Committee Of Adjustment - 14 Aug 2025 - Agenda

Body: Committee of Adjustment Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: August 14, 2025 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of Adjustment/2025/Committee Of Adjustment - 14 Aug 2025 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

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

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 14, 2025 Storrington Centre/Virtual Via Zoom .

Call to Order

a)

Resolution.

Adoption of Agenda

a)

Resolution.

Electronic Meeting Information

a)

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

b)

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

Declaration of pecuniary interest

a)

There are none.

Approval of Minutes – July 10, 2025

a)

Resolution.

Consent Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable)

New Consent Applications:

a)

PL-BDJ-2025-0074 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District

4 - 61

62 - 69

70 208

Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Associated minor variance application PL-ZNA-20250076 is requesting reduced frontages for each of the lots because

Page 1 of 493

the RU zone normally requires 76m frontage. b)

PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District

209 347

Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Associated minor variance application PL-ZNA-20250076 is requesting reduced frontages for each of the lots because the RU zone normally requires 76m frontage. 8.

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

a)

PL-ZNA-2025-0060 (Delage) - Bedford District

348 392

Property Address: 282 Island Drive Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The minor variance would permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling and detached garage. The proposed seasonal dwelling with a footprint of ~182.9sqm and ~90sqm of attached decking requires zoning relief to permit a 15.3m setback from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake and the front lot line, a 5m setback from the top of bank and to establish a lot coverage of 8.5%. The proposed detached garage with a building footprint of ~111sqm requires zoning relief to permit a maximum building height of 8.3m. 9.

New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:

a)

PL-ZNA-2025-0065 (Fischer) (Myers) - Loughborough District

393 413

Property Address: 1179 Old Mine Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The following minor variance application is to permit the construction of a dwelling and attached deck with a maximum footprint of 2000sqft (~185.8sqm). The structure requires zoning relief to be setback 10m from the top of bank, whereas a 15m setback would be required.

b)

PL-ZNA-2025-0067 (Smith) - Storrington District

414 436

Property Address: 4569 Stair Step Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: To request permission under section 45(2) of the planning act to enlarge the legal non-conforming dwelling within 30m of the highwater mark of Dog Lake. The applicant proposes to enlarge the

Page 2 of 493

existing 73.5sqm one-storey dwelling with a building height of 4.5m. The proposed enlargement would Involve adding a second storey addition to half of the dwelling of approx. 33 sqm and expanding the eave of the dwelling toward the lake by 1.5m. The enlarged dwelling would have an approximate gross floor area of 107sqm, a building height of approximately 7.4m, and eave projection 1.5m toward the lake. The main building would maintain the setback of 16m from the highwater mark of Dog Lake. c)

PL-ZNA-2025-0076 (Pittman) (Fotenn) - Portland District

437 488

Property Address: 3629 Quinn Road East Purpose & Effect of the Application: The minor variance application is requesting reduced frontages for each of the lots created by associated consent applications PL-BDJ2025-0074 and Pl-BDJ-2024-0075. Both lots would have 63m frontage, whereas the RU zone normally requires 76m. 10.

Other Business

a)

Delegated Authority Consent Report

Adjournment

a)

Resolution.

489 493

Page 3 of 493

Committee of Adjustment Meeting Thursday, August 14, 2025 7:00 p.m. Storrington Centre 3910 Battersea Road, Sunbury, ON and Virtual on Zoom Page 4 of 493

Joining us on Zoom? Your camera won’t be turned on. Your microphone will stay muted unless you ask to speak during a comment period.

Roll Call Committee Members Norm Roberts Scott Trueman Ray Leonard Steve Pegrum

Alan Revill Brett Moreland Mike Howe

Staff

Page 5 of 493

Christine Woods, Manager of Planning Noah Perron, Planner Colin Herrewynen, Planner Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk/ Secretary-Treasurer

Agenda • Call to Order • Adoption of Agenda • Meeting Information • Declaration of Pecuniary Interests • Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting • Hearings for Applications • Other Business

• Delegated Consent Granting Authority Report

Page 6 of 493

• Adjournment

Format for Each Hearing

Page 7 of 493

1. Chair introduces application
2. Planner presents application
3. Applicant/agent permitted to address Committee
4. Members of the public permitted to address Committee (maximum 5 minutes per individual)
5. Staff and/or applicant to provide response to public comments / questions
6. Questions from Committee members (no comments or debate)
7. Secretary-Treasurer reads the resolution
8. Committee discussion and vote

After the Meeting

Page 8 of 493

• Township staff will contact the applicant following the meeting. Where a decision is made, it will be forwarded to the applicant and anyone who requested to be notified within 15 days. • The applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body as defined by the Planning Act subsection 1(1) may appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The appeal must be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment within 20 days of the notice of decision. The notice of appeal must set out the reasons for the appeal and be accompanied by the fee required by the Tribunal. • If you have any questions after the meeting, please reach out to staff.

How to Speak to an Application

Page 9 of 493

• The Chair of the meeting will open the floor to public comments • In person • Raise your hand and wait for the Chair to acknowledge you • Move to the table and clearly state your name for the record • On Zoom • Click “Raise Hand” button to request to speak or dial *9 (star nine) when participating by telephone • The Chair will acknowledge you, and the Meeting Host will unmute you • Once you are done speaking or the Committee has no further questions, the Meeting Host will mute your microphone

In Case of Technical Difficulties • If a Committee member joining virtually disconnects from the meeting, the meeting will proceed if there is still quorum. The Committee member will attempt to reconnect. • If quorum cannot be met within 15 minutes, the meeting will be postponed. • Staff will be in touch with applicants. • A notice will also be posted on the Township’s social media if the meeting is postponed.

Page 10 of 493

Notice of Collection • Personal information is collected to gather feedback and communicate with interested parties about applications. • This information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act and in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. • With the exception of e-mail addresses and telephone numbers, all information and comments will become part of the public record and will appear on the Township’s website. • Meetings are broadcast live over the internet for the public to view. Your voice will be heard in the broadcast if you speak at the meeting. Broadcasts are archived and continue to be publicly available. Page 11 of 493

• Questions regarding the collection, use and disclosure of this personal information should be directed to the Township Clerk.

Declaration of Pecuniary Interests

Page 12 of 493

Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting

Page 13 of 493

New Consent Applications

Page 14 of 493

Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 Owner: Robert Pittman Agent: Elysia Ackroyd (Fotenn Planning + Design) Property: 3629 Quinn Road East

Page 15 of 493

Location

Page 16 of 493

Proposal • Two severed parcels • New residential lots • 1.0ha (2.5 acres) • 63m frontage

• Retained parcel

• Agricultural/residential lot • 35.8ha (88.6 acres) • 64m frontage

Page 17 of 493

• Minor variances required for frontages

Department, Agency and Public Comments • Public Services

• No objection • Adequate sight lines for driveway entrances on Quinn Road East • Road allowance widening may be required

• Cataraqui Conservation

• No objection • Recommended different lot configurations be considered to avoid watercourse • Potential for karst features on site

Page 18 of 493

• Public Comment • None Received

Recommendations • Deferral at the request of the applicant to consider different lot configurations that may require additional variances

Page 19 of 493

Questions & Comments

1. Applicant/Agent
2. Members of the Public
3. Committee Member questions

Page 20 of 493

Committee Deliberation and Vote PL-BDJ-2025-0074 PL-BDJ-2025-0075 PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Page 21 of 493

Minor Variance Applications from a Previous Meeting

Page 22 of 493

Application PL-ZNA-2025-0060 Minor Variance

Applicant: Kevin & Antonietta Delage Property: 282 Island Drive Lane

Page 23 of 493

Background The application for a single detached dwelling was previously presented at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on July 10, 2025. The application was deferred to allow the applicant time to revise their application to request an additional variance for increased building height for a proposed detached garage.

Page 24 of 493

Property Description • 0.83Ac with frontage on Bob’s Lake & Island Drive Lane • Seasonal dwelling w/ attached deck (red), detached outhouse • Downward slope towards shoreline • Granite outcrop on east side of the property (purple) • Designated Rural • Zoned RLSI Page 25 of 493

Proposal

Page 26 of 493

• New, larger cottage • 182.9sqm walkout basement & main floor • 41.4sqm second storey loft • 76.6sqm waterside deck & 13sqm entrance deck • Zoning relief requested • 5m setback from top of bank • 15m setback from highwater mark • 15m setback from front lot line • Maximum lot coverage of 8.5% • Proposed detached garage • 111sqm building footprint & 8.3m building height • Zoning relief requested • Increase building height for garage Plot Plan

Existing Cottage

Proposed building envelope (looking north)

Page 27 of 493

Granite outcrop

Shoreline slope

Page 28 of 493

Main floor plans

Conceptual front view (Lakeside)

Page 29 of 493

Page 30 of 493

Approximate location of proposed garage Proposed garage elevation

Submitted Documentation • Slope Stability Assessment Memo (Kollard Associates, June 20, 2025; Rev: July 7, 2025)

Page 31 of 493

• Proposed cottage would be founded on bedrock, setback 5m from the top of bank. • The proposed development would have no effect on the stability of the slope and would pose no adverse effects on the adjacent slope • Due to subsurface conditions, there are no risks that erosion of other unforeseen conditions could negatively impact the stability of the slope. • The proposed development will have no effect on rockfall from the granite outcrop. The face of the granite outcrop will be cleaned to remove all loose rocks/material.

Department, Agency and Public Comments • Rideau Valley Conservation

• RVCA Staff reviewed the Slope Stability Assessment Memo and noted its conclusions. • Requested that the Slope Stability Assessment be updated to address any risks associated with rockfall from the granite outcropping. • Revised study was submitted on July 7th, RVCA staff re-submitted comments on July 8th indicating that they had no objections with the proposed variance.

• Public Comments – None received Page 32 of 493

Planning Analysis Variance meets four tests of a minor variance

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question
4. Is minor Page 33 of 493

Recommendation • Approval • Pending any comments received • Subject to conditions

• The application is approved in accordance with submitted drawings • Development agreement to address erosion control, roof runoff and maintenance of shoreline vegetation • Setbacks to be confirmed by OLS

Page 34 of 493

Questions & Comments

1. Applicant/Agent
2. Members of the Public
3. Committee Member questions

Page 35 of 493

PL-ZNA-2025-0060 Committee Deliberation and Vote

Page 36 of 493

New Minor Variance / Permission Applications

Page 37 of 493

Application PL-ZNA-2025-0065 Minor Variance

Applicant: Cheryl & Mike Fischer Agent: Myers Design & Build Property: 1179 Old Mine Lane

Page 38 of 493

Property Description • 8.4Ac in area • Frontage on Old Mine Lane and Little John Lake • Steep slopes along the shoreline • Well vegetated • Existing development on west side of property • Rural Designation • RLSW Zone Page 39 of 493

Proposal

Page 40 of 493

• Dwelling with attached deck • Max footprint of ~2000sqft (186sqm) • NE corner of property • Zoning relief requested • 10m setback from top of bank of the shoreline • Compliant with all other zoning requirements Plot Plan

Page 41 of 493

Proposed building location (Looking SW towards shoreline)

Proximity of proposed dwelling to shoreline slope

Closer look at shoreline slope

Main floor plans

Page 42 of 493

Department, Agency and Public Comments • Quinte Conservation – No objection • Public Comment – None received

Page 43 of 493

Planning Analysis Variance meets four tests of a minor variance

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question
4. Is minor Page 44 of 493

Recommendation • Approval • Pending any comments received • Subject to conditions

• The application is approved in accordance with submitted drawings • Development agreement to address erosion control, roof runoff and maintenance of shoreline vegetation • Convert existing seasonal dwelling to an accessory building (prior to issuance of building permit for the proposed dwelling) • Setbacks to be confirmed by OLS

Page 45 of 493

Questions & Comments

1. Applicant/Agent
2. Members of the Public
3. Committee Member questions

Page 46 of 493

PL-ZNA-2025-0065 Committee Deliberation and Vote

Page 47 of 493

Application PL-ZNA-2025-0067 Permission to Enlarge Legal Non-Conforming Use

Applicant: Hunter Smith Property: 4569 Stair Step Lane

Page 48 of 493

Property Description • • • •

Stair Step Lane Located along Dog Lake 0.2 acres Existing Buildings • Dwelling • Detached Shed • Attached deck • Dock along lake • Rural Designation & RLSW Zone Page 49 of 493

Proposal • Expand dwelling that is within 30m of the lake • Increase gross floor area within the existing dwelling footprint by adding second storey and expand eave by 1.5m • Gross floor area to increase from ~73.5sqm to ~107sqm (45%)

Page 50 of 493

Existing Dwelling (Front View)

Existing Dwelling (Rear View)

Page 51 of 493

Department, Agency and Public Comments • Cataraqui Conservation

• No objections • Recommend maintenance and enhancement of vegetation buffer between buildings and water to address erosion avoidance and slope stability. • CA permit required

• Public Comment • None received

Page 52 of 493

Planning Analysis • The criteria for considering an application under section 45(2) are: • Whether the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property; and • Whether the application will result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighborhood.

Page 53 of 493

Recommendation • Approval • Pending any comments received • Subject to conditions

• The proposal must be generally consistent with submitted plan. • Development Agreement • Erosion Control • Runoff • Natural Vegetated Buffer Maintained

Page 54 of 493

Questions & Comments

1. Applicant/Agent
2. Members of the Public
3. Committee Member questions

Page 55 of 493

PL-ZNA-2025-0067 Committee Deliberation and Vote

Page 56 of 493

Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0063 • Storrington District • Granted July 20, 2025 • 76 acre lot addition from 2704 Bear Creek Road to 2734 Bear Creek Road • 2704 Bear Creek Road o 11 acres in area

• 2734 Bear Creek Road Page 57 of 493

o 123 acres in area

Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0013 to 0016 • Loughborough District • Granted July 20, 2025 • Lot additions between properties on Benjamin Lane and Hard Maple Lane • Lot A would gain frontage on Hard Maple Lane • Lot B will be enlarged and is already developed • Lot C will cease to exist

Page 58 of 493

• Easement between Benjamin Lane and Hard Maple Lane in favour of Lots B&D

Former Lot C

Easement (ROW)

Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0028 • Loughborough District • Granted July 20, 2025 • Easement over Hard Maple Lane on Lot D in favour of Lots A and B

Page 59 of 493

Delegated Consent Authority Report PL-BDJ-2025-0062 • Loughborough District • Granted July 28, 2025 • 2527 Rutledge Road • Creation of one new industrial lot • Severed parcel

o 4 acres in area o 231 metres frontage on Sydenham Road o Warehouse to be constructed on new lot

• Retained lands Page 60 of 493

o 66 acres in area o 423m metres frontage on Sydenham Road and 26.5 metres frontage on Rutledge Road o Continue to be farmed

Adjournment

Page 61 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025

Township of South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Meeting # 2025-06 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Storrington Centre/Virtual Via Zoom Present: Norm Roberts, Ray Leonard, Steve Pegrum, Alan Revill, Brett Moreland, Mike Howe, Scott Trueman (arrived: 7:15PM) Absent: Staff: Christine Woods, Manager of Planning, Noah Perron, Planner, Colin Herrewynen, Planner, Kate Kaestner, Secretary-Treasurer & Planning Clerk 1

Call to Order

a)

Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-06-01 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the Committee hereby adopts the agenda for the July 10, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting.

2

Adoption of Agenda

a)

Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-06-02 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the Committee hereby adopts the agenda for the July 10, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried

3

Electronic Meeting Information

a)

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

b)

PowerPoint Presentation Staff prepared a PowerPoint Presentation that was displayed on the screen of the meeting.

4

Declaration of pecuniary interest

a)

None declared

5

Approval of Minutes – June 12, 2025

a)

Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-06-03

Page 62 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT the Committee hereby approves the minutes of the June 12, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting.

Carried

6

Consent Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable)

7

New Consent Applications:

a)

PL-BDJ-2025-0023 (Dog Lake Dreams Inc) (Freeman) - Storrington District Property Address: 5007 Battersea Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: The proposal is to sever a new lot from the property. The severed parcel would be approximately 2 acres in area with approximately 50 metres frontage on Battersea Road. There is currently a residential dwelling and two storage buildings on the proposed severed lot. The retained parcel would be approximately 84 acres in size with approximately 70m of frontage along Battersea Road. The lands to be retained are currently vacant. Minor variances are being requested to allow both the severed and retained lots to have less than 76 metres road frontage. Colin Herrewynen, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee for Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0023 and PL-ZNA-2025-0024, with a staff recommendation that the applications be approved, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Steve Pegrum, Chair of the Committee, inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Sharon Freeman, applicant, attempted to address the Committee via Zoom, however, technical difficulties prevented her from being heard. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether any members of the public wished to comment or ask questions regarding the proposal. None heard. The Chair then asked if there were any questions from Committee members regarding the application. None heard. Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of application PL-BDJ-2025-0023, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-04 Moved by: Alan Revill Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the Committee hereby approves consent application PL-BDJ-2025-0023, for property municipally addressed as 5007 Battersea Road, permitting the creation of one new residential lot, being 2 acres in area and having approximately 50 metres frontage on Battersea Road, subject to conditions. Carried

Page 63 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 b)

PL-BDJ-2025-0051 (Carey) (Boulevard Grp.) - Storrington District Property Address: Unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000) Purpose & Effect of the Application: The proposal is to sever two new lots from the property. Both severed parcels would be 0.8 ha in area with 72.5m of frontage along Washburn Road each. The area along Washburn Road consists of farm fields. The retained parcel extends from Washburn Road to Bear Creek Road which has a dwelling at the south end. The retained parcel would have a frontage of 54.6m along Washburn Road and a 400m frontage along Bear Creek Road. Minor variances are being requested to allow the severed lots to have less than 76 metres road frontage. Colin Herrewynen, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee for Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0051, PL-BDJ-2025-0052 and PL-ZNA-2025-0061, with a staff recommendation that all three (3) applications be approved, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Steve Pegrum, Chair of the Committee, inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Jason Sands (Boulevard Group), agent for the application, thanked staff for their work in processing the application and stated that the inquiry regarding the status of the merged properties is still with the Land Registry Office, but staff circulated the application to adjacent owners of both properties, and that he is satisfied with the recommended conditions of ensuring that the parcels are merged. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether any members of the public wished to comment or ask questions regarding the proposal. None heard. The Chair then asked if there were any questions from Committee members regarding the applications. None heard. Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of application PL-BDJ-2025-0051, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-06 Moved by: Mike Howe Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT the Committee hereby approves consent application PL-BDJ-2025-0051, for unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000), granting permission to create one new rural residential lot, being a minimum of 2 acres in area and having a minimum of 72.5 metres of frontage on Washburn Road, subject to conditions. Carried

c)

PL-BDJ-2025-0052 (Carey) (Boulevard Grp.) - Storrington District Property Address: Unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000)

Page 64 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 Purpose & Effect of the Application: The proposal is to sever two new lots from the property. Both severed parcels would be 0.8 ha in area with 72.5m of frontage along Washburn Road each. The area along Washburn Road consists of farm fields. The retained parcel extends from Washburn Road to Bear Creek Road which has a dwelling at the south end. The retained parcel would have a frontage of 54.6m along Washburn Road and a 400m frontage along Bear Creek Road. Minor variances are being requested to allow the severed lots to have less than 76 metres road frontage. ** See minutes of Agenda item 7. b) Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of application PL-BDJ-2025-0052, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-07 Moved by: Alan Revill Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the Committee hereby approves consent application PL-BDJ-2025-0052, for unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000), granting permission to create one new rural residential lot, being a minimum of 2 acres in area and having a minimum of 72.5 metres of frontage on Washburn Road, subject to conditions. Carried 8 Minor Variance / Permission Applications from a Previous Meetings: (if applicable) 9

New Minor Variance / Permission Applications:

a)

PL-ZNA-2025-0024 (Dog Lake Dreams Inc) (Freeman) - Storrington District Property Address: 5007 Battersea Road Purpose & Effect of the Application: The proposal is to sever a new lot from the property. The severed parcel would be approximately 2 acres in area with approximately 50 metres frontage on Battersea Road. There is currently a residential dwelling and two storage buildings on the proposed severed lot. The retained parcel would be approximately 84 acres in size with approximately 70m of frontage along Battersea Road. The lands to be retained are currently vacant. Minor variances are being requested to allow both the severed and retained lots to have less than 76 metres road frontage. **See Minutes of Agenda item 7. a). Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of application PL-ZNA-2025-0024, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard.

Page 65 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025

Resolution No. 20225-06-05 Moved by Norm Roberts Seconded by Brett Moreland THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0024, for property municipally addressed as 5007 Battersea Road, to allow the severed lot created by associated consent application PL-BDJ-20250023 to have a minimum of 50 metres frontage along Battersea Road and to allow the retained lands to have a minimum of 70 metres frontage along Battersea Road. Carried b)

PL-ZNA-2025-0060 (Delage) - Bedford District Property Address: 282 Island Drive Lane Purpose & Effect of the Application: The applicant proposes to replace the existing dwelling with a larger dwelling further from the shoreline. The proposed dwelling would have a ~182.9sqm walkout basement, a ~182.9sqm main floor, a 41.4sqm second storey loft, and ~90sqm of attached decking. The structure requires zoning relief to permit a 15.3m (50ft) setback from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake and the front lot line, a 5m (16.4ft) setback from the top of bank and to establish a lot coverage of 8.5%. Noah Perron, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee, with a staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Steve Pegrum, Chair of the Committee, inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Kevin & Antoinetta Delage, applicants, stated that they had learned the previous day that the garage that they were proposing on the property would also not meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law, as it would exceed the maximum height allowance and they were wondering if the garage could also be included in the Committee’s consideration. Mr. Perron responded that the garage was not considered and evaluated by staff in the application, he does not believe it is something that can be permitted or allowed through this variance application. Mr. Delage provided more information about the garage and asked about approaching their neighbours as a condition of this application. Ms. Kaestner informed the applicant that because the garage was not included in the original application and proposal, no consideration can be given to the garage at this meeting as the notification requirements of the Planning Act have not been met for this proposal. She stated that applicants could either move forward with this application as it stands and then apply for a variance for the garage through a separate application, or the Committee could defer this application and the applicants could then revise this proposal to include the garage and a decision could be made for the entire proposal at a later date.

Page 66 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 There was discussion between Committee members, the applicants and staff members regarding how quickly a revised application could be processed, and what the associated application costs would be in each situation. The applicant then stated that their preference was that the entire application be deferred. Ms. Kaestner read the resolution for deferral of the application. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-09 Moved by: Scott Trueman Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the Committee hereby defers minor variance application PL-ZNA-20250060, for property municipally addressed as 282 Island Drive Lane, to allow the applicant or their agent time to include an additional variance for height of proposed detached garage on the subject property. Carried c)

PL-ZNA-2025-0061 (Carey) (Boulevard Grp.) - Storrington District Property Address: Unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000) Purpose & Effect of the Application: The proposal is to sever two new lots from the property. Both severed parcels would be 0.8 ha in area with 72.5m of frontage along Washburn Road each. The area along Washburn Road consists of farm fields. The retained parcel extends from Washburn Road to Bear Creek Road which has a dwelling at the south end. The retained parcel would have a frontage of 54.6m along Washburn Road and a 400m frontage along Bear Creek Road. Minor variances are being requested to allow the severed lots to have less than 76 metres road frontage. ** See minutes of Agenda item 7. b) Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of application PL-ZNA-2025-0061. Mr. Pegrum gave Committee members the opportunity to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-08 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the Committee hereby approves minor variance application PL-ZNA-20250061, for unaddressed lands on Washburn Road (ARN: 102906003007000), to allow the new lots created by associated consent applications BDJ-2025-0051 & BDJ-2025-0052, to each have a minimum of 72.5 metres of frontage on Washburn Road. Carried

Page 67 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 d)

PL-ZNA-2025-0066 (Brown) (Garrah) - Storrington District Property Address: 3382 Lakeside Road Purpose & Effect of Application: To request permission under section 45(2) of the planning act to enlarge the legal nonconforming dwelling within 30m of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake. The applicant proposes to enlarge the existing 353sqm one and a half storey dwelling. The applicant is proposing to expand the gross floor area of the existing dwelling by enclosing an existing ground floor porch area within the existing building footprint. The expansion of the gross floor area is proposed to add 11.8 sqm of living space to the gross floor area of the existing dwelling. The proposed new enclosed area is proposed to be used as a home office space. Colin Herrewynen, Planner, delivered his report to the Committee, with a staff recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Committee Chair Steve Pegrum inquired as to whether the applicant or their agent wished to address the Committee. Jason and Sandra Brown, applicants, thanked the Committee for hearing and considering the applicant, and thanked Mr. Herrewynen for his work on the application. Mr. Pegrum inquired (3 times) as to whether any members of the public wished to comment or ask questions regarding the application. None heard. The Chair then asked if there were any questions from Committee members regarding the application. None heard. Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary-Treasurer, read the resolution for approval of the application, subject to conditions. Mr. Pegrum asked Committee members if they wished to comment on the resolution. None heard. Resolution No. 2025-06-10 Moved by: Alan Revill Seconded by: Mike Howe THAT the Committee of Adjustment hereby approves application PL-ZNA-20250066, for property municipally addressed as 3382 Lakeside Road, granting permission to enlarge the existing legal non-conforming dwelling by enclosing an 11.8 square metre porch, within 30m of the highwater mark of Loughborough Lake, subject to conditions. Carried

10

Other Business

a)

Delegated Authority Consent Report Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk, delivered her report to the Committee. There were no questions from Committee members.

Page 68 of 493

Minutes of Committee Of Adjustment July, 10, 2025 11

Adjournment

a)

Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-06-11 Moved by: Brett Moreland Seconded by: Norm Roberts THAT the July 10, 2025 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of South Frontenac is hereby adjourned at 8:00 PM, to reconvene on Thursday, August 14th, 2025 at 7:00 PM or at the call of the Chair. Carried

Steve Pegrum, Chair

Page 69 of 493

Consent Application Application Requirements The following items must be submitted with your application. Any application which does not include the below required information may not be accepted or will not be considered complete.

† 1. A pre-consultation meeting is a requirement prior to submission of the application. Pre-consultation meeting fee

$152.00

† 2. One hard copy of this completed application form signed and commissioned. † 3. A Sketch of your proposal (see Question 26 for details on what to include). The sketch must be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. It is recommended that you take your time to carefully assemble the data and crate the sketch. You may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of sketches.

† 4. The applicable non-refundable application fee, payable to the Township of South Frontenac: Application Type: Consent Application Change of conditions Change of conditions requiring recirculation

FEE: $1,368.00 $325.00 $568.00

† 5. Agency Review Fees (as applicable). A separate cheque or proof or payment, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, is to be submitted to the Township with the completed application. The on-site sewage disposal review fee may be included in the payment of the application fee to the Township. Agency: Township of South Frontenac onsite sewage disposal review (per new lot) Cataraqui Conservation (per new lot or lot addition) Quinte Conservation (per new lot or lot addition)

FEE: $515 $445 $450

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (per new lot or lot addition) $500 Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; agencies may require additional fees if permit applications are required prior to any construction.

† 6. Required studies & Supporting Information identified at pre-consultation (if applicable) † 7. Deed or transfer, or authorization for Township Staff to acquire title documents (if applicable) Updated January 2025 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

1 Page 70 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Collection of Personal Information: Personal information requested on the application form is required under the Planning Act. This information will be used by the Township for the purpose of reviewing the application. It may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 613-3763027 ext. 2224). What is considered when reviewing an application? In considering an application, the decision-making approval authority, shall have regard, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

The effect of development on matters of provincial interest as referred to in Section 2 of the Planning Act. Whether the proposed severed lot is premature or in the public interest. Whether the consent conforms to the intent of the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision (if any) The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is being severed If affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing The number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of roadways and their adequacy in relation to any proposed roadway linking the proposed severed area with the established roadway system. The dimensions and shape of the proposed lot. Any restrictions on the subject land (or on the buildings and structures to be erected on it) and any restrictions on abutting lands. Conservation of natural resources and flood control. The adequacy of utilities and municipal services. The adequacy of schools. The area of land, if any, exclusive of roadways, that is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes (such as for parks). The physical configuration of the new lot having regard to energy conservation. Site Plan Control County of Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-Law Provincial Policy Statement

2 Page 71 of 493

Page 72 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION 4. Have you consulted with Township Planning Staff regarding this application?

† Yes

† No

Date Fee Paid: _________________________

Christine Woods Name of Planner: _____________________

December 12th, 2022 Date of Meeting: ________________________

5. The description of the subject land: District:

† Bedford

† Portland

† Loughborough

† Storrington

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Civic Address: ___________________________________________________________________ CON 3 Concession Number: _____________________

Part of Lot 6 Lot Number: __________________________

13R-7028 Reference Plan Number: ___________________

Part Number(s): _______________________

102908001013900 Roll Number: ____________________________________________________________________ 36140-0201 Property Identification Number (PIN): _________________________________________________

6. Indicate the frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land. The subject land is the whole property prior to any changes. Please indicate the name of the road/lane and waterbody (if applicable). N/A Frontage on water (m):_________________

+/- 191 metres Frontage on road/lane (m): __________________

N/A Name of Waterbody:__________________

Quinn Road East Name of Road/Lane: _______________________

+/- 1,337 metres Depth(m): ___________________________

+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area(acres/ha): ___________________________

7. Select the type of consent being applied for: Creation of a New Lot

Correction of Title

Easement (right of way)

Lease

Lot Addition

Other: _____________________________

Charge/Discharge of Mortgage 8. Please provide a brief description of your application. Indicate the reason why you are applying for a consent.

The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent

will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.

4 Page 73 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

9. Create a NEW LOT – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying to create a new lot. The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot):

Retained Lot:

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

63.0 metres

64.6 metres

Name of Road/Lane:

Quinn Road East

Quinn Road East

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

+/- 170.8 metres

+/- 1,337.4 metres

Acres (acres or ha):

1.05 ha

35.8 ha

Please list the existing and proposed USES and STRUCTURES. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot): Existing Use of Lot:

Rural

Retained Lot: Rural

Existing None Buildings/Structures:

Single detached dwelling, and several accessory structures

Proposed Use of Lot:

Rural (no change)

Rural residential

Proposed Anticipated single detached dwelling Buildings/Structures:

None (no change)

5 Page 74 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

LOT ADDITION – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying for a lot addition.

The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Proposed Lot Addition (Severed parcel):

Retained Lot:

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Road/Lane:

N/A

N/A

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

N/A

N/A

Acres (acres or ha):

N/A

N/A

The following information is regarding the Benefitting Lands also known as the land being enlarged which are receiving the lot addition. Existing Benefitting Lot: (Before Lot Addition)

Enlarged Lot with added Land: (After Lot Addition)

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Road/Lane:

N/A

N/A

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

N/A

N/A

Acres (acres or ha):

N/A

N/A

6 Page 75 of 493

Page 76 of 493

Page 77 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION If access is by water only, describe the parking and docking facilities to be used and the approximate distance of these facilities from the subject land and the nearest public road. Parking and Docking for water access only properties MUST be legally deeded access. Please provide confirmation. N/A - not a water access lot The New Lot: __________________________________________________________________ N/A - not a water access lot The Retained Lot:_______________________________________________________________

18. What is the zoning of the subject lands? (Check www.frontenacmaps.ca) Rural (RU) Zone

19. What is the current Official Plan Designation of the subject lands? Rural

20. Please describe how the application conforms with the Township Official Plan & County Official Plan by citing specific applicable sections and sub sections. Please make sure to look at Sections 5 and 7 in the Township Official Plan and Section 3 in the County Official Plan. If you are unsure, please indicate that you do not know. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.

21. Is the application consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement?

† Yes

† No

† Unknown

Please explain: Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.

9 Page 78 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

22. Has the subject land ever been, or is currently, the subject of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, for a minor variance, for approval of a site plan, or for an amendment to an official plan, an amendment to the zoning by-law or a Minister’s zoning order? Complete all applicable † Yes Application Type

† No Application Number

† Unknown Date of Application

Decision

† Plan of Subdivision † Consent Approved

1986

† Minor Variance † Site Plan Approval † Official Plan Amendment † Zoning By-law Amendment † Minister’s Zoning Order

23. Has land been previously severed from the subject property, since September 5, 2000? If yes, please provide date of transfer; name of transferee and uses of the land. October 10, 1986, † Yes ___________________________________

† No

24. Did the current owner acquire the subject land as a result of a consent? † Yes

† No

25. Is the applicant requesting a Certificate of Official for the retained land? † Yes

† No

** If yes – the applicant must provide a lawyer’s statement that there is no land abutting the subject lands that are owned by the owner of the subject land, other than the land that could be conveyed without contravening section 50 of the Planning Act. 26. A SKETCH must be submitted. For more information on what the sketch needs to show, please see “A guide to completing your consent application form”. If your application is approved and then the required survey shows different frontages, area and location than was submitted, a new consent may be required including submission of a new application and fees.** 10 Page 79 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Please note that the sketch must include the same metric as on the application, switching between meters and feet will not be acceptable unless both are shown. The sketch must include the following:

† A directional arrow with North at the top of the page. † The boundaries and dimensions of the whole property. LABEL the part that is to be severed and the part that is to be retained, including the total area (acres or hectares), road frontages on all roads/lanes for each and waterbodies.

† Indicate if the owner of the subject property also owns other lands near the proposal. † The distance between the subject land and the nearest road, bridge or railway crossing † The location of all land previously severed from the parcel (if applicable) originally acquired by the current owner of the subject land.

† All natural and artificial features that are located on the subject property and on land beside the subject property. Please label and show the approximate location of: a.

Existing Buildings, wells and septic systems, bridges, railways, roads, hydro lines

b.

Waterbodies, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, wetlands, wooded areas

c.

Landfills, propane facility, quarry’s and pits

d.

Barns

Note: The existence of a nearby barn will require you to complete a Minimum Distance Separation Calculation in order to consider compatibility issues. Please check with the Planning Department regarding the implications of any farm structure, on your application.

† Please include any information on natural and artificial features (as listed above) that in the applicant’s opinion may affect the application

† Please indicate the current uses of land that is surrounding the property, such as residential, agricultural and commercial uses (if agricultural, please indicate the approximate distance of any barn structure from the proposed new lot).

† The location, width and name of any roads within or abutting the subject land, indicating whether it is an unopened road allowance, a public travelled road, a private road or a right of way.

11 Page 80 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

† If access to the subject land is by water only, please show the location of the parking and boat docking facilities to be used, and the title documents to demonstrate legal deeded use of these facilities

† The location and nature of any easement affecting the subject land. † The location of any abandoned wells on the property PERMISSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF APPLICATION I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner agree that the information recorded in this Consent Application Form is accurate and agrees that representatives of the Township and relevant commenting agencies may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner, acknowledge that additional studies and/or peer review and/or legal review may be required by the Township as a part of the review of my/our application. Should the need arise, I/we are responsible for completing the studies as requested in order for the application to be deemed complete. Attached to this application is payment to the Township of South Frontenac in the correct amount representing payment of the application fee, and additional payment (or proof of payment) for any required commenting agency review fees. AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY The applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac (“the Municipality”) from all costs and expenses that the Municipality may incur in connection with the processing of the applicant’s application for approval under the Planning Act. Without limiting the foregoing, such costs will include all legal, engineering, planning, and consulting fees and charges incurred or payable by the Municipality to process the application together with all costs and expenses arising from or incurred in connection with the Municipality being required, or requested by the applicant, to appear at the hearing of any appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal from any decision of the Council, Delegated Decision of Council, or Committee of Adjustments, of their designated approval authority, as the case may be, hearing the applicant’s application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees to provide the Municipality, upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, with a deposit (over and above the normal application fee), from which the Municipality may, from time to time charge any fees and expenses incurred by the Municipality to prepare for and participate in the hearing. If such appeal expenses exceed the deposit, the Owner/Applicant shall pay the difference forthwith upon being billed by the municipality, with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) on accounts overdue more than 30 days. 12 Page 81 of 493

Page 82 of 493

3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE

1

July 3, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report

Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design has been retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare this planning justification report in support of applications for consent to sever and minor variance for the property municipally known as 3629 Quinn Road East (“subject site”), in the Township of South Frontenac. The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. The subject site is designated Rural Lands in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Rural on Schedule A Land Use Plan in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The property is zoned Rural (RU) Zone in the Township of South Frontenac’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75. Correspondence with municipal staff identified the following application requirements. Accordingly, the following are submitted to in support of these applications, as required by Township staff: / Concept Plan; / Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study; / Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA); / Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis; and, / This Planning Justification Letter.

Site Description + Surrounding Context The subject site is in the Township of South Frontanac, southeast of the village of Harrowsmith, and north of the hamlet of Murvale. The subject site is approximately 37.8 hectares (93 acres) and has approximately 191 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The subject site is currently developed with a one-storey single-detached dwelling and several accessory structures. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Quinn Road East via a gravel driveway. According to Frontenac Maps, the property contains some wetlands and woodlands in both the northern and southern area of the site. Two watercourses (channels, as referred to by Ecological Services) traverse the site. The surrounding area is characterized by mainly rural, agricultural, and rural residential uses. The lands directly east of the site contain primarily residential uses, and some agricultural uses. Further west of the site is a mineral aggregate extraction operation. To the south, west and north contain primarily rural and agricultural uses, with some residential uses.

KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com

Page 83 of 493

2

Figure 1: Surrounding Context (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to create two new lots for future rural residential development on the south side of the subject site. Applications for consent to sever are required for the creation of the two new lots. The proposed severances will result in a total of three lots (two severed + one retained). The severed lots are anticipated to support the development of single detached dwellings. The severed lots are proposed to have lot areas of approximately 1.05 hectares and approximately 63 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East to accommodate the proposed rural residential development. The Rural (RU) zone in the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 requires a frontage of 76 metres for single detached residential uses. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres. A minor variance application is required to permit reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 84 of 493

3

Figure 2: Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The subject site contains two watercourses, and any future development should maintain a minimum 30-metre setback from the channels, as identified through the scoped NHA. This environmental buffer will inform the placement and configuration of future building envelopes, while continuing to accommodate functional and appropriately sized lots. Additionally, due to the subject site’s proximity to existing livestock operations, a Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study was undertaken. The study confirms that the proposed lots meet the required MDS setbacks, thereby minimizing the potential for land use conflicts and supporting the ongoing viability of adjacent agricultural uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 85 of 493

4

Figure 3: Proposed Severances (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Supporting Studies Minimum Distance Separation Study (See Appendix A) The subject site is in a predominantly rural and agricultural area, with proximity to several existing livestock facilities. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) study applies the March 2017 MDS formulae as provided in Publication 853 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Publication 853 includes the definitions, implementation guidelines and factor tables (i.e. calculations) which collectively make up the MDS formulae referenced in the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as additional information to assist with the interpretation and application of the MDS formulae. The factor tables or calculations are conducted using the AgriSuite software supplied by OMAFRA, while the definitions and guidelines provide necessary direction to interpret and apply the calculations. Publication 853 provides two classes of MDS formulae: MDS I and MDS II. MDS I applies the setbacks between proposed new non-agricultural development and existing livestock facilities. MDS II applies to setbacks from new, enlarged or renovated livestock facilities and existing or approved development. Requirement for MDS Setback In accordance with Implementation Guideline (IG) #2, an MDS setback is required for proposed lot creation in accordance with IG #8 and #9. IG #8 requires an MDS I setback where lot creation is proposed, and IG #9 relates

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 86 of 493

5 to lot creation for a residence surplus to a farming operation, which is not relevant to the site or proposal. Per Section 7.1 (l) of the Township’s Official Plan (OP), all division of land for new farm and non-farm uses must meet the requirements of the MDS Formulae, as amended. Two lots, each approximately 1.05 hectares in size, are proposed to be severed, through applications for consent, from the existing landholding, resulting in the creation of two new non-agricultural uses. As the applications are for the creation of new rural residential lots, MDS I applies. MDS I setbacks are calculated based on the nature of the proposed land use and are divided into Type A (less sensitive) and Type B (more sensitive) land uses. Type A is described in IG #33 and is characterized by a lower density of occupancy, habitation or activity and includes agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses, industrial uses, agricultural lot creation, and residential lot creation that does not result in a concentration of four or more lots in immediate proximity, and building permits for dwellings on existing lots outside of a settlement area. Type B (more sensitive) uses are generally higher density in terms of occupancy, habitation or activity as described in IG #34 and include OP and zoning by-law amendments to permit development excluding industrial uses or dwellings, outside of settlement areas. The proposed residential lot creations will result in two new residential lots outside of the settlement area and will not result in four or more lots for development in immediate proximity to one another. Therefore, the proposed lot creation represents Type is A use. Investigation Distance Where an MDS setback is required, it must be measured from all existing livestock facilities and anaerobic digesters that are reasonably expected to be impacted by the proposed development. IG #6 establishes the investigation distance for a proposed Type A land use as 750 metres. Using aerial imagery, we identified seven possible livestock facilities within 750 metres of the site, located at 3609 Quinn Road E (Barn #1), 4372 Road 38 (Barn #2), 4414 Road 38 (Barn #3), 4413 Road 38 (Barn #4), 3861 Quinn Road W (Barn #5), 3849 Quinn Road W (Barn #6) and 4173 Road 38 (Barn #7). Barn #1: 3609 Quinn Road E The property at 3609 Quinn Road E is located directly east of the site and includes two occupied livestock barns (371.6 square metres and 92.9 square metres in size), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 6.1 hectares (15.0 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses two medium frame horses, one goat for meat, 6 chickens (5 layer hens and 1 rooster), 3 guinea fowl and 4 muscovy ducks. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 169 metres. The barn is located approximately 537 metres from the subject site (measured from the closet edge of the barn to the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development). As such, the livestock facilities located at 3609 Quinn Road E will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 87 of 493

6

Barn

Accessory Structures

Barn

Dwelling

Figure 4: Barn #1 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) Barn #2: 4372 Road 38 The property at 4372 Road 38 is located approximately 78.08 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line of the property to the subject site) and includes a one 139.4 square metre occupied livestock barn, multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses three medium frame horses. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 94 metres. As such, the livestock facilities located at 4372 Road 38 will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Dwelling

Accessory Structures

Barn

Figure 5: Barn #2 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) IG #12 allows for a reduced MDS setback where there are four or more uses of equal or greater sensitivity (i.e. Type A or Type B) in the intervening area between the site and identified barns. The intervening area is described as an area within a 120-degree arc extending from the barn in question toward the site. In accordance with IG

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 88 of 493

7 #12, a 120-degree arc was applied from the closest edge of the barn to the furthest point of the fourth lot for development between the site and each of the barns in question. Barn #3: 4414 Road 38 The property at 4414 Road 38 is located directly west of the site and appears to include a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). As seen in Figure 3, 488 metres separates the barn(s) from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #4: 4413 Road 38 The property at 4413 Road 38 is located approximately 337 metres west of the site (measured from closest lot line of the property to the subject site). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 63.9 hectares (157.8 acres). Figure 3 demonstrates that a distance of 598 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #5: 3861 Quinn Road W The property at 3861 Quinn Road W is located approximately 524 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 520 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #6: 3849 Quinn Road W The property at 3849 Quinn Road W is located approximately 392 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a semi-detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres). While there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitive separating the livestock barns from the furthest extent of the property line, all barns on the property are under 10 square metres, as confirmed by the property owner. In accordance with IG #3, MDS 1 setbacks are not required from livestock barns occupying an area less than 10 square metres. Barn #7: 4173 Road 38 The property at 4173 Road 38 is located approximately 481 metres southwest of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 17.2 hectares (42.5 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 584 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. In accordance with IG #12, the MDS setbacks for livestock facilities at 4414 Road 38, 4413 Road 38, 3861 Quinn Road W, 3849 Quinn Road W, and 4173 Road 38 are limited by the existing lots and do not impact the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 89 of 493

8

Figure 6: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #3 and #4 (Source: Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Figure 7: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #5 and #7 (Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 90 of 493

9 Scoped Natural Heritage Assessment In August 2024, Ecological Services prepared a Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) in support of the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road East. The report assessed the subject site in relation to the proposed development and identified natural heritage features on or adjacent to the site and considered potential impacts of the proposed development. Features that were evaluated included riparian community, woodlands, surface water, fish habitat, and significant wildlife habitat. The NHA concluded that a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement is not required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development. While the property contains mapped unevaluated wetland areas, field investigations determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Additionally, the NHA concluded all potential negative impacts can be ameliorated through mitigation, and that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions. The following recommendations for mitigation were provided:

1. Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 metre from the channel.
2. The land within 30 metre of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from the channel, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. Additionally, the tree removal guidelines will be adhered to throughout the proposed development. Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis A hydrogeological assessment was prepared by BluMetric Environmental Inc., dated April 3, 2025, to evaluate the suitability of private servicing for the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road. The assessment evaluated whether the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for the development of single-detached dwellings based on serviceability by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The study inspected the property for shallow groundwater and surface water conditions. Water quality and levels were assessed based on a 6-hour pumping test, and water levels from the wells on the property were monitored during the pumping test to determine interference. These tests demonstrated sufficient supply capacity to meet both peak and daily demand scenarios for four-bedroom households. The study concluded that the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for rural residential development based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Groundwater quality results meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards for health-related parameters, with some aesthetic exceedances for hardness, sodium, and total dissolved solids. These can be addressed through appropriate water treatment systems, including UV sterilization and reverse osmosis. The study recommends the setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 metres. Overall, the assessment concludes that the proposed development is appropriate and that the risk to groundwater resources can be effectively mitigated through numerous recommended measures. The proposed rural residential development will maintain the 45 metre setback from a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 91 of 493

10 Policy + Regulatory Review Planning Act In considering an application for land severance, the approving body must evaluate the merits of the proposal against Section 53 of the Planning Act, which further requires a review of Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. The criteria relating to the proposed severances are below in italics.

53 (1) An owner or chargee of land, or the owner’s or chargee’s agent duly authorized in writing, may apply for a consent as defined in subsection 50 (1) and the council or the Minister, as the case may be, may, subject to this section, give a consent if satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The proposed consent applications will result in the creation of two new lots. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the subject site. The proposed development maintains orderly linear lot fabrics, with frontage on an existing municipal road.

53 (12) A council or the Minister in determining whether a provisional consent is to be given shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) and has the same powers as the approval authority has under subsection 51 (25) with respect to the approval of a plan of subdivision and subsections 51 (26) and (27) and section 51.1 apply with necessary modifications to the granting of a provisional consent. Detailed criteria from Section 51(24) are discussed, as follows.

51 (24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality to a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2; The proposed consent demonstrates appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act. It supports the orderly development of rural lands by introducing residential growth in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding land use context. The proposal does not adversely impact any identified natural or cultural heritage resources, and it adheres to environmental best practices, including a 30-metre setback from the onsite watercourse and compliance with hydrogeological recommendations for private servicing. The lot layout is logical and functional, providing sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, and wells, while maintaining appropriate separation distances. The proposed severances will contribute to the Township’s housing supply and reflect a form of development that upholds public health, safety, and long-term sustainability for future rural residents.

b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

The proposed consent is not premature and is in the public interest as the subject site has direct frontage on an existing public road, and no new municipal infrastructure is required to support the proposed development. Additionally, the lots are in an area with established rural residential development and will be supported by private wells and septic systems, as confirmed by the Hydrogeological Assessment. The assessment demonstrates that the lots can accommodate safe and sustainable private servicing without risk to groundwater quantity or quality. The proposed consent will contribute to local housing supply while preserving the rural character of the area.

c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; Conformity with the County and Township OP is discussed herein. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP states that residential development of a limited scale is permitted in the rural area, aligning with the intent to support a range of housing types while preserving rural character. Section 5.7.4 of the Township OP states that residential development may be permitted in the rural area to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 92 of 493

11 the Township. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding rural context and conforms to both OPs.

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; The proposed consent will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterized by rural uses, including rural residential uses. The severed lots will support the future development of single detached dwellings. The proposal will positively contribute to rural housing availability within the Township. Supporting studies have confirmed that the lands are suitable to support the scale of rural residential development proposed.

