Published December 8, 2015

Word Count 12847 words

Reading Time 61 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: December 8, 2015 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2015/Committee of the Whole - 08 Dec 2015 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

6:00 PM, Tuesday, December 8, 2015 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session

(a)

Move into Closed Session to discuss litigation

(b)

Litigation

***Recess - reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for Open Session

Delegations

(a)

Katie Nolan, Development Advisor, OMAFRA, re: Economic Development

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Possible Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 14, Concession IX, Bedford District

17 - 25

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Proposed Collins Lake Estates Plan of Subdivision, Part Lots 25 to 30, Concession VII, Storrington

26 - 28

(c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Johnston Point OMB Appeal

29 - 30

(d)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Scope for Organizational Review

31 - 32

(e)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Delegation at ROMAOGRA

Reports for Information

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

Information Items

(a)

Arthur Jordan, C.D., Honorary Lieutenant-General, The Princess of Wales’ Own Regiment, re: Passchendaele Lane

3 - 16

Page 2 of 57

(b)

Gary McNamara, AMO President, re: Aid for Syrian Refugees

(c)

Around the Rideau Newsletter - November /December 2015

36 - 37

(d)

AMO Communication, re: AMO and UQM to Collaborate on Climate Action

38 - 39

(e)

Linda Williamson, Director of Communications, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, re: Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act 2014

40 - 41

(f)

Ontario News - Ontario Passes Legislation to Promote Smart Community Growth

42 - 44

(g)

Andrew Schmidt, Development Review Manager, CRCA, re: response to Matt Rennie-Applewood Communal Dock

45 - 47

(h)

Matt Rennie, re: Applewood Communal Dock

48 - 49

(i)

Helen Bartsch, re: Concerns with Johnston Point Draft Approval

50 - 53

(j)

Brian Ward, Vice President, Battersea Loughborouh Lake Association,re: Proposed Johnston Point Development: Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Draft Approval

54 - 55

(k)

Gary Gordon, President, Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, re: Large Scale Renewable Projects.

56 - 57

Notice of Motions

Announcements

Question of clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

Economic Development in South Frontenac Katie Nolan Agriculture and Rural Economic Development Advisor Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs December 8, 2015

Page 3 of 57

The Spectrum of Economic Development Activities Community Revitalization

Workforce Development

Business Development

Investment Attraction

Other Activities

Marketing & Communications

Focused Sector Development Research & Info. Management

Page 4 of 57

Planning & Infrastructure Development

Programs, Resources and Tools To Help • • • • • • • • •

Page 5 of 57

Economic Development Strategic Planning Facilitation CED 101 Workshops & Matrix Tool Analyst Tool for Economic Analysis First Impressions Community Exchange (FICE) Business Retention and Expansion Program (BR+E) Newcomer and Youth Community Indicators Performance Measures Resource (PMR) Downtown Revitalization (DR) Funding Programs

Economic Development: A 4 Stage Process STAGE II

PREPARATION

COLLECT DATA & ANALYZE

STAGE IV

STAGE III

IMPLEMENT & MONITOR

DEVELOP GOALS & ACTION PLANS

Page 6 of 57

STAGE I

STAGE I: PREPARATION • Assess Readiness: people, time, money, partnerships, community support • Build a team: identify coordinator, invite collaborators • Create preliminary vision and work plan • Complete community self assessment exercises • What is already happening? Complete CED Activity Matrix • Gathering/summarizing background material (e.g. FICE, plans/initiatives at county level) Page 7 of 57

STAGE I: PREPARATION OMAFRA Resources to Help: Strategic Planning Guide Facilitation Support (visioning, establishing goals) Resources to Assess Readiness: Municipal Readiness Test for Economic Development BR+E Readiness Self-Assessment CED 101 Workshops & Matrix Tool Teeny Tiny Places (summit to be held Winter 2016) Economic Development Best Practices for very small towns

Page 8 of 57

STAGE II: COLLECT & ANALYZE

Elements of Investment Readiness • Gathering Data and interpreting what it means in your community • Eg. Economy overview, main industries, economic base, opportunities and trends, commutershed and tourism outlook

• Use Analyst tool from OMAFRA, StatsCan data and Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sort • Have a “data party” for analysis, to answer the question “So What?”

Page 9 of 57

STAGE II: COLLECT & ANALYZE

Elements of Investment Readiness OMAFRA Resources to Help: Analyst Tool for Economic Analysis Staff support for using that tool First Impressions Community Exchange (FICE) Business Retention and Expansion Program (BR+E)

Page 10 of 57

STAGE III: DEVELOP GOALS AND ACTION PLANS • • • •

All of the information collected is analyzed; Issues and goals are established. Actions are identified to achieve the specified goals. Detailed “Action Plan” is prepared identifying: • • • • •

Page 11 of 57

Tasks to be completed Lead and support roles Resources required Timeline How success will be measured (should be consistent with the vision developed in Stage I)

STAGE III: DEVELOP GOALS AND ACTION PLANS OMAFRA Resources to Help: Goals could include: Business Retention + Expansion project First Impressions Community Exchange Downtown Revitalization approach And more… Performance Measurement Resource How will you measure success? Should refer back to the vision development in Stage 1

Page 12 of 57

STAGE IV: IMPLEMENT & MONITOR (2 years)

•

Implement Action Plans

•

Monitor and track progress

•

Communicate results

•

Implement Performance Measurement framework – Think about how you will measure success

Page 13 of 57

STAGE IV: IMPLEMENT & MONITOR (2 years) OMAFRA Resources to Help: •

Funding Programs (Rural Economic Development)

•

Performance Measurement Resource (Implementation of Framework)

Page 14 of 57

Keep in Mind… •

Resource capacity should dictate the goals •

•

There are “quick wins”, and these help maintain momentum •

•

Some readiness elements are easy to fix

Without a strong plan, and capacity for implementation, grant funding is unlikely Page 15 of 57

“Don’t bite off more than you can chew!”

Thank you! Questions?

Page 16 of 57

Page 17 of 57

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: December 8, 2015 Date of Report: December 4, 2015 Subject: Possible Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 14, Concession IX, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac: Amey

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee consider a request for the purchase of 100 acres of land owned by the Township.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a proposal to purchase land from the Township and to explain the process for sale of property.

Background Doug Amey, a Township resident, has brought forward a request to purchase a vacant 100 acre property owned by the Township. The property abuts land that is already owned by Mr. Amey that is also 100 acres in size. Attachment #1 shows the location of the Township-owned land and the abutting land owned by Mr. Amey. Attachment #2 is a letter from Mr. Amey’s lawyer requesting Council’s consideration of the sale. It should be noted that staff are not clear as to how the Township-owned property came into the Township’s ownership, although it may have been related to unpaid taxes in the past. Council and staff have been dealing with this matter for more than a year – the issue being that Mr. Amey’s land is essentially land-locked and is accessible only through an unopened road allowance from Canoe Lake Road – a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometres. The abutting Township-owned land is also land locked and is accessible only by way of this road allowance. Attachment #3 shows Mr. Amey’s land, the Township land and the unopened road allowance. The attachment shows two problems with the present use of the unopened road allowances to access Mr. Amey’s land as follows:

The road allowance is aligned through a wetland and a waterbody making access physically very difficult.
A number of farm buildings and uses associated with the abutting land appear to be located on the road allowance near Canoe Lake Road causing difficulty for passage through the road allowance. Attachment #4 shows the encroaching uses in more detail. The matter came before the Committee of the Whole on January 27, 2015 where the Committee appeared to be favourable to the sale of the land and directed that a public meeting be held on the sale as required, however, the Committee also required that the land be evaluated by a professional property appraiser before going forward. Accordingly, on November 25, 2015, the Planning Department was advised by Weatherby Real Estate Limited that the value of the subject land is $34,000.00.

Process If Council wishes to sell surplus property, there is a requirement to pass a by-law declaring the property to be surplus and to give notice to the public of the proposed sale. An appraisal of the fair market value of the property is also required (which is now completed). Attachment #5 explains the procedure for notice of sale of municipal lands.

