Committee of the Whole - 10 May 2016 - Agenda

Published May 10, 2016

Word Count 46529 words

Reading Time 219 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: May 10, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 10 May 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 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)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

4 - 29

(b)

Rob Pasch, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

30 - 34

(c)

John Simpson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

35 - 38

(d)

Don Smith and Rachael Smith-Tryon, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(e)

Gerald Gabriel, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(f)

Colleen Flood, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(g)

John Scheff, re; Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(h)

Marie Fauvel, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(i)

Jeff Canton, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(j)

Greg Fisher, Buck Lake Association, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(k)

Fran Willes, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(l)

John Payne, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(m)

Gord Rodgers, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

Reports Requiring Action - n/a

Reports for Information

(a)

Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant, re: Decision on Proposed Housekeeping Amendments - Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

39 - 41

Page 2 of 129

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

Information Items

(a)

Todd Colbourne, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

46 - 48

(b)

Pamela Jones, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

49 - 53

(c)

Brian McCurdy, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(d)

Patricia and D. Sandy Staples, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(e)

Claire Moore, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(f)

Mary Pearson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(g)

Alan Wolsey, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(h)

Lynn Giles, re: Proposed Zoning Changes

(i)

Cynthia & David Fiber, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(j)

Kevin McDermott and Ingrid Jansons, er: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(k)

James Pettingill, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(l)

Walter Meier, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(m)

Carol Shaw, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(n)

Christine Ludorf, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(o)

George Hunter, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

66 - 67

(p)

Jamie Curragh, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

68 - 77

(q)

Warren and Judith Jones, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(r)

Donald & Gail Jennings, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(s)

Ed Wilson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes

(t)

Maureen Adamson, Deputy Treasurer, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, re: update on Ontario’s Culture Strategy

80 - 81 82 125

Page 3 of 129

(u)

Ron Holman, Chair, Rural Ontario Municipal Association, re: Stand Alone Conference in January 2017

126

(v)

Municipality of Clarington, re: Support for No Wake Resolution

127 128

(w)

AMO Communication, re: Support for Fort McMurray - Call to Action

129

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

Page 4 of 129 PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: May 10, 2016 Date of Report: May 5, 2016

Applicant: Township-Initiated

Subject: Township-Initiated Housekeeping Amendments to the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated May 5, 2016 for information and discussion regarding amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring back to the Committee amendments to two sections of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to clarify the intent of the wording. The matter was brought to the Committee on September 22, 2015 and January 26, 2016 and a public meeting was held on the proposed changes on March 15, 2016 as required under section 34 of the Planning Act. The matter was brought to the Committee of the Whole on April 26, 2016 where delegations from the public were heard. This report is a re-circulation for the May 10, 2016 meeting to hear further from those members of the public wishing to make representations. Attachments include a letter from the Township’s solicitor supporting the amendments, a municipal law publication and letters of concern from propertyowners. Background The Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Township, has been in full force and effect since 2005 and was prepared to implement the policies of the Official Plan as required by the Planning Act. Using the By-law since 2005, staff periodically become aware of minor errors/omissions in the text of the by-law and in the zoning schedules (maps). On March 15, 2016 Council passed a by-law to correct most of these. However, two of the proposed amendments needed further discussion and were not passed. These were the changes to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 dealing with legal non-complying structures. Discussion There has been concern expressed by Planning and Building over interpretation of sections 5.10.2 and 5.11. The following is a discussion of the proposed amendments to clarify these sections along with an explanation and rationale.

Section 5.10.2 Existing Buildings Within 30 Metres (98.4 ft.) of a Waterbody or Watercourse does not permit buildings to be reconstructed. The definition reads as follows: “Where a building has been erected prior to the date of passing of this Bylaw on an existing lot and said building has less than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, then said building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. In addition, no living space shall be added below grade to any existing building or structure.”

