface water features including watercourses (creeks, streams) and
Page 143 of 311
Page 2 of 3 wetlands. The intent is to protect development from potential flooding and erosion hazards and to preserve the hydrologic function of these features. Unnamed Tributary of Millhaven Creek The subject lands are within a drainage catchment the flows east into Millhaven Creek. There is a watercourse that runs across the southern portion of the subject lands approximately 98 m back from Quinn Road. The watercourse is a regulated feature and as such a 30 m setback is applied. The survey sketch provided shows that there are building envelopes on the severed and retained lands outside of the required 30 m setback from the watercourse. However, the proposed lot configuration results in the severed lots being divided by the watercourse. Staff note that it may not be feasible to access the northern portion of the severed lots since this would require a crossing of the watercourse, which may not be permitted by CRCA. As such, staff recommend that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. Unevaluated Wetlands Mapping identified pockets of unevaluated wetlands on the subject lands, generally in the area in and around of the watercourse. Staff are accepting of the findings of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment which confirms the presence of riparian vegetation in the watercourse channel but notes that the area is not large enough to be considered a distinct community. Based on this, CRCA have no concerns related to the hydrologic function of wetlands on the subject lands. Staff recommend that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Karst Topography The subject lands have been identified on provincial OGS Mapping as having inferred karst. Karst is a type of unstable bedrock that is relatively common in the Cataraqui Region area and is considered a natural hazard under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and Ontario Regulation 41/024. As with other natural hazards, there is risk of damage to buildings, property and human safety when development is located within or near unstable bedrock. Accordingly, CRCA’s regulation directs development away from these areas and features. CRCA staff have reviewed available information (e.g. aerial imagery, soils and geology mapping, topographic info.) and completed a site inspection of the subject lands. Based on our preliminary findings, we did not encounter evidence of karst in the area of the future development envelopes (generally within 50 m of Quinn Road). Should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the applicant will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property.
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 144 of 311
Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Staff have no objection to approval of PL-BDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-20250076 based on our review of natural hazards and have identified considerations above in bold. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 30 m of the watercourse are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06). 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 and to ensure the protection of wetlands. Current and future landowners are advised to contact CRCA before considering any work within 30 metres of the watercourse on the subject lands. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely,
Emma Stucke, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner cc. Robert Pittman, applicant, by email Elysia Ackroyd, agent, by email
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 145 of 311
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:
Emma Stucke Christine Woods Kate Kaestner RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East) August 26, 2025 9:42:49 AM image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png
Hi Christine, Thanks for providing this. Overall, I see the proposed revisions as an improvement compared to the last concept and continue to have no objections to the severance. Sincerely, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 26, 2025 9:06 AM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Cc: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Emma, We received the attached revised plan, which will go to Committee of Adjustment on September 11th. Please let me know if you have any comment on the revised plan. Sincerely, Christine Woods RPP, MCIP Manager of Planning Development Services p: +613-376-3027 e: cwoods@southfrontenac.net a: 4432 George St., Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Temporary office: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury www.southfrontenac.net Page 146 of 311
Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Sent: August 25, 2025 4:50 PM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Cc: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Hi Kate, Thanks for passing on the notices of deferral. I’m following up to see if you need any further info from me with respect to my comment letter. Let me know! Thanks, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 18, 2025 3:04 PM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Subject: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Page 147 of 311
Good afternoon Emma, Please find attached Notices of Deferral for the Pittman applications at 3629 Quinn Road East). Kind regards, Kate Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk Development Services Department Township of South Frontenac p: +613-376-3027 e: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net a: Box 100, Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 o: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury, ON www.southfrontenac.net
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Page 148 of 311
To:
Committee of Adjustment
Prepared by:
Development Services Department
Meeting Date:
September 11, 2025
Subject:
Revised Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075, Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-20250076, Pittman (Fotenn), 3629 Quinn Road East, Portland District
Summary The consent applications are for the creation of two rural residential lots. The minor variance application is to allow the severed and retained parcels to have less than the required lot frontage. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on the consent applications in conjunction with the minor variance application. This report recommends approval of the three applications. Background The subject property is located south of Harrowsmith, east of Road 38 and on the north side of Quinn Road East. It runs north to an unopened road allowance. The northern two thirds of the property is forest and old farm fields. The southern portion of the property is generally level. It contains agricultural fields and is developed with a single detached dwelling, a detached garage and a shed. A watercourse bisects the property approximately 100m north of Quinn Road East. The neighbourhood has a mix of rural residential properties and agricultural properties. The subject lands are in the Rural designation in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The lands are zoned Rural (RU) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The Committee of Adjustment held a public hearing for the subject applications in August 2025. The Committee granted the applicant’s request to defer making decisions until they had an opportunity to revisit the proposed lot layouts in consideration for Cataraqui Conservation’s comments. Revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 0.8ha (2 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The depth of the lots was reduced preserve the tillable agricultural field to the north, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by Cataraqui Conservation. The rear lot lines would align with the northern extent of the 30m setback from the watercourse. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 36.3ha (89.6 acres) in size with 64m frontage. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 149 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained parcels because the RU zone requires 76m frontage. Supporting Documents A Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. The report assessed the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area as well as its conformity with the applicable policy and regulatory framework. It included a minimum distance separation study for livestock facilities. Fotenn submitted a subsequent letter (August 19, 2025) in support of the revised consent applications, indicating that they address technical comments and enhance the protection of rural and natural features. A Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required to confirm the existence of a mapped wetland along the watercourse, and to define its boundary, on the severed parcels. The study determined that there was no wetland on the severed parcels. The consultant evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, and woodland on the severed and retained parcels. They also reviewed the area for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat. The Natural Heritage Site Assessment included the following recommendations:
- Development should be setback a minimum of 30m from the watercourse,
- The land within 30m of the watercourse should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated to provide a buffer, and
- No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. A Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required because the severed parcels would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse. A dug well was constructed on each of the severed parcels. The consultant conducted 6hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment. The study concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems. The report included the following recommendations:
- Water treatment including pre-filtration and ultraviolet sterilization, as well as an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system for individuals with sodium restricted diets,
- Regular testing of treated water for bacteriological parameters,
- Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements, and www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 150 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
- The setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45m as a precautionary measure due to the hydrogeological sensitive nature of the site. The Hydrogeological Assessment was reviewed by Malroz Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Township. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reported on July 22, 2025, that there are adequate entrance sight lines for both the severed parcels and the retained parcel. Road widening is to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. A 20-metre right-of-way is required on Quinn Road East. Any shortfall of the right-of-way as measured 10 metres from the centreline of the road shall be dedicated to the Township. Public Services had no comment on the proposed reduced lot frontages. Cataraqui Conservation staff indicated in a letter dated July 31, 2025, that they have no objection to the applications. They recommended the applicant consider an alternative lot configuration where the rear lot lines would follow the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings, because crossings may not be permitted by CRCA under O. Reg. 41/24. They also recommended that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Finally, they noted that should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the owner will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property. On August 26, 2025, they noted the proposed revisions are an improvement compared to the last concept. They continue to have no objections to the applications. Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The consent applications need to be assessed against the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS), County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, as well as the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The minor variance application needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Minimum Distance Separation for Livestock Facilities In conformity with the PPS, the Township Official Plan requires all division of land for nonfarm uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I (MDS I) (section 7.1(l)). The Township Zoning By-law also requires residential development to comply with MDS I. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 151 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
The subject lands are in a rural and agricultural area where there are several existing livestock facilities. The Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) evaluated these livestock facilities against The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document (OMAFRA Publication 853). MDS I setbacks were calculated for barns at 4372 Road 38 and at 3609 Quinn Road East. It was determined that the severed parcels would conform to the applicable minimum distance separation policies. Rural Residential Uses The PPS allows residential lot creation on Rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. The County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan also permit residential development in the Rural designation. Section 5.7.4 of the Township Official Plan indicates that a maximum of three rural residential lots may be created by consent from a landholding provided that the new lots meet the General Consent Policies, as well as all other applicable policies. The subject property is eligible for severances under Section 5.7.4. There have been no previous severances from the lot existing on the day of adoption of the Township Official Plan. Section 5.7.4 requires the frontage, size and shape of any lot created for rural residential purposes through the severance approval process to be appropriate for the proposed use and to conform to the provisions of the zoning by-law. The severed parcels would be a minimum of 0.8ha in size, which is the minimum lot area required in the Rural designation and the RU zone for a residential lot. The parcels would be rectangular-shaped. The severed parcels would have approximately 63m frontage and the retained parcel would have 64.6m frontage on Quinn Road East. These frontages would be less than the minimum 76m lot frontage required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) of the Official Plan allows the municipality to consider reductions to this requirement provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The minor variance application requests 60m lot frontages. The minimum 76m lot frontage is intended to allow for a separation between driveways and to improve traffic safety. Public Services noted that the severed parcels and retained parcel would each have adequate sight lines for an entrance. Minimum lot frontages are also required to ensure a development pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature and to avoid an overdeveloped appearance. Existing lots along this part of Quinn Road East have frontages ranging from 40m to 70m, so the proposed reduced lot frontages would be consistent with the existing lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Finally, minimum lot frontages help ensure a reasonable separation between uses. Separation between wells and sewage systems is especially important for protecting groundwater in hydrogeological sensitive areas. A hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis was required in support of the applications because the proposed lots would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 152 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
location of the watercourse (i.e. development would logically need to occur on the land between the watercourse and the road). The Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a sewage system. Figure 4 of the report is a conceptual lot development plan that illustrates how a well, a sewage system and a house can fit on each of the severed parcels with consideration for the recommended 45m separation distance between the wells and sewage systems. The development could also achieve the required 30m setback from the watercourse and other applicable zone provisions. Staff are satisfied that the proposed reduced frontages would not compromise the functionality, accessibility or rural character of the severed parcels. It would also not impact the continued use of the retained parcel, 150m north of the road. Special Development Requirements Staff recommend that a development agreement be a condition of the consent approvals. The development agreement would be used to notify potential purchasers and future owners about special requirements that will apply to development of the severed parcels. Specifically, to make them aware of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment and the Hydrogeological Assessment and the recommendations that must be implemented. The agreement would also make them aware that they will need to have lot grading and drainage plans prepared that implement the recommendations of these reports. Cataraqui Conservation noted that the subject lands are in an area of inferred karst. The development agreement would make people aware of this potential, and provide direction on what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site. Conclusion The consent applications meet the criteria outlined in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, do not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County and Township Official Plans. The severed parcels and retained parcel will comply with the Zoning By-law subject to the requested minor variance for lot frontage. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed 60m lot frontages meet the four tests for a minor variance – the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, they are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and they are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearings was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days in advance of the Public Hearings in August and in September. This included notice given: •
by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 153 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
• •
by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies
Recommendation for Consent Applications It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PLBDJ-2025-0075, each for consent to sever one new rural residential lot from 3629 Quinn Road East, Part of Lot 6, Concession 3, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, subject to the following conditions: Expiry Period
- Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
- The lands to be severed shall be for the creation of one new residential lot a minimum of 0.8 hectare in area with a minimum of 60 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with application sketch. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
- An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
- The Ontario Land Surveyor or the applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. The Ontario Land Surveyor shall also confirm that the retained parcel has a minimum 60m lot frontage on Quinn Road East. Road Allowance Widening
- The Ontario Land Surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Quinn Road East to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 154 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule: The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 6. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. It also includes any hydrogeological assessment peer review fee if it is greater than the collected deposit. 7. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1), By-law 2023-104]. 8. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Requirement for an entrance permit for any new or relocated entrances; b. Implementation of the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024); c. Implementation of the recommendations of the Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., July 30, 2025); www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 155 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
d. Requirement for a lot grading and drainage plan that implements the recommendations of the above reports, to be submitted at the building permit stage; e. Notice regarding what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site; f. Notice regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and g. Notice regarding archeological resources and human remains. Zoning 10. The applicant is required to apply for a minor variance to permit the severed parcel to have a minimum 60 metres of lot frontage and the retained parcel to have a minimum 60 metres lot frontage.
- Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township. Recommendation for Minor Variance Application It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 for 3629 Quinn Road East such that the two severed parcels and the retained parcel from consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are permitted to each have a minimum of 60m lot frontage. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 156 of 311
Consent Application Application Requirements The following items must be submitted with your application. Any application which does not include the below required information may not be accepted or will not be considered complete.
1. A pre-consultation meeting is a requirement prior to submission of the application. Pre-consultation meeting fee
$152.00
2. One hard copy of this completed application form signed and commissioned. 3. A Sketch of your proposal (see Question 26 for details on what to include). The sketch must be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. It is recommended that you take your time to carefully assemble the data and crate the sketch. You may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of sketches.
4. The applicable non-refundable application fee, payable to the Township of South Frontenac: Application Type: Consent Application Change of conditions Change of conditions requiring recirculation
FEE: $1,368.00 $325.00 $568.00
5. Agency Review Fees (as applicable). A separate cheque or proof or payment, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, is to be submitted to the Township with the completed application. The on-site sewage disposal review fee may be included in the payment of the application fee to the Township. Agency: Township of South Frontenac onsite sewage disposal review (per new lot) Cataraqui Conservation (per new lot or lot addition) Quinte Conservation (per new lot or lot addition)
FEE: $515 $445 $450
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (per new lot or lot addition) $500 Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; agencies may require additional fees if permit applications are required prior to any construction.
6. Required studies & Supporting Information identified at pre-consultation (if applicable) 7. Deed or transfer, or authorization for Township Staff to acquire title documents (if applicable) Updated January 2025 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
1 Page 157 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Collection of Personal Information: Personal information requested on the application form is required under the Planning Act. This information will be used by the Township for the purpose of reviewing the application. It may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 613-3763027 ext. 2224). What is considered when reviewing an application? In considering an application, the decision-making approval authority, shall have regard, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
The effect of development on matters of provincial interest as referred to in Section 2 of the Planning Act. Whether the proposed severed lot is premature or in the public interest. Whether the consent conforms to the intent of the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision (if any) The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is being severed If affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing The number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of roadways and their adequacy in relation to any proposed roadway linking the proposed severed area with the established roadway system. The dimensions and shape of the proposed lot. Any restrictions on the subject land (or on the buildings and structures to be erected on it) and any restrictions on abutting lands. Conservation of natural resources and flood control. The adequacy of utilities and municipal services. The adequacy of schools. The area of land, if any, exclusive of roadways, that is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes (such as for parks). The physical configuration of the new lot having regard to energy conservation. Site Plan Control County of Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-Law Provincial Policy Statement
2 Page 158 of 311
Page 159 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION 4. Have you consulted with Township Planning Staff regarding this application?
Yes
No
Date Fee Paid: _________________________
Christine Woods Name of Planner: _____________________
December 12th, 2022 Date of Meeting: ________________________
- The description of the subject land: District:
Bedford
Portland
Loughborough
Storrington
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Civic Address: ___________________________________________________________________ CON 3 Concession Number: _____________________
Part of Lot 6 Lot Number: __________________________
13R-7028 Reference Plan Number: ___________________
Part Number(s): _______________________
102908001013900 Roll Number: ____________________________________________________________________ 36140-0201 Property Identification Number (PIN): _________________________________________________
- Indicate the frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land. The subject land is the whole property prior to any changes. Please indicate the name of the road/lane and waterbody (if applicable). N/A Frontage on water (m):_________________
+/- 191 metres Frontage on road/lane (m): __________________
N/A Name of Waterbody:__________________
Quinn Road East Name of Road/Lane: _______________________
+/- 1,337 metres Depth(m): ___________________________
+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area(acres/ha): ___________________________
- Select the type of consent being applied for: Creation of a New Lot
Correction of Title
Easement (right of way)
Lease
Lot Addition
Other: _____________________________
Charge/Discharge of Mortgage 8. Please provide a brief description of your application. Indicate the reason why you are applying for a consent.
The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent
will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.
4 Page 160 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
- Create a NEW LOT – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying to create a new lot. The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot):
Retained Lot:
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
63.0 metres
64.6 metres
Name of Road/Lane:
Quinn Road East
Quinn Road East
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
+/- 170.8 metres
+/- 1,337.4 metres
Acres (acres or ha):
1.05 ha
35.8 ha
Please list the existing and proposed USES and STRUCTURES. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot): Existing Use of Lot:
Rural
Retained Lot: Rural
Existing None Buildings/Structures:
Single detached dwelling, and several accessory structures
Proposed Use of Lot:
Rural (no change)
Rural residential
Proposed Anticipated single detached dwelling Buildings/Structures:
None (no change)
5 Page 161 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
LOT ADDITION – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying for a lot addition.