Page 18 of 57 As noted, the Committee appeared favourable to the sale in January and required that the land be appraised. This has now been done, however, since the matter was last seen by the Committee almost a year ago, staff are bringing this report forward as a reminder and are seeking to confirm that we still wish to proceed with the public meeting and to sell the property. attachments Amey2015ReportToCofW2

Page 19 of 57

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #1 lir j ( / S ll’l Q l ,1 ' o’l .. % ' i .u. ‘1 1 Jz [woire tahe -, . ’ : .; i s < 1, l i’l 11}

Sr l l2 -/l/ P( W" E’

‘S iil

1 w-.r (’-’s/ ‘! l{ ‘S . ‘1 IY " Butlerrll Lake ‘1 l:S:l-’l }

t,!

“i

1, S

s’t’., " ’laatj ‘i h i , ss I l s) l Ifii V{ ii i ii’ " ,S s l'1 11 } , h rl sl ii

-’%

0 ii . Oc

li1 }l

–

S l :

J,,- – il

‘i’l

.1. ;r==..<.-1, I I -§ 11 “} S ::”-=, IS /’, :al —–, {} [ k, ‘) -‘11/ a– ‘.’ di11/ ‘il

li }%

’l

11 l!t TownshipOwnedLand [ ,) ‘ia

-P

‘, –.-.-, cbnoel e ‘iii Lrttle W

‘) 5% 1,Amey Owned Land 11 n tave ‘. ‘-’–” ' SS 1I ’l l i ee’, !l

11 :1 1l : .1 Sl 11

)i l,, i i Folsom Lake " s . l i i ;

‘i

l —o -i ’ k(l’ o’,,’ n-"-sl ’ ,’ 11 .i-=t, r l’ " :— i .k>’’ il(. lr I’i 17-.-,j -1[ iil -

tLa’k-h

l ii

l i

li l

, 11

l’ .O 11 PaddyB Lake O 1l '

. ll 7 ; iiii 11, 1’SS § , li

‘il 11 -2 ,,i-

liii 1

/ l % l i ‘S 11. ’t Tho *1 ,i" / ’l ‘1, 11 li

‘1,

‘1 -’—‘S-,0 i’i1, ‘(’-,,,@ o < 11

’ ; 1. 1,.

l’

0 0.25 0.5 l

1 1 Kilometers

E55/81/2814 11:54

?‘ma-?"‘a’ATTACHMENT #2

Page 20 of 57

GORDON Y. lcD?5 B.Com. (uons.), J.D. v 7tsmvrsx .gt sox.zmox

ASSOCIATE: .mpr$ A. MILLARD, amu:m:m a sox,rcmx TELEP}ION’EI - 613-546-3274

3 RjDEAU STRHm’, P.0. BOX 10?0

FAX - 613-546-1493

KNGSTON, ONTARIO K7L 4X8

NEW KMAn,!

‘.e*

jmilla'rd@ridemusbwtlmw.s

Real Kmte: resl

‘*al

May 1, 2014

Via Fax: 613-3'76-6657

Township of South Fmntenac

Plamiing Departknent 4432 George Street PO Box 100

Sydenham, Onta;rio KOH 2T0

ATTENTION: MS m LEVAC -

ASSISTANT

Dear Ms Levac:

Re: West ;pff,Jat ;1,4,ConceBston ‘)

oj Bedford, ,South ]?tenme ’lownship

As you know, I mn the solicitor $r Douglas J. Amey Jr. of Invermy. He advises me that he had a recent discussion with you about 4e possibility of his acqii riny from the Township the West HalfofLot 14 C(5noessiorl 9, Distict 0$dford (PIN 36245-0033). Tbat parcel ofland i8 direetly north of a property that Mr. Amay %y owns in the West H.alf of Lot 13 Concession 9. It is our understanding that in ord0r for a conveymice of the land to take place, the Township must first deem the land to be ?surplus’; and then the Township must comply with the rules and regulations for selling sutplus lands. I am writ% to you to formally relluest kt you begin thc process that could ultimately lead

to a sale of this property to Mr. Arney.

I wouldand be; room appreci aadvi ttvesief yo0 woul d keep meother informed of theonsteps that are beirengintaken iton thicommence s regard, i f you woul d m4 i f there i s any i n formati tbat you requi order this process.

Page 21 of 57

Page 22 of 57

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #4 N

W-E s

Encroaching Land Uses

1 '

I 40/ ;

Unopened Road Allowance

k M hm Ll

!i '

' 1 0 0.025 0.05 0.1 Kilometers

#r 4T *attaf ?rrdr( Yj i TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 1999.25 A BY-LAW TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY ?N THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC.

WHEREAS Section 193 of the Municipal Act, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter M.45, as amended, requires Council to establish by by-law procedures, including the giving of notice to the public, governing the sale of real property owned by the municipality, and the establishing and maintaining of a public register listing and describing all real property owned or leased by the municipality. ?.

NOW THEREFORE THF, CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, H’EREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

sr this by-law,

(a) “appraisal” shall mean an evaluation of the farm market value of real property;

(b)

“Clerk” shall mean the Clerk of the municipality;

(c)

“Council” shall mean the Clerk of the municipality;

(d)

“fair market value” shall mean the amount that woukl be realized by the

sale of real property by a willing vendor to a wffling purchaser. (e)

“municipality” shall mean the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac.

(f)

“real property” shall mean land and vice versa;

(g)

“sale” shall mean the mtention or wilungness to: (i) transfer in fee simple ownership of and title to real property; or (ii) grmit a permanent easement or right of way over real property; or (Ui) grantaleaseholdinterestinrealpropertyforatermof21yearsor longer;

from the municipality to another person, with or without consideration. 2. Prior to the sale of any real property owned by the municipality, Council shall, (a) by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public declare the real property to be surplus; (b) obtainnotsoonerthanone(l)yearbefonethedateofsaleatleastone appraisal of the fa# market value of the real property from such person as the Clerk considers quafified; and (c)

give notice to the public of the proposed sale in the manner prescribed by this by-law.

Notice to the public of a proposed sale of real property owned by the municipality shall be given prior to the date of the sale;

(a) by publication in a newspaper that is, in the Clerk’s opinion, of sufficiently general paid or unpaid cmulation within the municipality to give the public reasonable notie of the proposed sale; or

(b) in the cas? of a proposed sak according to any other procedure prescribed by the A%icipal Act or any other Act, in the manner prescribed.

Page 23 of 57

Page 24 of 57

Despite the requirement of Clause 2(b) of this by-law, the municipa?ity may sell

;y"of -the -fouowing classes of real property without first obtaining an appraisal:

(a) land O.3 metres or less in width acquired in connection with an approval or

decision or decision under the Plannmg Act, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter P. 13, as amended;

(b)

highways, roads and mad allowances;

(c)

land formerly used for railway branch lmes if sold to an owner of land abutting the former railway land;

(d)

land that does not have direct access to a highway if sokl to the owner of land abuttmg that land;

(e) land repurchased by an owner m accordance with Section 42 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter E.42, as amended; (f) land designated in the municipality’s Official Plan for use as sites for the establishment and carrying on of industries and of industrial operations and incidental uses;

(g) land sold:

(i) for the purpose of a program to encourage small business pursuant to Section 112 of the Mpnicipal %%; (ii) the sale of land to a Community Economic Development

Corporation pursuant to Section ll2.lof the Municipal Act; (iii) the sale of land to a Community Development Corporation pursuant to Section 112.2 of the Municipal Act; (iv) thesaleoflandasagrantpursuanttoSectionll3oftheMunicipal ?; (h) easements granted to pub?ic utilities or to telephone companies;

(i) land sokl under the Municipal Tax 5al@s Act, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter M.60. s.

Despite the reqiiirements of clause 2 (b) of the by-law, the municipality may sell any real property owned by it to any one of the fouowmg classes of public bodies without first obtaining an appraisal: (a) any municipality, including a metropolitan, regional or district municipality and the County of Oxford; (b) a local board as defined in the Muniqipal Mfa3y6 Aqi, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter M.46; (e) an authority under the Cgns@rv@$in Authqri}ies 4qt, R.S.0. 1990, Chapter C. 27;

(d) The Crown In Right of Ontario or of Canada and their agencies. 6.

