p

O g5 na'9

/%

C’} ?

%C) %,/ -i-}

cd

‘g4B

O

.a3

B +’

u

s

-‘Ia

o

-EE, -4)

o,E+

-53, 3+h

eJ@

DO

D.3 ‘0 E

!+tt(l)

o

’t

6

‘v t’* f LO t’* y Ln m

,.Cl ‘Z, m>

e N

!t'5§ a) .sEi O a ?m -! 1,1,-l

3a?

L0

a5!l

Bg5a g’ ?? g3§ d5p

69 (%13 50

P-I

050

D

‘f! r% ‘o 4

-5:i <n

d3

P-I

%

ts:i C%l %

(S) F-l

Page 37 of 128

v o tsx C%I

D-4 D?? o-i ‘?

jffi

pQ d

WQau

?d>

F?’:g

mm

m

?

B

<5

p= 8 L)

3”;ff Cf?

HB J ‘4

,Cl1

t-I (-I

(/5.

fi

o, O :i9 l?4 u

h

(Dai

? f -t 4

!5’-3!’

g!;i

rB gai

i4i!

!a :§ W ‘j ’ j “”’-

m (S)

LJ o CL

<: O z 0

z s

)-l

LLI u R

+-l

B a a

E E

:‘3

ffl

a o

gd

lx’

ri

k

S

O

a 6 C/) ‘!s o

:a 6

E-( ’e % f D Th d u’) m F-l u:i

r-l P-I

ts:i C%I ‘%

(D P-l

Page 38 of 128

%

W

m

j

J

:J

Nn-:[ilt.

-i::i:Ut ilMlffi 14

i!!ii:li: t’::40’: l!f

h P4

’e D D c%l

H h

,§ o

e o ,s'5

Q

j ‘2

,§

2

u

e

0

a o A

a o

A

A

z 0

,0

g:

ei

o

‘E?

U )l

w*

2; (:)

4,1

‘bl

d 0

i

O

‘11

‘A

S e ?-l

it 7 b

%l Nl

%}

,N ,Uiii:!: fi’j’ .‘E 1 Eo r%‘o k’ g

,!l

(:)

6

o

-5

s e

g.1

4 E o

o

j:

0 %i

ca

O

B a

:1

Z !l 0 dI

x Qi

g41%l 5’ti h’ali

q

e €

J C a :L (‘1

q

!

6 ‘%ll %bl

k-

la

C

Q

J

p

4-h

*ii

i g a:

‘G

‘#

:)

3

t+

z

l

!

Q o

J J Y

v '

-I

k

3 a

E ZU a9

e

w’a

a

l l

‘5 ts

l

a

E

!S

“,agl

X

l

s

u

l ll

l

a u) ol :J low

R

i C:lu ? r-a5

UN ‘1 gi=4o i,

d ri M ffl

tfl !i

%

F-I ffl F-I

4(W !l 4!,

D CN %

o ffl

Page 39 of 128

%

-‘u

d @b 4t:;

l l

B “e

U

?l ’s a

401

m

(/)C/)

-im

a G

!

)li

q swt WIQI

‘si

4

E

z E I?!

s

;,7 .}.

iaJ

e

,;Th

d o (/)

m

R ci

u

15 ;>‘a m

1111

R

j

‘E 3 “u tU,.w

‘z:j. N'484>39i

z

Q

$1

d S) !;) N

.?

B%

:% j’!

f’

aH.j’+

‘i’

‘!:I51 dW

‘> s il

(

M%i

1W

411

J, %cn

kl’ {l & ?T

IQ

lil

=:r e 6 m W "

W

mm

a’ i55m ‘aa,

,al’:

‘;,,;

E5 Bq

a

Bea.“A

es

s W !

o 51 ‘E iW m

q

B

Cl

a-

7%

a a

G’Noao4j

R

l

B >. l( y*- L5

e s

?,l y). a,

l

it l

art

a

‘%

Is.Wb’

4 yi a

'

lj

l

%l

l?

‘5 4 (p

l

l/,

6

N > U’) {s(‘4 l I

W

ffl

d

-, !l’ i ogatA. 30’g0i4

?M’ s-??o ?so 2’ X X

a

l

$ {!

FN,’l

o

Z

l

h

0

}M

E ’lw/

6

r% i;m

/M,

tri o

LLI U) a CL m

a

,4 <I O z 0

&

€

@

x ?

s

ks

LLI 0!:

18,

h-I

y W

‘Vz art Q

O

! z

: 1 , f , . . :

, p 9 a

' a , ? 0 , i , J ! a ' : y + : J

' i : " i X : ' : u : a ' E ' a t a ,

, J a , * j i v

i m %a j 0 i 0 ' i. ‘?=’-i.s a:.!,i’a5= :%a%a?a! i:.,-”-! %w:0.?":a (:l’?%‘ajBa’ ![a. >.,:o”!%B? ‘!a:. o 1a0:’),;: i. -?=-. i>.:B. i. '

v ri y LJ) ry ‘v m m ? LO

h ? t-4

e-’l

E cx m m

Page 40 of 128

o (S) (S) c%l

E (S)

LJ [L

‘a

‘P

.a a, . 1. H. bk allw

o H

l ‘5 .5.a B 4 @ C .43 ‘6 a ss ‘% >

k

<

B n a: b” ?” b

o j§,o

O z €

@a2fi!SH i!?vg!.e

l-I

0 LLI €!

,,EE

l-l

c!l

Is

<g

.o3 nW ti =?’ B€0

<

d

]:tjl:

o

H u O (m

Hlk

!ya

E aJ

j) %I’<

a

9 0> W r-0 e(;2b <1l’-I

B

a,

€

f ‘-,’ c “’l E

o

Z

dlh B art l,F! IJ!11

yi W(!!

€

ff

}i y l%’e u) r’+ ’e LO C’Q

m

6 o cg

%-t

U)

6

m

v-I

a W

u)

W

’ IU!

tlw,I

A ???

t’s

?a’ 01-i

.-I

E ;,ai

!P

S-Z;

ffl .-l

(S) ?

Page 41 of 128

a tsi (S) C’l

g <o

A !E

iw iiiim u Q:Q

:1S aQ m

W €

w

A

rh a

4.)

A

aga Dp

a!,h

ul%

MR

z mi

E a

J

6

a

s

Cm

‘-l

6

8

?

! .1

:.a :=?a=u<,:o’?m.?=alJQ,gsuo?ah-? “z,’: ?Ba, ?’

31g

M

go

R

,a7. ,Iab=g=-:j.,1ava- >g?-i az[a, .2i-,

51@Hj’,0%

!R !fiiit W’ -AE’ ?a’ j” ?G’ oe ‘!-

H s

S;b f l(2 ! 5?a

h..b

‘11

041

u’j) ‘?

D

.boA .5riA o

gt Se [ln’

?

?6

a’ J :”? u ffl(6 ..op’ s ? C ,i ? 3 E

s % go?o! E ‘a . a ‘aaB oO’oO

6 ‘;’ ?‘3 poo a -7’ zoo

‘4 ‘r V)

“! ’ ?So S Q f B 8

/‘i €“l t-m

(0

U..8

.0’Da

?.’ J ?? q ? , P’l (7%

t%

o5brS

m omo"4 ‘j? 0

t!:: ‘:i!€i

oo’eoB O

E tart 111 > E

q N

E X ffl O 0

N W

‘HU

N (%1 tm

D p

Page 42 of 128

E: (l) O tu

q

p

ma’; ‘C5” tja)(!j ‘Oa’a’ rO

0

(8x,‘MXs .:0 m t

m -l a D

A -m f4 A,

E

m

3 a)

q

(‘d4S

B -l-I, ,3 B

-,1(,t !Aia?:8,‘a? gF,a’oy,ao

te . ‘> B?’ s

C) 4?Cl@

l’?b,§ j0=. tio i *,

a y f, m,’

‘j -, ’ J

!j!j7%44 uk u3

‘6 ‘a? l: a?

woce

‘b B ‘;f () jl ed ffl .Cf) n 7) 3 ? B fQ5 :> B §;t, a>a {j -*-a (D a a- z ‘O 0 4) # l?,

‘a .? ‘z D

::, “: (/) at’affl :j

B- :o8.offl5o ot=, :oo E 9 !. E

“o!-,u?C?

;’ .jl < !l

@ E, ‘, 3 ‘z B s ho.

a,’ %/ 0

.W a) O

=a,i? r,,.’ .p njo5 m:j -0 =–(Dr,

! r> D"B’ 54-w

=:, ,.n-,7 t, 5:,.

g;ffia0! % #lJ 4a :n b M ?“u :} 7 = ?H"oma?i”:o?“a(7’

L

art

lltld 0i..u

€€ai?e’

5gj:ffl ]!E!l!u

(“l

D.el

A -’ :a”

‘aO ,@ ad

Tf " 0) ‘o ’ " '

?O=D” .i= ,oa ‘o’ot

‘() 0

B -s O g ?+s g ()

3i!=i, :!:::’) aa,5.,” Ni: %o’ 00 ;H

!=?;.,

’ ?-’lp

!5 e”?I ga

+- - a ?

? q’.Hg'9

N t0 0

uO

ff

!o e, ‘is .g ffi ,!l

;:; ,t- ],o J .x, %jo ‘NO,

0 ,5, tl-Hm mca” ??

B ,(7) ?cl

fi t) ‘5 !!

0 0 ?(l)?

f ‘. " s Q. d

i aiai50

.xw>v>

sl"Q w M 50 4)Q

?

?35 2 :!}si’o, o 01

‘a&

53 ‘?O

4J,

h4-s o) ??-i

:MN@B t45

,-s, “C s 0D

-?p%, 8 F’ ,@ i-l ,- 9) 3i-l-o

ClEo :a5.,ol ’l:al

a<g E E’ 4J @O 0?(p” Tja .5 ,a’tt}

@rri

‘5!i.B

oFl’t ao J)?’ “aB”

=:,= o. p ’t=ia’om, . ES,Bw j:sm-,3E l-i

’ 1111 ,? -j-

v-s ed ea L3el

iffl:i “? o a a ?’ H

55g.B,,

z8u),6.0 ,‘5 ‘IH 3 o '

C:! ,g Cm ,@?.’

+-l(l)

cd-y

Q g w

.g +J

m?a?‘a

V), ? 0

.C, o

" a)

-’?e

:j

:,!,o

a)’

cd u Us

g J-l

‘Ci(l ‘Cjg,

9g, !uQ Q?-W

.? ‘IJ m

,?gt a). (l -vs

+-ia)

%5 !Ei bri’ 2

s! - >o oo

C/l

m

th ca cd ()

sQEE F’l E -?fJ(i,? idJ?m - ’l:l

<-j53 9j@)

U) IA} ' @) -i ,:

R)E,

(1.QDO

TiKtit

• ,m,l %?EER ‘Nmg :-.: t=g o’o’-

., ?O-?‘O’? (11 !1 ’ m .

ez.a 4-l (y’

mEa5

“Cj n oB a)Ca +-l-

(6r;O Q El 44

–j ;J ?

N ,s= JO.o ,5Q4

@i;;3)

““o i),’ s ?a A N.C}artz

:? B a;??

Obp H.:

g-l 5ai 0WI l

W.:

? , ,% u d,

{i !i.4

‘aN’N"3????’m ?Tho :- ;o omoaofi -?“ow=? q” Al E?> g} ?““l? d! vi ‘J P A ,,

:m” I’:J’E :o"a’ a"i " A””?

y w,> , 55(i

Oj

(Di

E3:

!?C} M(D a)> A% o

A4'0 :3’ 0,

4-A,D a

ga @)g –al l:lg

Tho ?ff?” o” D ‘S’ @d +’ ahJ J,, rs

B6 a)

’m ‘S .E =?

N?o ‘a:N

“to:E,

3a8k

€d " e. (AJ ‘.‘E"oE’y

Page 43 of 128

t: ’ a ! ! } 4

oAQ ?a% 0 g I:L’CI (1) ??‘cb El K g 3 ;a-

, m a=+.iB= =g :-’>s to:7 =o.

“E3 t” a-"> 7 (l)a)Q ‘} E ? a

“Ci,

(’ 12..l) ,=ai (:i.;?. *6r 3 ?z.

‘,o ‘j$ -!” X

.,= B E

o ? ’el ?aa

8 aM

. J3 s 01 D sl 72 ?? ‘El 5’ -ffl

l/)

o

*a

lli E! .xi ,

?15’aa.. “I “oaZ " # r g-,

C,5

2 .,5 0(, .j:0

mO.&6,5’ ca o B ‘i

ji (X ,’ “oj? 7 E ?.?’ l!) ‘: oo ,B Z”,:k

l?E I"x ,” “?g €‘U -Tl

4 g 5’:i a, ;

J.: 0 =;., H al- (’d 5> ,E -P4 s € )-l(1)g .0

@) O %k vb ul (D -lj p l-i I!W 4?z Us g a) a3 .Q

U- :-+-a?“m’ao V R N

w Q .a 3

‘?saa “aoo=:C/) 7R ?rtsoJ

gl!9-‘0

a)

!’, O " a$

9’a n%-I

<6’:+-i gO

+-4)

€Dy

eHm.sE3w3w ‘a’ @ ?:3 ‘> e H’ oe a.sE3 s .9 Em A tis ‘ra

3'3%Q

?y, b H O. ffl B

m y ? ? 2 ‘I.ooo’m bl)OoR rh4.i

O ‘Q .” ? O g

:’ ?!o h, ae7 9a Ba’

ThM

‘o ’ ?b :l’;5vi

aa) <5C c) -5

‘> ,9 ?111 r>5 ?

aEN ‘? ba)

Oe

,;;6

g5J?%l:1.

@ H H ‘j’i l ‘i ofl

.g5(;>

77

E

5a@

HQ, U:l

g o tu

?Cj:j

gO’

Q-

at

B >o

r?I?

rD 6A

gg ,,q

,!,

Q"fflg:4

,Q

?,JO ‘o’g)

7

D2

’l -O V I’? ? 1; 4)

:i(l

ffi, I?m

oF& R “> ,,?o

(fl

CJ’< O’i

i %’ 0 )010 .pg

‘-s al ‘6’

[ aa ti “>x a 111

1

COQ,Q

H%

’l :u ,W -:R ;l 4

art

‘aC} 0 10 W u s

‘;” 4-I ma s @

‘a"J'5?-E 4o :y ,p .@,ao,No?“4 :jo

.!J

GQ

(l) g -i-i ?Cj Al

??’ hrl -i

C!a) -5

,§ g z;p

r€!3 ra3

go” Cl.m ., ,d ; 3

Caj53l

E5 (:i5

.‘a’ :,€ Q, E u ?-”? ?