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

Both the retained lot and severed lost will maintain frontage on Quinn Road East, which is an existing municipal road maintained by the Township. The establishment of new driveways for the severed lots will be reviewed by the Township through the entrance permit application process. f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; The proposed severed and retained lots meet the general intent of the zoning by-law. An application for minor variance is required to obtain relief from the minimum frontage requirements for both the severed and retained lots. The shape and dimensions of the lots are compatible with residential lots in the surrounding area, being of a rectilinear configuration, and providing sufficient area for functional elements of rural residential development.

g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land; All buildings and structures on the severed and retained parcels will be subject to the performance standards of the Rural (RU) Zone of the Township’s zoning by-law. The consent applications will have conditions to be fulfilled as part of the consent approval process, such as the requirement to obtain entrance permits. There are no known restrictions on adjoining lands the would be impacted by the proposed development.

h) conservation of natural resources and flood control; A scoped NHA was completed in support of this application to evaluate potential impacts on natural heritage features and ecological functions. The NHA concluded that no significant negative impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed severances and future residential development. The report identified natural features in the broader landscape and provided site-specific recommendations to mitigate potential impacts. These recommendations include measures such as maintaining vegetative buffers for the identified watercourses. Future development on the site will be is anticipated to be developed in accordance with the NHA’s recommendations. It is our understanding that the Township can enforce these mitigation measures and separation distances through conditions of consent approval, and or site plan control. Furthermore, no hazards related to floodinghave been identified on the subject site. As such, the proposal supports the conservation of natural resources and does not present any concerns related to flood control.

i)

the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

The severed and retained parcels will be serviced by private wells and sewage systems. Additionally, the new lots will have frontage on Quinn Road East, which is a municipally serviced year-round road, ensuring reliable access for residents. The proposal represents an efficient and appropriate use of existing rural infrastructure without placing additional demand on municipal services

j)

the adequacy of school sites;

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 93 of 493

12 The creation of two new rural residential lots is not anticipated to have an impact on the capacity of local schools.

k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; In accordance with the Planning Act, cash-in-lieu of parkland will be provided. l)

the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supply, efficient use and conservation of energy; and,

The proposed consents will create two new lots from an existing property with frontage on a maintained municipal road. The proposed lots will contribute to the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure.

m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designed under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, 2. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4). Section 5 of the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law 2022-58 states that lands within 90 metres of a waterbody are required to be subject the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law. As the subject site has two watercourses that transect the site, it may be subjected to a site plan control agreement. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent has proper regard for the criteria found in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) came into effect on October 20, 2024. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Notably, the 2024 PPS sets out policies to increase the supply and mix of housing options in Ontario while maximizing investments in infrastructure and public service facilities and protecting natural areas, agricultural uses and sensitive areas. The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) is reviewed as follows. Sectio 2.5 of the 2024 PPS states that healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by ensuring that new development builds on rural character, conserves biodiversity, and is appropriate for the level of services available. The surrounding area is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses. The proposed severances will not impact the rural character of the area, nor will they impact the functionality or continued use of nearby agricultural uses. Any new development will maintain a 30 metre vegetated buffer from the onsite water channels. Additionally, tree removal will be refrained from between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The subject site will be serviced by private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots will be at least 45 metres as recommended by a Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis study. Section 4 of the PPS gives consideration to the wise use and management of resources that provide economic, environmental, and social benefits. This is achieved through policies that provide for the conservation of biodiversity, protection of the health of the Great Lakes, and protection of natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. No negative impacts to natural or cultural heritage features nor agricultural resources are anticipated to result because of the proposed consent or minor variance, as the subject site is not near any such identified feature or resources. Section 5 of the PPS provides policy guidance on the protection of public health and safety. Section 5 directs development away from naturally-occurring and human-made hazard lands, such as floodplains, erosion-prone areas, former mining and aggregate extraction operations, and other types of contaminated areas. The site is

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 94 of 493

13 located over 1,200 metres from the nearest aggregate operations. There are no known natural hazard concerns on or near the site. No public health or safety concerns are anticipated as a result of the proposed applications as the proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from onsite watercourses, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the 2024 PPS. County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016 consolidation) The County of Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2014 (By-law 2014-0047) and was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2016. The County OP provides a high-level framework for guiding land use changes in the County, providing policy direction on matters regarding economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability. The subject site was evaluated for environmentally significant features to groundtruth GIS mapping of potential woodlands and wetlands. Field investigations during as part of an NHA determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Mitigation measures include maintaining the vegetated buffer, avoiding tree clearing during nesting and roosting seasons, and preserving existing forested areas within the setback. Development on the proposed lots and the retained lands will meet a minimum setback of 30 metres from the channel that runs through the south of the property. Additionally, the land within 30 metres of the channel will not be clearcut and will remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel. Overall, the report concluded that the proposed development will not negatively impact natural heritage features or their ecological functions. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP provides policy direction regarding Rural lands to guide rural development. The proposed consents will support the development of single detached dwellings, which represents a permitted use in the Rural area. Section 3.3.3 of the County OP provides direction specific to residential development, stating that lot creation should take place either through plan of subdivision, plan of condominium, or consent. The proposal consent applications will maintain the rural residential character of the surrounding area, are anticipated to be unobtrusive and blend in with the rural landscape. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent applications and minor variance application are consistent with the policies of the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (2003) The Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2003, with the most recently publicly available consolidation dated January 23, 2024. The following sections of the current OP, as they relate to this application, are reviewed below (with policies cited in italics): Section 4: Goals and Objectives Section 5: Land Use Policies Section 6: General Policies Section 7: Division of Land Section 8: Implementation Section 4.2 Housing Goal Section 4.2 discusses the Township’s housing goals, aiming to encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality, and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. The proposed consents will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterised by rural and rural residential uses. The new lots will be privately serviced, and their size and layout are compatible with surrounding

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 95 of 493

14 properties. The severed lots will support the development of new locally appropriate housing units, thereby aligning with the OPs housing goal. Section 5 provides policy direction for the land resources within the Township. Seven land use designations are identified. The subject site is designated Rural, as per Schedule A in the Township of South Frontenac OP.

Figure 8: Land Use Designation (Source: Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, Schedule A - Land Use Plan) Section 5.7 Rural The Rural land designation provides policy direction for lands characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between the Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural, and seasonal residential communities. Permitted land uses in the Rural designation include but are not limited to rural residential, agriculture, open space, and conservation. Section 5.7.4 provides policies specifically related to the provision of rural residential uses on Rural designated lands in the Township:

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 96 of 493

15 5.7.4 Rural Residential Polices (excluding Limited Service Residential) It is the general intent of this Plan that the majority of permanent non-agricultural residential development be encouraged to locate in the Township’s Settlement Areas. However, limited non-agricultural residential development may also be permitted within the Rural area so as to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of the Township. Subdivisions and severances to permit new residential uses shall be appropriately separated from incompatible agricultural areas, existing and proposed waste disposal, mineral extraction site and resource areas, natural heritage features and areas and natural hazards.

The proposed development aligns with Section 5.7.4 of the OP, which permits limited non-agricultural residential development in the Rural area to support housing diversity. The two new lots are suitably separated from incompatible uses such as active agricultural operations, waste disposal sites, and natural hazards, as confirmed through the MDS Study and Scoped NHA. The proposal maintains the rural character of the area while providing additional housing options in a manner consistent with the intent of the OP.

5.7.4(i) Rural Residential development including group homes established in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.5, home occupations and home industries may be permitted in the form of single detached dwellings developed on lots created by plan of subdivision or severance by the Committee of Adjustment in accordance with the policies of this plan. The proposed development will result in the creation of two lots through the consent process, configured to support the future development of a single detached dwelling on each lot.

5.7.4(ii) Rural Development Policies a) The frontage, size and shape of any lot for rural residential purposes created through the severance approval process shall be appropriate for the proposed use and shall conform with the provisions of the zoning by-law. As a rule, the minimum lot size shall be 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road for non-waterfront lots and I hectare (2.5 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road and 91 metres (300 ft.) of water frontage for waterfront lots. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained.

The surrounding area supports a range of frontages, and the proposed lots are in keeping with the lot fabric within the neighbouring area. The proposal will create appropriately sized and shaped rural residential lots that are well suited to the intended non-waterfront single detached dwelling use. Each lot exceeds the minimum area requirement of 0.8 hectares and provides sufficient space for private servicing, access, and appropriate setbacks. Township staff have confirmed that the reduced frontage can be appropriately addressed through a minor variance rather than requiring an Official Plan Amendment. The proposal maintains the broader goals of the OP and contributes to more rural housing options.

b)

Rural Residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems approved by the appropriate authority.

The proposed lots will be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems. The provision of dug wells and septic system is supported by the submitted hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis. Septic permits will be submitted for review and approval in advance of the residential development of each proposed lot. c)

New lots for rural residential purposes should be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with lot creation policies included in Section 7 of this Plan. However, a maximum of three rural residential severances may be permitted from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan by Council in accordance with the lot creation policies of Section 7 of this Plan when the consent approval authority is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not warranted. Any proposal which would create more than three new lots (three plus a retained) from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan shall only be considered by plan of subdivision.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 97 of 493

16 The proposed development will result in the creation of two new lots (two plus a retained) from an existing lot. Therefore, a plan of subdivision is not appropriate, nor required.

d)

All new rural residential lots shall have public road frontage.

The new residential lots will have public road frontage on Quinn Road East. 6.2 Development Policies Section 6.2 outlines policies for future development for the Township.

All types of future development shall occur on the basis of the submission and approval of registered plans of subdivision, land severances by consent of the Committee of Adjustment and/or amendments to the implementing zoning by-law. Residential development should primarily occur by registered plan of subdivision. However, development may occur by consent in accordance with the applicable policies of this plan when a plan of subdivision in the opinion of the Municipality clearly is not necessary to ensure orderly development, taking into consideration the social, economic and environmental impacts.

The proposed severances conform to Section 6.2 of the OP, which permits residential development by consent where a registered plan of subdivision is not deemed necessary to achieve orderly development. In this case, the creation of two additional rural residential lots can be appropriately facilitated through the consent process. Technical studies, including hydrogeological and environmental assessments, confirm that the lots can be adequately serviced by private wells and septic systems, and that the development will have no adverse environmental impacts. While the proposed severances do not meet the minimum frontage requirements of the zoning by-law, relief is being sought through a concurrent minor variance application. The reduction in frontage is not anticipated to impact the functionality, safety, or rural character of the area. As such, the proposed development represents an efficient use of rural land that maintains consistency with the broader goals of orderly, environmentally responsible growth. Section 6.17 Site Plan Control Section 6.17 established Site Plan Control applicability criteria. all land within 90 metres (295 feet) of a waterbody (primarily water front lots) including land used (g)

for residential purposes;

The subject site is not a water front lot but still may be subject to site plan control in accordance with Section 6.17, as the subject lands are located within 90 metres of a waterbody. This policy framework is intended to ensure that development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner, minimizing impacts on adjacent properties and protecting water quality. However, the supporting technical studies, including the NHS and Hydrogeological Assessment, have comprehensively addressed site-specific environmental conditions, servicing feasibility, and appropriate development setbacks. These studies provide a clear framework for protecting water quality, maintaining ecological buffers, and ensuring sustainable rural development. Section 6.23 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS) Section 6.23 outlines Minimum Distance Separation Formulate (MDS) requirements.

All new farm and non-farm development in the Township shall comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae (MDS I and II) as may be amended from time to time.

The proposed development has been evaluated against the MDS I formulae, as it involves the creation of new rural residential lots. A detailed MDS Study was completed, as summarized herein, identifying nearby livestock operations and calculating required setbacks in accordance with OMAFRA’s Publication 853. The analysis confirmed that all proposed lots and associated sensitive development comply with the required separation distances, either through meeting the calculated setback or by applying the provisions of Implementation Guideline #12, which considers intervening sensitive land uses. As such, the proposed development meets the intent of Section 6.23 by ensuring appropriate separation from agricultural uses and maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 98 of 493

17 Section 7.1 General Consent Policies Applicable to All Land Use Designations In Section 7.1 (a) and (c) – (i) are relevant to the proposed development.

a)

Consents shall only be granted when it is clearly not necessary in the public interest that a Plan of Subdivision be registered. In this regard, consents will be considered when the creation of new lots, in the opinion of the Municipality, will clearly have no adverse environmental, social or economic impact on the Township or adjacent land uses.

The proposed development has been reviewed through supporting technical studies, including a Scoped NHA, Hydrogeological Assessment, and Minimum Distance Separation Study, all of which confirm that there will be no adverse impacts on the Township, adjacent land uses, or to the public interest. The lots will be privately serviced by well and septic systems and will front onto an existing municipally maintained road, requiring no new municipal infrastructure. The creation of two additional rural residential lots represents a modest form of development that is compatible with the surrounding area and appropriately scaled. As such, the Township has not identified the need for a Plan of Subdivision, and the proposed consents meet the intent of Section 7.1(a) of the OP. c)

The size of any parcel of land created by consent shall be appropriate for the uses proposed. No parcel of land created as a result of a consent shall be less than that prescribed in the respective land use designations of this Plan, except for parcels created as lot additions or for technical reasons.

The proposed lots will exceed the minimum size of 0.8 hectares as prescribed by the Rural land use designations of the OP. The lot sizes can appropriately accommodate single detached dwellings, with sufficient space for private servicing, including well and septic systems, as confirmed by supporting studies. The proposed dimensions provide adequate area for building envelopes, setbacks, driveways, and vegetative buffers, ensuring the lots can function effectively for their intended rural residential use without adverse impact on surrounding land uses. d)

Consents should be granted with generally provide for a satisfactory geometric design of the severed and retained parcels.

The new proposed lots are rectangular in shape, and maintain linear frontage along a public road. Sufficient frontage will be maintained for the retained lot as well, with the existing access to remain and continue to be utilized. The long, rectangular shape of the retained lot will be maintained too. e)

Consents shall not be granted for a parcel of land which is subject to flooding or erosion, or other physical hazard, and where no building envelope is identified on the lot, when the use of the parcel requires that a building be erected. The advice of the appropriate authority will be sought in this regard.

The subject site is not located within areas identified as being subject to flooding, erosion, or other physical hazards. A Scoped NHA and Hydrogeological Assessment were completed to evaluate site conditions and confirmed the presence of suitable building envelopes outside of environmental buffers and setback areas. Development will maintain a minimum 30-metre setback from the onsite watercourses, as recommended, and no hazards have been identified that would prevent the safe and appropriate siting of future dwellings on the proposed lots.

f)

All applications for consent shall be accompanied with a sketch showing to scale the dimensions of the lots (severed and retained) to be created by the proposed consent. In addition, existing buildings and setbacks from the property lines and major topographic and land features such as an escarpment, creek or wetland shall be shown. The sketch shall also identify all buildings, septic systems and wells on the lands subject to the consent application as well as on adjacent lands. For those applications which constitute an addition to a holding, the sketch shall show the location, size, use and ownership of the lot to be enlarged.

A concept plan outlining the scale and dimensions of the severed and retained lots, as well as major land features has been submitted with these applications.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 99 of 493

18

g)

The creation of no more than two lots in total (i.e. including severed and retained) shall result from any one severance application for a new lot. Consents that are to establish a legal right-of-way for more than 21 years will require an application for consent when it is not part of a proposed new lot.

Two severance applications will be submitted, as the proposed development will result in three lots total (two severed and one retained). h)

Consents which would result in landlocking a parcel will be denied. All new lots, except limited service residential lots, shall front onto and gain direct access from an existing public road which reflects a reasonable standard of pavement or gravel construction and is maintained year-round by the municipality. The development will not result in a landlocked parcel. The proposed retained and severed lots will have direct access on Quinn Road East, which is an existing public road with year-round maintenance by the municipality. i)

Consents should not be granted for land adjacent to a road from which access is to be obtained where a traffic hazard would be created because of limited sight lines on curves or grades. The proposed lots will have frontage along Quinn Road East in a linear configuration. This road alignment minimizes the potential for traffic hazards related to curves or changes in grade. As such, access to each lot can be safely accommodated without creating visibility or traffic safety concerns. Section 8.5 Division of Land Section 8.5 outlines policies regarding the division of land within the Township

The Municipality will use subdivision and consent approval processes to ensure control over the subdivision of land. All plans of subdivision and consent applications must conform to the requirements of this Plan. As part of the approval process, certain requirements may be imposed as a condition to the approval of a plan of subdivision or a consent and the owner may be required to enter into an agreement with the Municipality before final approval. The above will also apply to the creation of individual units in a Plan of Condominium.

Section 8.5 of the OP provides the policy framework for the division of land through the consent process. This section affirms the Township’s authority to regulate land division to ensure that it aligns with broader planning objectives, servicing standards, and environmental considerations. The proposed consent applications are supported by technical studies that demonstrate the suitability of the lots for rural residential use, including servicing feasibility and environmental protection. The proposed lots are appropriately sized and configured to maintain the rural character of the area and conform to the intent of the OP. The proposal reflects a responsible form of rural land division that upholds the intent and requirements of Section 8.5. Section 8.9 Committee of Adjustment

When a Zoning By-law is in effect, a Committee of Adjustment may be appointed to rule on applications for minor variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-law. In granting a variance, the Committee will be satisfied that such variance is minor, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure and that the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are maintained. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment has the power to permit an extension or enlargement for a building or structure which is a non-conforming use and to grant consents for lands within the Township. The Committee will have regard for the policies of this Plan in reviewing such applications.

The proposed applications are consistent with Section 8.9 of the OP, which outlines the role of the Committee of Adjustment in reviewing minor variances and consents. In this case, a minor variance is required to permit reduced lot frontages for the retained and severed parcels. The variance is considered minor in nature, as the proposed lot areas exceed minimum zoning requirements, and the reduced frontages will not compromise the functionality, accessibility, or rural character of the lots. The variances support an appropriate form of development that is

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 100 of 493

19 compatible with surrounding land uses and maintain the general intent and purpose of both the OP and zoning by-law. The Committee of Adjustment also holds the authority to grant consent for the proposed lot creation, and the applications will be evaluated in accordance with the policies and objectives of the OP. Draft Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (2024) The Township of South Frontenac is in the process of updating the 2003 Official Plan. There is currently a third draft of the new OP publicly available, dated July 2024; however, it is not as of yet in force or effect. Although not yet in effect, the draft OP provides insight into the general intended policy direction of the Township for new development of growth. The proposed development is consistent with Section 9.3 of the draft OP, which permits the creation of up to three new lots (exclusive of the retained parcel) through the consent process from a lot of record existing on November 3, 2003. The subject site qualifies as an existing lot of record, and the current proposal seeks to create only two new lots, resulting in a total of three parcels including the retained lot. As such, the application remains within the lot creation limits identified in the draft OP and reflects the Township’s evolving policy direction for managing rural growth in a measured and orderly manner. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent and minor variance applications conform with the policies of the Township of South Frontenac’s Draft Official Plan.

Minor Variance A minor variance is required to address zoning compliance matters related to the proposed consent applications, specifically, minimum required frontage. The site is zoned Rural (RU) in the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75.

Figure 9: Current Zoning (Zoning By-law 2003-75)

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 101 of 493

20 Description of Requested Variances In order to permit the proposed consent, relief from the following provisions is requested: Retained Lot

1. 7.3.2 For Single Detached Residential Uses. Lot Frontage: 76 metres Relief is required to permit a minimum lot frontage of 64.6 metres. Severed Lot 1 & Severed Lot 2
2. 7.3.2 For Single Detached Residential Uses. Lot Frontage: 76 metres Relief is required to permit a minimum lot frontage of 63.0 metres. Four Tests The assessment of the proposed variances is undertaken following the tests described in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and in Section 8.9 of the Township of South Frontenac OP, as follows:

Test #1: Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained? Test #2: Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained? Test #3: Is the variance minor? Test #4: Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lands in question? Test #1: Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained? Test #1 considers whether the proposed variance aligns with the overall goals and policy framework of the Township’s OP. The OP sets out a vision for managing growth in a way that is sustainable, compatible with rural character, and responsive to community needs. A comprehensive review of the OP is provided in previous sections of this report, with specific regard for the consent applications, but also the minor variance application. This review satisfies Test #1, and demonstrates the maintenance of the general intent and purpose of the OP. Some more specific details related to the reduction in lot frontage requested are provided as follows: Section 1.1 outlines the purpose of the OP as to promote the orderly and economic growth of the Township while correcting existing problems and safeguarding the health, convenience and economic well-being of the Township’s current and future residents within the financial resources of the municipality. The requested relief from the minimum frontage is necessary to facilitate the creation of two rural residential lots that are appropriately sized, compatible with surrounding land uses, and supported by existing infrastructure. Section 4.0 of the Township’s OP provides goals and objections intended to guide development within the municipality. 4.2 Housing Goal

This Official Plan will encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. Such development will be carefully planned to reduce land use conflicts, provide long-term protection of the environment and minimize the municipal servicing costs. (a) Objectives

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 102 of 493

21 (i) to minimize the cost of providing essential municipal services to the residents. This will be accomplished by planning controls which consider the long-term servicing costs of all developments. (ii) to maintain the established rural character of the community. This will be accomplished by zoning controls which reduce land use conflicts, minimize the impact of development on traditional rural activities and place environmental concerns ahead of residential growth. (iii) to provide for a variety of housing types which will meet the varied and evolving needs of the residents. This will be achieved through by-laws which set out the criteria for construction and maintenance standards of various types of accommodation. (iv) to encourage seniors’ facilities, group homes and affordable housing to meet the needs of the community. Mindful of the municipality’s limited funds, this will be accomplished by zoning by laws rather than by direct or indirect subsidies. (v) to monitor the changing housing needs of the community. This will be accomplished by periodic review of the community’s demographics. (vi) to minimize the cost of providing essential municipal services to the residents. This will be accomplished by planning controls which consider the long-term servicing costs of all developments. The lots will be privately serviced, helping to minimize long-term municipal servicing costs in accordance with Objective (i) and (vi). By locating the lots along an existing municipal road in a manner consistent with the surrounding rural lot fabric, the proposal maintains the rural character of the area and avoids land use conflicts, as outlined in Objective (ii). The proposed consent also contributes to housing variety in the Township by modestly expanding the supply of rural residential lots, consistent with Objective (iii). Overall, the variance enables a form of development that is cost-effective, compatible with its context, and aligned with the OP’s housing goals. Single detached dwellings are a permitted use as per the Section 5.7.4 (i) of the OP. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) further acknowledges that while the standard frontage requirement for rural residential lots is 76 metres, the municipality may consider reductions where the overall intent of the OP is maintained. In this case, the proposed lots exceed the minimum area requirement, are compatible with the surrounding lot fabric, and will be serviced privately, ensuring no additional burden on municipal infrastructure. As such, the requested reduction in frontage is consistent with the intent of the OP and supports well-integrated rural development. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the proposed variance will maintain the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan. Test #2: Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained? The site is zoned Rural (RU) in the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Zoning By-law 2003-75. The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots. The consent will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is required to permit a reduced frontage for single detached residential uses. The following tables outlines the necessary variances required to facilitate the development. Provision

Requirement

Retained Lot

Severed Lot #1

Severed Lot #2

Variance Required?

Rural (RU) Zone Permitted Uses Single detached dwelling

Single detached dwelling

Anticipated single detached dwelling +/- 10,420 m2

No

63.0 metres

Yes

Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage

8000 m2

Complies

Anticipated single detached dwelling +/- 10,400 m2

76 metres

64.6 metres

63.0 metres

Consent + Minor Variance

No

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 103 of 493

22 Minimum Front Yard Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Interior Side Yard

20 metres

+/- 220 metres

To comply

To Comply

No

10 metres

To comply

To Comply

No

To Comply

To Comply

No

Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height

20 %

+/- 1,100 metres +/- 121 metres (West) +/- 95 metres (East) +/- 0.049%

To Comply

To Comply

No

11 metres

Complies

To Comply

To Comply

No

3 metres

Minimum Frontage Relief is requested to reduce the minimum frontage of each the severed and retained lots. The minimum frontage is proposed to be reduced from 76 metres to 64.6 metres for the retained lot, and 63.0 metres for both of the severed lots. This reduction in frontage is required to facilitate the consent, which will see a large, underutilized rural lot being developed in a manner which provides for two new lots and the potential to develop new single detached houses. The proposed frontages are consistent with the frontages of surrounding lots. Despite the proposed reduced frontage, the site will meet the lot area requirements and can accommodate a sufficient building footprint with all setback requirements. The proposed reduction in minimum frontage will not impact the functionality of the lots and will allow for the creation of new housing. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law. Test #3: Is the variance minor? The assessment of whether a proposed variance is minor is not a mathematical calculation. Rather, the test is intended to assess the degree of any impact resulting from the proposed variance. The requested variance would be limited to the site, limiting the scope of any impacts. The property is in an area characterized by rural residential uses on varied lot sizes, with a range of lot frontages. The minor variance application will allow the severance and development of two new lots and two houses, where both the lot dimensions and building typology are consistent with those currently present in the surrounding area. Sufficient setbacks between residential dwellings and their associated private servicing will be maintained, thus the impacts to each existing and new proposed uses are minor as well. Based on this review, it is our professional opinion that the proposed variances are minor in nature. Test #4: Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lands in question? The proposed development aligns with the permitted uses for the lands in question. The approved variance will result in the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized rural residential parcel to create two new lots for residential development in accordance with the Township’s goals for housing in the rural area. The surrounding area is characterized by alike rural residential developments with similar or reduced frontages. The subject site can support the proposed development, as demonstrated by several technical studies. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 104 of 493

23 Conclusion The applicant is seeking approval from the Township of South Frontenac to create two new lots from the subject site at 3629 Quinn Road East. The proposal consists of applications for consent to sever and a minor variance application to address reduced lot frontages on each of the severed and retained lots. The application will allow a form of appropriate rural residential development on the site which will complement the existing character of the area. The minor variance application maintains the intent and purpose of the OP and zoning by-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question. It is our opinion that the proposed applications for consent and minor variance are appropriate for the site and represent good land use planning. Should you have any questions or comments, please so not hesitate to contact us at 613.542.5454. Respectfully submitted,

Elysia Ackroyd, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Fotenn Planning + Design

Consent + Minor Variance

Tara McInnes Planner Fotenn Planning + Design

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 105 of 493

24 Appendix A

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 106 of 493

25

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 107 of 493

26

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 108 of 493

27

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 109 of 493

. __

, :

E:

,_

‘7

p

,

g (77

‘3) /)PETWORTHROAD r

gig?

”a?

"

v

1‘‘ ~Al_

«3

R0 AD FREEMAN JAIiWIESON ROAD .. g

{V

~

_

r:

é.

H

I

\a

IA\

‘

g» ~

"

.

A

0

"

2

v

w

—

W N

u

\

,.

a

\

‘

SOUTH FRONTENAC PL-BDJ -2025-0074 PL-BDJ -2025-0075 PL-ZNA-2025-0076 (PITTMAN) 3629 QUINN ROAD EAST Retained Lands

m

Proposed Severance (0075) Proposed Severance (0074)

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody x. *7! ”

Proposed Severance

1

(PL-BDJ-202510074)

) '

Township Boundary

Proposed Severance 2 (PL-BDJ-2025-0075)

Road

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2025.

Page 110 of 493

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

Scale: 1:7,500

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 2025-07-07

+

FO Planni Desi ng TE gn N

Page 111 of 493

Calculations 3609 Quinn Road E Farm contact information Kathy Huff 3609 Quinn Road E Harrowsmith, ON k0h1v0 613-372-1514

Location of existing livestock facility or anaerobic digestor County of Frontenac Township of South Frontenac PORTLAND Concession 3 , Lot 5 Roll number: 102908001013300

Total lot size 180.39 ac

Livestock/manure summary Manure Form

Type of livestock/manure

Existing maximum number

Existing maximum number (NU)

Estimated livestock barn area

Solid

Horses, Medium-framed, mature; 227 - 680 kg (including unweaned offspring)

10

10 NU

2500 ft²

Solid

Goats, Does & bucks (for meat; includes unweaned offspring)

100

12.5 NU

1500 ft²

Solid

Chickens, Layer hens (for eating eggs; after transfer from pullet barn), Floor Run

334

2.2 NU

334 ft²

Solid

Ducks, Muscovy

333 ft²

1.2 NU

333 ft²

Solid

Pheasants

333 ft²

1.2 NU

333 ft²

Setback summary Existing manure storage

V3. Solid, outside, no cover, >= 30% DM

Design capacity

27.2 NU

Potential design capacity

81.7 NU

Factor A (odour potential) Factor D (manure type)

0.73 0.7

Factor B (design capacity) 299.36 Factor E (encroaching land use) 1.1

Building base distance ‘F’ (A x B x D x E) (minimum distance from livestock barn)

169 m (554 ft)

Actual distance from livestock barn

506 m (1660 ft)

Storage base distance ‘S’ (minimum distance from manure storage) Actual distance from manure storage

No existing manure storage NA

Page 112 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment Quinn Road, Frontenac County, Lot 6, Concession 3

Prepared for: Robert Pittman 3629 Quinn Road East Harrowsmith, ON K0H 1V0

Prepared by: BluMetric Environmental Inc. 1682 Woodward Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3R8

Project Number: 240360 July 30, 2025

Page 113 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Table of Contents 1

Introduction __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2

Scope of Work _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Description ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Surrounding Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 3 Proposed Severances _______________________________________________________________ 4

Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.1 Background Information ____________________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Test Pitting _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Aquifer Testing _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.1 Test Wells _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.2 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.3 Aquifer Tests __________________________________________________________________ 6 2.4 Water Sampling ____________________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Well Owner Interviews _____________________________________________________________ 7

3

Geology and Hydrogeology ____________________________________________________________ 7 3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage _____________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Surficial Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 7 3.3 Bedrock Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.1 Water Well Records ____________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination ____________________________________________ 12 3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity ____________________________________________________ 12 3.4.4 Groundwater Quality __________________________________________________________ 13 3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity ________________________________________________________ 17

4

Development Considerations __________________________________________________________21 4.1 Water Treatment __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Testing of Treated Water __________________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ________________________________________________ 22 4.3.1 Sewage System Design ________________________________________________________ 23

5

Conclusions and Recommendations ____________________________________________________24

6

Limiting Conditions ___________________________________________________________________25

7

References ___________________________________________________________________________27 i

Page 114 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:

Test Wells Summary ____________________________________________________________ 5 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 Summary of MECP Water Well Records ________________________________________ 11 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results ____________________________________ 16 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1)__________ 17 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2)__________ 17 Observation Well Responses ___________________________________________________ 18 Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) ___________________________________________________________ 19 Summary of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity ________________ 19 Tile Bed Clearances ___________________________________________________________ 23

List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

Site Location ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Layout____________________________________________________________end of text MECP Wells __________________________________________________________end of text Conceptual Lot Development Plan _____________________________________end of text

List of Appendices Appendix A: Well Records Appendix B: Lab Certificates of Analysis Appendix C: Aquifer Analysis Appendix D: Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations

ii

Page 115 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

1

240360 July 2025

Introduction

BluMetric Environmental Inc. (BluMetric®) was retained to conduct a hydrogeological assessment to support an application for a two-lot severance at 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario (Roll #: 102908001013900). The site location is indicated in Figure 1. The proposed severances cover approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is in a rural area (a municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment system is not available) and the proposed severances will be serviced by private residential water supply wells and individual onsite septic sewage systems. Test wells TW1 and TW2 were used as the test well on the western and eastern lots to be severed, respectively. This study was conducted with regards to the following regulations and guidelines: •

• •

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems, Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment (MOEE, 1996). Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells, Water Supply Assessment (MOEE, 1996b). Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903), 1990, Wells.

1

Page 116 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Figure 1:

240360 July 2025

Site Location

1.1 Scope of Work The scope of work of this assessment included the following components: • • •

Desktop review of background information (water well records, geological databases, hydrology information, topography, known water uses). Inspect the lot for shallow groundwater/surface water conditions. Conduct a 6-hour pumping test at two new dug wells (TW1 and TW2) and monitor water levels at the pumping wells during pumping and recovery. The 6-hour pumping test occurred during low recharge conditions between late June to early September. Test well recoveries could be measured over multiple days. Water levels from the well on the retained lot was monitored during the pumping test.

2

Page 117 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

•

•

240360 July 2025

Collect and submit groundwater samples at the end of the 6-hour pumping test from TW1 and TW2 for laboratory analysis of parameters outlined in the D-5-5 technical guidance in addition to organic nitrogen, phosphorus and metals. Water quality results were compared to Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Analyse pumping test data to determine aquifer parameters.

1.2 Site Description The site is located approximately 20 kilometres northwest of Kingston, Ontario along the northern side of Quinn Road east of County Road 38 (Figure 1). The site is comprised of gradually sloping open fields, forested areas wetland areas. The proposed lands to be severed include two 1.05 ha plots located in the south corner of the site. Residential development is proposed to take place on both lots and dug wells have been constructed for each.

1.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses within 500 m of the subject site are described below: • North o Rural residential o Agriculture o Woodlot • East o Rural Commercial (Sugar Shack) o Agriculture o Woodlot o Rural Residential • South o Wetland o Woodlot o Quinn Road • West o Rural Residential o Agriculture o County Road 38 o Wetland o Woodlot

3

Page 118 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

All existing development in the area are supported by the use of private individual water supply wells and onsite septic sewage systems. All neighbouring water supplies are derived from drilled wells while the onsite water supplies will be derived from dug wells (well records provided in Appendix A). The construction of dug wells was to obtain the best water quality and quantity as recommended to Robert Pittman by BluMetric.

1.4 Proposed Severances The proposed severances involve the creation of 3 residential lots on 37.9 ha (Figure 1). The proposed severances are described as follows: • • •

2

Lot 1 (Severed A) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Lot 2 (Severed B) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Retained Lot – 35.89 ha, 64.6 metres of frontage open field and forested area, existing dug well.

Methodology

2.1 Background Information A review of available background information was conducted including: • • • • • •

MECP water well records; Topographic Databases; Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) online geology mapping databases; Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre mapping database; County of Frontenac Interactive Mapping Online GIS Portal; Ontario Watershed Information Tool (OWIT).

2.2 Test Pitting Four (4) test pits were advanced at the site as part of the investigation. The test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced by BluMetric to describe soil stratigraphy using a hand shovel on October 18, 2024, on each of the lots to be severed.

4

Page 119 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The soil profile at each test pit was logged by direct examination of the sides and bottoms of the test pits. Representative samples were collected in clean plastic bags. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 4.

2.3 Aquifer Testing 2.3.1 Test Wells Two residential supply wells, A350546 and A350547, were constructed in 2023. Supply well A350546 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 metres below ground surface (mbgs) by Frank’s Drilling and Blasting LTD. Supply well A350547 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 mbgs by Franks Drilling and Blasting LTD. Both test wells are situated along a topographic high and are advanced into bedrock as summarized in Table 1. Table 1:

Test Wells Summary

Well ID

Year of Installation

Depth to Bedrock (m)

Casing Depth (m)

TW1 (A350546) TW2 (A350547)

2023 2023

1.4 1.5

6.53 6.53

Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m) 3.0 3.0

Total Depth (m) 6.53 6.53

2.3.2 Observation Wells One water well was selected for use as an observation well during a second aquifer test. Aquifer tests were conducted on August 7, 2024, and August 8, 2024, and are detailed in section 2.2.3. One observation well (dug well) is located on the retained lot however a well record is not available to verify the details of its construction. Data recording of water levels at pumping wells and observation wells commenced one day prior to pumping and terminated three days post pumping. The residents were asked to not use their wells during the time of the pumping test. Table 2:

Observation Wells

Well ID 3629 Quinn Road (Dug well)

Year of Installation

Depth to Bedrock (m)

Casing Depth (m)

Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m)

Total Depth (m)

Unknown

5

Page 120 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

2.3.3 Aquifer Tests BluMetric staff conducted the first six-hour, constant discharge aquifer tests at supply well A350546 on August 7, 2024, and at supply well A350547 on August 8, 2024. Each well was pumped at a rate of 25 L/min for 360 min with a combined total of 18,000 litres of groundwater pumped from the aquifer. The testing program included observation of three wells (the pumping well and two observation wells) for each pumping test as required by Ontario Guideline D-5-5 for land parcels of 15 ha or less. A second 3.5-hour constant discharge aquifer test was completed on October 3, 2024, by BluMetric staff. The second test included the pumping of one test well (A350547) at a rate of approximately 41 L/min. A combined total of 8,610 litres was pumped during the second pumping test. Water levels were recorded during aquifer testing by manual methods (water level sounding meters) and with pressure transducer/datalogger units (Solinst Level Logger™). Post pumping observation was acquired with pressure transducers for a minimum of 24 hours to assess groundwater recharge. Results of the aquifer tests are provided in Section 3.4.6.

2.4 Water Sampling All wells were disinfected prior to the six-hour constant rate discharge pumping and any subsequent resampling event by shock chlorination. A water sample was collected in laboratory provided containers at the end of each aquifer test and placed immediately into a cooler with ice and transported to Caduceon laboratory in Kingston, a CALA accredited laboratory. Samples were analyzed for the list of chemical and microbiological parameters specified in Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996b). Further sampling of well A350547 was carried out on October 3, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 9, 2024, to confirm microbiological parameters following initial exceedances in TW2. Laboratory certificates are appended in Appendix B. Field measurements for temperature, pH, conductivity, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were carried out using a YSI™ Professional series multimeter. Free chlorine residual and turbidity measurements were collected using a Hanna HI93414 calibrated to 1.0 mg/L chlorine solution and turbidity standards of <0.1 and 15 NTU. Colour measurements were collected using a Hanna 96727 calibrated with 0 and 250 PCU standards. Microbiological quality sampling was conducted after the free chlorine residual concentration reduced to non-detectable or below the instrument’s limit of detection of 0.01 mg/L.

6

Page 121 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

2.5 Well Owner Interviews A standard well owner interview form was sent to the neighboring property owners along Quinn Road prior to conducting the pumping tests. The well-owner interview form requests details from neighboring water well users regarding well water quality and quantity and onsite wastewater treatment systems. All of the solicited neighboring water well users declined to fill out the interview form.

3

Geology and Hydrogeology

3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage The Site is geographically situated within two catchments. The western and northern parts of the Site are situated within the Wilton Creek-Little Creek Napanee River Catchment, while the southern and eastern parts of the site are situated within the Millhaven Creek Catchment (OWIT, 2024). Surface water drainage at the Site is diverted to a ditch located on the south end of the site. The northern part of the site drains south towards the ditch, while the southern end of the site (including the lots to be severed) drains north towards the ditch. This ditch then flows east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek.

3.2 Surficial Geology Four (4) shallow test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced using a hand shovel by BluMetric on October 18, 2024. Test pit locations are indicated on Figure 4. The following is a summary of stratigraphy encountered at the test pit locations. TP1 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.53 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY CLAY with some gravel Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.53 m Test pit was terminated at 0.53 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

7

Page 122 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

TP2 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.63 m: 0.63 to 0.66 m:

(hand dug using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown/grey SILTY CLAY with some gravel damp, grey CLAY with some black sand Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.63 m Test pit was terminated at 0.66 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

TP3 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.41 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown CLAYEY SILT/SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.41 m Test pit was terminated at 0.41 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

TP4 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.35 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.35 m Test pit was terminated at 0.35 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

240360 July 2025

The Ontario Geological Survey (2024) classifies the site as exposed bedrock with areas of less than 1.0 m of drift consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and diamicton. Well records for test wells TW1 and TW2 indicate that bedrock was encountered between 1.4 m and 1.5 m bgs at both locations. Soils stratigraphy on both well records show topsoil from ground surface to 0.3 m bgs followed by loam from 0.3 m bgs to bedrock at approximately 1.5 m bgs. Descriptions of soil stratigraphy at test pits TP1 to TP4 are generally consistent with the findings of the water well records search where overburden thickness varies between 0 m to 2.4 m.

3.3 Bedrock Geology Geological mapping information from the OGS Earth website (OGS, 2024) shows that the site is located within a sequence of horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary rocks. The uppermost bedrock unit is the Shadow Lake Formation which is of Ordovician age. The bedrock is

8

Page 123 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

described as limestone and dolostone (towards base). The site is in an area of inferred karst as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2024).

3.4 Hydrogeology An unconfined water table does not appear to exist in the overburden unit as evidenced by the test pits which remained dry over two days after their excavation. Drainage / infiltration within the overburden unit is expected to be influenced by topography and is inferred to have an easterly component towards Millhaven Creek. The primary water supply aquifer in the vicinity of the site occurs within the horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary bedrock. The bedrock aquifer has water bearing fracture zones (i.e., horizontal bedding plane fractures) that occur between sedimentary layers of bedrock. Permeability within these strata is controlled by fractures. The primary porosity (i.e. the ‘primary fracture network’) is associated with horizontal bedding plane fractures. A secondary porosity is associated with subvertical fracturing. The direction of regional groundwater flow in bedrock at the site is inferred to be to the to the east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek. Information from the Ontario Source Protection Atlas, (MECP, 2023) website indicates that the site is: • • • • •

Not within a wellhead protection area; Is not within an intake protection zone; Is not within an issue contributing area; Is not within a significant groundwater recharge area; A highly vulnerable aquifer does not occur beneath the site.

3.4.1 Water Well Records A total of 8 MECP water well records from the MECP Water Well Information System (WWIS; MECP, 2024) were reviewed (individual well records are provided in Appendix A). Wells selected within 500 m of the proposed severance are depicted on Figure 3 and summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that that well record locations are based on the database coordinates and may be subject to varying degrees of error. Well depths, overburden thickness, depth of casing, aquifer interception points and well yield related information were reviewed in detail and included Table 3. The review of water well records within 500 m of the subdivision provided the following relevant information:

9

Page 124 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

• • • • • • • • •

240360 July 2025

Depth to bedrock varies from 0 m bgs to 2.4 m bgs; Bedrock is reported as shale and/or limestone in all of the well records; Static water levels in the identified water wells range from 0.3 mbgs to 21.0 mbgs; The only dug wells in the MECP WWIS 500 m map area are those constructed at the Site; One of the 8 wells identified in the MECP WWIS were dry at the time of construction; Reported well pumping rates for drilled wells range from 0 L/min to 23 L/min; Six of the records produced water described as “clear”; The well record for supply well A350546 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L; The well record for supply well A350547 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L.

10

Page 125 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Table 3:

240360 July 2025

Summary of MECP Water Well Records MECP Water Well Record Summary

Well Record ID

Depth to Bedrock (m)

2203354 2204349

0.0 0.6

2205784

2.4

2205787

0.9

2210419

0.3

2211332

2.0

2212789

0.3

2214857

0.0

Overburden Material

Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Clay Loam / Gravel

Bedrock Material

Casing Depth (m)

Depth to Water Bearing Zone(s) (m)

Static Water Level (m)

41.1 10.4

Limestone Limestone

3.0 2.1

30.5 2.4

18.3 3.0

Drawdown after Drillers Pumping Test (m) 41.1 9.4

36.6

Limestone

6.7

14.0

5.2

20.4

Limestone

2.1

2.1

33.5

Limestone

2.4

25.6

Limestone Shale / Limestone Shale / Limestone

Total Depth (m)

9.1 24.7

Recommended Pumping Rate (L/min)

Dug/Drilled

Comments

14

Drilled Drilled

Clear Cloudy

36.6

0

Drilled

0.3

20.4

23

Drilled

2.7

0.9

33.5

23

Drilled

6.7

25.0

15.2

7.3

7.3

5.5

9.1

18

Drilled

7.6

22.6

21.0

22.9

0

Drilled

Drilled

Clear Clear Clear Untested Clear Clear

Page 126 of 493

11

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Taken collectively this information shows that the wells in the area can provide a suitable water supply. A review of the MECP Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database was carried out within a 5 km radius of the site. PTTW information was obtained directly from the MECP interactive GIS system (MECP, 2024b). No permits were identified within the search area.

3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination The following potential onsite sources of contamination at the site were identified (Drage, 2022): •

• •

•

The proposed parcels to be severed have historically been used for agricultural purposes based on aerial imagery, namely the growing and harvesting of hay, which may have necessitated the use of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as an agricultural practice. Dug wells are vulnerable to shallow groundwater contaminants originating from agricultural practices (fertilizers, livestock), the application of road salt, and septic system effluent. Groundwater in dug wells often contains microbial contaminants because the short groundwater flow paths do not allow microbes to be removed by natural filtration within the aquifer. Dug wells are also prone to elevated concentrations of decomposed plant matter within soil and organic carbon.

The following potential offsite sources of contamination were identified: • •

Agricultural activities at neighbouring may be a source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Application of road salt along Quinn Road East is expected to have caused some limited impacts to the area immediately bordering the road and ditches. No onsite impact is expected as a result of road salt application activities.

3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity The subject lands are within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’ as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2023). No obvious karst traits were found based on review of local Lidar data for the site; therefore a site-specific karst assessment was not deemed necessary. The water well records show that the overburden thickness within 800 m of the subject property varies from 0 to 2.4 m and has an average thickness of 0.8 m. The overburden material is primarily described in well records as loam. The well record for test well TW1 shows that the depth to bedrock is 1.4 m and the well record for test well TW2 shows that depth to bedrock is 1.5 m. The onsite test

12

Page 127 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

pits varied in depth from 0.35 to 0.66 mbgs and the material encountered was silty clay and silty sand. The most suitable source of potable groundwater for the proposed lot is the bedrock aquifer. The thin overburden layer will not provide any degree of isolation between bedrock and effluent from the septic systems which are proposed for the lots to be severed. Based on the terrain analysis findings, the site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin soils, so protective measures (extra depth of well casing and extra setback between wells and septic beds) are discussed and recommended in Sections 5 and 6. Mitigative measures for protection of water quality include imposing a minimum 45 m separation distance between well and septic system and mandating well water quality treatment with ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection.

3.4.4 Groundwater Quality The severed lots are proposed to be serviced by dug wells. Water quality was assessed at both the western lot (via test well TW1) and eastern lot (via test well TW2) to be severed. Laboratory analytical results from the groundwater samples collected at the end of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 along with field measurement data are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix B. A review of the analytical data summarized in Table 4 indicates that all tested water quality parameters were below the health and aesthetic related ODWSOG with the exception of the following: Well A350546 (TW1) • Sodium • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids Well A350547 (TW2) • Escherichia Coli • Total Coliforms • Fecal Coliforms • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids

13

Page 128 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Hardness - Hardness was reported at 237 mg/L in well A3350546 (TW1), and 286 mg/L in well A350547 (TW2), both exceeding the ODWSOG OG of 80-100 mg/L. Hardness is caused by dissolved calcium and magnesium and is expressed as the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. Hardness levels below 500 mg/L in drinking water are considered generally acceptable for most domestic purposes and can be treated using a conventional water softener system. Softening using a domestic water softener increases the sodium level in drinking water. Total Dissolved Solids - The average TDS concentration measured of the two groundwater samples collected as part of this study is 627 mg/L. The analytical results for TDS at test wells TW1 and TW2 were measured to be 731 mg/L and 522 mg/L, respectively, both of which exceed the aesthetic objective (AO) limit. TDS is a measure of the inorganic substances dissolved in water. The principal constituents of TDS are chloride, sulphates, calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonates. The effects of TDS on drinking water quality depend on the levels of the individual components. Excessive hardness, taste, mineral deposition, or corrosion are common properties of water with elevated TDS. Water with a TDS concentration above 500 mg/L may not be palatable. Procedure D-5-5 does not provide a treatability limit for TDS, but it does require a written rationale that corrosion, encrustation, or taste problems will not occur. A Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) and Ryznar Stability Index (RSI) of 0.83 and 6.4, respectively, was calculated from the water quality results indicating the water is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and scale forming may occur. Water softening, already recommended for hardness, will remove calcium in the water supply and reduce the potential for mineral deposition and corrosion to plumbing fixtures. Sodium - Sodium concentrations are reported at 217 mg/L in test well TW1 and 108 mg/L in in test well TW2. A concentration exceeding 20 mg/L is to be reported to the local Medical Officer of health so that this information can be communicated to local physicians for their use with patients on sodium restricted diets. Potassium chloride can be used in place of sodium chloride to reduce the sodium content in water softening applications. Measured sodium levels exceed the ODWSOG aesthetic objective guideline of 200 mg/L. It is recommended that an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. Total and Fecal Coliforms, Escherichia Coli – The analytical results for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli measured in the groundwater sample collected from test well TW2 on August 7th, 2024, were above the ODWSOG limit (between 15 and 22 counts / 100 mL). Procedure D-5-5 indicates that the ODWSOG limit for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli is used as an indicator of inadequate disinfection within distribution systems. For private water wells the MECP 14

Page 129 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

and Health Units have historically used the limit of <5 counts /100 mL in the absence of a chlorine residual as indicating acceptable water quality concerning total coliforms, and D-5-5 indicates total coliform counts of less than 6 per 100 ml are acceptable. A second groundwater sample was collected by BluMetric from test well TW2 on October 3rd, 2024, at the end of a 4-hour pumping test and was analyzed for microbiological parameters. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4, satisfying the ODWSOG. Two (2) additional groundwater samples were collected on December 2nd and December 9th, 2025, by the property owner at 3629 Quinn Road East via grab sampling methods to confirm the previous sampling results. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample continued to show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4.

15

Page 130 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Table 4:

240360 July 2025

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

Parameter

Units

RDL

ODWSOG

TW1

TW2

TW2

TW2

TW2

6 hours

6 hours

03-Oct-24

02-Dec-24

09-Dec-24

15 22 15

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0.2 0.1 0.06 0.71 108 0.003 0.0003 1.17 0.0006

Microbiological Parameters (Health) Escherichia Coli

ct/100 mL

0

0MAC

0

Total Coliforms

ct/100 mL

0

MAC

0

0

Fecal Coliforms

ct/100 mL

0

not specified

0

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

1.5MAC

Turbidity (Lab)

NTU

0.1

5 AO

0.7 1.2

N-NO2 (Nitrite)

mg/L

0.1

1MAC

<0.05

N-NO3 (Nitrate)

mg/L

0.1

10

Sodium

mg/L

1

20 / 200

217

Manganese

mg/L

1

AO

0.05

0.014

Arsenic

mg/L

1

new MAC

0.0005

Boron

mg/L

1

5 IMAC

Uranium

mg/L

1

0.02

Chemical Parameters (Health)

0.29

MAC

MA

0.01

AO

MAC

2.28 0.00063

Chemical Parameters with Aesthetic Objectives/ Operational Guidelines N-NH3 (Ammonia)

mg/L

0.02

not specified

1.47

pH

no units

1

6.5-8.5

8.10

Hardness as CaCO3

mg/L

1

100

237

Alkalinity (as CaCO3)

mg/L

5

500

TDS (COND - CALC)

mg/L

1

500

731

Calcium

mg/L

1

55.8

Chloride

mg/L

1

250AO

82.8

Colour

TCU

2

AO

5

<2

Conductivity

uS/cm

5

1350

DOC

mg/L

0.5

5

Hydrogen Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

Sulphate

mg/L

Tannin & Lignin Magnesium Potassium

AO

0.05

<0.01

1

AO

500

247

mg/L

0.1

<0.5

mg/L

1

23.7

mg/L

1

Iron

mg/L

0.03

0.3

Manganese

mg/L

0.01

0.05

0.014

2.21 7.95 286 302 522 74.6 55.3 <2 979 3.1 <0.01 143 <0.5 24.2 15.6 0.008 0.003

pH

no units

0.01

7.63

7.43

Chlorine Residual

mg/L

0.01

0

0

Conductivity

uS/cm

0.1

6.5-8.5AO non detectable

1297

Turbidity

NTU

0.01

5

AO

0.26

Colour

TCU

10

AO

5

0

Temperature (oC)

oC

0.1

942 0.15 0

AO

OG OG AO

AO

349

3.9

20.8 AO AO

0.015

Field Parameters

Notes: Bold and shaded indicates results exceed criteria RDL - Reported Detection Limit ‘-‘ – Not Tested/Reported Hydrogen Sulphide is reported as a calculated value based on the Sulphide concentration determined by colorimetric method. MA = Medical officer of health advisory if sodium exceeds 20 mg/L. Sodium AO is 200 mg/L Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003/2022. Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended.