The requmements of clause 2 of this by-law shall not apply to lands sold or otherwise disposed of under an agreement for providing municipal capital facilities pursuant to section 210.1(2) of the Municipal Act.

Page 25 of 57

The Clerk shall establish and maintain a public register fisting and describing all real property owned or leased by the municipa?ity and which shoukl, to the extent that it is reasonably possible, include the fouowing information. (a) a brief legal description of the property; (b) the assessment rol? number of the real property; (c) the municipal address of the real property, if available; (d) the date of purchase;

(e) the name of the person from whom the property was purchased; (f) Ihe,ins’$mem q4m,ber of the Transfer/Deed by which title was transferred to fue ?unlClpaui)’,

(g)

the purchase price of the real property:

(h)

a brief description of improvement, if any, on the real property;

the date of sale of the property;

(j)

the name of the person to whom the property was sold;

(k)

the sale price of the real property;

Despite the provisions of clause 7, the Clerk is not required to list the following classes of real property in tm pubuc register:

(a) lands O.3 metres or less in width acquired in connection wkh an approval or decision under the Planning Act; (b)

all highways, roads and road allowances, whether or not opened, unopened, closed or stopped up;

(c)

land formerly used for railway branch lines;

(d)

lands sold under an agreement for the providing of municipal capital facilities pursuant to section 210.1(2) of the Municipal Aqt.

Every Transfer/Deed of real property so?d by the municipality shall include a Certificate of Complianz issued by the Clerk in the form prescribed by the Regulations to the Muniqipal Act.

This by-law shall not apply to the sale of any land owned by the municipality for uih:rh ts January Tllw.lll#.. 1la’, at whichonanotwvhhrvsan agreementssirse wasavsaraA entered:n*ts intoktyby+km thews,x:t:mhl:i**w municipality u,Atsn prior to 1998.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed.

Dated aJt-}M{ thJ day of 60 t <-

, 1999.

Readanrstandseoondtimethisddayof?&?zl ,1999. Rmd a thinl Ume and finally pamed this ?tA?“day or, 442 IL- , 1999. THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Mayor

],A’

? Clerk d r 71 l’

Page 26 of 57

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: December 8, 2015 Date of Report: December 3, 2015 Applicant: Maybach Group Inc. Subject: Review of Collins Lake Estates Plan of Subdivision: Part Lots 25 to 30, Concession VII, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information the Planning Report dated December 3, 2015 introducing a new proposed Plan of Subdivision development in Storrington District.

Background On November 17, 2015 the Planning Department was notified that an application for a plan of subdivision was submitted to the County of Frontenac. Also on November 17, 2015, a rezoning application was submitted to the Township to re-zone the lands proposed to be subdivided. The proposed development would be for fifty-one residential estate lots with a minimum area of 8,000 m2 (2 ac.) and with minimum frontages of 55 metres. The lots would range in size from 2 acres to 4.62 acres. The proposal was brought to a pre-consultation meeting at the County of Frontenac on January 19, 2015 involving all relevant commenting agencies including Township staff. Preliminary comments on the proposal were offered from all in attendance.

Discussion The subject land is approximately 348 hectares (860 ac.) in size. It is bounded by Holmes Road on the north, Perth Road on the west, Spooner Road on the south and Lakefield Drive and Collins Lake on the east. The land is vacant. Only a portion of the subject lands would be developed at this time as a Phase 1 development with future phases proposed sometime at a future date. The present development would comprise 54 hectares (133 ac.) of the total land holdings. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject land and Attachment #2 shows the fifty-one development layout. As shown on Attachment #2 the lots would be accessed from new streets to be constructed and dedicated to the Township as public roads. The new roads tend to line up with existing roads on the other side of Lakefield Drive in the Lyons landing subdivision. The following reports and materials have been submitted is support of the subdivision:Environmental Impact Assessment Functional Servicing Report Hydrogeological Report Archaeological Assessment Stormwater Management Analysis

Conclusion At this point in time the subdivision application is still being processed at the County and has not yet been received at the Township. The purpose of this report is to advise Council at an early stage that the development is planned. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments CollinsLakeSubdivisionPresentationToCouncil

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Page 27 of 57

Page 28 of 57

Page 29 of 57

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW:

December 8, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

December 2, 2015

SUBJECT: Johnston Point OMB appeal ECOMMENDATION: For direction BACKGROUND: At the December 1 meeting Council dealt with three resolutions related to this proposal: • A motion to amend was carried that amended the draft plan conditions to remove lot 15 and designate it as common element open space • A motion to defer was defeated • The original motion as amended (see above) to approve draft plan conditions was defeated The result is that there is no direction from Council to staff and legal counsel with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal. The settlement that was originally presented for adoption on December 1 is a result of without prejudice negotiation, which means that it may not be before the OMB for consideration. The developer has already filed an appeal to the OMB and his original submission (excluding all the changes detailed in the draft conditions that were defeated) is proceeding before the Board. The OMB has scheduled a 5 day full hearing for April 4, 2016. To date Council’s only direction on this issue has been in closed session and that resulted in the recommended conditions attached to the December 1 report (including attachments) as the Township’s conditions of Draft Plan Approval. While the developer has been asked for a response to the elimination of lot 15, preliminary indications from the developer’s consult are not favourable. Council needs to consider its options carefully. Should Council wish to reconsider the decision made on December 1, the process outlined in the Procedural Bylaw needs to be followed or Council needs to suspend the rules as permitted by section 2.6 (j) of the Procedural Bylaw. Section 2.6 (g) of the Procedural Bylaw states: (g)

RECONSIDERATION

i) A member who voted with the prevailing side may move for reconsideration at the same meeting as follows: If the motion to reconsider receives a seconder, the motion for reconsideration shall be open to debate and voted upon. The motion will require the votes of two thirds of members present to pass.

Page 30 of 57

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

If adopted, the motion to reconsider temporarily nullifies the previous decision. The main motion originally voted on is again pending. The motion may now be amended or considered as moved and voted upon. Example:

Original Motion → Vote
Motion to Reconsider → Vote
Reconsideration of main motion (it may now be amended)→ Vote ii) If a member who voted on the prevailing side presents a motion for reconsideration at a subsequent meeting, the motion must be preceded by a notice of motion. At the subsequent meeting, the motion to reconsider follows the same process, as noted above. It will require a two thirds majority vote of the members present to carry. Example: Meeting #1 → Meeting #2 → Meeting #3 → Meeting #3 →

Vote on original motion Notice of Motion to be received Motion to Reconsider to be voted on Matter for Reconsideration to be voted on

No matter may be reconsidered more than once in a twelve-month period. A notice of motion for reconsideration will not stop or delay action on the decided matter unless Council agrees otherwise. In this case, Council must approve the injunction by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. If Council approves a motion to reconsider, the reconsideration will become the next order of business, unless the motion calls for a future definite date. Debate on the matter shall proceed as though it had not been previously voted upon. The debate must be confined to reasons for or against reconsideration only. If a member who voted to defeat the amended motion (the third resolution that was dealt with by Council) wished to serve notice of motion for reconsideration, it could be done at the COW meeting on December 8 meeting. Following the above procedure the motion would then need a 2/3 majority of Council in favour of reconsidering the motion at the December 15 meeting (or an earlier special meeting if called). If successful the Amended motion would then be open for debate, further amendments and vote. Failing any action by Council on reconsideration, Council will need to provide the Township solicitor direction (in closed session) on how to proceed with the appeal already scheduled before the OMB.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 31 of 57

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW:

December 2, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

December 8, 2015

SUBJECT: Scope for Organizational Review RECOMMENDATION: For direction BACKGROUND: At the December 1 meeting Council approved the 2016 budget. The budget includes up to $45,000 for the completion of an organizational review. Before an RFP is issued Council is asked to comment on the scope of services that have been drafted and provided below.

