Committee of the Whole - 08 Mar 2016 - Agenda

Published March 8, 2016

Word Count 19969 words

Reading Time 94 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: March 8, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 08 Mar 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

***Recess *** - n/a

Delegations

(a)

Sheri Vivian, re: Fireworks and Noise By-law

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

3 - 12

(b)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager,r e: Sydenham Village Parking and Traffic Restrictions

13 - 18

(c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Closing of Road Allowance in Part of Lot 22 between Concessions VII, Loughborough

19 - 22

(d)

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Draft 2015 Financials

23 - 26

(e)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Standardization of Recreation Committee Secretaries Payments

(f)

Mayor Vandewal, re: Verbal Update on large scale solar projects.

Reports for Information

(a)

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: 2015 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses Paid to Council Members

34 - 35

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner , re: Review of Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to Expand a Quarry in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI, Portland District

36 - 41

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

Information Items

28 - 33

Page 2 of 75

(a)

Deputy Mayor Sutherland, re: Utilities Kingston reporting on Sydenham Water

(b)

Hanne and Dennis Saunders, 4034 Boyce Rd, Hartington, re: Proposed Hartington Subdivision

(c)

Helen Bartsch on behalf of Concerned Citizens Group, re: Condominium Developments

(d)

Michelle Foxton, Charlie Labarge, Wade Leonard and John Lesperance, re: Proposed Hartington Subdivision: March 1, 2016 Council Agenda Item # 8f

46 - 66

(e)

Meela Melnik-Proud & Matt Rennie, re; Applewood Condominium Letter of Concern

67 - 69

(f)

Honourable Mario Sergio, Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs, re: 2016 Senior of the Year Award

70 - 71

(g)

Chris West, Save Via/Save the Train

72 - 74

(h)

Leeds and Thousand Island Township - Teeny Tiny Summit 2016 March 30, 2016

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

43 - 44

Page 3 of 75

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: March 2, 2016 AGENDA DATE:

March 8, 2016

SUBJECT: Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council supports the preferred solution of installing traffic signals at Road 38 and Wilton Road for the Harrowsmith Intersection AND that a Bylaw be presented to Council for the stop up and closure of Colebrook Road East AND the installation of a cul-de-sac for Colebrook Road West and Ottawa Street at Road 38. PURPOSE: The Engineering Firm of AECOM Canada Limited was retained to undertake a Schedule ‘B’ Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to investigate potential improvements at the intersections of Road 38 with Wilton Road, Colebrook Road and Ottawa Street and Road 38 with Harrowsmith Road. (see Figure 1) ANALYSIS: A Public Open House was held on September 30, 2015 to received public input on the various alternatives proposed for these locations. Input from Staff, Consultants and the Public have produced the alternatives for both the locations. (Tables 1 & 2). The criteria used to evaluate each alternative for the two locations is also listed in Tables 1 & 2. The preferred solution of installing traffic lights at Road 38 and Wilton Road with the closure of Colebrook Road and Ottawa Street was presented to the Public Services Committee. (Figure 2) This alternative includes Colebrook Road West closed at Road 38 and a new road to be built between Colebrook Road and Wilton Road along the K& P/ Cataraqui Trail ROW. Colebrook Road East will be closed which will allow us to remove the structure through which a watercourse flows. The County of Frontenac and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority have been advised of our intentions. A meeting has been scheduled for Monday March 21, from 6 p.m. – 8 p.m., at the Harrowsmith S& A Club to present the preferred alternative to the public. The notice provisions for road closing will need to be followed. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: An amount of $700,000 has been approved in the 2016 Capital Budget for the reconstruction of the Harrowsmith Intersection. Preliminary design work is underway and it is expected that the complete project will exceed the budgeted amount when all sidewalks and active transportation

Page 4 of 75

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT infrastructure have been factored in. It is Staff’s intention to complete this project over 2 years and to target completion of the whole project by July 1, 2017.

Submitted/approved by: Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager Attachments: Figure 1: Study Area Intersections Table 1: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Road 38 at Colebook Road, Wilton Road and Ottawa Street Table 2: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Road 38 at Harrowsmith Road Figure 2: Proposed Road 38/Wilton Road Intersection

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Page 5 of 75

Introduction

AECOM Canada Ltd. was retained by the Township of South Frontenac to undertake a Schedule ‘B’ Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to investigate potential improvements at the intersections of Road 38 with Wilton Road, Colebrook Road and Ottawa Street and Road 38 with Harrowsmith Road. The intersections in the study area are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Study Area Intersections

This Class EA study confirmed the need to redesign the intersection and assessed multiple design options. The study followed a comprehensive planning process that recognized the needs of the community and businesses.

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

AECOM

2.3

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Page 6 of 75

Parking

There is a parking lane on the west side of Road 38 between Colebrook Road and a point 50 metres north of Church Street. There is a parking lane on the east side of Road 38 between Harrowsmith Road and a point 50 metres north of Church Street. There are parking lanes on both sides of Colebrook Road from Road 38 to the Cataraqui Trail. There are no designated on-street parking areas on Harrowsmith Road, Wilton Road or Ottawa Street.

2.4

Pedestrians and the Cataraqui Trail

The pedestrian facilities available in the hamlet of Harrowsmith include paved pathways, sidewalks and trails. The Cataraqui Trail is a shared pathway that connects Smiths Falls to Strathcona. The trail follows an old CN railway line that was abandoned in 1986. The trail is open year round and is used by hikers and cyclists in spring, summer and autumn and by snowmobilers and cross-country skiers in the winter. In Harrowsmith, the Cataraqui Trail crosses Road 38, Colebrook Road and Wilton Road as indicated in Figure 3. At these crossings there are stop signs on the Cataraqui Trail, which provide the right of way to vehicles on the road. Parking for the Cataraqui Trail is located on the east side of Road 38 near the trail. The section of the trail between Smiths Falls and Harrowsmith is a designated part of the Trans Canada Trail.

Figure 3. Cataraqui Trail near Harrowsmith

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Page 7 of 75

Figure 5. Sight Distances at Intersection of Road 38 and Harrowsmith Road

3.3

Site Visit

A site visit was conducted in July 2015 to observe the existing traffic conditions and to review motorist behaviour. Observations confirmed hesitant motorists, inadequate turn radius, and abnormal stop bar placements as described previously by residents and Township of South Frontenac staff.

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Page 8 of 75

Transportation Alternatives

The Municipal Class EA process requires the consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives and their effects on the environment. The alternatives considered in the process are called alternative solutions. These are functionally different ways of addressing the project need. To address the identified needs, several alternative solutions were developed for intersection improvements. Several suggestions regarding roadway and traffic operational improvements in Harrowsmith were received from the public and these ideas were incorporated, where possible, into the alternative solutions that were developed.

4.1

Road 38 at Wilton Road, Colebrook Road and Ottawa Street

Transportation alternatives were developed to improve the layout and traffic flow at the intersection. For all alternatives, Ottawa Street becomes a cul-de-sac and Colebrook Road East is closed to traffic. With the changes to these two roads, the structures through which the watercourse flows will be removed. The following alternative solutions were considered at the intersection of Road 38 at Wilton Road, Colebrook Road and Ottawa Street: Alternative 1 - Do Nothing The do nothing alternative is used as a baseline alternative for comparison purposes Alternative 2 - Close Colebrook Road at the intersection and provide a new connection between Colebrook Road and Wilton Road This alternative closes the Colebrook Road approach to the intersection at Road 38. The intersection will continue to operate with three approaches: Road 38 north, Road 38 south and Wilton Road. A new road will be built between Colebrook Road and Wilton Road on land adjacent to the Cataraqui Trail. The new road will be a two-lane road and can be built within the existing Frontenac County right-of-way. Figure 6 indicates the configuration for Alternative 2.

Figure 6. Alternative 2 Configuration

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Road 38 at Colebrook Road, Wilton Road and Ottawa Street

Evaluation Criteria

ALTERNATIVE 1

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3

ALTERNATIVE 4

ALTERNATIVE 5

ALTERNATIVE 6

ALTERNATIVE 7

Do Nothing

Close Colebrook Road and provide a new connection to Wilton Road

Close Colebrook Road

Close Wilton Road and provide a new connection to Colebrook Road

Close Wilton Road and upgrade Railway Street to Road 38

Install Roundabout

Close Wilton Road and provide a new connection to Road 38

1.0 Transportation Existing layout has six Intersection Geometry and approaches which causes Sight Distances awkward turning angles.

No sight distance or geometric Detoured traffic must use constraints are expected. narrow residential streets. Onstreet parking on Road 38 reduces sight distance.

No sight distance or geometric No sight distance or geometric The skewed road angles constraints are expected. constraints are expected. produce a roundabout design that does not meet geometric standards.

Intersections of the new road with Wilton Road and Road 38 will be close in proximity to their intersections with Railway Street.

Traffic redistribution

Traffic volumes will remain the 134 vehicles rerouted during 134 vehicles rerouted during 132 vehicles will be rerouted 132 vehicles will be rerouted No change in traffic distribution 132 vehicles will be rerouted same as existing. the AM peak period and 141 the AM peak period and 141 during the AM peak period and during the AM peak period and is expected from a roundabout. during the AM peak period and during the PM peak. during the PM peak. 157 during the PM peak. 157 during the PM peak. 157 during the PM peak. Rerouted vehicles require 2 Rerouted vehicles require 3 Rerouted vehicles require 2 Rerouted vehicles require 2 Rerouted vehicles require 2 turn movements to return to the turn movements to return to the turn movements to return to the turn movements to return to the turn movements to return to the intersection. intersection. intersection. intersection intersection

School Buses

There will be no change to the 3 buses in the morning and 2 existing school bus routes. buses in the afternoon will have longer route by 90m. 7 buses in the morning and 15 buses in the afternoon will have shorter route by 145m.

Road Connections

There will be no changes to road connections to nearby communities.

2.0 Natural Environment

No impacts to natural environment.

7 buses in the morning and 15 15 buses in the morning and 5 22 buses in the morning and buses in the afternoon will buses in the afternoon will have 20 buses in the afternoon will have a longer route by 315m. a longer route by155m. 7 have a longer route by 470m. buses in the morning and 15 buses in the afternoon will have a shorter route by 145m.

Closes the direct connection to Closes the direct connection to Closes the direct connection to Closes the direct connection to There will be no changes to Colebrook. Colebrook. Wilton, County Road 6 and Wilton, County Road 6 and road connections to nearby Highway 401. Highway 401. communities.

The new connection will impact No impacts to natural approximately 700 m² of land environment. next to the Cataraqui Trail. However, the land does not support intrinsically valuable habitat.

The new connection will impact The upgrade of Railway Street No impacts to natural approximately 700 m² of land will impact previously disturbed environment. next to the Cataraqui Trail. land. However, the land does not support intrinsically valuable habitat.

The skewed road angles 22 buses in the morning and 20 produce a roundabout design buses in the afternoon will have that makes it difficult for school a longer route by 575m. buses to navigate.

O Closes the direct connection to Wilton, County Road 6 and Highway 401.

O The new connection will impact approximately 1850 m² of land next to the Cataraqui Trail. However, the land does not support intrinsically valuable habitat.

3.0 Socio-Economic Environment Property impacts

No property impacts.

County property near the Cataraqui Trail is required for new connection

No property impacts.

Demolition of a residence County property near the between Wilton Road and Cataraqui Trail is required for Ottawa Street is required for new connection. construction of the roundabout.

Page 9 of 75

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

County property near the Cataraqui Trail is required for new connection.

AECOM

Evaluation Criteria

Impacts to residences

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

ALTERNATIVE 1

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3

ALTERNATIVE 4

ALTERNATIVE 5

ALTERNATIVE 6

ALTERNATIVE 7

Do Nothing

Close Colebrook Road and provide a new connection to Wilton Road

Close Colebrook Road

Close Wilton Road and provide a new connection to Colebrook Road

Close Wilton Road and upgrade Railway Street to Road 38

Install Roundabout

Close Wilton Road and provide a new connection to Road 38

No impacts to residences.

4 properties within 10 metres of 15 properties within 10 metres 7 properties within 10 metres of 3 properties within 10 metres of No impacts to residences. roadway will be impacted by of roadway will be impacted by roadway will be impacted by roadway will be impacted by increased drive-by traffic. increased drive-by traffic. increased drive-by traffic. increased drive-by traffic.

4.0 Infrastructure

No new stormwater infrastructure required.

5.0 Cost

No construction costs. No change in operational/maintenance costs.

Results

Does not address the problem.

Minor impacts. Preferred alternative.

Most impact to the existing neighbourhood.

Requires some stormwater infrastructure.

Cost of construction and maintenance/operations for approximately 100 m of new roadway. $125,000

Require minor stormwater infrastructure.

ü Cost of construction and maintenance/operations of a cul-de sac at Colebrook Road. $20,000

O Requires some stormwater infrastructure.

Cost of construction and maintenance/operations for approximately 100 m of new roadway. $125,000

Requires major stormwater infrastructure. O Cost of construction and maintenance/operations of a cul-de sac at Wilton Road and 220m of new roadway. $275,000

Some impact to buses and High cost and major impacts. the existing neighbourhood.

