Committee of the Whole - 10 Mar 2015 - Agenda

Published March 10, 2015

Word Count 16050 words

Reading Time 76 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: March 10, 2015 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2015/Committee of the Whole - 10 Mar 2015 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess -*** - n/a

Delegations

(a)

Tony Fleming, Cunningham Swan, re: Creative Condominiums

3 - 13

(b)

Dave McCleary (Strategy Corp) & Utilia Amaral (SunEdison) re: Solar Project

14 - 29

(c)

Richard Kind, re: Fireworks

30 - 38

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Johnston Point

39 - 49

See March 3, 2015 Delegation Comments under Information Items (b)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Strategic Planning Update

Reports for Information

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

Marc Hiemstra, 3371 C Lakeside Rd, Inverary - Johnston Point Presentation of March 3, 2015

51 - 54

(b)

Matt Rennie, 1091 Pebble Lane - Johnston Point Presentation of March 3, 2015

55 - 93

(c)

Helen Bartsch, 1089 Pebble Lane - Johnston Point Presentation of March 3, 2015

94 102

(d)

Roel Vertegaal, 2251 Wellington St, Johnston Point Presentation of

103 104

Page 2 of 111

March 3, 2015 (e)

Mike Koen, 123 Koen Rd - Johnston Point Presentation of March 3, 2015

105

(f)

Ed Koen, 382 Koen Rd - Johnston Point Presentation

106 107

(g)

Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission, re: Applying a human rights lens in zoning, licensing and municipal decision making.

108 109

(h)

Cynthia & Dave Fiber, re;Johnston Point

110 111

New Business

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

Page 3 of 111

Page 4 of 111

Page 5 of 111

Page 6 of 111

Page 7 of 111

Page 8 of 111

Page 9 of 111

Page 10 of 111

Page 11 of 111

Page 12 of 111

Page 13 of 111

SunEdison and Township of South Frontenac March 10, 2015

Page 14 of 111

Company Overview Company Strength • •

$5Bn+ Mkt Cap; Fortune 1000 5,000+ employees in 39 global locations

Global Market Leadership •

3.6 GW pipeline; 1GW in operation (800 sites) ̶

•

Avoided emissions of almost 5,000,000,000 lbs of CO2

Built first utility scale project in US and CAN

Global Financial Leadership • •

Unparalleled bankable finance capabilities (over $3Bn globally) Systems operating at >105% of underwritten investment

Technology Innovation • • •

Internal R&D to optimize design and production Leading monitoring system to maximize uptime & production Leading module manufacturer with high efficiency and quality

Company History •

P. 2 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 15 of 111

•

2003: SunEdison established. 2009: acquired by MEMC a 50 year old company. 2013: MEMC changes name to SunEdison Inc. (NYSE: SUNE). 2014: IPO of SunEdison Semiconductor (NASDAQ: SEMI) and IPO of SunEdison Yieldco (TerraForm Power) (NASDAQ: TERP). 2015: acquisition of First Wind.

Ontario Highlights

Proven Canadian Experience & Success • Canada’s 1st fully operational utility scale solar plant (9.2MW) • Ontario’s 1st large-scale FIT project (10MW) • Approx. 260MW currently interconnected (large groundmount and rooftop) including the two Newboro sites in Leeds Grenville

Long-Term Commitment & Green Job Creation • 60+ Direct Ontario employees in Toronto office • Employing 100’s of local Ontarians through subcontractors

Strong Community Involvement • Work with local communities to ensure successful outcomes for all stakeholders • Engaged with municipalities to exceed REA consultation requirements in a collaborative and transparent manner • Successful in obtaining numerous council resolutions (100% for rooftop; 70% for groundmount) • Organize solar farm school tours and information events • Leadership at CanSIA, IESO, ELSE and more

Recent Media Coverage: • Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/solar-powersurging-to-forefront-of-canadian-energy/article19786759/

School tour of solar plant

SunEdison Canada CanFirst Capital Management Richmond Hill, ON – 244 kWdc

Page 16 of 111

P. 3 | SunEdison Confidential

SunEdison Canada First Light Solar Energy Park Napanee, ON

Vertical Integration Provides broad industry perspective on:

• Future solar technologies and ability to predict material costs • Best Practices (engineering, installation, asset management). This serves our ability to develop projects successfully at the most competitive rates. TerraForm Power (SunEdison company) serves as long-term project owner. SunEdison will continue to stay active in communities where projects are located.

Page 17 of 111

P. 4 | SunEdison Confidential

Large Renewable Procurement I RFP Timelines (subject to change): • Draft RFP has been issued • March 10th final RFP will be issued • September 1st RFP will close • November, 2015, contract award

RFP focus on two key criteria: • Community/Municipal Engagement • Price

Page 18 of 111

P. 5 | SunEdison Confidential

Application Completeness Requirements of RFP Elements of the an application include the following, but not limited to: • Site consideration confirmation: archeological resources; detailed maps of proposal with connection line information; key features (roads, internal driveways, generation equipment, transformers, communication towers); municipal boundaries; any highway crossing; any railway; any national parks; any airports; abutting properties; water bodies; natural heritage features; PSA; provincially significant lands; abide by agricultural area/land PPS 2014 requirements; abide by soil class restrictions

• Access Rights Declaration • Municipal Meeting Confirmation/First Nations Meeting Confirmation • Agricultural Land Use Confirmation and if needed, Agricultural Land

P. 6 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 19 of 111

Evaluation Study Peer Review Attestation

OPA Interpretation for Eligible Sites – 2 Scenarios Scenario A: • The Large Renewable Project’s Site is located, in whole or in part, within the Subject Municipality that has completed the Prime Agricultural Area designation process for an Approved Official Plan [in accordance with the intent of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement Definition for Prime Agricultural Areas].

Scenario B: • The Large Renewable Project’s Site is located, in whole or in part, in the Subject Municipality that, which has not completed the Prime Agricultural Area designation process for an Approved Official Plan, or else some part of the Site is located, in whole or in part, on one or more Properties outside of the boundaries covered by a Local Municipality’s Approved Official Plan.

Page 20 of 111

P. 7 | SunEdison Confidential

Mandatory Requirements & Rated Criteria • Community Engagement: ̶ Proposed community engagement plan ̶ At least one municipal meeting (Directly Affected Communities) and Prescribed Form to be completed ̶ At least one public community meetings also to be confirmed through a Prescribed From ̶ Notice of public meetings (newspaper, website, property owners within 120 metres and property owners along connection lines, clerk and secretarytreasurer of municipality hosting all of the project or some and the connection line)

• Community Engagement: Max 80 points ̶ Community engagement plan that exceeds mandatory requirements ̶ Municipal Council resolution ̶ Municipal Agreement ̶ Letter of Support from abutting property owners

• Aboriginal Participation: Max 20 points P. 8 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 21 of 111

̶ Aboriginal Participation (equity participation)

SunEdison Criteria for Selecting Sites Historical weather patterns in the region (Irradiance, temperature, precipitation)

Green Energy Act compliance Proximity to available interconnection capacity Topography and soil classification Environmental considerations (i.e.. the ability of a proposed site to meet the REA)

Land use considerations Page 22 of 111

P. 9 | SunEdison Confidential

Summary of Project Site David Groenewegen Site (Bottom Left of Map) • Florida Road • Lots 8, 9, Con 1) • ~106 Acres • ~15 MW AC

Page 23 of 111

P. 10 | SunEdison Confidential

Base Line Analysis of Proposal #1: David Groenewegen Florida Road (Lots 8, 9, Con 1), Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac

Area: approximately 50 acres/20 hectares Generation: approximately 10 MW

Page 24 of 111

P. 11 | SunEdison Confidential

Base Line Analysis of Proposal #1: David Groenewegen Florida Road (Lots 8, 9, Con 1), Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac

Land Use and Official Plan Designation

OPA Regulation - Scenario A Applies: • Municipality that has designated Prime Agricultural Areas in its approved Official Plan in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement definition. ̶ Projects are restricted from being located in Prime Agricultural Areas designated in the municipality’s Official Plan ̶ All other areas not designated Prime Agricultural Areas would be eligible to site solar projects, regardless of land designation or Canada Land Inventory (CLI) soil classification.

Eligible • Eligible as per Scenario A-

P. 12 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 25 of 111

̶ Property designated as Rural and any CLI Soil classification applies.

Base Line Analysis of Proposal #1: David Groenewegen Florida Road (Lots 8, 9, Con 1), Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac

CLI Mapping Figure to left: An excerpt from the CLI Map, Quadrant Number 31C07, has been reproduced. This shows that the Property is comprised of Classes 1, 4 and 5 Soils and that the proposed Site is located in Classes 4 and 5 soils.

Page 26 of 111

P. 13 | SunEdison Confidential

SunEdison Committed to Engagement SunEdison will fully comply with REA requirements SunEdison will enter into Large Scale Renewable Energy Projects Development Agreement

SunEdison will work with Frontenac County to develop a community engagement plan that exceeds the mandatory requirements

SunEdison will discuss any other requirements

Page 27 of 111

P. 14 | SunEdison Confidential

Questions & Contacts Looking forward to working with you…

Utilia Amaral Managing Director, Strategic Affairs SunEdison Canada 416 802 8041; uamaral@sunedison.com Jonathan Frank Manager, Business Development SunEdison Canada (416) 909-4952; jfrank@sunedison.com Dave McLeary, Senior Advisor Strategy Corp 416 414 0170; dmccleary@strategycorp.com Bob Clark and Hugh Stewart Clark Consulting Services 905-885-8029; bob@clarkcs.com; hugh@clarkcs.com Kate Wills, MCIP RPP, Planner IBI Group 519 585 2255 ext 1102; kwills@IBIGroup.com

Page 28 of 111

P. 15 | SunEdison Confidential

Appendix A: Visual Simulations

Page 29 of 111

P. 16 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 30 of 111

Page 31 of 111

Page 32 of 111

Page 33 of 111

Page 34 of 111

Page 35 of 111

Page 36 of 111

Page 37 of 111

Page 38 of 111

Page 39 of 111

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

Planning Department

Agenda Date: March 10, 2015 Date of Report: March 4, 2105

County File No. 10T-2014/002

Subject: Review of Application for Plan of Condominium and Associated Zoning By-law Amendment, Part of Lots 23 & 24, Concession VI & VII, Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac: Johnston Point

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is that the Committee receives the Planning Report dated March 4, 2015 regarding conditions of draft plan approval for the Johnston Point plan of condominium comprising fourteen residential units.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to bring back to the Committee a proposal for a fourteen unit plan of condominium with recommendations for draft plan approval. A public meeting was held on September 2, 2014 on the application as required under section 34 of the Planning Act. The report includes a location map attachment, a lot layout plan, letters of concern from residents and conditions of draft plan approval.