Page 5 of 129 This wording allows any building within the 30 metre setback to be renovated, strengthened and made more structurally sound but it does not permit it to be taken down and reconstructed. This section is meant to implement the intent of the Official Plan which is: i) ii)

iii)

that all new construction should be well setback from any waterbody with a minimum setback of 30 metres, that existing buildings within the 30 metre setback, once removed, should be set back further so that, some day, all buildings will be well set back from waterbodies to ensure protection of our lakes into the future, that existing buildings within the setback may stay as legal noncomplying structures but they lose this legal status when they are removed.

The Township’s position has been that, when the walls of the building are removed, the building is considered to be gone and it cannot be reconstructed at its present location without a minor variance. However, this interpretation should be ‘built-in’ to section 5.10.2 so that the meaning is more clear. A letter, dated April 20, 2016, from the Township’s solicitor supports this view. The letter is attached hereto as Attachment #1. Attachment #2 is a copy of a municipal law digest publication referred to in the lawyer’s letter. When the proposed change was first brought forward for section 5.10.2 the proposed added wording read: “For the purposes of interpreting section 5.10.2, once the walls of an existing structure within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is deemed to be vacant and the structure may not be reconstructed within the 30 metre setback.” However, following comments at the public meeting it is agreed that the sentence should be changed to include an explanation of reconstruction so that the whole section would read as follows: (changes in bold type) “Where a building has been erected prior to the date of passing of this Bylaw on an existing lot and said building has less than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, then said building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. Reconstruction of the building is prohibited. In addition, no living space shall be added below grade to any existing building or structure. For the purposes of interpreting section 5.10.2, once more than fifty percent of the exterior load-bearing walls have been removed of a structure located within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is deemed to be vacant and the structure may not be reconstructed within the 30 metre setback.” 2.

Section 5.11 of the by-law REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES, should be removed completely. This section reads as follows: “5.11 REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES A building or structure, including a legal non-conforming and/or legal non-complying building or structure, may be replaced with a new building or structure in the case of partial or complete destruction caused by fire, lightning, explosion, tempest, flood or act of God, or demolition permit required by the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac or other authority for safety, health or sanitation requirements, providing such building or structure is serviced by a

Page 6 of 129 potable water supply and sewage disposal system approved by the appropriate responsible authority. A building permit will only be issued, in the absence of zoning relief, provided no enlargement of the footprint or increase in gross floor area is proposed and provided the permit is applied for within 12 months of the partial or complete demolition/destruction. The replacement building shall be located on and not increase the footprint or gross floor area of the nonconforming/non complying building. The applicant shall provide proof to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that there will be no increase in the size of the building footprint or gross floor area and that the replacement building will be located within the same footprint as the non-conforming/non-complying building. Where applicable, floodproofing and avoidance of erosion hazards should be considered.” This section is intended to permit any building within the 30 metre setback to be reconstructed if it is destroyed by fire or storm or if it is dilapidated to the point where the Township orders it to be removed for safety reasons. This section is meant to permit property-owners to rebuild after destruction that is beyond their control. However, it has been the subject of some controversy because some propertyowners argue that they should be allowed to reconstruct because their structure has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe and unusable. However, this state of dis-repair is often the result of neglect where the building has been allowed to deteriorate – perhaps moss has grown on the roof for example resulting in water entering into the walls. It is proposed that section 5.11 be removed completely and deal with each proposed reconstruction through the minor variance process. The rationale for this is that, in the past, when structures near the water have been destroyed, the owners have applied to expand the structure as part of the plan to rebuild. This has always required a minor variance. If section 5.11 is removed, a MV application could be just a nominal application fee (or no fee) and any proposed expansion of the building would also be considered by the Committee of Adjustment as part of the proposal to rebuild – at this nominal fee. A minor variance application is normally processed within two months. However, as an alternative to completely removing section 5.11, Council might consider the following options:

Change the wording to simply say that when a building or structure is damaged or destroyed due to forces beyond the owner’s control then it may be rebuilt…. (words to this effect).
Leave section 5.11 the way it is. It should be noted that, under the present wording of section 5.11, if it is claimed that a building is unsafe due to structural weakness etc.., the owner would need to provide an engineer’s report to this effect. Council could require that this report be peer-reviewed as well. PUBLIC COMMENTS This Committee of the Whole meeting was advertised to the public inviting their views on the matter. Attachment #3 is copies of letters received from propertyowners expressing concerns. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is that Council receive the Planning Report dated April 19, 2016 for information and discussion regarding amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

Page 7 of 129 Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills Lindsay Mills attachments

HouskeepingReportToCouncilMayl2016

Prepared

by:

Page 8 of 129

ATTACHMENT #1

y*' I' Z-**

*:y -l,

‘*:@? -Q:J @-@ -J-0

Cunningham Swan LAWY ERS

-’

Tony E. Fleming Direct Line: 613.546.8096

E-mail: tfleming@cswan.com LSUC Certified Specialist in Municipal Law (Local Government / Land Use Planning)

April 20, 2016

Township of South Frontenac P.0. Box 100

Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO

Attention: Mr. Lindsay Mills Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Mills:

RE: Proposed Amendments to By-Iaw 2003-75; Legal Non-complying Structures Our File No. 12955-433

We reviewed the proposed amendments to By-law 2003-75 as well as your further suggestions for amendment to better reflect the intent of the Township"s waterfront development policies. You asked for our’ opinion as to the enforceability of the proposed amendments and our opinion as to whether the Township can enact zoning controls with respect to Iegal non-complying structures.

As we understand the Township’s goals, it is to ensure that the Official Plan polices respecting waterfront development are implemented unambiguously in the zoning bylaw. The Official Plan provides: 5.2.7

As undeveloped waterfront property becomes increasingly scarce; as existing propert.ies become more intensively used; and as pressures mount to permit higher density development; there is a need to ensure that appropriate Official Plan policies are in place that emphasize the importance of protecting the Township"s CUNNINGHAM, SWAN. CARTY. LITTLE & BONFIAM uio

SMITH ROBINSON BU?LDINC,. SUiTE 300 - 27 PltlNcESS s’r.. KINGSTON ON K7L 1A3 TEI: 613-544-0211 FAX: 613-542-9814 WEBSlTEi WWW.CSWAN.COM

Page 9 of 129

waterfrqnt areas" unique physical, aesthetic, natural and environmental character. 5.2.7(bXi)

… it is the intent of this Official Plan that all buildings, campsites and structures not related to the use of the water and all sewage disposal system Ieaching beds be well set back from the highwater mark. More specifically, a minimum setback of 30 metres (98.4 ft.) from the highwater mark shall apply … These measures are intended to minimize environmental arid visual Iake impacts by reducing phosphorus in?puts, preyenting erosion anq by maintaining a natural appearance of the shorelines. …. s .2.7(b)(iiX2)

On vacant lots existing on the day of adoption of this Plan, a minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the high watermark for all proposed structures shall be required. Consideration may be given to very slight reductions to the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback requirement but only if it is not physically possible to meet the setback anywhere on the parcel. Where it is not physiqally possible to meet the sqtback, then the structure shall be constructed as far back (l!) possible from the highwater mark. [emphasis added]

The goal of the Township is to ensure that all development is set back as far from the water as possible so that the shoreline does not reflect urbanized development, but rather portrays a natural aesthetic. This will also better protect water quality and the “ribbon of life” concept. !deally, a 30m setback is the goal, but in certain circumstances some reduction of this setback may be approved, provided it can be demonstrated to be good planning.

In order to implement this policy, the Township seeks to amend its zoning to clarify and strengthen the intent that legal non-complying structures are not demolished and rebuilt within the 30m setback without a planning analysis and permission pursuant to the Planning Act. This will ensure that if a reduction in the setback is proposed, that it is assessed and determined to be appropriate, rather than allowing demolition and reconstruction as of right. Analysis:

CUNNINGHAM. SWAN. CARTY. Lln’LE & BONHAM 11}

Page 10 of 129

The first step in the analysis is to understand the distinction between legal nonconforming uses and Iegal non-complying structures. Each is dealt with differently in the P(anning Act and in case Iaw.