ü Requires some stormwater infrastructure.

Cost of construction and maintenance of a roundabout. $390,000

No impacts to residences.

ü Requires major stormwater infrastructure. O Cost of construction and maintenance/operations for approximately 265 m of new roadway. $330,000

Does not address the problem.

High cost and major impacts. The alternative produces new geometric problems.

The preferred solution is Alternative 2.

Page 10 of 75

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Page 11 of 75

Alternative 7 – Install Traffic Signals at Road 38 and Colebrook Road, Wilton Road and Ottawa Street This alternative constructs a traffic signal at the intersection of Road 38 at Wilton Road and Colebrook Road. For this alternative, it is assumed that the selected solution for the intersection of Road 38 / Wilton Road and Colebrook Road includes the closure of Colebrook Road East and the closure of the connections to the intersection from Ottawa Street and Colebrook Road West.

Figure 17.

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

Alternative 7 Configuration

AECOM

Township of South Frontenac

Harrowsmith Intersection Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Road 38 at Harrowsmith Road ALTERNATIVE 7 ALTERNATIVE 1

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3

Evaluation Criteria Do Nothing

1.0 Travel Speed

2.0 Sight Distances

Curb Extensions

No changes suggest that Curb extensions are an vehicles continue to travel at effective traffic calming existing speeds. measure that should reduce speeds near Harrowsmith Road.

O Existing layout does not provide adequate sight distances.

O 3.0 Natural Environment

ü Does not address the sight distance issues.

Turn Lanes on Road 38

Turn lanes on Road 38 provide an improved indication of the presence of Harrowsmith Road for northbound and southbound drivers which may cause drivers to reduce their speed near Harrowsmith Road.

Does not address the sight distance issues.

ALTERNATIVE 4 Harrowsmith Road as OneWay Eastbound Street

O Eliminates sight distance issues.

5.0 Infrastructure/Utilities

No impacts to infrastructure or utilities.

6.0 Cost

No construction costs.

Results

ü Cost for repainting of lanes on Road 38. $1,000

Install Traffic Signals at Road 38 and Colebrook Road, Wilton Road and Ottawa Street

Eliminates sight distance issues except for westbound right turn on red manoeuvre.

Eliminates sight distance issues.

Vehicles at Harrowsmith Road can see the traffic signals and judge whether to enter the intersection.

O ü No impact to natural environment. SCREENED OUT No impacts to socio-economic Impacts parking lanes on Rerouted traffic will pass by 18 No impacts to socioenvironment. both sides of Road 38 near homes that are within 10 metres economic environment. Harrowsmith Road. of the roadway.

Construction cost for curb extension. $15,000

Roundabout at intersection of Road 38 and Wilton Road

No impacts to socioeconomic environment.

Install Traffic Signals

ALTERNATIVE 6

A one-way street in the Traffic signals will not reduce A roundabout will reduce the Traffic signals will reduce the eastbound direction on the speed of vehicles on speed of vehicles as they speed of vehicle travel on Harrowsmith Road will not Road 38 when the signal is approach and depart from the Road 38 when there is a red reduce the speed of northbound green for northbound and roundabout. signal for the north/south and southbound vehicles on southbound vehicles. direction. Road 38.

4.0 Socio-Economic Environment

ALTERNATIVE 5

Minor property impacts No impacts to socio-economic 2 (<1m ) near the intersection environment. of Road 38 with Wilton Road. Minor impacts to parking lane on west side of Road 38.

Removal of existing traffic Requires some stormwater beacon required. Potential to infrastructure. impact one hydro pole.

ü Requires some stormwater infrastructure.

Cost for repainting and signage Costs for installation of traffic Cost of construction and Cost of construction and on Harrowsmith Road. signals. maintenance of a roundabout. maintenance of a signalized $1,000 $200,000 $260,000 intersection $230,000

Does not address either problem.

Addresses only part of the problem with minor impacts.

Does not address either problem.

Addresses only part of the problem and has impacts to local residents.

Addresses only part of the Addresses the problem at a Addresses the problem at a problem. High cost for high cost for high cost. Least impacts. implementation. implementation. Preferred solution.

The traffic signals at Wilton Road/ Road 38 intersection is the preferred solution for reducing speed and improving sightlines at Harrowsmith Road.

Page 12 of 75

Rpt-2016-01-12-Project Report Harrowsmith-60430862

Page 13 of 75

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Prepared for Council:

March 3, 2016

Agenda Date: March 8, 2016

SUBJECT: Sydenham Village Parking and Traffic Restrictions SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council approve the proposed updates to the Parking Restrictions in Sydenham Village as shown in the Draft Parking By-law provided. PURPOSE OF REPORT: The need to review and clarify Parking and No Parking Zones within the hamlet of Sydenham has been increasing over the years as traffic volumes have increased. The completion of the new bicycle path and sidewalk on the south side of Rutledge Road from the bridge to the Hillside Plaza is an ideal time to review the current parking bylaw for the entire village of Sydenham to ensure the bylaw fits with the current configuration. A Public Meeting was held on July 28, 2015 to seek input regarding this issue. Staff have also proposed changing Cross Street from a two-way road to a one-way road where eastbound traffic will be prohibited. This will allow for additional parking capacity on Cross Street while still allowing local traffic flow and also facilitate passage of emergency vehicles when the funeral home is in use. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Additional signage and pavement markings will be required to delineate the parking stalls. Sufficient funds exist in the 2016 Operating budget for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION: That a By-law be presented to council to amend By-law to regulate traffic, parking and stopping on Township Highways and Bridges, by including the attached clause in Schedule ‘B’ for Prohibited Parking and Schedule ‘C’ for Through Highway. ATTACHMENT: Draft Sydenham Parking By-Law and Schedule ‘B’ for Prohibited Parking Draft Sydenham Cross Street By-Law and Schedule ‘C’ for Through Road

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday, CET Area Supervisor

Page 14 of 75

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Draft BY-LAW 2016-18 A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2000-01, BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE USE OF TRAFFIC, PARKING AND STOPPING ON HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, TO CREATE NO PARKING AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE VILLAGE OF SYDENHAM. WHEREAS By-law 2000-01 regulates the use of traffic, parking and stopping on highways and bridges under the jurisdiction of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990; Ch. 45, as amended and the Municipal Act, 2001, Ch. 25, as amended; and WHEREAS Council wishes to amend By-law 2000-01 for the Purposes of creating no parking and parking restrictions in the village of Sydenham. NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That the attached Schedule “B-3” of By-law 2000-01 is hereby amended and becomes part of this by-law.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect upon the posting of the appropriate markings and/or signage.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 8th day of March, 2016. Read a first and second time this 8th day of March, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 8th day of March, 2016.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief-Administrative Officer

Page 15 of 75

Schedule B-3 (By-law 2000-01) Schedule B - Restricted Parking. Highway Amelia Street

From To Brewery Street to William Street

Side or Sides Maximum Period Allowed West Side Anytime

Brewery Street

William Street to Township Road 19

North Side

Anytime

Point Road

Wheatley Street Easterly 100m

South Side

Anytime

Portland Avenue

Sydenham Church Street Easterly 100m

Both Sides

Anytime

Portland Avenue

100m East of Sydenham Church Street Easterly To Bedford Road

North Side

Anytime

Sydenham Church Street

William Street Westerly 50m

Both Sides

Anytime

Sydenham Church Street

Portland Avenue Southerly 50m

Both Sides

Anytime

Sydenham Cross Street

Township Road 19 To Wheatley Street

South Side

Anytime

Sydenham Walker Road

Sydenham Church Street Westerly 100m

Both Sides

Anytime

Township Road 5

100m West of Sydenham Church Street to 30m East of Church Street

Both Sides

Anytime

Township Road 5

30m East of Sydenham Church Street to Wheatley Street

South Side

Anytime

Township Road 5

Wheatley Street Easterly 450m

Both Sides

Anytime

Wheatley Street

Township Road 5 Northerly Both Sides To Sydenham Cross Street

Anytime

Wheatley Street

Sydenham Cross Street Northerly to 30m North of Point Road

East Side

Anytime

Wheatley Street

Township Road 19 Southerly 30m

Both Sides

Anytime

William Street

Rutledge Road to Sydenham Church Street

Both Sides

Anytime

William Street

Sydenham Church Street To Brewery Street

Both Sides

Anytime

William Street

Brewery Street To Township Road 19

North Side

Anytime

And that the following be removed from Schedule B – Restricted Parking: Highway Township Road 5

From To East limits of Wheatley Street to West Limits Township Road 19

Side or Sides Maximum Period Allowed Both Sides Anytime

Page 16 of 75

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC Draft BY-LAW 2016-19 A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2000-01, BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE USE OF TRAFFIC, PARKING AND STOPPING ON HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, TO CREATE NO PARKING AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE VILLAGE OF SYDENHAM. WHEREAS By-law 2000-01 regulates the use of traffic, parking and stopping on highways and bridges under the jurisdiction of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990; Ch. 45, as amended and the Municipal Act, 2001, Ch. 25, as amended; and WHEREAS Council wishes to amend By-law 2000-01 for the Purposes of changing Sydenham Cross Street from a Two-Way Through Road to a One-Way Through Road. NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That the attached Schedule “C-3” of By-law 2000-01 is hereby amended and becomes part of this by-law.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect upon the posting of the appropriate markings and/or signage.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 15th day of March, 2016. Read a first and second time this 15th day of March, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 15th day of March, 2016.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief-Administrative Officer

Page 17 of 75

Schedule C-3 (By-law 2000-01) Schedule C – Through Highways. Highway

From To

Direction of Travel

Sydenham Cross Street

Township Road 19 To Wheatley Street

Westbound Only

Page 18 of 75

Page 19 of 75

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole

Planning Department

Agenda Date: March 8, 2016 Date of Report: March 3, 2016

File: RC-16/02

Subject: Closing of Road Allowance in Part of Lot 22, Between Concessions VIII, Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac: Young

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated March 3, 2016 and consider the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance in the District of Loughborough. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide the background information necessary to enable Council to provide direction to staff regarding the closing of an untravelled Township road. Background & Discussion: By letter dated January 25, 2016, William and Wendy Young are requesting to know whether Council would agree to the closure and sale of a portion of unopened road allowance that runs north and south beside Leland Road. Attachment #1 is a copy of the letter and Attachment #2 shows the location of the owners’ property and the portion of road allowance requested to be closed. The owners’ land is an unusual triangle shape and is only 1.1 acre in size. It is developed with a dwelling and two small accessory outbuildings. The subject portion of road allowance has effectively been used as part of their property and presently accommodates their driveway onto Leland Road. Attachment #3 shows the development and use of the land. It should be noted that the Youngs also own the remnant sliver of land that lie between the unopended road allowance and the travelled portion of Leland Road. The subject portion of road allowance requested to be closed is approximately 124 metres (406 ft.) long and is 0.33 acres in size. The land is flat and undeveloped and, as noted, is used as part of the driveway to Leland Road. It appears that the travelled portion of Leland Road was forced to the east, off of this road allowance, to avoid creating an unnecessary sharp curve in the road. Ultimately, it does not seem reasonable that this portion of road allowance would ever be required by the Township for use as a public road. If the road allowance was closed and ownership transferred, the total area of the Young’s property would be 1.53 acres. Direction Requested: Staff is seeking direction as to whether Council has any objections to the closure and transfer of this unused portion of road allowance. Council policy related to the sale of closed Township roads would result in a total price of approximately $11, 633.00. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments RoadClosureReportYoung

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Page 20 of 75

ATTACHMENT#1 ‘@l-r?z.s, l?r 26/[ 3=,<tv-q l’? / ,,ay,/71 A4’,.

‘6 ‘I>&kW m irC[&-

,-o/::,.‘X’??? ,s:=e: ? 7

i?c(’,rd?re $7 ztxs- <e=?cxc? f ?

-[e .s-@<?-zy>, c,?r?.z,.? ?zx.s-&=? li

‘.’, 6? ,s=-.? ?z.-?,,’e<i,avz 4,,/ ‘,v-A,;? ?-.?-r?7 ?

?7,,7-j7 ?& .(el

76 ‘i

))

Jz-= ?

‘6

xz,me ,,[’,,,..-9 m-5;pg’?

‘? 75

,? ‘, ‘, lx,] J J- A- } /’)

,X;:t4( % Je t-t rv ?

:‘i

i’

i’j ij

6’{3y’ g,.c- 3 - >io 7

(,uend0 “/as,irk)

Page 21 of 75 !!

Attachment #2

*E s

Portion of

Road Allowance to be Closed

Owner’s Property

Meters

0 25 50 100 150 200

Page 22 of 75

Attachment #3

} }Q4.#/11

‘?

41!

W-:

1 ?

i ’l

Portion of Road Allowance to be Closed %,.

501 Qi

gW 1 g q

Remnant

Sliver

“1

————–’-<!i

:‘1 ‘1

!!!!7

‘!.X 94

ri 1

Y ‘v

.&‘a? w, ?

ffi

“< } } 1

}

t s

‘Sl ‘!