The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Proposed Lot Addition (Severed parcel):
Retained Lot:
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Road/Lane:
N/A
N/A
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
N/A
N/A
Acres (acres or ha):
N/A
N/A
The following information is regarding the Benefitting Lands also known as the land being enlarged which are receiving the lot addition. Existing Benefitting Lot: (Before Lot Addition)
Enlarged Lot with added Land: (After Lot Addition)
Frontage on Road/Lane (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Road/Lane:
N/A
N/A
Frontage on Water (m):
N/A
N/A
Name of Waterbody: N/A
N/A
Depth (m):
N/A
N/A
Acres (acres or ha):
N/A
N/A
6 Page 162 of 311
Page 163 of 311
Page 164 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION If access is by water only, describe the parking and docking facilities to be used and the approximate distance of these facilities from the subject land and the nearest public road. Parking and Docking for water access only properties MUST be legally deeded access. Please provide confirmation. N/A - not a water access lot The New Lot: __________________________________________________________________ N/A - not a water access lot The Retained Lot:_______________________________________________________________
- What is the zoning of the subject lands? (Check www.frontenacmaps.ca) Rural (RU) Zone
- What is the current Official Plan Designation of the subject lands? Rural
- Please describe how the application conforms with the Township Official Plan & County Official Plan by citing specific applicable sections and sub sections. Please make sure to look at Sections 5 and 7 in the Township Official Plan and Section 3 in the County Official Plan. If you are unsure, please indicate that you do not know. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.
- Is the application consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement?
Yes
No
Unknown
Please explain: Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.
9 Page 165 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
- Has the subject land ever been, or is currently, the subject of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, for a minor variance, for approval of a site plan, or for an amendment to an official plan, an amendment to the zoning by-law or a Minister’s zoning order? Complete all applicable Yes Application Type
No Application Number
Unknown Date of Application
Decision
Plan of Subdivision Consent Approved
1986
Minor Variance Site Plan Approval Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment Minister’s Zoning Order
- Has land been previously severed from the subject property, since September 5, 2000? If yes, please provide date of transfer; name of transferee and uses of the land. October 10, 1986, Yes ___________________________________
No
- Did the current owner acquire the subject land as a result of a consent? Yes
No
- Is the applicant requesting a Certificate of Official for the retained land? Yes
No
** If yes – the applicant must provide a lawyer’s statement that there is no land abutting the subject lands that are owned by the owner of the subject land, other than the land that could be conveyed without contravening section 50 of the Planning Act. 26. A SKETCH must be submitted. For more information on what the sketch needs to show, please see “A guide to completing your consent application form”. If your application is approved and then the required survey shows different frontages, area and location than was submitted, a new consent may be required including submission of a new application and fees.** 10 Page 166 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Please note that the sketch must include the same metric as on the application, switching between meters and feet will not be acceptable unless both are shown. The sketch must include the following:
A directional arrow with North at the top of the page. The boundaries and dimensions of the whole property. LABEL the part that is to be severed and the part that is to be retained, including the total area (acres or hectares), road frontages on all roads/lanes for each and waterbodies.
Indicate if the owner of the subject property also owns other lands near the proposal. The distance between the subject land and the nearest road, bridge or railway crossing The location of all land previously severed from the parcel (if applicable) originally acquired by the current owner of the subject land.
All natural and artificial features that are located on the subject property and on land beside the subject property. Please label and show the approximate location of: a.
Existing Buildings, wells and septic systems, bridges, railways, roads, hydro lines
b.
Waterbodies, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, wetlands, wooded areas
c.
Landfills, propane facility, quarry’s and pits
d.
Barns
Note: The existence of a nearby barn will require you to complete a Minimum Distance Separation Calculation in order to consider compatibility issues. Please check with the Planning Department regarding the implications of any farm structure, on your application.
Please include any information on natural and artificial features (as listed above) that in the applicant’s opinion may affect the application
Please indicate the current uses of land that is surrounding the property, such as residential, agricultural and commercial uses (if agricultural, please indicate the approximate distance of any barn structure from the proposed new lot).
The location, width and name of any roads within or abutting the subject land, indicating whether it is an unopened road allowance, a public travelled road, a private road or a right of way.
11 Page 167 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION
If access to the subject land is by water only, please show the location of the parking and boat docking facilities to be used, and the title documents to demonstrate legal deeded use of these facilities
The location and nature of any easement affecting the subject land. The location of any abandoned wells on the property PERMISSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF APPLICATION I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner agree that the information recorded in this Consent Application Form is accurate and agrees that representatives of the Township and relevant commenting agencies may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner, acknowledge that additional studies and/or peer review and/or legal review may be required by the Township as a part of the review of my/our application. Should the need arise, I/we are responsible for completing the studies as requested in order for the application to be deemed complete. Attached to this application is payment to the Township of South Frontenac in the correct amount representing payment of the application fee, and additional payment (or proof of payment) for any required commenting agency review fees. AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY The applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac (“the Municipality”) from all costs and expenses that the Municipality may incur in connection with the processing of the applicant’s application for approval under the Planning Act. Without limiting the foregoing, such costs will include all legal, engineering, planning, and consulting fees and charges incurred or payable by the Municipality to process the application together with all costs and expenses arising from or incurred in connection with the Municipality being required, or requested by the applicant, to appear at the hearing of any appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal from any decision of the Council, Delegated Decision of Council, or Committee of Adjustments, of their designated approval authority, as the case may be, hearing the applicant’s application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees to provide the Municipality, upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, 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 to prepare for and participate in the hearing. 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. 12 Page 168 of 311
Page 169 of 311
3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE
1
August 19, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report
Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design was retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare applications for consent and minor variance at 3629 Quinn Road East. Applications were submitted on July 14, 2025 and a response was provided on July 16, 2025. The applications were scheduled for the August 14, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting but were deferred at the request of the applicant to reevaluate the lot configuration in response to comments made by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), and other site considerations. This letter is submitted in support of the revised applications. The applications are now proposed to be heard on the September 11, 2025 Committee of Adjustment agenda. The technical studies submitted in support of the application remain relevant and applicable.
Revised Proposal The revised application continues to propose consent to create two new rural residential lots fronting Quinn Road East, though now with reduced lot sizes. In this new proposal, each severed lot has been reduced from approximately 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha. The retained lands have been increased from approximately 35.89 ha to 36.37 ha. The application for minor variance to permit the reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone remains the same. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres, whereas a minimum frontage of 76 metres is required. The intention of this reduction is to preserve the tillable agricultural field located north of the proposed severances, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by CRCA through their July 31st comments. In these comments, staff recommended that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. The revised plan now proposes that the rear lot lines of the severed lots align with the northern extent of the 30 metre setback of the watercourse, thereby minimizing opportunity for crossing, as no development is permitted in this 30 metre setback.
KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com
Page 170 of 311
2
Figure 1: Revised Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The technical studies submitted in support of the July 14, 2025 applications remain valid. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study continues to apply as the relative location of proposed building envelopes and nearby livestock facilities has not changed, and the proximity of the severed lots to the MDS influence areas are now reduced as a result of the lot reconfiguration. The Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) remains applicable, as the revised lot configuration strengthens the original recommendations by aligning lot lines with the tributary and avoiding potential crossings, while maintaining a 30 metre buffer from development. Similarly, the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis continues to demonstrate that the proposed lots can be safely and sustainably serviced by private well and septic systems; the modest reduction in lot size from 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha should not affect groundwater supply, quality, or the feasibility of recommended setbacks. Collectively, these studies confirm that the revised proposal remains technically supportable and consistent with good planning. The revised application continues to satisfy the four tests of minor variance under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained as the proposal still represents limited rural residential lot creation that is compatible with surrounding uses, appropriately serviced, and protects against potential impacts on the watercourse. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is upheld, as the Rural (RU) Zone supports large rural lots with private servicing. While frontage relief remains necessary, all lots exceed the minimum lot area and continue to provide sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, wells, and setbacks. The variance remains minor in nature, as the reduction in frontage does not affect lot functionality, servicing, or compatibility with the established lot fabric. The variance is still desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as it enables the efficient creation of rural residential lots on existing road frontage while preserving rural and natural features, ensuring that the lots are both functional and sustainable.
Consent + Minor Variance
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 171 of 311
3
Conclusion The revised consent and minor variance applications at 3629 Quinn Road East addresses technical comments and enhances the protection of rural and natural features. The application will allow a form of appropriate rural residential development on the site which will complement the existing character of the area. The minor variance application continues to maintain the intent and purpose of the OP and zoning by-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question. It is our opinion that the proposed applications for consent and minor variance remain appropriate for the site and represent good land use planning. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 613.542.5454. Respectfully submitted,
Elysia Ackroyd, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
Consent + Minor Variance
Tara McInnes Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 172 of 311
Page 173 of 311
Page 174 of 311
Calculations 3609 Quinn Road E Farm contact information Kathy Huff 3609 Quinn Road E Harrowsmith, ON k0h1v0 613-372-1514
Location of existing livestock facility or anaerobic digestor County of Frontenac Township of South Frontenac PORTLAND Concession 3 , Lot 5 Roll number: 102908001013300
Total lot size 180.39 ac
Livestock/manure summary Manure Form
Type of livestock/manure
Existing maximum number
Existing maximum number (NU)
Estimated livestock barn area
Solid
Horses, Medium-framed, mature; 227 - 680 kg (including unweaned offspring)
10
10 NU
2500 ft²
Solid
Goats, Does & bucks (for meat; includes unweaned offspring)
100
12.5 NU
1500 ft²
Solid
Chickens, Layer hens (for eating eggs; after transfer from pullet barn), Floor Run
334
2.2 NU
334 ft²
Solid
Ducks, Muscovy
333 ft²
1.2 NU
333 ft²
Solid
Pheasants
333 ft²
1.2 NU
333 ft²
Setback summary Existing manure storage
V3. Solid, outside, no cover, >= 30% DM
Design capacity
27.2 NU
Potential design capacity
81.7 NU
Factor A (odour potential) Factor D (manure type)
0.73 0.7
Factor B (design capacity) 299.36 Factor E (encroaching land use) 1.1
Building base distance ‘F’ (A x B x D x E) (minimum distance from livestock barn)
169 m (554 ft)
Actual distance from livestock barn
506 m (1660 ft)
Storage base distance ‘S’ (minimum distance from manure storage) Actual distance from manure storage
No existing manure storage NA
Page 175 of 311
August 6, 2024
Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca
NATURAL HERITAGE SITE ASSESSMENT 3629 Quinn Road; LOT 6, CON 3 South Frontenac Township, Frontenac County Prepared for:
Robert Pittman
Prepared by:
Megan Snetsinger, M.Sc. megan@ecologicalservices.ca
Table of Contents 1.0
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
1.1
Property Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1.2
Description of Application ………………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.3
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.1
Present and Historical Land Use ………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.2
Ecological Land Classification ………………………………………………………………………….. 4
3.0
ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES ……………………………………. 6
3.1.
Wetlands………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.1.1
Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland …………………………………. 6
3.1.2
Locally Significant Wetland ……………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.1.3
Unevaluated Wetland ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
3.2
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest …………………………………………………………….. 6
3.3
Significant Woodland……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.4
Significant Valleyland ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
3.5
Surface Water and Fish Habitat ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
3.6
Species at Risk Habitat …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
3.7
Significant Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………. 8
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………….. 9
5.0
Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts ………………………………………….. 10
Attachment 1. Site Photos ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Page 176 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
1.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Property Location The subject property is on Quinn Road in South Frontenac, on Lot 6 / Concession 3 of the geographic township of Portland. The property is in EcoDistrict 6E-9: Havelock.
Figure 1. Topographic map, showing the relative location of the subject property, which is indicated by the black circle. Base map is an annotated detail from topographic map 31 C/07, Sydenham.
1.2 Description of Application Two severances are proposed from the subject property (Figure 2). Both proposed lots and the retained land have frontage on Quinn Road. The retained land has a driveway along the east side of the property to an existing single-family home and outbuildings north of the proposed severances; it is in poor condition and the retained land may be redeveloped. The proposed severances are not developed, and are proposed as residential lots.
2 Page 177 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Figure 2. Approximate boundaries of the subject property (solid white line) and the two proposed severances (broken lines). Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.
1.3 Methodology Ecological Services carried out field work and desktop research to determine if the proposed development will have a negative impact to the area’s natural heritage features and their associated functions. Our assessment of the property’s natural heritage features is based on the requirements laid out in section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as the South Frontenac Official Plan. We surveyed the property May 24, 2024 (personnel Megan Snetsinger and Mary Alice Snetsinger). The weather was sunny and clear, and the temperature was 24°C at 3:00 when we began our assessment. We identified habitat communities on and around the proposed development following the methodology outlined in the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) and when applicable, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (OMNR 2022). We considered significant natural features, fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat (SWH, as described in OMNRF 2015), and Species at Risk when performing our site investigation. Desktop research provided information on the presence of rare species and potential habitat on and adjacent to the subject property, from the following sources: • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data accessed via the Ontario Make a Map tool for natural heritage areas; grid square: 18UQ6715 • Ontario GeoHub for wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest • Fish ON-Line • Fisheries and Oceans Canada map of aquatic Species at Risk • Ontario Nature Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario Atlas • eBird • iNaturalist
3 Page 178 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
2.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Present and Historical Land Use The south end of the subject property is mostly in active/recent agricultural use, with a channel (likely a farm ditch) crossing the property. The southernmost field was ploughed at the time of our field visit, and the soil was bare. There is a new well dug on each of the proposed lots. We did not survey the north end of the retained land, as it is not adjacent to the proposed development, but we noted from satellite imagery that most of it appears to have tree cover, which is a combination of deciduous and mixed forest. In 1954, more of the property had open fields (Figure 3), although there is some tree cover at the north end. Figure 3. 1954 imagery of the subject property (outlined in red). Imagery from the University of Toronto Map & Data Library.
2.2 Ecological Land Classification The south end of the property, closest to Quinn Road, is characterized by Cultural (CU) communities, i.e., those maintained by anthropogenic-based disturbances. There is evidence of past agricultural use in the southernmost field (e.g., old stalks, corn cobs), but it is presently ploughed and largely bare of vegetation. The other fields on the property are in active agricultural use. Around the edges of the fields, as well as along the driveway and around the residential buildings, there are a variety of disturbance-tolerant species: e.g., Dog-Strangling Vine, Orchard Grass, Common Dandelion, Red Clover, White Clover, Virginia Creeper, Blueeyed Grass, Queen Anne’s Lace, Chickweed, Pigweed, King Devil, Field Cinquefoil. Along the driveway there are a variety of shrubs in a Cultural Thicket (CUT) community, including Common Lilac, European Buckthorn, Grey Dogwood, Prickly Ash, Red Cedar, Staghorn Sumac, and Apple. North of the ploughed field is another thicket with a similar assemblage of shrubs. This community also has some White Pine and Green Ash. It would likely have formerly been a forest ecosite, but the tree cover does not presently meet the definition of a forest community due to dieback of the ash trees. North of the channel, there is one patch of with sufficient tree cover to define as a Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) community, likely because fewer ash trees are present. White Pine is the dominant coniferous component to the forest, and with a mix of deciduous trees (e.g., Sugar Maple, White Oak, Shagbark Hickory). 4 Page 179 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
The channel is not large enough to map as a distinct ELC community, but there are different species along its extent. Reed-canary Grass is nearly monotypic in the channel, with some other species of wet environments along the edges: American Water Horehound, Meadowsweet, Awl-fruited Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Yellow Sedge, Retrorse Sedge. There is a muddy track used by vehicles to connect the ploughed field and the cropland to the north. The channel path has been torn up at this location, and we observed water pooling in the tire tracks, supporting some Water Plantain and Water Purslane.
Retained land
S01
S02
Figure 4. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping, in yellow, of vegetation communities on the subject property near the proposed severances. The white lines denote the approximate property outline (solid line) and the proposed severances (broken line). The channel across the property is indicated with a blue line. Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.
5 Page 180 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
3.0
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES On or adjacent to proposed development?
3.1. Wetlands 3.1.1
Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
The Millhaven Creek PSW is the closest to the subject property, over 1 km to the east. It is not adjacent. 3.1.2
Locally Significant Wetland
There are no locally significant wetland identified by the Township or any evaluated non-significant wetlands adjacent to the subject property. 3.1.3
Unevaluated Wetland
Ontario mapping data includes a layer of unevaluated wetland, which is procedurally-generated mapping of potential areas of wetland. On the proposed severances, there is an area mapped as unevaluated wetland within the CUT/FOM2 area around the channel. There are several factors that define wetland under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, including that in wetlands must have over 50% relative coverage of wetland plants. We assessed the area, and found that the assemblage of vegetation is dominated by upland species and facultative species (i.e., those that tolerate a variety of conditions). This is not wetland. The channel has more wetland or facultative species, but this is a riparian community rather than wetland. There are also patches of unevaluated wetland mapped adjacent to the property, including along the channel to the east and west and on the property across Quinn Road. We cannot access other properties to assess them for wetland presence, but we can review satellite imagery. In our opinion, some of these adjacent areas of unevaluated wetland do appear to be wetland (e.g., across Quinn Road and almost 120 m west). The proposed severances are unlikely to impact these adjacent areas of wetland, given intervening distance and topography. 3.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest The Harrowsmith Bog Life Science ANSI is the closest to the subject property, over 3 km to the northwest. It is not adjacent. 3.3 Significant Woodland The FOM2 patch north of the channel is about 0.3 ha, which is too small to meet any criteria for significance.