Recognizing that South Frontenac functions in many ways like a single tier municipality with no upper tier support for roads, policing or solid waste; comment on the political structure, the constraints, challenges and opportunities this represents Gain an understanding of the current Council’s strategic priorities through interviews with all members of Council Through comparison to 3-5 similar lower tier municipalities with comparable: geographic size, households, population, level of taxation, development activity and service levels: • Review decision making model and processes for Council and its Committees and offer recommendations on best practice, while considering staffing implications • Document obligatory, discretionary and best practice; activities and services for all departments • Document obligatory, discretionary and best practice; levels of service and infrastructure required (i.e.: cheque processing frequency, development timelines, road maintenance standards, number of buildings, parks, etc.) • Review, comment and make recommendations on Council – Staff relations Gain an understanding of the current organizational priorities and challenges through interviews with all members of management, supervisors, lead hands, office based staff and the union president. Through comparison to 3-5 similar lower tier municipalities with comparable: geographic size, households, population, level of taxation, development activity and services levels: • Review the Townships current organizational structure, roles and reporting relationships in light of both job descriptions and actual functions performed • Comment on the efficiency of the existing structure, operations and decision making process and identify opportunities for improvement within each work unit including the restructuring of existing systems

Page 32 of 57

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT • • • • • • •

Recommend a revised organizational chart and identify the changes required to the job descriptions Review and comment on established levels of accountability, and the recommended tool for managing this Comment on identified gaps in services delivery and strategic priorities and from where and how resources could be allocated to these Given the scope of the Township comment on alternative service delivery models for services, including shared service models and contracted work Comment on low value work that is being done that could be changed or eliminated Comment on opportunities for cost savings balanced against service level expectations Comment on implementation considerations and obligations including staffing, pay equity, legal issues, compensation practices, hours of work etc.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 33 of 57

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW:

December 8, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

December 2, 2015

SUBJECT: Delegation at ROMA-OGRA RECOMMENDATION: For direction BACKGROUND: Each year at the joint Rural Ontario Municipal Association – Ontario Good roads Association (ROMA/OGRA) conference in February, Provincial Ministries receive delegations. In the recent past the Township has appeared speaking on behalf of the joint efforts of the Frontenacs and the need for the demands of downloaded Provincial Highways to be recognized and that we receive the opportunity to apply for grants that upper tiers municipalities would be eligible for elsewhere in the Province. While the Ministry has acknowledged the unique situation in the Frontenacs, it has yet to take definitive action. This year staff are recommending that a request for delegation status be submitted with the following focus: • • •

Sunbury Road as an EDR The disappointing results from repeated OCIF grant requests because we are good fiscal stewards of municipal funds and The continued need to recognize the former Provincial Highways for unique funding given no upper tier responsibility for roads.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 34 of 57 ^- -

.^A

.’e

The Princess of Wales’ Own Regiment 100 Montreal Street

Kingston, Ontario K7K 3E8 1000-1 (HLCol) 26 November 2015

Mayor and Council South Frontenac Township 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO Mayor Vanderwal:

I recently learned of the decision by South Frontenac Township Council to name a private lane in honour of the World War 1 Battle Honour “Passchendaele”. I wanted to express to

you and your Council members how pleased I was to hear this. The Princess of Wales’ Own *

Regiment is the region’s oldest continuously serving military organization, with a history predating confederation. As part of its heritage, the Regiment perpetuates the 21st Battalion Canadian Expeditionary Force and we proudly carry the battle honour “Passchendaele” on our Regimental Colours.

A century ago men from all across the region, including from the communities in South Frontenac, went to serve in this horrifying conflict. I am certain this decision resonates strongly with many residents of South Frontenac Township. Indeed, a number of our current

officers and soldiers have roots in, or are residents of South Frontenac Township. We are very honoured by the decision of Council to commemorate this event with the naming of a private lane. It is particularly touching as my own grandfather served with the 21st Battalion during this War.

On behalf of the members of the Princess of Wales’ Own Regunent, past and present, please extend my appreciation to all members of Council. I would also commend your planner, Mr. Lindsey Mills, for his expertise and assistance with this project. Kind Regards, /

/;-

(^^^ /

“/ ^

/ ,^

Arthur Jordan, C.D. Honorary Lieutenant-CoIonel The Princess of Wales’ Own Regiment

Page 35 of 57

Sent via e-mail: worr@southfrontenac.net November 26, 2015 Wayne Orr CAO/Clerk Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Dear Mr. Orr: On behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, please accept my heartfelt thanks for your municipality’s donation that will help aid Syrian refugees to resettle and find safe haven in Ontario. Your generosity and those of other AMO members will make a difference in the lives of the families we will help save. Our fundraising goal was $40,000 to support two families to come to Ontario. I am pleased that we have surpassed our target and raised $67,540.00 to date and donations continue to come in. All proceeds will be donated to Lifeline Syria which plans to resettle 1,000 families to Ontario. I understand that many municipal councils across the province are mobilizing in their communities to help the refugees in a variety of ways both financially and non-financially. It is heartening to see Ontario’s community laying out the welcome mat to those in need. I encourage you to keep up the efforts that will make such a difference in the lives of the refugee families. Yours sincerely,

Gary McNamara AMO President

200 University Ave. Suite 801 Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6

www.amo.on.ca

Tel

amopresident@amo.on.ca

Fax 416. 971.6191

971.9856

Toll Free in Ontario 877.426.6527

Page 36 of 57

November | December 2015

Infrastructure Update

Rainbow Bridge showing the rocky ramp and inflatable cofferdam

Haggart Island Dam Decommissioning Work is now complete on decommissioning the weir under the Rainbow Bridge in Stewart Park (Town of Perth). The old weir has been replaced with a rocky ramp, which is an innovative dam replacement option and river restoration technique. The ramp allows the Tay River to “flow split” into channels which help alleviate flooding in the park. This restoration technique allows for better fish habitat and fish passage as well. The ramp maintains historic upstream water levels that are important to the community while still being aesthetically pleasing. Canoeists and kayakers can now safely navigate downstream. This project is a good balance between community and environmental needs while being a great alternative and innovative method to decommission old and failing dams. One of the construction highlights was the use of an inflatable cofferdam, which enabled work to be completed safety and efficiently with the least impact on the river. MIKE can give you more information at ext. 1176 or michael.yee@rvca.ca.

Motts Mills dam replacement — earthen berm with arched steel pipe culverts and two drop inlet water control structure on the far side

Motts Mills Dam Replacement Work to decommission the failing, 63-year-old dam located just off County Road 1 in Elizabethtown-Kitley is now complete. Ducks Unlimited Canada guided construction which saw the installation of an large clay berm across the creek. Within the berm, trenches were dug for two steel and concrete water level control devices (drop inlet structures) and two large arched steel pipe culverts; together these will control water levels in Hutton Marsh. Once these structures were installed the berm was backfilled. Final touches to the project were the installation of erosion blankets. A beaver baffler was also installed to discourage our national animal from building dams in the area. The old concrete dam will be partially dismantled while heavy equipment is still on site. Contact JASON for more information at ext. 1152 or jason.hutton@rvca.ca.

Britannia Flood Control Project

Britannia Flood Control Project — construction underway

The warmer than normal fall weather has allowed for great progress in construction of the Britannia Village Flood Control Project. The project will protect parts of the Britannia Village community from future Ottawa River floods. Construction is slated for completion late next summer. Updates on the project will appear in upcoming Around the Rideaus and at www.rvca.ca. Contact TERRY for more information at ext. 1107 or terry.davidson@rvca.ca.

Page 37 of 57 November | December 2015

David Bartlett Park showing one of the new public access points

Shoreline Improvements at David Bartlett Park Completed A recent partnership between the City of Ottawa and RVCA has resulted in a successful shoreline restoration project at Manotick’s David Bartlett Park. For years, the park’s steep shoreline has experienced significant erosion resulting in soil washing into the river, deteriorating water quality and fish habitat. The project improves access to the river by re-grading and reinforcing the shoreline at two locations. New fencing has been installed directing park users towards access points. Trees and shrubs have been planted to stabilize, restore and protect the remaining shoreline — with more plantings planned for spring 2016. Park users are strongly encouraged to use these new access points and prevent their dogs from accessing the water along the fragile shoreline. “We wanted to find a way to address the shoreline erosion issues at the park but still encourage access to the river,” says RVCA project lead Andrea Klymko, “…the worst erosion was at the most popular access points for the dogs. Two of these spots have been designated as formal access points while the rest are being retired.” This project is a win-win for the Rideau River and park users and their pooches! For more information contact Andrea at ext. 1173, andrea.klymko@rvca.ca.