(

}

1 1!1 (

0510

iMeters 40

Page 23 of 75

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

March 3rd, 2016

Agenda Date:

March 8th, 2016

SUBJECT: Draft 2015 financials RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff on the recommendation provided. ANALYSIS: Attached are the year to date financials to December 31st with a comparison to the total 2015 budget. This includes the majority of the anticipated year end adjusting entries to be presented for audit. Overall, actual expenses are over budget by $429,214. The chart below summarizes the high level variances to budget: • • • • • • • •

Corporate Services Wages – timing of HR/Reception Hiring Vacation Accrual adjustment – across all departments Public Works Operations – Winter Control Public Works OperationsRoadside and Loosetop maintenance/Safety and signage Public Works Capital – Roads Construction Solid Waste – Monitoring/Compliance savings WDO Recycling Grant – Blue box arbitration settlement Facilities and Parks

-66,693 107,230 -87,797 427,983 275,765 -89,000 -125,348 118,837

Vacation Accrual adjustment The 2015 year end vacation accrual has been adjusted to reflect year end vacation for unionized staff. This had not been previously done and dates back to 1998. The change was driven from the recommendation of our auditors as well as a grievance settlement with the union. Winter Control Winter Control shows expense below budget in the amount of $87,797. Under normal practices, this amount would be transferred to the Winter Control reserves during the year-end review. However in reviewing the winter seasons in 2015, it is clear that the first part of 2015 was drastically different than the last part of 2015. First 3 months of 2015

Last 2 months of 2015 - incl all sand & salt

Budget

Actual

Variance

Budget

Actual

Variance

Net Variance

968,636

1,233,794

265,158

883,413

530,458

-352,955

-87,797

In separating the two winter sections, the first three months would require funds to be drawn from the winter control reserve in the amount of $265,158 whereas the last 2 months of the year, would replenish the reserve in the amount of $352,955. However, out of the 883,413 budget for the last two month, $250,581 was for wages/benefits. Of this amount, only $72,236 was spent for winter control and the remainder was used for other Public works operations. This would equate to $178,345 in wages not being spent in Winter Control but however, still being incurred as Public works expenses.

Page 24 of 75

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT For this reason, it would be my recommendation that out of the transfer going to the Winter Control reserve, an amount be drawn and reallocated to Public works operations. Roadside and Loosetop maintenance/Safety and signage Roadside Maintenance is over budget by $180,109. Due to the mild winter, staff continued drainage maintenance until the end of the year which would be an additional 6 weeks compared to normal practices. Further, additional issues were addressed on Massassauga, McGarvey, Carrying Place and Scanlan Roads. Loosetop Maintenance is over budget by $153,874. failures on Railton and First Lake Roads.

This can be attributed to base

Safety and Signage is over budget by $94,049. This can be attributed to: • replacement of guide rails on Perth Road due to a motor vehicle accident which were upgraded to steel beam rather than post and cable • Signs not meeting reflectivity requirements • Washburn and Burnt Hills centre line painting • 2 emergency road closure trailers Capital Roads Construction Capital Roads Construction was over budget by $275,765. This can be attributed to: • Guiderail upgrades on Washburn and Bob’s Lake Roads • Widened platform on local roads • Additional costs from blasting being required where a hoe ram wouldn’t work Facilities and Parks Facilities and Parks were over budget by $118,837. The primary driver is Centennial Park. Centennial Park on its own was over budget by $131,864. In reviewing expenses processed, this overage is driven from the 150th anniversary celebrations held at this park. Recommendations:

That $178,345 be drawn from the 2015 contribution to the winter control reserve and be reallocated to Public Works operations
Roads Construction alternatives: a) That the $132,032 be funded from Working Funds reserve b) That the $132,032 be reduced from the 2016 Roads Construction budget c) Combination of a) and b) The alternatives are based on a figure that would net to the overall deficit should recommendation 1 and 3 move forward.
That $118,837 be funded from the Parkland reserve to fund the costs associated with 150th celebrations Estimated 2015 year end reserve balances before any adjustments from recommendations are: Parkland Winter Control Working Funds

726,240 674,786 2,496,390

Managers receive detailed financial reports on a monthly basis. In discussing the financials with the Public Works manager and the CAO, it was proposed that a monthly meeting will take place between the Treasurer, Public Works manager and supervisors to review year-to date financials and also

Page 25 of 75

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT establish a process of recording outstanding invoices or committed funds that have not yet been processed for payment. Establishing this system will allow for the overview of all expenses committed to whether paid or not and better reflect year to date actuals as well as funds remaining for the year. ATTACHMENT 2015 Draft Financial report to December 31st Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

INC STATEMENT BvA-Council

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC For the Twelve Months Ending Thursday, December 31, 2015

Page 26 of 75

2015 Year Budget

2015 YTD Actuals

YTD Actual vs YTD Budget Variance

15,689,788 2,176,580 711,160 2,317,510 757,882 157,412 400,000 117,600 2,065 4,962,831 27,292,827

15,670,395 2,266,908 737,272 2,447,655 742,038 164,983 350,687 110,859 69,777 3,069,300 25,629,876

(19,393) 90,329 26,113 130,145 (15,844) 7,572 (49,313) (6,741) 67,712 (1,893,531) (1,662,951)

3,927,034

3,786,133

(140,902)

2,855,209 2,921,791 201,575 120,997 1,960 461,342

1,538,415 2,904,387 195,188 114,879 168 453,178

(1,316,794) (17,404) (6,387) (6,117) (1,792) (8,165)

3,597,746 6,734,500 1,852,049

4,237,063 6,882,414 1,764,252

639,317 147,914 (87,797)

297,162 2,838,196 1,145,134 338,131 27,292,827 0

315,380 2,468,672 1,109,920 289,042 26,059,090 429,214

18,218 (369,524) (35,215) (49,089) (1,233,737) 429,214

REVENUE Property Taxation User Charges Licenses, Permits and Rents Government Grants Grants from Other Municipalities Investment Income Penalties and Interest on taxes Donations Other Transfer from Reserves/Reserve Funds Total Revenues

OPERATING EXPENSE General Government Protection to Persons and Property Fire Police Conservation Authorities Protective Inspections and Control Emergency Measures Building Department Transportation Services Roadway Maintenance Capital Projects Winter Control Environmental Services Water System Solid Waste Management Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries Planning and Development Total Expenses TOTAL

Page 27 of 75

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

March 3, 2016

Agenda Date:

March 8, 2016

SUBJECT: Standardization of Recreation Committee Secretaries Payments The following information report was prepared at Administrations request to provide background information about the Recreation Committee Members and Secretaries honorariums and payments program. This information is being presented so that Council can make a decision on creating a standardized and equitable payments program for all recording secretaries. BACKGROUND: On March 3, 2015, Council adopted resolution # 2015-8-5 to ‘increase the recreation committee member’s honorarium for attendance at meetings from $25.00 to $30.00 effective January 1, 2015.’ AND THAT ‘this rate be adjusted on a regular basis at the same increment as negotiated for the Township’s bargaining unit commencing January 1, 2016.’ On February 29, 2016, the South Frontenac Recreation Committee made the following recommendation. Motion: THAT the South Frontenac Recreation Committee recommends all recording secretaries from all districts be paid at a rate of $65 per meeting, retroactive to January 1, 2016. Moved by: Councillor Norm Roberts Seconded by: Kevin Fox Carried Current Rates: Committee Members: • All committee members including recording secretaries are paid as per resolution # 2015-8-5 • All members including recording secretaries are paid for their mileage to attend the South Frontenac Recreation Committee meetings. Recording Secretaries Current remuneration: • South Frontenac Recreation Committee: $35.00 • Loughborough District Recreation Committee: $35.00 • Storrington District Recreation Committee: $20.00 • Bedford District Recreation Committee: No payment provided • Portland District Recreation Committee: No payment provided Note: The process for recording and reporting minutes is not standardized and differs from each District Recreation Committee. The new process established and agreed on by the Recreation Committees is as follows. • As soon as reasonably possible the Secretary of each committee will send the minutes/motions to both the Townships Executive Assistant (for circulating to Council) and to the Arena and Recreation Supervisor (for action). A template has been provided to ensure consistency. • To ensure ‘timely’ and ‘accurate’ payment of honorariums, mileage and Secretary remuneration. Each committee will complete an attendance form during the meeting and forward it to the Arena and Recreation Supervisor who will approve and arrange payment through the Treasury Department.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Prepared by: Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

.» <r 1

Page 28 of 75

.Qi?

s^C,

msung ^newabla ^.16,-gy :s c.-ecinQ c"9^n, rars-^o-a e i^v ,:c - ^,,3 .,^ ^ .

co,re. 7oo3the.-with o.vpartnars, G^SL^ :s -a.si-c c ^-oiilic:- TV^ i..it w regards !;c ;he r3nsw?b!s projec.3 i.i 0-.t£,-i; 10 c-3c.:3 ii-i3 .‘o/id’s ;?,-,-3SJ:”.

us i?. of ^;ir.

\ji

i^?:>s’cp^^<^’^?ilo!stl? sll^l^ate 903 cirsct r3rcw?bi3 “’ c-y n£rl: fc:cll-’:;‘c G?-.-i3’;;ic end \c ?.ri,ie:s ;;.. ?;-ovic:!.^ -.lush –=33^30 .i. ^ i., 03’. “^n: :es ^.-oi.^= OL. Cn^arb, :nc;i;j,- j :i£nu:ac;j;:n& fec:::i:is3 in ‘’’/i^^c ‘, “il!ccr.b.-r£, o-:-,; £ -,2 ^nr-^. 3u:l+ on a? Ttsu.‘g

r>. . “> .*, ^^.

s ccm-ns.-ciai ?n^ iscnric?: 3;;perLis.~, c .’^ ^ SL^COS: o’’ ;:

-3n3*^£0'9 ensrcy prsjects h severa’ ccjntries - :,’ ;iL-d:ng 1: 3 jri^c S^tes -1; E T p^

Spmsunc; ic creatinc –e?; jobs, thi-o-gh .-es.i ;nvesLns:-.i, ben^i^ini, .-^: p3yc,e.

.t ^ V.

Page 29 of 75

SAMSUNG RENEWABLE

QK^te-L

Alpe :.a.

L40&.

5^i

i^ll ^?<^f^’?r J F<?re’A

T-y-!l-^;,UI

‘?

FetiirhDr.7U2t6

(Operating)

.<”*

lya-hh&m /.. t.

^ fc .o

‘»

Biamptcr. o

KjtctaurQ (’.:

CambTif^R .’^d

ir-r

OFIin

.ndl

‘,3?.;

r-»

…L

-..ft:”:’

1-. ,

’ J Jt

J/-

^isirerr^rio

us-^awia 0

1'1-;1 ‘<! ’’ Q

^..t^’^^

Gah-ville 7OTntO

~4 ^

3irmw

Vau^ian o

Es°3

.L-’l

gs-nn ~f*

Belwille &

(Operating)

r^n c

,»

1L FT

; tan

Haffiiltcn 0

0 St C^thfiri-es K^ldl

Cree<

11^fU’l_

Ro^h^te”

BrantforcOStRrey l<jml

;-if’Vi’fWJ»

Ruffstle

o.~”

C^lth^m

EST

.-.^ *

;G;l*!’*i

‘ruk^;’ A^ IP

!’^va; ..

SyracjseO

.n^

^IIL’.

.;:

VI,,*!

‘‘J

One t

i-ap"hfl T

iL-L’J.&id

;a:mS?mo o Hi’ls Livon a

0 ). Tmri-”!-

^nathflm Kent

(Operating) FifiO

project equity Wfi.-j …’:

(Operating) 0

^ Six Nations holding 10% of ft

T1 -»»:;<»

.,;m t; y

nd;^<*o ‘0

E?hgdart:‘o

<i »

.^*.. .r

.*»;

Page 30 of 75

^rru’’tt “d f<>‘ri

11^‘3

SAMSUNG RENEWABLE

-ise CL’-.certive U;. ing c-ocesc. A

*T’

^^v

f.’

-t

.a/

.^ .^f

<»

2016 2Q

RFC Application t

SL’omlssion

“^

r
V-.’

J < .f L

.»

m.-,

» *

^ ^f

-f

^ * I. T»

v^>

^ d

-xpectea scned;

RFC release

20164Q

2;3 t ^

n-;7 ^

f^ ^*

^J’^/:^

9-;’;3;:/;

^‘oihication o’ Qualified

R’=P i-slease

–FiP2’-,o:3oscl submicshn

spplicante

-SL-

r’dificaticn of Se’scted °rooonent

Page 31 of 75

^ J.[\

» ^

“^. : G -,.J ,S ge ?rL:“y larcer’;- 3p dCC ‘Y-‘V ^-

-StI.Ti 9C r ‘C 3^ rei^ ° “. : 1^

r^ <^

SAMSUNG RENEWABLE

^ i.

r .

(..