Legal non-conforming uses are uses of land or structures that commenced before zoning made the use illegal. Section 34(9) of the Planning Act and a Iong series of cases in Ontario establish that the use may continue so long as the user maintains their intent to continue the use. In certain circumstances a brief cessation of the use may be permit?ed provided that the user continues to maintain their intent to resume the use. The facts of the situation and the particular intent of the user (and evidence of this intent) are critical to making a determination as to whether the use may continue Iegally.

The Township has no Iegal authority to pass a zoning by-Iaw that eliminates a legal non-conforming use; this is codified in section 34(9) of the Planning Act. If a Iegal nonconforming use is undertaken in a building and the building is destroyed or demolished, that use may continue, provided the user has not abandoned the use (which again is a matter of the evidence of intent to continue). The building itself must comply with performance standards (height, setbacks etc. in the zoning by-Iaw). A non-conforming use does not exempt the user from other aspects of zoning related to setbacks etc.

A legal non-complying structure is a structure that was in place before a zoning by-law rendered certain of the physical attributes of the ? non-compliant with the performance standards of the by-Iaw (for example the height at the time of construction may be compliant, but aft?er an amendment to zoning, the height may no longer be compliant). The non-compliant structure may continue to exist, may continue to be used (provided the use conforms to zoning) and it may be repaired and renovated. The structure may not be expanded unless the expansion conforms to zoning standards (setbacks, for example) and the non-complying aspect of the structure may not be increased without Planning Act permission (a minor variance or re-zoning).

Where structures are located within the 30m setback from the water the Township may face requests for demolition and rebuilding. In these cases, the struct?ure is noncomplying; the use is compliant, and so it is not a non-conforming use, it is a noncomplying structure.

We have heard arguments that the TDL v. Ottawa case stands for the proposition that a municipality cannot regulate non-complying structures, and specifically that such structures can be demolished and rebuilt without Plannjng Act permission. We do not agree with such an interpretation of this case, or the law generally.

CIINN?NGHAM. SWAN. CAR1’Y. Ll’r-I’LE & BONHA!,l ur

Page 11 of 129

In our opinion, once a legal non-complying structure is demolished, it loses its legal non-complying status and the zoning by-law is applicable to the Iot on which the structure sat as the lot is now considered vacant. The TDL case is applicable to the Ottawa zoning by-law amendment it dealt with and in our view does not stand for the broader proposition that a municipality cannot enforce zoning on a Iot where a noncomplying structure exists (or existed).

Section 34 of the Planning Act permits a municipality to enact zoning regulations for structures. There is no prohibition in the Act that eliminates or Iimits this authority simply because a structure pre-existed the zoning regulations; there is no analogous section for non-complying structures as there is for non-conforming uses.

The best way to describe how the Planning Act applies to a structure is to understand the Planning Act as only looking iorwarr3; it regulates what people want to do with their Iand. When an owner wants to build a home, they must comply with zoning in order to obtain a building permit; the use must be permitted and the structure must comply with setbacks and other performance standards. Once a building permit is obtained and the structure is built the Planning Act no Ionger regulates that structure until the owner wants to make a change to the physical structure or how it is used. The zoning by-law is still applicable to the land; it is simply not able to regulate an existing structure, only changes to the structure (or its use).

If a change is made to zoning and the structure, if built under the amended by-!aw, would not comply, the structure can remain as it exists as the Planning Act is not retrospedive; it does not regulate after the fact. Thus a structure may be considered to be legally non-complying.

We are aware of no case law that stands for the proposition that non-complying status imbues a structure with any special status such that a municipality’s powers to zone the land no longer apply, regardless of what the owner does with the structure. There are very few cases that specifically speak to non-complying structures. Of the few cases we are aware of, the cases indicate that the zoning performance standards are fully in effect for the land and will apply to any alteration of the structure. It is our opinion that there is a good Iegal argument that if a non-complying structure is demolished, that it no longer retains any non-complying status and the zoning by-Iaw applicable to the parcel of land applies to regulate the reconstruction of the structure. It may be possible to reconstruct, but permission under the Plannjng Act in the form of a minor variance or zoning amendment would be required unless the performance standards in the by-Iaw are complied with.