Partners Work Together to Replace Dying Trees

Dead ash trees, victims of emerald ash borer

Chapman Mills Conservation Area is suffering from the effects of the emerald ash borer (EAB) and Dutch elm disease. EAB is a non-native invasive insect that attacks and kills ash trees. Dutch elm disease is a fungus that spreads through the roots causing trees to slowly decay. Both of these normally robust and resilient pioneer trees will soon be all but extinct. “The loss of ash and elms has a big impact on our natural areas — leaving gaps in our tree canopy,” says Kristy Giles, Conservation Lands Director. “Our goal was to replace the trees as quickly as possible.” Thanks to partners Avison Young and Tree Ottawa, Chapman Mills has seen 325 seedlings planted this fall. Avison Young provided the seedlings and keen staff who did the planting. Tree Ottawa provided the support and equipment that got the job done. Dead or dying trees will be cut down along popular trails this winter to avoid safety risks to park users. For more information contact KRISTY at ext. 1178, kristy.giles@rvca.ca.

Winter Adventurers Day Camp Fill up those PA days with winter fun! Programs are geared for kids aged six to twelve and are hosted by our knowledgeable RVCA interpreters. Learn how to snowshoe, put up a shelter, build campfires and cook outdoors! The fun will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The cost is $40/child and $35 for additional children in the same family. Each session can accommodate up to 25 children. PreRegistration is required. Baxter camp runs January 22, 2016 – 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Foley Mountain camp runs on February 3, 2016 – 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. To Register for Baxter contact ANDREA at 613489-3592, andrea.wood@rvca.ca. To register for Foley Mountain call REBECCA at 613-273-3255 rebecca.whitman@rvca.ca or visit www.rvca.ca/active-outdoor-life.

Around the Rideau Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Box 599, 3889 Rideau Valley Drive Manotick, ON K4M 1A5 613-692-3571 or 1-800-267-3504 www.rvca.ca Follow us @ twitter.com/RideauValleyCA Like us @ facebook.com Around the Rideau is made possible thanks to our generous sponsors:

Bell Baker, Barristers and Solicitors — 613-237-3444, Effectively providing quality legal services in Eastern Ontario for over 50 years

Bird Richard, Lawyers for Employers — 613-238-3772, www.lawyersforemployers.ca Representing management in labour and employment law across Ontario

John Callan, Accredited Senior Agent (ASA) & Sales Representative with Coldwell Banker Rhodes & Co., Brokerage — Proud to be part of and provide professional real estate services to the Big Rideau Lake community for over 10 years

Ramada Ottawa on the Rideau — 613-288-3500, Previously The Monterey Hotel — Offers 87 fully renovated rooms with balconies overlooking the Rideau River. It is an Oasis in the city

Thank

You TO OUR GENEROUS

Spon sorS!

Page 38 of 57

From: AMO Communications communicate@amo.on.ca Date: November 25, 2015 at 2:41:41 PM EST To: “elbe@web.ca” elbe@web.ca Subject: AMO Policy Update - AMO AND UQM to Collaborate on Climate Change November 25, 2015

AMO and UQM to Collaborate on Climate Action In Ottawa today AMO and the Union of Quebec Municipalities (UQM) signed an agreement to collaborate on climate action. The Associations also called on the provinces and the federal government to provide resources and funding to municipalities to reduce greenhouse gases and build resilient communities. AMO and UQM will work together to share policy and advocacy efforts and best practices to achieve climate action goals under the agreement. The Associations highlighted a range of initiatives municipal governments have undertaken in Ontario and Quebec to reduce greenhouse gases and protect their communities and economies from extreme weather, noting more local action needed to be taken to meet climate change goals. The Agreement comes as a number of initiatives on climate change are moving forward. The Premiers and Prime Minister Trudeau met in Ottawa on Monday to discuss Canada’s position at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference. It is widely thought that a global agreement to tackle climate change may result from this conference. On Sunday, the Alberta Government announced a new carbon tax to limit greenhouse gas emissions in that province. Over the last few years Ontario and Quebec have been deepening their collaboration in a number of areas, including climate change. Ontario has announced it will implement a Cap and Trade program to price greenhouse gas emissions that is integrated with Quebec and California as part of its long term climate strategy. AMO and UQM want their provincial governments to provide funding from the Cap and Trade programs for municipal greenhouse gas reduction projects, recognize a range of municipal projects for offset credits to increase investment in low carbon technologies and provide the tools and resources to support municipal climate action. Municipal resolution AMO members are encouraged to support the call by passing the attached resolution to the provincial government: To: The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier Dear Premier: Please be advised that the municipality of _________ supports the collaboration of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Union of Quebec Municipalities (UQM) to enhance support municipal climate action in our provinces. To help meet reduction targets and to reduce emissions in our communities and improve resilience in local economies, we call on you to work in partnership with local governments and: •

• •

•

Give municipalities adequate, stable and long-term funding resources to invest in greenhouse gas reduction initiatives in our communities such as public transit and active transportation, public and private building energy efficiency; water conservation, planning development and other programs; Recognize municipal projects that reduce greenhouse gases for offset credits in Cap and Trade programs; Provide dedicated funding for climate change adaptation to help municipalities provide resilient infrastructure to keep our economies and communities functioning and productive; and Provide tools to help facilitate and transfer knowledge regarding greenhouse gas reduction and climate adaptation projects.

Page 39 of 57

SIGNED cc:

The Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change The Honourable Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Brad Duguid, Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure The Honourable Charles Sousa, Minister of Finance. Further Resources: • • • • • • •

Statement from AMO President on Municipal Climate Action AMO Position Municipal Climate Action News Release Municipal Climate Action Backgrounder Cap and Trade News Release Carbon Pricing Primer 2010 AMO Position

AMO Contact: Craig Reid, Senior Advisor, E-mail: creid@amo.on.ca 416.971.9856 ext. 334.

PLEASE NOTE: AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality’s council, administrator, and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists. DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record. OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please click here.

Page 40 of 57

November 30, 2015 Greetings, With the New Year fast approaching, our Office would like to provide you with information about the expansion of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to municipalities. As of January 1, 2016, the Ombudsman can begin accepting, resolving and investigating complaints about municipalities under the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction will extend to municipalities, local boards and municipally-controlled corporations, with some exceptions as set out in regulation. The Ontario Ombudsman is an independent officer appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct impartial investigations into individual and systemic issues relating to the administrative conduct of public bodies. The Ombudsman’s services are available to anyone free of charge. As we do with the tens of thousands of provincial complaints we handle every year, we will work to resolve complaints about municipalities wherever possible. We resolve most complaints without the need for an investigation or report. We are an office of last resort, meaning individuals should exhaust any available appeal mechanisms (such as the Ontario Municipal Board) before complaining to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman also strongly encourages municipalities to resolve local issues at the local level, and to create their own complaint resolution mechanisms, which may include appointing accountability officers such as integrity commissioners, ombudsman and auditors general. If internal complaint mechanisms are unable to resolve the problem and the Ombudsman determines that an investigation is warranted (either into an individual complaint issue or a broader systemic one), relevant municipal sector entities will be notified by our Office and required to co-operate with our investigation. The Ombudsman may report findings and recommendations publicly. However, the Ombudsman cannot overturn any decisions of a municipal sector entity, and recommendations are not binding. The Ombudsman’s Office has 40 years of experience in resolving and investigating administrative problems throughout the provincial government. We handle more than 23,000 complaints each year by applying alternate dispute resolution strategies – resolving over half of all cases in less than two weeks. At the same time, almost all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations for systemic change have been accepted by the government in the past 10 years, resulting in administrative improvements that have positively affected millions of Ontarians (e.g., expansion of newborn screening, a more secure lottery system, better monitoring of unlicensed daycares). We have always received excellent co-operation from the public bodies we oversee. We have recently reached out to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and other stakeholders to share information about our Office’s role. Today, we are also inviting you to complete a brief online survey (information attached) that will help us in responding to any complaints we may receive about your municipality. Please note