6 Page 181 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? The woodland south of Quinn Road is on adjacent lands that we did not assess, but a measurement of the area based on satellite imagery puts it close to 60 ha. It likely is significant for size and interior habitat, and could have other ecological functions or uncommon characteristics depending on what is in the woodland. The proposed severances and development of residential lots north of Quinn Road is unlikely to impact this woodland. 3.4 Significant Valleyland
Yes
No
Yes
No
The land where the severances are proposed does not meet the morphological characteristics of a valleyland. There are no Environmental Protection or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (which would include significant valleyland) mapped by South Frontenac Township adjacent to the subject property. 3.5 Surface Water and Fish Habitat The watercourse that crosses the property is a straight line that appears to have been channelized (Figure 5). It is likely an old farm ditch. The channel width is variable, between 2-4 m across. During our site visit there was some water in the channel with no sign of flow. Most of the channel length has dense growth of monotypic Reed-canary Grass, with some bare patches on the west side of the property. We observed no sign of fish. Given the dense vegetation the potential for fish presence appears low, although if there is direct connection to fish habitat there could be some marginal habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that development on the proposed lots meet a 30 m setback from the channel, as recommended in the South Frontenac Official Plan. The concept plan for this development includes a 30 m setback from the channel.
Figure 5. Ontario Make-a-map satellite imagery of the subject property (red outline). Note the straight line of the channel across the property through the thicket.
7 Page 182 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? We also observed what may be a hand-dug well about 15 m south of the channel near the west side of the property (see Attachment 1). This is not a natural heritage feature, and is located within the recommended setback. 3.6 Species at Risk Habitat
Yes
No
Yes
No
There are no Species at Risk (Endangered or Threatened) records from Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data. Our other database searches did not indicate any nearby SAR. We did not observe any SAR during our field visit. 3.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat (SWH) constitutes locations where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their life cycle, where rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat is present, and areas important to migratory or non-migratory species (animal movement corridors), as well as to the habitat of rare species (including any species of conservation concern not covered above). The criteria (OMNRF 2015) for most SWH categories were not met on or adjacent to the proposed development. Our discussion is limited to potentially relevant SWH. Bat Maternity Colonies. Maternity colonies require large-diameter cavity trees in deciduous or mixed forest habitat; snags are preferred. This SWH is found in forest ELC ecosites, which includes FOM. The small patch of forest north of the channel on the proposed severances is about 0.3 ha, which is technically too small to identify as a distinct ELC community (we mapped it to distinguish features on a smaller site), so it may not be large enough to categorize as SWH. However, as the forest patch is almost entirely within the recommended setback from the channel, any bat roosting trees present are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed severance. We recommend that the forest patch should remain standing (i.e., not be clearcut). We also recommend that any tree cutting outside of the forest should take place outside of the bat roosting season (April 15 to September 30) to mitigate any potential harm to bats that may be roosting on the property. Raptor Wintering Areas. The criteria for this SWH require confirmed, regular use by specific raptor birds of combined forest and open habitat of over 20 ha. The criteria schedule suggests that raptors prefer least disturbed sites for winter hunting grounds, in extensive fallow fields (>15 ha) that are windswept with little snow accumulation. The woodland south of Quinn Road is large and has several open fields around its south and east sides, although there are not many eBird records around the woodland for the associated species. The proposed severances are unlikely to impact any raptor wintering activity in the adjacent woodland. 8 Page 183 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
On or adjacent to proposed development? Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs). This SWH requires treed wetland. There is no suitable habitat on the subject property, and we observed no stick nests on any of the dead-standing trees. There is a NHIC record of a Mixed Wader Nesting Colony in the relevant UTM block, which is associated with this type of SWH. However, NHIC grid squares are large; this habitat is likely associated with an area of wetland from another part of the square. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species. There is one rare species from NHIC data: Wood Thrush. In our other database searches, there are nearby eBird records for Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-pewee. We did not observe any rare species during our site visit. Woodland birds: Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) – designated as Threatened1 under the SARA and as Special Concern under the ESA; and Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens) – designated as Special Concern under the SARA and under the ESA. These bird species are typically found in deciduous or mixed woodland habitat. On the subject property, the woodland is small and fragmented from the adjacent woodland. It is also less extensive than it would have previously been, due to the die-back of the ash trees in the CUT. There is a much larger area of woodland (with a deciduous component) south of Quinn Road, which is likely to be more attractive to woodland birds. The proposed development is unlikely to impact habitat in the adjacent woodland. The woodland on the proposed severances falls within 30 m of the channel, which is the setback we have recommended. Outside of that setback, development on the severances would not be in woodland habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that any tree cutting should be done outside of the breeding season (April 1 to August 31), to comply with the intention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, to mitigate any direct harm to these or other nesting songbirds.
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development?
Yes
No
If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on?
1
Although this species has a Threatened designations, the Provincial Policy Statement refers to Ontario designations when discussing SAR. So we have grouped it with other rare/Special Concern species.
9 Page 184 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Recommendations for Mitigation
- Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 m from the channel.
- The land within 30 m of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
- No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. Environmental Impact Statement: It is our opinion that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions, and that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Yes
No
Is monitoring recommended?
Yes
No
Signature:
5.0
Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts
Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Aquatic species at risk map. Web site maintained by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, compiling critical habitat and distribution data for aquatic species. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/map-carte/index-eng.html Fish ON-Line. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with information on element occurrences. <https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/ FishONLine/Index.html?site=FishONLine&viewer=FishONLine&locale=en-US> Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Technology Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Natural Heritage Information Center. Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with species rarity rankings and information on element occurrences. <https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/Natural_Heritage/index.html?viewer=Natural_ Heritage.Natural_Heritage&locale=en-CA> . MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section. 10 Page 185 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 2nd edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. 239 pp. OMNRF, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E. OMNRF Regional Operations, Peterborough, Ontario. 38 pp. Provincial Policy Statement. 2020. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Province of Ontario. 53 pp. Township of South Frontenac: Official Plan. March 2003. Consolidated January 2024. University of Toronto Libraries. Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/ collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index
11 Page 186 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Attachment 1. Site Photos
Photo 1. The channel across the subject property, dense with Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both sides by thicket (CUT).
Photo 2. The channel across the subject property, at the west end where there are patches without Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both by thicket (CUT) on the south/left and by forest (FOM2) on the north/right.
12 Page 187 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Photo 3. The channel across the subject property, facing west from the driveway, with the thicket (CUT) around it.
Photo 4. The dead ash trees in the thicket (CUT) community, which was likely formerly a treed community.
Photo 5. The forest (FOM2) north of the channel.
13 Page 188 of 311
Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman
Ecological Services: August 6, 2024
Photo 6. The hand dug well observed 15 m south of the channel.
Photo 7. The driveway on the retained land, to the existing house. The active agricultural fields are visible in the background.
Photo 8. The ploughed field on the proposed severances. Development on the lots is proposed on this site.
14 Page 189 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment Quinn Road, Frontenac County, Lot 6, Concession 3
Prepared for: Robert Pittman 3629 Quinn Road East Harrowsmith, ON K0H 1V0
Prepared by: BluMetric Environmental Inc. 1682 Woodward Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3R8
Project Number: 240360 July 30, 2025
Page 190 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Table of Contents 1
Introduction __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2
Scope of Work _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Description ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Surrounding Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 3 Proposed Severances _______________________________________________________________ 4
Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.1 Background Information ____________________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Test Pitting _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Aquifer Testing _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.1 Test Wells _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.2 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.3 Aquifer Tests __________________________________________________________________ 6 2.4 Water Sampling ____________________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Well Owner Interviews _____________________________________________________________ 7
3
Geology and Hydrogeology ____________________________________________________________ 7 3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage _____________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Surficial Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 7 3.3 Bedrock Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.1 Water Well Records ____________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination ____________________________________________ 12 3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity ____________________________________________________ 12 3.4.4 Groundwater Quality __________________________________________________________ 13 3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity ________________________________________________________ 17
4
Development Considerations __________________________________________________________21 4.1 Water Treatment __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Testing of Treated Water __________________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ________________________________________________ 22 4.3.1 Sewage System Design ________________________________________________________ 23
5
Conclusions and Recommendations ____________________________________________________24
6
Limiting Conditions ___________________________________________________________________25
7
References ___________________________________________________________________________27 i
Page 191 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:
Test Wells Summary ____________________________________________________________ 5 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 Summary of MECP Water Well Records ________________________________________ 11 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results ____________________________________ 16 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1)__________ 17 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2)__________ 17 Observation Well Responses ___________________________________________________ 18 Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) ___________________________________________________________ 19 Summary of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity ________________ 19 Tile Bed Clearances ___________________________________________________________ 23
List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:
Site Location ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Layout____________________________________________________________end of text MECP Wells __________________________________________________________end of text Conceptual Lot Development Plan _____________________________________end of text
List of Appendices Appendix A: Well Records Appendix B: Lab Certificates of Analysis Appendix C: Aquifer Analysis Appendix D: Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations
ii
Page 192 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
1
240360 July 2025
Introduction
BluMetric Environmental Inc. (BluMetric®) was retained to conduct a hydrogeological assessment to support an application for a two-lot severance at 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario (Roll #: 102908001013900). The site location is indicated in Figure 1. The proposed severances cover approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is in a rural area (a municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment system is not available) and the proposed severances will be serviced by private residential water supply wells and individual onsite septic sewage systems. Test wells TW1 and TW2 were used as the test well on the western and eastern lots to be severed, respectively. This study was conducted with regards to the following regulations and guidelines: •
• •
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems, Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment (MOEE, 1996). Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells, Water Supply Assessment (MOEE, 1996b). Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903), 1990, Wells.
1
Page 193 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Figure 1:
240360 July 2025
Site Location
1.1 Scope of Work The scope of work of this assessment included the following components: • • •
Desktop review of background information (water well records, geological databases, hydrology information, topography, known water uses). Inspect the lot for shallow groundwater/surface water conditions. Conduct a 6-hour pumping test at two new dug wells (TW1 and TW2) and monitor water levels at the pumping wells during pumping and recovery. The 6-hour pumping test occurred during low recharge conditions between late June to early September. Test well recoveries could be measured over multiple days. Water levels from the well on the retained lot was monitored during the pumping test.
2
Page 194 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
•
•
240360 July 2025
Collect and submit groundwater samples at the end of the 6-hour pumping test from TW1 and TW2 for laboratory analysis of parameters outlined in the D-5-5 technical guidance in addition to organic nitrogen, phosphorus and metals. Water quality results were compared to Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Analyse pumping test data to determine aquifer parameters.
1.2 Site Description The site is located approximately 20 kilometres northwest of Kingston, Ontario along the northern side of Quinn Road east of County Road 38 (Figure 1). The site is comprised of gradually sloping open fields, forested areas wetland areas. The proposed lands to be severed include two 1.05 ha plots located in the south corner of the site. Residential development is proposed to take place on both lots and dug wells have been constructed for each.
1.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses within 500 m of the subject site are described below: • North o Rural residential o Agriculture o Woodlot • East o Rural Commercial (Sugar Shack) o Agriculture o Woodlot o Rural Residential • South o Wetland o Woodlot o Quinn Road • West o Rural Residential o Agriculture o County Road 38 o Wetland o Woodlot
3
Page 195 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
All existing development in the area are supported by the use of private individual water supply wells and onsite septic sewage systems. All neighbouring water supplies are derived from drilled wells while the onsite water supplies will be derived from dug wells (well records provided in Appendix A). The construction of dug wells was to obtain the best water quality and quantity as recommended to Robert Pittman by BluMetric.
1.4 Proposed Severances The proposed severances involve the creation of 3 residential lots on 37.9 ha (Figure 1). The proposed severances are described as follows: • • •
2
Lot 1 (Severed A) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Lot 2 (Severed B) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Retained Lot – 35.89 ha, 64.6 metres of frontage open field and forested area, existing dug well.
Methodology
2.1 Background Information A review of available background information was conducted including: • • • • • •
MECP water well records; Topographic Databases; Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) online geology mapping databases; Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre mapping database; County of Frontenac Interactive Mapping Online GIS Portal; Ontario Watershed Information Tool (OWIT).
2.2 Test Pitting Four (4) test pits were advanced at the site as part of the investigation. The test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced by BluMetric to describe soil stratigraphy using a hand shovel on October 18, 2024, on each of the lots to be severed.
4
Page 196 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The soil profile at each test pit was logged by direct examination of the sides and bottoms of the test pits. Representative samples were collected in clean plastic bags. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 4.
2.3 Aquifer Testing 2.3.1 Test Wells Two residential supply wells, A350546 and A350547, were constructed in 2023. Supply well A350546 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 metres below ground surface (mbgs) by Frank’s Drilling and Blasting LTD. Supply well A350547 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 mbgs by Franks Drilling and Blasting LTD. Both test wells are situated along a topographic high and are advanced into bedrock as summarized in Table 1. Table 1:
Test Wells Summary
Well ID
Year of Installation
Depth to Bedrock (m)
Casing Depth (m)
TW1 (A350546) TW2 (A350547)
2023 2023
1.4 1.5
6.53 6.53
Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m) 3.0 3.0
Total Depth (m) 6.53 6.53
2.3.2 Observation Wells One water well was selected for use as an observation well during a second aquifer test. Aquifer tests were conducted on August 7, 2024, and August 8, 2024, and are detailed in section 2.2.3. One observation well (dug well) is located on the retained lot however a well record is not available to verify the details of its construction. Data recording of water levels at pumping wells and observation wells commenced one day prior to pumping and terminated three days post pumping. The residents were asked to not use their wells during the time of the pumping test. Table 2:
Observation Wells
Well ID 3629 Quinn Road (Dug well)
Year of Installation
Depth to Bedrock (m)
Casing Depth (m)
Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m)
Total Depth (m)
Unknown
5
Page 197 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
2.3.3 Aquifer Tests BluMetric staff conducted the first six-hour, constant discharge aquifer tests at supply well A350546 on August 7, 2024, and at supply well A350547 on August 8, 2024. Each well was pumped at a rate of 25 L/min for 360 min with a combined total of 18,000 litres of groundwater pumped from the aquifer. The testing program included observation of three wells (the pumping well and two observation wells) for each pumping test as required by Ontario Guideline D-5-5 for land parcels of 15 ha or less. A second 3.5-hour constant discharge aquifer test was completed on October 3, 2024, by BluMetric staff. The second test included the pumping of one test well (A350547) at a rate of approximately 41 L/min. A combined total of 8,610 litres was pumped during the second pumping test. Water levels were recorded during aquifer testing by manual methods (water level sounding meters) and with pressure transducer/datalogger units (Solinst Level Logger™). Post pumping observation was acquired with pressure transducers for a minimum of 24 hours to assess groundwater recharge. Results of the aquifer tests are provided in Section 3.4.6.
2.4 Water Sampling All wells were disinfected prior to the six-hour constant rate discharge pumping and any subsequent resampling event by shock chlorination. A water sample was collected in laboratory provided containers at the end of each aquifer test and placed immediately into a cooler with ice and transported to Caduceon laboratory in Kingston, a CALA accredited laboratory. Samples were analyzed for the list of chemical and microbiological parameters specified in Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996b). Further sampling of well A350547 was carried out on October 3, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 9, 2024, to confirm microbiological parameters following initial exceedances in TW2. Laboratory certificates are appended in Appendix B. Field measurements for temperature, pH, conductivity, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were carried out using a YSI™ Professional series multimeter. Free chlorine residual and turbidity measurements were collected using a Hanna HI93414 calibrated to 1.0 mg/L chlorine solution and turbidity standards of <0.1 and 15 NTU. Colour measurements were collected using a Hanna 96727 calibrated with 0 and 250 PCU standards. Microbiological quality sampling was conducted after the free chlorine residual concentration reduced to non-detectable or below the instrument’s limit of detection of 0.01 mg/L.
6
Page 198 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
2.5 Well Owner Interviews A standard well owner interview form was sent to the neighboring property owners along Quinn Road prior to conducting the pumping tests. The well-owner interview form requests details from neighboring water well users regarding well water quality and quantity and onsite wastewater treatment systems. All of the solicited neighboring water well users declined to fill out the interview form.
3
Geology and Hydrogeology
3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage The Site is geographically situated within two catchments. The western and northern parts of the Site are situated within the Wilton Creek-Little Creek Napanee River Catchment, while the southern and eastern parts of the site are situated within the Millhaven Creek Catchment (OWIT, 2024). Surface water drainage at the Site is diverted to a ditch located on the south end of the site. The northern part of the site drains south towards the ditch, while the southern end of the site (including the lots to be severed) drains north towards the ditch. This ditch then flows east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek.
3.2 Surficial Geology Four (4) shallow test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced using a hand shovel by BluMetric on October 18, 2024. Test pit locations are indicated on Figure 4. The following is a summary of stratigraphy encountered at the test pit locations. TP1 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.53 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY CLAY with some gravel Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.53 m Test pit was terminated at 0.53 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
7
Page 199 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
TP2 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.63 m: 0.63 to 0.66 m:
(hand dug using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown/grey SILTY CLAY with some gravel damp, grey CLAY with some black sand Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.63 m Test pit was terminated at 0.66 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
TP3 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.41 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown CLAYEY SILT/SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.41 m Test pit was terminated at 0.41 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
TP4 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.35 m:
(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.35 m Test pit was terminated at 0.35 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit
240360 July 2025
The Ontario Geological Survey (2024) classifies the site as exposed bedrock with areas of less than 1.0 m of drift consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and diamicton. Well records for test wells TW1 and TW2 indicate that bedrock was encountered between 1.4 m and 1.5 m bgs at both locations. Soils stratigraphy on both well records show topsoil from ground surface to 0.3 m bgs followed by loam from 0.3 m bgs to bedrock at approximately 1.5 m bgs. Descriptions of soil stratigraphy at test pits TP1 to TP4 are generally consistent with the findings of the water well records search where overburden thickness varies between 0 m to 2.4 m.