An interesting variation on this analysis is the situation where a non-complying structure is only pait?ially demolished. The Iegal question is at what point does the

CUNNINGHAM. SWAN. CARTY. Ll’lTLE & BONHAM t+i'

Page 12 of 129

structure Iose its non-complying status? Or put another way, at what point in demolition does the zoning by-law apply to the reconstruction?

There are no cases that we are aware of that deal directly with this partial demolition scenario. In our opinion this is a decision for the municipality. The decision must be based on sound Official Plan policy and be drafted well so that land owners can understand their rights and obligations under the By-!aw. Because there are no cases,

we cannot state with certainty how a court would interpret the amendments to your by-law dealing with part?ial demolition.

Given the clear Official Plan direction as excerpted above, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to enact zoning provisions to give effect to the policy and to seek to have currently non-complying structures moved further back when those structures reach the end of their natural lifecycle. It is reasonable to allow repairs and renovations to extend the life of such structures, but it is equally reasonable to provide that the structure be moved further back from the water when it is at the end of its lifecycle. It is equally reasonable to enact regulations to prevent the piece-meal reconstruction of such structures that has the practical effect of allowing reconstruction in stages, which defeats the intent of the official Plan.

Zoning Amendments

We reviewed the original zoning amendments and the proposed modifications to the amendments.

We have some concern with the language in the original amendment that it may

introduce some ambiguity around whether all walls must be removed in order to find

that the structure has been demolished.

We suggest below a further modification for consideration, which meets the intent of the Officia) Plan and attempts to better define and confine the regulations of noncomplying waterfront structures: 5.10.2

Where an existing structure has been erected prior to the date of passing

of this By-law on an existing Iot of record and said structure has Iess than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, the following restrictions shall apply: (a) the said structure may not be reconstructed where it demolished;

(b) no living space sha!I be added be)ow grade to the said strurlure;

CUNNINGHAM. SWAN. CARTY. Ll’rTLE & BONHAM lll?

Page 13 of 129

(C)

the height of the said structure shall not be increased; and

(d)

the extent of the non-compliance with the setback from the

}

i t

highwater mark shall not be increased.

)

A definition of ?demolished? would need to be included as well:

“demolished” means, for purposes of section 5.10.2, removing or

replacing more than 50% of the load bearing exterior walls of a structure for any reason.

t ]

! {

We hope this opinion is of assistance. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss our suggestions, please give me a call. } j

Sincerely, Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP

4' l

Tony"E.

?ing, c.s.

TEF:kj

CuNNlNGHAM. SWAN. CkK!‘Y. LITI’LE & BONHAM lu-

ISSN 1181-9006

Page 14 of 129

ATTACHMENT #2

The Digest of

MUNICIPAL & PLANNING LAW Editor in Chief: John Mascarin, M.A.i LL.B. Aird & Berlis LLP (2010) 4 D.M.P.L. (2d), January 2010. Issue 13

Ci}ed 4 D.M.P.L. (2d)

Subscrip}ion Ra}e is $480 jor 12 issues per

Production Editor: Tara Russell

Published 12 (imes per year by

annum

CARSWELL, A DMSION OF THOMSON REUTERS CANADA LIMITED One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road

@ 2009 Thomson Reu(ers Canada Limi}ed

Printed in Canada by Thomson Reu}ers. Customer Rela}ions Toronto 1-416-609-3800

Toronto, Ontario M1T3V4

Elsewhere in Canada/U.S. 1-800-387-5164 Fax 416-298-5082 vtww.carswell.com E-mail www.carswell.com/email

THE EVOLUTION OF LEGAL NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS by Michael Polowin and Elad Gafni cial Plan of the City, which was adopted on May 14, 2003 and amended in July 2005. ’ Introduction