E “g 00 Qal

&-i

-O

E?’ cd oo “B *w - Cl:l !m -i-i:j %’ co

O

§o

a: ‘H a-”’!1"5 b E3

5D

:j

“b

D

g, bD f

s

D’

,g u’-

,9H$

3:i5,() ‘?

m -l-I

“3 ?o

Cw; %(p 0 – O

0i -:?z bJ)

4

, gl ?-H h e ,- s 5’a ’lo00€ c:i ’ ?C"g

U)

.E;

“vs6*-i D.,,E

s -<.5Q (5? So

% ,E04

(l,() k0 Cl.-s §a) 4-l’

?lj

g, (L) ell

!O O +-i Q) (U 0 w

a)

,p

F! a:i “E) ‘B U a"p – y !-i

,” @ a,

!@y p, !:? C5 €0 g ,C} !. as ‘;:3 a) , jl Q -(D ss Q@),

?K a)-

‘T’l O -! Tj?5

cri

vi EE ,@

w

g .cl -,,!

a 0

5a>.

C

cd?d c’do’a>

Z

-w-i -l-},

D :j Cj

j :! !

m (D

0 7c u ? (-, 0 .?

at ,.C.,

50 Q ‘;

:j

111<IO !;H O ? VJ a

0

‘g,(“ot

C+i

‘rS,(pa)

“f

,S. o’ J,,

o

rbrl> m@J3

s

§

.!::“Cj Oa)‘g) :j .-a ‘Cj

5'9

o

(/l -I-I .(j

aEb

.H B

a) F

E? : oa

m (L)

,,l. 0

‘opQ

5.D

*-h a u

< % b’ .

ga'55a

J3 ‘r.!V

s l’Q J ’d’ 6)

s o

J

o +’

Ji

‘&-i

JD l%f s ‘-=’ ?50

t-e .Ei % o, ’s”

GQ

t/l

:f 4 J l) 0 w (-

Page 44 of 128

@€36

l/l

S’:.o;ou’ “a, “‘fai b?to ?atc-BQ>, , ?’:‘o, C/] as-2 m c p,

‘Na (L) a

“6

i-rad

a)

7

Q Q

?1

‘: h :s

i C%JSS j c%)cl(’) i i@(ThN l: ()M(a r 111 ) BCh*

j,+i§, 0

a, (-rl%lf)

O

rk .ffi3

,g

‘@V:

( §NI:Q

u,Z, <)

-%l

a*

wB?

?Th

IJJ

4

0

.i.-?

uJ

%-i

ImP

o

T,

Q

§eJ ecg ,,4J “?D

-) Z u..

.C)

g

sS

Q U

-j

53 m () ? z.? uni ?n E

(+-i

u aOa ?I E !

(/)

:,J g, s .0 @

HQ HB

Jaot. t) (l

’tia’ j’ e oo a’- ‘O’ !” a4gD ‘o '

M. :j4 a” '

E =! ; ‘aa-Eo 9

NEi..ojj.l

8’Cla’ !-i a’ O’Cl

0

a S’ tsi ws “,;scqoa

-A Hl y7 !72

Q

s

Uz

-=6 lss

,n -A

‘E3

OQ!:t ‘+’?t5J)

g

O: l-ti

k”

E’ E3

e;e!# Eg, Q:)

0’C) J5’C)

,-,CQ>

-S z

ff%

o o N

k U

,0 0 Q

o

(Thffl QQ

:!la

?A2e :-ljffi? ‘=; ?:oa: o;o. o0, p.?H

Th2

3

&E l!)

<Q

t(.mO'4 ? :J) E

U0,i o3 H o> $ -OtQ

2

o 0

v tu

g

E

s a)

a o

!m 0

d

Q a)

s

:6

c* (L)

pa? o

ffi ay

g

!

E

o Q!m

€

N O

‘!5

E(!

g

-j

Q 0 ? ‘?

-B

a)

‘:‘Il:

,,68

ru!iQD5Y

E

(3

W

S aQ m C?i’cl

0 0

zU ‘z

O”

E

u,a"azBp. H E E > O Q

-U)

(U

g,,I

q

9 >

E

,-ad QaE ‘-x ‘:5o 0-

::7

0”

:j O

w h

Z s m

at

t-0 9 W

o l?? .!‘6 “CC

i

Bh ‘El

8ii,

Th

U,

Z

0-s

0 S

g()

‘C5

l?

,,-e9,.q

o U) k

:>a

?jn

<5

o:€=s?,‘E’stb’it 4,1, !,

-5

lf)

Q

U)

:j

-k-J J ,:

€

s

m

o

3”- l sr

!<

:?

‘i -hJ ,,,; .

d 51Th tO

U)0..0 U)Q O..!0

a:lEcd’+m:p -E 9i !m E s

€

6

‘a

’tBw

U)

o

jcdcdcd )yb<t

(.) –l Pl

s o

??B e ‘Q j N

E

m

E

e euBQEO

0

a€

’ ?bh -a li

B r ‘M 01 ‘S

cd

(L)

6 ?’ a3 " ?

s t ??u s

h

s

, cd )-’:1, a) U @ Q w

uJ

C?

‘h)J) “li

,.c:j < (p? ‘bC:eiu (, y ‘$ D

4

m ffl@acj

0 0 e

:S

!

i

Page 45 of 128

Jennie Kapusta From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrew Schmidt aschmidt@crca.ca April-11-17 3:01 PM Jennie Kapusta RE: MV-23-04-L Burns

Hello Jennie. Provided that there are no material changes to the application, our comments from 2004 remain unchanged.

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Visit us on the Web: www.crca.ca

From: Jennie Kapusta [mailto:jkapusta@southfrontenac.net] Sent: March-29-17 2:47 PM To: Andrew Schmidt aschmidt@crca.ca; Dianne Doyle DDoyle@crca.ca Subject: MV-23-04-L Burns Good Afternoon, Attached is a minor variance which was originally received in 2004 and received approval. I am recirculating this to your office to ensure there are no regulatory changes which would alter the response from CRCA. This item was deferred pending right-of-way access approval which has now been granted. This item is scheduled for our April 13, 2017 committee meeting. If possible comments back by April 6, 2017 would be appreciated.

Regards, Jennie Kapusta Planning Assistant

Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 P: 613-376-3027 x.2224 jkapusta@southfrontenac.net www.southfrontenac.net

Confidential: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the email immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that disclosing, copying, distributing or using the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. 1

Page 46 of 128

PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT APPLICATION FOR CONSENT

DATE: November 2, 2016

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-38-16-B Paul Snelgrove Concession 11, Part Lot 2, Frye Lane, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM and within 15m from top of bank Date of Hearing: November 10, 2016 SUMMARY This item was originally brought to the Committee and was deferred to give the applicant a chance to revise the proposal and to allow the Committee members an opportunity to visit the site once the snow had cleared. The subject land consists of a 7.8 +/- hectare (19.2 acres) lot with frontage on Frye Lane and Milk Lake. The lot is currently vacant. The proposal is for the construction of a new dwelling with attached garage (1560 square foot total footprint) to be located a minimum of 43 feet from the high water mark of Milk Lake. The applicant has submitted a preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment which was completed by Ontario Lake Assessments. This report stated that based on the challenging topography of the lot this is the only suitable building envelope. Additionally, the proposed septic bed can be located at a minimum of 30m from the HWM and Milk Lake is not a sensitive trout lake. The report suggested restricting water access to a footpath only, should the variance be approved. The applicant has also submitted a slope stability report completed by SNC-Lavalin which addresses the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the top of bank leading to Milk Lake. The conclusion of this evaluation was that provided appropriate construction techniques were used that the proposed dwelling would not impact the stability of the existing slope. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. Public health has no objections. Comments from roads were not required. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority recommends denial of this application as submitted based on considerations for natural hazards, natural heritage and water quality policies. The CRCA also states that based on site visits there are alternative locations for development on the property, that while these alternative may not have a water view they are more suitable from an environmental perspective. The CRCA has evaluated the adjusted proposal, which includes moving the garage to a location outside the required setbacks, but still maintains their position with a recommendation of denial of the application as submitted as there is sufficient space on the lot to meet the setbacks. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor?

PLANNING AND AGENCY ANALYSIS & COMMENTS Application No. Name of Applicant Concession Lot District Purpose Zoning Application complies with zoning OP Designation Application complies with OP

MV-37-16-B Paul Snelgrove 11 2 Bedford To permit construction within 30m of the HWM RLSW Yes Rural Yes

Page 47 of 128

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-38-16-B Paul Snelgrove Concession 11, Part Lot 2, Frye Lane, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM and within 15m from top of bank Date of Hearing: November 10, 2016 CBO Roads Health Unit Cons. Authority Public Submissions

N/A No Objections

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a 1560 square foot footprint dwelling, including any decks, to be located a minimum of 43 feet from the high water mark of Milk Lake.
2. Minor variance MV-37-16-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning bylaws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

Page 48 of 128

µ SNELGROVE MV-38-16-B

Legend Snelgrove Property Snelgrove Proposed Dwelling YE FR

LA

NE

Milk Lake

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

Subject Property

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

Page 49 of 128

Scale 1:757

Buck Lake 0

3.75 7.5

15

22.5

UTM Projection NAD 83

30 Meters

QLA

Ontario Lake Assessments

RR#3 Harrowsmith Ontario KOH 1V0

& Environmental Education Services

Tel: (613) 376-3863 Fax: (613) 376-6128

27 0ctober 2016

Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street

RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2016

Box 100

SYDENHAM, Ontario

TOWNSHIP OF

SOUTH FRONTENAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT

KOH 2T0

Attention: Lindsay Mills,’ Deputy Clerk/Planner

REGAR?DS: Preliminary EIA - MV-38-16-B- Concession 11, Lot 1; - Reference Plan - 13R-18835 (Roll # 010 030 05202 0000 - Bedford District, South Frontenac Township; Access from Lele Lane; Milk Lake Applicant Paul Snelgrove Dear: Mr. Mills:

A site visit was conducted to the above location on October 15, 20 l 6 with a view to determine the potential for environmental impacts on Milk Lake as a result of the proposal and the sulject of this preliminary EIA. Milk Lake has a warm water fishery of small mouth and largemouth bass (anecdotal by locals), since it does not contain a cold water fishery, the lake is not classified as sensitive nor does it have an at capacity designation; the MOE&CC do not have any water quality data for Milk Lake (personal communication V. Castro MOE&CC- 24/Oct/ 16).

A small area, identified as environmentally sensitive on Schedule ‘D’ Bedford District of the SFT Zoning By-Law, lays on the east side of the point of land proposed for the building envelope; the area contains riparian grasses and sedges and may be seasonably inundated with water during the spring freshet period; it was dry enough to walk through on October 1 5’h, however it has been an unusually dry summer. There is a channelized flow of water through this ES area during the spring freshet period and possibly intermittently during heavy rainfall events. This ES area receives flow from the valley catchment area northerly to Lele Lane. There is an ATV path down the valley and along the west edge of the ES area to the waterfront. A stream enters Milk Lake to the northwest of this point of land; the source of this stream is a small lake located 900m to the north.

The terrain is Precambrian Shield granitic bedrock with shallow soils and rock outcrops. The 2.43 ha. (6 ac.) properly is all natural and tree covered with a mixed deciduous forest cover. The lot has 427 + m (1400+ ft) shore frontage on Milk Lake and the lot line extends just easterly of Frye Lane at the north end and extends southerly along Frye Lane. Despite there being waterfront along this portion, there are no building envelopes along Fiye Lane due to the proximity of Frye Lane to the lakeshore. At the north end the lot extends northerly to Lele Lane.

The only reasonable access to the proposed building site, due to the challenging topography, is by way of a valley be%eeri the granite ridges leading from Lele Lane. The only suitable building envelope is on the point of land extending southerly into the lake. The envelope location is relatively level but due to topographical constraints cannot achieve the minimum 30m setback from the lake on the west side nor the ES area on the east side. The sidelines of the building envelope would be 13+ m (43 ‘) from the lake and 1 l+ m (36’) from the ES area; the front of the building would achieve a setback distance of 60+nn (200’) from the water. The building envelope is elevated well above lake level and the ES so flood plain issues are not a factor. …. 2

Page 50 of 128

-2-

In addition to not being able to achieve the side line setbacks, there is a proposed top of slope setback of only 2.5 m (8’). The top of slope setback is addressed in a SNC-Lavalin letter dated October, 25, 2016 (delivered to SFT 25/Oct/16).

This building enve?ope location is essentially the best that can be achieved for the lot. The proposed septic bed will be located north of the building envelope adjacent to the driveway at a distance of >30m from the ES area and approximately 1 00+m (328+ tt) from the waterfront. Summary: 1.

Milk Lake is not a sensitive lake.

The ES area is not significant but does play a role in providing habitat for riparian species and possibly fish habitat and as such should not be filled/excavated or drained or physically disturbed. 3. The proposed building envelope is the only reasonable option available for the lot due to

topographic constraints.

4. The septic bed can be located at a distance that satisfies the OP regarding setbacks from the lakeshore and ES area. Recommendations:

Approve the minor variance with a caveat that access to the lakefront must be by footpath to the water from the building envelope to the point. Access to the waterfront should not be by way of the ES area. The ATV travel within the ES area should be discouraged / prevented by not allowing the pathway to become further established by adding fill material or @avel to the path.

If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Res1

JOurS, -’)

042,x ,e B.Sc. OntArio Lake Assessments

3654 Stage Coach Road RR# 3

HARROWSMITH, On. KOH ?VO

rgenge@xplornet .ca 613-376-3863

Copy to:

Paul Snelgrove P.Eng

P.M.Snelgrove General Contractors & Engineers Ltd. 204 Fiye Lane Perth Road, Ontario KOH 2L0

Ph. 613-273-6272

p3x 613-273-6273 Email snelorov@kin stoii.net

Page 51 of 128

so-Eg-tc-g FL,Q.S-4,,,,’ RECEIVED

+))

SNC-Lavalin GEM Ontario Inc.