3.3 Bedrock Geology Geological mapping information from the OGS Earth website (OGS, 2024) shows that the site is located within a sequence of horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary rocks. The uppermost bedrock unit is the Shadow Lake Formation which is of Ordovician age. The bedrock is
8
Page 200 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
described as limestone and dolostone (towards base). The site is in an area of inferred karst as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2024).
3.4 Hydrogeology An unconfined water table does not appear to exist in the overburden unit as evidenced by the test pits which remained dry over two days after their excavation. Drainage / infiltration within the overburden unit is expected to be influenced by topography and is inferred to have an easterly component towards Millhaven Creek. The primary water supply aquifer in the vicinity of the site occurs within the horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary bedrock. The bedrock aquifer has water bearing fracture zones (i.e., horizontal bedding plane fractures) that occur between sedimentary layers of bedrock. Permeability within these strata is controlled by fractures. The primary porosity (i.e. the ‘primary fracture network’) is associated with horizontal bedding plane fractures. A secondary porosity is associated with subvertical fracturing. The direction of regional groundwater flow in bedrock at the site is inferred to be to the to the east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek. Information from the Ontario Source Protection Atlas, (MECP, 2023) website indicates that the site is: • • • • •
Not within a wellhead protection area; Is not within an intake protection zone; Is not within an issue contributing area; Is not within a significant groundwater recharge area; A highly vulnerable aquifer does not occur beneath the site.
3.4.1 Water Well Records A total of 8 MECP water well records from the MECP Water Well Information System (WWIS; MECP, 2024) were reviewed (individual well records are provided in Appendix A). Wells selected within 500 m of the proposed severance are depicted on Figure 3 and summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that that well record locations are based on the database coordinates and may be subject to varying degrees of error. Well depths, overburden thickness, depth of casing, aquifer interception points and well yield related information were reviewed in detail and included Table 3. The review of water well records within 500 m of the subdivision provided the following relevant information:
9
Page 201 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
• • • • • • • • •
240360 July 2025
Depth to bedrock varies from 0 m bgs to 2.4 m bgs; Bedrock is reported as shale and/or limestone in all of the well records; Static water levels in the identified water wells range from 0.3 mbgs to 21.0 mbgs; The only dug wells in the MECP WWIS 500 m map area are those constructed at the Site; One of the 8 wells identified in the MECP WWIS were dry at the time of construction; Reported well pumping rates for drilled wells range from 0 L/min to 23 L/min; Six of the records produced water described as “clear”; The well record for supply well A350546 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L; The well record for supply well A350547 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L.
10
Page 202 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Table 3:
240360 July 2025
Summary of MECP Water Well Records MECP Water Well Record Summary
Well Record ID
Depth to Bedrock (m)
2203354 2204349
0.0 0.6
2205784
2.4
2205787
0.9
2210419
0.3
2211332
2.0
2212789
0.3
2214857
0.0
Overburden Material
Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Clay Loam / Gravel
Bedrock Material
Casing Depth (m)
Depth to Water Bearing Zone(s) (m)
Static Water Level (m)
41.1 10.4
Limestone Limestone
3.0 2.1
30.5 2.4
18.3 3.0
Drawdown after Drillers Pumping Test (m) 41.1 9.4
36.6
Limestone
6.7
14.0
5.2
20.4
Limestone
2.1
2.1
33.5
Limestone
2.4
25.6
Limestone Shale / Limestone Shale / Limestone
Total Depth (m)
9.1 24.7
Recommended Pumping Rate (L/min)
Dug/Drilled
Comments
14
Drilled Drilled
Clear Cloudy
36.6
0
Drilled
0.3
20.4
23
Drilled
2.7
0.9
33.5
23
Drilled
6.7
25.0
15.2
7.3
7.3
5.5
9.1
18
Drilled
7.6
22.6
21.0
22.9
0
Drilled
Drilled
Clear Clear Clear Untested Clear Clear
Page 203 of 311
11
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Taken collectively this information shows that the wells in the area can provide a suitable water supply. A review of the MECP Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database was carried out within a 5 km radius of the site. PTTW information was obtained directly from the MECP interactive GIS system (MECP, 2024b). No permits were identified within the search area.
3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination The following potential onsite sources of contamination at the site were identified (Drage, 2022): •
• •
•
The proposed parcels to be severed have historically been used for agricultural purposes based on aerial imagery, namely the growing and harvesting of hay, which may have necessitated the use of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as an agricultural practice. Dug wells are vulnerable to shallow groundwater contaminants originating from agricultural practices (fertilizers, livestock), the application of road salt, and septic system effluent. Groundwater in dug wells often contains microbial contaminants because the short groundwater flow paths do not allow microbes to be removed by natural filtration within the aquifer. Dug wells are also prone to elevated concentrations of decomposed plant matter within soil and organic carbon.
The following potential offsite sources of contamination were identified: • •
Agricultural activities at neighbouring may be a source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Application of road salt along Quinn Road East is expected to have caused some limited impacts to the area immediately bordering the road and ditches. No onsite impact is expected as a result of road salt application activities.
3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity The subject lands are within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’ as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2023). No obvious karst traits were found based on review of local Lidar data for the site; therefore a site-specific karst assessment was not deemed necessary. The water well records show that the overburden thickness within 800 m of the subject property varies from 0 to 2.4 m and has an average thickness of 0.8 m. The overburden material is primarily described in well records as loam. The well record for test well TW1 shows that the depth to bedrock is 1.4 m and the well record for test well TW2 shows that depth to bedrock is 1.5 m. The onsite test
12
Page 204 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
pits varied in depth from 0.35 to 0.66 mbgs and the material encountered was silty clay and silty sand. The most suitable source of potable groundwater for the proposed lot is the bedrock aquifer. The thin overburden layer will not provide any degree of isolation between bedrock and effluent from the septic systems which are proposed for the lots to be severed. Based on the terrain analysis findings, the site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin soils, so protective measures (extra depth of well casing and extra setback between wells and septic beds) are discussed and recommended in Sections 5 and 6. Mitigative measures for protection of water quality include imposing a minimum 45 m separation distance between well and septic system and mandating well water quality treatment with ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection.
3.4.4 Groundwater Quality The severed lots are proposed to be serviced by dug wells. Water quality was assessed at both the western lot (via test well TW1) and eastern lot (via test well TW2) to be severed. Laboratory analytical results from the groundwater samples collected at the end of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 along with field measurement data are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix B. A review of the analytical data summarized in Table 4 indicates that all tested water quality parameters were below the health and aesthetic related ODWSOG with the exception of the following: Well A350546 (TW1) • Sodium • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids Well A350547 (TW2) • Escherichia Coli • Total Coliforms • Fecal Coliforms • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids
13
Page 205 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Hardness - Hardness was reported at 237 mg/L in well A3350546 (TW1), and 286 mg/L in well A350547 (TW2), both exceeding the ODWSOG OG of 80-100 mg/L. Hardness is caused by dissolved calcium and magnesium and is expressed as the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. Hardness levels below 500 mg/L in drinking water are considered generally acceptable for most domestic purposes and can be treated using a conventional water softener system. Softening using a domestic water softener increases the sodium level in drinking water. Total Dissolved Solids - The average TDS concentration measured of the two groundwater samples collected as part of this study is 627 mg/L. The analytical results for TDS at test wells TW1 and TW2 were measured to be 731 mg/L and 522 mg/L, respectively, both of which exceed the aesthetic objective (AO) limit. TDS is a measure of the inorganic substances dissolved in water. The principal constituents of TDS are chloride, sulphates, calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonates. The effects of TDS on drinking water quality depend on the levels of the individual components. Excessive hardness, taste, mineral deposition, or corrosion are common properties of water with elevated TDS. Water with a TDS concentration above 500 mg/L may not be palatable. Procedure D-5-5 does not provide a treatability limit for TDS, but it does require a written rationale that corrosion, encrustation, or taste problems will not occur. A Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) and Ryznar Stability Index (RSI) of 0.83 and 6.4, respectively, was calculated from the water quality results indicating the water is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and scale forming may occur. Water softening, already recommended for hardness, will remove calcium in the water supply and reduce the potential for mineral deposition and corrosion to plumbing fixtures. Sodium - Sodium concentrations are reported at 217 mg/L in test well TW1 and 108 mg/L in in test well TW2. A concentration exceeding 20 mg/L is to be reported to the local Medical Officer of health so that this information can be communicated to local physicians for their use with patients on sodium restricted diets. Potassium chloride can be used in place of sodium chloride to reduce the sodium content in water softening applications. Measured sodium levels exceed the ODWSOG aesthetic objective guideline of 200 mg/L. It is recommended that an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. Total and Fecal Coliforms, Escherichia Coli – The analytical results for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli measured in the groundwater sample collected from test well TW2 on August 7th, 2024, were above the ODWSOG limit (between 15 and 22 counts / 100 mL). Procedure D-5-5 indicates that the ODWSOG limit for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli is used as an indicator of inadequate disinfection within distribution systems. For private water wells the MECP 14
Page 206 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
and Health Units have historically used the limit of <5 counts /100 mL in the absence of a chlorine residual as indicating acceptable water quality concerning total coliforms, and D-5-5 indicates total coliform counts of less than 6 per 100 ml are acceptable. A second groundwater sample was collected by BluMetric from test well TW2 on October 3rd, 2024, at the end of a 4-hour pumping test and was analyzed for microbiological parameters. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4, satisfying the ODWSOG. Two (2) additional groundwater samples were collected on December 2nd and December 9th, 2025, by the property owner at 3629 Quinn Road East via grab sampling methods to confirm the previous sampling results. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample continued to show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4.
15
Page 207 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
Table 4:
240360 July 2025
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Parameter
Units
RDL
ODWSOG
TW1
TW2
TW2
TW2
TW2
6 hours
6 hours
03-Oct-24
02-Dec-24
09-Dec-24
15 22 15
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0.2 0.1 0.06 0.71 108 0.003 0.0003 1.17 0.0006
Microbiological Parameters (Health) Escherichia Coli
ct/100 mL
0
0MAC
0
Total Coliforms
ct/100 mL
0
MAC
0
0
Fecal Coliforms
ct/100 mL
0
not specified
0
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
1.5MAC
Turbidity (Lab)
NTU
0.1
5 AO
0.7 1.2
N-NO2 (Nitrite)
mg/L
0.1
1MAC
<0.05
N-NO3 (Nitrate)
mg/L
0.1
10
Sodium
mg/L
1
20 / 200
217
Manganese
mg/L
1
AO
0.05
0.014
Arsenic
mg/L
1
new MAC
0.0005
Boron
mg/L
1
5 IMAC
Uranium
mg/L
1
0.02
Chemical Parameters (Health)
0.29
MAC
MA
0.01
AO
MAC
2.28 0.00063
Chemical Parameters with Aesthetic Objectives/ Operational Guidelines N-NH3 (Ammonia)
mg/L
0.02
not specified
1.47
pH
no units
1
6.5-8.5
8.10
Hardness as CaCO3
mg/L
1
100
237
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
5
500
TDS (COND - CALC)
mg/L
1
500
731
Calcium
mg/L
1
55.8
Chloride
mg/L
1
250AO
82.8
Colour
TCU
2
AO
5
<2
Conductivity
uS/cm
5
1350
DOC
mg/L
0.5
5
Hydrogen Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
Sulphate
mg/L
Tannin & Lignin Magnesium Potassium
AO
0.05
<0.01
1
AO
500
247
mg/L
0.1
<0.5
mg/L
1
23.7
mg/L
1
Iron
mg/L
0.03
0.3
Manganese
mg/L
0.01
0.05
0.014
2.21 7.95 286 302 522 74.6 55.3 <2 979 3.1 <0.01 143 <0.5 24.2 15.6 0.008 0.003
pH
no units
0.01
7.63
7.43
Chlorine Residual
mg/L
0.01
0
0
Conductivity
uS/cm
0.1
6.5-8.5AO non detectable
1297
Turbidity
NTU
0.01
5
AO
0.26
Colour
TCU
10
AO
5
0
Temperature (oC)
oC
0.1
942 0.15 0
AO
OG OG AO
AO
349
3.9
20.8 AO AO
0.015
Field Parameters
Notes: Bold and shaded indicates results exceed criteria RDL - Reported Detection Limit ‘-‘ – Not Tested/Reported Hydrogen Sulphide is reported as a calculated value based on the Sulphide concentration determined by colorimetric method. MA = Medical officer of health advisory if sodium exceeds 20 mg/L. Sodium AO is 200 mg/L Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003/2022. Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended.
16
Page 208 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity As part of the 6-hour pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 were pumped by BluMetric on August 7 and August 8, 2024, at a constant rate of 20.5 L/min continuously over a period of six hours. Pressure transducer/datalogger were installed inside the dug wells at the retained lot on 3629 Quinn Road to measure groundwater interference during pumping of test well TW1 and TW2. A summary of the water levels measured over the course of the 6-hour pumping tests is included in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5:
Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1) 07-Aug-24
08-Aug-24
12-Aug-24
Test Well ID
Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)
Borehole Depth (mbgs)
Static Water Level (mbtoc)
Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)
Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
TW1
1.40
6.53
1.46
1.68
1.53
1.17
Table 6:
Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2) 08-Aug-24
09-Aug-24
12-Aug-24
Test Well ID
Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)
Borehole Depth (mbgs)
Static Water Level (mbtoc)
Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)
Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)
TW2
1.50
6.53
1.57
1.76
1.49
1.22
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the static water levels prior to the start of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 was 1.46 m btoc and 1.57 m btoc, respectively. Water levels at test well TW1 and TW2 prior to pump shutoff after 6 hours of pumping were 1.68 m btoc and 1.76 m btoc, respectively. Based on these water level measurements, total drawdowns of 0.22 m and 0.19 m were observed at the end of the 6-hour pump tests. Based on static water level measurements and well depths shown on the well records (recommended pump depths were at the bottom of the well), test wells TW1 and TW2 have available drawdowns of 5.07 m and 4.96 m, respectively. At the end of the 6-hour pumping test, test wells TW1 and TW2 had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump.
17
Page 209 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, water levels at test wells TW1 and TW2 had recovered to 1.53 m btoc and 1.49 m btoc approximately 24 hours following pump shutoff, indicating that both test wells recovered to approximately 68% and 142%, respectively, of the initial static water levels measured immediately before the start of the 6-hour pumping test. Recovery water levels above 100% four (4) days after pump shutoff are likely due to a combination of precipitation (13.2 mm and 20.8 mm of precipitation was measured at the Environment Canada weather station in Hartington, Ontario, on August 8th and 9th, respectively, located approximately 5 km from the site) and/or natural variations in water levels. A summary of measured water levels at observation wells that were monitored during the two sixhour pumping tests is included in Table 7. Table 7: Pumping Well TW1 (6-hr test) TW2 (6-hr test)
Observation Well Responses
TW2 3629 Quinn Road
Radial Distance (m) 100 190
Drawdown After 1 hour (m) 0.02 0.01
Drawdown After 2 hours (m) 0.04 0.02
Drawdown After 6 hours (m) 0.11 0.08
TW1 3629 Quinn Road
100 120
0.02 0.03
0.03 0.04
0.09 0.1
Observation Well
As shown in Table 7, the worst-case drawdown observed after 6 hours of continuous, constant rate pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min was 0.11 m. As per procedure D-5-5, discussed in more detail below, the daily water demand for a 4-bedroom dwelling is 2,250 L/day, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 2 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.04 m based on Table 7). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014), also discussed in more detail below, indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 1 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.03 m based on Table 7). Based on the worst-case drawdowns observed in neighboring water wells after 1 hour (0.03 m) and 2 hours (0.04 m) of the constant rate pumping test, which are representative of daily water use scenarios of the future dwellings on the proposed lots to be severed, negative impacts associated to well interference are not anticipated. As summarized in Table 8, the amount of groundwater pumped out of test wells TW1 and TW2 over the course of the 6-hour pumping test was approximately 7,358 L per well. Based measured drawdowns of 0.22 meters and 0.19 meters at the end of the 6-hr pumping test, the calculated volume of water pumped from test wells TW1 and TW2 were approximately 7,362 L and 7,351 L,
18
Page 210 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
respectively, assuming that both test wells are cylindrical and have casing radiuses of 0.46 meters. It is also assumed that both test wells have additional groundwater storage outside the immediate vicinity of the casing (representing the dug well excavation that was backfilled with porous sand/gravel) that extends to a radius of approximately 3.2 meters. Based on a 24-hr recovery of 0.15 meters and 0.27 meters, the calculated volume of water produced by test wells TW1 and TW2 over a 24-hr period was calculated to be approximately 4,967 L and 10,331 L, respectively. Table 8:
Test Well ID
Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) Volume of Water Pumped During 6-hr Pumping Test (L; Flowmeter)
Calculated Volume of Water Pumped During 6-Hour Pumping Test (L)
Height of Water Column Recovery After 24 hrs (m)
Volume of Water Produced After 24hrs of Recovery (L)
TW1 7358 7362 0.15 4967 TW2 7358 7351 0.27 10331
- Calculated volumes assume both test wells are cylindrical, have casing radiuses of 0.46 m and additional water storage extending to a radius of 3.2 m.