1< . <1

^ «’ ^

Tentative Timeline

2016

2017

2018 ^

2019

2021

2020

.irrnir^.._

-I ^ rf

‘.1 <:

. ^ ^ Note: above schedule and p:ccecs are irdic&Jve basQd on the Qrewioj.s projects ^.ic subjecL .0 ^RP ^ procecs. .

Page 32 of 75

c <r

SAMSUNG RENEWABL

< T

^ -r

^. s. t I

Page 33 of 75

Page 34 of 75

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

March 3rd, 2016

Agenda Date:

March 8th, 2016

SUBJECT: 2015 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses Paid to Council Members RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Act, 284 (1), states that the treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to “each member of council in respect of his or her services as a member of the council or any other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of council”. The Municipal Act also states that the statement will identify the by-law under which the remuneration or expenses were authorized to be paid and that, despite the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this statement is a public record. ANALYSIS: Remuneration is paid based on by-law 2007-15, “A By-Law to Provide for the Remuneration for Members of Council”. The breakdown of Remuneration and Expenses paid to Council Members for the Year Ended December 31, 2015 is as follows: Patricia Barr Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,050.00 11,981.52 1,750.00 3,150.40 821.76 20,753.68

John McDougall Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,700.00 13,894.75 1,000.00 1,505.90 1,332.50 21,433.15

Alan Revill Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,200.00 11,981.52 1,000.00 1,958.55 1,443.43 19,583.50

Norman Roberts Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,650.00 11,981.52 1,000.00 1,199.00 1,153.35 18,983.87

2,235.00 10,983.06 1,000.00 491.00 1,238.10 15,947.16

Mark Schjerning Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

2,450.00 11,981.52 750.00 258.50 1,568.34 17,008.36

William Robinson Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

Page 35 of 75

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Ron Sleeth Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

1,500.00 11,981.52 0.00 406.45 600.00 14,487.97

Ron Vandewal Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

450.00 24,816.22 2,000.00 2,728.55 1,437.84 23,274.51

Ross Sutherland Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

4,250.00 12,155.45 1,000.00 1,865.60 600.00 19,871.05

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Page 36 of 75

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: March 8, 2016 Date of Report: March 2, 2016

Planning Department

File No. Z-14-04 Applicant: Jackson

Subject: Review of Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to Expand a Quarry in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI, Portland District, Township of South Frontenac:

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information the Planning Report dated March 2, 2016 regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a proposed quarry expansion on Petworth Road. The zoning follows from an Official Plan Amendment (OPA#21) which was approved by Council on March 3, 2015. Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee, an application for a zoning by-law amendment to expand a quarry operation. The quarry expansion is part of an Official Plan amendment application that Council approved one year ago which included a public meeting that dealt with both the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning amendment. The matter is expected to come before Council on March 15, 2016 to request approval of the zoning by-law amendment that would implement the amended Official Plan. Background As Committee members may recall, on March 3, 2015, Council approved a bylaw that would amend the Township’s Official Plan to permit the extension of an existing quarry operation. The amendment would expand the “Mineral Aggregate” designation of the Land Use Schedule and would include specific wording in the text of the Plan to still permit residential development to locate nearby to the operation. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the authority for final approval of the amendment and the ministry gave their final approval on October 16, 2015. It should be noted that a public meeting was held on March 18, 2014 that dealt with both the OPA and the zoning for the proposal. The Official Plan amendment changed the Official Plan map as it applies to the subject property which is located on Petworth Road near the hamlet of Petworth. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject property and Attachment #2 illustrates the existing quarry and the areas to be expanded. To implement the Official Plan amendment and to allow the expanded use to operate, a zoning by-law amendment is required. It is expect that this amendment will come before Council on March 15, 2016 for possible approval. Notes for the Committee The subject land is 18.6 hectares (46 ac.) in size. The existing quarry occupies an excavation area of approximately 2.1 hectares (5.2 ac.) that is approximately 5 metres deep. The limestone bedrock has a very particular appearance and texture and is excavated by physical and/or mechanical means. No explosives are used at the quarry for the reason that this would render the bedrock unsuitable for the high quality building stone use for which it is known. The bedrock is excavated in rectangular blocks, consistent with the natural layering (bedding plains) and joints in the material. Depending on market requirements, the blocks removed are generally of 1metre by 1.5 metres in size despite some being smaller as noted above. Excavated bedrock that does not meet the necessary size or shape requirements is kept on-site to be used in quarry rehabilitation ie., sloping of quarry faces. As part of the existing quarry licence,

Page 37 of 75 there is an allowance for waste-rock to be crushed at certain time of the year however, this had never occurred. Stone from this quarry can be seen in many buildings in the Kingston area. Mineral aggregate areas are placed on the Official Plan map at the direction of the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry where they have identified a natural resource that is worthy of being protected. The Plan states that it is the intention of Council to protect wherever possible and practical a reasonable amount of bedrock resources for aggregate extraction and to ensure that the resources are utilized in accordance with proper controls. Generally speaking, the Mineral Aggregate designation permits pits and quarry uses together with accessory uses such as crushing facilities, stockpiles and screening operations. The zoning by-law places pits and quarries in separate categories and may zone the use in a site-specific category depending on the nature of the operation. In the case of this application, the zoning by-law would restrict the use to passive type extraction and prohibit drilling, blasting and processing uses. It is important to note that the quarry operation is intermittent, occurring only when there is a need to supply a particular contract or to generate a stock of material which is shipped to another site for storage, display and ultimate sale. Thus, any noise, dust or traffic associated with the operation does not occur on a regular basis and is therefore minimized. It should also be emphasized that, even though the area of excavation is to be expanded, it is not expected that the scale of the operation would increase given that the work is only carried out on an as-needed basis as it always has been. The new area for excavation is to replace the original area that is becoming depleted. Also, as extraction progresses outward from the original extraction area the land is required to be rehabilitated ie., graded and planted. In addition, a site plan will illustrate the locations of all extraction limits, access, haul routes and all measures to mitigate adverse effects on neighbouring lands including berming, plantings, setbacks and other buffering measures. Now that the Official Plan amendment is approved the land still would need to be rezoned (as noted) to specify the uses and the annual tonnage allowed to be extracted. A site plan would also be registered on the title of the land to specify the locations of the above uses and contingencies. It is also important to note that a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act is also require for this expansion and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry will not issue their licence until Council has approved the zoning by-law amendment. As part of the effort to maintain these resources, the concept of an influence area is recognized in the Official Plan as a means of protecting against incompatible land uses in the vicinity of mineral aggregate designations and to protect existing pits and quarries from encroachment from other incompatible land uses. Accordingly, it is the policy of Council through the official plan, to prohibit residential land uses within 300 metres (984.3 ft.) of an existing or potential pit or quarry. The ARA licence application required that surrounding property-owners were consulted who, in turn, provided comments to the MNRF on the proposed licence in late 2013. The Planning Department also received comments leading up to the public meeting and at the meeting, a number of the area residents voiced concerns over the proposed expansion. Many were under the mistaken assumption that the amendment would allow the operator to extract more material per year, however in fact, the annual permitted tonnage would remain at under 20,000 tonnes. One resident abutting the subject land to the south expressed concerns about the effect on their well and there was a concern about safety at the entrance. The residents agreed that it did not seem fair that they are not permitted to apply for a severance within 300 metres of a quarry but that the quarry was permitted to expand within 300 metres of the residences. In attempting to address this concern, the applicant agreed to put into the amendment a special provision that

Page 38 of 75 would allow any residential expansion to occur as close as 150 metres to the quarry. This provision was finally approved by the ministry and will be incorporated into the zoning amendment. Also to address their concerns the owner of the quarry brought forward a revised site plan that would mitigate many of their objections. Attachment #3 is a copy of the site plan showing expanded berming and increased setbacks. Also attached is a list of the initiatives that would help address the concerns – this was mailed to all neighbours who had expressed concerns. It should be noted that all correspondence was forwarded to MMA&H and MNRF for their review. Both ministries supported the quarry expansion.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee receive for information the Planning Report dated March 2, 2016, regarding a rezoning to expand the Petworth quarry in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI, District of Portland. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk attachments JacksonOPAReportToCofW2016

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk

Page 39 of 75

Attachment #1

Jackson Quarry L{

Napanee Rilver i

i i

,”:

l I

:l 11 11

til

/<1

i l

?ei p a ji’

i ’l’l

lsubject Lotsl

-al

I j7

% l

il: i.

i l

‘::

W-

i’ll

ilii Ii ,i ‘-i, it,

Legend o O.25 0.5 li

Waterbody 1

N Kilometers

‘S

Wetl,34d l

Page 40 of 75

Attachment #2

Jackson Quarry f j a

? H91?IAD, !

r5r ri= r

Pl!:

l fl

a’Ql

71 t

Area to

oe t=xpanded

-[i

l it

l k

rr’f

‘y

Existing

Quarr);

r la

}

!Si

N %

‘J

‘%

h'4 ]l %a

‘J

‘yS

VN Nl i%

,’?’,,N

ff4

‘:I s

S€

}

’l

} & sm

iwf’

:yl

‘1

me’ a f o be E xp B n a e a Pm

l’} (‘1 l}}}’,’l [}} l}}}‘cl

}

f,}‘N

’l

l’

1 b

X i

r r F

i R

’l

f? 7

r r

r J

m l

? l

Legend

! 0 0.0250.05 0.1 Kilometers , l

Wetland

Page 41 of 75

Page 42 of 75

From: Ross Sutherland [mailto:7846elbe@gmail.com] Sent: February-18-16 9:28 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Item for consideration at the Committee of the Whole, February 22, 2016

Hi Wayne, I would like to have this placed on the agenda for the next COW meeting. thanks, Ross. Utilities Kingston asked if there was anything they could do to make the reports more useful. I would like to make three suggestions. Could the reports include:

calculations based on the number of hooked up sites in each category, that is residential and commercial, rather than Designated User Equivalents which is primarily a billing category,
brief definitions on units of measurement, including m3 and DUEs, that are used in the reports, and
distinctions between what is limits used in calculations that are required by law and those that are professional standards, best practices estimates, or suggested figures. It is clear that there is still a lack of information that allows Council to make a reasonable guess on potential to expand use, other than that the plant still has significant capacity to take on new users. It has been suggested that we need an inventory of building lots on the current water lines and a better estimate of user population. It has also been suggested that this information might be gained through a summer survey of the community. I would suggest, if this information is not already available, we also try and identify the number of holding tanks in use in the area north of Rutledge road and East of the Creek. I would like to refer these questions to the Public Works Committee. We also need to revisit the use of Designated User Equivalents (DUE) that we use for billing. I would like to refer this matter to the Corporate Affairs Committee.

Page 43 of 75

From: handen@xplornet.ca Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 1:17 PM To: Pat Barr; Joe Gallivan; info11111; John Mcdougall; Lindsay Mills; Wayne Orr; Peter Young; Alan Revill; Norm Roberts; Bill Robinson; Mark Schjerning; Ron Sleeth; Ross Sutherland; Ron Vandewal Subject: Proposed Hartington Subdivision

For the record: We are both shocked and surprised to learn that the Hartington sub-division is on the agenda for the Tuesday, March 1 Council meeting, even though it has been appealed to the OMB by the developer. There are a number of points with which we take issue, most of which revolve around maintaining the integrity of the water supply. We are also concerned that information received by council in the form of correspondence from SOS Inc. and Malroz Engineering in late January was not disclosed until the agenda for next week’s meeting was posted. These documents indicate that the level of hydrocarbon contamination increased between the July 2015 test and subsequent testing in November 2015. This is in spite of the fact that in excess of 250 tonnes of contaminated soil and rock was excavated and removed. We would expect that this removal would result in a decrease, not an increase. While granting that we are not experts in this area, there are what seem to be contradictory statements in paragraph 2: “November 2015 sampling data, four (4) of the seven (7) monitoring wells on the site contained petroleum hydrocarbon contamination that exceeds the applicable Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) standards.” and paragraph 7: “It is our opinion that based on the fact that local groundwater flow appears to be towards the east and that no hydrocarbon impact has been observed in water supply wells on properties located adjacent to the subject site, the potential is very low that hydrocarbon impact from the site will migrate to proposed supply wells located several hundred meters to the west of the site.” If the contamination of the wells mentioned in paragraph 2 does not originate from the site in question, the obvious question would be from where does it come. It is our understanding that there has yet to be any delineation of the hydrocarbon plume. The question of the extent of this plume remains, how wide spread and how deep does it go? Experts in this field have indicated that contamination levels of 1 part per million in soil can commonly translate to 100 parts per million in ground water. They also recognize that hydrocarbon contamination gets more dangerous as it ages since it begins breaking down into its components such as benzene and toluene, known carcinogens. According to the EcoWatch web site, “The major fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) each use hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals— often not disclosed—many of which are highly dangerous to human health.”