1164 Clyde Court Kir 5ston, Ontario, Canada, K7P 2E4

( OCT 2 5 2016 ’ 1613.389.1781 613389.4204

SNC-LAVALI

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT

eopy

MEMORANDuM - Our Ref. 1 B-1 745-01

PAUL SNELGROVE

204 Frye Lane RR#I Perth Rd., ON KOH 2L0 October 25, 2016

Attention: Mr. Paul Snelgrove

RE: Proposed Residential Development, Frye Lane, South Frontenac, ON

As requested, SNC-Lavalin GEM Ontario Inc. (“SNCL”) visited Lot 1 , Concession 11 on Frye Lane in the Township of South Frontenac, district of Bedford, Ontario (Ref. Plan 13R18835) (the “Site”) on October 11 , 2016. The purpose of the Site visit was to make observations and comments on the impact of construction of the proposed typical residence on the global stability of the slope located to the north west of the proposed residence. n

i

!

4

r a

z/44

U’i?

?I

*c -l

;4r

‘11:

J

..f’

f’

'

aw

u

W’nl

‘Kt ‘A’lJ

aaa

r’

i ‘jhse-

6

‘!!P!Q y-a-’l

17a:

‘wl-.

*T=

! i

l

1 1

1

l

l

?,, *M

%

;4’

J im

Q

;?

r

4

h

%’l

?

Figure 1 - Slope at north west of the Site (October-2016) We understand that the proposed residence will be set back a total of 13 m from the water’s edge, approximately 2.5 m from the top of slope, and will consist of a typical Part 9 residential building with an attached deck, based on the sketch provided by Mr. Paul Snelgrove (the “Client”). The Site was currently undeveloped at the time of SNCL’s site visit, and consisted of tree and brush cover. Various granitic outcroppings were observed on the Site. Overburden cover in the area of development was estimated to be less than 1 m.

Page 52 of 128

lnfrastructure

@

Paul Snelgrove SNC-Lavalin Proposed Residence

Frye Lane, Lot 1, Con. 11 , RP 13R18835, Township of South Frontenac, ON

[7 ?

k

*’

.

P’?

;+

s

r

? l-? W

*‘ffi r,

r! l’ r

rii

g

pr r

p’

?’:?

;b

l?

? '

=?’n ‘r ‘k

m

p?

?’

j

J ?k

:.- . ]

tj

-*ffl

‘!ij

?*

?

!“J

! ‘r?s

‘*

a/

1

.1

4?

Figure 2 - Granite outcropping to the proposed south west of the structure (October2016) Subgrade preparation for the proposed structure should consist of removal of all overburden soil and any Ioose/weathered slabs within the foundation footprints. The final subgrade should be brushed and/or air blown clean and subsequently inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of concrete of Engineered Fill. A properly prepared grantitic subgrade would not be considered as frost susceptible, however, if Engineered Fill is placed, consideration for proper drainage of the pad must be made (i.e. in order to prevent a bathtub effect). If proper drainage is not able to be provided, a minimum soil cover of 1 .5 m or an equivalent in thermal insulation should be provided for foundations placed on Engineered Fill. Based on the conditions observed at the time of the Site visit, and provided all foundations are bearing on a granitic bedrock subgrade and in accordance with the recommendations above, no impact on the global stability of this slope are anticipated from the imparted foundation loading of the proposed development at this setback.

We trust this memorandum meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should there be any further questions or concerns. /

i,l

Dylan Hill, P.Eng. Project Manager Environment & Geoscience

Infrastructure

Distribution:

Mr. Paul Snelgrove - (I PDF copy)

Page 53 of 128

Page 54 of 128

Ms. Jennie Kapusta (MV-3 8- 16-B) December 1, 2016

Natural InHazardsI “I 3I:I.‘I.iI.:I5.$I.If’hu2-n:i.r.[ The CRCA does not have ?oodplain mapping for Milk Lake. Section 5.8 of the Zoning Flooding: l’luI.I.lIf EI’l]:|I:-tri.i:::|:I’:I:I.:|.InI’:h. ?ood risk and erosion hazards. .’|-|.u’I:| More contains provisions intending to reduce the potential for By-law FII_.hLI’II:I’r:IJu|;I’n11.l:nlr::n:hngh-I’:tm:tlpnIE:I’tuJ :::tI.1.:t::I:::|‘ntI.r.| including section 5.8.2 1) suggests that “no building or structure, or septic tank installation speci?cally, .J1.:4?u:?]r|pp1:lj:!1|]u,|’.u?:‘u.bl:th]a’u’L:tn1.wlqn:bJ waterbody mark of the highwater of a horizontal located 30 be within metres shall tile ?eld the weeping l’.‘I:’|-’:I:|:I.:uLiJI:III:II.|?.I:|‘II|!|-I-:IIIEIIIlI1|:I’.lI 3'1”-ll‘!!!-‘IiZ??f?l1f-"?l|’|||‘I’ll’=-’|=fI5lTl|l’t|?¢[|’ E|£I.II 3) of the CRCA’sguidelines for implementing Ontario Section 3.3.6 I:II.I!’|1|IE’|:‘E|.|I.’|’|.‘IllJI2|IH.l|IEI|II5:I|’|l||‘Il’|’-l’I|:|l.|:|.’l’|’.II|’|I|:I or permanent watercourse.” EI:I.’|.iI.|:| :r|:I:I’:I.|:|.::|:1I|’:h|‘I.I.I|.|:|I|::” H.q1Jn.m|4l??1jlL?=:IhmuIE|mE::[.IH.njI1I.md3’&hL:inn?.InEI:Luf 148/06 suggests that in instances when the regulatory ?ood plain is unknown, a setback of Regulation -I-IJ-I-II provided rI-I-I-I-rl-I-III–III-I-I-I–I:-I11.-I.I-I-I HITrI-I-I-I-I-I’rr ‘I.I’IrI.-I-1-I-I-—-I-I-I.lI-II-I-I—-I-I–I-I-I—II I’I’ applied that there is suf?cient difference in 30 metres from the high water mark will be ?ood u.l.I’l:hI.‘r.|$.lI:IIrJ.|:I:|I|EIIIItj:l.hEn-:| subject be development will not to basis) ensure to by case determined be a case elevation on (to i.¢|I.’|1’i:I1.j1u1ruu’IulI’I1hl1.11i.:I.u.‘I’:.’:-l|’|.:I.:-h |”;|.| ??m?g?gqii-?i_5’?{?1¢?’?|unr1uEun_q¢Egf..td1’rumt-:n:l’nLm?h: risk. Since the topography from the shoreline of the lake rises quickly, staff have no concerns with this from a ?ooding perspective. |:I’:I|:I|.I-’.EI’:I:Ill]-:II:IEr.;;|Iu.‘IIpn:i’.‘I.’. proposal

.

I

5=Hn’.!»I1J}n£‘i:2?m::;H1-.lIu.jIh’£d’=-hiHh;nI?uurr.-:l:pl5: Section 5.8.2 2) of the Zoning By-law suggests that “no building or structure, or septic E.|’.t?J’!|I:.:::|.::|1IriEm metres of the top of bank of I.’|£1=II|:|I’hI.I:1:|I.d’HIJr shall be located within 15 tank installation including the weeping tile ?eld ‘.:|‘l:|rlIJlul|:I’.tI.|’.‘I.|:tI’|’:|‘l:I:1:I.I|;H.|: CRCA’s planning 1’h|:I:lI_‘I|.‘I1:I.l:m.| any embankment, the slope of which is greater than 30% from horizontal.” The .?:.}¢g’|?.|‘I’Ip’L’h|?.’.plrfl+¢LI’Ifml’:hn1{HEmnia’:::uJ.’ l.I’r.:r:IJ:|r:I ILI’III’:InItI’l:u allowance total of for toe the ?.?;Ij..¢-¢|-.:i.:..:.?.?’.J||,I1i’||d.p|‘uI’.|-’|J.| an de?ned sum being is hazard limit as the erosion that policy |‘dI,|rI.I suggests »;-I”|-.-.-…3i. erosion, a stable slope allowance de?ned as being no steeper than 1(h):1(v) for bedrock shorelines, plus mdu.:1ikILu:dlmn::du?:?I’h.£?m?H¢?l1|?H|I|HF"HH¢iiHfHhH.[*H lbj1::$¢nnum|h:p?ii.1njw-ihIJlI¢gul?‘E|5:IJfiJHi.?§|2?M|hE'1LbH a 6 metre access allowance. The applicant has provided a slope stability analysisin support of the minor variance application that suggests that the proposed development will be founded on competent bedrock. ‘Iu1nu:Hi|:t::1d%Edth£p:In1lrr’%.:?rJJbnFu?IdInwmpu?bn:h’n:i. |’.h’II|’|.‘I.’:I’.tI:|:Ih: staff note Therefore, staff have no concerns with this proposal from an erosion perspective. However, TrJ’d’rn_n?1’h1II:-n:Inl1uI:LLLhrr:§Ia-JE’m.:Lu’:-mp’-I::HrL the of 2) 5.8.2 By-law Zoning Section that the proposed development does not meet the requirements of ¢¢|¢¢p?¢¢¢pj.jn??¢n¢:4¢wrurul?lrI;nI’I.=nHlu=hrniI1?H?lEm.qurhI so relief should also be sought from this zoning provision. I’.r?u—.’ Erosion:

Natural Heritage and Water Quality

-lilcnlm rE1uh’m’mnllaL:5’H:h:i.|IH’l|1I.j’i?.pI.:u.h;:$.d.ini’m|Jdl=I.uI the Provincial Policy Statement(PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to 11 of Section 2.2 _

I-I— inand Zoning L-I I l the Of?cial Plan water. Accordingly, quality and quantity of protect, improve or restore the By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect to how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. Similarly, the CRCA’s Planning Policy (April, 2015) contains provisions that seek to support these j._

|j

:1

—.|.I_

—.|

——|—.

j

|J—.–.?:I

-.-j_

objectives.

5p:.|’|.;I.I5}T1H||nrduE:!d??n1I’!i=h1ru:u’.u1:uI1i:pu.3:h.‘i?l:&mn:n1Un?t Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Of?cial Plan for South Frontenac Township suggests that a minimum 30 metre from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water setback .5?*§§.;.m?¢??.I?+[u;?I|rIq?ndm‘u_n?‘IirduImfh’nn?rh|1m=lI?n’ quality. Tkq1h1HJpm:¢dIpdE::-1HApmudh’E|dn’i:|J:h-nllb?s?iul?hn?hl?. The applicant has provided a preliminary EIA prepared by Ontario Lake Assessments dated October 25, This report has been reviewed by Tom Beaubiah, 2016 in support of the minor variance application. ‘|.‘EI.I1’:I;|I:I’|TI.:uH-Inh?. 1|:I||’.‘I1l.q;§I:I’IH’:|’.Lrr.II.:r’.In’I.:I:lq:|:tI.1m. ::::I’:|u:?-Ir. |’:I”.hI consideration. the Township’s |:.F|i.T.||.|;|-’.’.’.‘i.I:‘I.’|’.’. I-:|II’:Ihn’I the following comments for biologist, who provided CRCA |‘I1w|.?I.I.’.|’|.I f:||‘lrIIIrtI’:I’I’:I’n=tI

The document provides some details of the property primarily focused on topography, and general T3:in.:n?.?mi?unn:?1?J¢f|Hj?1?’?]??F1IW?Hi?M|!i’FlF’-?.?1?‘H? 1:in’:h’l:1.mnj&:n.?;IElkl:|?np1nH?hU’?H?‘IIHUI?TH?FIT|1?I?TU surface water ?ow. As a preliminary EIA, the letter provides extremely basic information with minimal II:I:IHI.:n-I.IT|1I.‘TF’H. |‘I|II2I.IIJ Heritage of the PPS, Natural other relevant h.t:I.:|’.u.-h HI:rJ.I.|:! but neglects ullcr r:I-rru: sections consideration for Er ?sh Eh habitat, :::I.Ih’n:I1 EI.biH.. Reference F!1’|:lH.l’u|L.!:.1?.:I’:’lr1H.r_‘:|E?’tI:ILr:iduL.::?J'1’laL Manual, Signi?cant Wildlife Habitat Guide, and ESA. While there is some mentionof ?sh the document does not review typical natural heritage values or assess the impacts of q;u:h.?l?u:rJ1d:n’Idrn1rrf|I5:uJI’du?hn:h.pu1Jlnu’jth:=q::u:|’ species, The focus of the recommendations contained within the EIA appears to be on building development. |¢-.-i.:.pg;..u3 fh¢‘i;.p]¢§1¢r1.‘rnnl’?.rh?n=m1dI1tu’I?lr:AqIp—1h-hm’:u.hh:’ comment of the consultant is that “the building rather than ecological considerations. The constraints n.:uI|.|’|i::h|:I|I::I1’|.l::I.:.inI|’.al]-ilil?llll?liltltl 11I!|:Ii’l’ll’|l11I1r?l=I1’|lH’?’l=|l’-|’|l”‘Hl’l’=||¢|’|l

Page2 of 3

*”

Page 55 of 128

Ms. Jennie Kapusta (MV-38-16-B) December 1, 2016

envelope location is essentially the best that can be achieved for the lot”. While this is the opinion of the there is no demonstration (beyond building constraints perceived by the consultant) that I–IfIu——J’—?TI?-‘I-—-ul-IZZ—’—‘I—T—; consultant, natural heritage values have been considered. Also, as the site visit occurred in October of 2016, the would and as such the only of the timing approach possible H— H” is late in J1EE uTuuIJJ—I I‘: to assume ? II-Lsite visit -E the season :II-I-I be H other constraint for veri?ed habitat those unless otherwise suitability by or species species. are fI’I"Ij1IZI’I1—I’ present TI’—I’ —I’IZfI—1I1I1” TI’I’I’ I’fI’ Therefore, staff are unable to recommend acceptance of the preliminary EIA as it does not include the relevant considerations and scope. In considering the size and con?guration of the lot, there does appear to be alternative locations for development. While these alternatives may not provide a water view, in the opinion of staff, there are other locations that can be developed that would be more appropriate from a water quality perspective.