16

Page 131 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity As part of the 6-hour pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 were pumped by BluMetric on August 7 and August 8, 2024, at a constant rate of 20.5 L/min continuously over a period of six hours. Pressure transducer/datalogger were installed inside the dug wells at the retained lot on 3629 Quinn Road to measure groundwater interference during pumping of test well TW1 and TW2. A summary of the water levels measured over the course of the 6-hour pumping tests is included in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5:

Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1) 07-Aug-24

08-Aug-24

12-Aug-24

Test Well ID

Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)

Borehole Depth (mbgs)

Static Water Level (mbtoc)

Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)

Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

TW1

1.40

6.53

1.46

1.68

1.53

1.17

Table 6:

Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2) 08-Aug-24

09-Aug-24

12-Aug-24

Test Well ID

Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)

Borehole Depth (mbgs)

Static Water Level (mbtoc)

Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)

Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

TW2

1.50

6.53

1.57

1.76

1.49

1.22

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the static water levels prior to the start of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 was 1.46 m btoc and 1.57 m btoc, respectively. Water levels at test well TW1 and TW2 prior to pump shutoff after 6 hours of pumping were 1.68 m btoc and 1.76 m btoc, respectively. Based on these water level measurements, total drawdowns of 0.22 m and 0.19 m were observed at the end of the 6-hour pump tests. Based on static water level measurements and well depths shown on the well records (recommended pump depths were at the bottom of the well), test wells TW1 and TW2 have available drawdowns of 5.07 m and 4.96 m, respectively. At the end of the 6-hour pumping test, test wells TW1 and TW2 had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump.

17

Page 132 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, water levels at test wells TW1 and TW2 had recovered to 1.53 m btoc and 1.49 m btoc approximately 24 hours following pump shutoff, indicating that both test wells recovered to approximately 68% and 142%, respectively, of the initial static water levels measured immediately before the start of the 6-hour pumping test. Recovery water levels above 100% four (4) days after pump shutoff are likely due to a combination of precipitation (13.2 mm and 20.8 mm of precipitation was measured at the Environment Canada weather station in Hartington, Ontario, on August 8th and 9th, respectively, located approximately 5 km from the site) and/or natural variations in water levels. A summary of measured water levels at observation wells that were monitored during the two sixhour pumping tests is included in Table 7. Table 7: Pumping Well TW1 (6-hr test) TW2 (6-hr test)

Observation Well Responses

TW2 3629 Quinn Road

Radial Distance (m) 100 190

Drawdown After 1 hour (m) 0.02 0.01

Drawdown After 2 hours (m) 0.04 0.02

Drawdown After 6 hours (m) 0.11 0.08

TW1 3629 Quinn Road

100 120

0.02 0.03

0.03 0.04

0.09 0.1

Observation Well

As shown in Table 7, the worst-case drawdown observed after 6 hours of continuous, constant rate pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min was 0.11 m. As per procedure D-5-5, discussed in more detail below, the daily water demand for a 4-bedroom dwelling is 2,250 L/day, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 2 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.04 m based on Table 7). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014), also discussed in more detail below, indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 1 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.03 m based on Table 7). Based on the worst-case drawdowns observed in neighboring water wells after 1 hour (0.03 m) and 2 hours (0.04 m) of the constant rate pumping test, which are representative of daily water use scenarios of the future dwellings on the proposed lots to be severed, negative impacts associated to well interference are not anticipated. As summarized in Table 8, the amount of groundwater pumped out of test wells TW1 and TW2 over the course of the 6-hour pumping test was approximately 7,358 L per well. Based measured drawdowns of 0.22 meters and 0.19 meters at the end of the 6-hr pumping test, the calculated volume of water pumped from test wells TW1 and TW2 were approximately 7,362 L and 7,351 L,

18

Page 133 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

respectively, assuming that both test wells are cylindrical and have casing radiuses of 0.46 meters. It is also assumed that both test wells have additional groundwater storage outside the immediate vicinity of the casing (representing the dug well excavation that was backfilled with porous sand/gravel) that extends to a radius of approximately 3.2 meters. Based on a 24-hr recovery of 0.15 meters and 0.27 meters, the calculated volume of water produced by test wells TW1 and TW2 over a 24-hr period was calculated to be approximately 4,967 L and 10,331 L, respectively. Table 8:

Test Well ID

Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) Volume of Water Pumped During 6-hr Pumping Test (L; Flowmeter)

Calculated Volume of Water Pumped During 6-Hour Pumping Test (L)

Height of Water Column Recovery After 24 hrs (m)

Volume of Water Produced After 24hrs of Recovery (L)

TW1 7358 7362 0.15 4967 TW2 7358 7351 0.27 10331

• Calculated volumes assume both test wells are cylindrical, have casing radiuses of 0.46 m and additional water storage extending to a radius of 3.2 m.

Analyses of the 6-hour pumping test conducted on test well TW1 were conducted using AquiferTest 10.0 software in order to estimate aquifer parameters. Aquifer parameters were calculated using the Theis (1935) method for an unconfined aquifer as summarized in the table below. Appendix C includes pumping test analysis reports for drawdown and recovery phases of the pumping test for the pumping well and selected observation wells. Table 9:

Summary of Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity

Well

Type

TW1 TW2 3629 Quinn Road

Pumping Well Observation Well Observation Well Mean

Drawdown 2x101 3x101

T (m2/d) Recovery 4x101 5x101 4x101

Mean 4x101 3x101 3x101 3x101

K (m/s) Mean 8x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-4 9x10-5

S 6x10-4 2x10-4 4x10-4

The calculated aquifer parameters for pumping well TW1 and observation wells TW2 and 3629 Quinn Road are similar to published literature values for coarse/medium sand (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990), however values are likely representing a composite of fractured limestone and gravel, consistent with the construction materials of dug wells.

19

Page 134 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

In order to calculate the productive capacity of test wells TW1 and TW2, the Farvolden (1959) method was used to estimate a sustainable pumping rate for 20 years without exceeding the available drawdown in the test wells. The Farvolden (1959) method is defined by the following equation:

Where: T = Transmissivity (m2/day) HA = Available drawdown (m) Q20 = 20-year safe yield Using a mean transmissivity value of 3x101 m2/d and an available drawdown of 5 m, the Farvolden (1959) method suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 71.4 m3/day, or 50 L/min. The suitability of test wells TW1 and TW2 to supply an adequate amount of water for the proposed severances was assessed using the methodology provided in MECP Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996), which indicates the number of people per dwelling is the number of bedrooms plus one. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that future residences on the proposed severances will be a fourbedroom single family homes, therefore the number of persons residing in each residence is assumed to be five. Procedure D-5-5 indicates the minimum ‘per-person water requirement’ is 450 L/day, which is 2,250 L/day per dwelling. Procedure D-5-5 also indicates that ‘peak demand’ is assumed to occur over a 120-minute period and is to be based on a per person usage rate of 3.75 L/min during that period. Using this information, the ‘peak demand rate’ per four-bedroom house is 3.75 x 5 = 18.75 L/min for a total of 2,250 L over a 120-min period. The pumping rate used for the pumping tests at TW1 and TW2 was 20.5 L/min therefore a total of 7,358 L was pumped from each test well in 360 mins and still had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump. The Farvolden (1959) method, calculated using measured aquifer parameters of the test wells, also suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 50 L/min. Based on the recovery data measured during the two 6-hr pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 can supply between 4,967 L and 10,331 L of groundwater over a 24-hr period for domestic use.

20

Page 135 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Based on this information, both test wells can satisfy the requirements to accommodate both daily and peak water demand requirement for a four-bedroom house based on the D-5-5 procedure (2,250 L/day per dwelling). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014) indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 225 L per person per day (1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house). Current Ontario Building Code requirements (OBC, 2012) for water conservation specify that toilet and shower consumption must now comply with lower use requirements (OBC Table 7.6.4.2.A & B and Table 7.6.4.1). Based on the new requirements, toilet water demand is assumed to be 4.8 L/flush. Shower consumption is assumed to be 7.6 L/min. Toilet use accounts for approximately 25% of total domestic water use, and shower use accounts for approximately 20% (CMHC, 2014). The OBC efficiencies will result in an average per person domestic water usage of 163 L/day. This suggests that the daily household water demand could often be less than 815 L/day.

4

Development Considerations

4.1 Water Treatment The new severed lots will be serviced by dug wells therefore the following water treatment items are recommended: • • •

Pre-filtration (25 and/or 10 micron and 5 micron) followed by absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization. UV sterilization with a National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Class-A (NSF, 2019) device. Under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets.

Since filtration and disinfection both contribute to the removal or inactivation of waterborne pathogens, both treatment processes are recommended, along with a service contract with a qualified contractor to ensure the on-going maintenance and performance of the water treatment system. The water within the overburden aquifer has elevated hardness. Installation of a residential grade water softener would reduce the concentrations of hardness and extend the lifespan of the UV sterilization system. Conventional water softeners introduce sodium into the water supply.

21

Page 136 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The concentration of sodium in the water supply already exceeds the ‘medical notification limit’ of 20 mg/L for people on a sodium reduced diet, so a conventional water softener is not recommended. Softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. Sodium can also be removed from drinking water by using reverse osmosis or by distillation.

4.2 Testing of Treated Water Treated water from the proposed dug wells for the proposed two-lot severance should be tested on a regular basis for bacteriological parameters. Free microbiological testing for water wells is available through Public Health Ontario. Details regarding sample bottle pickup and sampling procedures can be accessed at the Eastern Ontario Health Unit website (https://eohu.ca/en/my-environment/wellwater-testing). Sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest, (e.g. early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rain/flooding).

4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal MECP’s Procedure D-5-4 (MOEE, 1996) provides a methodology for assessing the risks associated with individual onsite sewage systems. Developments consisting of lots which average 1 hectare (with no lot being smaller than 0.8 hectares) may not require a detailed hydrogeological assessment if it can be demonstrated that the area is not hydrogeologically sensitive. The lot sizes of the proposed lots to be severed are approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is also considered hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin overburden and is located within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’, therefore an assessment of the potential impact of effluent from a wastewater treatment system (i.e., a nitrate dilution calculation) was conducted. The assessment is based on a reasonable estimate of groundwater recharge by infiltration from precipitation. The method relies on estimates of evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff and inputs regarding surficial soil type, vegetative ground cover and topography. A nitrate effluent concentration of 40 mg/L and a wastewater flow of 1,000 Litre/day per lot is used (based on OBC Table 8.2.1.3.A, which indicates a daily rate of 2,000 L/day for 2 x 4-bedroom dwelling). A mean annual precipitation value (net of evaporation and evapotranspiration processes) of 965.6 mm/year was used (Environment Canada, Climate Normals 2022 – Centreville).

22

Page 137 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

An estimation of infiltration was calculated based on site specific information and the infiltration factors provided in the document MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995). The calculations are provided in Appendix D. The assessment shows that the nitrate impact for the proposed severances will be approximately 5.8 mg/L. This assessment shows that nitrate in effluent from proposed development will have an acceptable impact on receiving water quality.

4.3.1 Sewage System Design Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), a fully raised tile bed is anticipated for the proposed severed lot. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. Sewage systems are designed according to Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC, 2012). The OBC sets out minimum design and construction standards for all approved classes of sewage systems. It is proposed that this site be serviced with traditional Class 4 sewage systems consisting of a septic tank and separate leaching bed. Wherever possible, leaching beds should be located down gradient from any nearby wells or surface water bodies. The Ontario Building Code stipulates minimum clearance distances for in-ground and raised tile beds. Table 6 gives clearances for the various types of beds. In order to provide a safety margin, it is BluMetric’s recommendation that an offset of at least 45 m (1.5x minimum clearance) be observed between an onsite wastewater treatment system and TW1 and TW2. The septic system and bed should be placed in a downgradient or side gradient location relative to the planned dug well. Clearance distances in Table 6 also apply to wells and sewage systems located on neighbouring lots. A conceptual lot development plan showing setbacks is included as Figure 4. Table 10:

Tile Bed Clearances

Minimum Clearance (m) In-ground Partially Raised Fully Raised Water supply well with a watertight casing to a depth of 6 m 15 16.5 18 Any other water supply well (including dug wells) 30 31.5 33 Surface water body* 15 16.5 18 Structures 5 7.5 8 Lot boundaries 3 4.5 6 Source: Table 8.2.1.6B of O.Reg. 332/12, as amended (Ontario Building Code) and increased for a 1.5 m fully raised leaching bed as required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11). Surface Feature

23

Page 138 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The homeowner is advised to have the on-site wastewater system inspected regularly and to follow a wastewater system management program to minimize the risk of failure and impact to the groundwater. Existing tile bed drainage system should be disconnected prior to installation of future septic bed systems. Best management practices are recommended such as regular pumping of the septic system, cursory inspection of break-out, consideration as to what materials are being discharged to the septic. It is recommended that homeowners take all reasonable measures to conserve water and promote infiltration of water into the subsurface within each of their lots. The homeowner shall consult the following guides available at: https://www.oowa.org/homeowner-resources/ • •

5

A Guide to Operating & Maintaining Your Septic System About Your House: Buying a House with a Well and Septic System

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the investigations and analyses contained within this report: • •

•

• • •

The dug wells TW1 (on the western lot) and TW2 (on the eastern lot) are suitable for the purpose of characterizing the bedrock aquifer at the subject site. TW1 on the proposed western lot and TW2 on the eastern lot to be severed will provide a sufficient quantity of water for a four-bedroom household based on daily and peak water demands outlined in the D-5-5 procedure. In BluMetric’s professional opinion the probable well yield determined on the basis of this investigation is representative of the yield which residents of the proposed lots to be severed are likely to obtain from existing dug wells in the long term. The water quality at TW1 and TW2 was found to satisfy the health-related limits of the ODWSOG. Pre-filtration and absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization is recommended. Treated water should be tested on a regular basis to ensure the efficacy of the water treatment system. Samples should be tested for bacteriological parameters, and sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest (e.g., early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rains/flooding).

24

Page 139 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

•

•

• •

•

6

240360 July 2025

The laboratory analytical results for hardness exceeded the Operational Guideline limit (a non-health related parameter). Elevated hardness can be treated with a residential grade water softener. Water softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can potentially be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. The laboratory analytical results for sodium exceeded the Aesthetic Guideline limit (a nonhealth related parameter). Elevated sodium can be treated with under-the-counter reverse osmosis systems installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. The proposed lots to be severed are suitable for development at the proposed occupancy based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), raised tile beds are anticipated for the proposed severed lots. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. The site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to the need for dug wells as the only source of potable water. As a precautionary measure, the setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 m.

Limiting Conditions

The conclusions presented in this report represent our professional opinion and are based upon the work described in this report and any limiting conditions in the terms of reference, scope of work, or conditions noted herein. BluMetric makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by others, or of conclusions and recommendations predicated on the accuracy of that information. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion. BluMetric makes no representation as to compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies established by regulatory agencies.

25

Page 140 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

This report has been prepared for Robert Pittman. Any use a third party makes of this report, any reliance on the report, or decisions based upon the report, are the responsibility of those third parties unless authorization is received from BluMetric in writing. BluMetric accepts no responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any unauthorized third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

Respectfully submitted, BluMetric Environmental Inc.

Erik Lalonde, M.Sc., P.Geo Hydrogeologist

Michael Melaney, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineering

26

Page 141 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

7

240360 July 2025

References

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 2000 (Revised 2014). Household Guide to Water Efficiency. Drage, J. 2022. Domestic Wells Introduction and Overview. The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada, 2022. Canadian Climate Normals and Averages website: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Environment Canada, 2010. Meteorological Service of Canada. Compiled moisture surplus values for Ottawa, Lachute, Mason Anger, Morrisburg National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) / American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 2019. NSF/ANSI 55-2019 Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems. Ontario Building Code (OBC), 2012 as amended. O. Reg. 332/12: Building Code under Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992. Ontario GeoHub, 2024. Ontario Watershed Boundaries (OWB) GIS portal at: https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/mnrf::ontario-watershed-boundaries-owb/ Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), OGS Earth website, 2024. Various authors. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2022a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS map. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003. Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended/revised under Ontario Regulation 169/03, 2021. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-169-03/latest/o-reg-169-03.html https://wcwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Technical-Support-Document-for-OntarioDrinking-Water-Standards-Objectives-and-Guidelines.pdf

27

Page 142 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1994. Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2015. Water Supply Wells Requirements and Best Management Practices, (Revised April 2015) website at: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4410/a-wwbmp-title-master-table-of-contentschapter-1.pdf Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS and database. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024b. Permits to Take Water (PTTW) online GIS. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-permits-take-water Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Regulation 319/09, 2009. Quinte Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-319-09/latest/o-reg-319-09.html Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32 Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Revised Statute of Ontario (R.S.O.), Ontario Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903), 1990, Wells. Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. American Geophysical Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.

28

Page 143 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Thornthwaite, C. W., and Mather, J.R., 1957: Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publications in climatology, Volume 10(3), Laboratory of Climatology. United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2022. Geographic information system (GIS) at: https://alacarte.prescott-russell.on.ca/Html5Viewer/Index.html?Viewer=Public

29

Page 144 of 493

Figures

Page 145 of 493

Lot 2

Lot 1

Retained Lands

Indicates Proposed Lot Severances

Indicates Retained Lands

Figure 2 – Site Layout

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 146 of 493

Retained Lands

Lot 1

Lot 2

Indicates Well Record Location and ID Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Inferred Regional Drainage Direction Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow and Drainage Direction

Figure 3 – MECP Well Locations

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 147 of 493

A32158-TW2

Lot 2

TP1 TP4

TP3

TP4

Indicates Test Pit Location (August 6, 0.6 m 2024) and depth in metres

TP2

Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Indicates Supply Well Location

Indicates Recommended Residence Location 45 m

Denotes minimum 45 m separation setback between well supply and septic system

Indicates Recommended Septic System Location Inferred Shallow Groundwater and Drainage Flow Direction

Inferred Regional Groundwater Flow Direction Well Location

Figure 4 - Conceptual Lot Development Plan

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 148 of 493

Appendix A Well Records

Page 149 of 493

Page 150 of 493

Page 151 of 493

Page 152 of 493

Page 153 of 493

Page 154 of 493

Page 155 of 493

Page 156 of 493

Page 157 of 493

Page 158 of 493

Page 159 of 493

Page 160 of 493

Page 161 of 493

Appendix B Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

Page 162 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 130104

REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-14 Ground Water

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:

Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)

Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA

Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN

Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid) Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA

BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS KDIBBITS PLUSSIER

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01

Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C

COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01 NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01

SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4

Page 163 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Parameter

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Units

R.L.

Total Coliform (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

0

E coli (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

0

Heterotrophic Plate Count

CFU/1mL

10

10

Fecal Coliform

CFU/100mL

1

0

Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5

mg/L

5

349

TDS (Calc. from Cond.)

mg/L

3

731

Conductivity @25°C

uS/cm

1

1350

pH @25°C

pH units

8.10

Colour

TCU

2

<2

Turbidity

NTU

0.1

1.2

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

0.7

Chloride

mg/L

0.5

82.8

Nitrate (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.29

Nitrite (N)

mg/L

0.05

<0.05

Sulphate

mg/L

1

247

Phosphorus (Total)

mg/L

0.01

0.01

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

1.5

Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)

mg/L

0.05

1.47

Organic Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

<0.1

Dissolved Organic Carbon

mg/L

0.2

3.9

Tannin & Lignin

mg/L

0.5

<0.5

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4

Page 164 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Phenolics

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Hardness (as CaCO3)

mg/L

0.02

237

Barium

mg/L

0.001

0.066

Boron

mg/L

0.005

2.28

Calcium

mg/L

0.02

55.8

Iron

mg/L

0.005

0.015

Magnesium

mg/L

0.02

23.7

Manganese

mg/L

0.001

0.014

Potassium

mg/L

0.1

20.8

Sodium

mg/L

0.2

217

Strontium

mg/L

0.001

7.88

Zinc

mg/L

0.005

0.005

Antimony

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Arsenic

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Beryllium

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Cadmium

mg/L

Chromium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Cobalt

mg/L

0.0001

0.0002

Copper

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Lead

mg/L

0.00002

0.00028

0.00001 5

<0.000015

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4

Page 165 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Molybdenum

mg/L

0.0001

0.0008

Nickel

mg/L

0.0002

0.0007

Selenium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Silver

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Thallium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00012

Uranium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00063

Vanadium

mg/L

0.0001

0.0004

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4

Page 166 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 108631

REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-15 Ground Water

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:

Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)

Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA

Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN

Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid)

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA

BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS YLIEN PLUSSIER

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12

Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)

Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01

Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C

COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01

SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B ICPMS Test SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B

NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4

Page 167 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Parameter

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Units

R.L.

Total Coliform (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

22

E coli (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

15

Heterotrophic Plate Count

CFU/1mL

10

530

Fecal Coliform

CFU/100mL

1

15

Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5

mg/L

5

302

TDS (Calc. from Cond.)

mg/L

3

522

Conductivity @25°C

uS/cm

1

979

pH @25°C

pH units

7.95

Colour

TCU

2

<2

Turbidity

NTU

0.1

0.1

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

0.2

Chloride

mg/L

0.5

55.3

Nitrate (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.71

Nitrite (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.06

Sulphate

mg/L

1

143

Phosphorus (Total)

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

2.2

Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)

mg/L

0.05

2.21

Organic Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

<0.1

Dissolved Organic Carbon

mg/L

0.2

3.1

Tannin & Lignin

mg/L

0.5

<0.5

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4

Page 168 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Phenolics

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Hardness (as CaCO3)

mg/L

0.02

286

Barium

mg/L

0.001

0.071

Boron

mg/L

0.005

1.17

Calcium

mg/L

0.02

74.6

Iron

mg/L

0.005

0.008

Magnesium

mg/L

0.02

24.2

Manganese

mg/L

0.001

0.003

Potassium

mg/L

0.1

15.6

Sodium

mg/L

0.2

108

Strontium

mg/L

0.001

9.19

Zinc

mg/L

0.005

0.007

Antimony

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Arsenic

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Beryllium

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Cadmium

mg/L

Chromium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Cobalt

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Copper

mg/L

0.0001

0.0010

Lead

mg/L

0.00002

0.00018

0.00001 5

<0.000015

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4

Page 169 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Molybdenum

mg/L

0.0001

0.0007

Nickel

mg/L

0.0002

0.0026

Selenium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Silver

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Thallium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00022

Uranium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00060

Vanadium

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4

Page 170 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 130297

REPORT No: 24-030803 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-07 Ground Water

Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid)

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON

Authorized BBURTCH BBURTCH BBURTCH

Date Analyzed 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03

240360 Lab Method ECTC-001 FC-001 HPC-001

Reference Method MECP E3407 SM 9222D SM 9215D

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Parameter

Total Coliform (DC Media)

E coli (DC Media)

Background (DC

Heterotrophic Plate

Media)

Count

Fecal Coliform

Units

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

CFU/1mL

CFU/100mL

R.L.

1

1

1

10

1

Client I.D.

Sample I.D.

Date Collected

TW2

24-030803-1

2024-Oct-03

0

0

0

10

0

Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1

Page 171 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

DW 132970

REPORT No: 24-037978 - Rev. 0

Report To: Private Kingston ,

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Robert Pittman

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Dec-10 2024-Dec-11 Drinking Water

Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid)

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1

Site Analyzed KINGSTON

Authorized BBURTCH

Date Analyzed 2024-Dec-10

Lab Method ECTC-001

Reference Method MECP E3407

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Parameter

Total Coliform (DC Media)

E coli (DC Media)

Units

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

R.L.

1

1

Client I.D.

Sample I.D.

Date Collected

3629 Quinn Rd.East Well

24-037978-1

2024-Dec-09

0

0

Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1

Page 172 of 493

Appendix C Aquifer Analysis

Page 173 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Pumping W ell: TW 1 Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

TW 1 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

Analysis Date: 2025-03-11

t/t’ 1

10

100

1000

0.00

residual drawdown [m]

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.30

Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

TW1

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

4.22 × 10

-4

7.82 × 10

-5

0.45

Page 174 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

TW 2 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E0 2E-1

residual drawdown [m]

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

t/t'

1E1

1E2

1E3

2E-1

1E-1

8E-2

4E-2

0E-1 TW2 Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

TW2

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

6.02 × 10

-4

1.11 × 10

-4

99.03

Page 175 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

3629 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E0 1E-1

residual drawdown [m]

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

t/t'

1E1

1E2

1E3

8E-2

6E-2

4E-2

2E-2

0E-1 3629 Quinn Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

3629 Quinn

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

6.67 × 10

-4

1.23 × 10

-4

189.77

Page 176 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Test Conducted by:

Test Date: 2025-03-12

Analysis Performed by:

3629 Quinn - Drawdown

Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m

Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

Time [s] 10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.00

Drawdown [m]

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Calculation using COOPER & JACOB Observation Well

3629 Quinn

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

[m²/d]

[m/d]

2.75 × 10

1

5.00 × 10

Storage coefficient

Radial Distance to PW [m]

0

1.65 × 10

-4

189.77

Page 177 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Test Conducted by:

Test Date: 2025-03-12

Analysis Performed by:

TW 2 - Drawdown

Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m

Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E1 2E-1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

Time [s] 1E3

1E2

1E4

1E5

2E-1

[m]

1E-1

8E-2

4E-2

0E-1 TW2 Calculation using Theis with Jacob Correction Observation Well

TW2

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

[m²/d]

[m/d]

2.22 × 10

1

4.04 × 10

Storage coefficient

Radial Distance to PW [m]

0

5.71 × 10

-4

99.03

Page 178 of 493

Appendix D Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations

Page 179 of 493

Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Thornthwaite Calculation Thornthwaite Method (1957)

Potential Evapotranspiration

‘Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems’ 4th edition by Ram S. Gupta, 2017 Et month = 1.62 (10Tm)/I)^a where: a = 67510^-9I^3 - 771 10^-7I^2 +17910^-4 * I + 492*10^-3 Ii = sum (Tm/5)^1.514 Canada Climate Normals Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario Month January Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Temp C

Ii

frozen frozen frozen 1.4877 2.9527 4.2984 6.3385 7.0714 9.0708 8.7189 10.5471 7.9723 9.8887 5.3836 7.4537 2.1934 3.9049 0.3501 1.0420 frozen 37.476 51.198 a= 1.0901 Note: Daylight Factor is an adjustment factor for possible hours of sunshine based on latitude. Monthly temperature from Environment Canada Climate Normals website at: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

-7.7 -6.9 -1.5 6.5 13.1 18.2 20.9 19.7 15.2 8.4 2.5 -4.1

Et (cm) unadjusted

Daylight Factor

Et (mm) adjusted

1.13 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.21 1.04 0.94 0.79

0.0334 0.0811 0.1170 0.1382 0.1197 0.0775 0.0367 0.0082

0.612 metres

965.6 mm

Potential Evapotranspiration (PE)

612 mm

Surplus Water (Precipitation - PE)

354 mm

Page 180 of 493

Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Predictive Nitrate Impact Assessment PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Infiltration Factors

Infiltration Factors

0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated

Topography Soil Cover Total

0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated

Topography Soil Cover

0.6

Total

Site Characteristics

0.6

Site Characteristics 21000 m

Area of Site :

2

Area of Site :

21,000

2.10 hectares Area of each roof: Total of roof areas: Length of roadways: Width of roadways: Total area of roadways:

10 m 5 m 2 100 m

Impervious Area

2 700 m

Percent Impervious Area = Infiltration Area =

21,000

m2

Septic Effluent

m2

2.10 hectares 2 300 m 2 600 m

3.33 %

Infiltration Area =

20,300

m2

Septic Effluent

Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =

40 mg/L 3 0 m

Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation

Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =

40 mg/L 3 2 m

Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation

Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) =

0 mg/L

Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

965.6 mm/yr

Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) = Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)

354 mm/yr

Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)

Factored Surplus Water =

212 mm/yr

Factored Surplus Water =

3 4,458 m

Total volume of Infiltration

0 mg/L 965.6 mm/yr 354 mm/yr 212 mm/yr 3 4,309 m

Total volume of Infiltration

mm/yr 3 12 m /day

Infiltration flow entering the system (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)

3 12 m /day

Infiltration Flow Entering the System (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)

CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration

CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration

Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area

3 0 m /day

Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area

3 0 m /day

Cb = background nitrate concentration

0 mg/L

Cb = background nitrate concentration

0 mg/L

Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield

3 0 m /day

Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield

Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent

40 mg/L

Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate CT = Estimate Number of Lots

3 2 m /day

Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent

40 mg/L

3 12 m /day

Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration

3 12 m /day

0 mg/L

Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate

0 mg/L

0.0 mg/L 1 lots

CT = Estimate Number of Lots

5.8 mg/L 2 lots

Page 181 of 493

1682 Woodward Dr. O awa, ON K2C 3R8 Canada

The Tower, 4 Cataraqui St. Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 Canada

3B-209 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2M7 Canada

825 Milner Ave. Toronto, ON M1B 3C3 Canada

T 877.487.8436 O awa@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Kingston@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Kitchener@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Toronto@blumetric.ca

6-410 Falconbridge Rd. Sudbury, ON P3A 4S4 Canada

260-15 Taschereau St. Ga neau, QC J8Y 2V6 Canada

200-1500 Du College St. Saint-Laurent, QC H4L 5G6 Canada

27 Parker St. Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4T5 Canada

T 877.487.8436 Sudbury@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Ga neau@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Montreal@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Dartmouth@blumetric.ca

4916–49th St. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1P3 Canada

200-4445 SW 35th Terrace Gainesville, FL 32608 USA

T 877.487.8436 Yellowknife@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Gainesville@blumetric.ca

Page 182 of 493

August 6, 2024

Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca

NATURAL HERITAGE SITE ASSESSMENT 3629 Quinn Road; LOT 6, CON 3 South Frontenac Township, Frontenac County Prepared for:

Robert Pittman

Prepared by:

Megan Snetsinger, M.Sc. megan@ecologicalservices.ca

Table of Contents 1.0

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1

Property Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1.2

Description of Application ………………………………………………………………………………… 2

1.3

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

2.0

SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

2.1

Present and Historical Land Use ………………………………………………………………………. 4

2.2

Ecological Land Classification ………………………………………………………………………….. 4

3.0

ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES ……………………………………. 6

3.1.

Wetlands………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.1.1

Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland …………………………………. 6

3.1.2

Locally Significant Wetland ……………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.1.3

Unevaluated Wetland ………………………………………………………………………………… 6

3.2

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest …………………………………………………………….. 6

3.3

Significant Woodland……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.4

Significant Valleyland ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

3.5

Surface Water and Fish Habitat ……………………………………………………………………….. 7

3.6

Species at Risk Habitat …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

3.7

Significant Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………. 8

4.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………….. 9

5.0

Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts ………………………………………….. 10

Attachment 1. Site Photos ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Page 183 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

1.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Property Location The subject property is on Quinn Road in South Frontenac, on Lot 6 / Concession 3 of the geographic township of Portland. The property is in EcoDistrict 6E-9: Havelock.

Figure 1. Topographic map, showing the relative location of the subject property, which is indicated by the black circle. Base map is an annotated detail from topographic map 31 C/07, Sydenham.

1.2 Description of Application Two severances are proposed from the subject property (Figure 2). Both proposed lots and the retained land have frontage on Quinn Road. The retained land has a driveway along the east side of the property to an existing single-family home and outbuildings north of the proposed severances; it is in poor condition and the retained land may be redeveloped. The proposed severances are not developed, and are proposed as residential lots.

2 Page 184 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Figure 2. Approximate boundaries of the subject property (solid white line) and the two proposed severances (broken lines). Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.

1.3 Methodology Ecological Services carried out field work and desktop research to determine if the proposed development will have a negative impact to the area’s natural heritage features and their associated functions. Our assessment of the property’s natural heritage features is based on the requirements laid out in section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as the South Frontenac Official Plan. We surveyed the property May 24, 2024 (personnel Megan Snetsinger and Mary Alice Snetsinger). The weather was sunny and clear, and the temperature was 24°C at 3:00 when we began our assessment. We identified habitat communities on and around the proposed development following the methodology outlined in the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) and when applicable, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (OMNR 2022). We considered significant natural features, fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat (SWH, as described in OMNRF 2015), and Species at Risk when performing our site investigation. Desktop research provided information on the presence of rare species and potential habitat on and adjacent to the subject property, from the following sources: • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data accessed via the Ontario Make a Map tool for natural heritage areas; grid square: 18UQ6715 • Ontario GeoHub for wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest • Fish ON-Line • Fisheries and Oceans Canada map of aquatic Species at Risk • Ontario Nature Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario Atlas • eBird • iNaturalist

3 Page 185 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

2.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Present and Historical Land Use The south end of the subject property is mostly in active/recent agricultural use, with a channel (likely a farm ditch) crossing the property. The southernmost field was ploughed at the time of our field visit, and the soil was bare. There is a new well dug on each of the proposed lots. We did not survey the north end of the retained land, as it is not adjacent to the proposed development, but we noted from satellite imagery that most of it appears to have tree cover, which is a combination of deciduous and mixed forest. In 1954, more of the property had open fields (Figure 3), although there is some tree cover at the north end. Figure 3. 1954 imagery of the subject property (outlined in red). Imagery from the University of Toronto Map & Data Library.

2.2 Ecological Land Classification The south end of the property, closest to Quinn Road, is characterized by Cultural (CU) communities, i.e., those maintained by anthropogenic-based disturbances. There is evidence of past agricultural use in the southernmost field (e.g., old stalks, corn cobs), but it is presently ploughed and largely bare of vegetation. The other fields on the property are in active agricultural use. Around the edges of the fields, as well as along the driveway and around the residential buildings, there are a variety of disturbance-tolerant species: e.g., Dog-Strangling Vine, Orchard Grass, Common Dandelion, Red Clover, White Clover, Virginia Creeper, Blueeyed Grass, Queen Anne’s Lace, Chickweed, Pigweed, King Devil, Field Cinquefoil. Along the driveway there are a variety of shrubs in a Cultural Thicket (CUT) community, including Common Lilac, European Buckthorn, Grey Dogwood, Prickly Ash, Red Cedar, Staghorn Sumac, and Apple. North of the ploughed field is another thicket with a similar assemblage of shrubs. This community also has some White Pine and Green Ash. It would likely have formerly been a forest ecosite, but the tree cover does not presently meet the definition of a forest community due to dieback of the ash trees. North of the channel, there is one patch of with sufficient tree cover to define as a Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) community, likely because fewer ash trees are present. White Pine is the dominant coniferous component to the forest, and with a mix of deciduous trees (e.g., Sugar Maple, White Oak, Shagbark Hickory). 4 Page 186 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

The channel is not large enough to map as a distinct ELC community, but there are different species along its extent. Reed-canary Grass is nearly monotypic in the channel, with some other species of wet environments along the edges: American Water Horehound, Meadowsweet, Awl-fruited Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Yellow Sedge, Retrorse Sedge. There is a muddy track used by vehicles to connect the ploughed field and the cropland to the north. The channel path has been torn up at this location, and we observed water pooling in the tire tracks, supporting some Water Plantain and Water Purslane.

Retained land

S01

S02

Figure 4. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping, in yellow, of vegetation communities on the subject property near the proposed severances. The white lines denote the approximate property outline (solid line) and the proposed severances (broken line). The channel across the property is indicated with a blue line. Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.

5 Page 187 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

3.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES On or adjacent to proposed development?

3.1. Wetlands 3.1.1

Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

The Millhaven Creek PSW is the closest to the subject property, over 1 km to the east. It is not adjacent. 3.1.2

Locally Significant Wetland

There are no locally significant wetland identified by the Township or any evaluated non-significant wetlands adjacent to the subject property. 3.1.3

Unevaluated Wetland

Ontario mapping data includes a layer of unevaluated wetland, which is procedurally-generated mapping of potential areas of wetland. On the proposed severances, there is an area mapped as unevaluated wetland within the CUT/FOM2 area around the channel. There are several factors that define wetland under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, including that in wetlands must have over 50% relative coverage of wetland plants. We assessed the area, and found that the assemblage of vegetation is dominated by upland species and facultative species (i.e., those that tolerate a variety of conditions). This is not wetland. The channel has more wetland or facultative species, but this is a riparian community rather than wetland. There are also patches of unevaluated wetland mapped adjacent to the property, including along the channel to the east and west and on the property across Quinn Road. We cannot access other properties to assess them for wetland presence, but we can review satellite imagery. In our opinion, some of these adjacent areas of unevaluated wetland do appear to be wetland (e.g., across Quinn Road and almost 120 m west). The proposed severances are unlikely to impact these adjacent areas of wetland, given intervening distance and topography. 3.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest The Harrowsmith Bog Life Science ANSI is the closest to the subject property, over 3 km to the northwest. It is not adjacent. 3.3 Significant Woodland The FOM2 patch north of the channel is about 0.3 ha, which is too small to meet any criteria for significance.

6 Page 188 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? The woodland south of Quinn Road is on adjacent lands that we did not assess, but a measurement of the area based on satellite imagery puts it close to 60 ha. It likely is significant for size and interior habitat, and could have other ecological functions or uncommon characteristics depending on what is in the woodland. The proposed severances and development of residential lots north of Quinn Road is unlikely to impact this woodland. 3.4 Significant Valleyland

Yes

No

Yes

No

The land where the severances are proposed does not meet the morphological characteristics of a valleyland. There are no Environmental Protection or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (which would include significant valleyland) mapped by South Frontenac Township adjacent to the subject property. 3.5 Surface Water and Fish Habitat The watercourse that crosses the property is a straight line that appears to have been channelized (Figure 5). It is likely an old farm ditch. The channel width is variable, between 2-4 m across. During our site visit there was some water in the channel with no sign of flow. Most of the channel length has dense growth of monotypic Reed-canary Grass, with some bare patches on the west side of the property. We observed no sign of fish. Given the dense vegetation the potential for fish presence appears low, although if there is direct connection to fish habitat there could be some marginal habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that development on the proposed lots meet a 30 m setback from the channel, as recommended in the South Frontenac Official Plan. The concept plan for this development includes a 30 m setback from the channel.

Figure 5. Ontario Make-a-map satellite imagery of the subject property (red outline). Note the straight line of the channel across the property through the thicket.

7 Page 189 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? We also observed what may be a hand-dug well about 15 m south of the channel near the west side of the property (see Attachment 1). This is not a natural heritage feature, and is located within the recommended setback. 3.6 Species at Risk Habitat

Yes

No

Yes

No

There are no Species at Risk (Endangered or Threatened) records from Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data. Our other database searches did not indicate any nearby SAR. We did not observe any SAR during our field visit. 3.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat (SWH) constitutes locations where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their life cycle, where rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat is present, and areas important to migratory or non-migratory species (animal movement corridors), as well as to the habitat of rare species (including any species of conservation concern not covered above). The criteria (OMNRF 2015) for most SWH categories were not met on or adjacent to the proposed development. Our discussion is limited to potentially relevant SWH. Bat Maternity Colonies. Maternity colonies require large-diameter cavity trees in deciduous or mixed forest habitat; snags are preferred. This SWH is found in forest ELC ecosites, which includes FOM. The small patch of forest north of the channel on the proposed severances is about 0.3 ha, which is technically too small to identify as a distinct ELC community (we mapped it to distinguish features on a smaller site), so it may not be large enough to categorize as SWH. However, as the forest patch is almost entirely within the recommended setback from the channel, any bat roosting trees present are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed severance. We recommend that the forest patch should remain standing (i.e., not be clearcut). We also recommend that any tree cutting outside of the forest should take place outside of the bat roosting season (April 15 to September 30) to mitigate any potential harm to bats that may be roosting on the property. Raptor Wintering Areas. The criteria for this SWH require confirmed, regular use by specific raptor birds of combined forest and open habitat of over 20 ha. The criteria schedule suggests that raptors prefer least disturbed sites for winter hunting grounds, in extensive fallow fields (>15 ha) that are windswept with little snow accumulation. The woodland south of Quinn Road is large and has several open fields around its south and east sides, although there are not many eBird records around the woodland for the associated species. The proposed severances are unlikely to impact any raptor wintering activity in the adjacent woodland. 8 Page 190 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs). This SWH requires treed wetland. There is no suitable habitat on the subject property, and we observed no stick nests on any of the dead-standing trees. There is a NHIC record of a Mixed Wader Nesting Colony in the relevant UTM block, which is associated with this type of SWH. However, NHIC grid squares are large; this habitat is likely associated with an area of wetland from another part of the square. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species. There is one rare species from NHIC data: Wood Thrush. In our other database searches, there are nearby eBird records for Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-pewee. We did not observe any rare species during our site visit. Woodland birds: Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) – designated as Threatened1 under the SARA and as Special Concern under the ESA; and Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens) – designated as Special Concern under the SARA and under the ESA. These bird species are typically found in deciduous or mixed woodland habitat. On the subject property, the woodland is small and fragmented from the adjacent woodland. It is also less extensive than it would have previously been, due to the die-back of the ash trees in the CUT. There is a much larger area of woodland (with a deciduous component) south of Quinn Road, which is likely to be more attractive to woodland birds. The proposed development is unlikely to impact habitat in the adjacent woodland. The woodland on the proposed severances falls within 30 m of the channel, which is the setback we have recommended. Outside of that setback, development on the severances would not be in woodland habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that any tree cutting should be done outside of the breeding season (April 1 to August 31), to comply with the intention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, to mitigate any direct harm to these or other nesting songbirds.

4.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development?

Yes

No

If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on?

1

Although this species has a Threatened designations, the Provincial Policy Statement refers to Ontario designations when discussing SAR. So we have grouped it with other rare/Special Concern species.

9 Page 191 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Recommendations for Mitigation

1. Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 m from the channel.
2. The land within 30 m of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. Environmental Impact Statement: It is our opinion that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions, and that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Yes

No

Is monitoring recommended?

Yes

No

Signature:

5.0

Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Aquatic species at risk map. Web site maintained by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, compiling critical habitat and distribution data for aquatic species. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/map-carte/index-eng.html Fish ON-Line. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with information on element occurrences. <https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/ FishONLine/Index.html?site=FishONLine&viewer=FishONLine&locale=en-US> Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Technology Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Natural Heritage Information Center. Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with species rarity rankings and information on element occurrences. <https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/Natural_Heritage/index.html?viewer=Natural_ Heritage.Natural_Heritage&locale=en-CA> . MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section. 10 Page 192 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 2nd edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. 239 pp. OMNRF, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E. OMNRF Regional Operations, Peterborough, Ontario. 38 pp. Provincial Policy Statement. 2020. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Province of Ontario. 53 pp. Township of South Frontenac: Official Plan. March 2003. Consolidated January 2024. University of Toronto Libraries. Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/ collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index

11 Page 193 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Attachment 1. Site Photos

Photo 1. The channel across the subject property, dense with Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both sides by thicket (CUT).

Photo 2. The channel across the subject property, at the west end where there are patches without Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both by thicket (CUT) on the south/left and by forest (FOM2) on the north/right.

12 Page 194 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Photo 3. The channel across the subject property, facing west from the driveway, with the thicket (CUT) around it.

Photo 4. The dead ash trees in the thicket (CUT) community, which was likely formerly a treed community.

Photo 5. The forest (FOM2) north of the channel.

13 Page 195 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Photo 6. The hand dug well observed 15 m south of the channel.

Photo 7. The driveway on the retained land, to the existing house. The active agricultural fields are visible in the background.

Photo 8. The ploughed field on the proposed severances. Development on the lots is proposed on this site.

14 Page 196 of 493

Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2025-0074 Application Number: ___________________________________________________ Robert Pittman Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________

3 PT Lot 6 Portland Lot: _______________District:

Concession: _________________ Quinn Road East Road: ________________________________________________________________

Road Maintenance:

✔ Year-round □

Seasonal □

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

✔ Yes □

No □

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

Road Conditions:

1. Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?

2. Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.

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

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

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

Signature on behalf of Public Services

2025-07-22

Date

Page 197 of 493

July 31, 2025

File: SEV/FRS/172/2025 SEV/FRS/173/2025 MV/FRS/174/2025

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

Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Lot Creation) & Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 3629 Quinn Rd East; Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: unnamed tributary of Millhaven Creek & unevaluated wetlands

Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted applications for consent and minor variance. The applications involve the severance of two 1.0 ha parcels of vacant land from an existing 37.8 ha rural property for the purpose of creating two new building lots. Future residential development is planned for the 35.8 ha retained parcel. A minor variance is necessary to permit reduced lot frontages for each lot. Discussion CRCA’s scope of review with respect to this application is the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the unnamed watercourses and wetlands on the subject property and protection of the hydrologic function of wetlands. We offer the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration, based on our role as a commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Surface Water Features Cataraqui Conservation, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits requires development (building and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) to be located outside of natural hazard areas and set back a minimum of 30 m from surface water features including watercourses (creeks, streams) and

Page 198 of 493

Page 2 of 3 wetlands. The intent is to protect development from potential flooding and erosion hazards and to preserve the hydrologic function of these features. Unnamed Tributary of Millhaven Creek The subject lands are within a drainage catchment the flows east into Millhaven Creek. There is a watercourse that runs across the southern portion of the subject lands approximately 98 m back from Quinn Road. The watercourse is a regulated feature and as such a 30 m setback is applied. The survey sketch provided shows that there are building envelopes on the severed and retained lands outside of the required 30 m setback from the watercourse. However, the proposed lot configuration results in the severed lots being divided by the watercourse. Staff note that it may not be feasible to access the northern portion of the severed lots since this would require a crossing of the watercourse, which may not be permitted by CRCA. As such, staff recommend that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. Unevaluated Wetlands Mapping identified pockets of unevaluated wetlands on the subject lands, generally in the area in and around of the watercourse. Staff are accepting of the findings of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment which confirms the presence of riparian vegetation in the watercourse channel but notes that the area is not large enough to be considered a distinct community. Based on this, CRCA have no concerns related to the hydrologic function of wetlands on the subject lands. Staff recommend that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Karst Topography The subject lands have been identified on provincial OGS Mapping as having inferred karst. Karst is a type of unstable bedrock that is relatively common in the Cataraqui Region area and is considered a natural hazard under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and Ontario Regulation 41/024. As with other natural hazards, there is risk of damage to buildings, property and human safety when development is located within or near unstable bedrock. Accordingly, CRCA’s regulation directs development away from these areas and features. CRCA staff have reviewed available information (e.g. aerial imagery, soils and geology mapping, topographic info.) and completed a site inspection of the subject lands. Based on our preliminary findings, we did not encounter evidence of karst in the area of the future development envelopes (generally within 50 m of Quinn Road). Should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the applicant will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property.

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 199 of 493

Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Staff have no objection to approval of PL-BDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-20250076 based on our review of natural hazards and have identified considerations above in bold. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 30 m of the watercourse are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06). The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards and to ensure the protection of wetlands. Current and future landowners are advised to contact CRCA before considering any work within 30 metres of the watercourse on the subject lands. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely,

Emma Stucke, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner cc. Robert Pittman, applicant, by email Elysia Ackroyd, agent, by email

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 200 of 493

To:

Committee of Adjustment

Prepared by:

Development Services Department

Meeting Date:

August 14, 2025

Subject:

Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075, Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-20250076, Pittman (Fotenn), 3629 Quinn Road East, Portland District

Summary The consent applications are for the creation of two rural residential lots. The minor variance application is to allow the severed and retained parcels to have less than the required lot frontage. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on the consent applications in conjunction with the minor variance application. This report recommends approval of the three applications. Background The subject property is located south of Harrowsmith, east of Road 38 and on the north side of Quinn Road East. It runs north to an unopened road allowance. The northern two thirds of the property is forest and old farm fields. The southern portion of the property is generally level. It contains agricultural fields and is developed with a single detached dwelling, a detached garage and a shed. A watercourse bisects the property approximately 100m north of Quinn Road East. The neighbourhood has a mix of rural residential properties and agricultural properties. The subject lands are in the Rural designation in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The lands are zoned Rural (RU) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained parcels because the RU zone requires 76m frontage. Supporting Documents A Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. The report assessed the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area as well as its conformity with the applicable policy and www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 201 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

regulatory framework. It included a minimum distance separation study for livestock facilities. A Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required to confirm the existence of a mapped wetland along the watercourse, and to define its boundary, on the severed parcels. The study determined that there was no wetland on the severed parcels. The consultant evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, and woodland on the severed and retained parcels. They also reviewed the area for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat. The Natural Heritage Site Assessment included the following recommendations:

1. Development should be setback a minimum of 30m from the watercourse,
2. The land within 30m of the watercourse should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated to provide a buffer, and
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. A Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required because the severed parcels would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse. A dug well was constructed on each of the severed parcels. The consultant conducted 6hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment. The study concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems. The report included the following recommendations:
4. Water treatment including pre-filtration and ultraviolet sterilization, as well as an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system for individuals with sodium restricted diets,
5. Regular testing of treated water for bacteriological parameters,
6. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements, and
7. The setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45m as a precautionary measure due to the hydrogeological sensitive nature of the site. The Hydrogeological Assessment was reviewed by Malroz Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Township. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reported on July 22, 2025, that there are adequate entrance sight lines for both the severed parcels and the retained parcel. Road widening is to be determined by an www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 202 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Ontario Land Surveyor. A 20-metre right-of-way is required on Quinn Road East. Any shortfall of the right-of-way as measured 10 metres from the centreline of the road shall be dedicated to the Township. Public Services had no comment on the proposed reduced lot frontages. Cataraqui Conservation staff indicated in a letter dated July 31, 2025, that they have no objection to the applications. They recommended the applicant consider an alternative lot configuration where the rear lot lines would follow the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings, because crossings may not be permitted by CRCA under O. Reg. 41/24. They also recommended that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Finally, they noted that should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the owner will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property. Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The consent applications need to be assessed against the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS), County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, as well as the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The minor variance application needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Minimum Distance Separation for Livestock Facilities In conformity with the PPS, the Township Official Plan requires all division of land for nonfarm uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I (MDS I) (section 7.1(l)). The Township Zoning By-law also requires residential development to comply with MDS I. The subject lands are in a rural and agricultural area where there are several existing livestock facilities. The Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) evaluated these livestock facilities against The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document (OMAFRA Publication 853). MDS I setbacks were calculated for barns at 4372 Road 38 and at 3609 Quinn Road East. It was determined that the severed parcels would conform to the applicable minimum distance separation policies. Rural Residential Uses The PPS allows residential lot creation on Rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. The County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan also permit residential development in the Rural designation. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 203 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Section 5.7.4 of the Township Official Plan indicates that a maximum of three rural residential lots may be created by consent from a landholding provided that the new lots meet the General Consent Policies, as well as all other applicable policies. The subject property is eligible for severances under Section 5.7.4. There have been no previous severances from the lot existing on the day of adoption of the Township Official Plan. Section 5.7.4 requires the frontage, size and shape of any lot created for rural residential purposes through the severance approval process to be appropriate for the proposed use and to conform to the provisions of the zoning by-law. The severed parcels would be approximately 1.0ha in size, which would exceed the minimum 0.8ha lot area required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. They would be rectangular-shaped. The severed parcels would have approximately 63m frontage and the retained parcel would have 64.6m frontage on Quinn Road East. These frontages would be less than the minimum 76m lot frontage required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) of the Official Plan allows the municipality to consider reductions to this requirement provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The minor variance application requests 60m lot frontages. The minimum 76m lot frontage is intended to allow for a separation between driveways and to improve traffic safety. Public Services noted that the severed parcels and retained parcel would each have adequate sight lines for an entrance. Minimum lot frontages are also required to ensure a development pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature and to avoid an overdeveloped appearance. Existing lots along this part of Quinn Road East have frontages ranging from 40m to 70m, so the proposed reduced lot frontages would be consistent with the existing lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Finally, minimum lot frontages help ensure a reasonable separation between uses. Separation between wells and sewage systems is especially important for protecting groundwater in hydrogeological sensitive areas. A hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis was required in support of the applications because the proposed lots would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse (i.e. development would logically need to occur on the land between the watercourse and the road). The Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a sewage system. Figure 4 of the report is a conceptual lot development plan that illustrates how a well, a sewage system and a house can fit on each of the severed parcels with consideration for the recommended 45m separation distance between the wells and sewage systems. The development could also achieve the required 30m setback from the watercourse and other applicable zone provisions.