The effects of these chemicals often takes decades to appear. Allowing this sub-division to proceed without answering these question seems to us to be akin to embracing a ticking time bomb. One other thing to consider is this: the nature and interconnectedness of the aquifers in this are largely unknown. Nature as a rule does not ignore imbalance. SOS Inc. makes the conclusion that: " the potential is very low that hydrocarbon impact from the site will migrate to proposed supply wells located several hundred meters to the west of the site.” There exists a very real possibility that 13 houses drawing water from what has been acknowledged to be a delicate aquifer system could create, in effect, a vacuum effect that could draw water from the area that is contaminated. McIntosh Perry raised the question in their November 23, 2015, report about the likelihood of additional users of the aquifer promoting migration of the contaminant plume.

Page 44 of 75

In addition to the concerns expressed above is the fact that this area is known to be a karst area. The following are two quotes from the International Association of Hydrologists (IAH) Commission on Karst Hydrology web site: “Hundreds of millions of people drink water from karst aquifers worldwide. At the same time, karst aquifers are particularly vulnerable to contamination, due to their specific characteristics, such as the presence of natural conduits, which allow water to flow rapidly over large distances.” “Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live in karst areas and are supplied by drinking water from karst aquifers. These aquifers include valuable freshwater resources, but are sometimes difficult to exploit and are almost always vulnerable to contamination, due to their specific hydrogeologic properties. Therefore, karst aquifers require increased protection and application of specific hydrogeologic methods for their investigation. Other problems frequently encountered in karst areas include: soil erosion and rock desertification, leakages of channels and reservoirs, collapse of underground cavities and formation of sinkholes, and flooding. Resolution of these problems requires involvement of karst hydrogeology experts.” In our opinion, proceeding with this sub-division without addressing these issues is gambling with the health and safety of current and future residents of Hartington. We see it as your job to protect the health and safety of those residents and hope you will give serious attention to our concerns. Hanne and Dennis Saunders 4034 Boyce Road Hartington

Page 45 of 75 Feb. 29, 2016 South Frontenac Township Mayor, Councilors, Planning Dept. and CAO, and Frontenac County Council Warden, Councilors and Planning Dept. Dear Councils and Staff, I am writing to you, as a member of a Concerned Citizens Group, a group who has actively monitored the ongoing process where Magenta Development has sought South Frontenac Township’s approval of its Applewood Condominium and its Johnston Point Vacant Land Condominium developments. We, as public ratepayers of South Frontenac Township, have concerns with these developments and so have made presentations at Public Meetings, an Open House and Committee of the Whole meetings, have communicated our concerns to the South Frontenac Planning Department and Council, to Frontenac County Council Planning Department, CCRA and MNRF via personal meetings, phone calls, emails and letters and participated in the OMB hearing regarding Applewood. We have extensively researched MNRF policies, the developer’s agencies’ reports, PPS policies, the Township Official Plan and By-Laws, CCRA’s policies and more. We were shocked to read the following excerpt contained in Item 8 (i), “Applewood Condominium Agreement Bylaw Report” prepared by Lindsay Mills, SF Planner, for the Township’s Council Meeting Agenda on Mar. 1/16. “The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written and while the CAO is not in a position to state what is definitely needed at this time, nothing is to be gained by delaying approval. “ We were in utter disbelief that Council is being asked to sign an agreement that its staff admit that they cannot manage because the Township does not have the processes or staff to do so. Council is asked to go ahead and approve it despite this, as “there is nothing to be gained by delaying approval”. This request exhibits very bad organizational management. An organization, that does not understand or know what to do with a proposal, but agrees to it anyway to get the job done, exemplifies a very poor business model. The excerpt goes on to say, “During the implementation of the agreement staff will provide best efforts to work with the developer through the process. It is staff’s opinion that the provisions of the agreement fully implement the conditions of draft approval and they are therefore supported.” Our understanding of the above statement is that South Frontenac staff will try, that is “provide best efforts” to do what the developer tells them to do through the process. And while the previous excerpt statement says staff cannot manage the agreement as written, that is, that staff cannot understand or implement the agreement, this sentence states that staff thinks that the agreement is fine and they support it. We see these two statements as totally contradictory. Why is the Planning Department asking Township Council to endorse a Condominium Agreement that Township Staff cannot understand or manage? Furthermore, Item #10 (f) “ By-law 2016-15 Applewood Condominium Agreement”, a document which officially authorizes the Applewood Condominium, outlines the many requirements of “the Municipality” that is, South Frontenac Township staff, in overseeing both the many phases of the development construction process and the condominium’s adherence to the many conditions post development completion. We ask how the South Frontenac staff will be able to effectively manage an agreement, when “The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement”. It is very clear to us that South Frontenac is not able to support the Applewood Condominium Development and consequently, will not be able to support the upcoming Johnston Point Development. Their inability to manage the conditions of the condominium agreement clearly illustrates that they will also not be able to manage conditions for the protection of the Provincially Significant Wetlands and Species at Risk in either of these developments. We ask that:

The Township CAO and South Frontenac Township Council explain a) what these process and staffing capacity inadequacies are and why they exist, given that the Applewood Condominium has been on the table for 2 years, and b) would these same inadequacies apply to future condominium developments; and
both South Frontenac Township Council and Frontenac County Council DO NOT APPROVE the Applewood Condominium Agreement; and
both South Frontenac Township Council and Frontenac County Council DO NOT APPROVE the Johnston Point Development.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Helen Bartsch, On behalf of a Concerned Citizens Group

Page 46 of 75

February 29, 2016

By E-mail Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO

Attention: MayorVandewal Councillors Lindsay Mills, Planner Wayne Orr, Clerk Dear Mayor, Councillors, Mr. Mills and Mr. Off:

Re: Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, Portland Dbtrict Township of South Frontenac Proposed Subdivision Developmsnt We are writing with respect to ltem # 8f on Council’s March 1, 2010 Agenda. Under this item appear 2 letters; one from Specialized Onsite Services (SOS) lnc. dated January 28,2016 and one from Malroz Engineering, which is undated. As per our last mrrespondence, we again confirm we were not provided with a copy ofthis correspondence until the posting of the Agenda to the Township’s website on Thursday, February 25, 2016, almost a month following the date of SOS’S letter. We are once again dismayed at the lateness of the disclosure of these correspondences, which has prevented the community from being given a fair and reasonable opportunity to make further verbal representations to council regarding the contents of same. Therefore, prior to Council making a decision regarding Mr. Mills’ Planning Report and further to all prior communications the mmmunity has submitted to the Township and the County concerning this matter, we wish to make the following written submissions:

‘1. HYDROCARBON CONTAMINATION - The disclosure in SOS’S letter dated January 28, 2016, that the levels of contaminanls found at the former gas station in Hartington have increased and are now detectible in 4 out of 7 monitoring wells, is extremely dislurbing to the community. lt is incumbent on the municipality to insure this site is fully and properly remediated. This is a public health and safety concern that cannot be ignored. SOS states in their September 28, 2015 report at page two that, “…hydrocarbon contamination was identified in the fractured bedrock layers around the perimeter of the excavated area”. [emphasis added] The maps attached hereto as Attachment ‘A’ and Attachment “8”, demonstrate that the Hartington area is a Karst area. According to a paper by The Worldwide Groundwater Organization, which is attached hereto as Attachment “C”, Karst areas “…consist of solid but chemically soluble rock such as limestone” and “a karst aquifer may be present

Page 47 of 75 even when there are no discernible karst landforms at the land surface… “. ln addition, ’these aquifers…are almost alwavs vulnerable to contamination”. [emphasis added] ASC’S Hydrogeological report dated October 31, 2013, at page 6, as well as other of their various communications over the past three years have repeatedly characterized the lands to the west ofthe former gas station, which are the subject mafter of the proposed subdivision, as a moderate to hiohly vulnerable aquifer due to the vadable nature of the underlvinq fractured limestone bedrock aquifer and as having (a!q! like hydrogeologic characteristics. ln a July 9, 2001, report commissioned by Concerned Walkerton Citizens, it was found that the nature of the Karst aquifer, from which the Walkerton wells drew, significantly contributed to the tragedy that occurred in Walkerton. Conclusion number two, three and tive, and recommendation number two of this report, at pages 39 and 42 respectively, state:

‘General Conclusions

Much of southern Ontario is underlain by carbonate aquifers. These are likely to be karstified to varying degrees, though there has been no systematic assessment. Thus the susceptibility of these aquifers to bacterial contamination is poorly known.
Karst aquifers are characterized by networks of conduits. These conduits comprise a small fraction of the volume of a karst aquifer, and so the major ones are likely to be missed by wells. The conduits form tributary networks which deliver water rapidly to springs, with an average velocity of 1700 m/day. The conduits can thus transport contaminants large disiances over short periods without significant amelioration in water quality, except perhaps by dilution.
Groundwater velocities in carbonate aquifers which are calculated by computer models are liable to be too low if the models do not incorporate karstic conduit networks. lt is essential to determine groundwater velocities in the field, rather than to rely on computer models.”

‘Recommendations

The Drecautionarv princiDle should be used in assessing carbonate aquifers. lt should be assumed that rapid flow along conduits may be present and suiiable precaulions should be taken. lt must be recognized that there is inevitably considerable uncertainty in many hydrogeologic parameters in karstified carbonate aquifers, especially those mantled by overburden.” [emphasis added] It is absolutely criticalto the health and safety ofthe residents of Hartington that the nature of the Karst bedrock underlying this area be fully appreciated and respected. This is especially so in light of the information revealed in SOS’S January 28, 2016 letter, that the contamination at the site of the former gas station in Hartington is increasing and that the contaminant plume has not been delineated. The community is terrified contaminants from the former gas station and/or those additional sites identified

Page 48 of 75 3

by Mclntosh Perry will reach their source of drinking water, along with the elevated nitrate-nitrite leveis found on the site ofthe proposed subdivision. Upon reviewing the materials attached and the 2001 report prepared for the Concerned Citizens of Walkerton, it would appear the community has very good reason for these fears. lt is chilling to think that despite the wealth of knowledge regarding Karst areas, South Frontenac is poised to repeat history, not only with respect to the hydrocarbon contamination but also with respect to the nitrate loading on the site of the proposed subdivision. We again implore each of you to make the public’s safety your top priority and in doing so to Lonsider the numerous risks to the community’s groundwater source, including those risks identified by Quinte Conservation in their June 2, 2015 correspondence to the Township, a further copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment ‘D” As indicated before, this Township should not accept development at all costs. There is strong evidence to suggest certain areas of South Frontenac are too sensitive for the density of development being proposed. We again urge you to reject the proposed subdivision in light of the sheer volume of concerns and unanswered questions that remain concerning same.

HYDRO FRACTURING - lt is our understanding that more than one councillor has

spoken with Paul Johnston ofASC Environmental, the proponent’s Hydrogeologist, and that he has coniirmed hydro fracturing occurred on the subject site. To date, no information has been provided to the community regarding these activities as required by the Ministry of the Environment. The community must be provided with this information so thatthe effects ofsuch activity can be properly assessed We again implore you to assist by demanding the proponent provide this information.

PLANNING REPORT - Finally, we are extremety disappointed by the number of inaccuracies in Mr. Mills’planning report, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Tssting of Each Well - at page 79 of the Agenda package Mr. Mills’ states “ASC is committed to having each well installed at the site evaluated by a qualified hydrogeologist.”

ASC’S June 23, 2015, correspondence, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment “E”, does not support Mr. Mills’ assertion. This document actually states at page 1:

“Based on our extensive hydrogeological evaluation at the subject property over the past 2 years we do not anticipate concerns regarding long term water supply or significant interference with adjacent neighbours during peak demand periods. The natural heterogeneity of the bedrock aquifer EAy result in isolated areas within the subdivision where evaluation of water supply may be necessary to support domestic requirements.” Upon reading the entirety of this document the reader is led to believe that

Page 49 of 75 assessment of wells will be at the discretion of and conducted by ASC with not every well being subject to the testing contemplated by Quinte Conservation in their June 2, 2015 corespondence, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment “D”. We confirm Quinle’s comments were as follows:

‘As discussed the testing completed on the site has demonstrated variable hvdroqeoloqical conditiels. To address this variability the prooonent’s consultant has Droposed that a hvdroqeolooical assessment be comoleted on each individual lot by a qualified hydrogeologist to ensure that a suitable water supply is available. Based on this recommendation our oflice would advise that the Municipality obtain assurance of what each individual hydrogeological assessment would be comprised of how such an assessment would address adverse conditions. Potential adverse conditions could include bui not necessarily limited to: no water supply available, a well that intercepts water of unacceptable quality such as salt, or unacceptable well interference with a neighbouring well.

ln reference to site variability and given that some test wells on the property intercepted water of unacceptable quality (salt water) we are concerned that the use of such wells could result in the contamination of a neighbouring well of good quality. Therefore we do not recommend the use of wells with qualitv that does not meet the requirements of Ministrv of the Environment Guidelines O-5-5 (August, 1996).” [emphasis added] Clearly Quinte Conservation is concerned that adverse conditions may exist on the subject site, and in light of the materials attached hereto regarding Karst areas this is with good cause, yet contrary to ASC’S indication above that same are not anticipated. lt is further clear that Quinte Conservation believed the proponent was commifting to a hydrogeological assessment on each individual lot. However, as indicated above, this is not what ASC’S June 26, 2015, correspondence actually says. ln addition, Malroz’s October 17, 2014, correspondence to Joe Gallivan at the County of Frontenac advised at page 7, paragraph 14 that “the results have been tabulated for on-site wells for 2013 and 2014. The results showed exceedences of MOE standards for the following parameters: hardness, TDS, TKN, turbidity, fluoride, sodium, chloride, iron and coliforms.” lemphasis addedl