Recommendation

Staff recommend denial of application MV-38-16-B based on our consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies.

the Of?cial Plan Section 5.2.11 suggests that the municipality may request a more detailed Fi”|| of Elli.‘-IIIIZIII H-H|FbE?Irll1’i|‘J’-r?Il5i’?|f5’?Ijf|‘EI[IIEIFlfl£f¢-IIFIIH-I |:I|"?II|:|‘U’-I-[I5 the municipality wish to consider this application further, Environmental Impact Assessment. lShould Er.I.‘i.I’:Im::l.I]E:I;|III.I|.”..II:IIIlIIm’|. lh.-£JI’InmI.::_iI.i;Il|5-?FbEI?I&5I1H’|IiJ?jIHI:It’I.ufn’IIu. LhT1I’rd:pmu’ni?Lup:um?h’hI:l:1hI.uhhI:u1l?y2—-E:=I.‘h’=u.mh1 Township may wish to proceed in this manner in order to more fully assess the environmental the of the proposed development. However, since there are alternative locations for development impacts En;:haILkw:IpIdirIiqm.=l.?ur?u.:haEn1n:Hhn.£wh:£-ulE’tn’:t;:i: outside of the water setback, staff do not believe that the CRCA’s position will change. 148/06: Development, The CRCA, under Ontario Regulation —‘II1n’I II'1fIZ’I’I—TIn’I”:fI —‘I”-—£‘TI’ Interferencewith Wetlands, and —JI Watercourses, regulates development within 15 metres of a valley land. Alterations to Shorelines and I‘II —‘J-IE‘; -I’J?I-1–IJJJL-I the minor variance is The valley of Milk Lake is considered to extend inland 1I—— IKIL to the top of the ridge. If III-II-I-’-I-I-I approved, the applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage to obtain -—-I-I-E-I–Ij Ontario Regulation 148/06. a permit for the development under —I-I-I-I-I-I-I?—II2 '

~

Please notify this of?ce of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244 or by email at aschmidt crca.ca. Questionspertaining to the EIA review should be directed to Tom Beaubiah at (613)546-4228 extension 240 or by email to tbeaubiah crca.ca.

Yours truly,

,;,=.-Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager

II c.c.

‘

Paul Snelgrove, 204IIFI—-III-‘-H Frye Lane, R.R. #1, Perth Road, KOH 2LuI I?‘ IjI—-II1IfI——&–I-I1I of South Frontenac (via email) Lindsay Mills, Planner, Township I—I1’JLF1I-

Page 3 of 3

Page 56 of 128

i

SKETCH to ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED BUILDINC;S

PART of LOT 1, CONCESSION 11

N

Geo5yaphic Townsh,4p of Bedfor?d TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNTY of SOUTH FRONTENAC SCALE: l’-100’ lOOft 50

0

50

?00

2G’ 0

‘S% ‘Sl

3 0 ‘O f e e t

u

HOPKINS CHITTY LAND SURVEYOR’S INC. -201 7-

,7.’-p,

IMPERIAL DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN FEET AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO METRES BY

S

MULTIFLYING BY O.304B

73R-14554

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. THIS SKETCH [8 BASED ON A PIAN COMPLETED BY GRAN(;E W. ELLIOTT LTD.

Zone

DATED JUNE 2i 2007 AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC INTERACTIVE WEB MAPPIN(;.

RLSW-53 l

….. -7

i

i

‘(

’t

‘,/

‘,/ ‘;C) 0

ct o

s

2

k (O

a> t?5

S

,6

C)

-,S s

Si U’)0 %-i

S

x

0

2

S

‘z

B3 ,t€ 0

m

Page 57 of 128

Ht3 s -<Q <t’=j M

2

SOUTH WEST CORNER LOT I CONCESSION 11

‘X

ROAD ALLOWANCE BE’fiEEN CEO(;RAPHIC T(flNSHJPS OF LOUC.HBOROUGH & BEDFORD

DATE:

JANUARY 25, 2017

rN L?’ HCLS

HOPKINS CHITTY IAND SURVEYORS INC.

Ontarib L5m4, S:s4,rveyors www.hopkinschitty.com

634-636 NORRIS COURT

KINC;STON, ONTARIO K7P-2R9 Tel Fax

(618) (818)

384-9266 884-3513

PROJECT No. 2017-010 LOT 1 CONCESSION 11 TCffNSHJP OF BEDFORD

Page 58 of 128

Page 59 of 128

Ms. Jennie Kapusta (MV-3 8- 16—B) April 13, 2017

vr

Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Of?cial Plan for South Frontenac Township suggests that a minimum 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to protect water quality.

The applicant has provided a preliminary EIA prepared by Ontario Lake Assessments dated October 25, 2016 in support of the minor Variance application. This report has been reviewed by Tom Beaubiah, CRCA biologist, who provided the following comments for the Township’s consideration.

The document provides some details of the property primarily focused on topography, and general surface water ?ow. As a preliminary EIA, the letter provides extremely basic information with minimal consideration for ?sh habitat, but neglects other relevant sections of the PPS, Natural Heritage Reference Manual, Signi?cant Wildlife Habitat Guide, and BSA. While there is some mention of ?sh species, the document does not review typical natural heritage values or assess the impacts of development. The focus of the recommendations contained within the EIA appears to be on building constraints rather than ecological considerations. The comment of the consultant is that “the building be achieved for the lot”. While this is the opinion of the envelope location is essentially the best that can consultant, there is no demonstration (beyond building constraints perceived by the consultant) that natural heritage values have been considered. Also, as the site visit occurred in October of 2016, the timing of the site visit is late in the season and as such the only approach possible would be to assume species are present unless veri?ed otherwise by habitat suitability or other constraint for those species. Therefore, staff are unable to recommend acceptance of the preliminary EIA as it does not include the relevant considerations and scope.

provided by Ontario Lake In consideration of the original EIA as well as the additional information Assessments, staff?nd that the information provided does not contain enough information to be conclusive that development will have no negative impacts on the form and functionof the natural heritage features Sta?’provide the attached summary ofour assessment ofkey aspects ofthe EIA for your consideration. . In considering the size and con?guration of the lot, there does appear to be alternative locations for development. While these alternatives may not provide a water view, in the opinion of staff, there are other locations that can be developed that would be more appropriate from a water quality perspective.

It is my understandingthat the original severance was granted based upon an agreement that future development would be located in an area that would meet the water setback criteria required within the Zoning By-law. This is documented in previous correspondence between the applicant and the CRCA.

Based upon the above, stajf do not support the approval ofthis application. Recommendation

Sta?’continue to recommend denial of application M V-38-I 6-B based on our consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies.

The CRCA, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interferencewith Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development within 15 metres of a valley land. The valley of Milk Lake is considered to extend inland to the top of the ridge. If the minor variance is

Page 3 of 4

Page 60 of 128

approved, the applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building permit stage to obtain a permit for the development under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Please notify this of?ce of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244 or by email at aschmidt crca.ca. Questionspertaining to the EIA review should be directed to Tom Beaubiah at (613)546-4228 extension 240 or by email to tbeaubiah crca.ca.

Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager /as

Xttach: EIA Review Assessment c.c.

’

Paul Snelgrove, 204 Frye Lane, R.R. #1, Perth Road, KOH 2L0 Lindsay Mills, Planner, Township of South Frontenac (via email)

Page 4 of 4

Page 61 of 128

Page 62 of 128

Page 63 of 128

Page 64 of 128

PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT APPLICATION FOR CONSENT

DATE: February 3, 2017

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-43-16-S Ronald Hackett Concession 1, Part Lot 11, Sandpiper Lane, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM and Section 10.3.1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit an increase in lot coverage over 5% Date of Hearing: February 9, 2017 SUMMARY The subject land consists of a 0.46 +/- acres with frontage on Loughborough Lake. The lot is currently developed with a 1053 square foot footprint seasonal dwelling (including attached decks), located 20 feet (6.2m) from the high water mark of Loughborough Lake, a 32 square foot shed and a 226 square foot boathouse. The proposal is for the construction of a 38 foot by 24 foot (912 square foot) addition to the non-water side of the existing dwelling. The property is zoned RLSW (Limited Service Residential Waterfront) which permits a maximum of 5% total lot coverage for the principal dwelling. For a 0.46 acre lot this translates into a maximum footprint of 1002 square feet. The existing dwelling exceeds this maximum and with the proposed addition the total footprint will increase to 1968 square feet. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. The resulting structure would constitute a structure of 1968 square feet all within the normally requires 30m setback contrary to the intent of the Official Plan. The applicant has submitted a preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment completed by Ecological Services as the West Basin of Loughborough Lake is a Highly Sensitive Trout Lake. This assessment recommends the applicant enter into a site plan agreement to ensure proper maintenance of the septic holding tank. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority have evaluated the application and are recommending denial as submitted in support of limiting intensification of development near waterbodies for the purpose of protection of water quality. Comments from roads were not required. Comments from public health have yet to be received. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? PLANNING AND AGENCY ANALYSIS & COMMENTS Application No. MV-43-16-S Name of Applicant Ronald Hackett Concession 1 Lot 11 District Storrington Purpose To permit construction within 30m of the HWM & development over 5% lot coverage Zoning RLSW Application complies with zoning Yes OP Designation Rural Application complies with OP Yes CBO Roads N/A Health Unit Cons. Authority Denial Public Submissions None

Page 65 of 128

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-43-16-S Ronald Hackett Concession 1, Part Lot 11, Sandpiper Lane, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: February 9, 2017

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a 38 foot by 24 foot (912 square foot) single storey, no basement permitted, addition to the rear (non-water side) of the existing dwelling located at 1001 Sandpiper Lane.
2. Minor variance MV-43-16-S is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning bylaws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

Page 66 of 128

µ Loughborough Lake

HACKETT MV-43-16-S

Legend

Proposed Addition

Existing Deck Existing Cottage Proposed Addition Hackett Property

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

A LARK L

NE

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

Page 67 of 128

Scale 1:400 0

2

4

8

12

UTM Projection NAD 83

16 Meters

a -”- " Ecological Services

! .,,,,, Phone: (613) 3 76-6916

R.R. #l, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario KOH MO

-”" E-mail:mail@ecologicalservices.ca ] ] l l

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE EVALUATION

Municipality: Township of South Frontenac (Storrington District) Lots: Part Lot 10 i Concession: I Landowner: Ronald Hackett

l

Municipal Address: 1001 Sandpiper Lane Planning Application Reference: N.A. Description of Application:

]

Ronald Hackett (the landowner) proposes to build an addition on his existing cottage. The cottage property has been in the Hackett family for approximately 40 years. It is one of a string of small lots along the south shore of Loughborough Lake, and the cottage does not meet current standards for setbacks from the water. The existing cottage has an

area of approximately 595 ft2 (55.2 m2), and two adjoining decks totaling approximately 456 ft2 (42.5 m"). The landowner proposes to add 912 ft2 (84.7 m2) to the rear of the cottage, bringing the cottage area to 1507 ft2 (140 m2) in total, plus decks. Because the addition would still fail to meet current setback standards, he requires an environmental assessment of the proposed works. Site Descri tion:

The cottage lot is located on the south shore of Loughborough Lake, approximately 2.6 km WNW of Latimer (Attachment l ). The lot is an undersized lot that was created in the past; additional lands have been added to the original parcel, and it now totals approximately O.47 acres (0. 19 ha) in size (see Attachment 2). The rear (southern) portion of the lot is characterized by deciduous tree cover, but is fragmented by cottage access roads/lanes (Attachment 2), while the original lot is significantly modified for residential purposes, with a cottage, decks and a partially hardened shoreline. Our focus was primarily on the original lot and the immediate area of the proposed addition.

The area immediately south of the existing cottage was excavated and leveled in 2012 for the installation of a holding tank (see Attachment 4). The proposed addition will be entirely within this Jeveled area. It now supports no natural vegetation cover, but has been converted to cultural use, leveled with covered pipes associated with the holding tank. The tank itself is located within this area, in the southeast corner of the cleared area.

A. Eco!ogical Land Classification

The area of the existing cottage and proposed addition are shown as Cultural (CU) in Attachment 3. The southern portion of the lot was not examined in detail, but has a dominant vegetation cover of deciduous woodland. The area is fragmented by existing driveways/lanes/private roads (indicated by broken white lines in Attachment 3). There

is also a gravel and bare soil CU area that is used by adjacent landowners for parking

Page 68 of 128

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

purposes. Site photographs are provided in Attachment 4. B. Slope The south shore of Loughborough Lake is characterized in this area by a fairly steep decline, falling from Cedar Ridges Lane (at approximately 147-48 m geodetic) to Sandpiper Lane (approximately 131 m geodetic) to approximately 125 m geodetic at lake level. On the subject lands, this slope was notable, and creates significant limitations in options for any alternative development design. See site photographs in Attachment 4. C. Surface Water Quality and Quantity

Water quality is sampled in several areas of Loughborough Lake, including three sites in the west basin (MOECC 2016). The closest sampling point, just off Davison Beach, recorded a Total Phosphorus (TP) level of 5.3 pg/L in April of 2012, but no other recent data have been collected or reported. We therefore examined data from Station 6512ID a short distance to the west. Here, there are more complete data, including a full season of sampling from 2015. TP levels ranged from a low of 5.1 pg/L in April to a high of 9.2 pg/L in September 2015, and can be taken to be indicative of water quality in the area of the subject property. TP is a measurement of nutrient loading in a water body. Lake scientists place lakes into three broad categories with respect to their nutrient status. Lakes with less that 10 pg/L TP are considered oligotrophic. These are dilute, unproductive lakes that rarely experience nuisance algal blooms. The west basin of Loughborough Lake should be considered to be oligotrophic, and this is consistent with

the presence of Lake Trout in the lake. Interestingly, the TP trend at this station from the data from 2002 to 2015 shows a modest but clear decline in the average concentration of TP in the lake over the thirteen year period (MOECC 2016), reflecting improving water quality. D. Setback Requirements

The development on the subject property does not meet modern setback requirements, but is “grandfathered” because it was legal at the time of its construction. The proposed addition will be to the rear of the cottage (away from the lake). Most importantly, the sewage from the cottage is collected in a holding tank, which ensures that it causes no nutrient loading to the lake. No septic system is proposed.

Is the Proposed Development: A. In a Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland? Adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland? The Loughborough Lake South wetland is the closest PSW wetland, and is located over l km from the subject parcel. B. In a Regionally Significant Wetland?

Adjacent to a Regionally Significant Wetland? C. In/adjacent to an Unevaluated Wetland? D. In an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest? Adjacent to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest?

E. In the habitat of Species at Risk?

Yes €[g No Yes [ No Yes €[Z No Yes XZ No Yes €[g No Yes Z Z No Yes €[Z No Yes €Z No

The location on the proposed addition is entirely cultural, and no species at risk were observed or are anticipated to occur in this area. 2

Page 69 of 128

Ecologica] Services: November 2, 2016

Environmental Site Eva?uation: Hackett

We also reviewed the Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) database, maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

(NHIC 2016). The site is located within a l -km" block of land; NHIC

provides information on sightings that have occurred within each UTM block, but the information is not location-specific due to the sensitivity of the inforrnation. In other words, the species reported may or may not have been observed on this specific parcel. NHIC reported no species at risk in either this block, or within the eight surrounding UTM blocks. Adjacent to habitat of Species at Risk?