Many, if not most, municipalities across Ontario have provisions in their zoning by-laws that purport to limit repair, renovation or use of buildings that are non-conforming as to use or non-complying as to performance standards. The intent and effect of these by-laws are to “encourage” property owners to bring non-conformity or non-compliance to an end. Two recent decisions, TDL Group Corp. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 CarswellOnt 7336 (O.M.B.), striking out a portion of the City of Ottawa’s zoning by-law regarding non-conforming rights, and Ottawa (City) v. TDL Group Corp., 2009 CarswellOnt 7168 (Ont. Div. ct.), which denied the City of Ottawa’s leave to appeal of an order of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB or Board), signifies a clear and unambiguous ruling that municipalities may not limit or coercively bring to an end non-conforming or non-complying rights beyond the narrow constraints permitted by the’Planning Act, R.S.0. 1990, c. P.l3 and at common law. Background

In 2001, the new City of Ottawa (the City) was created by the amalgamation of the Region of Ottawa-Carleton and 11 local municipalities. On June 25, 2008, following approxi-

mately five years of public consultation, the City enacted Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2008-250 (“CZBL”). The CZBL harmonized the existing 36 zoning by-laws from the former municipalities comprising the new City, into a single zoning by-]aw, and was designed to implement the new Offi-

Over seventy appeals regarding the enactment of the CZBL were received by the Ontario Municipal Board. One of these appeals was brought by The TDL Group Corp. (“TDL”) to challenge the validity of section 3 of the CZBL which concerned non-conformity and non-compliance. TDL alleged that section 3 of the CZBL was contrary to section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act and was outside the City’s authority. Legislation

Section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act creates an exemption to the scope of zoning by-laws that municipalities may enact. The effect of section 34(9)(a) is to establish legal non-coiifortning uses which are lawful violations of current zoning by virtue of the fact that the use of the land or structure existed in compliance with applicable by-laws before the bylaws with which there is noxi-compliance was passed. Section 34(9)(a) provides: 34. (9) No by-law passed under this section applies,

(a) to prevent the use of any land, building or s}ructure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or struckure svas lawfully used for such purpose on }he day of (he pass-

ing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose;

The impugned section 3 of the CZBL reads, in part, as follows:

(1) Noiliing in this section affects subsection 34(9) of the Planning Act, R.S.0. 1990, Excepted Lands and Buildings, which addresses non-conforming uses.

CARSWELL.

Page 15 of 129 2

4 D.M.P.L. (2d), January 2010 (2) No person svill repair or rebuild any part of any building housing or ot/rerwise used in cotrnection with a non-conforming irse, except as set out iii subsection (3).

(3) Wheri a buikling. structure. .facility or othenvise. inchrding septic and other seriiicirig s)istems, used in connection with a non-conforming use is damaged or demolished, the non-conforming right is not extrnguished if: (By-law 2008-462) (a) the damage or demolitiori svas invohmtary:

(b) the building is r’epaired or re-occupied before the expiry of nvo years: and

(c) the building con}inues to be used for the same purpose iifier it is repaired as it was used before it was damaged or demolished.

(4) Non-conforming rights are exliiiguislied:

(ii) svhere the damage, demolition or r’emosial of a building is not invohuuary:

(b) where a damaged building is not repair’ed or re-occupied b4ore the expiry of tsvo years: or (c) where the non-conforming use,

“normal evolution” of non-conforming uses by prohibiting activities such as the installation of energy-saving windows or the repair of a decrepit roof because such renovations would run afoul of the prohibition on voluntary damage, demolition or removal contained in subsections 3(3) and (4).

In comrast, the City argued that section 3 was an appropriate vehicle to encourage or “cause” the “evolution” of land use over time from “a legal non-conforming use to one in conforn’iity with the zoning by-law” (pages 8-9). In oral evidence before the Board, the City’s land use planner confirmed that the effect of section 3 of the CZBL was that “if a

property owner repairs or rebuilds voluntatily, to maintain, upgrade or modernize the building, the non-conforming or non-complying right is lost” (page 3). In fact, according to the City’s planner, the City’s intent [of section 3 was] to gradually phase out existing legal non-conforming uses (page 3)-

(i) is abandoned, or

(ii) is changed wi(hout permission from the Commiitee of Adjustmen(.