Analyses of the 6-hour pumping test conducted on test well TW1 were conducted using AquiferTest 10.0 software in order to estimate aquifer parameters. Aquifer parameters were calculated using the Theis (1935) method for an unconfined aquifer as summarized in the table below. Appendix C includes pumping test analysis reports for drawdown and recovery phases of the pumping test for the pumping well and selected observation wells. Table 9:
Summary of Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity
Well
Type
TW1 TW2 3629 Quinn Road
Pumping Well Observation Well Observation Well Mean
Drawdown 2x101 3x101
T (m2/d) Recovery 4x101 5x101 4x101
Mean 4x101 3x101 3x101 3x101
K (m/s) Mean 8x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-4 9x10-5
S 6x10-4 2x10-4 4x10-4
The calculated aquifer parameters for pumping well TW1 and observation wells TW2 and 3629 Quinn Road are similar to published literature values for coarse/medium sand (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990), however values are likely representing a composite of fractured limestone and gravel, consistent with the construction materials of dug wells.
19
Page 211 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
In order to calculate the productive capacity of test wells TW1 and TW2, the Farvolden (1959) method was used to estimate a sustainable pumping rate for 20 years without exceeding the available drawdown in the test wells. The Farvolden (1959) method is defined by the following equation:
Where: T = Transmissivity (m2/day) HA = Available drawdown (m) Q20 = 20-year safe yield Using a mean transmissivity value of 3x101 m2/d and an available drawdown of 5 m, the Farvolden (1959) method suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 71.4 m3/day, or 50 L/min. The suitability of test wells TW1 and TW2 to supply an adequate amount of water for the proposed severances was assessed using the methodology provided in MECP Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996), which indicates the number of people per dwelling is the number of bedrooms plus one. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that future residences on the proposed severances will be a fourbedroom single family homes, therefore the number of persons residing in each residence is assumed to be five. Procedure D-5-5 indicates the minimum ‘per-person water requirement’ is 450 L/day, which is 2,250 L/day per dwelling. Procedure D-5-5 also indicates that ‘peak demand’ is assumed to occur over a 120-minute period and is to be based on a per person usage rate of 3.75 L/min during that period. Using this information, the ‘peak demand rate’ per four-bedroom house is 3.75 x 5 = 18.75 L/min for a total of 2,250 L over a 120-min period. The pumping rate used for the pumping tests at TW1 and TW2 was 20.5 L/min therefore a total of 7,358 L was pumped from each test well in 360 mins and still had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump. The Farvolden (1959) method, calculated using measured aquifer parameters of the test wells, also suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 50 L/min. Based on the recovery data measured during the two 6-hr pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 can supply between 4,967 L and 10,331 L of groundwater over a 24-hr period for domestic use.
20
Page 212 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Based on this information, both test wells can satisfy the requirements to accommodate both daily and peak water demand requirement for a four-bedroom house based on the D-5-5 procedure (2,250 L/day per dwelling). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014) indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 225 L per person per day (1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house). Current Ontario Building Code requirements (OBC, 2012) for water conservation specify that toilet and shower consumption must now comply with lower use requirements (OBC Table 7.6.4.2.A & B and Table 7.6.4.1). Based on the new requirements, toilet water demand is assumed to be 4.8 L/flush. Shower consumption is assumed to be 7.6 L/min. Toilet use accounts for approximately 25% of total domestic water use, and shower use accounts for approximately 20% (CMHC, 2014). The OBC efficiencies will result in an average per person domestic water usage of 163 L/day. This suggests that the daily household water demand could often be less than 815 L/day.
4
Development Considerations
4.1 Water Treatment The new severed lots will be serviced by dug wells therefore the following water treatment items are recommended: • • •
Pre-filtration (25 and/or 10 micron and 5 micron) followed by absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization. UV sterilization with a National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Class-A (NSF, 2019) device. Under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets.
Since filtration and disinfection both contribute to the removal or inactivation of waterborne pathogens, both treatment processes are recommended, along with a service contract with a qualified contractor to ensure the on-going maintenance and performance of the water treatment system. The water within the overburden aquifer has elevated hardness. Installation of a residential grade water softener would reduce the concentrations of hardness and extend the lifespan of the UV sterilization system. Conventional water softeners introduce sodium into the water supply.
21
Page 213 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The concentration of sodium in the water supply already exceeds the ‘medical notification limit’ of 20 mg/L for people on a sodium reduced diet, so a conventional water softener is not recommended. Softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. Sodium can also be removed from drinking water by using reverse osmosis or by distillation.
4.2 Testing of Treated Water Treated water from the proposed dug wells for the proposed two-lot severance should be tested on a regular basis for bacteriological parameters. Free microbiological testing for water wells is available through Public Health Ontario. Details regarding sample bottle pickup and sampling procedures can be accessed at the Eastern Ontario Health Unit website (https://eohu.ca/en/my-environment/wellwater-testing). Sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest, (e.g. early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rain/flooding).
4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal MECP’s Procedure D-5-4 (MOEE, 1996) provides a methodology for assessing the risks associated with individual onsite sewage systems. Developments consisting of lots which average 1 hectare (with no lot being smaller than 0.8 hectares) may not require a detailed hydrogeological assessment if it can be demonstrated that the area is not hydrogeologically sensitive. The lot sizes of the proposed lots to be severed are approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is also considered hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin overburden and is located within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’, therefore an assessment of the potential impact of effluent from a wastewater treatment system (i.e., a nitrate dilution calculation) was conducted. The assessment is based on a reasonable estimate of groundwater recharge by infiltration from precipitation. The method relies on estimates of evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff and inputs regarding surficial soil type, vegetative ground cover and topography. A nitrate effluent concentration of 40 mg/L and a wastewater flow of 1,000 Litre/day per lot is used (based on OBC Table 8.2.1.3.A, which indicates a daily rate of 2,000 L/day for 2 x 4-bedroom dwelling). A mean annual precipitation value (net of evaporation and evapotranspiration processes) of 965.6 mm/year was used (Environment Canada, Climate Normals 2022 – Centreville).
22
Page 214 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
An estimation of infiltration was calculated based on site specific information and the infiltration factors provided in the document MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995). The calculations are provided in Appendix D. The assessment shows that the nitrate impact for the proposed severances will be approximately 5.8 mg/L. This assessment shows that nitrate in effluent from proposed development will have an acceptable impact on receiving water quality.
4.3.1 Sewage System Design Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), a fully raised tile bed is anticipated for the proposed severed lot. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. Sewage systems are designed according to Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC, 2012). The OBC sets out minimum design and construction standards for all approved classes of sewage systems. It is proposed that this site be serviced with traditional Class 4 sewage systems consisting of a septic tank and separate leaching bed. Wherever possible, leaching beds should be located down gradient from any nearby wells or surface water bodies. The Ontario Building Code stipulates minimum clearance distances for in-ground and raised tile beds. Table 6 gives clearances for the various types of beds. In order to provide a safety margin, it is BluMetric’s recommendation that an offset of at least 45 m (1.5x minimum clearance) be observed between an onsite wastewater treatment system and TW1 and TW2. The septic system and bed should be placed in a downgradient or side gradient location relative to the planned dug well. Clearance distances in Table 6 also apply to wells and sewage systems located on neighbouring lots. A conceptual lot development plan showing setbacks is included as Figure 4. Table 10:
Tile Bed Clearances
Minimum Clearance (m) In-ground Partially Raised Fully Raised Water supply well with a watertight casing to a depth of 6 m 15 16.5 18 Any other water supply well (including dug wells) 30 31.5 33 Surface water body* 15 16.5 18 Structures 5 7.5 8 Lot boundaries 3 4.5 6 Source: Table 8.2.1.6B of O.Reg. 332/12, as amended (Ontario Building Code) and increased for a 1.5 m fully raised leaching bed as required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11). Surface Feature
23
Page 215 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
The homeowner is advised to have the on-site wastewater system inspected regularly and to follow a wastewater system management program to minimize the risk of failure and impact to the groundwater. Existing tile bed drainage system should be disconnected prior to installation of future septic bed systems. Best management practices are recommended such as regular pumping of the septic system, cursory inspection of break-out, consideration as to what materials are being discharged to the septic. It is recommended that homeowners take all reasonable measures to conserve water and promote infiltration of water into the subsurface within each of their lots. The homeowner shall consult the following guides available at: https://www.oowa.org/homeowner-resources/ • •
5
A Guide to Operating & Maintaining Your Septic System About Your House: Buying a House with a Well and Septic System
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the investigations and analyses contained within this report: • •
•
• • •
The dug wells TW1 (on the western lot) and TW2 (on the eastern lot) are suitable for the purpose of characterizing the bedrock aquifer at the subject site. TW1 on the proposed western lot and TW2 on the eastern lot to be severed will provide a sufficient quantity of water for a four-bedroom household based on daily and peak water demands outlined in the D-5-5 procedure. In BluMetric’s professional opinion the probable well yield determined on the basis of this investigation is representative of the yield which residents of the proposed lots to be severed are likely to obtain from existing dug wells in the long term. The water quality at TW1 and TW2 was found to satisfy the health-related limits of the ODWSOG. Pre-filtration and absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization is recommended. Treated water should be tested on a regular basis to ensure the efficacy of the water treatment system. Samples should be tested for bacteriological parameters, and sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest (e.g., early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rains/flooding).
24
Page 216 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
•
•
• •
•
6
240360 July 2025
The laboratory analytical results for hardness exceeded the Operational Guideline limit (a non-health related parameter). Elevated hardness can be treated with a residential grade water softener. Water softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can potentially be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. The laboratory analytical results for sodium exceeded the Aesthetic Guideline limit (a nonhealth related parameter). Elevated sodium can be treated with under-the-counter reverse osmosis systems installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. The proposed lots to be severed are suitable for development at the proposed occupancy based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), raised tile beds are anticipated for the proposed severed lots. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. The site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to the need for dug wells as the only source of potable water. As a precautionary measure, the setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 m.
Limiting Conditions
The conclusions presented in this report represent our professional opinion and are based upon the work described in this report and any limiting conditions in the terms of reference, scope of work, or conditions noted herein. BluMetric makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by others, or of conclusions and recommendations predicated on the accuracy of that information. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion. BluMetric makes no representation as to compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies established by regulatory agencies.
25
Page 217 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
This report has been prepared for Robert Pittman. Any use a third party makes of this report, any reliance on the report, or decisions based upon the report, are the responsibility of those third parties unless authorization is received from BluMetric in writing. BluMetric accepts no responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any unauthorized third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.
Respectfully submitted, BluMetric Environmental Inc.
Erik Lalonde, M.Sc., P.Geo Hydrogeologist
Michael Melaney, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineering
26
Page 218 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
7
240360 July 2025
References
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 2000 (Revised 2014). Household Guide to Water Efficiency. Drage, J. 2022. Domestic Wells Introduction and Overview. The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada, 2022. Canadian Climate Normals and Averages website: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Environment Canada, 2010. Meteorological Service of Canada. Compiled moisture surplus values for Ottawa, Lachute, Mason Anger, Morrisburg National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) / American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 2019. NSF/ANSI 55-2019 Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems. Ontario Building Code (OBC), 2012 as amended. O. Reg. 332/12: Building Code under Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992. Ontario GeoHub, 2024. Ontario Watershed Boundaries (OWB) GIS portal at: https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/mnrf::ontario-watershed-boundaries-owb/ Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), OGS Earth website, 2024. Various authors. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2022a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS map. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003. Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended/revised under Ontario Regulation 169/03, 2021. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-169-03/latest/o-reg-169-03.html https://wcwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Technical-Support-Document-for-OntarioDrinking-Water-Standards-Objectives-and-Guidelines.pdf
27
Page 219 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1994. Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2015. Water Supply Wells Requirements and Best Management Practices, (Revised April 2015) website at: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4410/a-wwbmp-title-master-table-of-contentschapter-1.pdf Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS and database. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024b. Permits to Take Water (PTTW) online GIS. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-permits-take-water Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Regulation 319/09, 2009. Quinte Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-319-09/latest/o-reg-319-09.html Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32 Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Revised Statute of Ontario (R.S.O.), Ontario Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903), 1990, Wells. Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. American Geophysical Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.
28
Page 220 of 311
Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman
240360 July 2025
Thornthwaite, C. W., and Mather, J.R., 1957: Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publications in climatology, Volume 10(3), Laboratory of Climatology. United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2022. Geographic information system (GIS) at: https://alacarte.prescott-russell.on.ca/Html5Viewer/Index.html?Viewer=Public
29
Page 221 of 311
Figures
Page 222 of 311
Lot 2
Lot 1
Retained Lands
Indicates Proposed Lot Severances
Indicates Retained Lands
Figure 2 – Site Layout
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 223 of 311
Retained Lands
Lot 1
Lot 2
Indicates Well Record Location and ID Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Inferred Regional Drainage Direction Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow and Drainage Direction
Figure 3 – MECP Well Locations
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 224 of 311
A32158-TW2
Lot 2
TP1 TP4
TP3
TP4
Indicates Test Pit Location (August 6, 0.6 m 2024) and depth in metres
TP2
Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Indicates Supply Well Location
Indicates Recommended Residence Location 45 m
Denotes minimum 45 m separation setback between well supply and septic system
Indicates Recommended Septic System Location Inferred Shallow Groundwater and Drainage Flow Direction
Inferred Regional Groundwater Flow Direction Well Location
Figure 4 - Conceptual Lot Development Plan
240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario
Page 225 of 311
Appendix A Well Records
Page 226 of 311
Page 227 of 311
Page 228 of 311
Page 229 of 311
Page 230 of 311
Page 231 of 311
Page 232 of 311
Page 233 of 311
Page 234 of 311
Page 235 of 311
Page 236 of 311
Page 237 of 311
Page 238 of 311
Appendix B Laboratory Certificates of Analysis
Page 239 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 130104
REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-14 Ground Water
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:
Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)
Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA
Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN
Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid) Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA
BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS KDIBBITS PLUSSIER
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01
Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C
COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01 NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01
SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4
Page 240 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Parameter
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Units
R.L.
Total Coliform (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
0
E coli (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
0
Heterotrophic Plate Count
CFU/1mL
10
10
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100mL
1
0
Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5
mg/L
5
349
TDS (Calc. from Cond.)
mg/L
3
731
Conductivity @25°C
uS/cm
1
1350
pH @25°C
pH units
8.10
Colour
TCU
2
<2
Turbidity
NTU
0.1
1.2
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
0.7
Chloride
mg/L
0.5
82.8
Nitrate (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.29
Nitrite (N)
mg/L
0.05
<0.05
Sulphate
mg/L
1
247
Phosphorus (Total)
mg/L
0.01
0.01
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
1.5
Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)
mg/L
0.05
1.47
Organic Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
<0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
mg/L
0.2
3.9
Tannin & Lignin
mg/L
0.5
<0.5
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4
Page 241 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Phenolics
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Hardness (as CaCO3)
mg/L
0.02
237
Barium
mg/L
0.001
0.066
Boron
mg/L
0.005
2.28
Calcium
mg/L
0.02
55.8
Iron
mg/L
0.005
0.015
Magnesium
mg/L
0.02
23.7
Manganese
mg/L
0.001
0.014
Potassium
mg/L
0.1
20.8
Sodium
mg/L
0.2
217
Strontium
mg/L
0.001
7.88
Zinc
mg/L
0.005
0.005
Antimony
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Arsenic
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Beryllium
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Cadmium
mg/L
Chromium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Cobalt
mg/L
0.0001
0.0002
Copper
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Lead
mg/L
0.00002
0.00028
0.00001 5
<0.000015
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4
Page 242 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW1
Sample I.D.
24-024165-1
Date Collected
2024-08-07
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Molybdenum
mg/L
0.0001
0.0008
Nickel
mg/L
0.0002
0.0007
Selenium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Silver
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Thallium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00012
Uranium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00063
Vanadium
mg/L
0.0001
0.0004
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4
Page 243 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 108631
REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-15 Ground Water
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:
Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)
Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA
Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN
Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12
Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid)
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA
BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS YLIEN PLUSSIER
2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12
Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)
Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01
Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C
COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01
SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B ICPMS Test SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B
NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4
Page 244 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Parameter
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Units
R.L.
Total Coliform (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
22
E coli (DC Media)
CFU/100mL
1
15
Heterotrophic Plate Count
CFU/1mL
10
530
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100mL
1
15
Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5
mg/L
5
302
TDS (Calc. from Cond.)
mg/L
3
522
Conductivity @25°C
uS/cm
1
979
pH @25°C
pH units
7.95
Colour
TCU
2
<2
Turbidity
NTU
0.1
0.1
Fluoride
mg/L
0.1
0.2
Chloride
mg/L
0.5
55.3
Nitrate (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.71
Nitrite (N)
mg/L
0.05
0.06
Sulphate
mg/L
1
143
Phosphorus (Total)
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
2.2
Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)
mg/L
0.05
2.21
Organic Nitrogen
mg/L
0.1
<0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
mg/L
0.2
3.1
Tannin & Lignin
mg/L
0.5
<0.5
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4
Page 245 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
<0.01
Phenolics
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Hardness (as CaCO3)
mg/L
0.02
286
Barium
mg/L
0.001
0.071
Boron
mg/L
0.005
1.17
Calcium
mg/L
0.02
74.6
Iron
mg/L
0.005
0.008
Magnesium
mg/L
0.02
24.2
Manganese
mg/L
0.001
0.003
Potassium
mg/L
0.1
15.6
Sodium
mg/L
0.2
108
Strontium
mg/L
0.001
9.19
Zinc
mg/L
0.005
0.007
Antimony
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Arsenic
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Beryllium
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Cadmium
mg/L
Chromium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Cobalt
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
Copper
mg/L
0.0001
0.0010
Lead
mg/L
0.00002
0.00018
0.00001 5
<0.000015
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4
Page 246 of 311
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0
Client I.D.