BACKGROUND Members of the Committee of the Whole and Council are now familiar with the application for a fourteen unit Plan of Condominium development at Johnston Point which was submitted to the County of Frontenac. Attachment #1 indicates the location of the subject land. The application came to a public meeting on October 7, 2014 and to an open house/delegation meeting on March 3, 2015. Also, the proposal was presented to Council on September 2, 2014 and more recently to the Committee of the Whole on January 13, 2015. Thus, at this point all concerns of the public and Council have been heard and considered in the draft plan for the development. The owner/developer is now working towards obtaining draft plan approval and the Township has been asked to provide conditions of draft plan approval. Each unit would have water frontage and would be for development of a single detached dwelling. Each unit would front onto, and be tied with, the common element private lane. A waterfront common element park is also proposed. The proposed layout of the development is shown on Attachment #2. As illustrated on Attachment #2, the following points are noteworthy:

the units would range in size between 1.37 and 3.9 hectares.
the units are shown as being irregular in shape owing to the topography of the subject land which dictates their shape.
Units 6, 9 and 13 would have water frontage on a wetland.
Most units would have 150 metres (500 ft.) of water frontage and most have wide

frontages on the laneway but two of the units towards the end of the lane (specifically Units 2 and 4) would have only 50 and 54 metres of frontage.

Units 1 and 2 would share a driveway. -a portion of the lane to access the units located near the end of the peninsula runs through private land which is not part of the subject land. The existing lane on

Page 40 of 111 the subject property presently extends to these private lands and must obtain legal access through these lands and be extended beyond to give access to Units 1, 2, 3 and 14.

a portion of Township-owned unopened road allowance must be closed to accommodate units 12 and 13 on the Plan. As with other similar type developments brought forward in the Township, the subject parcel would be owned by a condominium corporation under this development scenario and certain features in the plan (such as the lane or right-of-way and parkland) would become common elements where monthly condominium fees would be assessed for their ongoing maintenance. Attachment #2 identifies this lane and parkland as common elements which would be maintained in this way.

ANALYSIS The subject land is vacant except for the existing laneway through the centre of the property. The land is densely wooded with mixed types of trees, brush and marsh plants. Much of the area contains bare rock outcrops of low relief and there are marshy depressions. A number of pronounced ridges characterize the land rising well above the lake level. Long Bay separates the subject land from the mainland. See Attachment #2. Official Plan The land is designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan. The Plan allows for limited development in the rural areas of the Township and prefers that development proceed by a plan of subdivision (in this case a plan of condominium). Long Bay and pockets of marshy land that protrude into the site are identified in the OP as Provincially Significant Wetland requiring an Environmental Impact Statement for any development within 120 metres of its boundary. It should also be noted that this portion of Loughborough Lake is not identified in the Official Plan as being sensitive to lake trout populations. Zoning The land is zoned Rural (RU) in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with portions zoned Environmental Protection (EP). The zoning does not permit the residential development as proposed so the land must be rezoned. The appropriate zoning category would be special Limited Service Residential Waterfront Zone (RLSW) that would recognize that the units are on a private lane and would specify setbacks recommended in the environmental report submitted to support the development. Also, the deficient lane frontage of Units 2 and 4 would need to be recognized. The parkland should be zoned Open Space Private (OSP). The zoning amendment to accommodate the development will come before Council at a later date. Studies The following studies have been prepared in support of the development: an Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 and Stage 2)- prepared by the Abacus Archaeological Services. a Hydrogeological Assessment – prepared by WESA a Stormwater Management Report – prepared by Asterisk Engineering an Environmental Impact Statement – prepared by Ecological Services a Planning Justification Report prepared by FoTenn Consultants Five test wells were drilled and pumping tests were conducted as components of the Hydrogeological Study. The report concludes that sufficient well water yields were observed and that bacteriological analyses meet the Ontario Drinking Water Standards for the proposed development type (some treatment is required however). Also, the quality of groundwater is suitable for domestic supply. As part of their review of the application, the County of Frontenac had forwarded the Hydrogeological report to the firm of Malroz Engineering. By letter dated September 30, 2014 Malroz found the conclusions in the report to be reasonable and signed off on the study. The Stormwater report notes that, while the proposed development would generate some increased runoff volume and increased potential for water quality impairment as a result

Page 41 of 111 of a new roadway and associated driveways and rooftops, the stormwater scheme using swales and directing roof runoff to infiltration beds or grassed areas will mitigate any impacts on the wetlands and would improve existing drainage to prevent flooding of homes. The Environmental Impact Study, among other analyses, considered anticipated increases in human disturbance to the environment of Johnston Point. Recognizing that any development would have an impact, the EIS determined whether there would be negative impacts for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Township Official Plan. The report concludes that there would be no negative impacts if recommended mitigation measures are followed. The EIS recommends specific setbacks for buildings and for septic systems from any waterbody for each of the 14 proposed units. This is based on the fact that building and septic bed sites would be located above slopes with varying setback distances of between 35 metres and 80 metres. These specific setbacks will be incorporated into the special zoning for the development. At this point it should be mentioned that public concerns have been expressed relating to whether the increased traffic on the existing lane nearest the wetland would adversely affect the wetland. The concerns were that the EIS did not anticipate this heavier use of the lane. However, by letter dated February 9, 2015, the environmentalist related that he had used an engineered road design at this location and explained that he did consider increased road traffic when developing the current impact assessment and concluded that there would be no increase in negative impacts. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment #3.

COMMENTS Township Comments The Planning Department concludes that the large size of the units and the wide water frontages are consistent with the intent of the Official Plan to maintain low density at the lake shores. Much of the land is surrounded by and inundated with Provincially Significant Wetlands and, thus, the environmental report’s conclusions and support for the development were crucial in determining how the development can occur in proximity to these protected areas. The Plan requires all new proposed parcels with frontage on a narrow waterbody to have a minimum of 150 metres (500ft.) of water frontage to avoid an over-developed appearance in a constricted area and to help ensure a reasonable separation between residential uses. Long Bay is regarded as a narrow waterbody and, accordingly, the units in the Plan appear to meet the minimum frontage requirement. Although the Official Plan prefers to establish new lots which are geometrically regular in shape, the units/lots in this case are irregular in shape but it is recognized that this is a result of the rough terrain which requires that the property lines be aligned along natural features as noted above. A concern with the development is that the owners of Units 6, 9 and 13 would not have direct access to open water since their frontage is entirely on a wetland. The Developer recognizes this fact and has proposed a number of methods to provide access to the water through either a clear-span walking bridge in one case or through use of a common element access area or a combination of both. The list of draft plan conditions attached hereto includes a condition that this access scenario must be developed to the satisfaction of the Township and the CRCA. The Building Department notes that lot grading become the problem of the Condominium Corporation not the Township as would be the case in a plan of subdivision. The Public Works Department commented that we may need traffic counts coming off of North Shore Road and we will need to look at the entrance location at the public road re safe sight lines. Also, the common element lane will need to be constructed/upgraded to Township standards for new private lanes. Agency Comments

Page 42 of 111 The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority relayed a number of comments mostly concerned with setbacks from the lake and the inland wetlands. They advocate a restriction of vegetation removal within the 30 metre setback from the lake. They also require that a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevations for each dwelling unit and septic system prior to final plan approval. KFL&A Public Health noted that each proposed unit in the Plan of Condominium was found to have a site suitable for onsite sewage disposal and a reserve area of equal size. They are prepared to endorse approval of the plan. Public Comments At the open house/delegation meeting of March 3, 2015, delegations were heard and submissions received related to the speeches. These are reviewed as follows with comments from the Planning Department in bold script: A submission by Mike Koen questions the boundaries of the wetland on the plan and states that they do not match MNR boundaries. He further lists the following concerns:

the negative impact on the Long Bay Provincially Significant Wetland; the increased use of the lane at the point nearest the wetland; the EIA says no negative impacts ‘IF’ its recommendations are followed – what if they are not?; the Condo corporation won’t be able to enforce the large number of mitigations needed; a property-owner on Applewood Lane cut all the trees down at the water; there should be a peer review of the EIS.

The boundaries of the wetland shown on the plan are most likely the more accurate boundaries because they were established in the field. Ministry mapping is prepared in an office through interpreting air photos etc. and are “broad brush” boundaries which are always more accurately determined on the ground. The other comments are addressed in order:

the EIA prepared by the professional environmentalist addresses this concern and we rely on his expertise; the issue of increased use of the lane near the wetland was addressed by the consultant as noted earlier in this report; most of the recommendations of the EIS relate to the placement of the buildings in exact locations on each lot/unit. This is controlled by the Township in zoning and building inspections. The other mitigation measures are controlled through the condominium agreement with the Township and there would be penalties associated with any noncompliance; most of the mitigations relate to the placement of buildings which is controlled by the Township; there is site plan control on the property that is cited. The owner planted approximately 40 trees to compensate for the few that were cut; the EIA appears to be professionally prepared by a qualified professional and, in the opinion of Planning, there is no obvious reason to review it.