Yes [E€ No

Although no species were reported by NHIC, the proximity of Loughborough Lake makes it reasonable to assume that some at risk species are or could be found in the adjacent lake. Blanding’s Turtles, for example, are a wide-ranging, threatened species that may be present in the lake.

Policy 2. 1 .7 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states that: “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial andfederal requirements,” and Policy 2. l .8 adds that “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features arid areas … urtless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the tzatural features or on their ecological functions.”

The location of the proposed addition is entirely cultural in natural, and it offers no natural habitat for native species, including species at risk. Given that the proposed addition is modest in size, and that it is proposed to extend out the rear of the existing cottage, away from the lake and entirely within a cultural area, it is our opinion that approval will result in no increased risk to any species at risk that may be present in Loughborough Lake.

Yes [J[E] No

F. In significant wildlife habitat?

The location on the proposed addition is entirely cultural, and it does not meet the criteria for identification of significant wildlife habitat (OMNR 2000, 2009, 2012).

Yes [:]€ No

Adjacent to significant wildlife habitat?

Although we did no detailed assessment, we consider it likely that Loughborough Lake would fulfil criteria that would deem it to be significant wildlife habitat. For example, areas of the lake may provide habitat for seasonal concentrations of animals, or habitat for species of conservation concern.

Our review of the NHIC database found no recorded species that are Endangered or Threatened. However, species of Special Concern or 3

Page 70 of 128

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

other species of conservation concern are given consideration under the PPS in assessing significant wildlife habitat. The NHIC database for the UTM square and the eight surrounding squares listed no species of Special Concern, but there wcre reports of other species of conservation concern. Without exception, the reports were greater than 30 years old, which makes them of limited relevance, but they are discussed briefly below.

Juniper Hairstreak: (Callophrys gryneus): This species is ranked as S2 (rare) in Ontario, but it is not listed as a species at risk or one of Special Concern under either the Species at Risk Act of Canada (SARA) or Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA). This was a generalized report from 1984, and was included in all nine of the UTM squares assessed. Juniper Hairstreak is a butterfly species found in old fields, bluffs, barrens, jumper woodlands, and cedar breaks, the adults feed on the nectar of a wide variety of wildflowers, but they rely upon Red Cedar and Juniper as caterpillar hosts. The proposed development site offers no observed habitat opportunity for either adults or caterpillars. Olney’s Grimmia Moss (Grimmia olneyir): This species is ranked as 82 (rare) in Ontario, but it is not listed as a species at risk or one of Special Concern under either SARA or the ESA. This was another generalized report that was listed in all nine of the UTM squares assessed. The NHIC observation dates from 1868, and requires no further consideration.

Bowman’s-root (Gillenia trifoliata): This species is ranked as SX in Ontario, and is considered to be extirpated in Ontario, with little likelihood of rediscovery. It is not listed as a species at risk or one of Special Concern under either SARA or the ESA. This was another generalized report that was listed in all nine of the UTM squares assessed. The NHIC observation dates from 1886, and requires no further consideration.

Brainerd’s Hawthorn (Crataegus brainerdii): This species is considered to be S3 (rare to uncommon) in Ontario. It is not listed as a species at risk or one of Special Concern under either SARA or the ESA. The species was not reported from the UTM square containing the subject property, but from two of the blocks to the south. The NHIC database has a number of sightings of Brainerd’s Hawthorn from the early 1 980s (these were from 1982). We note that Hawthorn taxonomic expert Dr. J.B. Phipps examined the Fowler Herbarium (at Queen’s University) specimens in detail in 2007. He ultimately discredited all herbarium specimens of C. brainerdii, determining that they should be correctly identified as C. succulenta, with the exception

of two specimens from Quebec. The herbarium now has no 4

Page 71 of 128

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

substantiated sample of C. brainerdii from the Kingston area. It is suggested that the NHIC inforrnation is likely based on unverified specimens, possibly from the Fovvler Herbarium. There are no hawthorn shrubs on the proposed development site, and the proposed addition will have no impact on this species. G. Within 120 m of a waterbody? The cottage is located on Loughborough Lake.

Yes [g€ No

H. In fish habitat?

Yes €tg No Yes Z€ No

Adjacent to ‘fish habitat? Loughborough Lake supports a wide range of fish species (e.g., Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Black Crappie, etc.), including stocked Lake Trout. The proposed addition to the cottage is to the rear of the existing structure. As the sewage is collected in a holding tank, the addition will not result in additional nutrient loading to the lake that might have an impact on fish habitat. No alteration to the shoreline is proposed. I. Adjacent to Highly or Moderately Sensitive Lake Trout Lake? The west basin of Loughborough Lake has been identified as a highly sensitive Lake Trout lake (MOE and MNR 1993, and Ontario 2006). This is because the naturally reproducing population of Lake Trout, if any remain, are threatened by water temperature and quality, and by over-harvesting. The lake is stocked annually (most recently in 2016) with Lake Trout (Ontario 2016). In managing the Lake Trout population, the province has introduced and continues to impose strict catch limits on the number of Lake Trout to reduce overharvesting of this species.

Yes [E]€ No

Increased nutrient loading is the most significant threat from development around the lake. Increased levels of phosphorus coincide with increased water an temperature, which in turn lowers dissolved oxygen levels in lake waters. Lake Trout require cold and oxygen-rich waters for their survival. Because the proponent has installed a holding tank to collect sewage, there is no nutrient loading to the lake; provided that the holding tank is maintained and regularly emptied, the proposed addition to the cottage will have no impact on water quality in Loughborough Lake. The municipality may wish to enter an agreement with the landowner to ensure that the holding tank is properly maintained.

Yes €[Z No Yes H Z No Yes €(Z No Yes €[g No

J. In a significant woodland?

Adjacent to a significant woodland? K. In a significant valleyland? Adjacent to a significant valleyland?

In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to

demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development? Yes 0[gl No s

Page 72 of 128

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

l

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

• It is recommended that the municipality enter into a Site Plan Agreement or another preferred mechanism to ensure that the holding tank on the subject property is appropriately maintained and pumped out. Contacts, References & Literature Cited:

Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity: Volume 2 - Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Completed as a partnership project between the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 344 pp. Online at: <http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/projects/conservation blueprint/Terr Vol2 final eversion.pdf>

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.

Lindsay, K.M. 1986. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scienti’fic Interest in Site District 6-9: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in Site District 6-9. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Richmond Hill. 71 pp.

Natural Heritage Information Center. 2016. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests, with species rarity rankings in Ontario, and inforrnation on reported element occurrences.

<http ://www. gi scoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUP S /NaturalHeritage/Viewet /Viewer.html >

Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Inland Lake Trout Management in Southeastern Ontario. 160 pp.

Ontario. 2016. Fish ON-line website provides lake-specific data (fish species and stocking efforts) from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. <http://www.web2.mnr.gov.on.ca/fish online/fishing/fishingExplorer en.html> Ontario. 2006. Inland Ontario Lakes Designated for Lake Trout Management. 53 pp. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2016. Data from the Lake Partners water quality sampling program is available online at: < https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-lake-partner> Ontario Ministiy of Natural Resources. 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule.

6

Page 73 of 128

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

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.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules: Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Working Draft. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 70 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Sciences Section. 139 pp., plus appendices.

Environmental Site Evaluation Completed By: Mary Alice Snetsinger Date of Site Inspection: October 7, 2016 Date of Report: November 2, 2016

S ignature : =I , i11

1. / l. i.,ia.%.

7

Page 74 of 128

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

k?b

aLy!

10

,f

-l

-l

4’? W

/

-la.,’->-7;:’=-=4:

A

O’

/

%

A

*,

-j!

( 11’ IY r? ‘%‘a * j)L-?

,* %

i;

r.’

,% I?j

/

!

b

r l l

kJ

Y /7’

7’l

“s?

l,?

ds?’

?l

l”

.1,

)‘Th

i

%

1

4

-l

‘i I

k

ll

i t?

k

r

l

t 7

e. ffi

f

g,‘4

4

W’%3

l

-l s?f

Attachment 1. Detail from topographic map Sydenham, 31 C/9, with the approximate location of the Hackett property indicated. J

r

i: /

-m

‘a

I

Q

{* 5r Fffi

Attachment 2. Approximate location of the subject property (in red) on satellite imagery. Base image from <frontenacmaps.ca>

8

Page 75 of 128

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

!i im ffl g

!I

l

%

4

I

l

9

Page 76 of 128

Environmental Site Evaluation: Hackett

Ecological Services: November 2, 2016

Attachment 4. Site photographs, taken by report author on October 7, 2016. I

r

(

1

l?m

(

iffi

Photo 1. View from parking area, looking down at the existing cottage, with a partial

tJ

%

Vl

t

!?

view of the excavated area.

th+.yk’.?

Note the original slope of the land, highlighted with a broken

q(1,

n’::.J

:i:Q:? ?

white line.

:t. =aA- ‘>’; W ’ ?’ a.’:N f

I’ il

,MTh

v

:

%!!

?

kd !Ji ffi5? ‘!%

r

t

,,7

!!’=<j

,jj-

‘aJb’

l Q

‘?

m

!

11

?

Photo 2. Another view looking down toward the cottage and the

%

{: ?Ql’l

Wl

=@s’.

&’

m

’m’aa’

?1

k:

excavated area where the

addition is proposed. The two

Y IY

sand-covered berm-like

l;11 11

structures indicate the location

of pipes feeding to the holding

s Hai

tank.

mm mmmms i

I

m

l

m

m mm

)%

I

lit

m

sm

s w

imm m i

m

fflai

4Q

‘%

mW mmm W

b

9:

/

!l?

?

W

%m

s

m

mm m

?

VQ<t’ ??’

e ‘AI

m

Q%;% W

g

s

4

W?

P

a.-art 11

K4 9 J

Photo 3. Taken at the level of

-?wal@

%. ff

‘??

<.

l

s &

%

““f ‘%* r. V

yt;’ ?.

J!

r?.

l

1

S

;S, ?av

‘9%

1

14

ft hW

as.

?%?!?,’.’

l

?2

4

i iJ

4"m

J

the proposed addition of the site in question The dark green cap on the far left of the levelled

area is the cap for the holding tank.

l*

10

Page 77 of 128

Page 78 of 128

Page 79 of 128

Page 80 of 128

Staff recommend denial of application MV-43-16-S based on our consideration for natural hazards, natural herltnge, and water heritage, mid nnturnl quality and qiaiantity protection water quality protection policies.

Please note that the entire property is subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, which is administered by the CRCA. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e. g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as ?ooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. Within a regulated area, written permission must be obtained from the CRCA prior to development takingplace. Please inform this of?ce of any decision made by the Committee with regard to this application. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 244, or by e-mail at aschmidt@crca.ca Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt, C. Tech. Development Review Manager

c.c.

Ronald James Hackett, 1001 Sandpiper Lane, Inverary, ON, KOH 1X0 Lindsay Mills, Planner, Township of South Frontenac (Via email)

Page 3 of 3

Page 81 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 13, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-08-17-B Kevin and Harriet Cove Concession 6, Part Lot 32, Island Drive Lane, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary Section 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: March 9, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be deferred.

BACKGROUND This item was originally brought to the Committee in March, 2017 but was deferred pending receipt of a report from KFL&A public health. The subject land consists of a 0.38 +/- acres with frontage on Bobs Lake. The lot is currently developed with a 100 square foot storage shed, a 10 square foot outhouse, and a 100 square foot deck with attached drawbridge style dock. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing storage shed and the construction of 25 ft. by 30 ft. (750 square foot) two story seasonal dwelling to be located a minimum of 55 feet from the high water mark (HWM) of Bob’s Lake. Also proposed is the construction of an 8 ft. by 16 ft. (128 square foot) storage shed to be located a minimum of 120 feet from the HWM and the construction of a gravelled 30 foot by 50 foot parking area to be located along the eastern edge of the property. The proposed location for the septic system is a minimum of 90 feet from the HWM. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Page 82 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objections to the proposal provided the best management practices in the attached report dated February 23, 2017 are followed. Comments from the building department have yet to be received. KFL&A Public Health have no objections as a septic permit application has been submitted by the applicant. Comments from roads were not required.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the demolition of the existing storage shed and the construction of a 750 square foot two (2) story dwelling to be located a minimum of 55 feet from the high water mark of Bob’s Lake.
2. Minor variance MV-08-17-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Cove Property RVCA Report Dated February 23, 2017.

Submitted/approved by: Jennie Kapusta

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 83 of 128

µ 306 Island Drive Lane N LA IS

D

DR

E IV

LA

COVE MV-08-17-B

NE

Legend Cove Property Proposed Cove Cottage Proposed Shed Proposed Gravel Parking Area Existing Buildings

Proposed Cottage

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 84 of 128

307 Island Drive Lane

Scale 1:375

Bobs Lake 0

1.75 3.5

7

10.5

14 Meters

UTM Projection NAD 83

KI:

Public Health REQUESTSFOR COMMENTS

Environmental Health Department 1130 Elizabeth Street Sharbot Lake, Ontario KOH2P0 (613) 279-2151

Fa:jgj32)527;;§37;97 http://www.kf|apublichealth.ca

To;

Application Number: Type of Application

or Proposal:

Applicant Name(s):

Mr. Lindsay Mills Secretary—Treasurer,Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON 2T0 MV—08—17B

Minor Variance

Cove, Kevin & Harriet

Locatlom

Lot 32, Concession 6, Bedford District 305 Island Drive

Planning Department or Agency:

Township of South Frontenac (Bedford)

Comments:

KFL&APublic Health has no objections to the proposed minor variance as the owner has submitted an application under permit number BE-2-17.

Inspector:

Date:

April 10, 2017

PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DECISIONTO KFL&APUBLIC HEALTH. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code Act, and will be used for the administration of Public Health programs. Any questions about the collection of this information should be directed to the Manager of Environmental Health, KFL&APublic Health, 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5, (613)549-1232 ext. 1243 or 17800-267-7875.