TW 2
Sample I.D.
24-024292-1
Date Collected
2024-08-08
Parameter
Units
R.L.
Molybdenum
mg/L
0.0001
0.0007
Nickel
mg/L
0.0002
0.0026
Selenium
mg/L
0.001
<0.001
Silver
mg/L
0.0001
<0.0001
Thallium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00022
Uranium
mg/L
0.00005
0.00060
Vanadium
mg/L
0.0001
0.0003
Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4
Page 247 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
G 130297
REPORT No: 24-030803 - Rev. 0
Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Brett Webster
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-07 Ground Water
Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid)
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1 1 1
Site Analyzed KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON
Authorized BBURTCH BBURTCH BBURTCH
Date Analyzed 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03
240360 Lab Method ECTC-001 FC-001 HPC-001
Reference Method MECP E3407 SM 9222D SM 9215D
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Parameter
Total Coliform (DC Media)
E coli (DC Media)
Background (DC
Heterotrophic Plate
Media)
Count
Fecal Coliform
Units
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
CFU/1mL
CFU/100mL
R.L.
1
1
1
10
1
Client I.D.
Sample I.D.
Date Collected
TW2
24-030803-1
2024-Oct-03
0
0
0
10
0
Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1
Page 248 of 311
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:
DW 132970
REPORT No: 24-037978 - Rev. 0
Report To: Private Kingston ,
CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Z1
Attention: Robert Pittman
DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:
2024-Dec-10 2024-Dec-11 Drinking Water
Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid)
CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1
Site Analyzed KINGSTON
Authorized BBURTCH
Date Analyzed 2024-Dec-10
Lab Method ECTC-001
Reference Method MECP E3407
R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
Parameter
Total Coliform (DC Media)
E coli (DC Media)
Units
CFU/100mL
CFU/100mL
R.L.
1
1
Client I.D.
Sample I.D.
Date Collected
3629 Quinn Rd.East Well
24-037978-1
2024-Dec-09
0
0
Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1
Page 249 of 311
Appendix C Aquifer Analysis
Page 250 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Pumping W ell: TW 1 Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
TW 1 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
Analysis Date: 2025-03-11
t/t’ 1
10
100
1000
0.00
residual drawdown [m]
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
TW1
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
4.22 × 10
-4
7.82 × 10
-5
0.45
Page 251 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
TW 2 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E0 2E-1
residual drawdown [m]
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
t/t’
1E1
1E2
1E3
2E-1
1E-1
8E-2
4E-2
0E-1 TW2 Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
TW2
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
6.02 × 10
-4
1.11 × 10
-4
99.03
Page 252 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery
Test Conducted by: BM
Test Date: 2025-03-11
Analysis Performed by: EL
3629 - Recovery
Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m
Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E0 1E-1
residual drawdown [m]
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
t/t'
1E1
1E2
1E3
8E-2
6E-2
4E-2
2E-2
0E-1 3629 Quinn Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well
3629 Quinn
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Radial Distance to PW
[m²/s]
[m/s]
[m]
6.67 × 10
-4
1.23 × 10
-4
189.77
Page 253 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Test Conducted by:
Test Date: 2025-03-12
Analysis Performed by:
3629 Quinn - Drawdown
Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m
Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
Time [s] 10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.00
Drawdown [m]
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Calculation using COOPER & JACOB Observation Well
3629 Quinn
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
[m²/d]
[m/d]
2.75 × 10
1
5.00 × 10
Storage coefficient
Radial Distance to PW [m]
0
1.65 × 10
-4
189.77
Page 254 of 311
Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road
Robert Pittman
Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown
Pumping W ell: TW 1
Test Conducted by:
Test Date: 2025-03-12
Analysis Performed by:
TW 2 - Drawdown
Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m
Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]
1E1 2E-1
Analysis Date: 2025-03-12
Time [s] 1E3
1E2
1E4
1E5
2E-1
[m]
1E-1
8E-2
4E-2
0E-1 TW2 Calculation using Theis with Jacob Correction Observation Well
TW2
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Conductivity
[m²/d]
[m/d]
2.22 × 10
1
4.04 × 10
Storage coefficient
Radial Distance to PW [m]
0
5.71 × 10
-4
99.03
Page 255 of 311
Appendix D Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations
Page 256 of 311
Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Thornthwaite Calculation Thornthwaite Method (1957)
Potential Evapotranspiration
‘Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems’ 4th edition by Ram S. Gupta, 2017 Et month = 1.62 (10Tm)/I)^a where: a = 67510^-9I^3 - 771 10^-7I^2 +17910^-4 * I + 492*10^-3 Ii = sum (Tm/5)^1.514 Canada Climate Normals Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario Month January Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Temp C
Ii
frozen frozen frozen 1.4877 2.9527 4.2984 6.3385 7.0714 9.0708 8.7189 10.5471 7.9723 9.8887 5.3836 7.4537 2.1934 3.9049 0.3501 1.0420 frozen 37.476 51.198 a= 1.0901 Note: Daylight Factor is an adjustment factor for possible hours of sunshine based on latitude. Monthly temperature from Environment Canada Climate Normals website at: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
-7.7 -6.9 -1.5 6.5 13.1 18.2 20.9 19.7 15.2 8.4 2.5 -4.1
Et (cm) unadjusted
Daylight Factor
Et (mm) adjusted
1.13 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.21 1.04 0.94 0.79
0.0334 0.0811 0.1170 0.1382 0.1197 0.0775 0.0367 0.0082
0.612 metres
965.6 mm
Potential Evapotranspiration (PE)
612 mm
Surplus Water (Precipitation - PE)
354 mm
Page 257 of 311
Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Predictive Nitrate Impact Assessment PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Infiltration Factors
Infiltration Factors
0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated
Topography Soil Cover Total
0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated
Topography Soil Cover
0.6
Total
Site Characteristics
0.6
Site Characteristics 21000 m
Area of Site :
2
Area of Site :
21,000
2.10 hectares Area of each roof: Total of roof areas: Length of roadways: Width of roadways: Total area of roadways:
10 m 5 m 2 100 m
Impervious Area
2 700 m
Percent Impervious Area = Infiltration Area =
21,000
m2
Septic Effluent
m2
2.10 hectares 2 300 m 2 600 m
3.33 %
Infiltration Area =
20,300
m2
Septic Effluent
Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =
40 mg/L 3 0 m
Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation
Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =
40 mg/L 3 2 m
Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation
Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) =
0 mg/L
Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
965.6 mm/yr
Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) = Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario
Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)
354 mm/yr
Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)
Factored Surplus Water =
212 mm/yr
Factored Surplus Water =
3 4,458 m
Total volume of Infiltration
0 mg/L 965.6 mm/yr 354 mm/yr 212 mm/yr 3 4,309 m
Total volume of Infiltration
mm/yr 3 12 m /day
Infiltration flow entering the system (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)
3 12 m /day
Infiltration Flow Entering the System (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)
CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration
CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration
Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area
3 0 m /day
Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area
3 0 m /day
Cb = background nitrate concentration
0 mg/L
Cb = background nitrate concentration
0 mg/L
Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield
3 0 m /day
Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield
Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent
40 mg/L
Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate CT = Estimate Number of Lots
3 2 m /day
Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent
40 mg/L
3 12 m /day
Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration
3 12 m /day
0 mg/L
Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate
0 mg/L
0.0 mg/L 1 lots
CT = Estimate Number of Lots
5.8 mg/L 2 lots
Page 258 of 311
1682 Woodward Dr. O awa, ON K2C 3R8 Canada
The Tower, 4 Cataraqui St. Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 Canada
3B-209 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2M7 Canada
825 Milner Ave. Toronto, ON M1B 3C3 Canada
T 877.487.8436 O awa@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Kingston@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Kitchener@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Toronto@blumetric.ca
6-410 Falconbridge Rd. Sudbury, ON P3A 4S4 Canada
260-15 Taschereau St. Ga neau, QC J8Y 2V6 Canada
200-1500 Du College St. Saint-Laurent, QC H4L 5G6 Canada
27 Parker St. Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4T5 Canada
T 877.487.8436 Sudbury@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Ga neau@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Montreal@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Dartmouth@blumetric.ca
4916–49th St. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1P3 Canada
200-4445 SW 35th Terrace Gainesville, FL 32608 USA
T 877.487.8436 Yellowknife@blumetric.ca
T 877.487.8436 Gainesville@blumetric.ca
Page 259 of 311
July 31, 2025
File: SEV/FRS/172/2025 SEV/FRS/173/2025 MV/FRS/174/2025
Sent by E-mail Christine Woods Manager of Planning Development Services Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Woods: Re:
Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Lot Creation) & Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 3629 Quinn Rd East; Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: unnamed tributary of Millhaven Creek & unevaluated wetlands
Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted applications for consent and minor variance. The applications involve the severance of two 1.0 ha parcels of vacant land from an existing 37.8 ha rural property for the purpose of creating two new building lots. Future residential development is planned for the 35.8 ha retained parcel. A minor variance is necessary to permit reduced lot frontages for each lot. Discussion CRCA’s scope of review with respect to this application is the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the unnamed watercourses and wetlands on the subject property and protection of the hydrologic function of wetlands. We offer the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration, based on our role as a commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Surface Water Features Cataraqui Conservation, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits requires development (building and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) to be located outside of natural hazard areas and set back a minimum of 30 m from surface water features including watercourses (creeks, streams) and
Page 260 of 311
Page 2 of 3 wetlands. The intent is to protect development from potential flooding and erosion hazards and to preserve the hydrologic function of these features. Unnamed Tributary of Millhaven Creek The subject lands are within a drainage catchment the flows east into Millhaven Creek. There is a watercourse that runs across the southern portion of the subject lands approximately 98 m back from Quinn Road. The watercourse is a regulated feature and as such a 30 m setback is applied. The survey sketch provided shows that there are building envelopes on the severed and retained lands outside of the required 30 m setback from the watercourse. However, the proposed lot configuration results in the severed lots being divided by the watercourse. Staff note that it may not be feasible to access the northern portion of the severed lots since this would require a crossing of the watercourse, which may not be permitted by CRCA. As such, staff recommend that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. Unevaluated Wetlands Mapping identified pockets of unevaluated wetlands on the subject lands, generally in the area in and around of the watercourse. Staff are accepting of the findings of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment which confirms the presence of riparian vegetation in the watercourse channel but notes that the area is not large enough to be considered a distinct community. Based on this, CRCA have no concerns related to the hydrologic function of wetlands on the subject lands. Staff recommend that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Karst Topography The subject lands have been identified on provincial OGS Mapping as having inferred karst. Karst is a type of unstable bedrock that is relatively common in the Cataraqui Region area and is considered a natural hazard under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and Ontario Regulation 41/024. As with other natural hazards, there is risk of damage to buildings, property and human safety when development is located within or near unstable bedrock. Accordingly, CRCA’s regulation directs development away from these areas and features. CRCA staff have reviewed available information (e.g. aerial imagery, soils and geology mapping, topographic info.) and completed a site inspection of the subject lands. Based on our preliminary findings, we did not encounter evidence of karst in the area of the future development envelopes (generally within 50 m of Quinn Road). Should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the applicant will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property.
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 261 of 311
Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Staff have no objection to approval of PL-BDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-20250076 based on our review of natural hazards and have identified considerations above in bold. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 30 m of the watercourse are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06). 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 and to ensure the protection of wetlands. Current and future landowners are advised to contact CRCA before considering any work within 30 metres of the watercourse on the subject lands. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely,
Emma Stucke, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner cc. Robert Pittman, applicant, by email Elysia Ackroyd, agent, by email
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 262 of 311
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:
Emma Stucke Christine Woods Kate Kaestner RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East) August 26, 2025 9:42:49 AM image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png
Hi Christine, Thanks for providing this. Overall, I see the proposed revisions as an improvement compared to the last concept and continue to have no objections to the severance. Sincerely, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 26, 2025 9:06 AM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Cc: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Emma, We received the attached revised plan, which will go to Committee of Adjustment on September 11th. Please let me know if you have any comment on the revised plan. Sincerely, Christine Woods RPP, MCIP Manager of Planning Development Services p: +613-376-3027 e: cwoods@southfrontenac.net a: 4432 George St., Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Temporary office: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury www.southfrontenac.net Page 263 of 311
Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Sent: August 25, 2025 4:50 PM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Cc: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Hi Kate, Thanks for passing on the notices of deferral. I’m following up to see if you need any further info from me with respect to my comment letter. Let me know! Thanks, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 18, 2025 3:04 PM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Subject: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Page 264 of 311
Good afternoon Emma, Please find attached Notices of Deferral for the Pittman applications at 3629 Quinn Road East). Kind regards, Kate Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk Development Services Department Township of South Frontenac p: +613-376-3027 e: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net a: Box 100, Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 o: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury, ON www.southfrontenac.net
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Page 265 of 311
Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2025-0075 Application Number: ___________________________________________________ Robert Pittman Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________
3 PT Lot 6 Portland Lot: _______________District:
Concession: _________________ Quinn Road East Road: ________________________________________________________________
Road Maintenance:
✔ Year-round □
Seasonal □
Sight Lines: Are there adequate sight lines for the entrance?
✔ Yes □
No □
If no, what changes would be required to improve sight lines? RETAINED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES. SEVERED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES
Road Conditions:
Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?
Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.
Road Widening Required? ✔ To be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor □ Yes □ No □ Any specific requirement?
Local road - rural classification. Ensure that there is a 20m (66ft road allowance) otherwise applicant to dedicate any shortfall of 10m from centerline.
Approved by the Public Services? ✔ Yes □ Yes, with conditions □ No □ If yes, with conditions, please describe conditions below.