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

Page 204 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Staff are satisfied that the proposed reduced frontages would not compromise the functionality, accessibility or rural character of the severed parcels. It would also not impact the continued use of the retained parcel, 150m north of the road. Special Development Requirements Staff recommend that a development agreement be a condition of the consent approvals. The development agreement would be used to notify potential purchasers and future owners about special requirements that will apply to development of the severed parcels. Specifically, to make them aware of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment and the Hydrogeological Assessment and the recommendations that must be implemented. The agreement would also make them aware that they will need to have lot grading and drainage plans prepared that implement the recommendations of these reports. Cataraqui Conservation noted that the subject lands are in an area of inferred karst. The development agreement would make people aware of this potential, and provide direction on what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site. Conclusion The consent applications meet the criteria outlined in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, do not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County and Township Official Plans. The severed parcels and retained parcel will comply with the Zoning By-law subject to the requested minor variance for lot frontage. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed 60m lot frontages meet the four tests for a minor variance – the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, they are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and they are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearings was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

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

Recommendation for Consent Applications It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ2025-0075, each for consent to sever one new rural residential lot from 3629 Quinn Road East, Part of Lot 6, Concession 3, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, subject to the following conditions:

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

Page 205 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Expiry Period

1. Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
2. The lands to be severed shall be for the creation of one new residential lot approximately 1.0 hectare in area with a minimum of 60 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with application sketch. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
3. An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
4. The Ontario Land Surveyor or the applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. The Ontario Land Surveyor shall also confirm that the retained parcel has a minimum 60m lot frontage on Quinn Road East. Road Allowance Widening
5. The Ontario Land Surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Quinn Road East to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule:

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

Page 206 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 6. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. It also includes any hydrogeological assessment peer review fee if it is greater than the collected deposit. 7. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1), By-law 2023-104]. 8. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Requirement for an entrance permit for any new or relocated entrances; b. Implementation of the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024); c. Implementation of the recommendations of the Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., July 30, 2025); d. Requirement for a lot grading and drainage plan that implements the recommendations of the above reports, to be submitted at the building permit stage; e. Notice regarding what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site; f. Notice regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and g. Notice regarding archeological resources and human remains. Zoning

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

Page 207 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

10. The applicant is required to apply for a minor variance to permit the severed parcel to have a minimum 60 metres of lot frontage and the retained parcel to have a minimum 60 metres lot frontage.

11. Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township. Recommendation for Minor Variance Application It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 for 3629 Quinn Road East such that the two severed parcels and the retained parcel from consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are permitted to each have a minimum of 60m lot frontage. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

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

Page 208 of 493

Consent Application Application Requirements The following items must be submitted with your application. Any application which does not include the below required information may not be accepted or will not be considered complete.

† 1. A pre-consultation meeting is a requirement prior to submission of the application. Pre-consultation meeting fee

$152.00

† 2. One hard copy of this completed application form signed and commissioned. † 3. A Sketch of your proposal (see Question 26 for details on what to include). The sketch must be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. It is recommended that you take your time to carefully assemble the data and crate the sketch. You may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of sketches.

† 4. The applicable non-refundable application fee, payable to the Township of South Frontenac: Application Type: Consent Application Change of conditions Change of conditions requiring recirculation

FEE: $1,368.00 $325.00 $568.00

† 5. Agency Review Fees (as applicable). A separate cheque or proof or payment, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, is to be submitted to the Township with the completed application. The on-site sewage disposal review fee may be included in the payment of the application fee to the Township. Agency: Township of South Frontenac onsite sewage disposal review (per new lot) Cataraqui Conservation (per new lot or lot addition) Quinte Conservation (per new lot or lot addition)

FEE: $515 $445 $450

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (per new lot or lot addition) $500 Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; agencies may require additional fees if permit applications are required prior to any construction.

† 6. Required studies & Supporting Information identified at pre-consultation (if applicable) † 7. Deed or transfer, or authorization for Township Staff to acquire title documents (if applicable) Updated January 2025 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended

1 Page 209 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Collection of Personal Information: Personal information requested on the application form is required under the Planning Act. This information will be used by the Township for the purpose of reviewing the application. It may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 613-3763027 ext. 2224). What is considered when reviewing an application? In considering an application, the decision-making approval authority, shall have regard, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

The effect of development on matters of provincial interest as referred to in Section 2 of the Planning Act. Whether the proposed severed lot is premature or in the public interest. Whether the consent conforms to the intent of the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision (if any) The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is being severed If affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing The number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of roadways and their adequacy in relation to any proposed roadway linking the proposed severed area with the established roadway system. The dimensions and shape of the proposed lot. Any restrictions on the subject land (or on the buildings and structures to be erected on it) and any restrictions on abutting lands. Conservation of natural resources and flood control. The adequacy of utilities and municipal services. The adequacy of schools. The area of land, if any, exclusive of roadways, that is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes (such as for parks). The physical configuration of the new lot having regard to energy conservation. Site Plan Control County of Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-Law Provincial Policy Statement

2 Page 210 of 493

Page 211 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION 4. Have you consulted with Township Planning Staff regarding this application?

† Yes

† No

Date Fee Paid: _________________________

Christine Woods Name of Planner: _____________________

December 12th, 2022 Date of Meeting: ________________________

5. The description of the subject land: District:

† Bedford

† Portland

† Loughborough

† Storrington

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Civic Address: ___________________________________________________________________ CON 3 Concession Number: _____________________

Part of Lot 6 Lot Number: __________________________

13R-7028 Reference Plan Number: ___________________

Part Number(s): _______________________

102908001013900 Roll Number: ____________________________________________________________________ 36140-0201 Property Identification Number (PIN): _________________________________________________

6. Indicate the frontage(s), depth and area of the subject land. The subject land is the whole property prior to any changes. Please indicate the name of the road/lane and waterbody (if applicable). N/A Frontage on water (m):_________________

+/- 191 metres Frontage on road/lane (m): __________________

N/A Name of Waterbody:__________________

Quinn Road East Name of Road/Lane: _______________________

+/- 1,337 metres Depth(m): ___________________________

+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area(acres/ha): ___________________________

7. Select the type of consent being applied for: Creation of a New Lot

Correction of Title

Easement (right of way)

Lease

Lot Addition

Other: _____________________________

Charge/Discharge of Mortgage 8. Please provide a brief description of your application. Indicate the reason why you are applying for a consent.

The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent

will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.

4 Page 212 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

9. Create a NEW LOT – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying to create a new lot. The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot):

Retained Lot:

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

63.0 metres

64.6 metres

Name of Road/Lane:

Quinn Road East

Quinn Road East

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

+/- 170.8 metres

+/- 1,337.4 metres

Acres (acres or ha):

1.05 ha

35.8 ha

Please list the existing and proposed USES and STRUCTURES. Severed Lot (Proposed new lot): Existing Use of Lot:

Rural

Retained Lot: Rural

Existing None Buildings/Structures:

Single detached dwelling, and several accessory structures

Proposed Use of Lot:

Rural (no change)

Rural residential

Proposed Anticipated single detached dwelling Buildings/Structures:

None (no change)

5 Page 213 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

LOT ADDITION – Complete this section ONLY if you are applying for a lot addition.

The following information is regarding the land intended to be severed (created) and the land to be retained. Proposed Lot Addition (Severed parcel):

Retained Lot:

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Road/Lane:

N/A

N/A

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

N/A

N/A

Acres (acres or ha):

N/A

N/A

The following information is regarding the Benefitting Lands also known as the land being enlarged which are receiving the lot addition. Existing Benefitting Lot: (Before Lot Addition)

Enlarged Lot with added Land: (After Lot Addition)

Frontage on Road/Lane (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Road/Lane:

N/A

N/A

Frontage on Water (m):

N/A

N/A

Name of Waterbody: N/A

N/A

Depth (m):

N/A

N/A

Acres (acres or ha):

N/A

N/A

6 Page 214 of 493

Page 215 of 493

Page 216 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION If access is by water only, describe the parking and docking facilities to be used and the approximate distance of these facilities from the subject land and the nearest public road. Parking and Docking for water access only properties MUST be legally deeded access. Please provide confirmation. N/A - not a water access lot The New Lot: __________________________________________________________________ N/A - not a water access lot The Retained Lot:_______________________________________________________________

18. What is the zoning of the subject lands? (Check www.frontenacmaps.ca) Rural (RU) Zone

19. What is the current Official Plan Designation of the subject lands? Rural

20. Please describe how the application conforms with the Township Official Plan & County Official Plan by citing specific applicable sections and sub sections. Please make sure to look at Sections 5 and 7 in the Township Official Plan and Section 3 in the County Official Plan. If you are unsure, please indicate that you do not know. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.

21. Is the application consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement?

† Yes

† No

† Unknown

Please explain: Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.

9 Page 217 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

22. Has the subject land ever been, or is currently, the subject of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, for a minor variance, for approval of a site plan, or for an amendment to an official plan, an amendment to the zoning by-law or a Minister’s zoning order? Complete all applicable † Yes Application Type

† No Application Number

† Unknown Date of Application

Decision

† Plan of Subdivision † Consent Approved

1986

† Minor Variance † Site Plan Approval † Official Plan Amendment † Zoning By-law Amendment † Minister’s Zoning Order

23. Has land been previously severed from the subject property, since September 5, 2000? If yes, please provide date of transfer; name of transferee and uses of the land. October 10, 1986, † Yes ___________________________________

† No

24. Did the current owner acquire the subject land as a result of a consent? † Yes

† No

25. Is the applicant requesting a Certificate of Official for the retained land? † Yes

† No

** If yes – the applicant must provide a lawyer’s statement that there is no land abutting the subject lands that are owned by the owner of the subject land, other than the land that could be conveyed without contravening section 50 of the Planning Act. 26. A SKETCH must be submitted. For more information on what the sketch needs to show, please see “A guide to completing your consent application form”. If your application is approved and then the required survey shows different frontages, area and location than was submitted, a new consent may be required including submission of a new application and fees.** 10 Page 218 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION Please note that the sketch must include the same metric as on the application, switching between meters and feet will not be acceptable unless both are shown. The sketch must include the following:

† A directional arrow with North at the top of the page. † The boundaries and dimensions of the whole property. LABEL the part that is to be severed and the part that is to be retained, including the total area (acres or hectares), road frontages on all roads/lanes for each and waterbodies.

† Indicate if the owner of the subject property also owns other lands near the proposal. † The distance between the subject land and the nearest road, bridge or railway crossing † The location of all land previously severed from the parcel (if applicable) originally acquired by the current owner of the subject land.

† All natural and artificial features that are located on the subject property and on land beside the subject property. Please label and show the approximate location of: a.

Existing Buildings, wells and septic systems, bridges, railways, roads, hydro lines

b.

Waterbodies, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, wetlands, wooded areas

c.

Landfills, propane facility, quarry’s and pits

d.

Barns

Note: The existence of a nearby barn will require you to complete a Minimum Distance Separation Calculation in order to consider compatibility issues. Please check with the Planning Department regarding the implications of any farm structure, on your application.

† Please include any information on natural and artificial features (as listed above) that in the applicant’s opinion may affect the application

† Please indicate the current uses of land that is surrounding the property, such as residential, agricultural and commercial uses (if agricultural, please indicate the approximate distance of any barn structure from the proposed new lot).

† The location, width and name of any roads within or abutting the subject land, indicating whether it is an unopened road allowance, a public travelled road, a private road or a right of way.

11 Page 219 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT APPLICATION

† If access to the subject land is by water only, please show the location of the parking and boat docking facilities to be used, and the title documents to demonstrate legal deeded use of these facilities

† The location and nature of any easement affecting the subject land. † The location of any abandoned wells on the property PERMISSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF APPLICATION I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner agree that the information recorded in this Consent Application Form is accurate and agrees that representatives of the Township and relevant commenting agencies may enter onto the subject property for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site for the proposed development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I/ We, the undersigned, being the registered property owner(s) and/or agent acting on behalf of the owner, acknowledge that additional studies and/or peer review and/or legal review may be required by the Township as a part of the review of my/our application. Should the need arise, I/we are responsible for completing the studies as requested in order for the application to be deemed complete. Attached to this application is payment to the Township of South Frontenac in the correct amount representing payment of the application fee, and additional payment (or proof of payment) for any required commenting agency review fees. AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY The applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac (“the Municipality”) from all costs and expenses that the Municipality may incur in connection with the processing of the applicant’s application for approval under the Planning Act. Without limiting the foregoing, such costs will include all legal, engineering, planning, and consulting fees and charges incurred or payable by the Municipality to process the application together with all costs and expenses arising from or incurred in connection with the Municipality being required, or requested by the applicant, to appear at the hearing of any appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal from any decision of the Council, Delegated Decision of Council, or Committee of Adjustments, of their designated approval authority, as the case may be, hearing the applicant’s application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees to provide the Municipality, upon request and in cases where an application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, with a deposit (over and above the normal application fee), from which the Municipality may, from time to time charge any fees and expenses incurred by the Municipality to prepare for and participate in the hearing. If such appeal expenses exceed the deposit, the Owner/Applicant shall pay the difference forthwith upon being billed by the municipality, with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) on accounts overdue more than 30 days. 12 Page 220 of 493

Page 221 of 493

3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE

1

July 3, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report

Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design has been retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare this planning justification report in support of applications for consent to sever and minor variance for the property municipally known as 3629 Quinn Road East (“subject site”), in the Township of South Frontenac. The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. The subject site is designated Rural Lands in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Rural on Schedule A Land Use Plan in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The property is zoned Rural (RU) Zone in the Township of South Frontenac’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75. Correspondence with municipal staff identified the following application requirements. Accordingly, the following are submitted to in support of these applications, as required by Township staff: / Concept Plan; / Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study; / Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA); / Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis; and, / This Planning Justification Letter.

Site Description + Surrounding Context The subject site is in the Township of South Frontanac, southeast of the village of Harrowsmith, and north of the hamlet of Murvale. The subject site is approximately 37.8 hectares (93 acres) and has approximately 191 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The subject site is currently developed with a one-storey single-detached dwelling and several accessory structures. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Quinn Road East via a gravel driveway. According to Frontenac Maps, the property contains some wetlands and woodlands in both the northern and southern area of the site. Two watercourses (channels, as referred to by Ecological Services) traverse the site. The surrounding area is characterized by mainly rural, agricultural, and rural residential uses. The lands directly east of the site contain primarily residential uses, and some agricultural uses. Further west of the site is a mineral aggregate extraction operation. To the south, west and north contain primarily rural and agricultural uses, with some residential uses.

KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com

Page 222 of 493

2

Figure 1: Surrounding Context (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to create two new lots for future rural residential development on the south side of the subject site. Applications for consent to sever are required for the creation of the two new lots. The proposed severances will result in a total of three lots (two severed + one retained). The severed lots are anticipated to support the development of single detached dwellings. The severed lots are proposed to have lot areas of approximately 1.05 hectares and approximately 63 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East to accommodate the proposed rural residential development. The Rural (RU) zone in the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 requires a frontage of 76 metres for single detached residential uses. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres. A minor variance application is required to permit reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 223 of 493

3

Figure 2: Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The subject site contains two watercourses, and any future development should maintain a minimum 30-metre setback from the channels, as identified through the scoped NHA. This environmental buffer will inform the placement and configuration of future building envelopes, while continuing to accommodate functional and appropriately sized lots. Additionally, due to the subject site’s proximity to existing livestock operations, a Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study was undertaken. The study confirms that the proposed lots meet the required MDS setbacks, thereby minimizing the potential for land use conflicts and supporting the ongoing viability of adjacent agricultural uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 224 of 493

4

Figure 3: Proposed Severances (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Supporting Studies Minimum Distance Separation Study (See Appendix A) The subject site is in a predominantly rural and agricultural area, with proximity to several existing livestock facilities. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) study applies the March 2017 MDS formulae as provided in Publication 853 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Publication 853 includes the definitions, implementation guidelines and factor tables (i.e. calculations) which collectively make up the MDS formulae referenced in the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as additional information to assist with the interpretation and application of the MDS formulae. The factor tables or calculations are conducted using the AgriSuite software supplied by OMAFRA, while the definitions and guidelines provide necessary direction to interpret and apply the calculations. Publication 853 provides two classes of MDS formulae: MDS I and MDS II. MDS I applies the setbacks between proposed new non-agricultural development and existing livestock facilities. MDS II applies to setbacks from new, enlarged or renovated livestock facilities and existing or approved development. Requirement for MDS Setback In accordance with Implementation Guideline (IG) #2, an MDS setback is required for proposed lot creation in accordance with IG #8 and #9. IG #8 requires an MDS I setback where lot creation is proposed, and IG #9 relates

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 225 of 493

5 to lot creation for a residence surplus to a farming operation, which is not relevant to the site or proposal. Per Section 7.1 (l) of the Township’s Official Plan (OP), all division of land for new farm and non-farm uses must meet the requirements of the MDS Formulae, as amended. Two lots, each approximately 1.05 hectares in size, are proposed to be severed, through applications for consent, from the existing landholding, resulting in the creation of two new non-agricultural uses. As the applications are for the creation of new rural residential lots, MDS I applies. MDS I setbacks are calculated based on the nature of the proposed land use and are divided into Type A (less sensitive) and Type B (more sensitive) land uses. Type A is described in IG #33 and is characterized by a lower density of occupancy, habitation or activity and includes agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses, industrial uses, agricultural lot creation, and residential lot creation that does not result in a concentration of four or more lots in immediate proximity, and building permits for dwellings on existing lots outside of a settlement area. Type B (more sensitive) uses are generally higher density in terms of occupancy, habitation or activity as described in IG #34 and include OP and zoning by-law amendments to permit development excluding industrial uses or dwellings, outside of settlement areas. The proposed residential lot creations will result in two new residential lots outside of the settlement area and will not result in four or more lots for development in immediate proximity to one another. Therefore, the proposed lot creation represents Type is A use. Investigation Distance Where an MDS setback is required, it must be measured from all existing livestock facilities and anaerobic digesters that are reasonably expected to be impacted by the proposed development. IG #6 establishes the investigation distance for a proposed Type A land use as 750 metres. Using aerial imagery, we identified seven possible livestock facilities within 750 metres of the site, located at 3609 Quinn Road E (Barn #1), 4372 Road 38 (Barn #2), 4414 Road 38 (Barn #3), 4413 Road 38 (Barn #4), 3861 Quinn Road W (Barn #5), 3849 Quinn Road W (Barn #6) and 4173 Road 38 (Barn #7). Barn #1: 3609 Quinn Road E The property at 3609 Quinn Road E is located directly east of the site and includes two occupied livestock barns (371.6 square metres and 92.9 square metres in size), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 6.1 hectares (15.0 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses two medium frame horses, one goat for meat, 6 chickens (5 layer hens and 1 rooster), 3 guinea fowl and 4 muscovy ducks. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 169 metres. The barn is located approximately 537 metres from the subject site (measured from the closet edge of the barn to the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development). As such, the livestock facilities located at 3609 Quinn Road E will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 226 of 493

6

Barn

Accessory Structures

Barn

Dwelling

Figure 4: Barn #1 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) Barn #2: 4372 Road 38 The property at 4372 Road 38 is located approximately 78.08 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line of the property to the subject site) and includes a one 139.4 square metre occupied livestock barn, multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses three medium frame horses. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 94 metres. As such, the livestock facilities located at 4372 Road 38 will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Dwelling

Accessory Structures

Barn

Figure 5: Barn #2 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) IG #12 allows for a reduced MDS setback where there are four or more uses of equal or greater sensitivity (i.e. Type A or Type B) in the intervening area between the site and identified barns. The intervening area is described as an area within a 120-degree arc extending from the barn in question toward the site. In accordance with IG

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 227 of 493

7 #12, a 120-degree arc was applied from the closest edge of the barn to the furthest point of the fourth lot for development between the site and each of the barns in question. Barn #3: 4414 Road 38 The property at 4414 Road 38 is located directly west of the site and appears to include a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). As seen in Figure 3, 488 metres separates the barn(s) from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #4: 4413 Road 38 The property at 4413 Road 38 is located approximately 337 metres west of the site (measured from closest lot line of the property to the subject site). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 63.9 hectares (157.8 acres). Figure 3 demonstrates that a distance of 598 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #5: 3861 Quinn Road W The property at 3861 Quinn Road W is located approximately 524 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 520 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #6: 3849 Quinn Road W The property at 3849 Quinn Road W is located approximately 392 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a semi-detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres). While there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitive separating the livestock barns from the furthest extent of the property line, all barns on the property are under 10 square metres, as confirmed by the property owner. In accordance with IG #3, MDS 1 setbacks are not required from livestock barns occupying an area less than 10 square metres. Barn #7: 4173 Road 38 The property at 4173 Road 38 is located approximately 481 metres southwest of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 17.2 hectares (42.5 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 584 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. In accordance with IG #12, the MDS setbacks for livestock facilities at 4414 Road 38, 4413 Road 38, 3861 Quinn Road W, 3849 Quinn Road W, and 4173 Road 38 are limited by the existing lots and do not impact the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 228 of 493

8

Figure 6: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #3 and #4 (Source: Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Figure 7: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #5 and #7 (Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 229 of 493

9 Scoped Natural Heritage Assessment In August 2024, Ecological Services prepared a Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) in support of the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road East. The report assessed the subject site in relation to the proposed development and identified natural heritage features on or adjacent to the site and considered potential impacts of the proposed development. Features that were evaluated included riparian community, woodlands, surface water, fish habitat, and significant wildlife habitat. The NHA concluded that a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement is not required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development. While the property contains mapped unevaluated wetland areas, field investigations determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Additionally, the NHA concluded all potential negative impacts can be ameliorated through mitigation, and that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions. The following recommendations for mitigation were provided:

1. Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 metre from the channel.
2. The land within 30 metre of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from the channel, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. Additionally, the tree removal guidelines will be adhered to throughout the proposed development. Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis A hydrogeological assessment was prepared by BluMetric Environmental Inc., dated April 3, 2025, to evaluate the suitability of private servicing for the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road. The assessment evaluated whether the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for the development of single-detached dwellings based on serviceability by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The study inspected the property for shallow groundwater and surface water conditions. Water quality and levels were assessed based on a 6-hour pumping test, and water levels from the wells on the property were monitored during the pumping test to determine interference. These tests demonstrated sufficient supply capacity to meet both peak and daily demand scenarios for four-bedroom households. The study concluded that the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for rural residential development based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Groundwater quality results meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards for health-related parameters, with some aesthetic exceedances for hardness, sodium, and total dissolved solids. These can be addressed through appropriate water treatment systems, including UV sterilization and reverse osmosis. The study recommends the setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 metres. Overall, the assessment concludes that the proposed development is appropriate and that the risk to groundwater resources can be effectively mitigated through numerous recommended measures. The proposed rural residential development will maintain the 45 metre setback from a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 230 of 493

10 Policy + Regulatory Review Planning Act In considering an application for land severance, the approving body must evaluate the merits of the proposal against Section 53 of the Planning Act, which further requires a review of Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. The criteria relating to the proposed severances are below in italics.

53 (1) An owner or chargee of land, or the owner’s or chargee’s agent duly authorized in writing, may apply for a consent as defined in subsection 50 (1) and the council or the Minister, as the case may be, may, subject to this section, give a consent if satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The proposed consent applications will result in the creation of two new lots. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the subject site. The proposed development maintains orderly linear lot fabrics, with frontage on an existing municipal road.

53 (12) A council or the Minister in determining whether a provisional consent is to be given shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) and has the same powers as the approval authority has under subsection 51 (25) with respect to the approval of a plan of subdivision and subsections 51 (26) and (27) and section 51.1 apply with necessary modifications to the granting of a provisional consent. Detailed criteria from Section 51(24) are discussed, as follows.

51 (24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality to a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2; The proposed consent demonstrates appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act. It supports the orderly development of rural lands by introducing residential growth in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding land use context. The proposal does not adversely impact any identified natural or cultural heritage resources, and it adheres to environmental best practices, including a 30-metre setback from the onsite watercourse and compliance with hydrogeological recommendations for private servicing. The lot layout is logical and functional, providing sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, and wells, while maintaining appropriate separation distances. The proposed severances will contribute to the Township’s housing supply and reflect a form of development that upholds public health, safety, and long-term sustainability for future rural residents.

b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

The proposed consent is not premature and is in the public interest as the subject site has direct frontage on an existing public road, and no new municipal infrastructure is required to support the proposed development. Additionally, the lots are in an area with established rural residential development and will be supported by private wells and septic systems, as confirmed by the Hydrogeological Assessment. The assessment demonstrates that the lots can accommodate safe and sustainable private servicing without risk to groundwater quantity or quality. The proposed consent will contribute to local housing supply while preserving the rural character of the area.

c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; Conformity with the County and Township OP is discussed herein. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP states that residential development of a limited scale is permitted in the rural area, aligning with the intent to support a range of housing types while preserving rural character. Section 5.7.4 of the Township OP states that residential development may be permitted in the rural area to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 231 of 493

11 the Township. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding rural context and conforms to both OPs.

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; The proposed consent will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterized by rural uses, including rural residential uses. The severed lots will support the future development of single detached dwellings. The proposal will positively contribute to rural housing availability within the Township. Supporting studies have confirmed that the lands are suitable to support the scale of rural residential development proposed.

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

Both the retained lot and severed lost will maintain frontage on Quinn Road East, which is an existing municipal road maintained by the Township. The establishment of new driveways for the severed lots will be reviewed by the Township through the entrance permit application process. f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; The proposed severed and retained lots meet the general intent of the zoning by-law. An application for minor variance is required to obtain relief from the minimum frontage requirements for both the severed and retained lots. The shape and dimensions of the lots are compatible with residential lots in the surrounding area, being of a rectilinear configuration, and providing sufficient area for functional elements of rural residential development.

g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land; All buildings and structures on the severed and retained parcels will be subject to the performance standards of the Rural (RU) Zone of the Township’s zoning by-law. The consent applications will have conditions to be fulfilled as part of the consent approval process, such as the requirement to obtain entrance permits. There are no known restrictions on adjoining lands the would be impacted by the proposed development.

h) conservation of natural resources and flood control; A scoped NHA was completed in support of this application to evaluate potential impacts on natural heritage features and ecological functions. The NHA concluded that no significant negative impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed severances and future residential development. The report identified natural features in the broader landscape and provided site-specific recommendations to mitigate potential impacts. These recommendations include measures such as maintaining vegetative buffers for the identified watercourses. Future development on the site will be is anticipated to be developed in accordance with the NHA’s recommendations. It is our understanding that the Township can enforce these mitigation measures and separation distances through conditions of consent approval, and or site plan control. Furthermore, no hazards related to floodinghave been identified on the subject site. As such, the proposal supports the conservation of natural resources and does not present any concerns related to flood control.

i)

the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

The severed and retained parcels will be serviced by private wells and sewage systems. Additionally, the new lots will have frontage on Quinn Road East, which is a municipally serviced year-round road, ensuring reliable access for residents. The proposal represents an efficient and appropriate use of existing rural infrastructure without placing additional demand on municipal services

j)

the adequacy of school sites;

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 232 of 493

12 The creation of two new rural residential lots is not anticipated to have an impact on the capacity of local schools.

k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; In accordance with the Planning Act, cash-in-lieu of parkland will be provided. l)

the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supply, efficient use and conservation of energy; and,

The proposed consents will create two new lots from an existing property with frontage on a maintained municipal road. The proposed lots will contribute to the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure.

m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designed under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, 2. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4). Section 5 of the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law 2022-58 states that lands within 90 metres of a waterbody are required to be subject the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law. As the subject site has two watercourses that transect the site, it may be subjected to a site plan control agreement. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent has proper regard for the criteria found in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) came into effect on October 20, 2024. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Notably, the 2024 PPS sets out policies to increase the supply and mix of housing options in Ontario while maximizing investments in infrastructure and public service facilities and protecting natural areas, agricultural uses and sensitive areas. The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) is reviewed as follows. Sectio 2.5 of the 2024 PPS states that healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by ensuring that new development builds on rural character, conserves biodiversity, and is appropriate for the level of services available. The surrounding area is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses. The proposed severances will not impact the rural character of the area, nor will they impact the functionality or continued use of nearby agricultural uses. Any new development will maintain a 30 metre vegetated buffer from the onsite water channels. Additionally, tree removal will be refrained from between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The subject site will be serviced by private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots will be at least 45 metres as recommended by a Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis study. Section 4 of the PPS gives consideration to the wise use and management of resources that provide economic, environmental, and social benefits. This is achieved through policies that provide for the conservation of biodiversity, protection of the health of the Great Lakes, and protection of natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. No negative impacts to natural or cultural heritage features nor agricultural resources are anticipated to result because of the proposed consent or minor variance, as the subject site is not near any such identified feature or resources. Section 5 of the PPS provides policy guidance on the protection of public health and safety. Section 5 directs development away from naturally-occurring and human-made hazard lands, such as floodplains, erosion-prone areas, former mining and aggregate extraction operations, and other types of contaminated areas. The site is

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 233 of 493

13 located over 1,200 metres from the nearest aggregate operations. There are no known natural hazard concerns on or near the site. No public health or safety concerns are anticipated as a result of the proposed applications as the proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from onsite watercourses, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the 2024 PPS. County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016 consolidation) The County of Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2014 (By-law 2014-0047) and was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2016. The County OP provides a high-level framework for guiding land use changes in the County, providing policy direction on matters regarding economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability. The subject site was evaluated for environmentally significant features to groundtruth GIS mapping of potential woodlands and wetlands. Field investigations during as part of an NHA determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Mitigation measures include maintaining the vegetated buffer, avoiding tree clearing during nesting and roosting seasons, and preserving existing forested areas within the setback. Development on the proposed lots and the retained lands will meet a minimum setback of 30 metres from the channel that runs through the south of the property. Additionally, the land within 30 metres of the channel will not be clearcut and will remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel. Overall, the report concluded that the proposed development will not negatively impact natural heritage features or their ecological functions. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP provides policy direction regarding Rural lands to guide rural development. The proposed consents will support the development of single detached dwellings, which represents a permitted use in the Rural area. Section 3.3.3 of the County OP provides direction specific to residential development, stating that lot creation should take place either through plan of subdivision, plan of condominium, or consent. The proposal consent applications will maintain the rural residential character of the surrounding area, are anticipated to be unobtrusive and blend in with the rural landscape. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent applications and minor variance application are consistent with the policies of the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (2003) The Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2003, with the most recently publicly available consolidation dated January 23, 2024. The following sections of the current OP, as they relate to this application, are reviewed below (with policies cited in italics): Section 4: Goals and Objectives Section 5: Land Use Policies Section 6: General Policies Section 7: Division of Land Section 8: Implementation Section 4.2 Housing Goal Section 4.2 discusses the Township’s housing goals, aiming to encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality, and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. The proposed consents will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterised by rural and rural residential uses. The new lots will be privately serviced, and their size and layout are compatible with surrounding

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 234 of 493

14 properties. The severed lots will support the development of new locally appropriate housing units, thereby aligning with the OPs housing goal. Section 5 provides policy direction for the land resources within the Township. Seven land use designations are identified. The subject site is designated Rural, as per Schedule A in the Township of South Frontenac OP.

Figure 8: Land Use Designation (Source: Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, Schedule A - Land Use Plan) Section 5.7 Rural The Rural land designation provides policy direction for lands characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between the Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural, and seasonal residential communities. Permitted land uses in the Rural designation include but are not limited to rural residential, agriculture, open space, and conservation. Section 5.7.4 provides policies specifically related to the provision of rural residential uses on Rural designated lands in the Township:

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 235 of 493

15 5.7.4 Rural Residential Polices (excluding Limited Service Residential) It is the general intent of this Plan that the majority of permanent non-agricultural residential development be encouraged to locate in the Township’s Settlement Areas. However, limited non-agricultural residential development may also be permitted within the Rural area so as to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of the Township. Subdivisions and severances to permit new residential uses shall be appropriately separated from incompatible agricultural areas, existing and proposed waste disposal, mineral extraction site and resource areas, natural heritage features and areas and natural hazards.

The proposed development aligns with Section 5.7.4 of the OP, which permits limited non-agricultural residential development in the Rural area to support housing diversity. The two new lots are suitably separated from incompatible uses such as active agricultural operations, waste disposal sites, and natural hazards, as confirmed through the MDS Study and Scoped NHA. The proposal maintains the rural character of the area while providing additional housing options in a manner consistent with the intent of the OP.

5.7.4(i) Rural Residential development including group homes established in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.5, home occupations and home industries may be permitted in the form of single detached dwellings developed on lots created by plan of subdivision or severance by the Committee of Adjustment in accordance with the policies of this plan. The proposed development will result in the creation of two lots through the consent process, configured to support the future development of a single detached dwelling on each lot.

5.7.4(ii) Rural Development Policies a) The frontage, size and shape of any lot for rural residential purposes created through the severance approval process shall be appropriate for the proposed use and shall conform with the provisions of the zoning by-law. As a rule, the minimum lot size shall be 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road for non-waterfront lots and I hectare (2.5 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road and 91 metres (300 ft.) of water frontage for waterfront lots. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained.

The surrounding area supports a range of frontages, and the proposed lots are in keeping with the lot fabric within the neighbouring area. The proposal will create appropriately sized and shaped rural residential lots that are well suited to the intended non-waterfront single detached dwelling use. Each lot exceeds the minimum area requirement of 0.8 hectares and provides sufficient space for private servicing, access, and appropriate setbacks. Township staff have confirmed that the reduced frontage can be appropriately addressed through a minor variance rather than requiring an Official Plan Amendment. The proposal maintains the broader goals of the OP and contributes to more rural housing options.

b)

Rural Residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems approved by the appropriate authority.

The proposed lots will be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems. The provision of dug wells and septic system is supported by the submitted hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis. Septic permits will be submitted for review and approval in advance of the residential development of each proposed lot. c)

New lots for rural residential purposes should be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with lot creation policies included in Section 7 of this Plan. However, a maximum of three rural residential severances may be permitted from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan by Council in accordance with the lot creation policies of Section 7 of this Plan when the consent approval authority is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not warranted. Any proposal which would create more than three new lots (three plus a retained) from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan shall only be considered by plan of subdivision.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 236 of 493

16 The proposed development will result in the creation of two new lots (two plus a retained) from an existing lot. Therefore, a plan of subdivision is not appropriate, nor required.

d)

All new rural residential lots shall have public road frontage.

The new residential lots will have public road frontage on Quinn Road East. 6.2 Development Policies Section 6.2 outlines policies for future development for the Township.

All types of future development shall occur on the basis of the submission and approval of registered plans of subdivision, land severances by consent of the Committee of Adjustment and/or amendments to the implementing zoning by-law. Residential development should primarily occur by registered plan of subdivision. However, development may occur by consent in accordance with the applicable policies of this plan when a plan of subdivision in the opinion of the Municipality clearly is not necessary to ensure orderly development, taking into consideration the social, economic and environmental impacts.

The proposed severances conform to Section 6.2 of the OP, which permits residential development by consent where a registered plan of subdivision is not deemed necessary to achieve orderly development. In this case, the creation of two additional rural residential lots can be appropriately facilitated through the consent process. Technical studies, including hydrogeological and environmental assessments, confirm that the lots can be adequately serviced by private wells and septic systems, and that the development will have no adverse environmental impacts. While the proposed severances do not meet the minimum frontage requirements of the zoning by-law, relief is being sought through a concurrent minor variance application. The reduction in frontage is not anticipated to impact the functionality, safety, or rural character of the area. As such, the proposed development represents an efficient use of rural land that maintains consistency with the broader goals of orderly, environmentally responsible growth. Section 6.17 Site Plan Control Section 6.17 established Site Plan Control applicability criteria. all land within 90 metres (295 feet) of a waterbody (primarily water front lots) including land used (g)

for residential purposes;

The subject site is not a water front lot but still may be subject to site plan control in accordance with Section 6.17, as the subject lands are located within 90 metres of a waterbody. This policy framework is intended to ensure that development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner, minimizing impacts on adjacent properties and protecting water quality. However, the supporting technical studies, including the NHS and Hydrogeological Assessment, have comprehensively addressed site-specific environmental conditions, servicing feasibility, and appropriate development setbacks. These studies provide a clear framework for protecting water quality, maintaining ecological buffers, and ensuring sustainable rural development. Section 6.23 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS) Section 6.23 outlines Minimum Distance Separation Formulate (MDS) requirements.

All new farm and non-farm development in the Township shall comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae (MDS I and II) as may be amended from time to time.

The proposed development has been evaluated against the MDS I formulae, as it involves the creation of new rural residential lots. A detailed MDS Study was completed, as summarized herein, identifying nearby livestock operations and calculating required setbacks in accordance with OMAFRA’s Publication 853. The analysis confirmed that all proposed lots and associated sensitive development comply with the required separation distances, either through meeting the calculated setback or by applying the provisions of Implementation Guideline #12, which considers intervening sensitive land uses. As such, the proposed development meets the intent of Section 6.23 by ensuring appropriate separation from agricultural uses and maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 237 of 493

17 Section 7.1 General Consent Policies Applicable to All Land Use Designations In Section 7.1 (a) and (c) – (i) are relevant to the proposed development.

a)

Consents shall only be granted when it is clearly not necessary in the public interest that a Plan of Subdivision be registered. In this regard, consents will be considered when the creation of new lots, in the opinion of the Municipality, will clearly have no adverse environmental, social or economic impact on the Township or adjacent land uses.

The proposed development has been reviewed through supporting technical studies, including a Scoped NHA, Hydrogeological Assessment, and Minimum Distance Separation Study, all of which confirm that there will be no adverse impacts on the Township, adjacent land uses, or to the public interest. The lots will be privately serviced by well and septic systems and will front onto an existing municipally maintained road, requiring no new municipal infrastructure. The creation of two additional rural residential lots represents a modest form of development that is compatible with the surrounding area and appropriately scaled. As such, the Township has not identified the need for a Plan of Subdivision, and the proposed consents meet the intent of Section 7.1(a) of the OP. c)

The size of any parcel of land created by consent shall be appropriate for the uses proposed. No parcel of land created as a result of a consent shall be less than that prescribed in the respective land use designations of this Plan, except for parcels created as lot additions or for technical reasons.

The proposed lots will exceed the minimum size of 0.8 hectares as prescribed by the Rural land use designations of the OP. The lot sizes can appropriately accommodate single detached dwellings, with sufficient space for private servicing, including well and septic systems, as confirmed by supporting studies. The proposed dimensions provide adequate area for building envelopes, setbacks, driveways, and vegetative buffers, ensuring the lots can function effectively for their intended rural residential use without adverse impact on surrounding land uses. d)

Consents should be granted with generally provide for a satisfactory geometric design of the severed and retained parcels.

The new proposed lots are rectangular in shape, and maintain linear frontage along a public road. Sufficient frontage will be maintained for the retained lot as well, with the existing access to remain and continue to be utilized. The long, rectangular shape of the retained lot will be maintained too. e)

Consents shall not be granted for a parcel of land which is subject to flooding or erosion, or other physical hazard, and where no building envelope is identified on the lot, when the use of the parcel requires that a building be erected. The advice of the appropriate authority will be sought in this regard.

The subject site is not located within areas identified as being subject to flooding, erosion, or other physical hazards. A Scoped NHA and Hydrogeological Assessment were completed to evaluate site conditions and confirmed the presence of suitable building envelopes outside of environmental buffers and setback areas. Development will maintain a minimum 30-metre setback from the onsite watercourses, as recommended, and no hazards have been identified that would prevent the safe and appropriate siting of future dwellings on the proposed lots.

f)

All applications for consent shall be accompanied with a sketch showing to scale the dimensions of the lots (severed and retained) to be created by the proposed consent. In addition, existing buildings and setbacks from the property lines and major topographic and land features such as an escarpment, creek or wetland shall be shown. The sketch shall also identify all buildings, septic systems and wells on the lands subject to the consent application as well as on adjacent lands. For those applications which constitute an addition to a holding, the sketch shall show the location, size, use and ownership of the lot to be enlarged.

A concept plan outlining the scale and dimensions of the severed and retained lots, as well as major land features has been submitted with these applications.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 238 of 493

18

g)

The creation of no more than two lots in total (i.e. including severed and retained) shall result from any one severance application for a new lot. Consents that are to establish a legal right-of-way for more than 21 years will require an application for consent when it is not part of a proposed new lot.

Two severance applications will be submitted, as the proposed development will result in three lots total (two severed and one retained). h)

Consents which would result in landlocking a parcel will be denied. All new lots, except limited service residential lots, shall front onto and gain direct access from an existing public road which reflects a reasonable standard of pavement or gravel construction and is maintained year-round by the municipality. The development will not result in a landlocked parcel. The proposed retained and severed lots will have direct access on Quinn Road East, which is an existing public road with year-round maintenance by the municipality. i)

Consents should not be granted for land adjacent to a road from which access is to be obtained where a traffic hazard would be created because of limited sight lines on curves or grades. The proposed lots will have frontage along Quinn Road East in a linear configuration. This road alignment minimizes the potential for traffic hazards related to curves or changes in grade. As such, access to each lot can be safely accommodated without creating visibility or traffic safety concerns. Section 8.5 Division of Land Section 8.5 outlines policies regarding the division of land within the Township

The Municipality will use subdivision and consent approval processes to ensure control over the subdivision of land. All plans of subdivision and consent applications must conform to the requirements of this Plan. As part of the approval process, certain requirements may be imposed as a condition to the approval of a plan of subdivision or a consent and the owner may be required to enter into an agreement with the Municipality before final approval. The above will also apply to the creation of individual units in a Plan of Condominium.

Section 8.5 of the OP provides the policy framework for the division of land through the consent process. This section affirms the Township’s authority to regulate land division to ensure that it aligns with broader planning objectives, servicing standards, and environmental considerations. The proposed consent applications are supported by technical studies that demonstrate the suitability of the lots for rural residential use, including servicing feasibility and environmental protection. The proposed lots are appropriately sized and configured to maintain the rural character of the area and conform to the intent of the OP. The proposal reflects a responsible form of rural land division that upholds the intent and requirements of Section 8.5. Section 8.9 Committee of Adjustment

When a Zoning By-law is in effect, a Committee of Adjustment may be appointed to rule on applications for minor variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-law. In granting a variance, the Committee will be satisfied that such variance is minor, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure and that the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are maintained. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment has the power to permit an extension or enlargement for a building or structure which is a non-conforming use and to grant consents for lands within the Township. The Committee will have regard for the policies of this Plan in reviewing such applications.

The proposed applications are consistent with Section 8.9 of the OP, which outlines the role of the Committee of Adjustment in reviewing minor variances and consents. In this case, a minor variance is required to permit reduced lot frontages for the retained and severed parcels. The variance is considered minor in nature, as the proposed lot areas exceed minimum zoning requirements, and the reduced frontages will not compromise the functionality, accessibility, or rural character of the lots. The variances support an appropriate form of development that is

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 239 of 493

19 compatible with surrounding land uses and maintain the general intent and purpose of both the OP and zoning by-law. The Committee of Adjustment also holds the authority to grant consent for the proposed lot creation, and the applications will be evaluated in accordance with the policies and objectives of the OP. Draft Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (2024) The Township of South Frontenac is in the process of updating the 2003 Official Plan. There is currently a third draft of the new OP publicly available, dated July 2024; however, it is not as of yet in force or effect. Although not yet in effect, the draft OP provides insight into the general intended policy direction of the Township for new development of growth. The proposed development is consistent with Section 9.3 of the draft OP, which permits the creation of up to three new lots (exclusive of the retained parcel) through the consent process from a lot of record existing on November 3, 2003. The subject site qualifies as an existing lot of record, and the current proposal seeks to create only two new lots, resulting in a total of three parcels including the retained lot. As such, the application remains within the lot creation limits identified in the draft OP and reflects the Township’s evolving policy direction for managing rural growth in a measured and orderly manner. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent and minor variance applications conform with the policies of the Township of South Frontenac’s Draft Official Plan.

Minor Variance A minor variance is required to address zoning compliance matters related to the proposed consent applications, specifically, minimum required frontage. The site is zoned Rural (RU) in the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law 2003-75.

Figure 9: Current Zoning (Zoning By-law 2003-75)

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 240 of 493

20 Description of Requested Variances In order to permit the proposed consent, relief from the following provisions is requested: Retained Lot

1. 7.3.2 For Single Detached Residential Uses. Lot Frontage: 76 metres Relief is required to permit a minimum lot frontage of 64.6 metres. Severed Lot 1 & Severed Lot 2
2. 7.3.2 For Single Detached Residential Uses. Lot Frontage: 76 metres Relief is required to permit a minimum lot frontage of 63.0 metres. Four Tests The assessment of the proposed variances is undertaken following the tests described in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and in Section 8.9 of the Township of South Frontenac OP, as follows:

Test #1: Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained? Test #2: Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained? Test #3: Is the variance minor? Test #4: Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lands in question? Test #1: Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained? Test #1 considers whether the proposed variance aligns with the overall goals and policy framework of the Township’s OP. The OP sets out a vision for managing growth in a way that is sustainable, compatible with rural character, and responsive to community needs. A comprehensive review of the OP is provided in previous sections of this report, with specific regard for the consent applications, but also the minor variance application. This review satisfies Test #1, and demonstrates the maintenance of the general intent and purpose of the OP. Some more specific details related to the reduction in lot frontage requested are provided as follows: Section 1.1 outlines the purpose of the OP as to promote the orderly and economic growth of the Township while correcting existing problems and safeguarding the health, convenience and economic well-being of the Township’s current and future residents within the financial resources of the municipality. The requested relief from the minimum frontage is necessary to facilitate the creation of two rural residential lots that are appropriately sized, compatible with surrounding land uses, and supported by existing infrastructure. Section 4.0 of the Township’s OP provides goals and objections intended to guide development within the municipality. 4.2 Housing Goal

This Official Plan will encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. Such development will be carefully planned to reduce land use conflicts, provide long-term protection of the environment and minimize the municipal servicing costs. (a) Objectives

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 241 of 493

21 (i) to minimize the cost of providing essential municipal services to the residents. This will be accomplished by planning controls which consider the long-term servicing costs of all developments. (ii) to maintain the established rural character of the community. This will be accomplished by zoning controls which reduce land use conflicts, minimize the impact of development on traditional rural activities and place environmental concerns ahead of residential growth. (iii) to provide for a variety of housing types which will meet the varied and evolving needs of the residents. This will be achieved through by-laws which set out the criteria for construction and maintenance standards of various types of accommodation. (iv) to encourage seniors’ facilities, group homes and affordable housing to meet the needs of the community. Mindful of the municipality’s limited funds, this will be accomplished by zoning by laws rather than by direct or indirect subsidies. (v) to monitor the changing housing needs of the community. This will be accomplished by periodic review of the community’s demographics. (vi) to minimize the cost of providing essential municipal services to the residents. This will be accomplished by planning controls which consider the long-term servicing costs of all developments. The lots will be privately serviced, helping to minimize long-term municipal servicing costs in accordance with Objective (i) and (vi). By locating the lots along an existing municipal road in a manner consistent with the surrounding rural lot fabric, the proposal maintains the rural character of the area and avoids land use conflicts, as outlined in Objective (ii). The proposed consent also contributes to housing variety in the Township by modestly expanding the supply of rural residential lots, consistent with Objective (iii). Overall, the variance enables a form of development that is cost-effective, compatible with its context, and aligned with the OP’s housing goals. Single detached dwellings are a permitted use as per the Section 5.7.4 (i) of the OP. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) further acknowledges that while the standard frontage requirement for rural residential lots is 76 metres, the municipality may consider reductions where the overall intent of the OP is maintained. In this case, the proposed lots exceed the minimum area requirement, are compatible with the surrounding lot fabric, and will be serviced privately, ensuring no additional burden on municipal infrastructure. As such, the requested reduction in frontage is consistent with the intent of the OP and supports well-integrated rural development. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the proposed variance will maintain the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan. Test #2: Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained? The site is zoned Rural (RU) in the Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law Zoning By-law 2003-75. The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots. The consent will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is required to permit a reduced frontage for single detached residential uses. The following tables outlines the necessary variances required to facilitate the development. Provision

Requirement

Retained Lot

Severed Lot #1

Severed Lot #2

Variance Required?