A second letter from Mike Koen questions what Planning would do if all of the large lots on Loughborough Lake came in for subdivisions at the same time. He also cites section 7.3(b) of the Official Plan stating that the Johnston Point development should be at a scale that is compatible with the existing and anticipated scale of development elsewhere. The lots/units proposed in this development are estimated to be 10 times larger than the average size of the other lots on Loughborough Lake including the lots nearby owned by the residents making these delegations. Is it being suggested that the proposed lots/units be smaller to be at the same scale?

Page 43 of 111 The other large lots on Loughborough Lake that may in future be developed for subdivisions are either land-locked or are accessed by private lanes. No development could be contemplated until they can be accessed by a fully maintained public road as per the conditions of the Official Plan. ——————————————————————————————————A submission by Helen Bartsch cites section 7.1.1 of the Official Plan which says that all new lots (units in this case) shall have a minimum of 150 metres of waterfrontage on a narrow waterbody and may need to have 150 metres on a shallow waterbody. She states that the measurements in this proposal have been done incorrectly because the highwater mark shown on the plan should have been used as constituting the waterfrontage not the wetland boundary. The Plan shows all the lots/units to have a minimum of 150 metres of waterfrontage on the narrow waterbody (Long Bay). Only Unit #14 on the south side at Loughborough Lake appears to have less than 150 metres. However, in the opinion of Planning, Unit #14 and other units on the south side do not appear to require a minimum of 150 metres because they neither front on a narrow waterbody nor a shallow waterbody. Under the definitions in the zoning by-law, a wetland is included as a waterbody on which waterfrontage is calculated. Under the definitions the Township has no choice but to consider the wetlands as part of the waterfrontage calculation.

A letter from Marc and Stella Hiemstra states that they are newcomers to the area and that their main concern is that we can’t control what people do once they move to these lands. They are concerned that there would be too many people turning a significant wetland into an insignificant wetland. Also;

there is no regard for recreational use and waste disposal; the development would not improve the quality of the lake; it is not the right thing to do on the land.

At the present time there are no controls on the subject land relating to cutting of trees or general degradation of the land, soil and habitats. Also, there are no controls over recreational use and boats and sea-doos can rightfully enter Long Bay and other areas on the lake. Thus, with this development, the Township can at least apply some controls to tree-cutting and general degradation of the habitats surrounding the subject land. Yes, there would be more people and usage of the property but the condominium agreement would put restrictions on the use of the land that weren’t there before and zoning and building restrictions would ensure placement of buildings where they would have the least detrimental impact on the environment. Their point is well taken however that we cannot control people and there will need to be vigilance on the part of neighbours and the Township to enforce the controls put in place.

A letter from Ed Koen raises the concern that the wetland boundaries indicated on the plan do not correspond to the wetland boundaries of the Ministry of Natural Resources. He suggests that MNR should be consulted and the EIS should be peer-reviewed. He is also concerned that increased traffic on the road will increase negative impacts on the wetland environment and that the units do not have 150 metres of waterfrontage. These concerns have been already addressed above. A letter from Roel Vertegaal advises that this area is regarded by some as having the highest biodiversity in all of Ontario. He explains that biodiversity results from a lack of food in the ecosystem. This is true because if there is too much food then pests like

Page 44 of 111 raccoons and gulls tend to permeate and “push out” the niche species. For this reason the subdivision should not be allowed and it should remain nutrition poor. He believes that the proposed subdivision is of an urban density and size that is distinct from other low impact cottages in the area and he states that people that are likely to live in what he considers a large and dense suburban development are not like to engage in a low impact ecologically sensitive lifestyle. He also cites the unsafe condition of North Shore Road. In the opinion of the Planning Department, Mr. Vertegaal’s assertion that the development represents a large and dense suburban development is the opposite of the truth. As noted earlier, the proposed lots are ten times larger than the average lot size on Loughborough Lake, thus low density rural development. He is right that the development would be distinct from other developments on the lake because it would constitute low impact development with large setbacks, large lots, carefully placed buildings – all consistent with preserving the natural environment as opposed to existing development close to the water on tiny lots. It should be questioned how Mr. Vertegaal knows what type of people will move here.

A letter from Matt Rennie again questions why the wetland boundaries shown on the plan are different than those shown on ministry maps. He recommends that the wetland boundaries shown on the plan be reviewed by MNR in relation to the policies of the Official Plan and CRCA policies on wetlands. The effect on the environment due to the increased traffic on the existing lane is also question. As previously noted, the wetland boundaries have been established most accurately in the field by Ecological Services who has also commented on the increased traffic on the lane. All copies of these letters are included in the March 10 Agenda Package. CONCLUSION As described in this report, the developer appears to have overcome most of the challenges and obstacles to development of these lands. The Official Plan envisions this form of development in the rural waterfront areas of the Township, and the surveys and professional studies undertaken are generally supportive as are all agencies provided certain concerns are addressed and conditions placed in the final condominium agreement. It is recognized that many concerns were expressed by the public – especially by the immediate neighbours at the lakeshore. As reviewed above, the layout of the plan, the technical studies and the Township and other agency requirements appear to address the concerns. Therefore, the conditions of draft plan approval listed below are supported by the Planning Department. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of the above review, it will be recommended: A. That Council approve the recommendations from the Planning Department including the following list of recommended conditions as representing the Township of South Frontenac’s ‘Conditions of Draft Plan Approval’ for the Johnston Point Plan of Vacant Land Condominium;

That this conditional approval applies to the draft plan of vacant land condominium dated September 5, 2014 prepared and certified by Ronald Clancy, Ontario Land Surveyor, prepared by the firm of WESA, comprising a total of 14 residential units and 5 Blocks.

Page 45 of 111 2. That the owners of the subject land enter into a plan of vacant land condominium agreement with the municipality, prepared to the satisfaction of the municipality, to be registered on title of the subject land. 3. That the road allowances included in this draft plan identified as ‘Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18’ shall be shown and constructed to Township standards for new private lanes. 4. That traffic counts be undertaken at North Shore Road and that the entrance location at the road be constructed to a standard acceptable to the Township particularly in regards to safe sight lines. 5. That the lane identified as ‘Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18 Common Element’ be named to the satisfaction of the municipality. 6. That a 0.3 metre reserve be identified by survey along the road allowance of North Shore Road where it abuts proposed Unit 12 to be conveyed to and held in trust by the municipality for the purpose of denying additional access onto North Shore Road. 7. That the owner convey up to five percent of the land included in the plan to the municipality for public park purposes. Alternatively, the municipality may require cash-in-lieu for all or a portion of the conveyance. 8. That the condominium agreement contain wording applying to all of the proposed units setting out the municipality’s limited service policies to recognize that there is no commitment or requirement by the municipality to assume responsibility for ownership or maintenance of the private lane within the plan. In addition, the condominium agreement applying to all the units shall set out the municipality’s environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. 9. That legal access to proposed Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 14 be obtained over the abutting portion of the existing lane that is on other private lands and that the condominium agreement contain wording to permit this access. This wording must also acknowledge that the existing residential lots’ access over the lane will be maintained all the way back to the public road. 10. That prior to final approval, the County of Frontenac is to be advised by the municipality that this proposed development conforms to the Zoning By-law in effect of the Township of South Frontenac including that the zoning is satisfactory to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 11. That all conditions outlined in the letter dated August 8, 2014 from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to the County of Frontenac, be included in the Condominium Agreement with the Township including that all driveways be placed a minimum of 30 metres from any waterbody and the recommendations of the stormwater management plan. 12. That the recommendations outlined in the letter dated September 3, 2014 from KFL&A Public Health to the County of Frontenac , be addressed to the satisfaction of the municipality. 13. That the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated June 12, 2014 prepared by Ecological Services, be included in the Condominium agreement with the Township and that they be implemented. 14. That site drainage design, construction and maintenance be in accordance with the recommendations contained in the ‘Stormwater Management Brief for the Johnston Point Condominium Development’, undated, by Asterisk Engineering Corporation and associated drawings be included in the

Page 46 of 111 construction of ditches and culverts be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the municipality. 15. That all requirements and recommendations specified in the Hydrogeological Assessment at Johnston’s Point report, dated June 2014 from WESA, and all associated drawings be complied with. 16. That the condominium agreement include a clause stating that 911 civic addressing and locations of all entrances to the units including the construction and locations of any entrance culverts shall be shown on a plan prepared to the Township’s satisfaction prior to any development of the property. 17. That the condominium agreement include a provision that access to the open water for Units 6, 9 and 13 be gained through either a free-span walking bridge or an easement through another waterfront unit or a combination thereof and that the scenario be approved by the Township and the CRCA. 18. That, prior to final approval, the portion of the unopened road allowance of identified on the Plan through Units 12 and 13, be closed and the ownership transferred to the owner of the subject lands. 19. That, prior to final approval, the municipality be satisfied that all servicing issues are resolved such as private lane construction and any required upgrades to North Shore Road. 20. That the condominium agreement include all recommendations contained in the Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2) Report, dated May 13, 2014 by Abacus Archaeological Services. 21. That, prior to final approval a garbage collection facility be installed at the entrance to the development at North Shore Road. 22. That, prior to final approval any required Canada Post box be installed at on the right-of-way for the lane near the entrance to the development at North Shore Road. 23. That, prior to final approval, street lighting shall be installed to the Township’s satisfaction at the location for the Canada Post boxes and garbage collection area near North Shore Road. 24. That, prior to final approval, street signage shall be installed according to Township standards and to the satisfaction of the municipality. 25. That the owner agree in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the municipality concerning the provision of private lanes and upgrading of roads, installation of services and drainage, in accordance with the municipality’s standards and procedures.

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments JohnstonPointDraftPlanConditionsToCofW

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Page 47 of 111 w f

N .

Attachment

^=>B

^«Aw5»

h I*

*I"’n

..?’.4

lii

/.;.-. i

^ r

«_* f ./ *rt Is

‘-.!-.1 .– l-^fr *

."*.