Thus, Mr. Mills’ indications that this matter has been resolved, appear to be sorely lacking and the proposed drat plan conditions will not provide the protection sought by the community and advised by Quinte Conservation. b)

Effecb on Groundwater - at page 80 of the Agenda package Mr. Mills states that ASC Environmental’s December 3, 2015 letter concludes that “adjacent residential septic systems and agricultural operations clearly have no potentialfor adverse influence on groundwater quality from nitrates in the soil… "

This is incorrect. ASC’S Oecember 3, 2015, correspondence actually states:

Page 50 of 75 5

“seasonal crop spraying of nitrogen rich fertilizers and herbicides related to extensive agricultural activity over a number of years is expected to be the contributing factor regarding nitrate levels observed Clearly with residential re-development of the site, these agricultural processes would no longer be a potential adverse influence on groundwater quality.’ Clearly ASC was not referring to adjacent uses but rather to the alleged uses on the subJect property itself. ln addition, the issue to which ASC was responding pertain;d to nitrate-nitrite concentrations found in test well samples,not in soil samples. Nowhere in ASC’S letter do they indicate the position Mr. Mills’ has presented and nowhere in his report does Mr. Mills address the concerns raised by the community regarding the ongoing nature and type of agricultural uses being made of the subject lands and their lack of explanation for the high nitrate levels found thereon. Nor does Mr. Mills provide any sort of meaningful assessment of the reports provided to the Township by the community’s consultant Mclntosh Perry. lt remains inconceivable to the community that the addition of 13 septic systems, in a condensed configuration, in Karst, would have “no potential for adverse influence on groundwater quality”. c) Hydrocarbons - at page 80 of the Agenda package Mr’ Mills’ reiterates ASC’S Dlcember 3, 2015, position regarding the hydrocarbons at the site of the former gas station in Hartington. However, Mr. Mills fails to point out in his report that ASc’s said lefter predates the additional information received by the Township from SOS and Malroz advising that:

i) “the horizontal groundwater gradient was relatively flat”; ii) “contamination was found to extend out laterally from the former underground fuel storage tanks to the north, south, east and west”;

iii) “information provided by Cambium showed a slight increase in hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater since the SOS sampling that occurred in July 2015”;

iv)’ “four (4) of seven (7) monitoring wells on the site contained petroleum hydrocarbon contamination that exceeds the applicable Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) standards”; and

v) “sampling indicated that the shallow groundwater petroleum hydrocarbon plume is not delineated”. (SOS’S January 18 and 28, 2016 letters and Malroz’s undated correspondence)

ln addition, at page 80 ofthe Agenda package Mr. Mills states: “The SOS letters were also reviewed by Malroz Engineering who, by letter sent to the Township on February ‘19, 2016, agreed with the findings and confirmed that groundwater analyses conducted by SOS and Cambium lnc’ revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was below laboratory detection limits.”

Page 51 of 75 6

The only document that appears in the Agenda package from Malroz is an undated communication to Joe Gallivan at the County of Frontenac at page 113, which actually states “groundwater analyses conducted by SOS and Cambium identify petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the shallow qroundwater with the deeper supply wells as being below laboratory detection limits for petroleum hydrocarbons. lt appears that the petroleum hvdrocarbon Dlume at the site has not been fullv delineated and should be manaqed in accordance with TSSA and MOECC requlations.” lemphasis added] Mr. Mills’ report misrepresents the contents of Malroz’s communications, which is extremely concerning to the community. ln addition, it fails to mention at any point that MOECC has requested a monitoring plan from the Township to address concerns of further migration. Discussions with a local environmental remediation company has reinforced the community’s concerns regarding the subject site and revealed that 1 part per million of certain contaminants in soil can result in 100 parts per million of said contaminants in water. Mr. Mills also fails to explain why Malroz’s September 24, 2015, report indicates that the proponent may want to consider testing for common indicators of petroleum contamination as well as for indicators indicative of contamination associated with a rail line. Nor does he explain how the proponent has satisfied MOECC’S D-5-4 Guideline section 5.1(d), which indicates the developer must demonstrate that the area is not obviously hydrogeologically sensitive (for example, karstic areas, areas of fractured bedrock exposed at surface, areas of thin soil cover, or areas of highly permeable soils). d) Lot Frontagersettlement Boundaries - Mr. Mills states at page 78 of his report that “Ofiicial Plan policies relating to the land within the boundaries of the Settlement Areas designation do not suggest any minimum frontage requirement the

presumably to allow increased densities here”. As indicated previously, place the took at community feels this is incorrect in light of the discussions that time the current Official Plan was initially drafted. ln this regard, attached hereto as Attachment “F” is a copy of the Planning Committee’s Minutes from May 10, 1999, which state at item 5a) that “there was a general agreement that hamlet development should be on the basis of laroer lots, with the potential for severing of these lots should public servicing (water and/or sewer svstem) be installed”. [emphasis added] Mr. Mills further states at page 76 of his report that “the area to be developed is located fully within the Settlement Area designation”. However, he provides no map to evidence this assertion. Based on the Township’s Official Plan map, it appears the southerly boundary of the village actually runs to the north of where the proponent plots the southerly boundary of his most southerly lots as well as the southerly portion of the road. ln addition, we note that the examples of reduced frontage developments within hamlet areas that was provided by Fotenn in their October 9, 2015 letter to Joe Gallivan at page 9, and to which Mr. Mills refers at page 78 of the Council Agenda, appear to include mainly examples of developments outside hamlet

Page 52 of 75 7

areas with one example actually being a development in the Village of Sydenham, which is on municipalwater and clearly cannot be compared to the present ProPosal in Hartington

e) Community Concerns - ln addition, Mr. Mills continues to disregard or

misrepresent many community concerns, which have been presented to the Township in written correspondence over the past three years. We further note that to date we still have not been provided with a copy of the alleged Preliminary Stormwater Management Report dated August 10, 2015, despite making numerous requests for same.

ln conclusion, the community continues to be ofthe beliefthat none of its concerns have been satisfactorily answered or addressed. Their overriding concern for their health and safety appears to be being ignored even though the circumstances surrounding same are similar to those associated with the Walkerton tragedy. In light of the continuad, critical and significant concerns expressed above, it appears to be patently unreasonable for Council to accept Mr. Mills’ report and drat plan conditions, especially in light of the pending OMB hearing where Council’s continued concerns should be expressed instead.

Yours truly,

,{,*r/

Wade Leonard cc:

Joe Galliva=n, Frontenac County Planner Ministry ofthe Environment (Kyle Stephenson, District Engineeo

Lesperance

Southern

Ontario

Karst

Attachment “A”

Ontario Ontario Geological Survey Karst study for

SOUTHERN ONTARIO This map is published with the permission of the Senior Manager, Sedimentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey.

Figure 1. A sinkhole of the Gervais cave-three island cave system. This karst network of joint-controlled conduits and sinkholes/sumps extends for a few kilometres proximal to the present-day river course and occurs in the miniescarpment-forming Bobcaygeon-Gull River formational limestones, Westmeath area, Ottawa River.

Figure 6. Large stalactites in Root Cave, northern Bruce Peninsula. This gated cave is among the few Ontario caves that may contain pre-glacial paleoclimatic records within the cave draperies, sediments and biota. This joint-controlled karst cave displays some evidence of wave-cut processes during part of its development.

Figure 5. Bruce’s Caves, Bruce Peninsula, southern Ontario. It is known as wave-cut or sea cave which formed by wave abrasion and possible meltwater influences during higher lake levels while Laurentide ice sheet was retreating northward.

Location Map

SOURCES OF INFORMATION Base map: Natural Resources and Values Information System (NRVIS) Projection: NAD 83 Image overlay: Bedrock topography (bedrock surface with the glacial materials removed)

CREDITS Author: The Ontario Geological Survey

Hartington Area

Figure 7. Mindemoya or Skeleton Cave, central Manitoulin Island. This cave formed by surface waters creating a joint-controlled sinkhole in cuestaforming Fossil Hill Formation dolostones that cap finely crystalline dolostones of underlying St. Edmund Formation. The lithologic contrast and sequence boundary enabled bedding-plane controlled conduits to develop resulting in the present-day cave system.

Acknowledgements: Derek Armstrong, Mark Boone, Marcus Buck, Sandra Clarke, Daryl Cowell, Lona-Kate Dekeyser, Shannon Evers, Simon Gautrey, Joanna Gaweda, Harvey Goodfellow, Ken Goodfellow, Ron Hopper, Walter Jensen, Charlie Koch, Phil Kor, Arley Leader, Brian Luinstra, Ryan Mariotti, Gord Middleton, Scott Parker, John Petrie, Paul Ritchie, Dan Russell, Mr. Spearing, Jeff Truscott, Cody Walter, John Warbick, Dave Webster, William White, David Williams and Steve Worthington. Every possible effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented on this map; however, the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines does not assume any liabilities for errors that may occur. Users may wish to verify critical information.

Figure 2. Cave draperies (stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone) of the Moira Cave — the second largest cave system known in southern Ontario (after Gervais and three island cave system near Westmeath, Ottawa River). This karst cave system has developed within same Middle Ordovician limestone units as Gervais Cave (lower Bobcaygeon-upper Gull River formational interval).

Issued 2008. Information from this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference be made in the following form: Brunton, F.R. and Dodge, J.E.P. Karst map of Southern Ontario, including Manitoulin Island; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resource Study 5.

LEGEND Known Karst - observed, measured field data or data from Published reports. Key features include: karren, cave types and associated precipitates, sinkholes and disappearing streams. Inferred Karst - regions of carbonate bedrock units highlighted as most vulnerable or susceptible to karstification, where direct field observations have not been made by OGS staff or other sources. A natural extrapolation of the known karst areas for given rock units.

Figure 8. Tuckersmith Sinkhole, southwestern Ontario. This sinkhole is typical of a series of sinkhole clusters that have developed within the thinner drift areas of Huron and Bruce counties, southwestern Ontario. Sinkholes preferentially occur above and within the Middle Devonian age high-purity dolostones of the Lucas Formation and less commonly where fossiliferous limestones of the Dundee Formation cap Lucas Formation dolostones.

Figure 3. Sinkholes that formed during past paleodrainage conditions within mini-cuestaforming limestones of lower Bobcaygeon and upper Gull River formations, Tyendinaga, southeastern Ontario.

Potential Karst - areas of carbonate rock units identified as most susceptible to karst processes. Unknown or no observed evidence of karstification due to the character of bedrock, lack of outcrop and/or relative thickness of overburden.

SYMBOLS Karst features - cave, crevice, sinkhole Joints, hyperlinked Borehole logs, hyperlinked Field photos, hyperlinked Contact, approximate

Figure 4d. A plaque erected in 1977 by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to recognize the significance of karst topography as the dominant landform of the Niagara Escarpment margin across southwestern Ontario (Niagara Falls to Manitoulin Island).

Figure 4a. Sinkhole displaying joint-controlled opening of drain in Amabel dolostones, Niagara Escarpment.

Contact, interpreted Contact, observed Provincial boundary Fault-contact, ball on downthrown side Fault-contact, no dip, no downthrown side indicated Fault, ball on downthrown side Fault, no dip, no downthrown side indicated

Figure 4c. The main drain where upper Wodehouse Creek waters are diverted into Amabel dolostone conduits to reemerge a few kilometres away at the edge of the Beaver Valley.

Figure 4. Wodehouse Karst area, Niagara Escarpment. A series of more than 16 sinkholes drain a small lake and creek system that is seasonally flooded. Sinkholes drain surface waters into the Amabel Formation dolostones - the caprock dolostone of the Niagara Escarpment. Bedrock groundwaters then flow along joint- and bedding-plane-controlled conduits to form springs in Kimberley and Talisman areas of Beaver Valley.

Figure 4b. This knob of Amabel dolostone, interpreted as a roche moutonnee, displays the open joint conduit network for enhanced groundwater flow and potential for cave development at the downstream end of the Wodehouse creek system. Page 53 of 75

Attachment “B”

Page 54 of 75

Attachment “C”

Home

Karst Hydrogeology

News

Members

Page 55 of 75

Activities & Partners

Publications

Photos

Sponsors

About Karst Hydrogeology What is karst? Karst is a type of landscape, and also an aquifer type. Karst areas consist of solid but chemically soluble rock such as limestone (most important) and dolomite, but also gypsum, anhydrite and several other soluble rocks. The chemical reaction describing limestone dissolution is:

CaCO 3 + CO 2 + H 2O = Ca

2HCO 3 -

Karst landscapes show characteristic landforms caused by chemical dissolution, such as karren (crevices and channels, tens of cm wide), dolines and sinkholes (closed depressions, tens of m in diameter) and poljes (large depressions with flat floor, several km 2 or more). Streams and rivers sinking underground via swallow holes are also frequent.