Page 41 of 57

that we are seeking contact information for officials who have direct responsibility for areas related to complaint resolution, as opposed to protocol officers or communications staff. Although we are happy to deal with these officials for communications-related matters, when we are make inquiries about complaints, we communicate directly with staff who have the most relevant information about the matter at issue. For more information about how we work and our new mandate with respect to municipalities, you might wish to review our Frequently Asked Questions at https://ombudsman.on.ca/About-Us/MUS-FAQ.aspx and our new brochure, Complaints about Municipalities, at http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Resources/Brochure.aspx. We also have an Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team which deals with complaints that municipal meetings have been improperly closed to the public under the Municipal Act. For more information on the activities of the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team, please see our OMLET Annual Report here: https://ombudsman.on.ca/Investigations/Municipal-Meetings/Municipal-Annual-Reports.aspx. Our latest Annual Report, published in July for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, also provides a good overview of our work. It can be found online here: https://ombudsman.on.ca/Resources/Reports/2014-2015Annual-Report.aspx?lang=en-CA. You can also receive information about our office monthly by subscribing to our e-newsletter at https://ombudsman.on.ca/Newsroom/E-Newsletter.aspx. My team and I would be happy to answer questions, provide copies of our publications, or connect you with our colleagues who will be working on municipal cases. Please contact us by emailing thewatchdog@ombudsman.on.ca, or call our Communications Officers: Laura Nadeau (416-586-3402) or Cynthia McQueen (416-586-3525). Sincerely,

Linda Williamson Director of Communications, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario Encl.

Page 42 of 57 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ontario News newsroom@ontario.ca December-03-15 12:49 PM Angela Maddocks Ontario Passes Legislation to Promote Smart Community Growth

News Release Ontario Passes Legislation to Promote Smart Community Growth December 3, 2015

Province Expands Municipal Revenue Tools and Streamlines Land Use Planning and Appeals Today Ontario passed legislation to give the province’s residents a greater say in how their communities grow and to provide municipalities with more opportunities to fund community services like transit and recycling. The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, which reforms the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, will: •

Help municipalities recover more money to pay for transit services and waste diversion

•

Give residents a meaningful say in how their communities grow by requiring municipalities to look at opportunities to better involve residents in the planning process for new developments and enhancing a planning tool that will be developed with resident and stakeholder input

•

Promote and protect green spaces by encouraging more municipalities to develop plans that help determine the need for parkland in the municipality

•

Help municipalities resolve potential planning disputes earlier at the local level, such as through alternative dispute resolution, to reduce the involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board in local disputes

•

Make the planning and appeals process more predictable by extending the review of new municipal official plans

plans that lay out how municipalities will grow and develop - to 10 years, instead of five

•

Make the devel opment c harges system - a system for municipalities to help cover the costs necessary for growth from developers - more predictable, transparent and accountable by creating clearer reporting requirements for capital projects that municipalities are financing through development charges

•

Make the collection and use of money paid by developers for higher and denser developments, as well as for parkland, more transparent and accountable

Helping communities grow is part of the government’s plan to build Ontario up. The four-part plan includes investing in 1

Page 43 of 57 people’s talents and skills, making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history, creating a dynamic, innovative environment where business thrives and building a secure savings plan.

QUICK FACTS •

The act is based on input from across Ontario including more than 20 public workshops and stakeholder meetings as well as more than 1,200 submissions on the land use planning and appeal system and the development charges system.

•

Municipalities use official plans and zoning bylaws to plan for and control development.

•

Approximately 200 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities use development charges.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION •

Changes to the Development Charges Act and Planning Act

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES •

Bill 73

QUOTES “We want to grow Ontario’s communities in a way that creates vibrant towns, cities and regions. The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act provides the people of Ontario with a transparent and predictable system for planning and managing growth within their communities.” — Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

CONTACTS Conrad Spezowka Communications 416-585-7066 Conrad.Spezowka@ontario.ca Mark Cripps

Page 44 of 57 Minister’s Office 416-585-6842 Mark.Cripps@ontario.ca Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing http://www.ontario.ca/municipal

Questions about your subscription? Contact us. Edit your subscription preferences. Unsubscribe from News on Demand. Follow Us On Twitter. Visit the Newsroom. Disponible en français. © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008 - 2015 99 Wellesley Street West 4th floor, Room 4620 Toronto ON M7A 1A1

Page 45 of 57 Membn oi

REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CATARAQUI

Q“

1641 Perth Road, PO. Box 160 Glenburnie, Ontario KOH150 Phone: (613) 546-4228 Toll Free (613 area code): 1-877~956—CRCA Fax: (613) 547-6474 E-mail:info@crca.ca Websites: www.crca.ca & www.cleanwatercataraqui.ca

81115192/}a(t Naturalchamplans

November 27, 2015

File: F-166-1 1-Lough Lk

Sent by Email

Mr. Matt Rennie (mattrennie27@hotmail.com) Dear Mr. Rennie, Re:

Permit F-166-11—Lough Lk Ontario Regulation 148/06 Applewood Development, Township of South Frontenac Waterbody: Loughborough Lake —

Thank you for your letter that was forwarded to me on November 19, 2015 with respect to concerns that some local residents have with the works that were completed under the above noted permit and other activities that have been reported to the CRCA. CRCA staff are appreciative that local residents such as yourself and others are passionate about preserving the environmental integrity of our natural resources. Permit F-166-11-Lough Lk was issued by the CRCA to authorize the construction of a communal docking system and an associated boardwalk that would allow access across a wetland to the communal dock. In response to your letter, Torn Beaubiah (CRCA biologist) and I visited the site on November 23, 2015 to inspect the works that have been undertaken at the property. The owner of the property, Mr. Gary Beach, attended the inspection as well since he had already made Contact with the CRCA shortly after viewing your letter on the South Frontenac Township website. It should be noted that CRCA staff have attended this site on numerous occasions previously to review permitting applications and to conduct compliance inspections. The following are our ?ndings with respect to the works that have been‘completed.

. Communal Docking System 0

0 0

The drawings appended to Permit F-166-1 1-Lough Lk identified that the ?oating dock component of the structure would be 120 feet in length. The actual length of the dock was found to be 148 feet. The length of the access gangway to the dock was not speci?ed in the drawings but was found to be 70 feet in length The total length of the structure was found to be 218 feet. The individual components (e.g. finger width, slip ?nger length) were found to be in compliance with the approved permit. The depth of water in and around the slips varied, but was found to be less than 1 metre. The depth of water below the lowest ?oating baf?e on the structure varied but was found to be a minimum of a foot.

Two items of interest were found during the inspection. a. The dock length exceeds the amount shown on the approved drawing by 28 feet. b. The depth of water in and around the docking structure was found to be less than the amount speci?ed in Appendix C to the permit.

Page 46 of 57 Mr. Matt Rennie November 27, 2015

Ontario Regulation 148/06 As you know, Permit F-166-11-Lough Lk was issued under Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and_site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as ?ooding and erosion, and that the changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. In addition, the CRCA may grant permission for development to occur in or adjacent to wetlands provided that any interference on the natural features and hydrologic and ecological functions of the wetland has been deemed to be acceptable by the CRCA. In this instance, the additional length of the dock and the depth of water in and around the structure will not affect the control of ?ooding or erosion and that other properties will not be at greater risk from these hazards. Secondly, staff do not believe that there has been any interference to the natural features, hydrologic and ecological functions of the wetland due to the additional length of the docking structure and the depth of water in and around the structure. Therefore, in the opinion of staff, the as-built docking structure meets the intent of O.R. 148/06 and the policies of the CRCA.