Page 85 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: March 2, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-09-17-L Jeremy and Mary Clarke Concession 12, Lot/Part Lot 10, Salmon Lake Road, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 8.3.1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: March 9, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND This application was originally brought to the Committee in March, 2017 but was deferred until the studies requested by Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority could be completed. After the applicants revised their application to remove the covered deck, the CRCA revised their comments and now have no objections to the application. The subject land consists of a 1.3 +/- acres with frontage on Pearkes Lake. The lot is currently developed with a 598 square foot seasonal dwelling with attached 180 square foot deck located approximately 5 feet from the high water mark of Pearkes Lake. The proposal is for the reconstruction and raising of the existing roof by 7 feet to create a vaulted ceiling but not add any living space or a second story. The proposal also includes extending the new roof line over the existing 180 square foot deck. As part of the reconstruction of the roofline the applicant has requested to remove and reconstruct the living room walls and floor to accommodate the new roof trusses. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Residential Waterfront (RW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Page 86 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) are recommending deferral of this application and that South Frontenac request the applicant to complete two (2) engineering studies to appropriately address potential flooding and erosion risks. The CRCA recommends that the applicant be advised to retain the services of a qualified professional engineer to undertake a floodplain analysis and an erosion study to detail the extent of these hazards and provide recommendations to address the hazards if necessary. Furthermore, they have indicated that they currently do not have enough information for a CRCA permit application to be considered under the current Regulation, which would be required for the proposed works. The above noted studies will be required in order to complete the application for a permit from the CRCA. Without this permit a Township building permit could not be issued. The building department has no objections. As no new entrance was required and there is no increase in living space proposed, comments from the Public Works department and KFL&A Public Health were not required.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the removal and reconstruction of the existing roofline to increase the overall height of a seasonal dwelling to a maximum of 18 feet (to the peak) provided no additional living space, loft area or second story is created. This variance also permits a 180 square foot expansion of the roof structure to provide cover for an exterior deck and the removal and reconstruction of the living room walls to accommodate the new roof trusses.
2. Minor variance MV-09-17-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Clarke Property

Submitted/approved by: Jennie Kapusta

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta Page 87 of 128

SA

LM O

N

LA K

E

RO AD

µ

CLARKE MV-09-17–L

Legend

6378 Salmon Lake Road

Clarke Property Clarke Roofline Expansion

6406 Salmon Lake Road

Existing Buildings

Proposed Expansion

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 88 of 128

Pearkes Lake Scale 1:400 0

2

4

8

12

UTM Projection NAD 83

16 Meters

Page 89 of 128

Ms. Jennie Kapusta (MV—O9-17-L) March 3, 2017

Natural Hazards Flooding: The CRCA does not have ?oodplain mapping for Elbow Lake. However, due to the close proximity of the building to the lake (approximately 1.5 metres) and the low-lying nature of the shoreline in the area where the structure is located, staff are concerned that the building may be located I-Il.lEl.I.HI.I1IEI -1ElE’LHII’JJH1I?EIPDJ.IZLH1H’.lI.HlEI¥I.E’.’lJ1LwLQ:|‘IIJ.EI?‘J ?ood plain of the lake and therefore, within an area of potential ?ood risk. HI:I.’|.i-:r.5E-LI!” within the Section 5.2.3 of rH:nllr?nILpld:uTh:hhn:1lln’rEn.rHh:munuTp.?:d.i.£?ndrii. llr|}l]5adEbl.jhlld?r-’?.;n:?.:dd:IEn’:hn?.I3mIE’hpn’ntdnHm-ti the Of?cial Plan suggests that development and site alterations shall not be permitted within de?ned |:::|.::I:|’|’:|’:|:::|:I::uh.i’::|:.I:I:£u::I:|’,&.r of the one in one hundred year ?ood plain. Further, Section 5.2.3(e) suggests that in the portions |”’.|:1I:I’.!-::n.:nl.#’=Ij:I:|u.j?’.I:rr.‘h.I n’|‘l.:tI’.|.nd LI.—’:| ?ood plain Ihlltl: H.II’.I’I’?’|‘I’I’.? absence of detailed inrul where a ?ooding hazard is mapping, and suspected, Council, in I l.|.q’|.:I.I:I_|I’.I’.:I’.:l|rr. I:|’d’I’|’‘II.‘H’I’Ih" consultation the local with that detail the Conservation Authority, will require a extent of any proponent ITfl|1?‘3?i*?T!H?HTJiH’?’t?-?5i:?’l}.F3|FiJl?11IIFIJFl-1I1Il7 ?I|!‘IEIi|.|HlI|I:I1’?.§r H:.:HI1|lHI?IEuJ’dIHiI£‘I?‘I:I!’lln-I’nILIunIEh?IIEIl:IL hazard lands and outlines a number of measures that must be addressed. ‘.|‘I|I|I’:l’|IE|:I.-If’:Ir.III:I:|.i-:Ir.I.|T’.h.The intent of this section of the ?ood Plan that risk. Of?cial is development is subject ensure to to By increasing the habitable not WP:.lr.LIII.|1.I|:|hIh’|‘E‘.;-1-D-£1ll’.’l-?’.‘ILl||:F.I.!E|rL*. hngjrmlhhluln-?utnn’i:‘phu.d&:r.?h’pm1hnI.jI:1whuhr%dB:u1:tu1 living space within the structure, the potential for risk to people and property is increased if the structure u’l1E::|:r.:-.’.h.l:’l:u::|:I$.:|n1|la.nt:I.|:. is within an area that is susceptible to ?ooding. Stajf recommend that the proponent be advised to retain the services of a quali?ed professional engineer to undertake a floodplain analysis to detail the extent of flooding hazard and provide recommendations to address the hazard if necessary. Erosion: The CRCA de?nes the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance of 3 (horizontal): 1 (vertical) for till shorelines, plus an erosion access allowance of 6 metres. Due to the close proximity of the building to the lake and since staff observed that the structure appears to be founded on till, staff are concerned that the building is located within the stable slope allowance and therefore, within an area of potential erosion risk. Section 5.2.4 of the Of?cial Plan suggests that development will be directed away from lands and may be subject to shoreline erosion hazards. By increasing the habitable living space within the structure, the potential for risk to people and property is increased if the structure is within an area that is susceptible to erosion. 7-

V

.r‘,__-

Stajf recommend that the proponent be advised to retain the services of a qualified professional engineer to undertake an erosion study to detail the extent of the erosion hazard and provide recommendations to address the hazard ifnecessary. Ontario Regglation 148/06 The CRCA, under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development,. Interferencewith Wetlands, and TIIl|3|‘|.|E5.I’|.|.£r1Il|Il:|‘H’|-EE|.I!-illlll-:ID’.1Ii’|II!I Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, regulates development within 15 metres of a valley land. .dlb?|$uH3In’rh—@Hrlh¥nu1n’.mpl?nh1?.?III.riEm|5u?’ndL1?h3’Ln£ ‘1"|rnrI-It-Ilrll-I1-r-HH-E.-r-llnrrjrrll-Irrr-I1-|rI’|l1—Ifrr I‘-I.-I-I.–I-I.I-I-I-’l-I.-ll-i-’|-I ll-I-I-I-I.I-I-|‘Ih 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 ?ooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. The valley of Elbow Lake is considered to extendinland to the top of the slope. Therefore, a CRCA pennit will be required for the proposed development. The applicant will be required to contact the undersigned at the building pennit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 148/06.

J.7|3|-q-|5|g:-rn1J..’|1-hf:-r-I.-In-| 1=Il"11’|5n-Ii-..n1’

Presently, stajf do not have enough information for a permit application to be considered under the studies be completed for a permit Regulation. CRCA guidelines require that the aforementioned application to be considered complete. Staffnote that since the Regulation is ‘other applicable law’ under the Ontario Building Code, a building permit cannot be issued until a CRCA permit is issued under the Regulation.

Page 2 of 3

Page 90 of 128

|:I|.::I.’:|;::l.I.:I’iI’n:hI.I5|’.’::i:= 5-:I:ItI.:|E2-:|‘lh|:F’rI.rr15.I.‘3n|.iI:.I3tt=.:::| Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to !.:::I’E|.r.?:.’.:E:|l.’|’.‘E:I.|’.|".:r.:I:II|’.:I’:I’q quantity 1I’:It::l.:::|:I’n’.’n:r1’i’:lh:q=Ihhrl’:|m.¢‘h|’:|I"n’?n’. the Of?cial Plan and Zoning of water. Accordingly, protect, improve or restore the quality and flu: 5* -In I1—Iu By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect –to I-2how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. Similarly, the CRCA’s Planning Policy (April, 2015) contains provisions that seek to support these objectives. I:uIjI–

njnln

jlz–2|-I-j-—

J1—‘Ij:

-Iuxf?

‘.’l-::h:I’.E-.L1’h?I|n1'1ID’fLu.|LPh1u]:jn1?I’n:tlllhl:tl’|d@’:I’-11.:tI.ubnEn’n-bl Section 5.2.7 b)(i) of the Of?cial Plan suggests a 30 metre setback and requires that this buffer area be maintained as a natural vegetative buffer strip adjacent to the water’s edge to ?lter pollutants from rub-rlturruu?nl-.?nru?Im1;|lq.I:l1a1:Hi’nlii1’lmHtIFflnlnhTn I’I.I’I-:I|’|’ -*1-?‘ri:i1b15’.=5-H1H?.!i’[|;I-Jilin:-I£d1|:B=:rLJFrtt!!-HE runoff. Additionally, Section 5.8.2 (1.) of the Zoning By-Law for South Frontenac Township suggests PI‘-:-ml-I:i-:-T-I-I-‘I:?’.|.|I-.?-l:I that a 30 metre setback from the high water mark is required to be maintained as a buffer in order to lhJin1Ju’:-’l’n-n1_LirnJM’hI:nl?J.’:mJI-LE-J.Eu’£nI.:I:|-::h protect water quality.

the CRCA Similarly, Planning Policy recommends that new development and site alteration, including “-’-rrrl’:—I—-I-I-I-I:l’-I-r —l-I-I-I.-I-I-. rI-lseptic system tile ?elds and open or enclosed decks/patios attached to the main dwelling, be set back a —–I’-IZIf—fI?f—jI’uf—‘J’ distance of 30 metres from the high water mark of a waterbody. minimum ,

.

-~

"

Since the development proposal takes place on the footprint of an existing building, it is not anticipated that there will be impacts to water quality. However, if approved, staffrecommend that roofrunoffbe directed away fromthe lake. Recommendation Staff recommend deferral of application MV-09-17-L, and that the Township request the applicant to provide the engineering studies outlined above in order to appropriately address potential ?ooding and erosion risks.

r.r.r|rg.–.|-.urunning-dg.:pmn.:ah}mr.-Q-mnu.nr.I.q-nnrm:-111r ¢|..un;‘a_a

JI-u Please notify this of?ce of any decision made by the Committee of Adjustment with regard to this application. If you have any -questions,please contact Andrew Schmidt at (613) 546-4228 extension 244 Irfht_i’u?H:I}?l5??.Hbh1??lI&?i?I3ih??II:?’.1}51?11HuF:ui?.Hi email or by m-J? at L aschmidt@crca.ca. I.Ir 5:.

Yours truly,

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager /as e.c.

Jeremy and Mary Clarke, 1036 Birch Point Lane, Sydenham, ON, KOH 2T0 Lindsay Mills, Planner, Township of South Frontenac (Via email)

Page 3 of 3

Page 91 of 128

Jennie Kapusta From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Andrew Schmidt aschmidt@crca.ca March-15-17 2:14 PM Jennie Kapusta Lindsay Mills; Jeremy Clarke MV-09-17-L - Additional CRCA Comments Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 5.59.41 AM.PNG; Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 6.09.47 AM.PNG; Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 6.09.56 AM.PNG

Hello Jennie. I met with Mr. & Mrs. Clarke yesterday to discuss their minor variance application. It is my understanding that the proposal has changed in the sense that only a portion of the rooftop will be elevated and the deck will not have a roof over it as shown in the attached drawings. The Clarke’s also informed me that the structure will not contain a second storey (floor), and that the proposal is to make a vaulted ceiling in the section having the raised roofline. Since the development proposal does not involve additional living space being added to the dwelling, CRCA staff have no objection to the revised application for minor variance. Please note that the building lies within an area that is regulated under Ontario Regulation 148/06. Therefore, a CRCA permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Clarke’s have been informed of this requirement. Please contact me if you have any questions or require anything further.

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority 1641 Perth Road, PO Box 160, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 Phone: (613) 546-4228 ext. 244 - Fax: (613) 547-6474 Toll Free for Area code (613): 1-877-956-2722 Visit us on the web: www.crca.ca www.cleanwatercataraqui.ca www.cataraquitrail.ca Follow us on:

1

Page 92 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 6, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

S-07-17-L Robert Smith Concession 1, Lot/Part Lot 4, Stagecoach Road, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Consent to create a new lot Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the consent application to create a new residential lot be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 15 +/- acres with frontage on Stagecoach Road. The lot is developed with a 1,550 square foot dwelling, presently under construction. The proposal is for the creation of a new 5.0 +/- acre residential lot. The retained parcel is proposed to be 10 +/- acres in size and will contain the existing structure. The planning department is able to support the application for a new lot as the proposal meets the minimum requirements for new lot creation as per the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75. Current Zoning: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS The Public Works department has visited the site and have no objections to the application. They have indicated that the lot is low and may experience flooding. They recommend a ditch created around any proposed house after completion of construction. The building department has no objections. Comments from KFL&A Public Health have yet to be received.

CONDITIONS

1. An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], and the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands shall be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of one year [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].

Page 93 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2. The land to be severed by Consent Application S-07-17-L shall be for the creation of a 5.0 +/acre lot with a minimum of 76m of frontage along Stagecoach Road. 3. 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 stamping of the deeds.) 4. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the property being severed, and the retained property, they be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment and that this work be accomplished prior to the stamping of the deeds. 5. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the new parcel in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1)]. 6. The surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in condition #1 shall also determine by survey the width of the public road abutting the severed and retained lands measured from the centre line of the traveled portion of the road to the lot line of the owner’s property. If such width is less than 33 ft., the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed and/or retained lands as the case may be in the following manner: a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 33 ft. 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 stamping of the deeds; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the name 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 stamping of Deeds.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Smith Property

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta Page 94 of 128

µ SMITH S-07-17-S EC AG ST

Legend

OA

Retained Parcel

CH

Smith Property

RO AD

Smith Proposed Lot 3250 Stagecoach Road

3242 Stagecoach Road

Proposed New Lot

2790 Orser Road Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 95 of 128

Scale 1:2,301 0

10

20

40

60

80 Meters

UTM Projection NAD 83

.