Picture 1: swallow hole: Surface stream sinking underground via a swallow hole, Sierra de Libar , Spain (photo: N. Goldscheider)

Karst aquifers are characterised by a network of conduits and caves formed by chemical dissolution, allowing for rapid and often turbulent water flow.

Page 56 of 75

Picture 2: water cave:

Turbulent water flow in a cave, Grotte de Vallorbe , Switzerland (photo: R. Wenger, ISSKA)

A karst aquifer may be present even when there are no discernible karst landforms at the land surface, and even when there are no known and accessible caves.

Why are karst aquifers important? Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live in karst areas and are supplied by drinking water from karst aquifers. These aquifers include valuable freshwater resources, but are sometimes difficult to exploit and are almost always vulnerable to contamination, due to their specific hydrogeologic properties. Therefore, karst aquifers require increased protection and application of specific hydrogeologic methods for their investigation. Other problems frequently encountered in karst areas include: soil erosion and rock desertification, leakages of channels and reservoirs, collapse of underground cavities and formation of sinkholes, and flooding. Resolution of these problems requires involvement of karst hydrogeology experts.

Hydrogeologic characteristics of karst aquifers Evolution : Karst aquifers form by flowing water containing carbon dioxide (CO 2) which dissolves carbonate rocks. Therefore, there is a close relation between aquifer evolution, the formation of caves (speleogenesis) and groundwater flow. Individuality : Although there are many similarities among different karst systems, every karst system is also a special case and generalisation is difficult. Heterogeneity : The properties of karst aquifers greatly vary in space. There may be large quantities of water in a cave, but a borehole a few metres away may be completely dry. Anisotropy : The aquifer hydraulic properties depend on the orientation of geologic fabric elements; for example, the hydraulic conductivity is typically high in the direction of large fractures and conduits, but may be low in other directions. Duality of recharge : Recharge water may originate from the karst area itself (autogenic recharge) or from adjacent non-karstic areas (allogenic recharge). Duality of infiltration : Infiltration occurs through the soil and unsaturated zone (diffuse infiltration), and may also be concentrated via swallow holes/sinks (point infiltration).

Page 57 of 75 Duality of porosity and flow : There are two or even three types of porosity in karst aquifers: intergranular pores in the rock matrix, common rock discontinuities such as fractures (fissures) and bedding planes, and solutionally-enlarged voids such as channels and conduits developed from the initial discontinuities. Whereas groundwater flow in the matrix and small fissures is typically slow and laminar, flow in karst conduits (caves) is often fast and turbulent. Variability : The water table in karst aquifers can sometimes fluctuate 10s or even 100s of metres in short periods of time, and karst springs typically show rapid variations of discharge and water quality.

Picture 3: block diagram:

Block diagram of a heterogeneous karst aquifer illustrating the duality of recharge (allogenic vs. autogenic), infiltration (point vs. diffuse) and porosity/flow (conduits vs. matrix) (Goldscheider & Drew 2007).

Difficulties in using karst groundwater Vulnerability to contamination : Contaminants can easily enter karst aquifers through thin soils or via swallow holes (sinks). Inside the aquifer, contaminants can quickly spread over large distances, due to rapid and turbulent flow in the conduit network. Natural attenuation processes, such as filtration and retardation, are often less effective than in other aquifers. Access to water : Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, it is difficult to drill a successful water supply well into a karst aquifer. In mountainous karst regions, the water table is often very deep below land surface, sometimes 100s of metres. Karst springs are typically very large, but also quite rare. Even in humid regions, there are often large areas without any accessible water because surface water runoff and rainfall quickly infiltrate into the karst aquifer and flow to distant springs. Variability : Water suppliers prefer water sources with stable discharge and water quality, but karst springs often show high variations of both. Periods of excellent water quality may be interrupted by short contamination events.

Methods to study karst aquifer systems Due to the characteristics described above, conventional hydrologic and hydrogeologic methods often fail when applied to karst; their adaptations and karst-specific methods are therefore required. Geologic methods : The lithology, stratigraphy, fracturing, fault pattern and fold structures are crucial to understanding groundwater flow in karst aquifers. Speleology : Conduits and underground channels are crucial for groundwater flow in karst aquifers. Caves make it possible to enter the aquifer and directly observe and study a part of the conduit-channel network. Hydrologic methods : Due to the high variability of flow rates of sinking streams, cave streams and karst springs, continuous monitoring of water quantity and quality is crucial in karst hydrogeologic studies.

Hydraulic methods : Potentiometric maps and hydraulic tests in boreholes and wells are widely applied in hydrogeology but require Page 58 of 75 specific adaptations when applied to karst. Isotopic techniques : Stable and radioactive isotopes can help to identify the origin of the water, determine transit times, and characterise mixing processes. Tracer tests : Tracer tests are the most powerful method to identify point-to-point connections (typically between swallow holes/sinks and springs), to delineate karst spring catchments, and to characterise flow and transport in the conduit networks.

Picture 4: green tracer:

Injection of a fluorescent tracer (uranine) into a swallow hole, Austrian Alps (photo: N. Goldscheider)

Geophysical methods : Geophysics can help identify locations for well drilling, investigate subsurface cavities (potential sinkholes) and obtain other information on the aquifer structure. Modelling : Mathematical models can help to better understand speleogenesis, flow and transport in karst aquifers. However, there are examples where the application of conventional groundwater flow models in karst environments produced catastrophically wrong results and resulted in delineation of grossly inadequate source protection zones, leading to disease outbreaks, all because the specific nature of karst was ignored.

Page 59 of 75

Picture 5: Walkerton tragedy:

Illustration of the hydrogeologic reasons of a waterborne disease outbreak that occurred in May 2000 in Walkerton, Canada. The 30-day capture zone for drinking water well 7 was delineated on the basis of modelling

(MODFLOW), ignoring the specific nature of karst. Subsequent tracer tests demonstrated that the protection zones were inadequate (S. Worthington, in Goldscheider & Drew 2007).

Selected books for further reading Drew D, Hötzl H (1999) Karst Hydrogeology and Human Activities. Impacts, Consequences and Implications. Balkema, Rotterdam, 322 pp. Ford D, Williams P (2007) Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. Wiley, 576 pp. Goldscheider N, Drew D (Eds.) (2007) Methods in Karst Hydrogeology. Taylor & Francis, London, 264 pp. Käss W (1998) Tracing Technique in Geohydrology. Balkema, Rotterdam, 581 pp. Kresic N (2007). Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modeling, Second Edition. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, New York, London, 807 p. White WB (1988) Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 464 pp.

©: IAH Karst Commission 2009 - 2013 l contact: goldscheider@kit.edu l impressum: N. Goldscheider & N. Kresic webdesign: www.biothemen.de

Attachment “D”

Page 60 of 75

VIA EMAIL June 2, 2015 Peter Young Community Planner County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 Dear Mr. Young: Re:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision File 10T-2013/002 (Terry Grant Construction) Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 Geographic Township of Portland, Municipality of South Frontenac Applicant: 1278804 Ontario Inc.

Further to our last correspondence (dated April 30, 2015), staff of the Conservation Authority have reviewed additional information regarding the hydrogeological assessment of the above referenced property (prepared by ASC Environmental, dated May 20, 2015). This correspondence was prepared in response to hydrogeological comments provided by Quinte Conservation in a memo dated May 6, 2015. Following review of the May 20, 2015 correspondence, telephone conversations were held between the undersigned and both Paul Johnston of ASC Environmental and John Pyke of Malroz (peer review agent for the municipality). As discussed the testing completed on the site has demonstrated variable hydrogeological conditions. To address this variability the proponent’s consultant has proposed that a hydrogeological assessment be completed on each individual lot by a qualified hydrogeologist to ensure that a suitable water supply is available. Based on this recommendation our office would advise that the Municipality obtain assurance of what each individual hydrogeological assessment would be comprised of how such an assessment would address adverse conditions. Potential adverse conditions could include but not necessarily limited to: no water supply available, a well that intercepts water of unacceptable quality such as salt, or unacceptable well interference with a neighbouring well. In reference to site variability and given that some test wells on the property intercepted water of unacceptable quality (salt water) we are concerned that the use of such wells could result in the contamination of a neighbouring well of good quality. Therefore we do not recommend the use of wells with quality that does not meet the requirements of Ministry of the Environment Guidelines D-5-5 (August, 1996). Any well that does not

Page 1 of 2

Page 61 of 75

meet this requirement must be suitably decommissioned in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903. We would recommend that the above be reviewed with your peer review consultant and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely,

Mark Boone, P.Geo Hydrogeologist /mb c.

ASC Environmental

Page 2 of 2

Attachment “E”

Page 62 of 75

Page 63 of 75

Attachment “F”

AGENDA TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING 05199 May 10th.r1999 -7:oo p.m.

Sydenham Centre - Council Chambers

Meeting Called To Order

Adoption of Minutes Completion of Review of - General Development Policies

a) b) c) d) e) 0

Settlement Areas Definition - Servicing Waterfront Development, Private Road Development, Mobile Homes, Group Homes, Granny Flats

Review of - Land Development

a) b) b) c)

Severance,

Subdivision, Strip Development,

Infilling

Next Meeting - To re-appraise, evaluate, revise document

Nerv Business

Adjournment

Page 64 of 75

Page 65 of 75

MINUTES TOWNSIIIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON April 126., lggg Present : Don SmittL David tlahn, Michelle Foxtoq Susan O’Brien-MacTaggart, Larry Redden, Reg. Watsorl Len McCullougtr, Sylvia Coburq Trevor WilsorL Albert Moreland, Roxanne Darling-Greenslade, Ronald Sleeth Consultant & Staff: Brent Barnes, Gary Stefarq David Bass Resolution Pl A 12:01:99

Moved by D. Smith

Seconded by L. Redden

That this April 12ft., 1999 meeting of the South Frontenac Planning Advisory Committee be called to order with Brent Barnes in the Chair. Carried Resolution P I A 12:0299 Moved by M. L. Foxton

Seconded by T. Wilson

That the Committee hereby adopts the minutes of the meeting of March 8e., 1999. Carried

Brent Barnes indicated that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is prepared to have technical people meet with the Planning Advisory Committee. The committee restated the position that such involvement will be acceptable, but only at the end ofthe process. The committee expressed a concern that one developer could purchase several large holdings in an area, gain the maximum consents on each of the holdings, resulting in strip development, where a Plan of Subdivision would have been superior. The present Official Plans do not address this matter, and it is doubtful that the Committee of Adjustment/Land Division Committee could refuse to approve the applications unless the committee can prove that the number of lots approved in the area is beyond the reasonable development of the area (i.e. stress on road system, need for hydrogeological study, potential for super-saturation of area land because of concentration of septic systems). Concern re 6.4. (i) : This clause deals with the involvement of the Conservation Authorities and Ministry ofNatural Resources regarding the diversion of minor creeks and watercourses. Such water related situations exist on local farms, and it was felt that farmers would have reason to manipulate such areas for the installation of drainage systems and general management of the farmlands. This concern was corrected by changing the word “person” to “developer” on the third line. Concern re 6.8. : It was agreed that the criterion of Lakeshore Assessment Maps should be based on Ministry of Natural Resources studies and not on studies undertaken by local lake associations. Concern re 6.10.2: Settlement Area Servicing. There was a general agreement that hamlet development should be on the basis of Iarger lots, with the potential for the severing of these lots should public servicing (water and/or sewer system) be installed. Communal Services should not be a priority of the township, but should remain as an option in the Offrcial Plan.

a) b)

Page 66 of 75

Concerns were expressed about the potential high cost of Local Improvements and area rated tax costs caused by the provision of Public Services.

5.11 - Secondary Plans - It was agreed that Secondary Plans are a definite benefit for local planning, but are also expensive if completed to their fullest (road pattems, hydrogeological studies, soil depth and type of soil, etc.). It was agreed that such Secondary Plans would be developed at the expense of developers.

There were general concems about the lack of legislation that will force property owners to upgrade old and ineffective septic systems. (The secretary discussed this concern with Dave Cooke and Gordon Mitchell at the Health Unit and they have agreed to provide the committee with comments that will strengthen the wording of the Offrcial Plan). Apparently some municipalities have included a strongly worded clause into the Offrcial Plan that has permitted Council to force the upgrade of septic systems. At the present time the Health Unit is forcing landowners to upgrade their septic systems when applications for the enlargement of structures are undertaken.

Concern 6:12 - Frontage on Public Road. The Committee was in agreement that future lots should front on existing public, year round, roads. The term’!ear round” was added to the document.

Because of the importance of the topics, a number of general items where left to the next meeting.

Topics for next meeting - Severances, SubdivisiorL Strip Development, Infilling Resolution P/A 12:03 :98 Moved by S. Seconded by Len McCullough That this April 12ft., 1999 meeting of the South Frontenac Planning Advisory Committee be adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to meet again on May 101h., 1999.