Rural (RU) Zone Permitted Uses Single detached dwelling

Single detached dwelling

Anticipated single detached dwelling +/- 10,420 m2

No

63.0 metres

Yes

Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage

8000 m2

Complies

Anticipated single detached dwelling +/- 10,400 m2

76 metres

64.6 metres

63.0 metres

Consent + Minor Variance

No

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 242 of 493

22 Minimum Front Yard Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Interior Side Yard

20 metres

+/- 220 metres

To comply

To Comply

No

10 metres

To comply

To Comply

No

To Comply

To Comply

No

Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height

20 %

+/- 1,100 metres +/- 121 metres (West) +/- 95 metres (East) +/- 0.049%

To Comply

To Comply

No

11 metres

Complies

To Comply

To Comply

No

3 metres

Minimum Frontage Relief is requested to reduce the minimum frontage of each the severed and retained lots. The minimum frontage is proposed to be reduced from 76 metres to 64.6 metres for the retained lot, and 63.0 metres for both of the severed lots. This reduction in frontage is required to facilitate the consent, which will see a large, underutilized rural lot being developed in a manner which provides for two new lots and the potential to develop new single detached houses. The proposed frontages are consistent with the frontages of surrounding lots. Despite the proposed reduced frontage, the site will meet the lot area requirements and can accommodate a sufficient building footprint with all setback requirements. The proposed reduction in minimum frontage will not impact the functionality of the lots and will allow for the creation of new housing. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law. Test #3: Is the variance minor? The assessment of whether a proposed variance is minor is not a mathematical calculation. Rather, the test is intended to assess the degree of any impact resulting from the proposed variance. The requested variance would be limited to the site, limiting the scope of any impacts. The property is in an area characterized by rural residential uses on varied lot sizes, with a range of lot frontages. The minor variance application will allow the severance and development of two new lots and two houses, where both the lot dimensions and building typology are consistent with those currently present in the surrounding area. Sufficient setbacks between residential dwellings and their associated private servicing will be maintained, thus the impacts to each existing and new proposed uses are minor as well. Based on this review, it is our professional opinion that the proposed variances are minor in nature. Test #4: Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lands in question? The proposed development aligns with the permitted uses for the lands in question. The approved variance will result in the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized rural residential parcel to create two new lots for residential development in accordance with the Township’s goals for housing in the rural area. The surrounding area is characterized by alike rural residential developments with similar or reduced frontages. The subject site can support the proposed development, as demonstrated by several technical studies. Based on this review, it is our professional planning opinion that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 243 of 493

23 Conclusion The applicant is seeking approval from the Township of South Frontenac to create two new lots from the subject site at 3629 Quinn Road East. The proposal consists of applications for consent to sever and a minor variance application to address reduced lot frontages on each of the severed and retained lots. The application will allow a form of appropriate rural residential development on the site which will complement the existing character of the area. The minor variance application maintains the intent and purpose of the OP and zoning by-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development of the site in question. It is our opinion that the proposed applications for consent and minor variance are appropriate for the site and represent good land use planning. Should you have any questions or comments, please so not hesitate to contact us at 613.542.5454. Respectfully submitted,

Elysia Ackroyd, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Fotenn Planning + Design

Consent + Minor Variance

Tara McInnes Planner Fotenn Planning + Design

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 244 of 493

24 Appendix A

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 245 of 493

25

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 246 of 493

26

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 247 of 493

27

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 248 of 493

. __

, :

E:

,_

‘7

p

,

g (77

‘3) /)PETWORTHROAD r

gig?

”a?

"

v

1‘‘ ~Al_

«3

R0 AD FREEMAN JAIiWIESON ROAD .. g

{V

~

_

r:

é.

H

I

\a

IA\

‘

g» ~

"

.

A

0

"

2

v

w

—

W N

u

\

,.

a

\

‘

SOUTH FRONTENAC PL-BDJ -2025-0074 PL-BDJ -2025-0075 PL-ZNA-2025-0076 (PITTMAN) 3629 QUINN ROAD EAST Retained Lands

m

Proposed Severance (0075) Proposed Severance (0074)

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody x. *7! ”

Proposed Severance

1

(PL-BDJ-202510074)

) '

Township Boundary

Proposed Severance 2 (PL-BDJ-2025-0075)

Road

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2025.

Page 249 of 493

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

Scale: 1:7,500

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 2025-07-07

+

FO Planni Desi ng TE gn N

Page 250 of 493

Calculations 3609 Quinn Road E Farm contact information Kathy Huff 3609 Quinn Road E Harrowsmith, ON k0h1v0 613-372-1514

Location of existing livestock facility or anaerobic digestor County of Frontenac Township of South Frontenac PORTLAND Concession 3 , Lot 5 Roll number: 102908001013300

Total lot size 180.39 ac

Livestock/manure summary Manure Form

Type of livestock/manure

Existing maximum number

Existing maximum number (NU)

Estimated livestock barn area

Solid

Horses, Medium-framed, mature; 227 - 680 kg (including unweaned offspring)

10

10 NU

2500 ft²

Solid

Goats, Does & bucks (for meat; includes unweaned offspring)

100

12.5 NU

1500 ft²

Solid

Chickens, Layer hens (for eating eggs; after transfer from pullet barn), Floor Run

334

2.2 NU

334 ft²

Solid

Ducks, Muscovy

333 ft²

1.2 NU

333 ft²

Solid

Pheasants

333 ft²

1.2 NU

333 ft²

Setback summary Existing manure storage

V3. Solid, outside, no cover, >= 30% DM

Design capacity

27.2 NU

Potential design capacity

81.7 NU

Factor A (odour potential) Factor D (manure type)

0.73 0.7

Factor B (design capacity) 299.36 Factor E (encroaching land use) 1.1

Building base distance ‘F’ (A x B x D x E) (minimum distance from livestock barn)

169 m (554 ft)

Actual distance from livestock barn

506 m (1660 ft)

Storage base distance ‘S’ (minimum distance from manure storage) Actual distance from manure storage

No existing manure storage NA

Page 251 of 493

August 6, 2024

Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca

NATURAL HERITAGE SITE ASSESSMENT 3629 Quinn Road; LOT 6, CON 3 South Frontenac Township, Frontenac County Prepared for:

Robert Pittman

Prepared by:

Megan Snetsinger, M.Sc. megan@ecologicalservices.ca

Table of Contents 1.0

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1

Property Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1.2

Description of Application ………………………………………………………………………………… 2

1.3

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

2.0

SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

2.1

Present and Historical Land Use ………………………………………………………………………. 4

2.2

Ecological Land Classification ………………………………………………………………………….. 4

3.0

ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES ……………………………………. 6

3.1.

Wetlands………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.1.1

Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland …………………………………. 6

3.1.2

Locally Significant Wetland ……………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.1.3

Unevaluated Wetland ………………………………………………………………………………… 6

3.2

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest …………………………………………………………….. 6

3.3

Significant Woodland……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.4

Significant Valleyland ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

3.5

Surface Water and Fish Habitat ……………………………………………………………………….. 7

3.6

Species at Risk Habitat …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

3.7

Significant Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………. 8

4.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………….. 9

5.0

Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts ………………………………………….. 10

Attachment 1. Site Photos ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Page 252 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

1.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Property Location The subject property is on Quinn Road in South Frontenac, on Lot 6 / Concession 3 of the geographic township of Portland. The property is in EcoDistrict 6E-9: Havelock.

Figure 1. Topographic map, showing the relative location of the subject property, which is indicated by the black circle. Base map is an annotated detail from topographic map 31 C/07, Sydenham.

1.2 Description of Application Two severances are proposed from the subject property (Figure 2). Both proposed lots and the retained land have frontage on Quinn Road. The retained land has a driveway along the east side of the property to an existing single-family home and outbuildings north of the proposed severances; it is in poor condition and the retained land may be redeveloped. The proposed severances are not developed, and are proposed as residential lots.

2 Page 253 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Figure 2. Approximate boundaries of the subject property (solid white line) and the two proposed severances (broken lines). Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.

1.3 Methodology Ecological Services carried out field work and desktop research to determine if the proposed development will have a negative impact to the area’s natural heritage features and their associated functions. Our assessment of the property’s natural heritage features is based on the requirements laid out in section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as the South Frontenac Official Plan. We surveyed the property May 24, 2024 (personnel Megan Snetsinger and Mary Alice Snetsinger). The weather was sunny and clear, and the temperature was 24°C at 3:00 when we began our assessment. We identified habitat communities on and around the proposed development following the methodology outlined in the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) and when applicable, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (OMNR 2022). We considered significant natural features, fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat (SWH, as described in OMNRF 2015), and Species at Risk when performing our site investigation. Desktop research provided information on the presence of rare species and potential habitat on and adjacent to the subject property, from the following sources: • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data accessed via the Ontario Make a Map tool for natural heritage areas; grid square: 18UQ6715 • Ontario GeoHub for wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest • Fish ON-Line • Fisheries and Oceans Canada map of aquatic Species at Risk • Ontario Nature Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario Atlas • eBird • iNaturalist

3 Page 254 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

2.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Present and Historical Land Use The south end of the subject property is mostly in active/recent agricultural use, with a channel (likely a farm ditch) crossing the property. The southernmost field was ploughed at the time of our field visit, and the soil was bare. There is a new well dug on each of the proposed lots. We did not survey the north end of the retained land, as it is not adjacent to the proposed development, but we noted from satellite imagery that most of it appears to have tree cover, which is a combination of deciduous and mixed forest. In 1954, more of the property had open fields (Figure 3), although there is some tree cover at the north end. Figure 3. 1954 imagery of the subject property (outlined in red). Imagery from the University of Toronto Map & Data Library.

2.2 Ecological Land Classification The south end of the property, closest to Quinn Road, is characterized by Cultural (CU) communities, i.e., those maintained by anthropogenic-based disturbances. There is evidence of past agricultural use in the southernmost field (e.g., old stalks, corn cobs), but it is presently ploughed and largely bare of vegetation. The other fields on the property are in active agricultural use. Around the edges of the fields, as well as along the driveway and around the residential buildings, there are a variety of disturbance-tolerant species: e.g., Dog-Strangling Vine, Orchard Grass, Common Dandelion, Red Clover, White Clover, Virginia Creeper, Blueeyed Grass, Queen Anne’s Lace, Chickweed, Pigweed, King Devil, Field Cinquefoil. Along the driveway there are a variety of shrubs in a Cultural Thicket (CUT) community, including Common Lilac, European Buckthorn, Grey Dogwood, Prickly Ash, Red Cedar, Staghorn Sumac, and Apple. North of the ploughed field is another thicket with a similar assemblage of shrubs. This community also has some White Pine and Green Ash. It would likely have formerly been a forest ecosite, but the tree cover does not presently meet the definition of a forest community due to dieback of the ash trees. North of the channel, there is one patch of with sufficient tree cover to define as a Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) community, likely because fewer ash trees are present. White Pine is the dominant coniferous component to the forest, and with a mix of deciduous trees (e.g., Sugar Maple, White Oak, Shagbark Hickory). 4 Page 255 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

The channel is not large enough to map as a distinct ELC community, but there are different species along its extent. Reed-canary Grass is nearly monotypic in the channel, with some other species of wet environments along the edges: American Water Horehound, Meadowsweet, Awl-fruited Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Yellow Sedge, Retrorse Sedge. There is a muddy track used by vehicles to connect the ploughed field and the cropland to the north. The channel path has been torn up at this location, and we observed water pooling in the tire tracks, supporting some Water Plantain and Water Purslane.

Retained land

S01

S02

Figure 4. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping, in yellow, of vegetation communities on the subject property near the proposed severances. The white lines denote the approximate property outline (solid line) and the proposed severances (broken line). The channel across the property is indicated with a blue line. Base map from Google Earth, created using QGIS.

5 Page 256 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

3.0

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES On or adjacent to proposed development?

3.1. Wetlands 3.1.1

Provincially Significant Wetland or Coastal Wetland

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

The Millhaven Creek PSW is the closest to the subject property, over 1 km to the east. It is not adjacent. 3.1.2

Locally Significant Wetland

There are no locally significant wetland identified by the Township or any evaluated non-significant wetlands adjacent to the subject property. 3.1.3

Unevaluated Wetland

Ontario mapping data includes a layer of unevaluated wetland, which is procedurally-generated mapping of potential areas of wetland. On the proposed severances, there is an area mapped as unevaluated wetland within the CUT/FOM2 area around the channel. There are several factors that define wetland under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, including that in wetlands must have over 50% relative coverage of wetland plants. We assessed the area, and found that the assemblage of vegetation is dominated by upland species and facultative species (i.e., those that tolerate a variety of conditions). This is not wetland. The channel has more wetland or facultative species, but this is a riparian community rather than wetland. There are also patches of unevaluated wetland mapped adjacent to the property, including along the channel to the east and west and on the property across Quinn Road. We cannot access other properties to assess them for wetland presence, but we can review satellite imagery. In our opinion, some of these adjacent areas of unevaluated wetland do appear to be wetland (e.g., across Quinn Road and almost 120 m west). The proposed severances are unlikely to impact these adjacent areas of wetland, given intervening distance and topography. 3.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest The Harrowsmith Bog Life Science ANSI is the closest to the subject property, over 3 km to the northwest. It is not adjacent. 3.3 Significant Woodland The FOM2 patch north of the channel is about 0.3 ha, which is too small to meet any criteria for significance.

6 Page 257 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? The woodland south of Quinn Road is on adjacent lands that we did not assess, but a measurement of the area based on satellite imagery puts it close to 60 ha. It likely is significant for size and interior habitat, and could have other ecological functions or uncommon characteristics depending on what is in the woodland. The proposed severances and development of residential lots north of Quinn Road is unlikely to impact this woodland. 3.4 Significant Valleyland

Yes

No

Yes

No

The land where the severances are proposed does not meet the morphological characteristics of a valleyland. There are no Environmental Protection or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (which would include significant valleyland) mapped by South Frontenac Township adjacent to the subject property. 3.5 Surface Water and Fish Habitat The watercourse that crosses the property is a straight line that appears to have been channelized (Figure 5). It is likely an old farm ditch. The channel width is variable, between 2-4 m across. During our site visit there was some water in the channel with no sign of flow. Most of the channel length has dense growth of monotypic Reed-canary Grass, with some bare patches on the west side of the property. We observed no sign of fish. Given the dense vegetation the potential for fish presence appears low, although if there is direct connection to fish habitat there could be some marginal habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that development on the proposed lots meet a 30 m setback from the channel, as recommended in the South Frontenac Official Plan. The concept plan for this development includes a 30 m setback from the channel.

Figure 5. Ontario Make-a-map satellite imagery of the subject property (red outline). Note the straight line of the channel across the property through the thicket.

7 Page 258 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? We also observed what may be a hand-dug well about 15 m south of the channel near the west side of the property (see Attachment 1). This is not a natural heritage feature, and is located within the recommended setback. 3.6 Species at Risk Habitat

Yes

No

Yes

No

There are no Species at Risk (Endangered or Threatened) records from Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data. Our other database searches did not indicate any nearby SAR. We did not observe any SAR during our field visit. 3.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat (SWH) constitutes locations where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their life cycle, where rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat is present, and areas important to migratory or non-migratory species (animal movement corridors), as well as to the habitat of rare species (including any species of conservation concern not covered above). The criteria (OMNRF 2015) for most SWH categories were not met on or adjacent to the proposed development. Our discussion is limited to potentially relevant SWH. Bat Maternity Colonies. Maternity colonies require large-diameter cavity trees in deciduous or mixed forest habitat; snags are preferred. This SWH is found in forest ELC ecosites, which includes FOM. The small patch of forest north of the channel on the proposed severances is about 0.3 ha, which is technically too small to identify as a distinct ELC community (we mapped it to distinguish features on a smaller site), so it may not be large enough to categorize as SWH. However, as the forest patch is almost entirely within the recommended setback from the channel, any bat roosting trees present are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed severance. We recommend that the forest patch should remain standing (i.e., not be clearcut). We also recommend that any tree cutting outside of the forest should take place outside of the bat roosting season (April 15 to September 30) to mitigate any potential harm to bats that may be roosting on the property. Raptor Wintering Areas. The criteria for this SWH require confirmed, regular use by specific raptor birds of combined forest and open habitat of over 20 ha. The criteria schedule suggests that raptors prefer least disturbed sites for winter hunting grounds, in extensive fallow fields (>15 ha) that are windswept with little snow accumulation. The woodland south of Quinn Road is large and has several open fields around its south and east sides, although there are not many eBird records around the woodland for the associated species. The proposed severances are unlikely to impact any raptor wintering activity in the adjacent woodland. 8 Page 259 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

On or adjacent to proposed development? Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs). This SWH requires treed wetland. There is no suitable habitat on the subject property, and we observed no stick nests on any of the dead-standing trees. There is a NHIC record of a Mixed Wader Nesting Colony in the relevant UTM block, which is associated with this type of SWH. However, NHIC grid squares are large; this habitat is likely associated with an area of wetland from another part of the square. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species. There is one rare species from NHIC data: Wood Thrush. In our other database searches, there are nearby eBird records for Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-pewee. We did not observe any rare species during our site visit. Woodland birds: Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) – designated as Threatened1 under the SARA and as Special Concern under the ESA; and Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens) – designated as Special Concern under the SARA and under the ESA. These bird species are typically found in deciduous or mixed woodland habitat. On the subject property, the woodland is small and fragmented from the adjacent woodland. It is also less extensive than it would have previously been, due to the die-back of the ash trees in the CUT. There is a much larger area of woodland (with a deciduous component) south of Quinn Road, which is likely to be more attractive to woodland birds. The proposed development is unlikely to impact habitat in the adjacent woodland. The woodland on the proposed severances falls within 30 m of the channel, which is the setback we have recommended. Outside of that setback, development on the severances would not be in woodland habitat. Regardless, we do recommend that any tree cutting should be done outside of the breeding season (April 1 to August 31), to comply with the intention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, to mitigate any direct harm to these or other nesting songbirds.

4.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development?

Yes

No

If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on?

1

Although this species has a Threatened designations, the Provincial Policy Statement refers to Ontario designations when discussing SAR. So we have grouped it with other rare/Special Concern species.

9 Page 260 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Recommendations for Mitigation

1. Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 m from the channel.
2. The land within 30 m of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. Environmental Impact Statement: It is our opinion that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions, and that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Yes

No

Is monitoring recommended?

Yes

No

Signature:

5.0

Literature Cited, References, and Personal Contacts

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Aquatic species at risk map. Web site maintained by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, compiling critical habitat and distribution data for aquatic species. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/map-carte/index-eng.html Fish ON-Line. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with information on element occurrences. <https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/ FishONLine/Index.html?site=FishONLine&viewer=FishONLine&locale=en-US> Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Technology Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Natural Heritage Information Center. Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas. Web site maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, with species rarity rankings and information on element occurrences. <https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/Natural_Heritage/index.html?viewer=Natural_ Heritage.Natural_Heritage&locale=en-CA> . MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section. 10 Page 261 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 2nd edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. 239 pp. OMNRF, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E. OMNRF Regional Operations, Peterborough, Ontario. 38 pp. Provincial Policy Statement. 2020. Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Province of Ontario. 53 pp. Township of South Frontenac: Official Plan. March 2003. Consolidated January 2024. University of Toronto Libraries. Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/ collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index

11 Page 262 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Attachment 1. Site Photos

Photo 1. The channel across the subject property, dense with Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both sides by thicket (CUT).

Photo 2. The channel across the subject property, at the west end where there are patches without Reed-canary Grass. The channel is bounded on both by thicket (CUT) on the south/left and by forest (FOM2) on the north/right.

12 Page 263 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Photo 3. The channel across the subject property, facing west from the driveway, with the thicket (CUT) around it.

Photo 4. The dead ash trees in the thicket (CUT) community, which was likely formerly a treed community.

Photo 5. The forest (FOM2) north of the channel.

13 Page 264 of 493

Natural Heritage Site Assessment: Pittman

Ecological Services: August 6, 2024

Photo 6. The hand dug well observed 15 m south of the channel.

Photo 7. The driveway on the retained land, to the existing house. The active agricultural fields are visible in the background.

Photo 8. The ploughed field on the proposed severances. Development on the lots is proposed on this site.

14 Page 265 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment Quinn Road, Frontenac County, Lot 6, Concession 3

Prepared for: Robert Pittman 3629 Quinn Road East Harrowsmith, ON K0H 1V0

Prepared by: BluMetric Environmental Inc. 1682 Woodward Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3R8

Project Number: 240360 July 30, 2025

Page 266 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Table of Contents 1

Introduction __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2

Scope of Work _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Description ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Surrounding Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 3 Proposed Severances _______________________________________________________________ 4

Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.1 Background Information ____________________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Test Pitting _________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Aquifer Testing _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.1 Test Wells _____________________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.2 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 2.3.3 Aquifer Tests __________________________________________________________________ 6 2.4 Water Sampling ____________________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Well Owner Interviews _____________________________________________________________ 7

3

Geology and Hydrogeology ____________________________________________________________ 7 3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage _____________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Surficial Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 7 3.3 Bedrock Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.1 Water Well Records ____________________________________________________________ 9 3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination ____________________________________________ 12 3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity ____________________________________________________ 12 3.4.4 Groundwater Quality __________________________________________________________ 13 3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity ________________________________________________________ 17

4

Development Considerations __________________________________________________________21 4.1 Water Treatment __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Testing of Treated Water __________________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ________________________________________________ 22 4.3.1 Sewage System Design ________________________________________________________ 23

5

Conclusions and Recommendations ____________________________________________________24

6

Limiting Conditions ___________________________________________________________________25

7

References ___________________________________________________________________________27 i

Page 267 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:

Test Wells Summary ____________________________________________________________ 5 Observation Wells______________________________________________________________ 5 Summary of MECP Water Well Records ________________________________________ 11 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results ____________________________________ 16 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1)__________ 17 Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2)__________ 17 Observation Well Responses ___________________________________________________ 18 Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) ___________________________________________________________ 19 Summary of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity ________________ 19 Tile Bed Clearances ___________________________________________________________ 23

List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

Site Location ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Site Layout____________________________________________________________end of text MECP Wells __________________________________________________________end of text Conceptual Lot Development Plan _____________________________________end of text

List of Appendices Appendix A: Well Records Appendix B: Lab Certificates of Analysis Appendix C: Aquifer Analysis Appendix D: Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations

ii

Page 268 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

1

240360 July 2025

Introduction

BluMetric Environmental Inc. (BluMetric®) was retained to conduct a hydrogeological assessment to support an application for a two-lot severance at 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario (Roll #: 102908001013900). The site location is indicated in Figure 1. The proposed severances cover approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is in a rural area (a municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment system is not available) and the proposed severances will be serviced by private residential water supply wells and individual onsite septic sewage systems. Test wells TW1 and TW2 were used as the test well on the western and eastern lots to be severed, respectively. This study was conducted with regards to the following regulations and guidelines: •

• •

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems, Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment (MOEE, 1996). Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells, Water Supply Assessment (MOEE, 1996b). Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903), 1990, Wells.

1

Page 269 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Figure 1:

240360 July 2025

Site Location

1.1 Scope of Work The scope of work of this assessment included the following components: • • •

Desktop review of background information (water well records, geological databases, hydrology information, topography, known water uses). Inspect the lot for shallow groundwater/surface water conditions. Conduct a 6-hour pumping test at two new dug wells (TW1 and TW2) and monitor water levels at the pumping wells during pumping and recovery. The 6-hour pumping test occurred during low recharge conditions between late June to early September. Test well recoveries could be measured over multiple days. Water levels from the well on the retained lot was monitored during the pumping test.

2

Page 270 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

•

•

240360 July 2025

Collect and submit groundwater samples at the end of the 6-hour pumping test from TW1 and TW2 for laboratory analysis of parameters outlined in the D-5-5 technical guidance in addition to organic nitrogen, phosphorus and metals. Water quality results were compared to Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Analyse pumping test data to determine aquifer parameters.

1.2 Site Description The site is located approximately 20 kilometres northwest of Kingston, Ontario along the northern side of Quinn Road east of County Road 38 (Figure 1). The site is comprised of gradually sloping open fields, forested areas wetland areas. The proposed lands to be severed include two 1.05 ha plots located in the south corner of the site. Residential development is proposed to take place on both lots and dug wells have been constructed for each.

1.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses within 500 m of the subject site are described below: • North o Rural residential o Agriculture o Woodlot • East o Rural Commercial (Sugar Shack) o Agriculture o Woodlot o Rural Residential • South o Wetland o Woodlot o Quinn Road • West o Rural Residential o Agriculture o County Road 38 o Wetland o Woodlot

3

Page 271 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

All existing development in the area are supported by the use of private individual water supply wells and onsite septic sewage systems. All neighbouring water supplies are derived from drilled wells while the onsite water supplies will be derived from dug wells (well records provided in Appendix A). The construction of dug wells was to obtain the best water quality and quantity as recommended to Robert Pittman by BluMetric.

1.4 Proposed Severances The proposed severances involve the creation of 3 residential lots on 37.9 ha (Figure 1). The proposed severances are described as follows: • • •

2

Lot 1 (Severed A) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Lot 2 (Severed B) – 1.05 ha, 63 metres of frontage, open field, existing dug well; Retained Lot – 35.89 ha, 64.6 metres of frontage open field and forested area, existing dug well.

Methodology

2.1 Background Information A review of available background information was conducted including: • • • • • •

MECP water well records; Topographic Databases; Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) online geology mapping databases; Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre mapping database; County of Frontenac Interactive Mapping Online GIS Portal; Ontario Watershed Information Tool (OWIT).

2.2 Test Pitting Four (4) test pits were advanced at the site as part of the investigation. The test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced by BluMetric to describe soil stratigraphy using a hand shovel on October 18, 2024, on each of the lots to be severed.

4

Page 272 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The soil profile at each test pit was logged by direct examination of the sides and bottoms of the test pits. Representative samples were collected in clean plastic bags. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 4.

2.3 Aquifer Testing 2.3.1 Test Wells Two residential supply wells, A350546 and A350547, were constructed in 2023. Supply well A350546 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 metres below ground surface (mbgs) by Frank’s Drilling and Blasting LTD. Supply well A350547 was constructed and completed as a concrete cased dug well to a depth of 6.53 mbgs by Franks Drilling and Blasting LTD. Both test wells are situated along a topographic high and are advanced into bedrock as summarized in Table 1. Table 1:

Test Wells Summary

Well ID

Year of Installation

Depth to Bedrock (m)

Casing Depth (m)

TW1 (A350546) TW2 (A350547)

2023 2023

1.4 1.5

6.53 6.53

Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m) 3.0 3.0

Total Depth (m) 6.53 6.53

2.3.2 Observation Wells One water well was selected for use as an observation well during a second aquifer test. Aquifer tests were conducted on August 7, 2024, and August 8, 2024, and are detailed in section 2.2.3. One observation well (dug well) is located on the retained lot however a well record is not available to verify the details of its construction. Data recording of water levels at pumping wells and observation wells commenced one day prior to pumping and terminated three days post pumping. The residents were asked to not use their wells during the time of the pumping test. Table 2:

Observation Wells

Well ID 3629 Quinn Road (Dug well)

Year of Installation

Depth to Bedrock (m)

Casing Depth (m)

Depth to Water Bearing Fractures (m)

Total Depth (m)

Unknown

5

Page 273 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

2.3.3 Aquifer Tests BluMetric staff conducted the first six-hour, constant discharge aquifer tests at supply well A350546 on August 7, 2024, and at supply well A350547 on August 8, 2024. Each well was pumped at a rate of 25 L/min for 360 min with a combined total of 18,000 litres of groundwater pumped from the aquifer. The testing program included observation of three wells (the pumping well and two observation wells) for each pumping test as required by Ontario Guideline D-5-5 for land parcels of 15 ha or less. A second 3.5-hour constant discharge aquifer test was completed on October 3, 2024, by BluMetric staff. The second test included the pumping of one test well (A350547) at a rate of approximately 41 L/min. A combined total of 8,610 litres was pumped during the second pumping test. Water levels were recorded during aquifer testing by manual methods (water level sounding meters) and with pressure transducer/datalogger units (Solinst Level Logger™). Post pumping observation was acquired with pressure transducers for a minimum of 24 hours to assess groundwater recharge. Results of the aquifer tests are provided in Section 3.4.6.

2.4 Water Sampling All wells were disinfected prior to the six-hour constant rate discharge pumping and any subsequent resampling event by shock chlorination. A water sample was collected in laboratory provided containers at the end of each aquifer test and placed immediately into a cooler with ice and transported to Caduceon laboratory in Kingston, a CALA accredited laboratory. Samples were analyzed for the list of chemical and microbiological parameters specified in Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996b). Further sampling of well A350547 was carried out on October 3, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 9, 2024, to confirm microbiological parameters following initial exceedances in TW2. Laboratory certificates are appended in Appendix B. Field measurements for temperature, pH, conductivity, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were carried out using a YSI™ Professional series multimeter. Free chlorine residual and turbidity measurements were collected using a Hanna HI93414 calibrated to 1.0 mg/L chlorine solution and turbidity standards of <0.1 and 15 NTU. Colour measurements were collected using a Hanna 96727 calibrated with 0 and 250 PCU standards. Microbiological quality sampling was conducted after the free chlorine residual concentration reduced to non-detectable or below the instrument’s limit of detection of 0.01 mg/L.

6

Page 274 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

2.5 Well Owner Interviews A standard well owner interview form was sent to the neighboring property owners along Quinn Road prior to conducting the pumping tests. The well-owner interview form requests details from neighboring water well users regarding well water quality and quantity and onsite wastewater treatment systems. All of the solicited neighboring water well users declined to fill out the interview form.

3

Geology and Hydrogeology

3.1 Site Physiography and Drainage The Site is geographically situated within two catchments. The western and northern parts of the Site are situated within the Wilton Creek-Little Creek Napanee River Catchment, while the southern and eastern parts of the site are situated within the Millhaven Creek Catchment (OWIT, 2024). Surface water drainage at the Site is diverted to a ditch located on the south end of the site. The northern part of the site drains south towards the ditch, while the southern end of the site (including the lots to be severed) drains north towards the ditch. This ditch then flows east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek.

3.2 Surficial Geology Four (4) shallow test pits (TP1 to TP4) were advanced using a hand shovel by BluMetric on October 18, 2024. Test pit locations are indicated on Figure 4. The following is a summary of stratigraphy encountered at the test pit locations. TP1 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.53 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY CLAY with some gravel Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.53 m Test pit was terminated at 0.53 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

7

Page 275 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

TP2 0-0.23 m 0.23 to 0.63 m: 0.63 to 0.66 m:

(hand dug using a shovel) brown, SILTY TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown/grey SILTY CLAY with some gravel damp, grey CLAY with some black sand Sample taken from 0.23 to 0.63 m Test pit was terminated at 0.66 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

TP3 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.41 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown CLAYEY SILT/SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.41 m Test pit was terminated at 0.41 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

TP4 0-0.2 m 0.2 to 0.35 m:

(hand excavated using a shovel) TOPSOIL with some organics dry, brown SILTY SAND with trace gravel Sample taken from 0.20 to 0.35 m Test pit was terminated at 0.35 m (bedrock refusal) No groundwater was observed in test pit

240360 July 2025

The Ontario Geological Survey (2024) classifies the site as exposed bedrock with areas of less than 1.0 m of drift consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and diamicton. Well records for test wells TW1 and TW2 indicate that bedrock was encountered between 1.4 m and 1.5 m bgs at both locations. Soils stratigraphy on both well records show topsoil from ground surface to 0.3 m bgs followed by loam from 0.3 m bgs to bedrock at approximately 1.5 m bgs. Descriptions of soil stratigraphy at test pits TP1 to TP4 are generally consistent with the findings of the water well records search where overburden thickness varies between 0 m to 2.4 m.

3.3 Bedrock Geology Geological mapping information from the OGS Earth website (OGS, 2024) shows that the site is located within a sequence of horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary rocks. The uppermost bedrock unit is the Shadow Lake Formation which is of Ordovician age. The bedrock is

8

Page 276 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

described as limestone and dolostone (towards base). The site is in an area of inferred karst as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2024).

3.4 Hydrogeology An unconfined water table does not appear to exist in the overburden unit as evidenced by the test pits which remained dry over two days after their excavation. Drainage / infiltration within the overburden unit is expected to be influenced by topography and is inferred to have an easterly component towards Millhaven Creek. The primary water supply aquifer in the vicinity of the site occurs within the horizontally bedded Ordovician carbonate sedimentary bedrock. The bedrock aquifer has water bearing fracture zones (i.e., horizontal bedding plane fractures) that occur between sedimentary layers of bedrock. Permeability within these strata is controlled by fractures. The primary porosity (i.e. the ‘primary fracture network’) is associated with horizontal bedding plane fractures. A secondary porosity is associated with subvertical fracturing. The direction of regional groundwater flow in bedrock at the site is inferred to be to the to the east-northeast towards Millhaven Creek. Information from the Ontario Source Protection Atlas, (MECP, 2023) website indicates that the site is: • • • • •

Not within a wellhead protection area; Is not within an intake protection zone; Is not within an issue contributing area; Is not within a significant groundwater recharge area; A highly vulnerable aquifer does not occur beneath the site.

3.4.1 Water Well Records A total of 8 MECP water well records from the MECP Water Well Information System (WWIS; MECP, 2024) were reviewed (individual well records are provided in Appendix A). Wells selected within 500 m of the proposed severance are depicted on Figure 3 and summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that that well record locations are based on the database coordinates and may be subject to varying degrees of error. Well depths, overburden thickness, depth of casing, aquifer interception points and well yield related information were reviewed in detail and included Table 3. The review of water well records within 500 m of the subdivision provided the following relevant information:

9

Page 277 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

• • • • • • • • •

240360 July 2025

Depth to bedrock varies from 0 m bgs to 2.4 m bgs; Bedrock is reported as shale and/or limestone in all of the well records; Static water levels in the identified water wells range from 0.3 mbgs to 21.0 mbgs; The only dug wells in the MECP WWIS 500 m map area are those constructed at the Site; One of the 8 wells identified in the MECP WWIS were dry at the time of construction; Reported well pumping rates for drilled wells range from 0 L/min to 23 L/min; Six of the records produced water described as “clear”; The well record for supply well A350546 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L; The well record for supply well A350547 indicates: a depth of 6.53 mbgs; a test pumping rate of 178 GPM (675 L/min); and an approximate reserve of 34,000 L.

10

Page 278 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Table 3:

240360 July 2025

Summary of MECP Water Well Records MECP Water Well Record Summary

Well Record ID

Depth to Bedrock (m)

2203354 2204349

0.0 0.6

2205784

2.4

2205787

0.9

2210419

0.3

2211332

2.0

2212789

0.3

2214857

0.0

Overburden Material

Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Brown Loam Clay Loam / Gravel

Bedrock Material

Casing Depth (m)

Depth to Water Bearing Zone(s) (m)

Static Water Level (m)

41.1 10.4

Limestone Limestone

3.0 2.1

30.5 2.4

18.3 3.0

Drawdown after Drillers Pumping Test (m) 41.1 9.4

36.6

Limestone

6.7

14.0

5.2

20.4

Limestone

2.1

2.1

33.5

Limestone

2.4

25.6

Limestone Shale / Limestone Shale / Limestone

Total Depth (m)

9.1 24.7

Recommended Pumping Rate (L/min)

Dug/Drilled

Comments

14

Drilled Drilled

Clear Cloudy

36.6

0

Drilled

0.3

20.4

23

Drilled

2.7

0.9

33.5

23

Drilled

6.7

25.0

15.2

7.3

7.3

5.5

9.1

18

Drilled

7.6

22.6

21.0

22.9

0

Drilled

Drilled

Clear Clear Clear Untested Clear Clear

Page 279 of 493

11

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Taken collectively this information shows that the wells in the area can provide a suitable water supply. A review of the MECP Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database was carried out within a 5 km radius of the site. PTTW information was obtained directly from the MECP interactive GIS system (MECP, 2024b). No permits were identified within the search area.

3.4.2 Potential Sources of Contamination The following potential onsite sources of contamination at the site were identified (Drage, 2022): •

• •

•

The proposed parcels to be severed have historically been used for agricultural purposes based on aerial imagery, namely the growing and harvesting of hay, which may have necessitated the use of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as an agricultural practice. Dug wells are vulnerable to shallow groundwater contaminants originating from agricultural practices (fertilizers, livestock), the application of road salt, and septic system effluent. Groundwater in dug wells often contains microbial contaminants because the short groundwater flow paths do not allow microbes to be removed by natural filtration within the aquifer. Dug wells are also prone to elevated concentrations of decomposed plant matter within soil and organic carbon.

The following potential offsite sources of contamination were identified: • •

Agricultural activities at neighbouring may be a source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Application of road salt along Quinn Road East is expected to have caused some limited impacts to the area immediately bordering the road and ditches. No onsite impact is expected as a result of road salt application activities.

3.4.3 Hydrogeological Sensitivity The subject lands are within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’ as determined by the OGS Karst mapping layer (OGS, 2023). No obvious karst traits were found based on review of local Lidar data for the site; therefore a site-specific karst assessment was not deemed necessary. The water well records show that the overburden thickness within 800 m of the subject property varies from 0 to 2.4 m and has an average thickness of 0.8 m. The overburden material is primarily described in well records as loam. The well record for test well TW1 shows that the depth to bedrock is 1.4 m and the well record for test well TW2 shows that depth to bedrock is 1.5 m. The onsite test

12

Page 280 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

pits varied in depth from 0.35 to 0.66 mbgs and the material encountered was silty clay and silty sand. The most suitable source of potable groundwater for the proposed lot is the bedrock aquifer. The thin overburden layer will not provide any degree of isolation between bedrock and effluent from the septic systems which are proposed for the lots to be severed. Based on the terrain analysis findings, the site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin soils, so protective measures (extra depth of well casing and extra setback between wells and septic beds) are discussed and recommended in Sections 5 and 6. Mitigative measures for protection of water quality include imposing a minimum 45 m separation distance between well and septic system and mandating well water quality treatment with ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection.

3.4.4 Groundwater Quality The severed lots are proposed to be serviced by dug wells. Water quality was assessed at both the western lot (via test well TW1) and eastern lot (via test well TW2) to be severed. Laboratory analytical results from the groundwater samples collected at the end of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 along with field measurement data are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix B. A review of the analytical data summarized in Table 4 indicates that all tested water quality parameters were below the health and aesthetic related ODWSOG with the exception of the following: Well A350546 (TW1) • Sodium • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids Well A350547 (TW2) • Escherichia Coli • Total Coliforms • Fecal Coliforms • Hardness • Total Dissolved Solids

13

Page 281 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Hardness - Hardness was reported at 237 mg/L in well A3350546 (TW1), and 286 mg/L in well A350547 (TW2), both exceeding the ODWSOG OG of 80-100 mg/L. Hardness is caused by dissolved calcium and magnesium and is expressed as the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. Hardness levels below 500 mg/L in drinking water are considered generally acceptable for most domestic purposes and can be treated using a conventional water softener system. Softening using a domestic water softener increases the sodium level in drinking water. Total Dissolved Solids - The average TDS concentration measured of the two groundwater samples collected as part of this study is 627 mg/L. The analytical results for TDS at test wells TW1 and TW2 were measured to be 731 mg/L and 522 mg/L, respectively, both of which exceed the aesthetic objective (AO) limit. TDS is a measure of the inorganic substances dissolved in water. The principal constituents of TDS are chloride, sulphates, calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonates. The effects of TDS on drinking water quality depend on the levels of the individual components. Excessive hardness, taste, mineral deposition, or corrosion are common properties of water with elevated TDS. Water with a TDS concentration above 500 mg/L may not be palatable. Procedure D-5-5 does not provide a treatability limit for TDS, but it does require a written rationale that corrosion, encrustation, or taste problems will not occur. A Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) and Ryznar Stability Index (RSI) of 0.83 and 6.4, respectively, was calculated from the water quality results indicating the water is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and scale forming may occur. Water softening, already recommended for hardness, will remove calcium in the water supply and reduce the potential for mineral deposition and corrosion to plumbing fixtures. Sodium - Sodium concentrations are reported at 217 mg/L in test well TW1 and 108 mg/L in in test well TW2. A concentration exceeding 20 mg/L is to be reported to the local Medical Officer of health so that this information can be communicated to local physicians for their use with patients on sodium restricted diets. Potassium chloride can be used in place of sodium chloride to reduce the sodium content in water softening applications. Measured sodium levels exceed the ODWSOG aesthetic objective guideline of 200 mg/L. It is recommended that an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. Total and Fecal Coliforms, Escherichia Coli – The analytical results for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli measured in the groundwater sample collected from test well TW2 on August 7th, 2024, were above the ODWSOG limit (between 15 and 22 counts / 100 mL). Procedure D-5-5 indicates that the ODWSOG limit for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli is used as an indicator of inadequate disinfection within distribution systems. For private water wells the MECP 14

Page 282 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

and Health Units have historically used the limit of <5 counts /100 mL in the absence of a chlorine residual as indicating acceptable water quality concerning total coliforms, and D-5-5 indicates total coliform counts of less than 6 per 100 ml are acceptable. A second groundwater sample was collected by BluMetric from test well TW2 on October 3rd, 2024, at the end of a 4-hour pumping test and was analyzed for microbiological parameters. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4, satisfying the ODWSOG. Two (2) additional groundwater samples were collected on December 2nd and December 9th, 2025, by the property owner at 3629 Quinn Road East via grab sampling methods to confirm the previous sampling results. Laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater sample continued to show the absence of total coliforms and other measured microbiological parameters, as summarized in Table 4.

15

Page 283 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

Table 4:

240360 July 2025

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

Parameter

Units

RDL

ODWSOG

TW1

TW2

TW2

TW2

TW2

6 hours

6 hours

03-Oct-24

02-Dec-24

09-Dec-24

15 22 15

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0.2 0.1 0.06 0.71 108 0.003 0.0003 1.17 0.0006

Microbiological Parameters (Health) Escherichia Coli

ct/100 mL

0

0MAC

0

Total Coliforms

ct/100 mL

0

MAC

0

0

Fecal Coliforms

ct/100 mL

0

not specified

0

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

1.5MAC

Turbidity (Lab)

NTU

0.1

5 AO

0.7 1.2

N-NO2 (Nitrite)

mg/L

0.1

1MAC

<0.05

N-NO3 (Nitrate)

mg/L

0.1

10

Sodium

mg/L

1

20 / 200

217

Manganese

mg/L

1

AO

0.05

0.014

Arsenic

mg/L

1

new MAC

0.0005

Boron

mg/L

1

5 IMAC

Uranium

mg/L

1

0.02

Chemical Parameters (Health)

0.29

MAC

MA

0.01

AO

MAC

2.28 0.00063

Chemical Parameters with Aesthetic Objectives/ Operational Guidelines N-NH3 (Ammonia)

mg/L

0.02

not specified

1.47

pH

no units

1

6.5-8.5

8.10

Hardness as CaCO3

mg/L

1

100

237

Alkalinity (as CaCO3)

mg/L

5

500

TDS (COND - CALC)

mg/L

1

500

731

Calcium

mg/L

1

55.8

Chloride

mg/L

1

250AO

82.8

Colour

TCU

2

AO

5

<2

Conductivity

uS/cm

5

1350

DOC

mg/L

0.5

5

Hydrogen Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

Sulphate

mg/L

Tannin & Lignin Magnesium Potassium

AO

0.05

<0.01

1

AO

500

247

mg/L

0.1

<0.5

mg/L

1

23.7

mg/L

1

Iron

mg/L

0.03

0.3

Manganese

mg/L

0.01

0.05

0.014

2.21 7.95 286 302 522 74.6 55.3 <2 979 3.1 <0.01 143 <0.5 24.2 15.6 0.008 0.003

pH

no units

0.01

7.63

7.43

Chlorine Residual

mg/L

0.01

0

0

Conductivity

uS/cm

0.1

6.5-8.5AO non detectable

1297

Turbidity

NTU

0.01

5

AO

0.26

Colour

TCU

10

AO

5

0

Temperature (oC)

oC

0.1

942 0.15 0

AO

OG OG AO

AO

349

3.9

20.8 AO AO

0.015

Field Parameters

Notes: Bold and shaded indicates results exceed criteria RDL - Reported Detection Limit ‘-‘ – Not Tested/Reported Hydrogen Sulphide is reported as a calculated value based on the Sulphide concentration determined by colorimetric method. MA = Medical officer of health advisory if sodium exceeds 20 mg/L. Sodium AO is 200 mg/L Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003/2022. Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended.

16

Page 284 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

3.4.5 Groundwater Quantity As part of the 6-hour pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 were pumped by BluMetric on August 7 and August 8, 2024, at a constant rate of 20.5 L/min continuously over a period of six hours. Pressure transducer/datalogger were installed inside the dug wells at the retained lot on 3629 Quinn Road to measure groundwater interference during pumping of test well TW1 and TW2. A summary of the water levels measured over the course of the 6-hour pumping tests is included in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5:

Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW1) 07-Aug-24

08-Aug-24

12-Aug-24

Test Well ID

Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)

Borehole Depth (mbgs)

Static Water Level (mbtoc)

Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)

Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

TW1

1.40

6.53

1.46

1.68

1.53

1.17

Table 6:

Summary of Measured Groundwater Levels During Pumping Test (TW2) 08-Aug-24

09-Aug-24

12-Aug-24

Test Well ID

Depth to Bedrock (mbgs)

Borehole Depth (mbgs)

Static Water Level (mbtoc)

Water level at end of 6-hr pumping test (mbtoc)

Water Level After 24-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

Water Level After 96-hr Recovery (mbtoc)

TW2

1.50

6.53

1.57

1.76

1.49

1.22

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the static water levels prior to the start of the 6-hour pumping test at test wells TW1 and TW2 was 1.46 m btoc and 1.57 m btoc, respectively. Water levels at test well TW1 and TW2 prior to pump shutoff after 6 hours of pumping were 1.68 m btoc and 1.76 m btoc, respectively. Based on these water level measurements, total drawdowns of 0.22 m and 0.19 m were observed at the end of the 6-hour pump tests. Based on static water level measurements and well depths shown on the well records (recommended pump depths were at the bottom of the well), test wells TW1 and TW2 have available drawdowns of 5.07 m and 4.96 m, respectively. At the end of the 6-hour pumping test, test wells TW1 and TW2 had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump.

17

Page 285 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, water levels at test wells TW1 and TW2 had recovered to 1.53 m btoc and 1.49 m btoc approximately 24 hours following pump shutoff, indicating that both test wells recovered to approximately 68% and 142%, respectively, of the initial static water levels measured immediately before the start of the 6-hour pumping test. Recovery water levels above 100% four (4) days after pump shutoff are likely due to a combination of precipitation (13.2 mm and 20.8 mm of precipitation was measured at the Environment Canada weather station in Hartington, Ontario, on August 8th and 9th, respectively, located approximately 5 km from the site) and/or natural variations in water levels. A summary of measured water levels at observation wells that were monitored during the two sixhour pumping tests is included in Table 7. Table 7: Pumping Well TW1 (6-hr test) TW2 (6-hr test)

Observation Well Responses

TW2 3629 Quinn Road

Radial Distance (m) 100 190

Drawdown After 1 hour (m) 0.02 0.01

Drawdown After 2 hours (m) 0.04 0.02

Drawdown After 6 hours (m) 0.11 0.08

TW1 3629 Quinn Road

100 120

0.02 0.03

0.03 0.04

0.09 0.1

Observation Well

As shown in Table 7, the worst-case drawdown observed after 6 hours of continuous, constant rate pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min was 0.11 m. As per procedure D-5-5, discussed in more detail below, the daily water demand for a 4-bedroom dwelling is 2,250 L/day, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 2 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.04 m based on Table 7). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014), also discussed in more detail below, indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house, which represents drawdown exhibited after approximately 1 hours of continuous pumping at a rate of 20.5 L/min (0.03 m based on Table 7). Based on the worst-case drawdowns observed in neighboring water wells after 1 hour (0.03 m) and 2 hours (0.04 m) of the constant rate pumping test, which are representative of daily water use scenarios of the future dwellings on the proposed lots to be severed, negative impacts associated to well interference are not anticipated. As summarized in Table 8, the amount of groundwater pumped out of test wells TW1 and TW2 over the course of the 6-hour pumping test was approximately 7,358 L per well. Based measured drawdowns of 0.22 meters and 0.19 meters at the end of the 6-hr pumping test, the calculated volume of water pumped from test wells TW1 and TW2 were approximately 7,362 L and 7,351 L,

18

Page 286 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

respectively, assuming that both test wells are cylindrical and have casing radiuses of 0.46 meters. It is also assumed that both test wells have additional groundwater storage outside the immediate vicinity of the casing (representing the dug well excavation that was backfilled with porous sand/gravel) that extends to a radius of approximately 3.2 meters. Based on a 24-hr recovery of 0.15 meters and 0.27 meters, the calculated volume of water produced by test wells TW1 and TW2 over a 24-hr period was calculated to be approximately 4,967 L and 10,331 L, respectively. Table 8:

Test Well ID

Water Volumes Produced in Test Wells TW1 and TW2 During Recovery (6-hr Pumping Test) Volume of Water Pumped During 6-hr Pumping Test (L; Flowmeter)

Calculated Volume of Water Pumped During 6-Hour Pumping Test (L)

Height of Water Column Recovery After 24 hrs (m)

Volume of Water Produced After 24hrs of Recovery (L)

TW1 7358 7362 0.15 4967 TW2 7358 7351 0.27 10331

• Calculated volumes assume both test wells are cylindrical, have casing radiuses of 0.46 m and additional water storage extending to a radius of 3.2 m.

Analyses of the 6-hour pumping test conducted on test well TW1 were conducted using AquiferTest 10.0 software in order to estimate aquifer parameters. Aquifer parameters were calculated using the Theis (1935) method for an unconfined aquifer as summarized in the table below. Appendix C includes pumping test analysis reports for drawdown and recovery phases of the pumping test for the pumping well and selected observation wells. Table 9:

Summary of Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity

Well

Type

TW1 TW2 3629 Quinn Road

Pumping Well Observation Well Observation Well Mean

Drawdown 2x101 3x101

T (m2/d) Recovery 4x101 5x101 4x101

Mean 4x101 3x101 3x101 3x101

K (m/s) Mean 8x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-4 9x10-5

S 6x10-4 2x10-4 4x10-4

The calculated aquifer parameters for pumping well TW1 and observation wells TW2 and 3629 Quinn Road are similar to published literature values for coarse/medium sand (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990), however values are likely representing a composite of fractured limestone and gravel, consistent with the construction materials of dug wells.