-.r’'

tf ^ 1

/ “^.~v'^

^ ^

1 TI

» ). .f

i **

h1 i

.I./

’ -f: ^ J

f ‘^

. <.

;’

I” Y

'/ I. ^

f..f> t,

‘*

** *

S-, t

^.s-s

’t. .\ s:

’ ‘If

4 \

‘<-. J^ ~v

.’ s

l* /

«.

1’; “t

,* *

^ ^

.a.

^,”

1 T

I ^

?2/

k. /. p/ .s vv^^.^:/

.".’.

f» *

<ir

fn t.

lUppArAWafTLa

».

»» It

-I

I" ^_ 1

‘.1 -.-’

1» ‘>

;

J» *

nt 1 r, .1

‘^"^

I" f

*1’-

‘1

*>.

r,-’’.’^.-

».;

1 I. ^ \

» 1

r ‘.1-

<-’ 1 » <>^_ .^ *

-* .*

./.- t, > f. ‘».. » ^* .J.. ‘,», <t. *\ rf- . ‘-tf /

“;

I” ^

«.

< *

‘».<""

i. < .-;..fl ^h *t /.-= n ** I ^..

-t f ^

1__ <L

.*-

3J -I f

.r *

“yS£LLan<

*»

.^ *.. f .

I’

-’

;T,F

;

;.,.-;.

’d

:1.

t,.SC

T .i

*” 1._

FT^

^ J

^’t <f

^ ** T»

‘(*

f’

s 1 wr~ f .»

;

./.

^ . 1

.

vr<

f d f

.-^

^.^^

4 »

^y^

It-

» J 1» » n

..V A . ‘». fi * * * » ‘4 ‘! ^.^ A .i .. I/ \1Irt / t d *.. _^ A7 f

^ f * I 1*’ * r T* ./.*: f *f .w»»»

t.-;fl:

».

r A

-.-. .-;..- ^

Vf’"<

., 1.

… t .

f t

“y.:^ » f /, . :-’!"<1

/. f ‘.J

t * »

.’.’. »

1»

f /

.^ ‘St?‘b» *^ .

.I I -t <. .r

» t f

^1’

./.”’."

.hi w f » .I d T .w

kpl

.1-

^ -f t

di * 1

<«.

.’ ^ ’’ <..

( \

%^ ^% K

J-1

*’

t .^ < ,i »

Tl .I"

»\

I;w *1

*. rf .; t

1»

."…’..,-’- f f

*<» ^

‘*-

t *A

‘",^- /i’t

t /-…

‘it;-iv’ f.

f i/ .’- ..’.. .. t

I*’ -

r J

“’

. 1 ^ h

^”

.^ t

t ft 5 ‘< f-

T.t

~|v ' ^

/’

^» ,r * ‘I

.f ^

1 t

::1.

I-^

:;":,:^ ^

-":",-.it 1 -.^..v A*»! r >

f^A *

…>.

f-r-

r ;.". I ^ r*i .^

< *I

f /

.I rh I"A ‘/* r: f “, -/;

.<f

‘.-1.

~f »

,’ 1

^ 1

< ,i

. ** ?

^* a^

.’. w

-r

*. a

t’ .*

. ‘I’-

» *

…* 1’.1: \LI

*/-

.. ,:i;J’.

f *

\ ~\

..^ / 1 *

.f-

‘-If

I”

^.’

J’

1 v

* *

.* .*

- .»

-t

t 1"

.r ‘.’,"..

rJ-

-I s- S.

‘. *

“.

^ * a., t

-T

’t

.St

» .y.

I. TT*

~.J

::1. *.

.A;”

‘’-I^

t I. f

..’, - v

fr. I

.V > I

_ ^»k!* <

/ T.

-f » ^

‘J’.

1 ^

f ?’ ,f

‘…’ I’

uJJ

..’

^ I

ft »

» » .r »

-.<

:,-’-.f

r *M

h .¥

^ »

i’:-"

.»-»

»-if-

^ ^

-i

^

‘- I’-

.l-^

^ *

^ <k

..’ -

f.1

‘^

-.* ~^-

‘,~’/

I’ i i tr F- n;A

tf.

l,v-

‘.’? ‘.^

*, Sf

f h 1 11

.>’.’.

f - <

nl*^ if

(’,

.:ub^

?¥- f\ ~f

r*’</1,’,_ /

» <. I ,*_ <..’^ 1 ’ f

-I

/ .>»

-?’

‘/

-‘f:

f T, ^

-t

\Sj:^^’.^

I" f^i /.

..-’.’. .<.’

» -,

^ - *s

.^> .’ I

»‘T

; . -J

J-

p r

t 1 I" J /

,»

. .^

‘, ^

*. 1

,-.’ ^.

^:^^’ f

.-t * .I …> ./*

f. 1

t’l

» tr

…..’-

» *^

-\1-.

.;.‘r’;

.’

^ <

e f* .* »,f

I? h

*’ *¥ I.

^.^1 V

a’

t ^-

-rw. ^ . T s-s. vc. i

^* /

,’tf

^.~:-v .

,".–

“* t.

t .*;

*-.<

‘r

*^“1 i I *

I”

‘:jij!

.. I-

l-” >’ V. ^ ,+’

" ,/

/ »^

1 –’ ..

, ,.,’…..

tw .t

*. <

1 “*

^t-

‘i^: ^

.; <h ,1

*r +

;

:-.. 1 .Vf^. f

pN -d

h^. 4

;.t

< r

-’.

I”

/ -.

‘i- ;-.":’-..

/J,

^ +

Si^ a

f r

’’ “-..

‘.J

.»

^ r

.’.> i>j.. v

.!. /

«1

;*;‘1- / t . ..V. ,f

*.’

c. n;n “/ ^ ,‘f,.,: »

1 ii

I”

- m^

*i»

I”

-. -^

-f

.’. ^ s

‘- ^»

.’.<.’ ..;.>. I* ,‘M. I-’ »*’!.’ *,

/ ^

.I >

r4*

». /

.-r

..!.>./.;.

4 ‘^-^

‘<. *

*.-

,‘w *l. .r

y–J.

V’ f

*- ^ f f

Vi-’-t.

/»

< > TF*’ ,1~.

1»

L:’ - -’:

-’ ^

^ .-^

I’

.. ‘*^ » .d v»

.> 7i

:’*

I’ » *

‘<*.

‘*

‘-.“t

^"^-^

V-

s <

rvi^-^a f

1»

-1^

“J

I. t

:,-. {.-» v

f^i f f~

-»

F, 1

.y-ij.

.^.

^ *

“<

y .’ *< h n’

^’*

^-^^ f-’-f; *~ h^

.’

I’

< /

*. .-< ? v

»» f

It’

1 ^

.^ ‘.-

5*’’ –*S– * ^ . .-. .-. ‘.. f

h *

-’.^.’^.^:^”

‘^

“..^.^.’ :,_.^

*/’

*»

/ .-.:: .::-^

^**

‘V\1

7,’ 4

-d-

*I »

.. b< *.

I .T:;…’ -

““t-

< ..

»*

i"1

“I. ^*

J»”.

m”

f- .> I’

^.^^..^w

^ ^ *<

‘.^.

y…

bri *'<

. 1f

rf ».

.-’?

.- ../. .»

}

*. ^ ^

fr.

^.SSi,

‘;’.’: ‘1T’

‘*

n »

T-

..^ ..

V-

I «

.. d

I V.

1h \f

fl *

i->

‘.r

^” I-

f..h-

.-” d”

-I

II *

»^

it. »

r*r

.^** :

^f
h. It

/-.I

I-

1 . - “^

;i-’;’-r- " <*: / .« 1

.’.

.r’f

,.’

1»

*T I’

r *

/ h.

I”

-:’..’’’

^mSE

Page 48 of 111 n»-

. *

t 1 **

» .

‘»’

Step” r

fr < ^.! ‘< –.=

^ 1

r I » »

;

t’Jy

.ha.

k ^

< t>

*, #»^

;f^-A;

I fep

f v r *

t’

If [I < *

^..-.« f

u<^

.^.f.

1,’

i^Y

‘<

^ ‘;

DRATT PLAN OF VACANT LAND COHCWWtUM
1 Part of LOTS 23 anrf 24 .L»r-fMa»AN»s. 1’

-s

!»

…;

»..

^5<.

*.+

.**’

CONC£SStONS 6 AHO 7

..3^

^ys^ 1?^^^ vfLJ^^borw9h*

i^.v.an^

?J f:^;

.", ^

;«f^

..*l.

.~^ ^t f-1

^^K^ h.

h I

»»-U«k.

TOWN5H/P OF SOUTH /WWfEWC Cwnty of Frontsnoc

^ /

<ir

./.

“;’-.( ^ ‘.^

< ‘..

?-.^».:1

i’i

I: I

., r

-a

m’^m ..

I 1 i,^

-^.

J»

^^sw^^-

^^ ^
J

.-A^JH-.‘H

A J

^ w»

l-jl^

^.^^ ^

’tir

:w^

*.. .

‘A

\w: ^£ .v,’_

‘.’.& ^ »

./”

1 I

fs fUBe ~^l,

“y

s r

.V1~<- 1.-..AT”.

if-.f^ pin-’

-. A-i

,ff

^h-

S^y ^Vfi ^ t^.