Signature on behalf of Public Services
2025-07-22
Date
Page 266 of 311
To:
Committee of Adjustment
Prepared by:
Development Services Department
Meeting Date:
September 11, 2025
Subject:
Revised Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075, Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-20250076, Pittman (Fotenn), 3629 Quinn Road East, Portland District
Summary The consent applications are for the creation of two rural residential lots. The minor variance application is to allow the severed and retained parcels to have less than the required lot frontage. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on the consent applications in conjunction with the minor variance application. This report recommends approval of the three applications. Background The subject property is located south of Harrowsmith, east of Road 38 and on the north side of Quinn Road East. It runs north to an unopened road allowance. The northern two thirds of the property is forest and old farm fields. The southern portion of the property is generally level. It contains agricultural fields and is developed with a single detached dwelling, a detached garage and a shed. A watercourse bisects the property approximately 100m north of Quinn Road East. The neighbourhood has a mix of rural residential properties and agricultural properties. The subject lands are in the Rural designation in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The lands are zoned Rural (RU) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The Committee of Adjustment held a public hearing for the subject applications in August 2025. The Committee granted the applicant’s request to defer making decisions until they had an opportunity to revisit the proposed lot layouts in consideration for Cataraqui Conservation’s comments. Revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 0.8ha (2 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The depth of the lots was reduced preserve the tillable agricultural field to the north, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by Cataraqui Conservation. The rear lot lines would align with the northern extent of the 30m setback from the watercourse. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 36.3ha (89.6 acres) in size with 64m frontage. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 267 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained parcels because the RU zone requires 76m frontage. Supporting Documents A Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. The report assessed the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area as well as its conformity with the applicable policy and regulatory framework. It included a minimum distance separation study for livestock facilities. Fotenn submitted a subsequent letter (August 19, 2025) in support of the revised consent applications, indicating that they address technical comments and enhance the protection of rural and natural features. A Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required to confirm the existence of a mapped wetland along the watercourse, and to define its boundary, on the severed parcels. The study determined that there was no wetland on the severed parcels. The consultant evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, and woodland on the severed and retained parcels. They also reviewed the area for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat. The Natural Heritage Site Assessment included the following recommendations:
- Development should be setback a minimum of 30m from the watercourse,
- The land within 30m of the watercourse should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated to provide a buffer, and
- No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. A Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required because the severed parcels would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse. A dug well was constructed on each of the severed parcels. The consultant conducted 6hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment. The study concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems. The report included the following recommendations:
- Water treatment including pre-filtration and ultraviolet sterilization, as well as an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system for individuals with sodium restricted diets,
- Regular testing of treated water for bacteriological parameters,
- Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements, and www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 268 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
- The setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45m as a precautionary measure due to the hydrogeological sensitive nature of the site. The Hydrogeological Assessment was reviewed by Malroz Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Township. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reported on July 22, 2025, that there are adequate entrance sight lines for both the severed parcels and the retained parcel. Road widening is to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. A 20-metre right-of-way is required on Quinn Road East. Any shortfall of the right-of-way as measured 10 metres from the centreline of the road shall be dedicated to the Township. Public Services had no comment on the proposed reduced lot frontages. Cataraqui Conservation staff indicated in a letter dated July 31, 2025, that they have no objection to the applications. They recommended the applicant consider an alternative lot configuration where the rear lot lines would follow the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings, because crossings may not be permitted by CRCA under O. Reg. 41/24. They also recommended that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Finally, they noted that should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the owner will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property. On August 26, 2025, they noted the proposed revisions are an improvement compared to the last concept. They continue to have no objections to the applications. Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The consent applications need to be assessed against the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS), County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, as well as the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The minor variance application needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Minimum Distance Separation for Livestock Facilities In conformity with the PPS, the Township Official Plan requires all division of land for nonfarm uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I (MDS I) (section 7.1(l)). The Township Zoning By-law also requires residential development to comply with MDS I. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 269 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
The subject lands are in a rural and agricultural area where there are several existing livestock facilities. The Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) evaluated these livestock facilities against The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document (OMAFRA Publication 853). MDS I setbacks were calculated for barns at 4372 Road 38 and at 3609 Quinn Road East. It was determined that the severed parcels would conform to the applicable minimum distance separation policies. Rural Residential Uses The PPS allows residential lot creation on Rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. The County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan also permit residential development in the Rural designation. Section 5.7.4 of the Township Official Plan indicates that a maximum of three rural residential lots may be created by consent from a landholding provided that the new lots meet the General Consent Policies, as well as all other applicable policies. The subject property is eligible for severances under Section 5.7.4. There have been no previous severances from the lot existing on the day of adoption of the Township Official Plan. Section 5.7.4 requires the frontage, size and shape of any lot created for rural residential purposes through the severance approval process to be appropriate for the proposed use and to conform to the provisions of the zoning by-law. The severed parcels would be a minimum of 0.8ha in size, which is the minimum lot area required in the Rural designation and the RU zone for a residential lot. The parcels would be rectangular-shaped. The severed parcels would have approximately 63m frontage and the retained parcel would have 64.6m frontage on Quinn Road East. These frontages would be less than the minimum 76m lot frontage required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) of the Official Plan allows the municipality to consider reductions to this requirement provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The minor variance application requests 60m lot frontages. The minimum 76m lot frontage is intended to allow for a separation between driveways and to improve traffic safety. Public Services noted that the severed parcels and retained parcel would each have adequate sight lines for an entrance. Minimum lot frontages are also required to ensure a development pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature and to avoid an overdeveloped appearance. Existing lots along this part of Quinn Road East have frontages ranging from 40m to 70m, so the proposed reduced lot frontages would be consistent with the existing lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Finally, minimum lot frontages help ensure a reasonable separation between uses. Separation between wells and sewage systems is especially important for protecting groundwater in hydrogeological sensitive areas. A hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis was required in support of the applications because the proposed lots would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 270 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
location of the watercourse (i.e. development would logically need to occur on the land between the watercourse and the road). The Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a sewage system. Figure 4 of the report is a conceptual lot development plan that illustrates how a well, a sewage system and a house can fit on each of the severed parcels with consideration for the recommended 45m separation distance between the wells and sewage systems. The development could also achieve the required 30m setback from the watercourse and other applicable zone provisions. Staff are satisfied that the proposed reduced frontages would not compromise the functionality, accessibility or rural character of the severed parcels. It would also not impact the continued use of the retained parcel, 150m north of the road. Special Development Requirements Staff recommend that a development agreement be a condition of the consent approvals. The development agreement would be used to notify potential purchasers and future owners about special requirements that will apply to development of the severed parcels. Specifically, to make them aware of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment and the Hydrogeological Assessment and the recommendations that must be implemented. The agreement would also make them aware that they will need to have lot grading and drainage plans prepared that implement the recommendations of these reports. Cataraqui Conservation noted that the subject lands are in an area of inferred karst. The development agreement would make people aware of this potential, and provide direction on what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site. Conclusion The consent applications meet the criteria outlined in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, do not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County and Township Official Plans. The severed parcels and retained parcel will comply with the Zoning By-law subject to the requested minor variance for lot frontage. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed 60m lot frontages meet the four tests for a minor variance – the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, they are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and they are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearings was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days in advance of the Public Hearings in August and in September. This included notice given: •
by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 271 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
• •
by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies
Recommendation for Consent Applications It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PLBDJ-2025-0075, each for consent to sever one new rural residential lot from 3629 Quinn Road East, Part of Lot 6, Concession 3, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, subject to the following conditions: Expiry Period
- Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
- The lands to be severed shall be for the creation of one new residential lot a minimum of 0.8 hectare in area with a minimum of 60 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with application sketch. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
- An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
- The Ontario Land Surveyor or the applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. The Ontario Land Surveyor shall also confirm that the retained parcel has a minimum 60m lot frontage on Quinn Road East. Road Allowance Widening
- The Ontario Land Surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Quinn Road East to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 272 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule: The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 6. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. It also includes any hydrogeological assessment peer review fee if it is greater than the collected deposit. 7. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1), By-law 2023-104]. 8. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Requirement for an entrance permit for any new or relocated entrances; b. Implementation of the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024); c. Implementation of the recommendations of the Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., July 30, 2025); www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 273 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
d. Requirement for a lot grading and drainage plan that implements the recommendations of the above reports, to be submitted at the building permit stage; e. Notice regarding what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site; f. Notice regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and g. Notice regarding archeological resources and human remains. Zoning 10. The applicant is required to apply for a minor variance to permit the severed parcel to have a minimum 60 metres of lot frontage and the retained parcel to have a minimum 60 metres lot frontage.
- Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township. Recommendation for Minor Variance Application It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 for 3629 Quinn Road East such that the two severed parcels and the retained parcel from consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are permitted to each have a minimum of 60m lot frontage. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 274 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE OR PERMISSION (s. 45(2))
Updated January 2025 The Committee of Adjustment is a Committee of eight persons appointed by Township Council. The Committee is formed under Section 45 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, to authorize a minor variance from a zoning by-law or permission under s. 45(2) to alter a legal non-conforming use. The Committee may vary Zoning By-law provisions provided the Committee is of the opinion that the variance: x x x x
Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is minor in nature
The Committee may grant permission to enlarge or extend a structure or alter the use of the lands where any land, building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed, was lawfully used for a purpose prohibited by the by-law. Application Requirements
- It is required that one (1) copy of this application be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, together with the sketch, accompanied by a non-refundable fee in accordance with the chart below in cash, or by debit card, credit card or cheque made payable to the Township of South Frontenac. Application Type: 1-3 Variances 4+ Variances After building without a permit
Planning Application Fee: $1,249.00 $1,468.00 $2,241.00
- It is required that a Fee be provided for the Township to review onsite sewage disposal and Conservation Authority (where applicable) when submitting an application (Separate cheques, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, are to be submitted with the application). Township of South Frontenac Minor Variance Only Minor Variance WITH Performance Review Minor Variance in combination with a new Class 2, 3, 4, or 5 sewage system other than a Class A system
$463.00 $720.00 $1,183.00
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
$445.00
Quinte Conservation Authority
$450.00
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
$410.00 1 Page 275 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; these agencies may require additional permit applications and fees prior to any construction. 3. PLEASE READ THIS ITEM CAREFULLY Each applicant shall provide a sketch showing the dimensions of the subject land and of all abutting lands as outlined in Question 29 of the application. The sketch should be accurately dimensioned and scaled in either Imperial or Metric measures. This sketch, in conjunction with the Application Form, is the basis for the analysis of the Minor Variance Application by the Committee of Adjustment. It is strongly recommended that the applicant spend the necessary time to carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and transfer the data to the sketch. It is important that the sketch be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. Any application which does not include the above required information may not be accepted. In this regard, the applicant may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of such sketches. A guide to answering the application questions is attached. 4. Collection of Personal Information Personal information requested herein is required under the Planning Act, 1990 as amended. This information will be used by the Committee of Adjustment/Land Division Committee for the purpose of reviewing the above referenced application, and may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 376-3027 ext.2224).
2 Page 276 of 311
Page 277 of 311
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.
N/A Frontage (on water):__________________
+/- 191 metres Frontage (on road/lane): ___________________
+/- 1,337 metres Depth: ___________________________
+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area: _______________________________
The current zoning of the subject land: Rural (RU) zone
The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law: A minor varience application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained
and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.
The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law: Relief is requested to reduce the minimum frontage of each the severed and retained lots. The minimum
frontage is proposed to be reduced from 76 metres to 64.6 metres for the retained lot, and 63.0 metres for both of the severed lots. This reduction in frontage is required to facilitate the consent, which will see a large, underutilized rural lot being developed in a manner which provides for two new lots and the potential to
develop new single detached houses. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.
- Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road? OR a privately maintained road?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Name of Road/Lane: Quinn Road East
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. N/A
What are the existing uses of the subject land? Rural
- Please indicate whether there are any EXISTING buildings or structures on the subject land. (I.e. residence, garage, shed, etc.) Yes
No 4 Page 278 of 311
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) Type of Structure (E.g. residence) Setback from Front Lot Line Setback from Rear Lot Line Setback from Side Lot Line Height of Building
Single Detached Dwelling
(2)
(3)
(4) Shed
Garage
+/- 213 m
+/- 230 m
+/- 233 m
+/- 1,108 m
+/- 1,097 m
+/- 1,095 m
+/- 122 m (west) +/- 95 (east)
+/- 139 m (west) +/- 81 m (east)
+/- 158 m (west) +/- 67 m (east)
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
unknown
unknown
Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
(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: Rural residential
- Are any building(s) or structure(s), or additions to existing building(s) or structure(s), PROPOSED to be built on the subject land? <es
No
5 Page 279 of 311
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)
(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)
Outside Dimensions of Building/Structure Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable) 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?
<es
No
If yes, please provide details:
6 Page 280 of 311
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?
<es
No
If yes, please provide details:
What are the uses of the proposed development? (a)
Increase in number of bedrooms
<es
No
(b)
Increase in plumbing fixtures
<es
No
(c)
Increase in living space
<es
No
(d)
Will the addition or structure encroach on the existing septic system?
<es
No
- The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner: May 5th, 2021
- The date the existing buildings and structures were constructed on the subject lands: Unknown
- The length of time that the existing uses of the subject land have continued: Unknown
- 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: Privately owned and operated individual well
- 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: Privately owned and operated individual or communal septic system
- Is storm drainage provided by sewers, ditches, swales or by other means? Ditches, swales
7 Page 281 of 311
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. <es
No
- If the answer to question 25 is yes, please give the file number of the application and the status of the application. Submitted with this 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). <es
No
Unknown
- 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.
v)
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.
8 Page 282 of 311
Page 283 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
A Guide to Completing the Minor Variance Form
- The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.
- <ou may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalf during the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner’s must sign the authorization.
- Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. If the numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford; if the numbers are 040-050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: if you are not sure, check your tax bill c. Street Number: <our civic address – if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this space blank. d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: If your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.
- Frontage, depth, area, acres: All parts of this question must be completed.
- Current zoning: <ou may not be aware of the zoning on your property and this can be determined when you come in for pre-consultation with planning staff.
- Nature and Extent of Relief: This question is asking what you are asking to do that requires the variance – for example, it could be that you are asking to be 25 m rather than 30 m from the high water mark, or that you are asking to increase the height of a structure within 30 m of the high water mark, or that you are seeking a variance to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building.
- Reason why you can’t comply: In other words, why can you not meet the required setbacks. It could be, for example, because you are seeking a variance to add on to an existing structure that is already too close to the water, or that developing further from the water would be impossible because of a steep embankment.
- Roads: Municipally maintained roads are looked after by the Township; private roads are lanes that residents maintain themselves (not private driveways, but lanes that provide access to your property and that are generally shared with others).
10 Page 284 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
- Parking and Docking: This question is only relevant is you can only access your property by water.
- Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land
- Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.
- Description of buildings and structures: <ou must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.
- Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”
- Proposed structures: If you are planning to build ANYTHING on the property, the answer to this question is “yes” – This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.
- Description of new construction: ALL proposed new development must be described here. If you are proposing to construct an addition to a dwelling, and to add a deck, please show this information in separate columns.
- Demolition: All demolition requires a permit from the building department. In some instances, a proposed addition or increase in height cannot be accomplished without the removal of existing walls. If this is not made clear to the Committee at the beginning of the process, you may find that, although you are granted permission to add on to your residence, you can’t actually do it because you have not made it clear that there is demolition involved.
- Raising of Structure: In other words, are you proposing to raise the building in order to construct a basement under it.
- Uses of Development: Please answer each part of this question. An increase in living space would include anything with walls – e.g. a screened porch would involve an increase in living space.
- Date land acquired: When did you take possession of the property?
- Date of existing buildings: If you are not sure, provide your best estimate.
- Length of existing uses: For example, has the land been used for residential purposes for 30 years, or 18 months?
- Water supply: in most cases the answer will be private well, but some waterfront properties take their water from a lake. 11 Page 285 of 311
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended
- Septic: in most cases the answer will be private sewage system, but there may be some privies.
- Drainage: Are there specific ditches that have been constructed to deal with drainage; is there natural drainage, etc.?
- Application for consent: Is there currently an application for consent (severance) being proposed for the property?
- If yes: If there is a current application for severance or subdivision on the property, please indicate the file number. (Staff can help provide this information)
- Minor variance: Has there ever been a minor variance granted on the property? If you are longtime owner of the property, you will probably be aware of any other special permission granted for a variance to the zoning by-law. If you are a new owner, the seller will probably have made you aware of this.
- If yes: If there has been a previous variance granted on the property, please indicate the application number if known, and what the details of the variance were.
- SKETCH: We cannot stress enough the importance of a detailed, accurate, and complete sketch. You do not necessarily need to contract with a professional to draw the sketch, but sketches that are not drawn to scale, do not show dimensions and distances, or are not drawn neatly (PLEASE USE A RULER), will not be accepted.
- Agreement to Indemnify: Must be signed in front of a commissioner of oaths – you may have this done before submitting the application, or sign the application in front of staff who can sign as commissioners. All owners must sign the application, or it can be signed by an agent if one has been appointed.
12 Page 286 of 311
3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE
1
August 19, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report
Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design was retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare applications for consent and minor variance at 3629 Quinn Road East. Applications were submitted on July 14, 2025 and a response was provided on July 16, 2025. The applications were scheduled for the August 14, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting but were deferred at the request of the applicant to reevaluate the lot configuration in response to comments made by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), and other site considerations. This letter is submitted in support of the revised applications. The applications are now proposed to be heard on the September 11, 2025 Committee of Adjustment agenda. The technical studies submitted in support of the application remain relevant and applicable.
Revised Proposal The revised application continues to propose consent to create two new rural residential lots fronting Quinn Road East, though now with reduced lot sizes. In this new proposal, each severed lot has been reduced from approximately 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha. The retained lands have been increased from approximately 35.89 ha to 36.37 ha. The application for minor variance to permit the reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone remains the same. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres, whereas a minimum frontage of 76 metres is required. The intention of this reduction is to preserve the tillable agricultural field located north of the proposed severances, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by CRCA through their July 31st comments. In these comments, staff recommended that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. The revised plan now proposes that the rear lot lines of the severed lots align with the northern extent of the 30 metre setback of the watercourse, thereby minimizing opportunity for crossing, as no development is permitted in this 30 metre setback.
KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com
Page 287 of 311
2
Figure 1: Revised Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The technical studies submitted in support of the July 14, 2025 applications remain valid. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study continues to apply as the relative location of proposed building envelopes and nearby livestock facilities has not changed, and the proximity of the severed lots to the MDS influence areas are now reduced as a result of the lot reconfiguration. The Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) remains applicable, as the revised lot configuration strengthens the original recommendations by aligning lot lines with the tributary and avoiding potential crossings, while maintaining a 30 metre buffer from development. Similarly, the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis continues to demonstrate that the proposed lots can be safely and sustainably serviced by private well and septic systems; the modest reduction in lot size from 1.5 ha to 0.82 ha should not affect groundwater supply, quality, or the feasibility of recommended setbacks. Collectively, these studies confirm that the revised proposal remains technically supportable and consistent with good planning. The revised application continues to satisfy the four tests of minor variance under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained as the proposal still represents limited rural residential lot creation that is compatible with surrounding uses, appropriately serviced, and protects against potential impacts on the watercourse. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is upheld, as the Rural (RU) Zone supports large rural lots with private servicing. While frontage relief remains necessary, all lots exceed the minimum lot area and continue to provide sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, wells, and setbacks. The variance remains minor in nature, as the reduction in frontage does not affect lot functionality, servicing, or compatibility with the established lot fabric. The variance is still desirable for the appropriate development of the land, as it enables the efficient creation of rural residential lots on existing road frontage while preserving rural and natural features, ensuring that the lots are both functional and sustainable.