19

Page 287 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

In order to calculate the productive capacity of test wells TW1 and TW2, the Farvolden (1959) method was used to estimate a sustainable pumping rate for 20 years without exceeding the available drawdown in the test wells. The Farvolden (1959) method is defined by the following equation:

Where: T = Transmissivity (m2/day) HA = Available drawdown (m) Q20 = 20-year safe yield Using a mean transmissivity value of 3x101 m2/d and an available drawdown of 5 m, the Farvolden (1959) method suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 71.4 m3/day, or 50 L/min. The suitability of test wells TW1 and TW2 to supply an adequate amount of water for the proposed severances was assessed using the methodology provided in MECP Procedure D-5-5 (MOEE, 1996), which indicates the number of people per dwelling is the number of bedrooms plus one. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that future residences on the proposed severances will be a fourbedroom single family homes, therefore the number of persons residing in each residence is assumed to be five. Procedure D-5-5 indicates the minimum ‘per-person water requirement’ is 450 L/day, which is 2,250 L/day per dwelling. Procedure D-5-5 also indicates that ‘peak demand’ is assumed to occur over a 120-minute period and is to be based on a per person usage rate of 3.75 L/min during that period. Using this information, the ‘peak demand rate’ per four-bedroom house is 3.75 x 5 = 18.75 L/min for a total of 2,250 L over a 120-min period. The pumping rate used for the pumping tests at TW1 and TW2 was 20.5 L/min therefore a total of 7,358 L was pumped from each test well in 360 mins and still had approximately 96% of the initial water column remaining above the pump. The Farvolden (1959) method, calculated using measured aquifer parameters of the test wells, also suggests that the test wells can sustain a 20-year safe yield pumping rate of 50 L/min. Based on the recovery data measured during the two 6-hr pumping tests, test wells TW1 and TW2 can supply between 4,967 L and 10,331 L of groundwater over a 24-hr period for domestic use.

20

Page 288 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Based on this information, both test wells can satisfy the requirements to accommodate both daily and peak water demand requirement for a four-bedroom house based on the D-5-5 procedure (2,250 L/day per dwelling). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Household Guide to Water Efficiency (CMHC, 2000, revised 2014) indicates that the average daily residential water use in Ontario is 225 L per person per day (1,125 L/day for a four-bedroom house). Current Ontario Building Code requirements (OBC, 2012) for water conservation specify that toilet and shower consumption must now comply with lower use requirements (OBC Table 7.6.4.2.A & B and Table 7.6.4.1). Based on the new requirements, toilet water demand is assumed to be 4.8 L/flush. Shower consumption is assumed to be 7.6 L/min. Toilet use accounts for approximately 25% of total domestic water use, and shower use accounts for approximately 20% (CMHC, 2014). The OBC efficiencies will result in an average per person domestic water usage of 163 L/day. This suggests that the daily household water demand could often be less than 815 L/day.

4

Development Considerations

4.1 Water Treatment The new severed lots will be serviced by dug wells therefore the following water treatment items are recommended: • • •

Pre-filtration (25 and/or 10 micron and 5 micron) followed by absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization. UV sterilization with a National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Class-A (NSF, 2019) device. Under-the-counter reverse osmosis system be installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets.

Since filtration and disinfection both contribute to the removal or inactivation of waterborne pathogens, both treatment processes are recommended, along with a service contract with a qualified contractor to ensure the on-going maintenance and performance of the water treatment system. The water within the overburden aquifer has elevated hardness. Installation of a residential grade water softener would reduce the concentrations of hardness and extend the lifespan of the UV sterilization system. Conventional water softeners introduce sodium into the water supply.

21

Page 289 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The concentration of sodium in the water supply already exceeds the ‘medical notification limit’ of 20 mg/L for people on a sodium reduced diet, so a conventional water softener is not recommended. Softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. Sodium can also be removed from drinking water by using reverse osmosis or by distillation.

4.2 Testing of Treated Water Treated water from the proposed dug wells for the proposed two-lot severance should be tested on a regular basis for bacteriological parameters. Free microbiological testing for water wells is available through Public Health Ontario. Details regarding sample bottle pickup and sampling procedures can be accessed at the Eastern Ontario Health Unit website (https://eohu.ca/en/my-environment/wellwater-testing). Sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest, (e.g. early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rain/flooding).

4.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal MECP’s Procedure D-5-4 (MOEE, 1996) provides a methodology for assessing the risks associated with individual onsite sewage systems. Developments consisting of lots which average 1 hectare (with no lot being smaller than 0.8 hectares) may not require a detailed hydrogeological assessment if it can be demonstrated that the area is not hydrogeologically sensitive. The lot sizes of the proposed lots to be severed are approximately 1.05 hectares each. The site is also considered hydrogeologically sensitive due to thin overburden and is located within an area mapped as ‘inferred karst’, therefore an assessment of the potential impact of effluent from a wastewater treatment system (i.e., a nitrate dilution calculation) was conducted. The assessment is based on a reasonable estimate of groundwater recharge by infiltration from precipitation. The method relies on estimates of evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff and inputs regarding surficial soil type, vegetative ground cover and topography. A nitrate effluent concentration of 40 mg/L and a wastewater flow of 1,000 Litre/day per lot is used (based on OBC Table 8.2.1.3.A, which indicates a daily rate of 2,000 L/day for 2 x 4-bedroom dwelling). A mean annual precipitation value (net of evaporation and evapotranspiration processes) of 965.6 mm/year was used (Environment Canada, Climate Normals 2022 – Centreville).

22

Page 290 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

An estimation of infiltration was calculated based on site specific information and the infiltration factors provided in the document MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995). The calculations are provided in Appendix D. The assessment shows that the nitrate impact for the proposed severances will be approximately 5.8 mg/L. This assessment shows that nitrate in effluent from proposed development will have an acceptable impact on receiving water quality.

4.3.1 Sewage System Design Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), a fully raised tile bed is anticipated for the proposed severed lot. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. Sewage systems are designed according to Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC, 2012). The OBC sets out minimum design and construction standards for all approved classes of sewage systems. It is proposed that this site be serviced with traditional Class 4 sewage systems consisting of a septic tank and separate leaching bed. Wherever possible, leaching beds should be located down gradient from any nearby wells or surface water bodies. The Ontario Building Code stipulates minimum clearance distances for in-ground and raised tile beds. Table 6 gives clearances for the various types of beds. In order to provide a safety margin, it is BluMetric’s recommendation that an offset of at least 45 m (1.5x minimum clearance) be observed between an onsite wastewater treatment system and TW1 and TW2. The septic system and bed should be placed in a downgradient or side gradient location relative to the planned dug well. Clearance distances in Table 6 also apply to wells and sewage systems located on neighbouring lots. A conceptual lot development plan showing setbacks is included as Figure 4. Table 10:

Tile Bed Clearances

Minimum Clearance (m) In-ground Partially Raised Fully Raised Water supply well with a watertight casing to a depth of 6 m 15 16.5 18 Any other water supply well (including dug wells) 30 31.5 33 Surface water body* 15 16.5 18 Structures 5 7.5 8 Lot boundaries 3 4.5 6 Source: Table 8.2.1.6B of O.Reg. 332/12, as amended (Ontario Building Code) and increased for a 1.5 m fully raised leaching bed as required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11). Surface Feature

23

Page 291 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

The homeowner is advised to have the on-site wastewater system inspected regularly and to follow a wastewater system management program to minimize the risk of failure and impact to the groundwater. Existing tile bed drainage system should be disconnected prior to installation of future septic bed systems. Best management practices are recommended such as regular pumping of the septic system, cursory inspection of break-out, consideration as to what materials are being discharged to the septic. It is recommended that homeowners take all reasonable measures to conserve water and promote infiltration of water into the subsurface within each of their lots. The homeowner shall consult the following guides available at: https://www.oowa.org/homeowner-resources/ • •

5

A Guide to Operating & Maintaining Your Septic System About Your House: Buying a House with a Well and Septic System

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the investigations and analyses contained within this report: • •

•

• • •

The dug wells TW1 (on the western lot) and TW2 (on the eastern lot) are suitable for the purpose of characterizing the bedrock aquifer at the subject site. TW1 on the proposed western lot and TW2 on the eastern lot to be severed will provide a sufficient quantity of water for a four-bedroom household based on daily and peak water demands outlined in the D-5-5 procedure. In BluMetric’s professional opinion the probable well yield determined on the basis of this investigation is representative of the yield which residents of the proposed lots to be severed are likely to obtain from existing dug wells in the long term. The water quality at TW1 and TW2 was found to satisfy the health-related limits of the ODWSOG. Pre-filtration and absolute filtration to less than 1 micron prior to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization is recommended. Treated water should be tested on a regular basis to ensure the efficacy of the water treatment system. Samples should be tested for bacteriological parameters, and sampling should be conducted at a minimum of two times per year, at times when the risk of contamination of the drinking water source is the greatest (e.g., early spring after the thaw, after an extended dry spell, and/or following heavy rains/flooding).

24

Page 292 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

•

•

• •

•

6

240360 July 2025

The laboratory analytical results for hardness exceeded the Operational Guideline limit (a non-health related parameter). Elevated hardness can be treated with a residential grade water softener. Water softening using potassium chloride salt rather than sodium chloride salt can potentially be used to eliminate additional sodium intake from softened drinking water. The laboratory analytical results for sodium exceeded the Aesthetic Guideline limit (a nonhealth related parameter). Elevated sodium can be treated with under-the-counter reverse osmosis systems installed inside the future dwellings for individuals with sodium restricted diets. The proposed lots to be severed are suitable for development at the proposed occupancy based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Based on the assessed terrain conditions (thin overburden), raised tile beds are anticipated for the proposed severed lots. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements. The site is considered to be hydrogeologically sensitive due to the need for dug wells as the only source of potable water. As a precautionary measure, the setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 m.

Limiting Conditions

The conclusions presented in this report represent our professional opinion and are based upon the work described in this report and any limiting conditions in the terms of reference, scope of work, or conditions noted herein. BluMetric makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by others, or of conclusions and recommendations predicated on the accuracy of that information. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion. BluMetric makes no representation as to compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies established by regulatory agencies.

25

Page 293 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

This report has been prepared for Robert Pittman. Any use a third party makes of this report, any reliance on the report, or decisions based upon the report, are the responsibility of those third parties unless authorization is received from BluMetric in writing. BluMetric accepts no responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any unauthorized third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

Respectfully submitted, BluMetric Environmental Inc.

Erik Lalonde, M.Sc., P.Geo Hydrogeologist

Michael Melaney, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineering

26

Page 294 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

7

240360 July 2025

References

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 2000 (Revised 2014). Household Guide to Water Efficiency. Drage, J. 2022. Domestic Wells Introduction and Overview. The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada, 2022. Canadian Climate Normals and Averages website: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Environment Canada, 2010. Meteorological Service of Canada. Compiled moisture surplus values for Ottawa, Lachute, Mason Anger, Morrisburg National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) / American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 2019. NSF/ANSI 55-2019 Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems. Ontario Building Code (OBC), 2012 as amended. O. Reg. 332/12: Building Code under Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992. Ontario GeoHub, 2024. Ontario Watershed Boundaries (OWB) GIS portal at: https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/mnrf::ontario-watershed-boundaries-owb/ Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), OGS Earth website, 2024. Various authors. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2022a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS map. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2003. Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWSOG) (June 2003). As amended/revised under Ontario Regulation 169/03, 2021. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-169-03/latest/o-reg-169-03.html https://wcwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Technical-Support-Document-for-OntarioDrinking-Water-Standards-Objectives-and-Guidelines.pdf

27

Page 295 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1994. Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2015. Water Supply Wells Requirements and Best Management Practices, (Revised April 2015) website at: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4410/a-wwbmp-title-master-table-of-contentschapter-1.pdf Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024a. Water Well Information System (WWIS) online GIS and database. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), 2024b. Permits to Take Water (PTTW) online GIS. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-permits-take-water Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1996. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guidance for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment, August 1996 (revised). Ontario Regulation 319/09, 2009. Quinte Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-319-09/latest/o-reg-319-09.html Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32 Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. Revised Statute of Ontario (R.S.O.), Ontario Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903), 1990, Wells. Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. American Geophysical Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.

28

Page 296 of 493

Hydrogeological Assessment – Quinn Road East Robert Pittman

240360 July 2025

Thornthwaite, C. W., and Mather, J.R., 1957: Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publications in climatology, Volume 10(3), Laboratory of Climatology. United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2022. Geographic information system (GIS) at: https://alacarte.prescott-russell.on.ca/Html5Viewer/Index.html?Viewer=Public

29

Page 297 of 493

Figures

Page 298 of 493

Lot 2

Lot 1

Retained Lands

Indicates Proposed Lot Severances

Indicates Retained Lands

Figure 2 – Site Layout

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 299 of 493

Retained Lands

Lot 1

Lot 2

Indicates Well Record Location and ID Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Inferred Regional Drainage Direction Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow and Drainage Direction

Figure 3 – MECP Well Locations

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 300 of 493

A32158-TW2

Lot 2

TP1 TP4

TP3

TP4

Indicates Test Pit Location (August 6, 0.6 m 2024) and depth in metres

TP2

Indicates Proposed Lot Severances Indicates Supply Well Location

Indicates Recommended Residence Location 45 m

Denotes minimum 45 m separation setback between well supply and septic system

Indicates Recommended Septic System Location Inferred Shallow Groundwater and Drainage Flow Direction

Inferred Regional Groundwater Flow Direction Well Location

Figure 4 - Conceptual Lot Development Plan

240360 – Robert Pittman Severance Hydrogeology Study 3629 Quinn East Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario

Page 301 of 493

Appendix A Well Records

Page 302 of 493

Page 303 of 493

Page 304 of 493

Page 305 of 493

Page 306 of 493

Page 307 of 493

Page 308 of 493

Page 309 of 493

Page 310 of 493

Page 311 of 493

Page 312 of 493

Page 313 of 493

Page 314 of 493

Appendix B Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

Page 315 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 130104

REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-14 Ground Water

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:

Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)

Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA

Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN

Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid) Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA

BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS KDIBBITS PLUSSIER

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01

Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C

COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01 NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01

SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4

Page 316 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Parameter

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Units

R.L.

Total Coliform (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

0

E coli (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

0

Heterotrophic Plate Count

CFU/1mL

10

10

Fecal Coliform

CFU/100mL

1

0

Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5

mg/L

5

349

TDS (Calc. from Cond.)

mg/L

3

731

Conductivity @25°C

uS/cm

1

1350

pH @25°C

pH units

8.10

Colour

TCU

2

<2

Turbidity

NTU

0.1

1.2

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

0.7

Chloride

mg/L

0.5

82.8

Nitrate (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.29

Nitrite (N)

mg/L

0.05

<0.05

Sulphate

mg/L

1

247

Phosphorus (Total)

mg/L

0.01

0.01

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

1.5

Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)

mg/L

0.05

1.47

Organic Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

<0.1

Dissolved Organic Carbon

mg/L

0.2

3.9

Tannin & Lignin

mg/L

0.5

<0.5

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4

Page 317 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Phenolics

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Hardness (as CaCO3)

mg/L

0.02

237

Barium

mg/L

0.001

0.066

Boron

mg/L

0.005

2.28

Calcium

mg/L

0.02

55.8

Iron

mg/L

0.005

0.015

Magnesium

mg/L

0.02

23.7

Manganese

mg/L

0.001

0.014

Potassium

mg/L

0.1

20.8

Sodium

mg/L

0.2

217

Strontium

mg/L

0.001

7.88

Zinc

mg/L

0.005

0.005

Antimony

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Arsenic

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Beryllium

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Cadmium

mg/L

Chromium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Cobalt

mg/L

0.0001

0.0002

Copper

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Lead

mg/L

0.00002

0.00028

0.00001 5

<0.000015

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4

Page 318 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024165 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW1

Sample I.D.

24-024165-1

Date Collected

2024-08-07

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Molybdenum

mg/L

0.0001

0.0008

Nickel

mg/L

0.0002

0.0007

Selenium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Silver

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Thallium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00012

Uranium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00063

Vanadium

mg/L

0.0001

0.0004

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4

Page 319 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 108631

REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-15 Ground Water

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER:

Analyses Anions (Liquid) Colour (Liquid) Cond/pH/Alk Auto (Liquid)

Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA

Authorized PCURIEL STAILLON VKASYAN

Date Analyzed 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12

Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) DOC/DIC (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid) ICP/MS (Liquid) ICP/OES (Liquid)

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

KINGSTON OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON OTTAWA

BBURTCH VKASYAN BBURTCH BBURTCH AOZKAYMAK APRUDYVUS APRUDYVUS JYEARWOOD KDIBBITS EHINCH EHINCH KDIBBITS YLIEN PLUSSIER

2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-08 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-12 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-14 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-09 2024-Aug-13 2024-Aug-12

Ammonia (Liquid) Organic Nitrogen (Liquid) Phenols (Liquid) Sulphide (Liquid) Tannins (Liquid) TP & TKN (Liquid) Turbidity (Liquid)

Pittman Severance P.O# 240360-00 Lab Method A-IC-01 A-COL-01

Reference Method SM 4110B SM 2120C

COND-02/PH-02/A LK-02 ECTC-001 C-OC-01 FC-001 HPC-001 D-ICPMS-01 D-ICP-01

SM 2510B/4500H/ 2320B MECP E3407 EPA 415.2 SM 9222D SM 9215D EPA 200.8 SM 3120B ICPMS Test SM 4500NH3 MECP E3516.2 MECP E3179 SM 4500-S2 SM 5550 MECP E3516.2 SM 2130B

NH3-001 TPTKN-001 PHEN-01 H2S-001 TAN-001 TPTKN-001 A-TURB-01

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 4

Page 320 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Parameter

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Units

R.L.

Total Coliform (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

22

E coli (DC Media)

CFU/100mL

1

15

Heterotrophic Plate Count

CFU/1mL

10

530

Fecal Coliform

CFU/100mL

1

15

Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5

mg/L

5

302

TDS (Calc. from Cond.)

mg/L

3

522

Conductivity @25°C

uS/cm

1

979

pH @25°C

pH units

7.95

Colour

TCU

2

<2

Turbidity

NTU

0.1

0.1

Fluoride

mg/L

0.1

0.2

Chloride

mg/L

0.5

55.3

Nitrate (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.71

Nitrite (N)

mg/L

0.05

0.06

Sulphate

mg/L

1

143

Phosphorus (Total)

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

2.2

Ammonia (N)-Total (NH3+NH4)

mg/L

0.05

2.21

Organic Nitrogen

mg/L

0.1

<0.1

Dissolved Organic Carbon

mg/L

0.2

3.1

Tannin & Lignin

mg/L

0.5

<0.5

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 4

Page 321 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Sulphide

mg/L

0.01

<0.01

Phenolics

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Hardness (as CaCO3)

mg/L

0.02

286

Barium

mg/L

0.001

0.071

Boron

mg/L

0.005

1.17

Calcium

mg/L

0.02

74.6

Iron

mg/L

0.005

0.008

Magnesium

mg/L

0.02

24.2

Manganese

mg/L

0.001

0.003

Potassium

mg/L

0.1

15.6

Sodium

mg/L

0.2

108

Strontium

mg/L

0.001

9.19

Zinc

mg/L

0.005

0.007

Antimony

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Arsenic

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Beryllium

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Cadmium

mg/L

Chromium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Cobalt

mg/L

0.0001

0.0005

Copper

mg/L

0.0001

0.0010

Lead

mg/L

0.00002

0.00018

0.00001 5

<0.000015

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 3 of 4

Page 322 of 493

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis Final Report REPORT No: 24-024292 - Rev. 0

Client I.D.

TW 2

Sample I.D.

24-024292-1

Date Collected

2024-08-08

Parameter

Units

R.L.

Molybdenum

mg/L

0.0001

0.0007

Nickel

mg/L

0.0002

0.0026

Selenium

mg/L

0.001

<0.001

Silver

mg/L

0.0001

<0.0001

Thallium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00022

Uranium

mg/L

0.00005

0.00060

Vanadium

mg/L

0.0001

0.0003

Michelle Dubien Data Specialist The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 4 of 4

Page 323 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

G 130297

REPORT No: 24-030803 - Rev. 0

Report To: Blumetric Environmental 1682 Woodward Dr Ottawa, ON K3C 3R8

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Brett Webster

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-07 Ground Water

Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid) Fecal Coliforms (Liquid) HPC MF (Liquid)

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1 1 1

Site Analyzed KINGSTON KINGSTON KINGSTON

Authorized BBURTCH BBURTCH BBURTCH

Date Analyzed 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03 2024-Oct-03

240360 Lab Method ECTC-001 FC-001 HPC-001

Reference Method MECP E3407 SM 9222D SM 9215D

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Parameter

Total Coliform (DC Media)

E coli (DC Media)

Background (DC

Heterotrophic Plate

Media)

Count

Fecal Coliform

Units

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

CFU/1mL

CFU/100mL

R.L.

1

1

1

10

1

Client I.D.

Sample I.D.

Date Collected

TW2

24-030803-1

2024-Oct-03

0

0

0

10

0

Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1

Page 324 of 493

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.:

DW 132970

REPORT No: 24-037978 - Rev. 0

Report To: Private Kingston ,

CADUCEON Environmental Laboratories 285 Dalton Ave

Kingston, ON

K7K 6Z1

Attention: Robert Pittman

DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX:

2024-Dec-10 2024-Dec-11 Drinking Water

Analyses Coliforms - DC Media (Liquid)

CUSTOMER PROJECT: P.O. NUMBER: Qty 1

Site Analyzed KINGSTON

Authorized BBURTCH

Date Analyzed 2024-Dec-10

Lab Method ECTC-001

Reference Method MECP E3407

R.L. = Reporting Limit NC = Not Calculated Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Parameter

Total Coliform (DC Media)

E coli (DC Media)

Units

CFU/100mL

CFU/100mL

R.L.

1

1

Client I.D.

Sample I.D.

Date Collected

3629 Quinn Rd.East Well

24-037978-1

2024-Dec-09

0

0

Brandon Burtch Microbiology Supervisor The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received and relate only to the items tested. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 1

Page 325 of 493

Appendix C Aquifer Analysis

Page 326 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Pumping W ell: TW 1 Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

TW 1 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

Analysis Date: 2025-03-11

t/t’ 1

10

100

1000

0.00

residual drawdown [m]

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.30

Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

TW1

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

4.22 × 10

-4

7.82 × 10

-5

0.45

Page 327 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

TW 2 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E0 2E-1

residual drawdown [m]

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

t/t’

1E1

1E2

1E3

2E-1

1E-1

8E-2

4E-2

0E-1 TW2 Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

TW2

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

6.02 × 10

-4

1.11 × 10

-4

99.03

Page 328 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Recovery

Test Conducted by: BM

Test Date: 2025-03-11

Analysis Performed by: EL

3629 - Recovery

Aquifer Thickness: 5.40 m

Discharge: variable, average rate 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E0 1E-1

residual drawdown [m]

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

t/t'

1E1

1E2

1E3

8E-2

6E-2

4E-2

2E-2

0E-1 3629 Quinn Calculation using THEIS & JACOB Observation Well

3629 Quinn

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Radial Distance to PW

[m²/s]

[m/s]

[m]

6.67 × 10

-4

1.23 × 10

-4

189.77

Page 329 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Test Conducted by:

Test Date: 2025-03-12

Analysis Performed by:

3629 Quinn - Drawdown

Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m

Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

Time [s] 10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.00

Drawdown [m]

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Calculation using COOPER & JACOB Observation Well

3629 Quinn

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

[m²/d]

[m/d]

2.75 × 10

1

5.00 × 10

Storage coefficient

Radial Distance to PW [m]

0

1.65 × 10

-4

189.77

Page 330 of 493

Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: Pittman Sevrance Number: 240360 Client: Location: Quinn Road

Robert Pittman

Pumping Test: Pumping Test TW 1 - Drawdown

Pumping W ell: TW 1

Test Conducted by:

Test Date: 2025-03-12

Analysis Performed by:

TW 2 - Drawdown

Aquifer Thickness: 5.50 m

Discharge Rate: 5.5 [U.S. gal/min]

1E1 2E-1

Analysis Date: 2025-03-12

Time [s] 1E3

1E2

1E4

1E5

2E-1

[m]

1E-1

8E-2

4E-2

0E-1 TW2 Calculation using Theis with Jacob Correction Observation Well

TW2

Transmissivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

[m²/d]

[m/d]

2.22 × 10

1

4.04 × 10

Storage coefficient

Radial Distance to PW [m]

0

5.71 × 10

-4

99.03

Page 331 of 493

Appendix D Nitrate Impact Assessment Calculations

Page 332 of 493

Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Thornthwaite Calculation Thornthwaite Method (1957)

Potential Evapotranspiration

‘Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems’ 4th edition by Ram S. Gupta, 2017 Et month = 1.62 (10Tm)/I)^a where: a = 67510^-9I^3 - 771 10^-7I^2 +17910^-4 * I + 492*10^-3 Ii = sum (Tm/5)^1.514 Canada Climate Normals Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario Month January Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Temp C

Ii

frozen frozen frozen 1.4877 2.9527 4.2984 6.3385 7.0714 9.0708 8.7189 10.5471 7.9723 9.8887 5.3836 7.4537 2.1934 3.9049 0.3501 1.0420 frozen 37.476 51.198 a= 1.0901 Note: Daylight Factor is an adjustment factor for possible hours of sunshine based on latitude. Monthly temperature from Environment Canada Climate Normals website at: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

-7.7 -6.9 -1.5 6.5 13.1 18.2 20.9 19.7 15.2 8.4 2.5 -4.1

Et (cm) unadjusted

Daylight Factor

Et (mm) adjusted

1.13 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.21 1.04 0.94 0.79

0.0334 0.0811 0.1170 0.1382 0.1197 0.0775 0.0367 0.0082

0.612 metres

965.6 mm

Potential Evapotranspiration (PE)

612 mm

Surplus Water (Precipitation - PE)

354 mm

Page 333 of 493

Robert Pittman - 3629 Quinn Road East, Harrowsmith, Ontario Predictive Nitrate Impact Assessment PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Infiltration Factors

Infiltration Factors

0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated

Topography Soil Cover Total

0.3 flat 0.2 sand and clay 0.1 cultivated

Topography Soil Cover

0.6

Total

Site Characteristics

0.6

Site Characteristics 21000 m

Area of Site :

2

Area of Site :

21,000

2.10 hectares Area of each roof: Total of roof areas: Length of roadways: Width of roadways: Total area of roadways:

10 m 5 m 2 100 m

Impervious Area

2 700 m

Percent Impervious Area = Infiltration Area =

21,000

m2

Septic Effluent

m2

2.10 hectares 2 300 m 2 600 m

3.33 %

Infiltration Area =

20,300

m2

Septic Effluent

Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =

40 mg/L 3 0 m

Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation

Concentration of Effluent (Cs) =

40 mg/L 3 2 m

Daily Sewage Flow (Qs)= Infiltration Calculation

Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) =

0 mg/L

Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

965.6 mm/yr

Nitrate concentration in precipitation (Ci) = Environment Canada Climate Normals: KINGSTON Ontario

Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)

354 mm/yr

Surplus Water (Thornthwaite calc attached)

Factored Surplus Water =

212 mm/yr

Factored Surplus Water =

3 4,458 m

Total volume of Infiltration

0 mg/L 965.6 mm/yr 354 mm/yr 212 mm/yr 3 4,309 m

Total volume of Infiltration

mm/yr 3 12 m /day

Infiltration flow entering the system (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)

3 12 m /day

Infiltration Flow Entering the System (Qi) = Mass Balance Model (MOEE, 1995)

CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration

CT = (QbCb+QeCe+QiCi)/(Qb+Qe+Qi) = Cumulative Nitrate Concentration

Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area

3 0 m /day

Qb = flow entering the system across the upgradient area

3 0 m /day

Cb = background nitrate concentration

0 mg/L

Cb = background nitrate concentration

0 mg/L

Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield

3 0 m /day

Qe = flow entering the system from the septic drainfield

Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent

40 mg/L

Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate CT = Estimate Number of Lots

3 2 m /day

Ce = concentration of nitrates in the septic effluent

40 mg/L

3 12 m /day

Qi = flow entering the system from infiltration

3 12 m /day

0 mg/L

Ci = Concentration of nitrates in the infiltrate

0 mg/L

0.0 mg/L 1 lots

CT = Estimate Number of Lots

5.8 mg/L 2 lots

Page 334 of 493

1682 Woodward Dr. O awa, ON K2C 3R8 Canada

The Tower, 4 Cataraqui St. Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 Canada

3B-209 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2M7 Canada

825 Milner Ave. Toronto, ON M1B 3C3 Canada

T 877.487.8436 O awa@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Kingston@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Kitchener@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Toronto@blumetric.ca

6-410 Falconbridge Rd. Sudbury, ON P3A 4S4 Canada

260-15 Taschereau St. Ga neau, QC J8Y 2V6 Canada

200-1500 Du College St. Saint-Laurent, QC H4L 5G6 Canada

27 Parker St. Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4T5 Canada

T 877.487.8436 Sudbury@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Ga neau@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Montreal@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Dartmouth@blumetric.ca

4916–49th St. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1P3 Canada

200-4445 SW 35th Terrace Gainesville, FL 32608 USA

T 877.487.8436 Yellowknife@blumetric.ca

T 877.487.8436 Gainesville@blumetric.ca

Page 335 of 493

Report from Public Services PL-BDJ-2025-0075 Application Number: ___________________________________________________ Robert Pittman Applicant’s Name: _____________________________________________________

3 PT Lot 6 Portland Lot: _______________District:

Concession: _________________ Quinn Road East Road: ________________________________________________________________

Road Maintenance:

✔ Year-round □

Seasonal □

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

✔ Yes □

No □

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

Road Conditions:

1. Are there any special drainage/ditching concerns related to creation of new lot(s)? ✔ Yes □ No □ If yes, what action is the applicant required to take?

2. Is the overall road condition adequate to serve increased development/traffic? ✔ Yes □ No □ If no, please explain, and indicate if there are any measures that could be taken to correct the inadequacies.

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

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

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

Signature on behalf of Public Services

2025-07-22

Date

Page 336 of 493

July 31, 2025

File: SEV/FRS/172/2025 SEV/FRS/173/2025 MV/FRS/174/2025

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

Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 (Lot Creation) & Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 3629 Quinn Rd East; Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: unnamed tributary of Millhaven Creek & unevaluated wetlands

Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted applications for consent and minor variance. The applications involve the severance of two 1.0 ha parcels of vacant land from an existing 37.8 ha rural property for the purpose of creating two new building lots. Future residential development is planned for the 35.8 ha retained parcel. A minor variance is necessary to permit reduced lot frontages for each lot. Discussion CRCA’s scope of review with respect to this application is the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the unnamed watercourses and wetlands on the subject property and protection of the hydrologic function of wetlands. We offer the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration, based on our role as a commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24 Surface Water Features Cataraqui Conservation, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits requires development (building and structures) and site alteration (excavation, grading, placement of fill) to be located outside of natural hazard areas and set back a minimum of 30 m from surface water features including watercourses (creeks, streams) and

Page 337 of 493

Page 2 of 3 wetlands. The intent is to protect development from potential flooding and erosion hazards and to preserve the hydrologic function of these features. Unnamed Tributary of Millhaven Creek The subject lands are within a drainage catchment the flows east into Millhaven Creek. There is a watercourse that runs across the southern portion of the subject lands approximately 98 m back from Quinn Road. The watercourse is a regulated feature and as such a 30 m setback is applied. The survey sketch provided shows that there are building envelopes on the severed and retained lands outside of the required 30 m setback from the watercourse. However, the proposed lot configuration results in the severed lots being divided by the watercourse. Staff note that it may not be feasible to access the northern portion of the severed lots since this would require a crossing of the watercourse, which may not be permitted by CRCA. As such, staff recommend that an alternative lot configuration be considered where the rear lot line follows the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings. Unevaluated Wetlands Mapping identified pockets of unevaluated wetlands on the subject lands, generally in the area in and around of the watercourse. Staff are accepting of the findings of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment which confirms the presence of riparian vegetation in the watercourse channel but notes that the area is not large enough to be considered a distinct community. Based on this, CRCA have no concerns related to the hydrologic function of wetlands on the subject lands. Staff recommend that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Karst Topography The subject lands have been identified on provincial OGS Mapping as having inferred karst. Karst is a type of unstable bedrock that is relatively common in the Cataraqui Region area and is considered a natural hazard under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and Ontario Regulation 41/024. As with other natural hazards, there is risk of damage to buildings, property and human safety when development is located within or near unstable bedrock. Accordingly, CRCA’s regulation directs development away from these areas and features. CRCA staff have reviewed available information (e.g. aerial imagery, soils and geology mapping, topographic info.) and completed a site inspection of the subject lands. Based on our preliminary findings, we did not encounter evidence of karst in the area of the future development envelopes (generally within 50 m of Quinn Road). Should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the applicant will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property.

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 338 of 493

Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Staff have no objection to approval of PL-BDJ-2025-0074, PL-BDJ-2025-0075 and PL-ZNA-20250076 based on our review of natural hazards and have identified considerations above in bold. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 30 m of the watercourse are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits (formerly O. Reg. 148/06). The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards and to ensure the protection of wetlands. Current and future landowners are advised to contact CRCA before considering any work within 30 metres of the watercourse on the subject lands. Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely,

Emma Stucke, RPP, MCIP Resource Planner cc. Robert Pittman, applicant, by email Elysia Ackroyd, agent, by email

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@Cataraqui Conservation.ca • 613-546-4228 CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 339 of 493

To:

Committee of Adjustment

Prepared by:

Development Services Department

Meeting Date:

August 14, 2025

Subject:

Consent Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075, Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-20250076, Pittman (Fotenn), 3629 Quinn Road East, Portland District

Summary The consent applications are for the creation of two rural residential lots. The minor variance application is to allow the severed and retained parcels to have less than the required lot frontage. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to make a decision on the consent applications in conjunction with the minor variance application. This report recommends approval of the three applications. Background The subject property is located south of Harrowsmith, east of Road 38 and on the north side of Quinn Road East. It runs north to an unopened road allowance. The northern two thirds of the property is forest and old farm fields. The southern portion of the property is generally level. It contains agricultural fields and is developed with a single detached dwelling, a detached garage and a shed. A watercourse bisects the property approximately 100m north of Quinn Road East. The neighbourhood has a mix of rural residential properties and agricultural properties. The subject lands are in the Rural designation in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The lands are zoned Rural (RU) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. Applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are for the creation of two vacant residential lots on Quinn Road East. Both lots would be 1.0ha (2.5 acres) in size with 63m frontage. The retained lands (3629 Quinn Road East) would be 35.8ha (88.6 acres) with 64m frontage. Minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 is requesting reduced frontages for the severed and retained parcels because the RU zone requires 76m frontage. Supporting Documents A Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. The report assessed the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area as well as its conformity with the applicable policy and www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 340 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

regulatory framework. It included a minimum distance separation study for livestock facilities. A Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required to confirm the existence of a mapped wetland along the watercourse, and to define its boundary, on the severed parcels. The study determined that there was no wetland on the severed parcels. The consultant evaluated the watercourse, riparian area, and woodland on the severed and retained parcels. They also reviewed the area for species at risk habitat and significant wildlife habitat. The Natural Heritage Site Assessment included the following recommendations:

1. Development should be setback a minimum of 30m from the watercourse,
2. The land within 30m of the watercourse should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated to provide a buffer, and
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. A Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) was submitted in support of the applications. This study was required because the severed parcels would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse. A dug well was constructed on each of the severed parcels. The consultant conducted 6hour pumping tests on the wells, water level monitoring, water quality analyses and interference assessment. The study concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of sewage systems. The report included the following recommendations:
4. Water treatment including pre-filtration and ultraviolet sterilization, as well as an under-the-counter reverse osmosis system for individuals with sodium restricted diets,
5. Regular testing of treated water for bacteriological parameters,
6. Any proposed septic system design should be supported by a lot-specific assessment meeting local septic approval requirements, and
7. The setback distance between a future raised Class 4 sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45m as a precautionary measure due to the hydrogeological sensitive nature of the site. The Hydrogeological Assessment was reviewed by Malroz Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Township. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations. Department and Agency Comments Public Services reported on July 22, 2025, that there are adequate entrance sight lines for both the severed parcels and the retained parcel. Road widening is to be determined by an www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 341 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Ontario Land Surveyor. A 20-metre right-of-way is required on Quinn Road East. Any shortfall of the right-of-way as measured 10 metres from the centreline of the road shall be dedicated to the Township. Public Services had no comment on the proposed reduced lot frontages. Cataraqui Conservation staff indicated in a letter dated July 31, 2025, that they have no objection to the applications. They recommended the applicant consider an alternative lot configuration where the rear lot lines would follow the watercourse to avoid the need for future watercourse crossings, because crossings may not be permitted by CRCA under O. Reg. 41/24. They also recommended that native vegetation (trees, shrubs, native plants) within 30 metres of watercourse on the subject lands be kept in place, to help stabilize soils and protect the hydrologic function of the surface water features in the long-term. Finally, they noted that should karst features (e.g. fissures, crevices, sinkholes, etc.) be encountered on the subject lands during construction/excavation of the site, the owner will need to contact CRCA staff to determine appropriate actions which would include additional assessment by a qualified professional to determine the extent and risks associated with karst at the property. Public Comments No comments were received from the public at the time this report was written. Planning Analysis The consent applications need to be assessed against the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS), County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, as well as the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75. The minor variance application needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Minimum Distance Separation for Livestock Facilities In conformity with the PPS, the Township Official Plan requires all division of land for nonfarm uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae I (MDS I) (section 7.1(l)). The Township Zoning By-law also requires residential development to comply with MDS I. The subject lands are in a rural and agricultural area where there are several existing livestock facilities. The Planning Justification Report (Fotenn Planning + Design, July 3, 2025) evaluated these livestock facilities against The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document (OMAFRA Publication 853). MDS I setbacks were calculated for barns at 4372 Road 38 and at 3609 Quinn Road East. It was determined that the severed parcels would conform to the applicable minimum distance separation policies. Rural Residential Uses The PPS allows residential lot creation on Rural lands where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services. The County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan also permit residential development in the Rural designation. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 342 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Section 5.7.4 of the Township Official Plan indicates that a maximum of three rural residential lots may be created by consent from a landholding provided that the new lots meet the General Consent Policies, as well as all other applicable policies. The subject property is eligible for severances under Section 5.7.4. There have been no previous severances from the lot existing on the day of adoption of the Township Official Plan. Section 5.7.4 requires the frontage, size and shape of any lot created for rural residential purposes through the severance approval process to be appropriate for the proposed use and to conform to the provisions of the zoning by-law. The severed parcels would be approximately 1.0ha in size, which would exceed the minimum 0.8ha lot area required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. They would be rectangular-shaped. The severed parcels would have approximately 63m frontage and the retained parcel would have 64.6m frontage on Quinn Road East. These frontages would be less than the minimum 76m lot frontage required in the Rural designation and the RU zone. Section 5.7.4(ii)(a) of the Official Plan allows the municipality to consider reductions to this requirement provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The minor variance application requests 60m lot frontages. The minimum 76m lot frontage is intended to allow for a separation between driveways and to improve traffic safety. Public Services noted that the severed parcels and retained parcel would each have adequate sight lines for an entrance. Minimum lot frontages are also required to ensure a development pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature and to avoid an overdeveloped appearance. Existing lots along this part of Quinn Road East have frontages ranging from 40m to 70m, so the proposed reduced lot frontages would be consistent with the existing lot fabric of the neighbourhood. Finally, minimum lot frontages help ensure a reasonable separation between uses. Separation between wells and sewage systems is especially important for protecting groundwater in hydrogeological sensitive areas. A hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis was required in support of the applications because the proposed lots would have less than the required 76m frontage, and would be functionally smaller than the minimum 0.8ha lot size required due to the location of the watercourse (i.e. development would logically need to occur on the land between the watercourse and the road). The Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., April 3, 2025, updated July 30, 2025) concluded that an adequate supply of potable water is available for a typical single detached dwelling on each new lot and that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a sewage system. Figure 4 of the report is a conceptual lot development plan that illustrates how a well, a sewage system and a house can fit on each of the severed parcels with consideration for the recommended 45m separation distance between the wells and sewage systems. The development could also achieve the required 30m setback from the watercourse and other applicable zone provisions.

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

Page 343 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Staff are satisfied that the proposed reduced frontages would not compromise the functionality, accessibility or rural character of the severed parcels. It would also not impact the continued use of the retained parcel, 150m north of the road. Special Development Requirements Staff recommend that a development agreement be a condition of the consent approvals. The development agreement would be used to notify potential purchasers and future owners about special requirements that will apply to development of the severed parcels. Specifically, to make them aware of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment and the Hydrogeological Assessment and the recommendations that must be implemented. The agreement would also make them aware that they will need to have lot grading and drainage plans prepared that implement the recommendations of these reports. Cataraqui Conservation noted that the subject lands are in an area of inferred karst. The development agreement would make people aware of this potential, and provide direction on what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site. Conclusion The consent applications meet the criteria outlined in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, do not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the municipality, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County and Township Official Plans. The severed parcels and retained parcel will comply with the Zoning By-law subject to the requested minor variance for lot frontage. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed 60m lot frontages meet the four tests for a minor variance – the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, they are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and they are minor in nature. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearings was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 14 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

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

Recommendation for Consent Applications It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ2025-0075, each for consent to sever one new rural residential lot from 3629 Quinn Road East, Part of Lot 6, Concession 3, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac, subject to the following conditions:

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

Page 344 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

Expiry Period

1. Conditions imposed must be met within two years of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within two years, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within two years, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Severed Lands
2. The lands to be severed shall be for the creation of one new residential lot approximately 1.0 hectare in area with a minimum of 60 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The lot area, frontage and configuration of the proposed severed lot shall be consistent with application sketch. Survey/Reference Plan or Registerable Description
3. An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the SecretaryTreasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of two years [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].
4. The Ontario Land Surveyor or the applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation and noting frontage along the road, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. The Ontario Land Surveyor shall also confirm that the retained parcel has a minimum 60m lot frontage on Quinn Road East. Road Allowance Widening
5. The Ontario Land Surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Condition #3 and #4 shall also determine by survey the width of Quinn Road East to be 20m. If such a width is less than 20m, the owner shall dedicate to the Township land along the frontage of the severed lands in the following manner as required: a. The land to be dedicated shall be the width required to provide 10m from the centre of the existing travelled road; b. The land to be dedicated shall be described as a separate part on a Reference Plan of Survey to be prepared and deposited at the Owner’s expense and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official; c. The Transfer/Deed from the Owner for the land to be dedicated shall be engrossed in the of “The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac”, and shall include the following attached to the Transfer/Deed as a Schedule:

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

Page 345 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

The Transferor hereby transfers the lands to the municipality for the purpose of widening the adjacent highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended. d. The Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated shall be registered by the Owner at the Owner’s expense; e. The duplicate registered Transfer/Deed for the land to be dedicated together with a letter of opinion of a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer confirming that the municipality acquired good and marketable title to the land free and clear of all liens and encumbrances shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. Municipal Requirements 6. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official. It also includes any hydrogeological assessment peer review fee if it is greater than the collected deposit. 7. The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the severed parcel, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1), By-law 2023-104]. 8. In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, the wells shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Requirement for an entrance permit for any new or relocated entrances; b. Implementation of the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Site Assessment (Ecological Services, August 6, 2024); c. Implementation of the recommendations of the Hydrogeological Assessment (BluMetric Environmental Inc., July 30, 2025); d. Requirement for a lot grading and drainage plan that implements the recommendations of the above reports, to be submitted at the building permit stage; e. Notice regarding what to do if karst features are encountered during construction/excavation of the site; f. Notice regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and g. Notice regarding archeological resources and human remains. Zoning

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

Page 346 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and 0075 and PL-ZNA-2025-0076

10. The applicant is required to apply for a minor variance to permit the severed parcel to have a minimum 60 metres of lot frontage and the retained parcel to have a minimum 60 metres lot frontage.

11. Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township. Recommendation for Minor Variance Application It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve minor variance application PL-ZNA-2025-0076 for 3629 Quinn Road East such that the two severed parcels and the retained parcel from consent applications PL-BDJ-2025-0074 and PL-BDJ-2025-0075 are permitted to each have a minimum of 60m lot frontage. Report Prepared By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

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

Page 347 of 493

Page 348 of 493

Page 349 of 493

Page 350 of 493

Page 351 of 493

Page 352 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended 15. If the answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate: (1) (2) Cottage/Principal Detached Garage Building

(3) Waterfront deck

(4) Entry deck

Setback from Front Lot Line

59 ft.

100 ft.

50 ft.

83 ft.

Setback from Rear Lot Line

142 ft.

60 ft.

172 ft.

144 ft.

Setback from Side Lot Line

55.6 ft.

10.6 ft.

55.6 ft.

72.6 ft.

27.1 ft. (8.26 m.)

N/A

N/A

70’7” x 37’8” Outside Irregular shape; Dimensions of proposed Building/Structure dwelling footprint is 1968.65 ft2

40’ x 30’ Irregular shape; proposed garage footprint is 1148 ft2

825 ft2 (irregular shape)

10’ x 14’

Setback from High Water Mark (if applicable)

100 ft.

50 ft.

83 ft.

Type of Structure (E.g. residence)

Height of Building

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

36.1 ft. (11 m.)

One story but with walkout basement and loft

59 ft.

NOTES: 1) If the subject property is on waterfront, and on a private lane, the setback from the front lot line and the setback from the high water mark will be the same. 2) The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size of the completed building. 16.

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

☒ Yes

☐ No

If yes, please provide details: Demolition of existing principal residence/cottage._______________________________________

6

Page 353 of 493

Page 354 of 493

Page 355 of 493

Page 356 of 493

Page 357 of 493

Page 358 of 493

Page 359 of 493

MJK<WF§©N Page 360 of 493

Page 361 of 493

MKWF§©N

Page 362 of 493

MKWF§©N

Page 363 of 493

MKWF§©N

J

I?l?lll??l?l?l‘,

J [I‘M

III

MKWF§©N Page 364 of 493

-

u u n n

—

—

LLLLLLLLLLL-1..j 1

Lééiéaééigj {‘5E5:3;LEfILLLLJLL..J?131::I-Jng!g-g! LLLLL

u

Q LLJ||||I;I LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

”QMLAM

Jill:

MKWF§©N Page 365 of 493

MJK<WF§©N Page 366 of 493

Page 367 of 493

MKWF§©N

Page 368 of 493

MKWF§©N

Page 369 of 493

MKWF§©N

Page 370 of 493

MKWF§©N

MKWF§©N Page 371 of 493

A. ;

4

\iILLLIL\L_|L\LIL)

MKWF§©N

.

“m"gamma ?aw.

L ;J§?M?‘?§EAm

‘

Page 372 of 493

Inset Inset Map Map IS LA

AK

PO INT LANE

R

O

¥

E

DD RI

FS

U

BL

N

F

O AD

LA N VE

CA

Bobs Lake M

Bobs Lake

I

PL-ZNA-2025-0060

280 ISLAND DR

(DELAGE) 282 ISLAND DRIVE LANE Legend Subject Lands Wetland Wooded Area

294 ISLAND DR

Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity Lake Trout Lake - Not at Capacity

282 ISLAND DR

Non-Lake Trout Lake - At Capacity Waterbody Township Boundary Road 288 ISLAND DR

ISLAND DR LANE

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2025.

Page 373 of 493

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

ISLAND DR

ISLAND DRIVE L ANE

ISLAND DRIVE LANE

ISLAND DR

Scale: 1:600 0

5

10

20 m

287 ISLAND DR 281 ISLAND DR

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 03/06/2025

16'4”(5m.)

Page 374 of 493

MKWF§©N Page 375 of 493

July 4, 2025 25-SFR-MVA-0015 Committee of Adjustment Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St. Box 100 Sydenham ON K0H 2T0

Attention:

Kate Kaestner, Planning Clerk & Secretary Treasurer

Subject:

Application for Minor Variance PL-ZNA-2025-0060 Kevin & Antonietta Delage 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac ARN 1029 0300 2075 7000 0000

Dear Ms. Kaestner, The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has received the above noted application and have reviewed it within the context of: • • •

Section 5.2 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act; Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act; The Mississippi-Rideau Source Water Protection Plan;

The Proposal Based on the circulated materials, RVCA understands this application requests permission to construct a residential dwelling and attached deck within the 30 m highwater mark of Bob’s Lake. The proposed dwelling would be setback from the shoreline approximately 15 m (50 ft), which would replace an existing dwelling setback from the shoreline approximately 6 m (20 ft).