Fish Habitat Provisions under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act In 201 I, when Permit F-I66-1 l—LoughLk was issued, the CRCA maintained a Level 2 agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to review proposals in consideration of the ?sh habitat provisions under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. The intent of the depth of water provisions described in Appendix C to Permit F—l66—l l—LoughLk were to ensure that the docking structure would not rub or otherwise interfere with the lake bottom in order to protect fish habitat. As there are many types of ?oating structures in use, the 1 metre depth of water was suggested as a conservative approach to support the intent of this condition. During the site inspection, staff observed that the docking structure appeared to be sufficiently buoyant to ensure that the ?oating sub-structure will not interfere with the lake bottom. In the opinion of staff, this satisfies the intent of the permit conditions contained within Appendix C to permit F-166-l1—Lough Lk. Additionally, as noted in your letter, the CRCA cannot regulate the size of boats that will utilize the docking structure. Staff note that there is suf?cient water depth for the docking structure to be accessed by an appropriate vessel. Referencing your comments with respect to dredging, staff were unable to determine if the area around the dock was dredged or otherwise altered by performing a “blow out” as you describe it. If there is additional evidence that can be provided of dredging, please forward it to the CRCA to my attention. Please note that due to recent changes to the Fisheries Act, the CRCA no longer maintains an agreement with DFO. Therefore, if there are future concerns relating to fish habitat, I would direct you to the DFO’swebsite (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca) to obtain additional information.

. Boardwalk Structure

The total width of the structure was found to be in compliance with the approved permit. The width between the boardwalk railings was found to be 54 inches. There was evidence of some minor erosion at the east end approach to the boardwalk. Two items of interest were found during the inspection. a. The width between the boardwalk railings exceeds the amount shown on the approved drawing by 6

inches. b. The minor erosion at the east end approach to the boardwalk should be addressed.

Page 47 of 57 Mr. Matt Rennie November 27, 2015

We understand that you are concerned with ATV use of the boardwalk. As with boating, ATV use is an activity that is not regulated by O.R. 148/06. Staff believe that the additional width between the boardwalk railings will not affect the control of ?ooding or erosion and that other properties will not be at greater risk from these hazards. Secondly, staff do not believe that there has been any interference to the natural features, hydrologic and ecological functions of the wetland due to the additional width between the boardwalk railings. Therefore, in the opinion of staff, the as—builtboardwalk structure meets the intent of OR. 148/06 and the policies of the CRCA.

The minor erosion item was discussed with Mr. Beach and he has agreed to install a small retaining structure to retain the granular material within the approach to the boardwalk. 3. Other Items Staff investigated allegations that there has been placement of fill into a wetland on the property. Staff noted a very small amount of rock that had been placed in order to secure a silt fence in place near the bridge on the east side of the property. Mr. Beach understands that this material is to be removed when the silt fence is removed. Staff found no other evidence that ?lling has occurred within a wetland. If there is additional evidence that can be provided of ?lling of a wetland, please forward it to the CRCA to my attention.

Staff did observe that granular top dressing has been added to the approaches to the bridge on the east side of the property. However, staff are satis?ed that the original footprint of the approaches has not been expanded toward the wetland and that the granular is appropriately contained. Mr. Beach believed that this activity was in accordance with previous correspondence with our of?ce. However, Mr. Beach was cautioned that due to changes in legislation, this activity required CRCA approval under O.R. 148/06. Additionally, staff observed that granular top dressing had been added to the “trail”, and that a small area of granular, approximately 20 ft x 15 PLin size, that had been spread out near the parking area. Staff have no concerns with the top dressing of the “trail” since the original footprint has been maintained and Mr. Beach has agreed to move the granular material back, regrade and revegetate the other area. In consideration of the minor nature of these issues, further enforcement action is not being pursued at this time. A record of this information will be placed on ?le in the event that future compliance follow-up is required.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with the CRCA. Yours truly,

Aé/(-/’/()-/“j”¢ Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager c.c.

Ron Vandewal, Mayor, Township of South Frontenac (via email) Ross Sutherland, Councillor, Loughborough District (via email) Alan Revill, Councillor, Bedford District (via email) Wayne Orr, Township of South Frontenac (via email) Lindsay Mills, Township of South Frontenac (via email) Joe Gallivan, County of Frontenac (via email) Gary Beach, Landowner (via email)

Page 48 of 57

From: Matthew Rennie [mailto:mattrennie27@hotmail.com] Sent: November-30-15 9:52 PM To: councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; robinsonw@bell.net; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com; ncddwoodworking@live.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: annefisher@sympatico.ca; Annie Robinson anniegrobinson@gmail.com; Brian Ward brian.ward1@sympatico.ca; Diane Koen diane.koen@mcgill.ca; drhorse@istar.ca; Ed Koen edkoen@rogers.com; Erin Wicklam erin_wicklam@hotmail.com; Helen Barsch helenbartsch@gmail.com; Koen, Michael mkoen@cppib.com; Marc Hiemstra hiemstra.marc@gmail.com; Meela Melnik-Proud meelamelnik@hotmail.com; Nona Mariotti nona@mariotti.ca; Roel Vertegaal roel.vertegaal@me.com Subject: Applewood Communal Dock

Dear Councillors, I am writing to you to express my strong concerns regarding the Applewood communal dock and CRCA’s approval of it. I have included a letter, attached above, that I sent, on behalf of a group of Loughborough Lake residents, to Andrew Schmidt, Development Review Manager, CRCA on Nov. 19, 2015 to outline concerns about the dock size, the water depth, and the apparent manipulation or removal of some of the lake bottom at the Applewood dock, which appear to be in contravention of the CRCA permit. Secondly, I have included Attachment #2, which outlines and illustrates through clear photos the water measurement at the Applewood dock which shows that the water was not at the required depth and shows areas where the lake bottom appears to have been altered. Finally, I have included Attachment #3, which is the letter which I received back from Andrew Schmidt, CRCA, after he and his staff visited the Applewood dock to investigate my concerns. CRCA reports in Attachment #3, that the dock structure is 218 ft in length (148 ft of dock and 70 ft of gangway access) not the 120 ft. outlined in the permit and the water depth in all areas was far less than the 1m required at all times of the year. CRCA’s report states that staff were unable to determine if the area around the dock was dredged or otherwise altered even though it is very obvious that the bottom of the lake around the dock has been mechanically displaced to make it appear deeper from the dock. How else can you explain a significantly deeper area around the perimeter of the dock? CRCA has chosen to overlook this noncompliance. The concerned residents and I are extremely disappointed and discouraged with CRCA who have chosen to allow the Developer to ignore and contravene its very own policies.

Page 49 of 57

What hope is there that this Developer will follow CRCA’s or South Frontenac’s policies and permit stipulations on Johnston Point and in his many other developments? As well, other developers will soon learn how easy it is to break the rules in South Frontenac and do the same. We ask for South Frontenac Council to do the right thing, to right these wrongs and to be vigilant of these types of transgressions. Thanks, -Matt NOTE:

Original letter and photographs were included in November 24 Committee of the Whole agenda. CRCA Response to Mr. Rennie under “Information Items”

Page 50 of 57 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Wayne Orr December-01-15 8:24 AM Angela Maddocks FW: Concerns with Conditions of Draft Plan Approval Concerns with the Conditions of Johnston Point Draft Approval Presented to Council.docx; Large Communal Dock at Island location.JPG

Communication For Dec 8 agenda Wayne Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100 Sydenham ON, K0H 2T0 T (613) 376-3027 ext 2225 F (613) 376-6657 From: Helen Bartsch [mailto:helenbartsch@gmail.com] Sent: November-30-15 9:27 PM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; markschjerning@outlook.com; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; robinsonw@bell.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; Ronald Sleeth sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; patbarr1@aol.com; Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Concerns with Conditions of Draft Plan Approval

Hi to All Councillors, I am writing to express to you, on behalf of our group of Loughborough Lake residents, some concerns that we have with the report, Conditions of Draft Plan Approval for Johnston Point,which is on the agenda for your council meeting tomorrow night, December 1. I have included our concerns in an attachment below along with a second attachment showing the dangerous situation that could result with a communal dock at the proposed “island” location on the south shore of Johnston Point. We hope that you will consider our apprehensions about some of these new and changed conditions. Thank you for your consideration of this. Sincerely, Helen Bartsch

Page 51 of 57 Concerns with the Conditions of Johnston Point Draft Plan Approval for Council’s Dec. 1 Meeting: 1)

Why add a new unit (Unit 15) in the most environmentally sensitive area, next to the largest Provincially Significant Wetland on the Point, at the last minute, and after a year of scrutiny by the public and approval agencies of a 14 Unit Condominium Plan? Is this the way to do business?