»m.^“m

Page 49 of 111

ATTACHwi£NT #2 ,\

Ecological Services

R.R. , 3803 Sydenham Road Elgmbiug, Ontario KOH 1MO

Phone:(613)376-6916 ^ v

E-mail; mMl@ecolopcalscrvices.cft

Fehruaiy9,2015

Mr. Lindsay Mills Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100

Sydenham, Ontario KOH2TO VIA EMAIL: tanais@aouthfrontenac.net

Dear Lindsay:

RE: JOBNSTON POINT ACCESS ROAD

Further to our telephone conversation, I am providing this letter to respond to issues raised about (he Johnston Point access road, and (he current development proposal. As you may recall, we had concerns ia 2012 with a possible road washout at one location where the road was within about 40 meters of the significant wetland. As a result, we recommended a engineered road design at that location to insure road integrity. That process was undertaken, and the road and the development were subsequently approved. With the current development proposal, we did consider increased road traffic when developing our 2014 impact assessment The road integrity issue had already been dealt with, and potential road impacts such as amphibian and reptile mortality were farfher considered, as they also were in 2012. We determined the risk not to be significant, due to overall distances away fiom the wetland, the high elevation of th® road relative to the wetland, fhc lack of a movement corridor, and a lack of amphibian or reptile sightings on fhe road during peak herpetofaunalmovemeuct periods. This culminated in our conclusions in the 2014 impact assessment that there would no negative impacts to fee

wetland for the purposes of the PPS and the township Official Plan. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me

Respectfully,

&t^ Rob Snetsinger

*1 .^.

Page 50 of 111

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

March 2, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

March 10, 2015

SUBJECT: Strategic Planning update RECOMMENDATION: Council is asked to confirm the four questions to be the focus of the District Open Houses. BACKGROUND: Council has committed to developing a new Strategic Plan. District Open Houses are scheduled so that members of Council may hear from citizens on their views for the long term future of South Frontenac. These sessions are advertised in our weekly banner advertising, highlighted on our website and promoted in the March Tax Bill insert. For those not able to attend, written feedback and comments will be received until March 31, 2015. admin@southfrontneac.net District Open House Schedule Mon March 23 - 7:00 pm - Glendower Hall – 1381 Westport Road, Godfrey Wed March 25 - 7:00 pm - S & A Club – 4041 Colebrooke Rd, Harrowsmith Thurs March 26 - 7:00 pm - Council Chambers, 4432 George St, Sydenham Fri, March 27 - 7:00 pm - Storrington Centre – 3910 Battersea Rd, Sunbury Based on Council direction staff have engaged Rob Wood of 8020Info Inc. to assist Council with the development of the new plan. In advance of the planning day, Council and Senior Staff will be invited to complete an on line survey to provide the consultant with greater insight into the views of Council and Staff. Council and Senior Staff will meet for a full day at the Storrington Centre on Monday April 13 from 9:00 am – 4:00 pm to consider the input from citizens, the pre-session on line survey and to work through this planning exercise with the consultant. Members of the public may attend to observe. To gain the most out of the District Open House sessions it would be helpful to focus the discussions on a couple of key questions. Proposed questions are: •

Is South Frontenac heading in the right direction? (a scaled response upon arrival)

•

What should the future of South Frontenac look like?

•

What are your top three priorities for South Frontenac?

•

What would you like to see changed in South Frontenac?

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 51 of 111

Johnston’s Point Community Meeting

To: The Counci of South Frontenac

From:

Marc and Stella Hiemstra 3371 CLakeside Road

Inverary, Ontario KOH 1X0

March 2nd, 2015

Page 52 of 111 Johnston’s Point Community Meeting

Dear Council and Residents,

All residents here this evening are exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to have our

voices hear, at this, the 2nd meeting concerning the two proposed developments before council.

My wife and I are newcomers to this beautiful area and to the unique gifts of nature preserved at Loughborough Lake. We share, along with our fellow residents, deep

concerns over the wisdom of this proposed development.

The concerns before Council are not necessarily what they seem. It is not a question of environmental impact. Every passionate resident debate on the potential devastation of

aquatic life is countered by Council citing ’the impact study indicates acceptable levels of X, Y or Z’. Numerous highly concerned citizens have presented substantial reasons why the development is environmentally unsound, unwanted and unwarranted, but the

response predictably will continue to be ’the impact study indicates acceptable levels of

X, Y or Z’. We are engaging in the wrong debate. The true questions before us are:

Will the development enhance, improve and preserve the quality of the Lake?
Do the citizens of South Frontenac support and want this development?
Is a development of this scale the right thing to do with the land? ’d like to share two stories with you this evening, the points of which I’ll make clear.

We also have a waterfront property on Pigeon Lake near Bobcaygeon. It was understood when we purchased the land that there was to be no removal or

disturbance of the very large growth of cattails stretching a large ways out into the water. In the same area were approximately 12 other waterfront properties. Mysteriously, every spring, a huge island of cattails would be spotted floating out into the middle of the lake, an attempt by a local property owner to gradually clear their waterfront, despite regulations. Once we even witnessed them pushing a newly created island with their boat! What was their intent? To let the Cattail Islands wander

around the lake until they landed on someone else’s back door or perhaps got stuck in the locks in Bobcaygeon !

My wife moved in to our home on May 16, 2014 - I followed some days later. After unlocking the doors, checking things out and carrying a few boxes to the kitchen, she

went down to the dock to see the lake. Greeting her was an entire family of water snakes happily sunning on the shore - obviously, well established local residents.

After a few minutes, back up to the kitchen she went. Of much greater surprise than the snakes, however, was a motor boat that headed for our dock at full speed, with two men in it. It pulled up right in front of our place - the men stood up and began fishing; not trolling…stationery fishing. Not quite believing her eyes, my wife (who had no cell phone and no internet or phone) went down to the dock and asked them to

leave. “Like hell we will.” they said. “I live here now,” said my wife, “and I’d like to

Page 53 of 111 Johnston’s Point Community Meeting

you fish somewhere else.” One man replied, “I don’t believe you, and even if you do, no one owns the lake. _ We can fish where we damn well please and there’s nothing you can do about it.” My wife again asked the men to leave and they again refused. Feeling actually very vulnerable, my wife went up to the house, and slammed the

back door (figuring this would at least let them know that she had access to inside the

house so maybe really DID live there). After 10 minutes, they left. All summer, many times boats zoomed right up to our place to fish (deep water where we are) not seeming to care at all that there was a house there, or that their fish hooks could

come off and pose a danger to our grandchildren or even that they were a noisy,

stinky disturbance.

Here is my point of these stories; Council can have all the impact studies completed. all the assessments made, all T’s crossed and i’s dotted, and all decisions rationalized, but

you cannot predict, control, legislate or regulate, human beings. Most people paying half a million dollars or more for a waterfront home, are going to “cut away the cattails” and “fish where they damn well please”, guaranteed. 4 homes, x 5 or more people per home, x friends and family visiting every weekend, and you’ve got over 100 people turning ‘significant wetland’ into ‘insignificant wetland’ in very short order. That’s just too many.

Is Council able to definitively say that nfi, the development will not:

increase boat/personal watercraft traffic in summer (on an already over-boated lake, endangering wildlife populations)
increase water pollution
increase noise pollution

drive away wildlife (a loon “build it they wiil come” platform is useless (if used) if all the Icon chicks have been drowned in boat wakes)

further endanger existing endangered species
remove natural defenses that filter and clean run-off (fallen trees, vegetation) damage shorelines and uproot necessary aquatic plants
impact the fresh water table

-introduce direct raw human pollution/waste into the lake (pesticides, body lotions, insect repellants, toileting in the water, etc)

Here is a quote from a study of Loughborough Lake by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in 1972 (43 years ago!!)

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS n

Although the chemical biological and bacteriological conditions were generally quite good in Loughborough Lake, there does not appear to be any room for complacency with regard to recreational use and waste disposal. The cottage pollution control survey carried out by the Private Waste and Water Management Branch classified 17 disposal

systems as direct polluters and 202 as public health nuisances.’ One

hundred and seventy four of the public health nuisances were

Page 54 of 111 Johnston’s Point Community Meeting

discharging wastes directly on the ground. The rest had a variety of other objectionable features including systems too close to wells/ ponding of tile beds/ and inadequate leaching pits. Some cottages had more than one problem/’(end of quote)

http://agrienvarchiv5.ca/cownload/Loughboroucih-L watqual72.pdf

WOW - Over 50% of the buildings were public health nuisances! This was 43 years ago

imagine the accumulation since then. To reiterate…..people will do what people want

to do. How are we to know if a septic tank has cracked and is teaching fecal matter into the lake? How can Council guarantee that SO MANY new septic systems as proposed will function perfectly into the future? The home population around the lake is now well over 500. There has been environmental impact enough! My question of “will the development IMPROVE the quality of the lake” has an obvious answer: NO

At the public meeting held last fall, there was standing room only. Attendees were adamant that further discussion was urgently required. This meeting is equally well

attended. Why? If Council were to ask, by vote, if the residents of South Frontenac want and support the development, what does Council believe in their hearts would be the

result? I think we all know what the response would be: NO

As a side note, I was shocked to hear of fellow residents whose applications to develop their own, or additional, waterfront was denied. Upon what grounds were they denied, and is this not an important precedent and consideration? Does Big Money carry more

weight than a single, compliant individual? We should be ashamed if decisions turn on

the power of the Almighty Dollar as opposed to the virtue of Common Sense.

No-one is underestimating the gravity and far-reaching consequences of Council’s decision regarding this development. Once begun, there is no going backwards. The developers assumed the risk of such an ambitious project with no guarantee or acceptance. The majority of the proposed lots encompass provincially significant wetlands (9 of the 14). The only way to protect the wetlands as much as possible is to eliminate these lots. If Council denies the application, it is a WIN/LOSE. If Council agrees, but with the removal of the lots bordering the wetlands, it is a WIN/WIN. If

Council approves the development as is, it will be a critically disappointing LOSE/LOSE for everything that South Frontenac is today, and the price will be paid for generations to come.

My third question, “Is this the right thing to do with the land”, has an obvious answer of NO, but there is room for a guarded compromise.

We are confident that our elected Council will decide appropriately how to proceed,

based on their capacity as representing the needs and wishes of the citizens of South Frontenac.

Page 55 of 111

Johnston Point Pan of Condominium Concerns

Presentation / Submission

Page 56 of 111

Johnston Point Proposed Plan of Condominium Wetland Boundaries

Please refer to the following Maps showing the Wetland Boundaries associated with the proposed Johnston Point Development.