KFL&A Public Health

C NSENT T0 SEVE R O

http://www.kflapubIichealth.ca

EnvironmentalHealth Department File Number:

Receipt Number:

S-07-17-L

SK-9-2017

Owner(s):

Smith, Rob Ward / Former Township: Loughborough

Municipality: Township of South Frontenac Concession: 1

Lot:

Part(s):

Registered Plan:

Plan of Subdivision:

Sublet:

13R-11179

General Description (existing buildings, surface features, slopes, site services for water and sewage, etc)

Severed:

-flat open ?eld, dug well near back of property line

Soil type, depth and water table on each part of potential leaching bed areas. Indicate water table with bar. Show estimated permeability (good, fair, poor) for each part where natural soil is acceptable.

Retained

Depth of Soil

Severed Top Soil

N/A

0.0 m 03 m 0.6 m 0.9 m 1.2 m 1.5 m

Shale/Rock

Percolation rate (estimated):

Percolation rate (estimated):

NOTE: the approval of any new lot is based on its suitability to provide an area for a Class 4 septic tank system for an average 3 bedroom home. Approval to build a larger home on this lot will be subject to availability of suf?clent area for a larger septic tank system.

Suitability for on-site sewage disposal:

I7

Satisfactory

l_

Unsatisfactory

[7

Site Flexible

-Soilconditions found on the lot will require additional suitable granular soil to construct a sewage disposal system. Speci?c requirements for additional soil will be indicated on an Application to Construct a Sewage System prior to site development. -The proposed lot is capable of providing flexibility in siting a sewage disposal system, dependent on the proposal submitted through an Application to

I”

Site Spe cific

Construct a Sewage System.

SEVERED

RETAINED

Conditions:

Conditions:

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Site Flexible Site Speci?c

Inspector:

Miranda lezzi

CPHl(C), Public Health Inspector

Approved:

“l

!_/

Date: l_

April 11, 2017

PLEASEFORWARD A COPY OF THE NOTICEOF DECISIONTO KFL&APUBLICHEALTH. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code Act, and will be used for the administration of PublicHealt programs. Any questions about the collection of this information should be directed to the Manager of Environmental Health, KFL&APublic h Health, 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, Ontario K7M1V5, (613) 549-1232 ext. 1243 or 1-800-267-7875.

Page 96 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 6, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-10-17-S Robert & Kellie Revell Concession 2, Lot/Part Lot 14, 4462 Arthur Court Lane, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 10.3.1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: March 9, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 1.12 +/- acres with frontage on Loughborough Lake (West Basin). The lot is currently developed with a 2000 square foot footprint dwelling, including attached decks, located approximately 20m (66 feet) from the high water mark of Loughborough Lake, and two (2) detached accessory buildings, a 1000 square foot footprint structure located approximately 40m and a 640 square footprint structure located approximately 49m from the high water mark of Loughborough Lake. The proposal is for the raising of the existing roofline to permit a second story (900 square feet floor space approximately) addition with a finished height to peak of 25 feet maximum. This addition will contain four (4) bedrooms and a living area but no additional bathrooms. The applicant has opted to go up rather than out given the fact the existing dwelling already encompasses the allowed 5% lot coverage. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Residential Waterfront (RW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes Page 97 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) has no objections to the proposal as submitted based on their consideration for natural hazard, natural heritage and water quality policies. They have indicated that a permit will be required for the proposed works should the variance be approved. The performance review has determined that the existing septic system will need to be upgrade to handle the increased square footage. The applicant is currently working with the KFL&A health unit on this permit application. The building department has no objections to the proposal.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the raising of the existing roofline to a maximum finished height to peak of 25 feet to permit a second story addition for an increase in living space.
2. Minor variance MV-10-17-S is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Revell Property

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 98 of 128

µ REVELL MV-10-17-S

4444 Arthur Court Lane

Loughborough Lake

Legend Revell Buildings

Revell Cottage

Revell Property

4462 Arthur Court Lane

A

R HU RT

CO

T UR

N LA

E

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 99 of 128

Scale 1:614 0

3

6

12

18

UTM Projection NAD 83

24 Meters

Page 100 of 128

Page 101 of 128

Page 102 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 6, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-11-17-P Sandra Reynolds Concession 12, Lot/Part Lot 6, Desert Lake Road, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 7.3.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM and a reduction in exterior side yard setback Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 52.12 +/- acres with frontage on McGuire Lake. Approximately 28 acres of the property is wetland area, with a further 2.5 acres as a registered hydro easement. The lot is currently developed with a 475 square foot storage building. The proposal is for construction of a 36 foot by 26 foot dwelling to be located a minimum of 15m (50 feet) from the wetland edge and a minimum of 12 feet from the exterior side lot line along the unopened road allowance. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. Given the layout and extensive nature of the wetland along with the topography of the remaining land on this lot there is limited area for construction. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

Page 103 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Quinte Conservation Authority has visited the site and has no objections to the proposal as submitted. They have indicated that the proposed construction is within the regulated area and a permit will be required for all works within 120m of the edge of the unnamed wetland. KFL&A public health has no objections to the application. The building department has no objections.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a maximum 950 square foot footprint (including decks) dwelling to be constructed a minimum of 15m (50 feet) from the wetland edge and a minimum of 12 feet from the exterior side yard along the unopened road allowance.
2. Minor variance MV-11-17-P is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Quinte Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Reynolds Property

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 104 of 128

µ HOW ES L AKE

REYNOLDS MV-11-17-P

E LAN

Legend Reynolds Property

Proposed Cottage

Reynolds Proposed Dwelling Existing Buildings Wetlands

DESERT

A LAKE RO

D

4227 Desert Lake Road

4310 Desert Lake Road

4261 Desert Lake Road

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 105 of 128

Scale 1:1,594 0 5 10

20

30

40 Meters

UTM Projection NAD 83

‘

Environmental Health Department 221 Portsmouth Avenue

KF.

Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5

REQUESTSr-onCOMMENTS

To;

Fa:‘f‘(‘;‘j:,,2) http://www.kflapublichealth.ca 557‘;;f‘777538

Jennie Kapusta, Planning Assistant Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON, KOH2T0

Application Number:

MV—11-17-P

Type of Application or Proposal:

Minor Variance

Applicant Name(s):

Reynolds, Sandra

Location:

Concession 12, Lot 6, Desert Lake Road

Planning Department or Agency:

Township of South Frontenac (Portland)

Comments:

Inspector: Date:

No objections to proposed minor variance

Miranda lezzi,

ublic

Health Inspector

April 08, 2016

PLEASEFORWARD A COPYOF THE NOTICEOF DECISIONTO KFL&APUBLICHEALTH. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code Act, and will be used for the administration of Public Health programs. Any questions about the collection of this information should be directed to the Manager of Environmental Health, KFL&APublic Health, 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5, (613)549-1232 ext. 1243 or 1~800-267-7875.

Page 106 of 128

QC File No. PL0044-2017

QUINTE CONSERVATION - PLANNING ACT REVIEW Municipality:

Township of South Frontenac

Owner:

Sandra Reynolds

Location:

Desert Lake Road (east side of Howes Lake Lane)

Roll #:

1029-080-050-15310-0000

Application Description:

Minor Variance MV-11-17-P 

Legislative Review:

 

Feature:

Part Lot 6, Concession 12

Portland

Variance to allow for a 15 metre setback from the wetland, and a 3.7 metre setback from the road allowance in order to construct a new dwelling on a rural lot.

Planning Act - Natural hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Quinte Conservation Planning Act Review policy Ontario Regulation #319/09 (Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Quinte Region Source Protection Plan

Unnamed wetland

No objection to the application as presented.

Comments:

The subject lands lie within the regulated area of an unnamed wetland. Please note that the owners will need to apply to the Conservation Authority for a permit prior to development (construction / filling/ excavation/ site grading) within 120 metres of the wetland boundary.

Author & Date:

April 6, 2017 Sam Carney, Technical Admin. Assistant Page 107 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 10, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-12-17-B Penelope Stavrakos-Gajdacs Concession 4, Lot/Part Lot 25, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 7.3.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM and a reduction in exterior side yard setback Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 0.9 +/- acres with frontage on Bobs Lake. The lot is currently developed with a 900 square footprint seasonal dwelling located 14.5m from the high water mark (HWM) of Bob’s Lake. The proposal is for construction of an approximately 565 square foot deck on the water side of the existing cottage. The original proposal asked to reduce the setback to the HWM to 11.7m from 14.5m. Initial conversations with Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) by the applicant indicated the RVCA would not be in support of any further encroachment to the HWM; as such the applicant has submitted a revised plan where no part of the proposed deck encroaches farther into the setback that then current structure. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

Page 108 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Rideau Valley Conservation has indicated that provided there is no further encroachment into the already reduced setback (14.5m) than that of the existing cottage then they have no objections to the application. They have some Best Management Practices which are to be included on the site plan agreement including, no grade changes or excavation for deck (allowing minor disturbance for sono tubes or the like), access to the water shall be via a modest pedestrian path or stairway, to a single point at the shore and no other disturbance shall be undertaken between the cottage and water. Comments were not required from roads or public health. The building department has no objections.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a maximum 565 square foot footprint deck to be constructed a minimum of 14.5m from the high water mark of Bob’s Lake.
2. Minor variance MV-12-17-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Gajdacs Property

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 109 of 128

µ GAJDACS MV-12-17-B

Legend

Proposed Deck

Gajdacs Cottage Gajdacs Proposed Deck Gajdacs Property

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

Subject Property

Bobs Lake

Bobs Lake

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

Page 110 of 128

Scale 1:640 0

3.25 6.5

13

19.5

UTM Projection NAD 83

26 Meters

t Vacant Lo ures t c u r t S o N Woodland

19 M

KFL&A Approved 4.4 M x 4.38 M Leaching Pit Area

Woodland surrounds cottage

Vacant Lot No Structures Woodland

7M

30 M

slope

2 PART

3Mx 2.4M Garden Shed

14.1 M

3M

1.2 M wide ground deck

2.1 M wide ground deck

3.548 M 2.338 M

2.1 M

1.2 M ground deck

10 M

14.5 M 14.5 M

9M 10 M stairs

30 M

5M

14.5 M 14.5 M

Shallow water inlet drys out as water level drops

30 M

Deck Legend

Vacant Lot No Structures Woodland

Elevated Deck Stairs Ground level walk around Deck

Page 111 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 7, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-13-17-L Janet Brough Concession 6, Lot/Part Lot 4, 2810 Alton Road East, District of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.24.2 and section 7.3.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 3.91 +/- acres with frontage on Alton Road East. The lot is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and two detached accessory buildings. The proposal is for the construction of a 26 foot by 40 foot (1040 square foot footprint) detached garage to be located in front of the principal dwelling and a minimum of 25 feet from the front property line. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Comments were not required from roads, public health or conservation. The building department has no objections.

Page 112 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a maximum 1040 square foot footprint detached accessory building to be constructed a minimum of 25 feet from the front property line of 2810 Alton Road East.
2. Minor variance MV-13-17-L is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Brough Property

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 113 of 128

µ BROUGH MV-13-17-L

ROSEDALE ROAD

Legend Brough Existing Buildings Brough Property Brough Proposed Garage

4617 Rosedale Road

2810 Alton Road East 2784 Alton Road East

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

ALTON ROAD E

Page 114 of 128

2811 Alton Road East

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

2787 Alton Road East

Scale 1:1,139 0

5

10

20

30

40 Meters

UTM Projection NAD 83

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 7, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-14-17-B Sally Muzik Concession 2, Lot/Part Lot 21, 25 Morton Point Lane, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 10.3.1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 1.24 +/- acres with frontage on Bob’s Lake and Morton Point Lane. The lot is currently developed with a 760 square foot footprint dwelling with an attached 400 square foot deck located approximately 6 feet from the high water mark of Bobs Lake, plus a 200 square foot detached garage located 7 feet from the HWM and a 120 square foot shed located 10 feet from the HWM of Bob’s Lake. The proposal is for the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a 960 square foot dwelling to be located a minimum of 30 feet from the HWM of Bob’s Lake. This proposed structure will be raised to accommodate a crawlspace for utilities and new foundation. A new septic system is proposed to be located on the south side of Morton Point Lane in order to minimize impact on the lake. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township.

FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Limited Service Waterfront Residential (RLSW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes Page 115 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority have no objection the application as submitted. They have recommended several best management practices to be incorporated into the site plan agreement, including re-establishment of the waterfront vegetative buffer in front of the new structure except for a pedestrian access path to the dock/water. Comments have yet to be received from KFL&A public health. Comments were not required from roads. The building department has no objections.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a maximum 960 square foot footprint dwelling with a crawlspace underneath, no living space permitted, to be constructed a minimum of 30 feet from the high water mark of Bob’s Lake.
2. Minor variance MV-14-17-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Muzik Property RVCA comments

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 116 of 128

µ

Fish Creek

O M

O RT

N

PO

T IN

N LA

MUZIK MV-14-17-B

E

Legend Muzik Property Muzik Proposed Cottage Existing Buildings

Proposed Cottage

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 117 of 128

Scale 1:614 0

3

6

12

18

UTM Projection NAD 83

24 Meters

RIDEAUVALLEY

3889 RideauValley Drive,R0. Box 599, Manotick,ON Kw 1A5 tel 613-692-3571 | 1-ECO-267-3504| fax 613692-0831 I www.rvca.ca

April 5, 2017

17-SFR-MV-Bed Township of South Frontenac Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2T0

Attention: Lindsay Mills

Subject:

Muzik Minor Variance Application MV-14-17-B in Part Lot 21 Concession 2, South Frontenac-Bedford Ward- 25 Mortons Point Lane (Bob’s Lake- Green Bay)

Dear Mr. Mills: Further to our site visit, the RVCA offers the following comments for redevelopment of this lot as it relates to:

Section 2.1 Natural Heritage (wetlands) and 3.1 Natural Hazards (?ood and erosion hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Waterfront setbacks and best management practices and “Site Evaluation Guidelines” derived from the “Rideau Lakes Study”(1993); the Rideau Lakes Study considers the effects of development on phosphorous loading and the protection of recreational water quality on waterbodies within the Upper Rideau watershed. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority regulations under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, Tay Subwatershed Report- Bobs Lake catchment summary.