Consent + Minor Variance
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 288 of 311
3
Conclusion The revised consent and minor variance applications at 3629 Quinn Road East addresses technical comments and enhances the protection of rural and natural features. The application will allow a form of appropriate rural residential development on the site which will complement the existing character of the area. The minor variance application continues to maintain the intent and purpose of the OP and zoning by-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question. It is our opinion that the proposed applications for consent and minor variance remain appropriate for the site and represent good land use planning. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 613.542.5454. Respectfully submitted,
Elysia Ackroyd, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
Consent + Minor Variance
Tara McInnes Planner Fotenn Planning + Design
3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac
Page 289 of 311
Page 290 of 311
Page 291 of 311
July 31, 2025
File: SEV/FRS/172/2025 SEV/FRS/173/2025 MV/FRS/174/2025
Sent by E-mail Christine Woods Manager of Planning Development Services Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Ms. Woods: Re:
Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Lot Creation) & Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 3629 Quinn Rd East; Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: unnamed tributary of Millhaven Creek & unevaluated wetlands
Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted applications for consent and minor variance. The applications involve the severance of two 1.0 ha parcels of vacant land from an existing 37.8 ha rural property for the purpose of creating two new building lots. Future residential development is planned for the 35.8 ha retained parcel. A minor variance is necessary to permit reduced lot frontages for each lot. Discussion CRCA’s scope of review with respect to this application is the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the unnamed watercourses and wetlands on the subject property and protection of the hydrologic function of wetlands. We offer the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration, based on our role as a commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Surface Water Features Cataraqui Conservation, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits requires development (building and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) to be located outside of natural hazard areas and set back a minimum of 30 m from surface water features including watercourses (creeks, streams) and
Page 292 of 311
Page 2 of 3 wetlands. The intent is to protect development from potential flooding and erosion hazards and to preserve the hydrologic function of these features. Unnamed Tributary of Millhaven Creek The subject lands are within a drainage catchment the flows east into Millhaven Creek. There is a watercourse that runs across the southern portion of the subject lands approximately 98 m back from Quinn Road. The watercourse is a regulated feature and as such a 30 m setback is applied. The survey sketch provided shows that there are building envelopes on the severed and retained lands outside of the required 30 m setback from the watercourse. However, the proposed lot configuration results in the severed lots being divided by the watercourse. Staff note that it may not be feasible to access the northern portion of the severed lots since this would require a crossing of the watercourse, which may not be permitted by CRCA. As such, staff recommend that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. Unevaluated Wetlands Mapping identified pockets of unevaluated wetlands on the subject lands, generally in the area in and around of the watercourse. Staff are accepting of the findings of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment which confirms the presence of riparian vegetation in the watercourse channel but notes that the area is not large enough to be considered a distinct community. Based on this, CRCA have no concerns related to the hydrologic function of wetlands on the subject lands. Staff recommend that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Karst Topography The subject lands have been identified on provincial OGS Mapping as having inferred karst. Karst is a type of unstable bedrock that is relatively common in the Cataraqui Region area and is considered a natural hazard under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and Ontario Regulation 41/024. As with other natural hazards, there is risk of damage to buildings, property and human safety when development is located within or near unstable bedrock. Accordingly, CRCA’s regulation directs development away from these areas and features. CRCA staff have reviewed available information (e.g. aerial imagery, soils and geology mapping, topographic info.) and completed a site inspection of the subject lands. Based on our preliminary findings, we did not encounter evidence of karst in the area of the future development envelopes (generally within 50 m of Quinn Road). Should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the applicant will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property.
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 293 of 311
Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Staff have no objection to approval of PL-BDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-20250076 based on our review of natural hazards and have identified considerations above in bold. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 30 m of the watercourse are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06). 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 and to ensure the protection of wetlands. Current and future landowners are advised to contact CRCA before considering any work within 30 metres of the watercourse on the subject lands. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely,
Emma Stucke, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner cc. Robert Pittman, applicant, by email Elysia Ackroyd, agent, by email
Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca
Page 294 of 311
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:
Emma Stucke Christine Woods Kate Kaestner RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East) August 26, 2025 9:42:49 AM image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png
Hi Christine, Thanks for providing this. Overall, I see the proposed revisions as an improvement compared to the last concept and continue to have no objections to the severance. Sincerely, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 26, 2025 9:06 AM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Cc: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Emma, We received the attached revised plan, which will go to Committee of Adjustment on September 11th. Please let me know if you have any comment on the revised plan. Sincerely, Christine Woods RPP, MCIP Manager of Planning Development Services p: +613-376-3027 e: cwoods@southfrontenac.net a: 4432 George St., Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Temporary office: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury www.southfrontenac.net Page 295 of 311
Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Sent: August 25, 2025 4:50 PM To: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Cc: Christine Woods cwoods@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Hi Kate, Thanks for passing on the notices of deferral. I’m following up to see if you need any further info from me with respect to my comment letter. Let me know! Thanks, Emma Emma Stucke MCIP, RPP (she/her) Resource Planner Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 239 From: Kate Kaestner kkaestner@southfrontenac.net Sent: August 18, 2025 3:04 PM To: Emma Stucke EStucke@crca.ca Subject: Notices of Deferral: Pittman Applications (3629 Quinn Road East)
Page 296 of 311
Good afternoon Emma, Please find attached Notices of Deferral for the Pittman applications at 3629 Quinn Road East). Kind regards, Kate Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk Development Services Department Township of South Frontenac p: +613-376-3027 e: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net a: Box 100, Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 o: 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury, ON www.southfrontenac.net
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Page 297 of 311
Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2025-0074 Application Number: ___________________________________________________ Robert Pittman Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________
3 PT Lot 6 Portland Lot: _______________District:
Concession: _________________ Quinn Road East Road: ________________________________________________________________
Road Maintenance:
✔ Year-round □
Seasonal □
Sight Lines: Are there adequate sight lines for the entrance?
✔ Yes □
No □
If no, what changes would be required to improve sight lines? RETAINED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES. SEVERED PARCEL: ADEQUATE ENTRANCE SIGHT LINES
Road Conditions:
Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?
Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.
Road Widening Required? ✔ To be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor □ Yes □ No □ Any specific requirement?
Local road - rural classification. Ensure that there is a 20m (66ft road allowance) otherwise applicant to dedicate any shortfall of 10m from centerline.
Approved by the Public Services? ✔ Yes □ Yes, with conditions □ No □ If yes, with conditions, please describe conditions below.
Signature on behalf of Public Services
2025-07-22
Date
Page 298 of 311
To:
Committee of Adjustment
Prepared by:
Development Services Department
Meeting Date:
September 11, 2025
Subject:
Revised Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075, Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-20250076, Pittman (Fotenn), 3629 Quinn Road East, Portland District
Summary The consent applications are for the creation of two rural residential lots. The minor variance application is to allow the severed and retained parcels to have less than the required lot frontage. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on the consent applications in conjunction with the minor variance application. This report recommends approval of the three applications. Background The subject property is located south of Harrowsmith, east of Road 38 and on the north side of Quinn Road East. It runs north to an unopened road allowance. The northern two thirds of the property is forest and old farm fields. The southern portion of the property is generally level. It contains agricultural fields and is developed with a single detached dwelling, a detached garage and a shed. A watercourse bisects the property approximately 100m north of Quinn Road East. The neighbourhood has a mix of rural residential properties and agricultural properties. The subject lands are in the Rural designation in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The lands are zoned Rural (RU) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The Committee of Adjustment held a public hearing for the subject applications in August 2025. The Committee granted the applicant’s request to defer making decisions until they had an opportunity to revisit the proposed lot layouts in consideration for Cataraqui Conservation’s comments. Revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 0.8ha (2 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The depth of the lots was reduced preserve the tillable agricultural field to the north, and to eliminate the need for potential watercourse crossings, as recommended by Cataraqui Conservation. The rear lot lines would align with the northern extent of the 30m setback from the watercourse. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 36.3ha (89.6 acres) in size with 64m frontage. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 299 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained parcels because the RU zone requires 76m frontage. Supporting Documents A Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. The report assessed the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area as well as its conformity with the applicable policy and regulatory framework. It included a minimum distance separation study for livestock facilities. Fotenn submitted a subsequent letter (August 19, 2025) in support of the revised consent applications, indicating that they address technical comments and enhance the protection of rural and natural features. A Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required to confirm the existence of a mapped wetland along the watercourse, and to define its boundary, on the severed parcels. The study determined that there was no wetland on the severed parcels. The consultant evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, and woodland on the severed and retained parcels. They also reviewed the area for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat. The Natural Heritage Site Assessment included the following recommendations:
- Development should be setback a minimum of 30m from the watercourse,
- The land within 30m of the watercourse should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated to provide a buffer, and
- No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. A Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required because the severed parcels would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse. A dug well was constructed on each of the severed parcels. The consultant conducted 6hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment. The study concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems. The report included the following recommendations:
- Water treatment including pre-filtration and ultraviolet sterilization, as well as an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system for individuals with sodium restricted diets,
- Regular testing of treated water for bacteriological parameters,
- Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements, and www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 300 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
- The setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45m as a precautionary measure due to the hydrogeological sensitive nature of the site. The Hydrogeological Assessment was reviewed by Malroz Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Township. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reported on July 22, 2025, that there are adequate entrance sight lines for both the severed parcels and the retained parcel. Road widening is to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. A 20-metre right-of-way is required on Quinn Road East. Any shortfall of the right-of-way as measured 10 metres from the centreline of the road shall be dedicated to the Township. Public Services had no comment on the proposed reduced lot frontages. Cataraqui Conservation staff indicated in a letter dated July 31, 2025, that they have no objection to the applications. They recommended the applicant consider an alternative lot configuration where the rear lot lines would follow the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings, because crossings may not be permitted by CRCA under O. Reg. 41/24. They also recommended that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Finally, they noted that should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the owner will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property. On August 26, 2025, they noted the proposed revisions are an improvement compared to the last concept. They continue to have no objections to the applications. Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The consent applications need to be assessed against the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS), County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, as well as the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The minor variance application needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Minimum Distance Separation for Livestock Facilities In conformity with the PPS, the Township Official Plan requires all division of land for nonfarm uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I (MDS I) (section 7.1(l)). The Township Zoning By-law also requires residential development to comply with MDS I. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 301 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
The subject lands are in a rural and agricultural area where there are several existing livestock facilities. The Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) evaluated these livestock facilities against The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document (OMAFRA Publication 853). MDS I setbacks were calculated for barns at 4372 Road 38 and at 3609 Quinn Road East. It was determined that the severed parcels would conform to the applicable minimum distance separation policies. Rural Residential Uses The PPS allows residential lot creation on Rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. The County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan also permit residential development in the Rural designation. Section 5.7.4 of the Township Official Plan indicates that a maximum of three rural residential lots may be created by consent from a landholding provided that the new lots meet the General Consent Policies, as well as all other applicable policies. The subject property is eligible for severances under Section 5.7.4. There have been no previous severances from the lot existing on the day of adoption of the Township Official Plan. Section 5.7.4 requires the frontage, size and shape of any lot created for rural residential purposes through the severance approval process to be appropriate for the proposed use and to conform to the provisions of the zoning by-law. The severed parcels would be a minimum of 0.8ha in size, which is the minimum lot area required in the Rural designation and the RU zone for a residential lot. The parcels would be rectangular-shaped. The severed parcels would have approximately 63m frontage and the retained parcel would have 64.6m frontage on Quinn Road East. These frontages would be less than the minimum 76m lot frontage required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) of the Official Plan allows the municipality to consider reductions to this requirement provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The minor variance application requests 60m lot frontages. The minimum 76m lot frontage is intended to allow for a separation between driveways and to improve traffic safety. Public Services noted that the severed parcels and retained parcel would each have adequate sight lines for an entrance. Minimum lot frontages are also required to ensure a development pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature and to avoid an overdeveloped appearance. Existing lots along this part of Quinn Road East have frontages ranging from 40m to 70m, so the proposed reduced lot frontages would be consistent with the existing lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Finally, minimum lot frontages help ensure a reasonable separation between uses. Separation between wells and sewage systems is especially important for protecting groundwater in hydrogeological sensitive areas. A hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis was required in support of the applications because the proposed lots would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 302 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
location of the watercourse (i.e. development would logically need to occur on the land between the watercourse and the road). The Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a sewage system. Figure 4 of the report is a conceptual lot development plan that illustrates how a well, a sewage system and a house can fit on each of the severed parcels with consideration for the recommended 45m separation distance between the wells and sewage systems. The development could also achieve the required 30m setback from the watercourse and other applicable zone provisions. Staff are satisfied that the proposed reduced frontages would not compromise the functionality, accessibility or rural character of the severed parcels. It would also not impact the continued use of the retained parcel, 150m north of the road. Special Development Requirements Staff recommend that a development agreement be a condition of the consent approvals. The development agreement would be used to notify potential purchasers and future owners about special requirements that will apply to development of the severed parcels. Specifically, to make them aware of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment and the Hydrogeological Assessment and the recommendations that must be implemented. The agreement would also make them aware that they will need to have lot grading and drainage plans prepared that implement the recommendations of these reports. Cataraqui Conservation noted that the subject lands are in an area of inferred karst. The development agreement would make people aware of this potential, and provide direction on what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site. Conclusion The consent applications meet the criteria outlined in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, do not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County and Township Official Plans. The severed parcels and retained parcel will comply with the Zoning By-law subject to the requested minor variance for lot frontage. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed 60m lot frontages meet the four tests for a minor variance – the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, they are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and they are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearings was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days in advance of the Public Hearings in August and in September. This included notice given: •
by mail to every owner of land within 60 metres of the subject lands www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 303 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
• •
by posting notice signs on the subject lands by e-mail to prescribed persons and public bodies
Recommendation for Consent Applications It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve revised applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PLBDJ-2025-0075, each for consent to sever one new rural residential lot from 3629 Quinn Road East, Part of Lot 6, Concession 3, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, subject to the following conditions: Expiry Period
- Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
- The lands to be severed shall be for the creation of one new residential lot a minimum of 0.8 hectare in area with a minimum of 60 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with application sketch. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
- An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
- The Ontario Land Surveyor or the applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. The Ontario Land Surveyor shall also confirm that the retained parcel has a minimum 60m lot frontage on Quinn Road East. Road Allowance Widening
- The Ontario Land Surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Quinn Road East to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 304 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule: The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 6. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. It also includes any hydrogeological assessment peer review fee if it is greater than the collected deposit. 7. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1), By-law 2023-104]. 8. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Requirement for an entrance permit for any new or relocated entrances; b. Implementation of the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024); c. Implementation of the recommendations of the Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., July 30, 2025); www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 305 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076
d. Requirement for a lot grading and drainage plan that implements the recommendations of the above reports, to be submitted at the building permit stage; e. Notice regarding what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site; f. Notice regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and g. Notice regarding archeological resources and human remains. Zoning 10. The applicant is required to apply for a minor variance to permit the severed parcel to have a minimum 60 metres of lot frontage and the retained parcel to have a minimum 60 metres lot frontage.
- Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township. Recommendation for Minor Variance Application It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 for 3629 Quinn Road East such that the two severed parcels and the retained parcel from consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are permitted to each have a minimum of 60m lot frontage. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 306 of 311
To:
Committee of Adjustment
From:
Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk
Report Date:
September 11, 2025
Subject:
Decisions on Delegated Consents, August to September 2025
Summary This report summarizes the Consent applications that have been approved by Brad Wright, Director of Development Services, between August 15, 2025 and September 11, 2025.
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 undisputed consents and have received provisional consent approval.
Discussion a) PL-BDJ-2025-0072 – Portland District Approved on August 18, 2025 The application is for a 1.15 acre lot addition to be conveyed from 4671 Bellrock Road to adjacent lands at 4657 Bellrock Road. The proposal will increase the size of 4657 Bellrock Road to 3.28 acres, while leaving retained lands of approximately 47.85 acres. b) PL-BDJ-2025-0073 – Storrington District Approved on September 04, 2025 The application is for a 0.5 acre lot addition to be conveyed from 3195 Sunbury Road to lands at 3740 Battersea Road. The proposal will increase the size of 3740 Battersea Road to 1.15 acres, while leaving retained lands of approximately 83.9 acres. c) PL-BDJ-2025-0084 – Portland District Approved on September 04, 2025 The application is for the creation of one new residential lot, from lands municipally addressed as 2106 Bracken Road. The severed parcel will be approximately 8 acres in area with 266 metres frontage on both Wallace Road and Bracken Road. The retained lands will be approximately 108 acres in area with 1340m frontage on Bracken Road and 270m broken frontage on Yarker Road
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 307 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report – Decisions on Delegated Consents
d) PL-BDJ-2025-0042 & PL-BDJ-2025-0043 – Loughborough District Approved on September 05, 2025 Consent to create two vacant residential lots from lands at 3977 Sydenham Road. The severed parcels would be 0.9ha in size with 149m frontage on Railton Road. The retained parcel would be 1.1ha in size with frontage on Sydenham Road and Railton Road. It would continue to accommodate the existing church use, its parking, and its water and sewage services. e) PL-BDJ-2025-0042 – Storrington District Approved on September 08, 2025 Consent to create one new rural residential lot from property at 2078 Sunbury Road. The severed parcel would be approximately 6 acres in area with approximately147m frontage on Sunbury Road and approximately 50 metres frontage on Dog Lake. The retained parcel would be 7.6 acres in area with approximately 144m frontage on both Sunbury Road and Dog Lake.
Appendix A – Mapping of application(s) Report Prepared By: Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk Report Approved By: Christine Woods, Manager of Planning
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 308 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report – Decisions on Delegated Consents
APPENDIX A
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 309 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report – Decisions on Delegated Consents
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 310 of 311
Township of South Frontenac Staff Report – Decisions on Delegated Consents
www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.
Page 311 of 311