Figure 1. MNRF OWES 2014

I <. 4’

1 h.

f..^ .K

r’, ^’s-

tr.

LJf .,

.f,,, ‘f ** f-fcr^

“, n

4’

00 c

-1

rt w .

p 1- c z ^ .I.

‘*.

^^»

^2 *

.S!itJ t:i 5

c’’

F^-^ ‘^. ^. ‘*

\fn

-^..

‘^:\

‘»

I; ;.“I 1

-»v

-.1

V. V’,’

^ J”

i’u

^^^ _.

< i

; t

n ^-

r. V/-’

.V ^

‘.f..

i:‘v-; -t

\ .-.t- .”*

1-”/._;1

Y\ , ./ /^~.JS/ f

f
.-.-.7 1,

<^ *;

.V:

.f I

-h -n ^

0 => <-».

3 B> ft

^ to

11 v

1:1 T3 3 IQ

I’l 6

/. v /

" rT . \

‘-?

B» -D

‘%

3 r!«£

-; /

s> c

^^>

‘.^Si

“–..”

‘"^’

‘.“Tl ‘:.

rt M »

-”-<,.

ft I-

‘..‘H. //

^-f

.““s /

^,,,

\ ‘.-,

’s

r ^ ^

IS.

,\i

/> u

tf y i” f

Tb1

7> fa,

f^i

^ h

liS-

i~ .

c z

..- –’- vt<:-;

“<

,-tT

s;3"i

-1

“.n.

“s,

(0 -0 Bi 3

? &CB

^ 1

v ‘rf

/ ¥/

^f-

r? ‘».

0».

i p-

»*

-n

I; ^1^

ak -*

._’

-4, .-.7. f\

t-, r

d ^1» ‘-f

‘.’? ^”

!-i ?. Ti f

^ ^ 7^

£^

^ ^

J.;

^. T .i+

^rfl

^ -

^ fT

^. ‘rt.

‘-."> ;-<tf%

Or ri’ J ^ ^£

–1^

^IFlE"“1-

^r.

‘.»’-

jijl^iliiii! y ‘’
4

1> ).

:f nt

;.l-

^»

1 f*-

(. t.

<‘I’I

.-r’i-f>’- -

K S-‘A

§s ‘>.& i h> 2

V. I J

s .t-

.‘J <’’ <”

Page 57 of 111

t r

1*’

Page 58 of 111

The wetland boundaries on the Site Plan do not coincide with the wetland boundaries shown

on the Ministry of Natural Resources and County of South Frontenacmaps. We have been told

by CRCA that determining a wetland boundary is subjective and can vary by several feet or metres either way. These variations of the Provincially Significant wetland boundaries are very significant with the respect to the positions of the proposed lot lines. MNR has indicated to us that the OWES 2014 map is the official map of the wetlands and is

regularly uploaded to Land Information Ontario for use by municipalities and it appears that the County has done so. The local MNR has also told us that reviewing PSW boundaries is something that they normally do when asked to by the municipalities.

We ask that the wetland boundaries generated for the site plan be reviewed by the MNR in accordance to the following policies.

Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (P.22) 5.2.7 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Amendments to Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Ill

Amendments to the boundary of a Provincially Significant Wetland or Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific interest will require the approval of the MNR.

See following Link:

httD://www.southfrontenac.net/en/livine-here/resources/OfficialPlanFinalOct2013.Ddf

CRCA Planning Policy (P.24) 3.7. D .1

Wetlands

The location of the boundary of an evaluated wetland shall only be determined by a trained wetland evaluator, and shall be subject to the approval of staff of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

See following Link: httD://crca.ca/wD-content/UDloads/PDFs/Rees%20Guidelines final June%202012.Ddf

Page 59 of 111

Impacts on the Natural Heritage Features The Draft Site Plan does not show Long Bay (please refer to figure 4.) which is also a PSW. All

but 2 of the proposed units are adjacent to PSW, which are Natural Heritage Features. One of our biggest concerns is the negative impact this development will have on the Long Bay PSW. Figure 4. S.’tends&vi :f. f -»’ * dt

Page 60 of 111

Access Road

The initial access road for Johnston point was designed using “nearby Emerald Lane or Pebbls Lane as potential models”. It was described in a letter to the planning department (see attached) as a “small gravel road that would have minimal traffic” and there would be “minimal

ongoing impacts” to the PSW from the expected road as it would “receive little traffic. The scale of the initial lane has now evolved into a very different road with greatly increased traffic loads, recommendations for paved structures, and roadside swates for storm water management that drain into the PSW.

Provincially Significant Wetlands The Environmental Impact Assessment for proposed development states that “there will be no negative impacts to the identified significant natural heritage features IF recommendations and mitigation measures are applied” This is a very big IF. (Please Refer to EIA for a list of recommendations/mitigations)

We are greatly concerned about the Condominium Corporations ability to enforce the large number of mitigations put in place to protect the PSW so we asked a Biologist at the CRCA how the condo covenants would be enforced. We were told that the Township officials have already made a landowner in the Applewood Condominium replant shoreline trees that had

been removed despite the imposed condominium covenants. The fact that these mitigations have already failed in the early stages of development at a similar condo across the lake is a .

very serious warning sign.

We ask that the developers EIA be reviewed by a 3rd Party as per the following Policy. f V-

RCA Appendix *B’: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (P.3-4)

5.0 EIA Review Process

The CRCA will assess a cost recovery fee for its review of an EIA document, based on an approved fee schedule. Straightforward proposals (such as minor development on adjacent lands) will

normally be reviewed at the staff level. More complex proposals may be subject to a peer review, at the expense of the proponent, by a third party professional who will be retained by the municipality. The completion and acceptance of an EIA by the CRCA shall not guarantee that

a development or site alteration proposal will automatically be approved by the municipality. Also, approvals from other agencies may be required.

Page 61 of 111

See following Link: httD://crca.ca/WD-content/UDloads/PDFs/EIA euidelines.pdf

Please understand it is not our intent to dishonour the developer’s consultants. Based on the complexity of the development and the large areas of PSW in and around the proposed development site it is prudent that the proper procedures are followed. Peer reviews and

Agency approval are an important part of the process and we ask that policies are not

overlooked so we can be confident in the long term health of the Loughborough Lake Wetland Complex.

NOR -Open House Presentation S.O.docx

Page 1 of621of 111 Page

Erin Wicklam Sign out Outlook.com

MJR -Open Hoy<& EcBtemtdtta|B^ [^ Download t^» Print X Exit

fll **

Johnston Point y

Concerns Presentation/ Si

/ /

PAGE 1 OF 7

HELP IMPROVE OFFICE 100°o

https://word-view.officeapps.live.cotn/wv/wordviewerframe.aspx?… 3/3/2015

Page 63 of 111

Page 64 of 111

Page 65 of 111

Page 66 of 111

Page 67 of 111

Page 68 of 111

Page 69 of 111

Page 70 of 111

Page 71 of 111

Page 72 of 111

Page 73 of 111

Page 74 of 111

Page 75 of 111

Page 76 of 111

Page 77 of 111

Page 78 of 111

Page 79 of 111

Page 80 of 111

Page 81 of 111

Page 82 of 111

Page 83 of 111

Page 84 of 111

Page 85 of 111

Page 86 of 111

Page 87 of 111

Page 88 of 111

Page 89 of 111

Page 90 of 111

Page 91 of 111

Page 92 of 111

Page 93 of 111

Page 94 of 111

Presentation at Open House re Johnston Point Development , March3, 2015 – by Helen Bartsch

My name is Helen Bartsch. I own a cottage on Loughborough Lake. Mr. Mayor and Councillors, I am going to focus on the measurement of water frontage on the Johnston Point Development. I would suggest that many water frontages have been calculated incorrectly and that many lots on the Plan have insufficient water frontage, topics which I mentioned at the Feb. 10 Committee of the Whole, but no changes are apparent. The Township Official Plan (Section 7.1.1) requires that lands adjacent to Narrow and Shallow Waterbodies have at least 150 metres of water frontage. Johnston Point is adjacent to Long Bay, a Narrow Waterbody. Therefore, all lots on the north shore require 150m water frontage. A Shallow Waterbody is defined as “less than 10ft. deep, at 100 ft. offshore, at low water”. The water 100 feet from the south shore and west end of Johnston Point is less than 10ft deep. So, all of those lots require 150m water frontage. I have consulted 3 water depth maps of Loughborough Lake from: 1) MNR, (provided to me by CRCA), 2) Dept. of Lands and Forests, Tweed and 3) Trak, Inc., a map produced with permission of Natural Resources Canada. All 3 maps clearly indicate the same water depth of less than 10 feet at 100 feet off the south shore and west end of Johnston Point. I am showing the one that is easiest to see but will provide Council with all three. These maps do include a phrase suggesting that they not be used for navigation, and one explains that is because it did not show the various shoals and hazards. These qualifying phrases are, understandably, for protection from liability, if there were boating accidents. There is no doubt about the accuracy of the water depth. The Consultant, representing the Developer, (Feb. 25, 2014) cited the field work conducted at the time of the Developer’s previous severance of 3 lots on the south shore which resulted in 90m water frontages. I firmly believe that the consistent data of these 3 maps are a more scientific and reliable proof of water depth than the methodology used at that time. (Dec.8, 2011 Committee of Adjustment). I am encouraged, however, by the Developer’s offer to make lot line adjustments for the Shallow Water requirement, if asked to do so by either the Township or County. South Frontenac‘s Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws include terminology which defines water frontage and how to measure it. I propose to you, that the water frontage on a number of lots on Johnston Point has been calculated incorrectly, because these definitions were not followed. The Township Zoning By-Laws state “Water frontage shall mean all property abutting a waterbody measured perpendicular to the side lot lines in a straight line between the two said lot lines at a point where the side lot lines intersect with the high water mark.” The Developer’s Consultant, in correspondence February 25, 2014 to Frontenac County Planning Department, stated, “Water frontage has been defined in South Frontenac’s Zoning By-law as any land having frontage on a Lake or Provincially Significant Wetland. “ That definition is not South Frontenac’s Zoning definition. Yes, a wetland is a water body. However, the Consultant and the Developer have not