Are the reports by agencies for the initial vacant land condominium plan on Johnston Point still valid for the new plan which now includes 1 more unit, that is, another residence, septic and driveway, and other changes such as walkways and several lot line changes? All reports (Public Health, Malroz Peer Review, Ecological Impact Statement, Hydrological Assessment, Storm Water Management Report) refer to the development of 14 lots not 15.

The communal dock at the island is a safety issue as it is in a dangerous location. It will encroach on the boat paths of a narrow area of the lake. If there are swimmers or other activities taking place in this area it will force boaters off the boat path towards a bad shoal. *See attached photo. Why have 2 communal docks in the same area? This second dock is quite unnecessary. What size will these and the private docks become? Will they grow beyond the CRCA permit size as happened at the Applewood Development.

Who has decided, or will decide, where the Provincially Significant Wetland boundaries are, in order to install signage as per #21 (ix)? We understand that MNRF can do that. Will the Owner hire MNRF to identify the actual PSW boundaries?

What about having a 3 party, such as McIntosh Perry, to monitor the implementation of all conditions?

What does “construct a walkway” #21 (vi) mean or allow for? Who is “the Owner’s consultant” #21 (vi) and how does that person define the standards for the walkway? #17 states “That all conditions outlined in the letter Nov. 12 from CRCA be included….” Note – CRCA’s letter of Nov. 12, 2014, Page 5, #8(c) and and Page 7 #3(ii) refers to “vegetation removal within 30m…with the exception of a small pathway”. A small pathway would not seem to equate to the same as “construct a walkway”.

What does ownership of the island south of and between Units 8 and 9 and the joint dock at the island, allow one (from Units 7,9,12,13,15) to do? One cannot get anywhere from the island. Owners cannot clear vegetation for 30m all the way around the island and cannot clear anything larger than 4 inches in diameter within 40m all the way around it. Does it allow the Owner/Developer to tell the purchasers that they are buying waterfront and thus to hope to have Units 7,9,12,13,15 zoned as RLSW instead of RLS, even though their waterfront is far away on a little island they can do nothing with?

#21(x, 4) and (xi, 4) state that no aquatic vegetation shall be removed during construction, use or maintenance of any dock. How can one believe that will actually be enforced, based on the apparent altering of the lake bottom by the same developer, below the communal dock at Applewood? And how can one believe that CRCA will not allow it, based on its approval of the Applewood communal dock which did not meet its own policies?

How can the private roads and driveways to Unit 14 and to Units 1 and 2 be constructed within 40m of an open water body or a wetland without cutting trees greater than 4” in diameter as per the restriction noted in #21 (iv) and as agreed to with CRCA requirements? The Developer speaks of locating the Road Blocks and driveways within 30m of water bodies or wetlands? But does not address cutting trees to make these roadways within the 40 m mark.

Why does the developer differentiate between water body and wetland in #4 , “…nearest point of any wetland or waterbody” and in #9 “within 30m of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland….” Could it be that the developer agrees with Concerned Residents of South Frontenac that a wetland is not a water body, at least for waterfront purposes?
The side yard between the residence on Lot 3 (of the Original 3 lots developed) and the new roadway on this draft plan, Attachment A, appears to be too close to the new roadway (which encroaches on Lot 3 to allow for Unit 14 to be outside the 30m restriction from the PSW). South Frontenac’s Official Plan for RLSW zoning requires an interior side yard minimum of 3 metres and an exterior side yard of 10 metres minimum. The conclusion is that Unit 14 is not large enough and should be eliminated.

Page 52 of 57 12) CRCAs letter of Nov. 12, 2014 to Peter Young, County Planner, Page 6, #12, states that “a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevations for each dwelling unit and septic system prior to final plan approval. The grading plan should include proposed sediment and erosion control measures. This will be addressed as a condition to draft plan approval.” Fotenn also addresses this

issue in their letter to Peter Young. September 5, 2014, Page 4 #11, “Staff recommends that a final storm water management plan be prepared by a qualified Professional engineer and approved to the satisfaction of the County and the CRCA….Noted, it is expected that this requirement will be included with the draft conditions of approval, and will be prepared at that time.” Has this been done? If not, it is apparent that it needs to be done before Council can approve this draft plan.

Page 53 of 57

Page 54 of 57

Page 55 of 57

Page 56 of 57

/ A

-^ IL^

^ .7\f

‘-P-

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture RR#1 Battersea, ON. KOH 1 HO

November 23, 2015 Office of the Mayor South Frontenac Township 4432 George St. Sydenham, ON. KOH 2TO

Dear Mayor VandeWal and Council members:

The’Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, wishes to acknowledge and thank the Mayor and other members of this Council for attending the recent Rural Economic tour hosted by Richard Alien .Councillor Countryside District, City of Kingston, the FFA and the local National Farmers Union. It was a

productive, informative and excellent opportunity for neighbouring municipalities, and local economic

development agencies to meet and discuss the opportunities in the agri-food sector locally. On a different note, this Council will recallthe discussions and meetings regarding the Collins Lake Solar Development project of late summer, and the FFA would like to thank the Councfl for granting the FFA

the opportunity to speak about our concerns regarding this large ground mount solar projecfin Inverary.

Our Board has discussed the issue of large scale solar (ground mount) projects and struck a committee

’ to try to strike a balance betoeen the development of green energy projects and the preservation of our

productive pockets of farmlands. As a result the Frontenac Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution

at our October Board meeting requesting that municipalities within the County of Frontenac do not support large scale renewable projects (ground mount solar) on Class 1-4 agricultural lands that can support row crop production for future project proposals. It is the feeling of our Board that there are lands

that cannot support row crop production and could prove to be better sites for these types of projects. The FFA further requests that municipalities require the proponents of these large scale renewable projects to undertake and complete the Large Renewable Procurement Land Evaluation Study on lands proposed for future large scale solar projects to ensure that the fiockets. of farmland that can support row

crops are protected. A copy of the resolution is attached for your background information.

We thank you in advance for your consideration of our request and welcome the opportunity to work with this Council if and when future submissions for large scale solar development are proposed in our communities.

Yours in farming, /es

Gary Gordon President

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture

Attachment: Frontenac Federation of Agriculture resolution regarding Large Scale Renewable (Solar Ground Mount) projects

Page 57 of 57

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture

Resolution: Large scale Solar ( Ground Mount) projects (Local) Whereas the Frontenac Federation of Agriculture believes that large solar renewable procurement projects are not suitable on lands that have supported or could support row crop production, regardless of land class,

Whereas the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac has a significant land base that

is not suitable for row crop agricultural purposes and could be considered for large renewable solar projects,

Whereas some lands identified as Class 4 lands on the Canada Land Inventory are very important to farmers who have been actively farming parcels of these lands, including row crop production, in Frontenac County and the City of Kingston for generations,

Whereas advances in soil and crop management, tillage and drainage techniques and crop genetics are constantly evolving and have changed significantly since the original CL1 mapping was done in the late 19605, and have improved land capability on lands that are not classified as class 1, 2 or 3 " prime agricultural” lands, Whereas the Large Renewable Procurement Land Evaluation Study is a tool that allows for a more detailed analysis of land classification be completed by the solar development proponent on lands that are not designated as Class 1,2,3 “prime agricultural” lands,

Whereas municipalities should access and use this mechanism to site the large renewable solar projects on the appropriate lands, and stay away from lands that are identified as

actively farmed in row crop production despite the original CL1 classification ,

Therefore be it resolved that the Frontenac Federation of Agriculture (FFA) requests that the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac (and townships within) do not provide municipal support resolutions for Large Renewable Solar Projects (ground mount) on productive Class 1-4 agricultural lands (lands that have or can grow row crops) within their boundaries, and Further be it resolved that the FFA urges the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac to require proponents to complete the Large Renewable

Procurement Land Evaluation Study on those productive Class 1-4 agricultural lands (lands that have and can grow row crops) proposed for a Large Renewable Solar Project withm their boundaries.

Help support independent journalism

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