Page 376 of 493

The Property The subject lands are described as Part Lot 32 Concession 6 Bedford, municipally known as 282 Island Drive Lane in the Township of South Frontenac. The lands are approximately 0.33 ha (0.83 ac) in area, with approximately 76 m (250 ft) of water frontage along Bob’s Lake, a regulated waterbody with a Regulated Flood Level of 163.07 masl. The lands generally slope down towards the shoreline, with areas of exposed bedrock visible. The lands are presently developed with an existing dwelling, and accessory structures. A review of our records and mapping shows that there are no Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) or mapped natural hazards in the form of mapped floodplain, organic soils or marine clays present on the subject lands. Our office notes the presence of steep slopes along the shoreline, as well as an exposed granite outcrop on the property. Provincial Policy Statement Regarding Section 5.2 Natural Hazards within the PPS, development is to be directed away from areas which are impacted by hazards, including erosion hazards and unstable soils or bedrock. The owner submitted in support of the application a Slope Stability Assessment Memo prepared by Kollaard Associates dated June 20, 2025. Based on their assessment, the proposed dwelling is located approximately 5 m from the top of slope, and approximately 15 m from the shoreline. Given the shallow soils and subsurface conditions, Kollaard’s determined that development is not anticipated to affect the stability of the slope. During a site visit with the owner, RVCA staff noted the presence of an exposed granite outcrop that would be located behind the proposed development. The outcrop showed historical signs of rockfalls which could be a potential risk to life and property. RVCA notes that the existing dwelling is located at the top of a significantly steep slope, with minimal setback to top of slope, and a water setback of approximately only 6 m. Our office appreciates the efforts made by the applicant to locate proposed development in a more appropriate area that will have less impact and risk to shoreline erosion. Ontario Regulation 41/24 The proposed minor variance request does not appear to impact any mapped natural hazards. Any development activity and/or site alteration proposed within RVCA’s regulated area (within 15 metres of a watercourse/waterbody) will require a permit from our office in accordance with Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Source Water Protection The subject property is identified as overlying a highly vulnerable aquifer. These are aquifers that are vulnerable to surface contaminants due to thin or absent soils overlying bedrock that may be fractured. Where these conditions exist, it may be possible for contaminants to enter drinking

Page 377 of 493

Page 2 of 3

groundwater supplies. For this reason, care should be taken to avoid land uses and practices that may inadvertently lead to undesirable effects on groundwater. Some best practices that could be considered include: • • • • •

increased well casing depths, increased distance of septic systems from drinking water wells, ensuring septic systems are located downgradient of wells, ensuring that wells and septic systems are properly maintained, avoiding the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Conclusion RVCA has no objections to the proposed minor variance application, subject to the owner submitting an updated Slope Stability Assessment Memo for our review and approval, which addresses the risk, or lack, of rockfall associated with the granite outcrop, as well as any mitigation measures that should be implemented to eliminate the potential risk, if necessary. RVCA also provides the following advisory comment for consideration: • Roof runoff should be collected and directed on-site and away from slopes and shorelines into natural or constructed leaching pits and/or rain barrels to provide the greatest infiltration of surface runoff. Runoff should not outlet or be directed towards the lake. Other Low Impact Development (LID) techniques should be considered to address runoff from hardened surfaces (roofs, walkways, decks, driveways, etc). Please advise us on the Committee’s decision respecting this application, or any changes in the status of the application. Best regards,

Dan Nguyen Planner, RVCA cc -Kevin & Antoinetta Delage, owner cc -Noah Perron, Planner Township of South Frontenac

Page 378 of 493

Page 3 of 3

Noah Perron From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dan Nguyen dan.nguyen@rvca.ca July 8, 2025 9:14 AM Kate Kaestner ‘KEVIN.DELAGE@ICLOUD.COM’; Planning Services – South Frontenac; Noah Perron RE: RVCA Comments - Minor Variance Application 282 Island Drive Lane

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

Hello everyone, Further to RVCAs comments sent previously, RVCA has received from the applicant an updated Slope Stability Assessment dated July 7, 2025. Following review of the updated materials, our office is satisfied the applicant is aware of and will address the potential risk of rockfall associated with the granite outcrop. RVCA confirms that we have no further concerns or objections with the proposed minor variance application. Should you have any questions or require anything further, please let me know. Best regards,

Dan Nguyen Planner | Ext. 2140

,

1

Page 379 of 493

Civil • Geotechnical • Structural • Environmental • Materials Testing •

(613) 860-0923

210 Prescott Street, Unit 1 P.O. Box 189 Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0

FAX: (613) 258-0475

Kollaard File # 250323 Page 1

July 7, 2025 Kevin Delage 4 Catalina Drive Nepean, ON K2H 8N9 Re:

Slope Stability Assessment Memo 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, Ontario

Kollaard Associates was retained to assess the effects of the proposed dwelling development on the stability of the slope at 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, Ontario. A proposed site plan dated March 20, 2025 prepared by Atkinson Home Hardware (Proposed Custom Home – 292 Island Drive Lane) was reviewed for the purposes of this letter. The site plan indicates the location of the existing cottage and the proposed dwelling development on site. It is understood the existing cottage will be demolished at a later date. The subject property is located on a 0.35 hectare parcel of land with frontage on Island Drive Lane approximately 7 kilometres southwest of the town of Bolingbroke, ON. For the purposes of this letter, Island Drive Lane is considered to be oriented on an east-west axis adjacent to the site. The property known as 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, ON is located between the north side of Island Drive Lane and the south shore of Bobs Lake (Mud Bay). The site is currently occupied by an existing cottage located on the top of one of the slopes on site. The proposed development at the site will consist of a 182 square meter (~1,960 square feet) dwelling and 111 square meter (1,200 square feet) detached garage. The existing cottage is to remain on site during the construction of the new proposed dwelling and detached garage. In order to assess the stability of the slope the details of the required investigation have been defined based on Table 4.2 (slope stability rating chart) of the MNR’s “Technical Guide River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit”.

From Table 4-2 (Slope near New Proposed Dwelling) Category

Criteria

Rating

1. Slope Inclination

18 – 26 (25 degrees)

6

2. Soil Stratigraphy

Thin layer bedrock

3. Seepage from Slope Face

None or near bottom only

0

4. Slope Height

2.1 to 5.0 m (5.0 m)

2

5. Vegetation

Light vegetation; mostly grass, 4 weeds, occasional trees, shrubs

Professional Engineers Ontario

of

Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services.

soil/exposed 0

Page 380 of 493

Slope Stability Assessment Memo 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, ON 250323 Page 2

Kevin Delage July 7, 2025 6. Table Land Drainage

Minor drainage over slope, no 2 active erosion

7. Proximity to Watercourse

Less than 15 metres or more 6 from toe of slope

8. Previous Landslide Activity

No

0

Total

20

*No seepage was noted during the visit by Kollaard Associates Inc. <24 – Low potential = Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter From Table 4-2 (Slope near Existing Cottage) Category

Criteria

Rating

1. Slope Inclination

More than 26 (39 degrees)

16

2. Soil Stratigraphy

Thin layer bedrock

3. Seepage from Slope Face

None or near bottom only

0

4. Slope Height

5.1 to 10.0 m (9.5 m)

4

5. Vegetation

Well vegetated; heavy shrubs 0 or forested with mature trees

6. Table Land Drainage

Minor drainage over slope, no 2 active erosion

7. Proximity to Watercourse

Less than 15 metres or more 6 from toe of slope

8. Previous Landslide Activity

No

of

soil/exposed 0

0

Total

28

*No seepage was noted during the visit by Kollaard Associates Inc. 25-35 – Slight potential = Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report Based on Table 4.2 the slope on the subject property near the proposed dwelling location requires a site inspection, confirmation, and a report letter. As the existing cottage is to be demolished and no construction is to replace the structure, no further investigation was deemed required. Kollaard Associates completed a site visit April 16, 2025. The following is based on the site visit completed by Kollaard Associates: • The existing cottage is located at the top of an existing slope at the site. • The proposed dwelling location is approximately 5 metres from the top of slope. • Bobs Lake (Mud Bay) is located approximately 15 metres north of the proposed dwelling location. • The defined slope in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling location has a total height of about 5.0 metres at an inclination of about 25 degrees with respect to horizontal. • In general, the ground surface at the property has a downward slope from the south to the north. • The face of the defined slope is lightly vegetated (young to mature trees, some weeds), with areas of exposed bedrock Civil

•

Geotechnical

•

Structural

•

Environmental

•

Hydrogeology

Page 381 of 493

Slope Stability Assessment Memo 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, ON 250323 Page 3

Kevin Delage July 7, 2025 • •

There was no groundwater seepage observed at the site. There is no indication of historic instability at the site.

In keeping with the recommendations from Table 4.2, a site inspection was carried out and the inspection is summarized in, Table 4.1 (Slope Inspection Record) of the MNR’s “Technical Guide River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit” was followed; Table 4-1 Filename/NO. Inspection Date (DDMMYY): Weather: Inspected by: Site Location: Watershed: Property Ownership (name, address, phone): Legal Description Lot Concession Township County Current Land Use Slope Data Height Inclination Slope Drainage (describe)

250323 April 16, 2025 Overcast Isaac Bacon 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, ON Tay River Kevin Delage Lot 32 Concession 6 Township of South Frontenac Frontenac County Cottage 5.0 metres 25 degrees The ground surface at the property has a downward slope from the south to the north

Slope Soil Stratigraphy Top Face Bottom Water Course Features Vegetation Cover

Top: Shallow bedrock at 0.25 metres Face: Exposed bedrock Bottom: Shallow bedrock at 0.35 metres Bobs Lake (Mud Bay), no significant outflow Minor vegetation (mostly weeds, some young to mature trees) Cottage Exposed bedrock None

Structures Erosion Features Slope Slide Features Top Face Bottom

Due to the shallow bedrock, the proposed dwelling to bear on the bedrock, and the proposed dwelling is offset approximately 5 metres from the top of slope it is considered that the proposed development will have no negative impacts to the existing slope. Conclusions and Recommendations •

The construction of the proposed development will have no affect on the stability of the slope and will pose no adverse effects on the adjacent slope.

Civil

•

Geotechnical

•

Structural

•

Environmental

•

Hydrogeology

Page 382 of 493

Slope Stability Assessment Memo 282 Island Drive Lane, South Frontenac, ON 250323 Page 4

Kevin Delage July 7, 2025 • •

•

Due to the subsurface conditions of the site it is considered that there are no risks that erosion or other unforeseen conditions could negatively impact the stability of the slope. The construction of the proposed development will have no affect on rockfall from the granite outcrop. To limit rockfall from the outcrop the exposed face of the granite outcrop should be cleaned to remove all loose rocks/material. Roof runoff should be collected and directed on-site and away from slopes and shorelines into natural or constructed leaching pits and/or rain barrels to provide the greatest infiltration of surface runoff. Runoff should not outlet or be directed towards the lake. Other Low Impact Development (LID) techniques should be considered to address runoff from hardened surfaces (roofs, walkways, decks, driveways, etc).

We trust this letter provides sufficient information for your purposes. If you have any questions concerning this letter please do not hesitate to contact our office. Best Regards, Kollaard Associates Inc.

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Jul 7, 2025

Jul 7, 2025

Isaac Bacon, P.Eng.

Civil

Steven deWit, P.Eng.

•

Geotechnical

•

Structural

•

Environmental

•

Hydrogeology

Page 383 of 493



Slope Stability Investigation For Proposed Single Family Dwelling 282 Island Drive Lane South Frontenac, Ontario

Kevin Delage April 16, 2025

File No. 250323

RECORD OF TEST PITS SLOPE STABILITY INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 282 ISLAND DRIVE LANE SOUTH FRONTENAC, ONTARIO TEST PIT NUMBER

DEPTH (METRES)

TP1 (tableland)

0.00 – 0.35

TOPSOIL

0.35 – 0.75

Red brown silty sand, some gravel, cobbles, boulders, trace clay (GLACIAL TILL)

0.75

Practical refusal on BEDROCK

0.00 – 0.25

TOPSOIL, trace sand

0.25

Practical refusal on BEDROCK

0.00 – 0.30

TOPSOIL

0.30 – 0.35

Red brown SILTY SAND, trace gravel

0.35

Practical refusal on BEDROCK

DESCRIPTION

Test pit dry on April 15, 2025.

TP2 (top of slope)

Test pit dry on April 15, 2025.

TP3 (toe of slope)

Test pit dry on April 15, 2025.

Civil

• Geotechnical

•

Structural

•

Environmental

•

Materials Testing

Page 384 of 493

Page 385 of 493

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 14, 2025

Subject:

Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0060, Delage, 282 Island Drive Lane, Bedford District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a single detached dwelling and a detached garage, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background The application for a single detached dwelling was previously presented at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on July 10, 2025. The Committee of Adjustment deferred the application to allow the applicant time to revise the application to request an additional variance for increased building height for a proposed detached garage. The subject property is designated Rural in the Township Official Plan. The property is zoned Limited Service Residential – Island (RLSI) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The subject property is approximately 0.83Ac (3360m2) with frontage on Bob’s Lake and Island Drive Lane. The property is bounded by Bob’s Lake to the north, Island Drive Lane to the south, and residential properties to the east and west. Most of the interior of the property has been cleared, but some mature tree and vegetation growth still exists along the shoreline and side yards. Topographically, the middle of the property is relatively flat, before sloping downwards significantly towards the shoreline. The east side of the property is elevated from the remainder, with the northeast corner being the highest point. A large granite outcrop located on the east side of the property overlooks the remaining area below. The property is developed with a seasonal dwelling with attached deck and a detached outhouse. The existing dwelling is located within the slope in the northeast corner of the property. The dwelling is setback 6.1m (20ft) from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake and 2.4m (8ft) from the side lot line to the east. Proposal The applicant proposes to replace the existing seasonal dwelling with a larger seasonal dwelling setback further from the lake and top of bank. The proposed dwelling would have a www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 386 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

182.9m2 walkout basement, a 182.9m2 main floor, a 41.4m2 second storey loft, a 76.6m2 attached deck on the waterside, and a 13m2 attached entrance deck on the lane side. The applicant also proposes a sewage system that would comply with Ontario Building Code requirements. The applicant also proposes to construct a detached garage to the southwest of the proposed dwelling, setback approximately 30.4m from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake. The proposed two-storey garage would have a building footprint of 111m2 and a building height of 8.3m. The building height is intended to provide additional storage space above the structure. Zoning Relief Requested Section 5.8.2 (b) – To permit a seasonal dwelling and attached deck to be setback a minimum of 5 metres from the top of bank, whereas a minimum 15 metre setback is required for all buildings and structures. Section 5.8.2(a) & Section 11.3.1 – To permit a seasonal dwelling and attached deck to be setback a minimum of 15.3 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody, whereas a minimum 30 metre setback is required for all building and structures. Section 11.3.1 – To permit a seasonal dwelling and attached deck to be setback a minimum of 15.3 metres from the front lot line, whereas a minimum 30 metre front yard is required for all buildings and structures. Section 11.3.1 – To permit an increase in lot coverage to 8.5% for the principal building, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 5%. Section 11.3.2 – To permit an accessory detached garage to have a maximum building height of 8.3m, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum building height of 6m. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act. Supporting Documentation A Slope Stability Assessment Memo (Kollard Associates Inc., Dated June 20, 2025) was submitted in support of the application. The assessment noted that the proposed seasonal dwelling would be founded on bedrock and would be setback 5 metres from the top of bank. The assessment concluded that the construction of the proposed development would have no effect on the stability of the slope and would pose no adverse effects on the adjacent slope. Further, it was concluded that due to the subsurface conditions of the site that there are no risks that erosions or other unforeseen conditions could negatively impact the stability of the slope. Department and Agency Comments Rideau Valley Conservation Authority provided comments on July 4, 2025. RVCA Staff reviewed the Slope Stability Assessment Memo and noted its conclusion. Further, RVCA staff noted that their office appreciates the efforts made by the applicant to locate proposed www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 387 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

development in a more appropriate area that will have less impact and risk to shoreline erosion. During a visit to the property, RVCA staff noted that the existing granite outcropping upslope of the proposed dwelling showed historical signs of rockfalls which could be a potential risk to life and property. RVCA staff concluded that they had no objection to the proposed minor variance application, subject to the owner submitting an updated Slope Stability Memo addressing the risk, or lack, of rockfall association with the granite outcrop, as well as any mitigation measures that should be implemented to eliminate the potential risk. An updated Slope Stability Assessment to address the erosion risk associated with the granite outcropping located on the property was submitted on July 7, 2025. RVCA staff provided revised comments on July 8, 2025 indicating that they had no further concerns or objections with the proposed minor variance application. Public Comments No public comments were received at the time of writing this report. Planning Analysis The proposal needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposal meets the four tests as explained below. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The variances would facilitate the construction of a new seasonal dwelling with attached decks and a detached garage on lands designated Rural on Schedule A of the Official Plan. The type and amount of development on rural lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage and cultural landscape in the Township. A seasonal dwelling and its accessory structures are permitted uses in the Rural designation. Section 5.2.4 of the Official Plan states that the Township will direct development or site alteration away from lands which may be subject to shoreline erosion hazard. This is typically addressed through the 15m setback from the top of bank required by the Zoning By-law. The existing dwelling on the subject property is presently located within the shoreline slope. Comparatively, the proposed dwelling would be setback approximately 8.5m from the top of bank, with the attached deck being setback 5m. The Slope Stability Assessment submitted with the application concluded that the proposed development would have no effect on the stability of the slope, and that due to subsurface conditions it is considered that there are no risks that erosion or other unforeseen conditions could negatively impact the stability of the slope. RVCA Staff reviewed the assessment and did not object to its conclusions. The proposed minimum 5m top of bank setback is interpreted as an improvement over the setback of the existing. Section 5.2.7 of the Official Plan requires buildings and structures to be setback a minimum of 30m from the highwater mark of a waterbody. The purpose is to minimize environmental and visual impacts by reducing phosphorus inputs, preventing erosion and by maintaining a www.southfrontenac.net Page 388 of 493 South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

natural appearance of the shoreline. Further, Section 5.7.7 requires limited-service residential developments to be designed to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes for the benefit of future residents. The existing seasonal dwelling is presently setback 6.1m from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake. In comparison, the proposed dwelling would be setback 19.2m from the highwater mark, with the attached deck being setback 15.3m. The proposed dwelling would be in approximately the middle of the subject property. Presently, this proposed location is mostly cleared. Further, the proposed location is relatively flat compared to the surrounding area. Due to the existence of an upward slope and a large granite outcropping on the east side of the property, it would be challenging to further increase the highwater mark setback without significant site alteration. Therefore, it is the opinion of planning staff that the highwater mark setback has been maximized to the greatest extent possible. The proposed minimum highwater mark setback of 15.3m is interpreted as an improvement over the setback of the existing. The proposed detached garage would be located to the southwest of the proposed dwelling. The proposed increase in building height is not anticipated to result in any visual impacts on the lake due to the adequate vegetation coverage along the shoreline and its location to the rear of the proposed dwelling. Additionally, the location of the proposed garage is relatively flat and cleared of trees, requiring minimal site alteration to accommodate future construction. It is the opinion of Township Planning Staff that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the policies related to rural residential development, and development adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Section 5.8.2 of the Zoning By-law directs development away from slopes which are greater than 30% from horizontal. This is typically accomplished through a 15m setback from the top of bank. As previously discussed, the Slope Stability Assessment concluded that the proposed development, at 5m from the top of bank, would have no effect on the stability of the slope. RVCA has no objection to this conclusion. Finally, the proposed minimum 5m top of bank setback is interpreted as an improvement over the setback of the existing dwelling. The General Provisions and the RLSI zone require a 30m setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody. As previously discussed, the highwater mark setback has been maximized when considering existing constraints. The RLSI zone requires a 30m setback from the front lot line of a property. In the case of a lot with frontage on a private lane and a navigable waterway, the lot line between the waterbody and the lot is considered the front lot line. The front lot line setback and highwater mark setback are the same (15.3m). The improvement in setback distance compared to the existing dwelling, and the maintenance of shoreline vegetation should act as an effective buffer and mitigate against visual impacts on the lake. The RLSI zone permits a maximum lot coverage of 5% for the principal building and all attached structures. The existing seasonal dwelling presently has a lot coverage of approximately 3.8%. In comparison, the proposed dwelling and attached deck would have a www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 389 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

maximum lot coverage value of approximately 8.5%. Not including the attached decking, the proposed seasonal dwelling would have a lot coverage value of approximately 5.4%. The increase in lot coverage is a function of the small size of the subject property, rather than because of the size of the proposed dwelling. The dwelling would be appropriately sized for the subject property and would not impact its functionality. The proposed building location is appropriately setback from the side and rear yard and would provide space to navigate the site once the dwelling has been constructed. The proposed detached garage is a permitted use in the RLSI Zone. The proposed garage would exceed the setback requirements for an accessory building in the RLSI zone, including the setback from the highwater mark. The proposed garage does not exceed the allowable 5% lot coverage for accessory buildings and is not larger than the existing dwelling, nor would it be larger than the proposed dwelling. The RLSI zone permits a maximum building height of 6m for an accessory building not attached to the principal building. The proposed detached garage would have a building height of 8.3m due to the second storey. Due to the larger footprint of the proposed garage, additional building height is necessary to accommodate the proposed roofline, and to allow for a second storey storage area. Given that the proposed structure would comply with all remaining zoning requirements, the increase in height is considered reasonable. It is the opinion of Township Planning Staff that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question? The requested variances for the proposed dwelling and detached garage are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The requested variances would facilitate the construction of a new seasonal dwelling in an improved location on the subject property. Given the characteristics of the property, the proposed reduced setback distances to the highwater mark and top of bank are considered appropriate. Finally, the proposed setback distances to the top of bank and highwater mark are interpreted as an improvement over the existing dwelling. Further, the requested variance garage building height would maximize functionality by contributing indoor storage space above the structure. The increase in building height would have minimal impact on surrounding properties, the lane or Bob’s Lake. The proposed side yard setback to the closest residential property (288 Island Drive Lane) would be at least 3.2m, in compliance with the minimum requirements of the RLSI Zone. The proposed structure would be appropriately setback from the travelled portion of Island Drive Lane and would not impacts its ability to function as a laneway. Finally, the proposed distance from the highwater mark and existing tree coverage along the shoreline would mitigate against any potential impacts on Bob’s Lake. Is the variance minor? The requested variances are minor as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The requested variances are also desirable for the www.southfrontenac.net Page 390 of 493 South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

appropriate development of the land. There are no anticipated negative impacts on surrounding properties or Bob’s Lake because of the proposed seasonal dwelling and detached garage. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

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

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve application PL-ZNA-2025-0060 for minor variance(s) from Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended, for 282 Island Drive Lane to allow:

1. A seasonal dwelling and attached deck to establish a minimum 15m front yard, to be setback a minimum of 15m from the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake, and to be setback a minimum of 5m from the top of bank.
2. A maximum 8.5% lot coverage for the dwelling and attached decks.
3. A detached garage to have a maximum 8.3m building height. Approval should be subject to the following conditions:
4. The location of the dwelling attached decks and detached garage must be generally consistent with the revised plot plan (Dated June 24, 2025) submitted by the applicant, which will be attached to the decision as a schedule.
5. The Owner is required to enter into a Development Agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) must be used during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated. b. Roof runoff will be directed away from Bob’s Lake and discharged to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas to maximize infiltration or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads to reduce the velocity of runoff. c. A natural vegetated buffer must be maintained in its natural state within 30 metres of the lake and along the steep slope, except in the immediate area of the building envelope. www.southfrontenac.net Page 391 of 493 South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0060

3. The Owner shall apply for, and obtain, a demolition permit for the existing seasonal dwelling and demolish the building to the satisfaction of the Township, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed dwelling.
4. At the building permit stage and prior to construction of the dwelling footings, the Owner shall have the proposed location of the seasonal dwelling and attached decks pinned and their setbacks from the highwater mark and the top of bank confirmed to be compliant with the minor variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment, and for other setbacks to be compliant with Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended, and through the submission of a letter of verification by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official or their designate.
5. At the building permit stage and prior to construction of the garage footings, the Owner shall have the proposed location of the garage pinned and its setback confirmed to be compliant with Zoning By-law 2003-75, as amended, and through the submission of a letter of verification by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official or their designate. Report Prepared By: Noah Perron, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

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

Page 392 of 493

Page 393 of 493

Page 394 of 493

nature

and

extent

of

of

the

reason why

“in

the

m use

SL‘Tb‘xM

proposed

a of

Please

(Le.

are the

N/A indicate

residence.

property

uses

used road

Ewes

there shed,

are

the

Zoning

By—law:

Area:

Frontage

land.

APPLICATION c. P.13 1990,

FOR

pug.

No

0w“)

comply

H’Ces

municipally

any

EXISTING

land?

is by water approximate

buildings

only, please distance

i No

maintained

f?ik

l

the

()NL ‘\O

provisions

i

of

the

(\k

Zonin g

a\

500

VARIANCE

or

of

the

I

i

facilities

structures

indicate these

road?

on

the

from

parking

Yes

QMAhnm ()\,~I<A\Q Qasév?bn

with

\A

MINOR

road/lane):

amended

% H

(on

as

+01.E’bmnw

oq¥\m»\

K§

subject

the

etc.) i I

of

a

mm cannot

LNL

on

property and

\hnm
whether garage.

existing

public

subject to be

road?

front

MCnL

maintained

to the or used nearest

QM}

Road/Lane:

MCQK’Y

What

subject

privately

the

If access facilities the and

Name

OR

Does

from

land:

the

subject

‘C‘t

the

R.S.O.

Qatl .\o . BV‘mw graxrismn‘s?ra

0"()\ -\\IL, _4\EQ3SV\V\«7

IX (abodn’wx

The

B

of

Act,

FRONTENAC

relief

subject

the

ConkC h SuM~nm (‘X\S*‘M’\\LL a? \D

The

em)

zoning

(Ll.

current

(on

The

Frontage

{$_

area

I .310

and

Depth:

depth

SOUTH

Planning

I )5\

frontage(s),

OF

water):

The

TOWNSHIP

Page 395 of 493

of

Structure

answer

Lot

from Line

5521‘"; f3.":

5

:zgeasgt’m

Front

Setback

(yEngresidence)

e

If the to

to

be

any

«3?\

uses

building(s) on built the

(kw.

proposed

(Le/3

14‘Are

from

of

High

story)

Area

two

Water Mark (If applicable)

Setback

13,The

or

Dimensions Floor

story

£:53.2§.2!.331'2'2n%

T

TOWNSHIP

1 1

SOUTH

\

is yes,

Planning

for

(2)

EACH

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

building

the

m

m

5

SA

”I

3H

30

m

~x

M

M

subject

M

h/Yes

or

land:

I

I

No

additions

ED

to

existing

M

as

FOR amended

rvx

indicate:

MINOR

M s “rxrgw

H?

m

building(s)

<5“

M

or

0T(c)?*1

.”L

C) S

’

“331M

30‘

5M

(3)

structure

\ Senna, ?rc? ”QT—L 1%% ‘F\—1

53m

7

or structure(s), subject land?

V\

of

M

‘Z’D\

3g0

1-

5

?

:4ch

3‘

or

APPLICATION c. P.13

1990,

sax—h CDJ (;.C7‘°'1<~\Db um

(1)

item

OF

structure(s).

\

(4 )

VARIANCE

Page 396 of 493

If

Lot

Setback Rear

from Line

Line

from

or

lndlcata If

Is

“an”

II

Building

MD

one

to

item

NOTES:

M

your

If yes,

Do

Mark

from

please

plans

SOUTH

\

is

yes,

Planning

for

provide

include

way

HQ )6 Sb

5*“;

F”

details:

any

DEMOLITION

of

existing

mark relate building.

on

(3)

structures?

a private be will the to

’SL‘EI’

and

Sh(<_,

90*

\

property is on waterfront, setback the high from water required in this question total size the of completed

‘L

M

FOR

amended

or

[;I

Yes

in di c at e:

VARIANCE

structure

MINOR

the setback lane, same. the CONSTRUCTION NEW

building

as

/’LD?\‘L’Ucl’"/'S ‘F’r

7—3

M

‘2)“\

“SM ‘3 M

addition,

C’Ihro‘?

(2)

proposed

APPLICATION c. 1990, P‘13

“1—).“

\I

each

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

HSM

G .\ m

subject If the lot line and the 2) The dimensions and the NOT to

Water applicable)

Setback

High (If

re

14

OF

m Pr mm ?v.\;~

(1)

Dimoe’rlltssiignes of

awry

of

r b [$2 5:25:55

s

Lot

Bulldlnngtructu

1 6,

Structure

residence)

of

answer

Front

Height

(Also

the

Setback

Type (E.g.

1 5.

TOWNSHIP

Page 397 of 493

The

21

your

the

the

Is

sewage other

a

drainage

N/A

storm

Qr \xly

or

whether

W

other

or

body,

water

that

mwd

provided

means:

system,

sewage

9o

is provided owned

sewers,

by

the

the

subject

of

owner:

by

have

ditches,

provided owned

swales

or

the subject operated

onxy.

to and

by

other

land individual

the

a

and

a publicly or communal

means?

by

well.

owned

I

I

owne d

ope rate lake, d

lan ds:

Ix /“ o

I

I

I:I

1;]

VARIANCE

subject

continued:

on

I I Yes

?es IAes

MINOR

As

FOR amended

a publicly or communal

land

constructed

land individual

subject

were

current

encroach

structure?

as

Strv\c:)c/orrv\r\7

operated

gamut?

by

is

fixtures

the

uses

existing

bedrooms

structure system?

‘74st

disposal privately a

an

APPLICATION c. P.13

1990,

development?

of

R.S.O.

structures

to and

WNW

the

\

or septic

and

existing

was

of

space

acquired

living

plumbing

number

proposed

addition existing

in

in

in

the

details:

the

Act,

FRONTENAC

RAISING

SOUTH Planning

buildings

land

Lb‘L\

a privately means:

u($

time

\

existing

7.01.0

subject

y

of

whether

E)

length

system,

Indicate operated privy,

Will

(d)

of

the the

Increase

(c)

on

Increase

(b)

uses

provide

Increase

the

OF

include

(a)

are

“A010

date

plans please

("\os/

date

What

If yes,

Do

Indicate water

.The

20.The

1 9.

1 8.

TOWNSHIP

Page 398 of 493

a

liYes

of

indicate

please

”*Note:

to

location ofa township

location

The nearest

The

iii)

distances to

property importance

The

and

MUST

all

HAVE

line

abutting

lot

reference

(neighbours’)

point… landmark

of

on—site to and abutting be IS REQUIRED varied. and should be prepared

the file

an

including

THE

features

stream

these

from

lan crossing. d

subject

barns of , sig nifi as can t

the subject buildings, wetlands, the applicant’s

on

THE

and

of

Pla nni ng

1 location

(C5

OF the the railway

include barns,

features

subject

{3d TOP

the

VARIANCE

application

application

the

the

under

MINOR

owners’ and septic fields wells. SKETCH to be shown. The is as carefully, neatly and accurately

of

or

artificial

the

between or bridge

land

AT

Examples banks,

and land.

lands.

…i.e. distance a such as

subject

of

been

3—0.,

ever

of

FOR amended

application

as

number

number

ARROW

following:

file

land has Variance).

the

the

NORTH

the

give

(Minor

give

of

APPLICATION c. Pt13 1990,

subject

all natural to the subject river ditches, distance Show of

or

A

showing

is

subject

please

Consent,

land

the Act

please

yes,

or

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

dimensions

yes.

location land that is adjacent drainage watercourses, wells and tanks. septic lines. approximate

The the

of

is

Mo

buildings.

proposed

is

subject

whether Planning

25

submitted

The and

boundaries

the

N’é}

27

ii)

SKETCH

be

item

indicate the of

THE

must

Yes

43

i)

**

SKETCH

A

,

answer If the the application.

l

Section

SOUTH

Planning

Subdivision

OF

question

whether Plan of

answer to application.

known,

under

If

of

If the the

Please approval

28,

TOWNSHIP

Page 399 of 493

Page 400 of 493

Thank you for your consideration,

Upon studying our property dimensions and topography, we hope you will agree that the land is very challenging to build on. This reduction in setback will enable us to use the relatively flat granite area. This will reduce the impact on the natural environment by requiring less excavation or fill, without building a driveway all the way to the spot where we already have the small structures.

Although we are 10—15years from retirement, our children are now leaving home, and we want to live permanently at the la ke. Our hope is to close our incomplete permit at the point and re-purpose the 10’x20’ cabin for seasonal storage. With the help of Myers Design & Build, we have designed a 1500 sq. ft. home that will fit perfectly onto a stable granite point overlooking the marsh. Inspectors from Quinte Conservation and South Frontenac Planning have both visited our site and confirmed that there is no risk of erosion, so they do not see any problem reducing the setback from top of bank of the embankment from 15m to 10m.

From 2020—2024, we gradually erected our shed, outhouse, insulated cabin, dock, and gazebo. Discussions with the South Frontenac Township Building Department led us to understand that we needed to meet a minimum size for a primary dwelling, so our building permit plans include a covered breezeway connecting the cabin and gazebo. This permit has not yet been closed because the breezeway was never built.

As a young family living in Kingston, we were lucky enough to purchase 1179 Old Mine Lane at the height of the Covid—1 9 pandemic. Since taking possession in May 2020, this property has been an absolute joy to us. After one season of summer camping on the land, we knew that we wanted to extend ourvisiting period, so we started to dream of building a seasonal cabin near the waterfront. A site visit from Quinte Conservation Authority confirmed that the property had 2 viable building sites, one at the point near our swimming area and another closer to the lane. We knew that putting a driveway all the way to the point would be exorbita ntly expensive and totally destructive to the natural beauty of our land, so we decided to put something tiny at the point and hoped to later build our retirement home near the lane.

To whom it may concern,

June 2, 2025

KA

332%. SOUTH F RON TE NAC PL-ZNA-2025-0064

(FISCHER) 1179 OLD MINE LANE

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

7

Waterbody Township Boundary

Produced by the County of Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2025.

Page 401 of 493

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

Scale: 1:2,200

UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Date: 2025-06-11

25 1/2,?3QL3-

,

7W

I

(Adjacent)

Storage Unlt

Parkln

Gravel Driveway &

Garage / Workshop

Proposed Structures

I:I 1m Contours Pml’e’ty ”“8

/

'

,

“0”“

Wk

2-Storey House

‘0

—-’

{‘“1

~

Development Area Well Proused

[::] septic (Preposed)

-E

ineLaneEXIstIné&PropoSedS M \J W

iiléil??? tructu’té/

“,7 BuildingFoetprints

4

Scale: 1:1,750

Page 402 of 493 Well (Exlstlng)

Septic (Existing)

Existing_Dev

. I

Type

{I}

2512.50

25

50

Scale: 1:750

LittleJohn Lake

/

/

l. < \1

,

,1

l,

/

l

’//,/

,

I

(…

\

‘\

1”

0

Gravel Driveway & Parking

Septic (Proposed)

Deck

Z-Storey House

Garage / Workshop

Storage Unit

-Emilee I: Well (Proposed)

J Property Line

1179 Old Mine Lane‘P/rOPOSEdStructures Flgyre2.3

Page 403 of 493

Page 404 of 493

MYERS

\

Page 405 of 493

MYERS

\

Page 406 of 493

Q U I NT E C O NS ER V AT I O N - P L AN N I NG A C T R EV I EW QC File No. PL0169-2025 Municipality:

Township of South Frontenac

Landowner:

Mike and Cheryl Fischer

Location:

1179 Old Mine Lane

Roll #:

10290400500282000000

Application Description:

Minor Variance Appl’n File No. PL-ZNA-2025-0065

Regulated Features:

Little John Lake, unnamed waterbody/wetland, watercourse and an unevaluated wetland located north of subject lot

Part Lot 2, Concession 13

Loughborough

Requesting relief from Section 5.8.2.b. of Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 to reduce the setback from the top of the bank from 15 meters to 10 metres to facilitate the construction of a 2,000 square foot dwelling with attached deck.

Natural Hazard policies of the Provincial Planning Statement and Quinte Conservation Planning Act Review policy Conservation Authorities have Provincially delegated responsibilities to represent Provincial interests regarding natural hazards under Section 5.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) (2024). Natural hazards include areas subject to flooding, prone to erosion, dynamic beaches, and unstable bedrock. Generally, the policies of the PPS direct development to areas outside of hazard lands. Staff are satisfied that the application as presented is consistent with Section 5.2 of the PPS.

Ontario Regulation #41/24 (Regulation of Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits) Portions of the subject lands lie within the regulated area of Little John Lake, an unnamed waterbody/wetland, watercourse and an unevaluated wetland (by virtue of Ontario Regulation #41/24 – Regulation of Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits).

Comments:

Quinte Conservation attended the property April 17, 2025, upon request of a site inspection. Staff observed a staggered slope from the location of the proposed dwelling, south, to those lands at the bottom of the slope before the 1:100-year flood plain of Little John Lake, and the highwater mark of the watercourse/waterbody feature. An unevaluated wetland feature was also observed by staff on lands north of the subject lot. The proposed development, including the septic system, will be located beyond Quinte Conservation’s regulated area from each of the regulated features. Therefore, a permit from this office will not be required prior to the proposed development activity.

Quinte Region Source Protection Plan Quinte Conservation provides Risk Management services as prescribed by the Clean Water Act, 2006 on behalf of member municipalities. Part of this is reviewing building and planning applications to ensure no new significant drinking water threats as outlined in the Quinte Region Source Protection Plan are created. Policies for significant threats in the Quinte Region Source Protection Plan are not applicable as the subject property lies outside of an intake protection zone or wellhead protection area for a municipal drinking water system. As such no Section 59 Clearance Notice is required.

Other Potential Township Studies As per Sections 21.1.1 and 21.1.2 of Ontario Regulation 596/22 (amendments made under the Conservation Authorities Act) as a result of the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, conservation authorities are no longer able to review or provide comment on Natural Heritage and Hydrogeology, nor is this office able to peer-review technical reports related to these matters. If Page 1 of 2

Page 407 of 493

the Township requests a hydrogeological assessment or Environmental Impact Study (EIS) it should be peer-reviewed by a qualified consultant.

Final Comments:

Quinte Conservation has no objection to the minor variance application as presented. A permit for the proposed dwelling and sewage system will not be required from this office prior to construction. The development activities fall beyond Quinte Conservation’s regulated area from each of the above-noted regulated features. Staff request that a copy of the decision on the application be forwarded to this office, when available.

July 22, 2025 Date

Sam Carney Planning Technician And: Catherine Sinclair, Regulations Officer

Page 2 of 2

Page 408 of 493

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 14, 2025

Subject:

Minor Variance Application PL-ZNA-2025-0065, Fischer, 1179 Old Mine Lane, Loughborough

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of the subject application for zoning relief for a single detached dwelling, subject to conditions, as this application meets the four tests of a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Background The subject property is predominantly designated Rural, including the proposed development area. A portion of Little John Lake, to the south of the subject property is designated Environmental Protection. The property is zoned Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The subject property is approximately 8.4Ac in area with frontage on Little John Lake and Old Mine Lane. The property is bounded by Old Mine Lane to the east, a residential property to the north and Little John Lake to the west and south. The portion of Little John Lake abutting the southern boundary forms a narrow bay. The southeastern corner of the property contains a portion of an unevaluated wetland and a watercourse which feed into the lake. The property is characterized by steep slopes along the shoreline and undulating topography in the interior. The area of proposed development (i.e., the northeast corner) is relatively flat compared to the remainder of the property and features an exposed bedrock outcropping. Most of the property exists in its natural state and features an abundance of mature tree and vegetation growth, including along the shoreline slopes. Existing development consists of a small seasonal dwelling, a gazebo, a storage shed and an outhouse. All existing development is concentrated on the far east side of the property, approximately 360m from its frontage on Old Mine Lane. To facilitate the construction of the proposed dwelling, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing seasonal dwelling to a storage building. The proposed conversion is necessary to comply with the zoning by-law and will need to occur prior to a building permit being issued for the proposed dwelling.

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

Page 409 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0065

Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling and attached deck with a maximum footprint of 2000sqft (185.8sqm). The proposed dwelling would be in the northeast corner of the subject property, approximately 100m from its entrance off Old Mine Lane. The proposed dwelling would be setback 50m from the highwater mark of Little John Lake. The proposed dwelling would be setback 10m from the top of bank of the shoreline. Zoning Relief Requested Section 5.8.2(b) – to permit a single detached dwelling to be setback a minimum of 10m from the top of bank, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 15m. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act. Department and Agency Comments Quinte Conservation provided comment on July 22, 2025. Their staff have no objection to the proposed minor variance based on consideration for natural hazards and Ontario Regulation 41/24 Implementation Policies. Public Comments No public comments were received at the time of writing this report. Planning Analysis The proposal needs to be assessed against the four tests of a minor variance outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposal meets the four tests as explained below. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Ther subject lands are predominantly designated Rural on Schedule A of the Township Official plan. The type and amount of development on rural lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage and cultural landscape in the Township. A dwelling is a permitted use in the Rural Designation. Section 5.2.4 of the Official Plan states that the Township will direct development or site alteration away from lands which may be subject to shoreline erosion hazard. This is typically addressed through a 15m setback from the top of bank, as required by the Zoning By-law. The purpose of this setback is to ensure buildings and structures remain unaffected should a slope fail and result in an erosion hazard. A large downward slope exists to the southwest of the proposed dwelling location. The slope rises approximately 20m from the shoreline of Little John Lake and extends approximately 40m into the interior of the property. A majority of the slope is well vegetated and contains several patches of exposed bedrock. The www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 410 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0065

proposed dwelling and attached deck would be setback a minimum of 10m from the top of bank. Section 5.2.4 also indicates that the Township should consult with the appropriate Conservation Authority with respect to lands that may constitute an erosion hazard. Quinte Conservation Authority staff conducted a site visit to the subject property on April 17, 2025, and concluded that the slope was not at risk of a potential erosion hazard. In an email dated April 22, 2025, QCA staff recommended that the proposed dwelling be setback a minimum of 6m from the top of bank. The 6m setback is in reference to the Provincial Access standard, which ensures that vehicles and people have a way of safely exiting the area during times of erosion and other emergencies, and for future maintenance between development and the slope. The proposed dwelling would exceed the minimum 6m Provincial Access standard by 4m. Township Planning Staff conducted a site visit to the property on May 21, 2025. After observing the existing slope, Township staff agree with the conclusions made by Quinte Conservation staff. As such, planning staff interpret the reduced 10m top of bank setback as reasonable. It is the opinion of Township Planning Staff that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the policies related to rural residential development, and development adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? A dwelling is a permitted use in the RLSW zone. Except for the minimum setback from the top of bank, the proposed dwelling would comply with all required setbacks of the RLSW Zone. This includes being setback 50m setback from the highwater mark of Little John Lake, exceeding the minimum 30m setback. Section 5.8.2 of the Zoning By-law directs development away from slopes which are greater than 30% from horizontal. This is typically accomplished through a 15m setback from the top of bank. The proposed dwelling and attached deck would be setback a minimum of 10m from the top of bank. As previously discussed, the proposed 10m setback would satisfy both Quinte Conservation regulatory guidelines and provincial access standards. Further, the incorporation of appropriate erosion control measures and the maintenance of a healthy shoreline buffer will assist in stabilizing soil during construction and over the long term. It is the opinion of Township Planning Staff that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure in question? The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Although the subject property is large, the existing topography limits where a building or structure could be built. The far west side of the property has a few viable building areas, including the location of the existing seasonal dwelling (to be converted to storage building). However, this portion of the property is presently being accessed via a walking path. Should a dwelling be www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 411 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0065

built on the west side of the property, it would require extending a ~350m long driveway through challenging terrain. The east side of the subject property (i.e., where development is being proposed) is heavily constrained by the existing shoreline slope and its associated setbacks. Compared to the surrounding areas, the proposed building location is relatively flat and partially cleared of trees. Further, the proposed building location would comply with all remaining zoning setback. As such, the proposed reduced setback from the top of bank is considered appropriate. Is the variance minor? The requested variance is considered minor as it maintains the intent and purposed of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The requested variance is also desirable for the appropriate development of the land. There are no anticipated negative impacts on surrounding properties or Little John Lake because of the proposed dwelling. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: • • •

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

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve application PL-ZNA-2025-0065 for minor variance(s) from Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended, for 1179 Old Mine Lane to allow:

1. A dwelling and attached deck to be setback a minimum of 10 metres from the top of bank. Approval should be subject to the following conditions:
2. The proposal/location of the building, etc. must be generally consistent with the application sketches, which will be attached to the decision as a schedule.
3. The Owner is required to enter into a Development Agreement to be registered on the title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) must be used during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated.

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

Page 412 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0065

b. Roof runoff will be directed away from Little John Lake and discharged to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas to maximize infiltration or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads to reduce the velocity of runoff. c. A natural vegetated buffer must be maintained in its natural state within 30 metres of Little John Lake. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed dwelling, the Owner shall convert the existing seasonal dwelling to an accessory building, through a renovation permit and/or change of use permit, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official or their designate. 3. At the building permit stage and prior to construction of the dwelling footings, the Owner shall have the proposed location of the dwelling pinned and its setbacks from the top of bank confirmed to be compliant with Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended, and with the minor variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment through the submission of a letter of verification by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official or their designate. Report Prepared By: Noah Perron, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

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

Page 413 of 493

Page 414 of 493

Aa

—

is

Rideau

Quinte

Cataraqui

Township Minor Minor Minor system

After

of

Conservation

Valley

permit

applicable

that Fee a Authority

a

Conservation

Authority

Conservation

to

Authority

a

new

Review

Conservation

on

or

extend day

use of Official Zoning or

the

the the

the

the

a

by-Iaw

Class

2,

3,

4,

or

5

sewage

be

onsite an application submitted

review

Planning—Agplication

to Township when submitting Authority, are to

the

alter

stru ctur e

passed,

with

sewage

le

or

or

( Sepa the rate

Secretary— byTreasurer a noncard or refundab cheque

the

was

building

by Chapter

Townshi p P. a non legal 1 —. conf Committee ormi ng

structure

the land, Plan. By—Iaw.

provided

1990, to alter

appointed

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

enlarge

of of

2025

FRONTENAC VARIANCE

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

SOUTH INOR

January

OF

provisions

development purpose purpose

structure, the by-law.

and and

By-law

be provided for (where applicable)

Authority

Fo

Committee eight of 45 the of Planning or under permission

copy this of together with below in cash, Frontenac.

by

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

South

to

Region

Variance Variance Variance other

payable the

without

Type:

It is required Conservation

building

1 —3 Variances Variances 4+

a

permission or

tent Intent

building

grant

Zoning

appropriate

prohibited

land,

may

Requirements

purpose

any

is

N

0.2% Updated

TOWNSHIP APPLICA

ion by—Iaw

Sec

that one required (1) Committee of Adjustment, accordance with the chart the to Township of South

It

a

where

for

the for the genera the general in nature

vary

Adjustment under a zoning

may

of formed from

ls desirable Maintains Maintains ls minor

Committee

wlication

is

Committee variance:

variance

the

Application

The lands used

The that

minor

0U

FRONTENAC

Committee

'

Committee

The

vu\

;

g

Page 415 of 493

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

4. Collection of Personal Information

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

3. PLEASE READ THIS ITEMCAREFULLY

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

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

Page 416 of 493

Page 417 of 493

nature

The

a

Please

(Le.

What

subject

why

to

the

nearest

residence,

public

subject be to

Wes

garage,

whether

0NF_

existing

or

the

€?tm used

property

the

maintained

Road/Lane:

indicate

are

of

privately

the

reason

(N

of

the

and

from

77h:

on

there shed,

the

D

No

etc.)

are

UN

of

a

Zoning

(on

as

£6

MINOR

any

17

El

No

only, please distance

EXISTING

buildings

COTTACLE,

land?

by water approximate

is

Mes

maintained

of

W

FAQ /m s

‘Dld??p ‘m

VARIANCE

or

the facilities

structures

these

D

on

the

parking from

Yes

4%w/ utbg

indicate

road?

a?

[059‘

road/lane):

FOR amended

Eupeca

By—law:

Area:

LANE.

[4001;

P.13

Frontage

land.

C.

APPLICATION

1990,

30m

the

subject

municipally

subject

the

gr?e?

road?

front

property used and road.

uses

m

the

land:

’2

relief

of

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

A 2/05 «OI/g Him— éedszs’iz— ca not comply with the the Zoni of provisions ng

the

subject

29

area

SOUTH Planning

TEAL!) tF/?proréo

extent

12st (UH/H

and

£[2/IA(6‘§(0N

If access facilities and the

Name

OR

Does

The

’cta

OF

of

depth water):

zoning

Eng/vb

I‘M

current

The

Depth:

(on

frontage(s),

Frontage

The

TOWNSHIP

Page 418 of 493

If the

f

St

answer I

for

.

or

Indicate

of

.

two

If

Is

story)

it

Building

23:31:22 one

to

(If

be

any

of the

'

i

land:

2 5Q‘

subject

§

I

0 L3

or

Isl/£5

structure(s), land?

subject

_

b7 I

‘

4,

I

,

I

as

(3)

structure

P.13

or

9 H ED

building

c.

APPLICATION

1990,

or

No

additions

El

542 \

f,

to

existing

ZND

HZ‘ :

I 25

q i

1

FOR amended

building(s)

or

indicate:

MINOR

$To/LY

/L{0’gut—?e:

(2)

EACH

CO’F’CACL’L Wink

uses

building(s) on built the

proposed

applicable)

6

qq

/6

Qt .+

l

H6

32:25:33”:

se‘”wa:é‘ei’.?n’;‘r.t"9“

14.Are

yes,

t

story

13.The

is

I

Digggffresaof

(Also

1 1

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

c o‘l’TAQE—

(1)

item

SOUTH Planning

(0?

to

OF

23:32:32;

(Egiesiég?c‘ge

Height

T

TOWNSHIP

structure(s),

A6

(4 )

VARIANCE

Page 419 of 493

If the

NOTES:

(If

your

If yes,

Do

Mark

of

Is

story)

It

from

If

one

please

plans

SOUTH

is yes,

—

Planning

for

2

_

‘

g —

i

-+ ‘

I ~

I‘

‘

O:

each (2)

proposed

FRONTENAC Act, R.S.OV

CWCLE
4" 7

(1)

14

OF

total

|

details:

any

size

of

on

mark relate building.

and

existing

waterfront, high the water in this question the completed

on

DEMOLITION

of

from

is

i

qu‘

required

setback

include provide

S

property

6

3(9

I

addition,

FOR amended

(3)

structures?

or

[—1 Yes

i

VARIANCE

structure

MINOR

lane, the setback the same. CONSTRUCTION NEW

building

as

private be will the to

a

APPLICATION c. 1990, P.13

4 Qfaes, ZA/b Ira—0&5— SQUALC

item

subject if the lot line and the 2) The dimensions and the NOT to

applicable)

Setback Water High

Dimensions Building/Structure

Line

from

from Line

Line

from

to

t ure

Building

two

Outside

Indicate (Also or story

of

Lot

Setback Side

Height

Lot

Lot

Rear

Setback

Front

residence)

S truc

answer

o f

Setback

(E.g.

T ype

15‘

TOWNSHIP

Page 420 of 493

Is

storm

\

existing

water

is

me

provided owned and

.

disposal privately a

provided

by

to

is

sewers,

?lV/FTF/Ly

n

system,

sewage

an existing

fixtures

bedrooms

I

by

the

subject

subject

to and

ditches,

by

swales

or

have

(’ng

other

subject

or

a

communal

a

and

publicly

means?

by

well,

owned

Hot/ DINO.

land individual

(Map;

the

Yes

continued.

on

D

’

own ed

d

rate lake,

ope

lan ds:

l u /

[3

Wes

Ll

VARIANCE

D

Yes

MINOR

Wes

El

FOR amended

publicly communal

by

or

a

land

A

the subject operated

owls/lib

owned

provided

owner:

constructed

land individual

DOG/VFW)

operated

the

the

1355M

of

were

l L

current

ZOFZ/

_ 20

as

structure?

APPLICATION P.13 c.

1990,

development?

of

structures

uses

‘T’o

and

0

acquired

P12\ V/VTF—LY

drainage

sewage

whether

the

of

space

HAs ALeo

that

privately

means:

a

time

was

buildings

TMTCHES

Indicate operated privy.orother

of

existing

the

living

plumbing

number

proposed

RAISING

FRONTENAC R.S.O. Act,

encroach or structure addition septic system?

exlsting

?u.

land

the the

??(0{i

subject

the

on

Will

in

Increase

(c)

(d)

in

in

the

Increase

of

details:

the

(b)

uses

SOUTH

Planning

Increase

the

provide

include

OF

(a)

whether system, other or

Indicate water body.

length

The

date

20.The

date

What

plans

please

are

your

If yes,

Do

19.The

1 7.