Page 95 of 111

Included the important requirement of “intersection of the side lot lines with the high water mark” in their paraphrased definition, and they did not use the high water mark in some of their water frontage calculations. The Developer, upon the request of Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) on August 8, 2014, clearly identified the High Water Mark at 4 points along the property line or shoreline. However, on the lots which are adjacent to wetlands, the Developer used the wetland boundaries, at the rear or side of these wetlands, as water frontage instead of measuring water frontage at the High Water Mark. Beyond that, these wetland boundaries do not even resemble waterfront. Rather, they contain mainly maple trees as well as ash, diverse shrubs and ground cover (EIS June 2014, P.8). I, along with another person from a Group of Concerned Residents, met with the Township Planner on January 28, 2014 to discuss our concerns with the water frontage measurements and lot lines. The Planner offered to seek clarification from the Township’s lawyer. On February 6, I met with the Township and County Planners together. At that time, the Township Planner agreed that the wetland boundaries did not represent the high water mark and, therefore, did not constitute water frontage. He suggested that the water frontages would need to be recalculated and some lots would require rezoning to Residential Limited Service instead of Residential Limited Service Waterfront. Later, I consulted with a representative from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), who confirmed that wetland boundaries are not related to the high water mark. So, the water frontage on all waterfront lots on Johnston Point must be measured where the side lot lines meet the high water mark. And their water frontage must be 150 metres. I further question how many of the lots on Johnston Point meet the requirements outlined in CRCA’s policy (#7, P. 24, CRCA Planning Policy-Updated Version 2005) which states , “All new parcels of land with frontage on a waterbody shall have at least one location that provides reasonable water access (for motorized pleasure craft) without the need for dredging or removal of emergent or submergent vegetation.” In conclusion, I would encourage Council to carefully examine the Johnston Point Site Plan to ensure that its policies and by-laws are followed in the lot and frontage calculations and subsequent rezoning. Helen Bartsch helenbartsch@gmail.com 613-389-7101

LEGEND

140.0

EMERALD

140

140.0

JPTP22

1010 PEBBLE

TW1

JPTP23

JPTP24

140.0

14 0.0

600mm CULVERT

5.0

12 5

13 5

0.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

0 0.

140

130.0

140.0

135

5.0

0.0

125.0

30m Setback

40m Setback

5.0

130.0

35m Setback 45m Setback 50m Setback 60m Setback

125

Property Line

450mm CULVERT 13

Lot Lines

125

13 5.0

UNIT 7 .0

Wetland

1101EMERALD

Proposed Septic Bed Footprint (Primary)

130.0

JPTP17

Proposed Septic Bed Footprint (Alternate)

JPTP20 JPTP16

JPTP21

Proposed House - 3000 sq. ft. (273 sq. m)

5 13

Proposed Well Test Pit Location

TW2

135 .0

TW3

JPTP25

JPTP19

JPTP18

JPTP10

0 0.

5.0

UNIT 6 0. 13

JPTP09

5.0

UNIT 11 130

UNIT 9

135.0

125

REFERENCES

25 m

50 m

75 m

100 m

125 m

130

0m .0

125.0

125

THIS SCALE TO BE USED TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS FOR INFORMATION

UNIT 10 UNIT 8

125.0

UNIT 5

0 0. 13

5 12

CLIENT 300mm CULVERT

135 .0

.0 130

130

135.0

JPTP07

MAGENTA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JPTP08

5.0

UNIT 4

JPTP06 13 5

JPTP05

0.0

135.0

JPTP04 130.0

JPTP03 135.0

.0 130

JPTP02

135.0

PROJECT

JOHNSTON’S POINT DEVELOPMENT LOT 23 & 24 CON. 6 & 7 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC - COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

JPTP01

130.0

TITLE 125.0

TW5 12

125.0

UNIT 3

TW4

SITE CONDITIONS

130

7.0

125.0

5.0 12

WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 130.0

JPTP11

JPTP12

5.0 13

125.0

UNIT 2

130.0

A JPTP14

JPTP13

13 0.0

JPTP15

P 0.0

PROJECT #

DATE

5.0

2014-09-05 DRAWN

DWG NO.

REV Page 96 of 111

CMR/KC

CHECKED

Page 97 of 111

Page 98 of 111

Page 99 of 111

Page 100 of 111

Page 101 of 111

Page 102 of 111

Page 103 of 111

Sydenham March 3rd, 2015. Re: Development of Johnston Point on Loughborough Lake. Mr. Mayor, Councillors: Thank you for providing the opportunity for the public to speak on the developments at Johnston Point. I am a Professor at Queen’s University, although I am speaking here on personal title and on behalf of residents of Valley Lane. I am not a biologist, but have collaborated with Queen’s biologists on conservation projects in the past. I remember one conversation with Queen’s biologist Professor Ratcliffe, whom I asked why this beautiful area surrounding Johnston Point was awarded United Nations Biosphere status, one of only 16 (!!) in Canada. I suggested: “It has one of the highest biodiversities in southern Ontario.” She rebutted: “NO: It has the highest biodiversity in ALL of Ontario.” This led me to research the nature of biodiversity, the best indicator for the quality of a natural habitat. I discovered that one key factor in creating biodiversity is, surprisingly, a LACK of food in the ecosystem. If there is too much food, high energy pests like raccoons and gulls get the energy to push out the niche species in large numbers. Lots of species, with few individuals of each, indicates an excellent ecosystem. And this is the simple reason why the proposed subdivision should not be allowed on Loughborough Lake, a nutrition poor, species diverse, highly sensitive area that serves as buffer from human development to the Frontenac Axis. The proposed subdivision is of a urban density and size that is distinct from other, low impact, cottages in the area. Unless you truck everything out, there are no known septic systems that do not leak effluence into the surrounding water, with provincially significant wetlands that require the protection of township and the province by law. These wetlands are spawning ground for bass and other fish that supports the tourism that the local Storrington economy partly relies on. They also are home to a large diversity of threatened and endangered species, from Least Bitterns and Grey Rat snakes to Blanding’s turtles, all of which I observed in swamps on the lake. We have all witnessed over the past years how increased nutrient influx wreaked havoc on Dog Lake just south, noticeable to the naked eye by way of algae blooms, but quietly disturbing a delicate balance in nutrients at the beginning of the food chain. High nutrient levels are highly undesirable in what I consider to be a key ecosystem in one of the only biospheres highly developed southern Ontario is rich. We do not want to see Loughborough Lake go the same route. These are unlikely to be the only consequences of approving such development. People that are likely to live in what I consider to be a large and dense suburban development are not likely to engage in a low-impact ecologically sensitive lifestyle. Their presence will lead to a significant increase in waste, car-related, boat-related and small engine-related pollution, traffic, as well as noise pollution to which the ecosystem is very sensitive. Trees will be cut, lawns, lawn mowers and leaf blowers will displace nutrient-poor forest soil with rich nitrogen-laden lawn fertilizer and pesticides. These residents are likely to call the

Page 104 of 111

roads department on a daily basis with complaints about the “unsafe” condition of North Shore road, pressuring township to perform the same kind of blasting that has all but destroyed Burnt Hills, turning it into a suburban highway. I traverse North Shore Road several times a day, every season. You will never receive a call from me because it was my choice to live there. Knowing the above, it may come as no surprise that the Nature Conservancy of Canada purchased 12,000 acres a literal stone throw north-east of the proposed subdivision, to protect the Elbow Lake property as a critical corridor for wildlife migrating between the Adirondacks and Algonquin. For the same reason of protecting and studying its unique biodiversity, Queen’s University purchased the 20,000 acre Biological Station right north of Elbow Lake, protecting this area all the way from the lake to Chaffey’s Lock to the east, and Frontenac Provincial Park to the west. There is an excellent reason for this significant investment: Its diversity is unique not just to Ontario, but to Canada, and indeed the world. Its wildlife almost certainly includes the southern-most pack of wolves in Ontario and Canada, which I heard howling at night last month and observed crossing Perth Road. These were not mere coyotes. The proposed development goes right against the idea of protecting this amazing habitat. Once this subdivision is built, it will never go away. Generations of nutrients and pollution will accumulate in the lake that we leave to our children and our children’s children for generations to come. Mr. Mayor, councillors, I would like to underline that this development was designed to benefit only a few individuals and corporations, and mostly financially. This benefit needs to be weighed against the interests of nature, and the larger public, people that have been here for generations: local farmers, fishermen, eco-tourism operators, tourists, trappers. I am not against sustainable levels of development, and I assure you this is not based on NIMBY sentiments. As a scientist and concerned citizen, I ask you to strongly consider the benefits of preserving what many consider to be a unique biological habitat against those of building an urban subdivision on a scale that belongs in a much less sensitive area. I and many concerned residents on North Shore ask you to please vote against this proposal as a matter of principle. Your sincerely, ly,

Professor Roel Vertegaal, PhD 18 Hickory Lane Perth Road Village, Ontario. roel@cs.queensu.ca