Coburn

Carried

Chair

Page 67 of 75

From: Meela Melnik-Proud [mailto:meelamelnik@hotmail.com] Sent: March-01-16 1:48 PM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; robinsonw@bell.net; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: Matthew Rennie mattrennie27@hotmail.com Subject: Endorsed Letter of Concern over Planning Report for Approval of Applewood Condominium Agreement, March 1, 2016 Council Meeting

February 28, 2016 Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100, Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Mayor and Councillors. It is our understanding that on March 1st Council will be voting to allow development of the Applewood Estates Condominium in the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex that includes Johnston Point. Of utmost concern is the statement in the Applewood Planning Report requesting your approval, that “The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written and while the CAO is not in a position to state what is definitely needed at this time, nothing is to be gained by delaying”. Since the Oct. 7 2014 public meeting that provided opportunity for residents to voice their concerns over the proposed Plan of Condominium for Johnston Point, we have worked in good faith and with a commitment to community partnership to reveal oversights, inadequacies and contraventions in conditions of draft plan approval for both Johnston Point and Applewood that underscore your CAO’s concern and our position that any further development be prohibited on both these properties. These include, but are not limited to:

The peer review of the Johnston Point EIA which concluded it “does not sufficiently demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions on the subject property as per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement”. The fact remains that under Policy 2.1.4 of the PPS no development or site alteration is permitted “in” this provincially significant wetland, and Policy 2.1.8 applies to protect its “adjacent lands” since it has NOT been determined that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of those lands.
The identification of Species at Risk (SAR) in the peer review and in our own independent documentation of Grey Rat Snakes, Whippoorwills, Blanding’s Turtles and Five-lined skink in the immediately vicinity of Johnston Point. It is vital to point out that the Johnston Point EIA concluded that “No living threatened or endangered species were found” and that there was no peer review of the Applewood EIA to challenge our conviction that there are indeed similar endangered and threatened species on this property that require protection by law under the Species at Risk Act .
Magenta’s contraventions of the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) dock permit for Applewood that we brought to your attention last November. The contraventions are as follows – the dock is a full 66% longer than indicated in the permit and water levels surrounding the dock up to 75% less than the specified 1m minimum water depth – but of equal and unresolved concern is the fact, made known to you in the CRCA delegation to council January 12, 2016, that while this wetland is under the jurisdiction of the CRCA, they cannot enforce the existing environmental regulations and made it clear that the responsibilities to enforce the conditions of draft plan would fall to the Township.

Page 68 of 75

It is on these grounds, and in light of this new disclosure from your CAO that “the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written”, we call for Council not to authorize the Applewood Condominium agreement and to once again, take a strong ‘NO’ stance against the proposed Johnston Point Plan of Condominium. Meela Melnik-Proud, Matt Rennie Endorsements Roel Vertegaal Anne Fisher George Proud Ed Koen Helen Bartsch Don Maxwell Anne Robinson Ron Turney Kathleen O’Hara Stella Hiemstra Marc Hiemstra Evonne Potts Sue Peters Jeff Peter Andrea Cumpson Orrie Cumpson Ray Rennie Karl Hammer Hayden Peters Garnet Peters Hailey Cumpson Charlie Cumpson Pete Mackenzie Cheryl Anne Honsberger-Bell Sharon Dunn Kate Tindal

Page 69 of 75

Judy Vanhooser Carolyn Tanner Delina Campbell-Melo Laura Moreland Danielle Nicole Kevin Weaver Erin Wicklam Amy Bates Gail Convery Van Esch Susan Nobes-Tindal Carolann Sutherland Jeff Parsons Joe Pater Dave Curtis Chris Hammer Jan Fox Jason Martin Sharilyn Normand Amanda Michelle Burns Wayne Sutherland Rick Bell Jan Wood Larry Wood Jennifer Mallon Andrew Wilby Joanne McDonnell Stephanie Hawkey David Finlay

Page 70 of 75 Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs

Ministre délégué aux Affaires des personnes âgées

6th Floor 400 University Avenue Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tel.: (416) 314-9710 Fax: (416) 325-4787

6e étage 400, avenue University Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tél.: (416) 314-9710 Téléc.: (416) 325-4787

March 2016 Dear Mayor, Reeve and Members of Council: I am pleased to invite you to participate in the 2016 Senior of the Year Award. This annual award was established in 1994 to give each municipality in Ontario the opportunity to honour one outstanding local senior, who after the age of 65 has enriched the social, cultural or civic life of his or her community. Pay tribute to a Senior of the Year award recipient and show how seniors are making a difference in your community! Make a nomination for Senior of the Year! Deadline is April 30, 2016. A certificate, provided by the Ontario government, is signed by Her Honour the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor, myself as Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs, and the local Head of Council. The Government of Ontario is proud to offer this partnership with the municipalities. Seniors have generously offered their time, knowledge, expertise and more to make this province a great place to live. It is important to recognize their valuable contributions. If you have questions, please contact the Ontario Honours and Awards Secretariat: Email: ontariohonoursandawards@ontario.ca Phone: 416 314-7526 Toll-free: 1 877-832-8622 TTY: 416 327-2391 Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider putting forward the name of a special senior in your community. Sincerely,

The Honourable Mario Sergio Minister

Page 71 of 75 Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs

Ministre délégué aux Affaires des personnes âgées

6th Floor 400 University Avenue Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tel.: (416) 314-9710 Fax: (416) 325-4787

6e étage 400, avenue University Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tél.: (416) 314-9710 Téléc.: (416) 325-4787

Mars 2016 Madame la mairesse, Madame la préfète, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du conseil, Monsieur le maire, Monsieur le préfet, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du conseil, J’ai le plaisir de vous inviter à participer au Prix de la personne âgée de l’année 2016. Ce prix annuel a été instauré en 1994 pour donner à chaque municipalité la possibilité de rendre hommage à une personne âgée exceptionnelle de la localité qui, après ses 65 ans, a enrichi la vie sociale, culturelle ou citoyenne de sa collectivité. Rendez hommage à une ou un récipiendaire du Prix de la personne âgée de l’année, et montrez comment les personnes âgées font une différence dans votre collectivité! Proposez une candidature pour le Prix de la personne âgée de l’année! La date limite est le 30 avril 2016. Un certificat, fourni par le gouvernement de l’Ontario, est signé par Son Honneur l’honorable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, lieutenante-gouverneure, par moi-même, en qualité de ministre délégué aux Affaires des personnes âgées, et par la ou le chef du conseil de la localité. Le gouvernement de l’Ontario est fier d’offrir ce partenariat aux municipalités. Les personnes âgées ont généreusement offert leur temps, leurs connaissances, leur savoir-faire et davantage, pour faire de cette province un endroit où il fait bon vivre. Il est important de rendre hommage à leurs précieuses contributions. Pour toute question, veuillez communiquer avec le Secrétariat des distinctions et prix de l’Ontario : Courriel : Téléphone : Sans frais : ATS :

ontariohonoursandawards@ontario.ca 416 314-7526 1 877 832-8622 416 327-2391

Je vous remercie d’avance de prendre le temps de songer à proposer le nom d’une personne âgée exceptionnelle de votre collectivité, et je vous prie de croire à l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs. Le ministre,

L’honorable Mario Sergio

Page 72 of 75

Good day Your Worship Please find attached a letter sent today to all MP’s Canada wide and Ontario MLA’s. Your support for the expansion of VIA service would be appreciated. Yours truly/ Chris West, P* Eng Chris West. Save VIA Box 1197 449 Queen St. W

St. Marys, ON N4X1B7 chriswfcst(%kwic,co m www.savevia.fa

WTeI: S19 284 3310 fflFax: 319 284 3160 Toll free 1-866-86Z-S632 Tort 519-868-2989

^<-

Page 73 of 75

s n

.9 *a a

^ass

February 27,2016 Let’s get with it and get VIA on the raite/

Canada needs to restore the VIA Raff tTains cut by the previous government in 2012, expand the service elfminste the bottfenechs that restrfct possanger trains, get the raH owners on side, support

The VIA 1-4-10 Plan: A Recovery Sti’atew for Canada’s Nalaonal Rail ftsssanaar Swvfce and pQSS the next VIA memtws bill that wtfl b9 tebferf in Parliament!

Above all, VIA needs assured and sustained ftjnding tomake this happen. With the currently-Iow price at the pumps, one of the ways we recommend doing this is through a tax of 5 cents per litre on automotive

fdel. These funds would be directed in full to modernizing VIA Rail and supporting its expanded service.

A robust economy and business climate provide support for social programs, including education, health, public transportation and the environment

In assessing the importance of VIA in this regard, here are some facts to consider: .

in 2014, VIA received federal funding of $399 million Itor a public service that is supported by and

available to 35 million Canadians, at a per-person cost of $11 annually. .

This $11 compares with an average federal transportation subsidy of $700 per Canadian!

GO Transit received provincial funding of $316 million for a service that is supported by 6.6 million

Ontarians, at a per-person cost of $48 annually.

Health care for St. Marys ON residents costs about $700 per person annually. «

Education for St Marys ON residents costs about $490 per household annually.

BOX 1197 449 QUEEN STREET WEST ST. MARYS, ONTARIO N4X 137 TELEPHONE (519)28+5310 FACSIMILE (519) 284-3160

VIA is necessary to get students to schools for education and residents to health care facilities for vital

Page 74 of 75

medical appointments. Because it has been cut on too many occasions, the $11 per person invested in VIA is not effectively getting students to school and is not effectively getting residents to necessary medical appointments. It also supports travel for personal, business and tounsm-relatect purposes. In addition, travel by VIA is 18 times safer than by car, it is much kinder to the environment and it is more energy efficient, VIA is also indispensable to the 13 million Canadians who don’t have a drivers’ licence and the 20% of driving-age Canadians who have chosen to not drive. It should also be noted that the annual survey conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Transportation Forum has estimated that the drain on the Canadian economy resulting from motor vehicle accidents and injuries is $37 billion peryear! Canada remains the only G7 nation that does not adequately invest in its national rail passenger rail service, placing us at a disadvantage in attracting business investment and international tourism. This minimal level

of support for VIA compromises Canada’s competitiveness vte^-vis those nations that have recognized and

embraced the many benefits of modern, high-performance passenger trains.

We sinoersly urge you to adopt The VIA 1-4-10 Plan and implement the necessary, cost-eflscth/e mprovements that will make our publicly-owned national rail passenger service an even greater contributor to Canada’s economic, social and environmental sustainability and prosperity. The VfA 1~4^10 Pfan is available atfttto;/Aww.(ransoort-acsffo/).ca/dc/MW f-4"f0 Plan NovZOIS.pdf.

Yours sin

ly.

est, Save VIA

Chris West, Save VIA

BOX 1197 448 Queen St W

St Marys, ON N4X 1137 c.twriiswest®kwic.com »

www.savevia.ca

Tel: 519 284 331.0. :Fax: 519284 31.60

to^ free 1-B66-8632 ext 235

80X1197 449 QUEEN STREET WEST ST. MARYS, ONTARIO N4X1 B7 TELEPHONE (518)284^310 FACSIMILE (519) 284-3160

Page 75 of 75

Teeny Tiny Summit 2016 Economic development that works in Ontario’s smallest places!

Register Now Join us for a day of learning and inspiration on March 30, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Seeley’s Bay Community Hall, 151 Main St., Seeley’s Bay, ON Can you check most of these boxes? If so, you might be a “Teeny Tiny Place”! •

Hamlets of less than 1000 people

•

Rural geography

•

Tiny or nonexistent downtown core

•

No strong drivers of economic growth

•

No economic development staff Teeny Tiny Places might have many challenges, but they also have tremendous assets and opportunities for revitalization. To realize these, they need creative approaches, focused and scaled appropriately. At this, the first ever “Teeny Tiny Summit”, we will discuss issues and explore inspiring stories that can help make our small communities better places to live, work and play. Who should attend?

•

Municipal staff and elected officials from Teeny Tiny Places, who have a role in supporting or enabling community economic development

•

Volunteers who are involved in community economic development in a Teeny Tiny Place

•

Business support organizations serving Teeny Tiny Places

•

Anyone with an interest in learning more about how to approach community economic development in a Teeny Tiny Place The day will include: Keynote Address: “13 Ways to Kill Your Community” by Doug Griffiths, bestselling author and internationally recognized speaker. Every community, from the largest city to the smallest hamlet, has weaknesses that undermine its ability to succeed. Likewise, every community has elements about it that are the seeds of prosperity. Doug has traveled all across the nation working with communities to discover how to succeed. What he found was that there are millions of ways to succeed, but only 13 Ways to Kill Your Community. Failure really only occurs the moment you quit trying. You are here because you aren’t ready to quit. Doug will explain how critical attitude is to success, and failure, and you may even enjoy a laugh or two as you come to realize, There’s Always a Way. Read more about Doug Griffiths We will also explore:

•

Effective relationships between municipal government and volunteer groups

•

Community Economic Development (CED) 101, scaled for Teeny Tiny Places

•

Getting more mileage out of your economic development resources

•

“Teeny Tiny” Investment Attraction: It does happen!

•

Overcoming common challenges

•

Case studies of real successes in Teeny Tiny Places Lunch will be provided. Hosted by the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

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.