TOWNSHIP

Page 421 of 493

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

9%

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

ii)

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

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

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

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

i)

29. A SKETCH must be submitted showing the following:

Yes

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

V?g

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

Yes

~

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

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

Page 422 of 493

Page 423 of 493

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

—-

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

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

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

—

3. Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. Ifthe numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford; if the numbers are 040—050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: if you are not sure, check your tax bill c. Street Number: Your civic address if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this space blank. d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: If your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.

4. You may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalfduring the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner’s must sign the authorization.

5. The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.

A Guide to Completing the Minor Variance Form

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

Page 424 of 493

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

—

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

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

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

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

—

14. Proposed structures: If you are planning to build ANYTHING on the property, the answer to this question is “yes" This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.

15. Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”

16. Description of buildings and structures: You must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.

17. Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.

18. Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land

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

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

3

E

E

g

E

Page 425 of 493

—

30. Agreement to Indemnify: Must be signed in front of a commissioner of oaths you may have this done before submitting the application, or sign the application in front of staff who can sign as commissioners. All owners must sign the application, or it can be signed by an agent if one has been appointed.

31. SKETCH: We cannot stress enough the importance of a detailed, accurate, and complete sketch. You do not necessarily need to contract with a professional to draw the sketch, but sketches that are not drawn to scale, do not show dimensions and distances, or are not drawn neatly (PLEASE USE A RULER), will not be accepted.

32. If yes: If there has been a previous variance granted on the property, please indicate the application number if known, and what the details of the variance were.

33. Minor variance: Has there ever been a minor variance granted on the property? If you are long— time owner of the property, you will probably be aware of any other special permission granted for a variance to the zoning by—Iaw.If you are a new owner, the seller will probably have made you aware of this.

34. If yes: If there is a current application for severance or subdivision on the property, please indicate the file number. (Staff can help provide this information)

35. Application for consent: Is there currently an application for consent (severance) being proposed for the property?

36. Drainage: Are there specific ditches that have been constructed to deal with drainage; is there natural drainage, etc.?

37. Septic: in most cases the answer will be private sewage system, but there may be some privies.

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

$1

§§\“

\

SOUTH F RO NTE NAC PL-ZNA-2025-0067 (SMITH) 4569 STAIR STEP LANE

Wooded Area Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Lake Trout Lake Not at Capacity

Non-Lake Trout Lake At Capacity

Waterbody

I Township Boundary Road

Inset Map

‘\

‘

x

‘

Produced by the County orFrontenac unuer hcense wrmme Ontario Mrnrsiry of Na|ural Resources © Krng’s Printer lor Oniano 2025 wnrle rneCoumy makes every e«on lo rnsure that mernrornrauon

preserueors accura?e «or we intended uses ornusmap, merers an

Page 426 of 493

rnnereni error rrraH mapprng produds, and accuracy orme mapprng cannm be guaranteed for 3Hpossrbie uses ans map orsplays basrc topographlc lealures oniy

Scale: 1:400

my

0

5

1o

20

:—

m UTM Zone 18 NAD 83 Da|e

23/06/2025

I

‘fO

M-

5T

.

,.

,,,,,

a;

t

“““

.

“““lnslv?o‘aaaomrHNJozcho/p

g l I

q!

.

H) ,

51 ’d

'

(u ‘

.

. ~51i59‘00

*?

«x

A

5

way

“4……

.~

’

i

I

' »

r y ‘

_

s

‘

'

(P! am…” VDARJ’J’ZG

£74320?26 66 (F2 5 an; 1;,-{- LINE.

Page 427 of 493

Page 428 of 493

Page 429 of 493

July 23, 2025 File: MV/FRS/165/2025 Sent by E-mail Colin Herrewynen Planner Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0

Dear Mr. Herrewynen: Re:

Application for Permission PL-ZNA- 2025-0067 4569 Stair Step Lane; Lt 18, Con 9 Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Dog Lake

Cataraqui Conservation staff have reviewed the above-noted application for permission and provide the following comments for the Committee of Adjustment’s consideration based on our role as commenting agency responsible for natural hazards on Planning Act applications, and as administrator of Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Proposal The proposed development involves enlarging the existing non-conforming cottage dwelling within the 30 m highwater mark of Dog Lake. The applicant proposes to construct a second storey addition to the existing 73.5 sq. m one storey dwelling. The proposed enlarged structure will be setback 14.5 m from the highwater mark of Dog Lake. Site Description The property is located on the south shore of Dog Lake. The topography of the property can be described as a relatively steep bedrock slope adjacent to the water and then rising slowly toward the rear. Discussion Cataraqui Conservation’s scope of review for this proposal includes the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the shoreline of Dog Lake. Natural Hazards / Ontario Regulation 41/24

Page 430 of 493

Page 2 of 3 Flooding: Development and site alteration within and adjacent to the regulatory flood plain is restricted to ensure people are property are protected from the flooding hazard. The regulatory (1:100 year) floodplain of Dog Lake is defined as the highest recorded water level of the lake (98.95 m GSC). Based on our review of elevation mapping, the existing dwelling and deck are set back over 6 m from the floodplain and the proposed second storey addition is not encroaching closer. As the existing development and proposed addition exceeds the minimum 6 m setback, Cataraqui Conservation has no concerns from a flooding perspective. Erosion: Cataraqui Conservation directs development and site alteration away from lands subject to long term erosion hazards. This is typically addressed through the imposition of appropriate setbacks from the hazard. Staff confirmed the existing shoreline slope (approximately 8.5 m in height and 10 m in width) is a stable granite slope. In this case, Cataraqui Conservation policies require new building and structures (including reconstruction) be located a minimum of 4 m from the top of bank and encourages a minimum setback of 6 m. The existing deck is setback 4 m from the top of bank and the existing dwelling is setback approximately 6 m from the top of bank. The proposed second storey addition will maintain the minimum 6 m setback and no changes to the deck are proposed as part of this application. As such, staff are satisfied with the proposal from an erosion hazard perspective. To ensure long-term erosion avoidance and slope stability, staff recommend the maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between buildings/structures and the water, to help stabilize soils into the long-term. Runoff from buildings and structures and other hardened surfaces should also be directed away from the shoreline to a naturally vegetated location where infiltration can occur. Recommendation Cataraqui Conservation staff have no objections to the approval of application PLZNA 2025-0067 based on our consideration for natural hazard and regulatory policies. Staff recommend implementation of the above-noted best practice measures (in bold text) and advise the applicant that if the proposed development is approved, Cataraqui Conservation permit approval will be required. Ontario Regulation 41/24 Please note that portions of the subject lands within 15 m of the regulatory floodplain and erosion hazard are subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits, which is administered by the Cataraqui Conservation, which is administered by the Cataraqui Conservation. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. If approved, the proposed addition and associated site alteration will require Cataraqui Conservation permit approval. The landowner(s) should contact Cataraqui Conservation’s office at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under O. Reg. 41/24.

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Rd, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 431 of 493

Page 3 of 3 Please inform this office of any decision made by the Committee with regard to these applications. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 613-546-4228 ext. 239, or by e-mail at estucke@crca.ca Sincerely, Emma Stucke, MCIP, RPP Resource Planner Cc: property owner, via email

Cataraqui Conservation 2069 Battersea Rd, Glenburnie ON, K0H 1S0 • info@crca.ca • 613-546-4228 • CataraquiConservation.ca

Page 432 of 493

To:

Committee of Adjustment

From:

Development Services Department

Date of Meeting:

August 14, 2025

Subject:

Application for Permission to Enlarge Legal Non-Conforming Use PL-ZNA-2025-0067, Smith, 4569 Stair Step Lane, Storrington District

Summary This report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment grant approval of this application for permission to enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions. Background The subject property is designated Rural in the Township Official Plan. It is zoned Limited Service Residential - Waterfront Zone (RLSW) in Zoning By-law No. 2003-75, as amended. The subject property is approximately 0.2 Ac (~1165sqm) in area with frontage on Dog Lake with access via Stair Step Lane. The existing development consists of a dwelling, an attached deck and a detached shed. At the south end of the property along the laneway there are trees and a parking area. At the north end there are trees and steep slope toward Dog Lake and an existing dock along the water. The surrounding area consists of cottages ranging in height from single storey to two storey buildings along the lake. Proposal The subject property is presently developed with a 73.5sqm (791sqft) dwelling. The existing dwelling is one storey with a height of 4.5m (15 ft). The existing dwelling is approximately 16.7m (55 ft) from the lake with eaves projecting approximately 0.3m (1 ft) from the dwelling. There is a deck attached to the waterside of the dwelling that is setback 12.8m from the lake. The applicant is proposing to expand the gross floor area of the existing dwelling by adding a second storey addition on half of the dwelling area within the existing building footprint. This would add 33 sqm (355sqft) of gross floor area to the existing dwelling and expand the eave of the dwelling on the first floor area toward the lake by 1.5m (5 ft) to overhang part of the existing deck. The enlarged dwelling would have an approximate gross floor area of 107 sqm (1151 sqft), a building height of approximately 7.4m (24 ft), and eave projection 1.5m toward the lake. The main building would maintain the setback of approx. 16.7m from the high water mark of Dog Lake. The dwelling has an existing holding tank for its septic services. The owner has applied for a building permit to install a larger holding tank to accommodate the proposed expansion of the dwelling. www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 433 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0067

Relief Requested The applicant seeks permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to enlarge the existing legal non-conforming dwelling within 30m of the highwater mark of Dog Lake. Related Applications The lands are not subject to any additional applications under the Planning Act. Department and Agency Comments Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Cataraqui Region Conservation was circulated the application and advised of no objections. The CRCA also advised of the following: •

•

To ensure long-term erosion avoidance and slope stability, CRCA staff recommend the maintenance and enhancement of a healthy buffer of native vegetation between buildings/structures and the water, to help stabilize soils into the long-term. Runoff from buildings and structures and other hardened surfaces should also be directed away from the shoreline to a naturally vegetated location where infiltration can occur. If approved, the proposed addition and associated site alteration will require Cataraqui Conservation permit approval. The landowner(s) should contact Cataraqui Conservation’s office at the building permit stage for more information regarding permitting requirements under O. Reg. 41/24.

Public Comments No public comments were received at the time of writing this report. Planning Analysis Section 5.10.2 of the Zoning By-law states that existing buildings with less than the minimum 30m setback from the highwater mark of waterbody may be repaired, renovated, or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area. This provision prohibits the enlargement of these existing buildings, without seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment. The existing dwelling is also a legal nonconforming building under this provision because it was constructed prior to the current Zoning By-law and is setback 16.7m from the highwater mark of Dog Lake. Section 5.14.1.1 of the Zoning By-law states that every part of any required yard shall be open and unobstructed by any building or structure from the ground to sky, except for: items including eaves, provided however that the eaves shall not project more than 0.6 m (1.97 ft) into any required yard. Through its powers under section 45(2) of the Planning Act, the Committee of Adjustment may grant permission to enlarge the dwelling. The criteria for considering an application under Section 45(2) are:

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

Page 434 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0067

• •

Whether the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property; and Whether the application will result in undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the neighbourhood.

The existing dwelling is presently setback approximately 16.7m (55ft) from the highwater mark of Dog Lake. The proposed second storey addition would be within the existing footprint on the east end of the existing cottage. The proposed eave extension is also proposed along the east end of the cottage over a portion of the existing deck area. The proposed addition would increase gross floor area of the dwelling by 45%, from approximately 73.5sqm (791sqft) to 107 sqm (1151 sqft). The proposed eave extension over the existing deck of 1.5m (5 ft) would project further than the existing eaves and the maximum permitted of 0.6m (2 ft). The proposal would contribute additional living space to the existing dwelling with the addition of a new second floor area. The applicant has advised that they are proposing to re-configure the layout of the cottage by relocating a bedroom from the ground floor to the proposed second storey area and an additional washroom therefore increasing the living room area in the cottage. The eave extension would also provide additional usable space for the owner by covering a portion of the existing deck and offer additional protection from the elements. The proposed expansion of the gross floor area will only occur within the existing building footprint. The proposed expansion in gross floor area is desirable since it will enable the owners to fully utilize their existing building footprint and allow them to re-configure the cottage space to be more usable for their current needs. The eave expansion is also desirable since it will allow the owners to utilize the existing deck efficiently. Staff’s opinion is that the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The proposed expansion, which will be contained within the existing building footprint, will enable the owners to fully utilize their cottage and make it more functional for their needs. Similarly, the eave expansion is desirable as it allows for more effective use of the existing deck area. Staff also believes the application is unlikely to cause undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the neighborhood. The dwelling’s increased gross floor area will maintain its current setbacks from the lake, and the eave extension will simply improve the owner’s use of their existing deck without negative impacts on the surrounding properties. Conclusion It is the opinion of staff that it is appropriate for the Committee of Adjustment to grant permission to expand the legal non-conforming dwelling on the property, as described in this report. Notice/Consultation Notice of the Statutory Public Hearing was given pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, at least 10 days in advance of the Public Hearing. This included notice given: www.southfrontenac.net South Frontenac is a welcoming and thriving rural community.

Page 435 of 493

Township of South Frontenac Staff Report PL-ZNA-2025-0067

• • •

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

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment receive comments from the public and, pending comments received, approve application PL-ZNA-2025-0067 for 4569 Stair Step Lane to permit the legal non-conforming dwelling to be enlarged by a maximum 35 sqm (376 sqft) by adding a second storey and to allow the first floor eaves to project 1.5m (5 ft) toward the lake. Approval should be subject to the following conditions:

1. The proposal must be generally consistent with the submitted plans by the applicant that will be attached to the decision as a schedule.
2. The Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement to be registered on title of the property to the satisfaction of the Township to address the following matters and environmental standards of the Township: a. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence, straw bales) must be used during construction and until the site is stable and revegetated. b. Roof runoff will be directed away from Dog Lake and discharged to natural or constructed leaching pits/areas to maximize infiltration or onto coarse rock rubble splash pads to reduce the velocity of runoff. c. A natural vegetated buffer must be maintained in its natural state within 30 metres of Dog Lake, except in the immediate area of the development envelope. Report Prepared By: Colin Herrewynen RPP, MCIP, Planner Report Reviewed By: Christine Woods RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning

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

Page 436 of 493

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE OR PERMISSION (s. 45(2))

Updated January 2025 The Committee of Adjustment is a Committee of eight persons appointed by Township Council. The Committee is formed under Section 45 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, to authorize a minor variance from a zoning by-law or permission under s. 45(2) to alter a legal non-conforming use. The Committee may vary Zoning By-law provisions provided the Committee is of the opinion that the variance: x x x x

Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is minor in nature

The Committee may grant permission to enlarge or extend a structure or alter the use of the lands where any land, building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed, was lawfully used for a purpose prohibited by the by-law. Application Requirements

1. It is required that one (1) copy of this application be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, together with the sketch, accompanied by a non-refundable fee in accordance with the chart below in cash, or by debit card, credit card or cheque made payable to the Township of South Frontenac. Application Type: 1-3 Variances 4+ Variances After building without a permit

Planning Application Fee: $1,249.00 $1,468.00 $2,241.00

2. It is required that a Fee be provided for the Township to review onsite sewage disposal and Conservation Authority (where applicable) when submitting an application (Separate cheques, payable to the applicable Conservation Authority, are to be submitted with the application). Township of South Frontenac Minor Variance Only Minor Variance WITH Performance Review Minor Variance in combination with a new Class 2, 3, 4, or 5 sewage system other than a Class A system

$463.00 $720.00 $1,183.00

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

$445.00

Quinte Conservation Authority

$450.00

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

$410.00 1 Page 437 of 493

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

Please Note: These fees are for consultation on this application only; these agencies may require additional permit applications and fees prior to any construction. 3. PLEASE READ THIS ITEM CAREFULLY Each applicant shall provide a sketch showing the dimensions of the subject land and of all abutting lands as outlined in Question 29 of the application. The sketch should be accurately dimensioned and scaled in either Imperial or Metric measures. This sketch, in conjunction with the Application Form, is the basis for the analysis of the Minor Variance Application by the Committee of Adjustment. It is strongly recommended that the applicant spend the necessary time to carefully and thoroughly assemble the data and transfer the data to the sketch. It is important that the sketch be drawn with accurate dimensions and measurements. Any application which does not include the above required information may not be accepted. In this regard, the applicant may wish to secure the assistance of a person who specializes in the drafting of such sketches. A guide to answering the application questions is attached. 4. Collection of Personal Information Personal information requested herein is required under the Planning Act, 1990 as amended. This information will be used by the Committee of Adjustment/Land Division Committee for the purpose of reviewing the above referenced application, and may be made available to those boards, Commissions, Authorities, Agencies and Persons having an interest in this matter. Any questions regarding the collection of this information should be directed to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment (P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ont., K0H 2T0, Phone 376-3027 ext.2224).

2 Page 438 of 493

Page 439 of 493

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

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

N/A Frontage (on water):__________________

+/- 191 metres Frontage (on road/lane): ___________________

+/- 1,337 metres Depth: ___________________________

+/- 93 acres, +/- 37.8 hectares Area: _______________________________

The current zoning of the subject land: Rural (RU) zone

The nature and extent of the relief from the Zoning By-law: A minor varience application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained

and severed lots. Please refer to Planning Justification Letter in support of application.

The reason why the proposed use cannot comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law: Relief is requested to reduce the minimum frontage of each the severed and retained lots. The minimum

frontage is proposed to be reduced from 76 metres to 64.6 metres for the retained lot, and 63.0 metres for both of the severed lots. This reduction in frontage is required to facilitate the consent, which will see a large, underutilized rural lot being developed in a manner which provides for two new lots and the potential to

develop new single detached houses. Please refer to supporting planning justification letter.

8. Does the subject property front on a municipally maintained road? OR a privately maintained road?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Name of Road/Lane: Quinn Road East

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

What are the existing uses of the subject land? Rural

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

No 4 Page 440 of 493

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

12. If the answer to item 11 is yes, for EACH building or structure indicate: (1) Type of Structure (E.g. residence) Setback from Front Lot Line Setback from Rear Lot Line Setback from Side Lot Line Height of Building

Single Detached Dwelling

(2)

(3)

(4) Shed

Garage

+/- 213 m

+/- 230 m

+/- 233 m

+/- 1,108 m

+/- 1,097 m

+/- 1,095 m

+/- 122 m (west) +/- 95 (east)

+/- 139 m (west) +/- 81 m (east)

+/- 158 m (west) +/- 67 m (east)

1 Storey

1 Storey

1 Storey

unknown

unknown

Unknown

N/A

N/A

N/A

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

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

13. The proposed uses of the subject land: Rural residential

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

No

5 Page 441 of 493

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

15. If the answer to item 14 is yes, for each proposed addition, building or structure indicate: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Type of Structure (E.g. residence) Setback from Front Lot Line Setback from Rear Lot Line Setback from Side Lot Line Height of Building (Also indicate if it is one story or two story)

Outside Dimensions of Building/Structure Setback from High Water Mark (If applicable) NOTES: 1) If the subject property is on waterfront, and on a private lane, the setback from the front lot line and the setback from the high water mark will be the same. 2) The dimensions required in this question relate to the NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, and NOT to the total size of the completed building. 16.

Do your plans include any DEMOLITION of existing structures?

<es

No

If yes, please provide details:

6 Page 442 of 493

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

Do your plans include the RAISING of an existing structure?

<es

No

If yes, please provide details:

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

Increase in number of bedrooms

<es

No

(b)

Increase in plumbing fixtures

<es

No

(c)

Increase in living space

<es

No

(d)

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

<es

No

19. The date the subject land was acquired by the current owner: May 5th, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

7 Page 443 of 493

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

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

No

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

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

No

Unknown

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

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

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

ii)

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

iii)

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

iv)

The location of all abutting (neighbours’) lands.

v)

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

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

8 Page 444 of 493

Page 445 of 493

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

A Guide to Completing the Minor Variance Form

1. The names of all owners must appear in this section, even if they live in separate residences, and the address(es) should be the full mailing address, complete with postal code.
2. <ou may wish to appoint someone to act on your behalf during the variance process. If so, that person’s name, address and phone number should appear here All owner’s must sign the authorization.
3. Description of the Subject Land: a. District: The Districts are the same as the former Townships. If you are not sure, check the roll number (the long number beginning with 1029) on your tax bill. If the numbers are 010, 020 or 030, your district is Bedford; if the numbers are 040-050, your district is Loughborough; if the numbers are 060 or 070, your district is Storrington; and if the numbers are 080, your district is Portland. b. Concession and Lot Numbers: if you are not sure, check your tax bill c. Street Number: <our civic address – if a civic number has not been assigned, leave this space blank. d. Name of Road/Street: This question applies whether or not you are on a private lane or a public road. e. Reference Plan No: If your property has been surveyed, it will have a plan number, and one or more parts on that plan. If your property has not been surveyed, leave this space blank. f. Roll No: This is the number beginning with ‘1029’ which appears on your tax bill. Please take time to look it up before submitting the application.
4. Frontage, depth, area, acres: All parts of this question must be completed.
5. Current zoning: <ou may not be aware of the zoning on your property and this can be determined when you come in for pre-consultation with planning staff.
6. Nature and Extent of Relief: This question is asking what you are asking to do that requires the variance – for example, it could be that you are asking to be 25 m rather than 30 m from the high water mark, or that you are asking to increase the height of a structure within 30 m of the high water mark, or that you are seeking a variance to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building.
7. Reason why you can’t comply: In other words, why can you not meet the required setbacks. It could be, for example, because you are seeking a variance to add on to an existing structure that is already too close to the water, or that developing further from the water would be impossible because of a steep embankment.
8. Roads: Municipally maintained roads are looked after by the Township; private roads are lanes that residents maintain themselves (not private driveways, but lanes that provide access to your property and that are generally shared with others).

10 Page 446 of 493

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

9. Parking and Docking: This question is only relevant is you can only access your property by water.
10. Existing Uses: e.g. residential, retail business, vacant recreational land
11. Buildings: If there are ANY buildings or structures on the property now, the answer to this question is “yes”.
12. Description of buildings and structures: <ou must complete all sections of this question for each structure on your property. If there is a deck on your dwelling, please describe it separately from the residence.
13. Proposed Uses: Generally, the answer to this question will be the same as the answer to #10, but if, for example, the land is currently vacant, and you are planning to construct a dwelling, then the use to be described in section 10 would be “vacant recreational land”, and the use described in section 13 would be “residential”
14. Proposed structures: If you are planning to build ANYTHING on the property, the answer to this question is “yes” – This includes additions, decks, garages, septic systems.
15. Description of new construction: ALL proposed new development must be described here. If you are proposing to construct an addition to a dwelling, and to add a deck, please show this information in separate columns.
16. Demolition: All demolition requires a permit from the building department. In some instances, a proposed addition or increase in height cannot be accomplished without the removal of existing walls. If this is not made clear to the Committee at the beginning of the process, you may find that, although you are granted permission to add on to your residence, you can’t actually do it because you have not made it clear that there is demolition involved.
17. Raising of Structure: In other words, are you proposing to raise the building in order to construct a basement under it.
18. Uses of Development: Please answer each part of this question. An increase in living space would include anything with walls – e.g. a screened porch would involve an increase in living space.
19. Date land acquired: When did you take possession of the property?
20. Date of existing buildings: If you are not sure, provide your best estimate.
21. Length of existing uses: For example, has the land been used for residential purposes for 30 years, or 18 months?
22. Water supply: in most cases the answer will be private well, but some waterfront properties take their water from a lake. 11 Page 447 of 493

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

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

12 Page 448 of 493

3629 QUINN ROAD EAST, SOUTH FRONTENAC CONSENT + MINOR VARIANCE

1

July 3, 2025 Kate Kaestner Planning Clerk/Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning Department Township of South Frontenac Via Email: kkaestner@southfrontenac.net RE:

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac Applications for Consent and Minor Variance Planning Justification Report

Dear Ms. Kaestner, Fotenn Planning + Design has been retained by Robert Pittman (“the applicant”) to prepare this planning justification report in support of applications for consent to sever and minor variance for the property municipally known as 3629 Quinn Road East (“subject site”), in the Township of South Frontenac. The purpose of these applications is to create two new rural residential lots, to be developed with single detached dwellings. The consent will result in a total of three lots (two severed and one retained). A minor variance application is necessary to allow a reduced frontage for each of the retained and severed lots. The subject site is designated Rural Lands in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and Rural on Schedule A Land Use Plan in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The property is zoned Rural (RU) Zone in the Township of South Frontenac’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75. Correspondence with municipal staff identified the following application requirements. Accordingly, the following are submitted to in support of these applications, as required by Township staff: / Concept Plan; / Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study; / Scoped Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA); / Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis; and, / This Planning Justification Letter.

Site Description + Surrounding Context The subject site is in the Township of South Frontanac, southeast of the village of Harrowsmith, and north of the hamlet of Murvale. The subject site is approximately 37.8 hectares (93 acres) and has approximately 191 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East. The subject site is currently developed with a one-storey single-detached dwelling and several accessory structures. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Quinn Road East via a gravel driveway. According to Frontenac Maps, the property contains some wetlands and woodlands in both the northern and southern area of the site. Two watercourses (channels, as referred to by Ecological Services) traverse the site. The surrounding area is characterized by mainly rural, agricultural, and rural residential uses. The lands directly east of the site contain primarily residential uses, and some agricultural uses. Further west of the site is a mineral aggregate extraction operation. To the south, west and north contain primarily rural and agricultural uses, with some residential uses.

KINGSTON 4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 315 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 T 613.542.5454 fotenn.com

Page 449 of 493

2

Figure 1: Surrounding Context (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to create two new lots for future rural residential development on the south side of the subject site. Applications for consent to sever are required for the creation of the two new lots. The proposed severances will result in a total of three lots (two severed + one retained). The severed lots are anticipated to support the development of single detached dwellings. The severed lots are proposed to have lot areas of approximately 1.05 hectares and approximately 63 metres of frontage on Quinn Road East to accommodate the proposed rural residential development. The Rural (RU) zone in the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 requires a frontage of 76 metres for single detached residential uses. The proposed frontage of the retained lot is 64.6 metres, while the proposed frontage for each of the severed lots is 63 metres. A minor variance application is required to permit reduced frontages for single detached residential uses in the Rural (RU) zone.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 450 of 493

3

Figure 2: Concept Plan (Source: Fotenn Planning + Design) The subject site contains two watercourses, and any future development should maintain a minimum 30-metre setback from the channels, as identified through the scoped NHA. This environmental buffer will inform the placement and configuration of future building envelopes, while continuing to accommodate functional and appropriately sized lots. Additionally, due to the subject site’s proximity to existing livestock operations, a Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Study was undertaken. The study confirms that the proposed lots meet the required MDS setbacks, thereby minimizing the potential for land use conflicts and supporting the ongoing viability of adjacent agricultural uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 451 of 493

4

Figure 3: Proposed Severances (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Supporting Studies Minimum Distance Separation Study (See Appendix A) The subject site is in a predominantly rural and agricultural area, with proximity to several existing livestock facilities. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) study applies the March 2017 MDS formulae as provided in Publication 853 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Publication 853 includes the definitions, implementation guidelines and factor tables (i.e. calculations) which collectively make up the MDS formulae referenced in the Provincial Policy Statement, as well as additional information to assist with the interpretation and application of the MDS formulae. The factor tables or calculations are conducted using the AgriSuite software supplied by OMAFRA, while the definitions and guidelines provide necessary direction to interpret and apply the calculations. Publication 853 provides two classes of MDS formulae: MDS I and MDS II. MDS I applies the setbacks between proposed new non-agricultural development and existing livestock facilities. MDS II applies to setbacks from new, enlarged or renovated livestock facilities and existing or approved development. Requirement for MDS Setback In accordance with Implementation Guideline (IG) #2, an MDS setback is required for proposed lot creation in accordance with IG #8 and #9. IG #8 requires an MDS I setback where lot creation is proposed, and IG #9 relates

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 452 of 493

5 to lot creation for a residence surplus to a farming operation, which is not relevant to the site or proposal. Per Section 7.1 (l) of the Township’s Official Plan (OP), all division of land for new farm and non-farm uses must meet the requirements of the MDS Formulae, as amended. Two lots, each approximately 1.05 hectares in size, are proposed to be severed, through applications for consent, from the existing landholding, resulting in the creation of two new non-agricultural uses. As the applications are for the creation of new rural residential lots, MDS I applies. MDS I setbacks are calculated based on the nature of the proposed land use and are divided into Type A (less sensitive) and Type B (more sensitive) land uses. Type A is described in IG #33 and is characterized by a lower density of occupancy, habitation or activity and includes agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses, industrial uses, agricultural lot creation, and residential lot creation that does not result in a concentration of four or more lots in immediate proximity, and building permits for dwellings on existing lots outside of a settlement area. Type B (more sensitive) uses are generally higher density in terms of occupancy, habitation or activity as described in IG #34 and include OP and zoning by-law amendments to permit development excluding industrial uses or dwellings, outside of settlement areas. The proposed residential lot creations will result in two new residential lots outside of the settlement area and will not result in four or more lots for development in immediate proximity to one another. Therefore, the proposed lot creation represents Type is A use. Investigation Distance Where an MDS setback is required, it must be measured from all existing livestock facilities and anaerobic digesters that are reasonably expected to be impacted by the proposed development. IG #6 establishes the investigation distance for a proposed Type A land use as 750 metres. Using aerial imagery, we identified seven possible livestock facilities within 750 metres of the site, located at 3609 Quinn Road E (Barn #1), 4372 Road 38 (Barn #2), 4414 Road 38 (Barn #3), 4413 Road 38 (Barn #4), 3861 Quinn Road W (Barn #5), 3849 Quinn Road W (Barn #6) and 4173 Road 38 (Barn #7). Barn #1: 3609 Quinn Road E The property at 3609 Quinn Road E is located directly east of the site and includes two occupied livestock barns (371.6 square metres and 92.9 square metres in size), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 6.1 hectares (15.0 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses two medium frame horses, one goat for meat, 6 chickens (5 layer hens and 1 rooster), 3 guinea fowl and 4 muscovy ducks. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 169 metres. The barn is located approximately 537 metres from the subject site (measured from the closet edge of the barn to the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development). As such, the livestock facilities located at 3609 Quinn Road E will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 453 of 493

6

Barn

Accessory Structures

Barn

Dwelling

Figure 4: Barn #1 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) Barn #2: 4372 Road 38 The property at 4372 Road 38 is located approximately 78.08 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line of the property to the subject site) and includes a one 139.4 square metre occupied livestock barn, multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). The owner indicated the property currently houses three medium frame horses. The MDS calculations are found in Appendix A to this letter. The MDS calculation resulted in a minimum separation distance of 94 metres. As such, the livestock facilities located at 4372 Road 38 will have no impact on the proposed severances.

Dwelling

Accessory Structures

Barn

Figure 5: Barn #2 (Source: Ontario AgMaps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design) IG #12 allows for a reduced MDS setback where there are four or more uses of equal or greater sensitivity (i.e. Type A or Type B) in the intervening area between the site and identified barns. The intervening area is described as an area within a 120-degree arc extending from the barn in question toward the site. In accordance with IG

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 454 of 493

7 #12, a 120-degree arc was applied from the closest edge of the barn to the furthest point of the fourth lot for development between the site and each of the barns in question. Barn #3: 4414 Road 38 The property at 4414 Road 38 is located directly west of the site and appears to include a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 28.9 hectares (71.5 acres). As seen in Figure 3, 488 metres separates the barn(s) from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #4: 4413 Road 38 The property at 4413 Road 38 is located approximately 337 metres west of the site (measured from closest lot line of the property to the subject site). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 63.9 hectares (157.8 acres). Figure 3 demonstrates that a distance of 598 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #5: 3861 Quinn Road W The property at 3861 Quinn Road W is located approximately 524 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 520 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. Barn #6: 3849 Quinn Road W The property at 3849 Quinn Road W is located approximately 392 metres west of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a semi-detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres). While there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitive separating the livestock barns from the furthest extent of the property line, all barns on the property are under 10 square metres, as confirmed by the property owner. In accordance with IG #3, MDS 1 setbacks are not required from livestock barns occupying an area less than 10 square metres. Barn #7: 4173 Road 38 The property at 4173 Road 38 is located approximately 481 metres southwest of the site (measured from the closest lot line). The property appears to be occupied by a potential livestock barn(s), multiple accessory structures and a single detached dwelling. The lot area is approximately 17.2 hectares (42.5 acres). Figure 4 demonstrates that a distance of 584 metres separates the barn from the furthest extent of the property line of the fourth lot for development between the barn and the site and there are four intervening properties of equal or greater sensitivity. In accordance with IG #12, the MDS setbacks for livestock facilities at 4414 Road 38, 4413 Road 38, 3861 Quinn Road W, 3849 Quinn Road W, and 4173 Road 38 are limited by the existing lots and do not impact the proposed severances.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 455 of 493

8

Figure 6: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #3 and #4 (Source: Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Figure 7: MDS Setbacks and Intervening Land Uses of Barns #5 and #7 (Ontario Ag Maps, annotated by Fotenn Planning + Design)

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 456 of 493

9 Scoped Natural Heritage Assessment In August 2024, Ecological Services prepared a Natural Heritage Site Assessment (NHA) in support of the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road East. The report assessed the subject site in relation to the proposed development and identified natural heritage features on or adjacent to the site and considered potential impacts of the proposed development. Features that were evaluated included riparian community, woodlands, surface water, fish habitat, and significant wildlife habitat. The NHA concluded that a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement is not required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development. While the property contains mapped unevaluated wetland areas, field investigations determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Additionally, the NHA concluded all potential negative impacts can be ameliorated through mitigation, and that the proposed undertaking will have no negative impact on the natural heritage features or on their ecological functions. The following recommendations for mitigation were provided:

1. Development on the proposed lots and any redevelopment on the retained land should meet a minimum setback of 30 metre from the channel.
2. The land within 30 metre of the channel should not be clearcut and should remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel.
3. No tree removal should be undertaken between April 1 and September 30, to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from the channel, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. Additionally, the tree removal guidelines will be adhered to throughout the proposed development. Hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis A hydrogeological assessment was prepared by BluMetric Environmental Inc., dated April 3, 2025, to evaluate the suitability of private servicing for the proposed severances at 3629 Quinn Road. The assessment evaluated whether the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for the development of single-detached dwellings based on serviceability by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The study inspected the property for shallow groundwater and surface water conditions. Water quality and levels were assessed based on a 6-hour pumping test, and water levels from the wells on the property were monitored during the pumping test to determine interference. These tests demonstrated sufficient supply capacity to meet both peak and daily demand scenarios for four-bedroom households. The study concluded that the proposed lots to be severed are suitable for rural residential development based on servicing by individual private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. Groundwater quality results meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards for health-related parameters, with some aesthetic exceedances for hardness, sodium, and total dissolved solids. These can be addressed through appropriate water treatment systems, including UV sterilization and reverse osmosis. The study recommends the setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots should be at least 45 metres. Overall, the assessment concludes that the proposed development is appropriate and that the risk to groundwater resources can be effectively mitigated through numerous recommended measures. The proposed rural residential development will maintain the 45 metre setback from a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 457 of 493

10 Policy + Regulatory Review Planning Act In considering an application for land severance, the approving body must evaluate the merits of the proposal against Section 53 of the Planning Act, which further requires a review of Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. The criteria relating to the proposed severances are below in italics.

53 (1) An owner or chargee of land, or the owner’s or chargee’s agent duly authorized in writing, may apply for a consent as defined in subsection 50 (1) and the council or the Minister, as the case may be, may, subject to this section, give a consent if satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The proposed consent applications will result in the creation of two new lots. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the subject site. The proposed development maintains orderly linear lot fabrics, with frontage on an existing municipal road.

53 (12) A council or the Minister in determining whether a provisional consent is to be given shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24) and has the same powers as the approval authority has under subsection 51 (25) with respect to the approval of a plan of subdivision and subsections 51 (26) and (27) and section 51.1 apply with necessary modifications to the granting of a provisional consent. Detailed criteria from Section 51(24) are discussed, as follows.

51 (24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality to a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2; The proposed consent demonstrates appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act. It supports the orderly development of rural lands by introducing residential growth in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding land use context. The proposal does not adversely impact any identified natural or cultural heritage resources, and it adheres to environmental best practices, including a 30-metre setback from the onsite watercourse and compliance with hydrogeological recommendations for private servicing. The lot layout is logical and functional, providing sufficient space for dwellings, septic systems, and wells, while maintaining appropriate separation distances. The proposed severances will contribute to the Township’s housing supply and reflect a form of development that upholds public health, safety, and long-term sustainability for future rural residents.

b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

The proposed consent is not premature and is in the public interest as the subject site has direct frontage on an existing public road, and no new municipal infrastructure is required to support the proposed development. Additionally, the lots are in an area with established rural residential development and will be supported by private wells and septic systems, as confirmed by the Hydrogeological Assessment. The assessment demonstrates that the lots can accommodate safe and sustainable private servicing without risk to groundwater quantity or quality. The proposed consent will contribute to local housing supply while preserving the rural character of the area.

c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; Conformity with the County and Township OP is discussed herein. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP states that residential development of a limited scale is permitted in the rural area, aligning with the intent to support a range of housing types while preserving rural character. Section 5.7.4 of the Township OP states that residential development may be permitted in the rural area to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 458 of 493

11 the Township. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding rural context and conforms to both OPs.

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; The proposed consent will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterized by rural uses, including rural residential uses. The severed lots will support the future development of single detached dwellings. The proposal will positively contribute to rural housing availability within the Township. Supporting studies have confirmed that the lands are suitable to support the scale of rural residential development proposed.

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

Both the retained lot and severed lost will maintain frontage on Quinn Road East, which is an existing municipal road maintained by the Township. The establishment of new driveways for the severed lots will be reviewed by the Township through the entrance permit application process. f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; The proposed severed and retained lots meet the general intent of the zoning by-law. An application for minor variance is required to obtain relief from the minimum frontage requirements for both the severed and retained lots. The shape and dimensions of the lots are compatible with residential lots in the surrounding area, being of a rectilinear configuration, and providing sufficient area for functional elements of rural residential development.

g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land; All buildings and structures on the severed and retained parcels will be subject to the performance standards of the Rural (RU) Zone of the Township’s zoning by-law. The consent applications will have conditions to be fulfilled as part of the consent approval process, such as the requirement to obtain entrance permits. There are no known restrictions on adjoining lands the would be impacted by the proposed development.

h) conservation of natural resources and flood control; A scoped NHA was completed in support of this application to evaluate potential impacts on natural heritage features and ecological functions. The NHA concluded that no significant negative impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed severances and future residential development. The report identified natural features in the broader landscape and provided site-specific recommendations to mitigate potential impacts. These recommendations include measures such as maintaining vegetative buffers for the identified watercourses. Future development on the site will be is anticipated to be developed in accordance with the NHA’s recommendations. It is our understanding that the Township can enforce these mitigation measures and separation distances through conditions of consent approval, and or site plan control. Furthermore, no hazards related to floodinghave been identified on the subject site. As such, the proposal supports the conservation of natural resources and does not present any concerns related to flood control.

i)

the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

The severed and retained parcels will be serviced by private wells and sewage systems. Additionally, the new lots will have frontage on Quinn Road East, which is a municipally serviced year-round road, ensuring reliable access for residents. The proposal represents an efficient and appropriate use of existing rural infrastructure without placing additional demand on municipal services

j)

the adequacy of school sites;

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 459 of 493

12 The creation of two new rural residential lots is not anticipated to have an impact on the capacity of local schools.

k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; In accordance with the Planning Act, cash-in-lieu of parkland will be provided. l)

the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supply, efficient use and conservation of energy; and,

The proposed consents will create two new lots from an existing property with frontage on a maintained municipal road. The proposed lots will contribute to the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure.

m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designed under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, 2. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4). Section 5 of the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law 2022-58 states that lands within 90 metres of a waterbody are required to be subject the Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law. As the subject site has two watercourses that transect the site, it may be subjected to a site plan control agreement. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent has proper regard for the criteria found in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) came into effect on October 20, 2024. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Notably, the 2024 PPS sets out policies to increase the supply and mix of housing options in Ontario while maximizing investments in infrastructure and public service facilities and protecting natural areas, agricultural uses and sensitive areas. The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) is reviewed as follows. Sectio 2.5 of the 2024 PPS states that healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by ensuring that new development builds on rural character, conserves biodiversity, and is appropriate for the level of services available. The surrounding area is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses. The proposed severances will not impact the rural character of the area, nor will they impact the functionality or continued use of nearby agricultural uses. Any new development will maintain a 30 metre vegetated buffer from the onsite water channels. Additionally, tree removal will be refrained from between April 1 and September 30 to protect nesting birds and prevent harm to roosting bats. The subject site will be serviced by private wells and onsite septic waste treatment systems. The setback distance between a future raised sewage system and dug wells on the proposed lots will be at least 45 metres as recommended by a Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis study. Section 4 of the PPS gives consideration to the wise use and management of resources that provide economic, environmental, and social benefits. This is achieved through policies that provide for the conservation of biodiversity, protection of the health of the Great Lakes, and protection of natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. No negative impacts to natural or cultural heritage features nor agricultural resources are anticipated to result because of the proposed consent or minor variance, as the subject site is not near any such identified feature or resources. Section 5 of the PPS provides policy guidance on the protection of public health and safety. Section 5 directs development away from naturally-occurring and human-made hazard lands, such as floodplains, erosion-prone areas, former mining and aggregate extraction operations, and other types of contaminated areas. The site is

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 460 of 493

13 located over 1,200 metres from the nearest aggregate operations. There are no known natural hazard concerns on or near the site. No public health or safety concerns are anticipated as a result of the proposed applications as the proposed rural residential development will be located outside of the required 30 metre setback from onsite watercourses, and the vegetated buffer will be maintained. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the 2024 PPS. County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016 consolidation) The County of Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2014 (By-law 2014-0047) and was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2016. The County OP provides a high-level framework for guiding land use changes in the County, providing policy direction on matters regarding economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability. The subject site was evaluated for environmentally significant features to groundtruth GIS mapping of potential woodlands and wetlands. Field investigations during as part of an NHA determined these areas do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. No significant wildlife habitat or species at risk were observed, and nearby woodlands are unlikely to be impacted due to distance and topographic separation. Mitigation measures include maintaining the vegetated buffer, avoiding tree clearing during nesting and roosting seasons, and preserving existing forested areas within the setback. Development on the proposed lots and the retained lands will meet a minimum setback of 30 metres from the channel that runs through the south of the property. Additionally, the land within 30 metres of the channel will not be clearcut and will remain vegetated, to provide a buffer for the channel. Overall, the report concluded that the proposed development will not negatively impact natural heritage features or their ecological functions. Section 3.3.1 of the County OP provides policy direction regarding Rural lands to guide rural development. The proposed consents will support the development of single detached dwellings, which represents a permitted use in the Rural area. Section 3.3.3 of the County OP provides direction specific to residential development, stating that lot creation should take place either through plan of subdivision, plan of condominium, or consent. The proposal consent applications will maintain the rural residential character of the surrounding area, are anticipated to be unobtrusive and blend in with the rural landscape. It is our professional planning opinion that the proposed consent applications and minor variance application are consistent with the policies of the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (2003) The Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (OP) was adopted in 2003, with the most recently publicly available consolidation dated January 23, 2024. The following sections of the current OP, as they relate to this application, are reviewed below (with policies cited in italics): Section 4: Goals and Objectives Section 5: Land Use Policies Section 6: General Policies Section 7: Division of Land Section 8: Implementation Section 4.2 Housing Goal Section 4.2 discusses the Township’s housing goals, aiming to encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality, and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. The proposed consents will result in the creation of two new rural lots in an area characterised by rural and rural residential uses. The new lots will be privately serviced, and their size and layout are compatible with surrounding

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 461 of 493

14 properties. The severed lots will support the development of new locally appropriate housing units, thereby aligning with the OPs housing goal. Section 5 provides policy direction for the land resources within the Township. Seven land use designations are identified. The subject site is designated Rural, as per Schedule A in the Township of South Frontenac OP.

Figure 8: Land Use Designation (Source: Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, Schedule A - Land Use Plan) Section 5.7 Rural The Rural land designation provides policy direction for lands characterized by a rural landscape which reinforces the historical relationship between the Settlement Areas and the surrounding farm, rural, and seasonal residential communities. Permitted land uses in the Rural designation include but are not limited to rural residential, agriculture, open space, and conservation. Section 5.7.4 provides policies specifically related to the provision of rural residential uses on Rural designated lands in the Township:

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 462 of 493

15 5.7.4 Rural Residential Polices (excluding Limited Service Residential) It is the general intent of this Plan that the majority of permanent non-agricultural residential development be encouraged to locate in the Township’s Settlement Areas. However, limited non-agricultural residential development may also be permitted within the Rural area so as to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of the Township. Subdivisions and severances to permit new residential uses shall be appropriately separated from incompatible agricultural areas, existing and proposed waste disposal, mineral extraction site and resource areas, natural heritage features and areas and natural hazards.

The proposed development aligns with Section 5.7.4 of the OP, which permits limited non-agricultural residential development in the Rural area to support housing diversity. The two new lots are suitably separated from incompatible uses such as active agricultural operations, waste disposal sites, and natural hazards, as confirmed through the MDS Study and Scoped NHA. The proposal maintains the rural character of the area while providing additional housing options in a manner consistent with the intent of the OP.

5.7.4(i) Rural Residential development including group homes established in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.5, home occupations and home industries may be permitted in the form of single detached dwellings developed on lots created by plan of subdivision or severance by the Committee of Adjustment in accordance with the policies of this plan. The proposed development will result in the creation of two lots through the consent process, configured to support the future development of a single detached dwelling on each lot.

5.7.4(ii) Rural Development Policies a) The frontage, size and shape of any lot for rural residential purposes created through the severance approval process shall be appropriate for the proposed use and shall conform with the provisions of the zoning by-law. As a rule, the minimum lot size shall be 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road for non-waterfront lots and I hectare (2.5 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on a public road and 91 metres (300 ft.) of water frontage for waterfront lots. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained.

The surrounding area supports a range of frontages, and the proposed lots are in keeping with the lot fabric within the neighbouring area. The proposal will create appropriately sized and shaped rural residential lots that are well suited to the intended non-waterfront single detached dwelling use. Each lot exceeds the minimum area requirement of 0.8 hectares and provides sufficient space for private servicing, access, and appropriate setbacks. Township staff have confirmed that the reduced frontage can be appropriately addressed through a minor variance rather than requiring an Official Plan Amendment. The proposal maintains the broader goals of the OP and contributes to more rural housing options.

b)

Rural Residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems approved by the appropriate authority.

The proposed lots will be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems. The provision of dug wells and septic system is supported by the submitted hydrogeological Assessment & Terrain Analysis. Septic permits will be submitted for review and approval in advance of the residential development of each proposed lot. c)

New lots for rural residential purposes should be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with lot creation policies included in Section 7 of this Plan. However, a maximum of three rural residential severances may be permitted from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan by Council in accordance with the lot creation policies of Section 7 of this Plan when the consent approval authority is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not warranted. Any proposal which would create more than three new lots (three plus a retained) from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan shall only be considered by plan of subdivision.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac

Page 463 of 493

16 The proposed development will result in the creation of two new lots (two plus a retained) from an existing lot. Therefore, a plan of subdivision is not appropriate, nor required.

d)

All new rural residential lots shall have public road frontage.

The new residential lots will have public road frontage on Quinn Road East. 6.2 Development Policies Section 6.2 outlines policies for future development for the Township.

All types of future development shall occur on the basis of the submission and approval of registered plans of subdivision, land severances by consent of the Committee of Adjustment and/or amendments to the implementing zoning by-law. Residential development should primarily occur by registered plan of subdivision. However, development may occur by consent in accordance with the applicable policies of this plan when a plan of subdivision in the opinion of the Municipality clearly is not necessary to ensure orderly development, taking into consideration the social, economic and environmental impacts.

The proposed severances conform to Section 6.2 of the OP, which permits residential development by consent where a registered plan of subdivision is not deemed necessary to achieve orderly development. In this case, the creation of two additional rural residential lots can be appropriately facilitated through the consent process. Technical studies, including hydrogeological and environmental assessments, confirm that the lots can be adequately serviced by private wells and septic systems, and that the development will have no adverse environmental impacts. While the proposed severances do not meet the minimum frontage requirements of the zoning by-law, relief is being sought through a concurrent minor variance application. The reduction in frontage is not anticipated to impact the functionality, safety, or rural character of the area. As such, the proposed development represents an efficient use of rural land that maintains consistency with the broader goals of orderly, environmentally responsible growth. Section 6.17 Site Plan Control Section 6.17 established Site Plan Control applicability criteria. all land within 90 metres (295 feet) of a waterbody (primarily water front lots) including land used (g)

for residential purposes;

The subject site is not a water front lot but still may be subject to site plan control in accordance with Section 6.17, as the subject lands are located within 90 metres of a waterbody. This policy framework is intended to ensure that development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner, minimizing impacts on adjacent properties and protecting water quality. However, the supporting technical studies, including the NHS and Hydrogeological Assessment, have comprehensively addressed site-specific environmental conditions, servicing feasibility, and appropriate development setbacks. These studies provide a clear framework for protecting water quality, maintaining ecological buffers, and ensuring sustainable rural development. Section 6.23 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS) Section 6.23 outlines Minimum Distance Separation Formulate (MDS) requirements.

All new farm and non-farm development in the Township shall comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae (MDS I and II) as may be amended from time to time.

The proposed development has been evaluated against the MDS I formulae, as it involves the creation of new rural residential lots. A detailed MDS Study was completed, as summarized herein, identifying nearby livestock operations and calculating required setbacks in accordance with OMAFRA’s Publication 853. The analysis confirmed that all proposed lots and associated sensitive development comply with the required separation distances, either through meeting the calculated setback or by applying the provisions of Implementation Guideline #12, which considers intervening sensitive land uses. As such, the proposed development meets the intent of Section 6.23 by ensuring appropriate separation from agricultural uses and maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Consent + Minor Variance

3629 Quinn Road East, South Frontenac