Page 105 of 111

Mike Koen submission for March 3, 2015 Johnston Point Open House

Mr. Mayor and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Mike Koen and I am the owner of 1083 Emerald Lane on Loughborough Lake. I would like to focus on one big picture concern with the proposed development, given the many other significant concerns and issues already noted by prior speakers. I encourage Council and the Planning Department to evaluate this proposed development not on a stand-alone basis, but in the context of your vision for sustainable development generally, and for Loughborough Lake specifically. As noted by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association in their letter to Council, the existing and proposed lots on Johnston Point, combined with the recently approved Applewood development that is directly across the Lake, would increase the number of lots on the East Basin by approximately 12%. This is a significant number and the percentage increase in the number of residences would no doubt be even higher. The increased demands on the Lake including boat traffic would be significant. There are more properties on the Lake that could also be subdivided in the future. What would Council and the Planning Department do today if multiple large subdivision proposals were all presented together, rather than being evaluated on a case-by-case basis? I would also like to ask, how much total development is considered to be appropriate on Loughborough Lake? What is the Lake’s capacity to handle new homes? Section 7.3(b) of the Township’s Official Plan states that: “The proposed plan of condominium shall be at a scale which is compatible with the existing or anticipated scale of development in the area” [note: my emphasis on “anticipated”, as the philosophy and rules for building next to lakes have changed vs. what was allowed in the past]. Do Council and the Planning Department believe that the development as proposed meets this test? In summary, I encourage Council to take a hard and practical look at this precedent setting development in a highly environmentally sensitive location, ensure that it completely adheres to the rules and the spirit of the Official Plan, and evaluate it in the context of the Lake’s total capacity to absorb new development. Respectfully, Mike Koen 1083 Emerald Lane (416) 277-9828

Page 106 of 111

Presentation to Township of South Frontenac Council Johnston Point Open House March 3rd 2015

My name is Ed Koen and I spoke at the Public Meeting of Oct. 7th last fall. I own property immediately to the east side of the proposed Johnston Point development, as do my son Mike and my niece Diane. For the benefit of the new councillors who were not present at that public meeting, the property in question was originally part of the family farm where I grew up. My family and I have been seasonal residents for over 40 years. My grandchildren will be the sixth generation of the Koen family to be part of this community dating back to approximately 1867. Our interest is in preserving the integrity of all Loughborough Lake, not just our small corner. I am part of a small group of concerned citizens who have examined this proposal in some depth. Our concerns are covered in detail this evening in other individual presentations. I would like to summarize these concerns for your consideration. At the Oct. 7th public meeting, the previous Council deferred any decisions until the new Council was elected in November and the public had an opportunity to examine the draft plan of development in detail. It is fortunate that this breathing space was granted by the previous Council before accepting the draft plan as presented with minimal conditions. This citizen group’s research and consultation with municipal planners and other agencies has identified several discrepancies between the Official Plan and the developer’s interpretation of the Plan. Becoming familiar with the Official Plan and other regulatory agencies and policies in a relatively short period of time has been a challenging task. We feel confident that we have presented sufficient cause for Council to request further information and studies (if necessary) before accepting the site plan without significant changes. The speakers from our group have identified in greater detail the following specific concerns for which we have not received a satisfactory answer to date. These concerns are as follows:

Wetland boundaries submitted on the Site Plan do not correspond to wetland boundaries shown on Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and South Frontenac maps. Amendments to the boundary of a Provincially Sensitive Wetland (PSW) require the approval of the MNR, who will review these boundaries if requested to do so by the municipality.

Page 107 of 111

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) policy states the boundary of a wetland shall only be determined by a trained wetlands evaluator and shall be subject to approval by MNR. To avoid an obvious conflict of interest, this should be an evaluator other than Ecological Services.
The initial access road for the 3 severed lots was designed as a small gravel road with minimal ongoing impact on the PSW as there would be little traffic. This proposal suggests a paved road with greatly increased traffic, thereby impacting the PSW to a greater extent.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) states there will be no negative impacts to identified significant natural heritage features IF recommendations and mitigation measures (such as no tree removal within 30 metres of the shoreline) are applied. Tree cutting restrictions have already failed in the early stages of the Applewood development.
The Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws define water frontage and how to measure it. The Site Plan does not follow this definition or method of calculation.
The Official Plan requires that lands adjacent to Narrow and Shallow Waterbodies have a minimum water frontage of at least 150 metres. A number of lots do not meet this requirement.
The draft Site Plan uses wetland boundaries as the water frontage instead of measuring water frontage at the high water mark.
This proposal is being evaluated in isolation from Council’s overall vision for sustainable development for our lakes and before the overall Strategic Plan for the Township has been developed.
Approving this proposal as it stands would set a precedent that it is OK to permit large scale development adjacent to Provincially Sensitive Wetlands. This is representing swampland as waterfront and expecting the buyer to not treat it as accessible waterfront, thereby significantly impacting the wetland. Thank you for your time and your attention. We look forward to your response to our concerns. Ed Koen

Page 108 of 111

Ontario Human

Commission ontarlenne

Rights Commission

das drolts de la personne

Office of the Chief Commissioner Cabinet de la commissaire en chef

180 Dundas Street West, 91h Floor 180, me Dundas ouest, 9e 6tage

Toronto ON M7A2R9

Toronto ON M7A 2R9

Tel.: (416) 314-4537 Fax.: (416) 314-7752

T61.: (416)314-4537 T6161. : (416) 314-7752

Ontario

VIA Email

February 26, 2015 Dear Colleagues,

Re: Applying a human rights lens in zoning, licensing and municipal decision-making

As new and returning mayors, councillors and elected officials, you play a central role in ensuring that municipal processes and decisions respect the human rights of all community members. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has worked for several years with governments, experts and community partners to increase human

rights compliance in housing, land use and licensing. I’m writing to share some positive developments in these areas, and to point out some OHRC resources that can help you make your community more inclusive.

In 2014, Toronto and Smiths Falls removed minimum separation distance (MSD) and other zoning restrictions for group homes, as part of human rights settlements with the

Dream Team, a mental health consumer-survivor group. This follows similar moves by Sarnia in 2011 and Kitchener in 2012. In each case, there was no planning justification for MSDs. In fact, Toronto’s own external planning expert recommended they be removed because they contravened the Human Rights Code.

Over the past few years, several other municipalities have recognized their human rights obligations by preventing or removing zoning, licensing and other barriers to housing and services (such as methadone clinics) that are needed by Cocte-identified groups. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has also reinforced the requirement to meet Human Rights Code obligations in municipal work by adding human rights language to two key resources: . Section 3 of the Municipal Councillor’s Guide 2014 [www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4965] now refers to Code protections .

Section 4.6 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning /4c^ [www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx] now states that the PPS shall be implemented in a way that is consistent with the Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Page 109 of 111

Also in 2014, several Ontario planning schools and organizations added human rights content to courses and ongoing professional education. We continue to work with them

to ensure that new graduates and practicing planners incorporate human rights principles in their work.

The OHRC provides several tools to help elected officials, staff and advocates improve human rights in housing, planning, licensing and other municipal decisions. .

Our municipal guides, !n the zone: Housing, human rights and municipal planning [www.ohrc.on.ca/en/zone-housing-human-rights-and-municipal-planning]; and Room for everyone: human rights and rental housing licensing

[www.ohrc.on.ca/en/room-everyone-human-rights-and-rental-housing-licensing] identify human rights risks and best practices in zoning and licensing. .

Our Neighbourhood housing tip sheet [www.ohrc.on.ca/en/neighbourhood-

housing-tip-sheet-fact-sheet] offers suggestions for responding to community concerns about affordable supportive and rental housing, including discriminatory

opposition that is based on stereotypes, assumptions and misinformation about people or the impact on the neighbourhood. .

Municipalities can also spread the message about human rights in housing by sharing our landlord and tenant brochures, fact sheet on fair rental housing ads, and Policy on human rights and rental housing with community members and organizations.

These publications are available in both English and French on ourwebsite at www.ohrc.on.ca/en/sociaLareas/housing. To order printed copies, email us at communications@ohrc.on.ca.

Municipalities are the level of government that is closest to the daily lives of people across Ontario. The decisions you make can have an immediate impact on the human rights of your residents. I challenge you to look at your planning, bylaws and decisionmaking processes, and to apply a human rights lens to help your neighbourhoods and communities be supportive, welcoming places for everyone to call home.

If you would like more information on human rights, municipal decision-making and housing, please contact Jacquelin Pegg at 416-326-9863 or via email at jacquelin.pegg@ohrc.on.ca. Yours truly, Q

Barbara Hall, B.A., LL.B, Ph.D. (hon.) Chief Commissioner

Page 110 of 111 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Wayne Orr March-02-15 10:09 AM Cynthia Fiber Lindsay Mills; Angela Maddocks RE: Johnston Point

Hello, Thank you for your email. Your correspondence will be circulated with the next Council Agenda (March 10), so that it may become part of the public record. No decisions on Johnston Point are anticipated at this evening’s open house, so your views will be seen by all of Council before anything is finalized.

Wayne Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100 Sydenham ON, K0H 2T0 T (613) 376-3027 ext 2225 F (613) 376-6657 From: Cynthia Fiber [mailto:cfiber@earthlink.net] Sent: March-02-15 6:35 AM To: Wayne Orr Subject: Johnston Point

We are full time residents on Pail Island (one of the islands in the east basin of Loughborough Lake) for 6 months of the year. My husband and I have owned Pail Island for 23 years and have been coming to the lake for over 30 years. In that time we have seen much degradation of the wildlife of the lake. There seems to be much less wildlife as development and recreational use has increased; fewer fish, fewer birds, fewer otter sightings. I have been a volunteer loon surveyor for the 23 years we have owned the island and in 2014 I reported the least loons on the lake seen in my 23 surveying years. We are concerned about the proposed development on Johnston Point for many reasons. I am concerned about the significant increase in development in the East basin and what council’s long term plan for the lake is. How does your view fit with the Nature Conservancy’s efforts to preserve? How will developments such as 1

Page 111 of 111 this one impact the health of the lake, the wildlife, the wetlands. What will the impact of increased docks and increased boat traffic be on fish, fish habitats and wetlands? We are 2 people living on 4 acres who try to have little impact upon the lake so that the lake stays healthy for future generations to treasure and enjoy as we have treasured and enjoyed. Please register our objection to this development as it currently is planned . We are unable to attend the public meeting as we out of the country. Cynthia and David Fiber 20860 Pail Island Battersea, Ont. K0H1H0 cfiber@earthlink.net

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.