Our review for development/redevelopment looks to address waterfront disturbance and development setbacks to preclude/limit nutrient (phosphorus) and sediment input to our lakes in order to protect recreational water quality. Maintaining existing setbacks and/or advocating for increased water setbacks based on site conditions, lake sensitivity and planning standards set out in the Zoning By Law and Official Plan of the Township are key considerations in this regard.

The Proposal The application proposes to demolish the existing 71 square metre cottage, the 18.4 square metre garage and 11 square metre shed and the cottage’s attached deck, all within 30 metres of the high water mark of Bobs Lake and replace with a one-storey 89 square metre cottage, with crawlspace at

Page 1 of 3

Page 118 of 128

,

a greater setback from the lake (approximate 5 metre water setback increase). intent to reconstruct a deck at the front of the proposed cottage.

The plan shows no

A new septic system is to be installed on the cleared level area to the rear of the right-of-way, greater than 30 metres from the water. The current parking area is also to remain in this area of the lot, to the rear of the right-of—way.

The Property and Site Conditions

Roughly the front half of the site is low lying. Grades are very limited at and around the cottage site, rising slightly from the shoreline to the right-of—way. Our mapping (attached) indicates that the 1:100 year flood hazard (163.07 geodetic) extends upland over the portion of the lot currently occupied by the deck at the front of the existing cottage.

The site has been cleared of forest from the water to the rear half of the lot, at which point the topography jumps 4-5 metres to higher ground and where native forest cover has been left undisturbed.

Soil cover is limited and drainage restricted due to the low lying nature of the front portion of the lot. Progressing to the south, drainage improves as grades increase away from the lake. There are no provincially significant wetlands in the immediate vicinity which would impede the redevelopment of this lot. From a more general perspective, our recent Tay Subwatershed Report and Bob’s Lake Catchment Reporfindicates that West Basin may be characterized as a lake with clear waters and moderate nutrient levels. The lake generally has good aesthetics for recreational use. While the lake is generally considered to be healthy, there is a potential for it to be impacted by increased nutrient loading which may result in increased aquatic vegetation and algal blooms, particularly as the season progresses (see our website wvvw.rvca.cafor the full report). Discussion and Recommendations The proposed redevelopment as we understand it, will increase the total square footage of the cottage by approximately 20%. The re-orientation of the proposed cottage as may be possible given the encroaching right-of-way, will provide for an increased setback from water. The removal of the existing deck, shed and garage will reduce the structural development and “hardened surface” area occupying the waterfront of the lake and provide for more opportunity to control, slow and in?ltrate roof runoff from the new structure, thereby potentially limiting nutrient and sediment load from reaching the lake. The new structure is to be raised to accommodate a crawlspace under the cottage, we recommend that the elevation of the underside of the cottage be at least 163.37 metres geodetic (163.07 +0.3 metres) such that there is no ?ood hazard concern for the new structure; Bob’s Lake is not yet under regulation and no permit is required under our Ontario Regulation 174-06 but we strongly recommend that regard be had to set the cottage main floor safely above ?ood hazard.

The new septic system, particularly if it provides for Level 4 treatment and has regard for the high ground water conditions and ?ood hazard, will reduce potential for phosphorous, nitrogen and pathogen input to the lake. Page 2 of3

Page 119 of 128

Given the scale of redevelopment and considering the removal of garage, shed and decking within the water setback area, the RVCA has no objection to the project as proposed, with the following best management practices included in the site approval; Surface and roof runoff management shall be implemented by directing runoff from eaves trough placement and outlets to the rear of the site (and away from well and septic) to provide maximum in?ltration of roof runoff. In?ltration pits along with rain barrels should be incorporated in the site plan. Site runofflsediment controls be placed on the “water” side of construction as may be necessary (straw bales andlor sediment fencing) to the satisfaction of the Building Of?cial prior to commencement of work and remain in place and in good working order until the site is stable (soil and vegetation cover is restored). Confirmation that no grade changes will result as part of the site re-development.

Re~establishment of the waterfront vegetative buffer except for the pedestrian access path to the docklwater (we have forwarded a Shoreline Naturalization brochure to the owner to potentially assist with additional site plantings). This will assist in controlling the drift of sediment and nutrient, particularly phosphorous, to the lake. An extensive and stable vegetation buffer will aid in protecting the lakes water quality and habitat in the long term. We offer our Shoreline Renaturaization Program (1 800 267 3504 x 1192 for shoreline planting assistance). The RVCA supports the installation of a tertiary treatment system situated to respect the municipal water setback. Please note that the shoreline of Bob’s Lake is subject to Ontario Regulation 174/06 Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation made pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act. Any newlproposed shoreline work requires a permit from the RVCA. Please advise us on the Committees decision or any changes in the status of the application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions. Yours truly, Q

e’_Je,€‘t‘

63:42Martha Bradburn RVCA Environmental Planner 613 267 5353 X131 cc- bowescarp@hotmai|.com sa||ymuzik@gmai|.com KFLA DHU (J. McGurn) —

Page 3 of3

Page 120 of 128

.9. KFL&A

Public Health REQUESTSFOR COMMENTS

Environmental Health Department 1130 Elizabeth Street Sharbot Lake, Ontario KOH2P0 (613)279-2151

1-800-267-7875 Fax: (613) 279-3997

http://www.kflapublichea|th.ca

To:

Mr. Lindsay Mills Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac PO 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON 2T0

Application Number:

MV-14—17B

Type of Application or Proposal:

Minor Variance

Applicant Name(s):

Muzik, Sally

Location:

Planning Department or Agency:

Comments:

mspectorz

Date:

Part Lot 21, Concession 2, Bedford District 25 Morton Point Lane

Township of South Frontenac (Bedford)

KFL&APublic Health has no objections to the proposed minor variance as the owner has submitted an application under permit number BE-1-17.

Public?ealth Inspect April 10, 2017

PLEASEFORWARD A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DECISION TO KFL&APUBLIC HEALTH. Personal information on this form is collected underthe authority of the Building Code Act, and will be used for the administration of Public Health programs. Any questions about the collection of this information should be directed to the Manager of Environmental Health, KFL&APublic Health, 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5, (613)549-1232 ext. 1243 or 1-800-267-7875.

Page 121 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Report Date: April 7, 2017 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

MV-15-17-B David Marek & Rita Vanden Heuval Concession 4, Lot/Part Lot 11/12, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To vary section 5.8.2 and section 10.3.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw to permit construction within the 30m setback from HWM Date of Hearing: April 13, 2017

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee hear comments from members of the public and that the minor variance to permit construction within the required 30m setback from the high water mark be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND The subject land consists of 3.57 +/- acres with frontage on Potspoon Lake. The lot is currently developed with a 2445 square footprint dwelling located 28m from the high water mark (HWM) of Potspoon Lake. The proposal is for construction of a 770 square foot footprint (24 foot by 32 foot) detached accessory building to be located a minimum of 22m from the HWM. The property is a peninsula which narrows towards the eastern end of the property and this limits the abilities to meet the setback from the HWM. The by-law does not permit the construction of any structures within 30 m of the HWM for the reasons of reducing adverse effects on the environment, maintaining a natural vegetative buffer and aiding in the preservation of the rural character of the Township. As Potspoon Lake is a Highly Sensitive Trout Lake the applicant has submitted a preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by Ontario Lake Assessments. This EIA evaluated multiple environmental concerns including Species at Risk, and potential impacts on both Potspoon Lake and a wetland to the south of the subject property. A site visit was conducted and it was the opinion of OLA that the proposed development would have no impact on any of the evaluated criteria. FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE Section 45(1) of the Planning Act A variance may be authorized from the provisions of the zoning by-law, if, in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, the request meets all of the following tests:

1. Is the minor variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
2. Is the general intent and purpose of the official plan maintained?
3. Is the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law maintained? And
4. Is the variance minor? Current Zoning: Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) Application Complies with Zoning: Yes Current Official Plan Designation: Rural (RU) Application Complies with Official Plan: Yes Page 122 of 128

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT

AGENCEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Comments from Quinte Conservation have yet to be received. Comments were not required from roads or public health. The building department has no objections.

CONDITIONS

1. This minor variance is for the construction of a maximum 770 square foot footprint detached accessory building to be constructed a minimum of 22m from the high water mark of Potspoon Lake.
2. Minor variance MV-15-17-B is applicable only to South Frontenac Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 and not to any subsequent zoning by-laws.
3. A building permit is required for ALL demolition and construction on the property. There shall be no additional development, or demolition of existing structures, on the property without approval from the Township of South Frontenac.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title, which sets out the Township’s environmental and limited service policies, and which specifies that a permit may be required from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority for the proposed development, and for any shoreline or in-water works.

ATTACHMENTS Map of Vanden Heuval Property Environmental Impact Assessment completed by Ontario Lake Assessments

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Jennie Kapusta

Page 123 of 128

µ VANDEN HEUVAL MV-15-17-B

Potspoon Lake

Legend Vanden Heuval Buildings Vanden Heuval Proposed Garage Vanden Heuvel Property

Proposed Garage

PO

PO TS

O

N

LA

N

E

Potspoon Lake

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Page 124 of 128

Scale 1:695 0

3.5

7

14

21

UTM Projection NAD 83

28 Meters

QLA 15

S’

Ontario Lake Assessments

RR#3 Harrowsmith Ontario KOH IV0

& Environmental Education Services

Tel: (613) 376-3863 Fax: (613) 376-6128

2017

Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street BoxlO0

SYDENHAM, Ontario KOH 2T0

Attention: Lindsay Mills, Planner / Planning Coordinator REGARDS: Preliminary EIA MV-15-17-B; 302 Potspoon Lane; Bedford District; South Frontenac Township; Potspoon Lake Degr: Mr. Mills:

A site visit was conducted March 11, 2017 to the above address with a view to determine the

impact of constmction of a garage (24’ x 32’) positioned approximately at the location indicated on the attached google earth image (August 2016). This property has been maintained in a natural state. There is no manicured/maintained lawn and it is covered in mature white pine and hemlock along the lakeshore on the north side; there is also iron wood, hard maple, and red oak dispersed over the centre portion of the lot. The shoreline buffer is largely untouched and consists of white pine (sparse), willow, alder and soft maple along the southern shoreline. The sandy soils in the area leading to the point are too dry and nutrient poor to sustain much in the way of ground level vegetation cover. There are three environmental considerations with respect to this proposal. The first and most important is that Potspoon Lake is a highly sensitive lake trout lake, as such it is designated as ’ at capacity’ with respect to the creation of new building lots. The concern in this regard is any increase in the migration of nutrients to the lake; increased nutrients cause increased planktonic algae growth and indirectly result in the loss of oxygen in the hypolimnion. A well oxygenated hypolimnion is a prerequisite to a sustainable lake trout population. In addition, there is a wetland that lays adjacent to the south property boundary that while not designated as Provincially Significant, it is an important wetland locally and as such carries with it all the usual wetland protection planning policies. This wetland is identified as Environmentally Sensitive on Schedule D to the SFT Zoning By-Law (2003-75). A change or increase in nutrient loadings to wetlands is not a concern; the primary concern with wetlands relates to filling, draining, and excavating of materials, all of which change the hydrologic function. None of these activities will occur in conjunction with this proposal. Also, the diverse topography and landscape features prevalent throughout Bedford Township provide habitats for a number of Species at Risk (SAR). Incremental losses in the habitats can result in declines for these species. The SAR of most concern in the area of Potspoon Lake include eastern rat snakes and Blanding’s turtles. 2

Page 125 of 128

-2-

This application seeks relief from the 3 0 metre setback from the high water mark of Potspoon Lake for the location of a garage; the lake side of the garage would be approximately 22 metres from the lake. The proposed building envelope is on the highest elevation of land; there are shallow soils at this location and a sandstone outcrop is exposed at the surface. The roof mnoff and drainage from this location will be directed toward the wetland to the south and therefore there will be no

impact on the lake as a result. The proposal is to collect roof runoff and direct it into a French drain with an outlet to the south side of the existing driveway. There will be no impact on the wetland as a result of this proposal. ffi

The proposed building site will require the removal of very few trees, mostly iron wood, red oak and jumper. The ground was bare of snow at the time of the site visit. There did not appear to be any broken rock with entrance ways that would provide hibernaculum for rat snakes. There also were no cavity trees on or near the building envelope that would serve as hibernacula or nesting sites for rat snakes. There will be no impact on the habitats of species at risk.

In my opinion the selected site is the optimum location on the property for the garage and there will be no impact on either the lake or the wetland nor the habitats of SAR. If you have any questions in the above regard please give me a call. Respectfully yours,

a Reginald Genge B.Sc. Ontario Lake Assessments

3654 Stage Coach Road RR# 3

HAR?R?OWSMITH, On. KOH ?VO

rgenge@xplornet .ca 613-376-3863

Copy to: Rita Vanden Heuvel and Dave Marek

302 Potspoon Lane RR #2

Godfrey, ON. KOH?TO

Page 126 of 128

@*-

r -4-’ ffi

co LLI

‘MM?

o

Ei

0i?? Ln? u

10

E=

;g a a)

3

2

art n o

“a s

1

(0

7m

*h s

ff

0 c%l

/

@ !;1!

‘j

30r,m’?’

/

J!’

r

‘1

&

1

m/

/

cu CTh co

E

/

1

r Ljl 111

/!

i

/1 n

L

j!ii gl 01

j

m-r

<

’l

( 1

NQpose&BuildiNg Enfflelope

ili’ 01 a:

Mj e

Page 127 of 128

QC File No. PL0069-2017

QUINTE CONSERVATION - PLANNING ACT REVIEW Municipality:

Township of South Frontenac

Owner/Agent:

David Marek and Rita Vanden Heuvel

Location:

302 Potspoon Lane

Roll #:

1029-020-040-28000-00000

Application Description:

Minor Variance MV-15-17-B 

Legislative Review:

 

Feature:

Part Lot 11 and 12, Concession 4

Bedford

Allow for a reduction in the setback of 30 metres to 22 metres from the 1:100 year flood plain of Potspoon Lake to allow for the construction of a garage.

Planning Act - Natural hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Quinte Conservation Planning Act Review policy Ontario Regulation #319/09 (Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Quinte Region Source Protection Plan

Potspoon Lake

No objection to the application as presented.

Comments:

The subject lands lie within the regulated area of Potspoon Lake. Please note that the owners will need to apply to the Conservation Authority for a permit prior to development (construction / filling/ excavation/ site grading) within 30 metres of the 1:100 year floodplain of Potspoon Lake.

Author & Date:

April 11, 2017 Sam Carney, Technical Admin. Assistant Page 128 of 128

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.