(5) This section applies, with all necessary modification, to a noncomplying building. . . . [Emphasis added]

Ontario Municipal Board Decision The position of TDL before the Board was that section 3 of the CZBL unlawfully attempted to narrow, amend and re-

strict the non-conforming rights of property owners beyond the jurisdiction of the City pursuant to the Planning Act. Specifically, TDL took issue with the fact that subsections 3(3) and (4) of the CZBL purported to extinguish property owners’ legal non-conforming rights wl’iere “damage, demolition or removal of a building is not involuntary”, as contrasted to circumstances where repair or rebuilding is done as a result of “involuntary” damage, demolition or removal (i.e. causes beyond the control of the owner).

TDL referred the Board to numerous cases standing for the proposition that as long as the intention of an owner is to continue a long-established pattern of usage, then there can be no loss of a non-conforming use as a result of damage or demolition, whether it was voluntary or non-voluntary.

Moreover, TDL took the position that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saint-Romuald (Ville) c. Olivier (2001), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898, 22 M.P.L.R. (3d) 1, 2001 CarswellQue 2013, 2001 CarswellQue 2014, [2001] S.C.J. No.

The OMB rejected the City’s argument in this regard and deterrnined as follows at page 10: [OJn a clear reading of section 34(9)(a) of }he Act . . . such a munici-

pal intent and effect of a zoning by-law is not permitted by the Act. The cases cited by the Appellant, especially the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, Central Jesvish [nstitute v. City of Toronto aird Saint-Ronutald (City) v. Olivier affimi the right of a landowner to continue with a legal non-conforming use. In fact, the Supreme Coutt of Canada decisions stand for the proposition that such a use may be expanded wi(hin the confines of (lie building, may be intensified as part of (lie pre-exis(ing activity, and finally, of particular releviince to the case at hand, may see “renewal and change” (Saint-Romuald (Citv) II. Olivier).

The Board finds that section 3 or the CZBL specit’ically operates to prohibit such “renewal and cliange”. [Emphasis in originall

The City also argued that voluntary cessation of use, including for voluntary repair or replacement of elements of the building, brings legal non-conforming and non-complying uses to an end, and that such will not be the case only if such cessation is beyond the control of the property owner. However, once again, the Board disagreed, holding that the intention of the property owner was paramount. The Board stated at pages 10-11: The appellant would not lose its rights (O its legal non-conforming use during a closure for a voluntary repair or even replacement of the building. The Board notes the words of the court in Rotstein v. OroMedonte (Township of): “. . . intention is a relevant factor to be considered in the case of a long-established pattern of use.”

54, REJB 2001-25834, 2001 SCC 57, 204 D.L.R. (4th) 284, 275 N.R. l (s.c.c.) stood for the proposition that non-con-

Finally, the Board rejected the two-year limitation period for repairing and reoccupying specified in sections 3(3)(b) and

evolve over time, provided that the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood was minimal. As Binnie J. held, “[u]nder the doctrine of “acquired rights”, the respondents were not only entitled to continue to use the premises as they were when the new by-law was passed, but was given some flexi-

Again, there is nothing in section 34(9%a) which allows for the extinguishment of a landowner’s right (o a legal non-conforming use if repairs or renovations are not comple(ed before the expiry of two years.

bility in the operation of that use”, including the right to

comple(e repairs.

forming ?and non-complying use’s- are not fixed, but can

“normal evolution” and to “adapt to the demands of the market or the technology that are relevant to it” (para. 19). Section 3 of the CZBL unlawfully frustrated this right to the

3(4)(b) of the CZBL. The Board wrote at page 11:

As noted above, “inten(ion” is de(errninative. If a landowner demon-

s}rates a con(inuous in(en}ion to continue a long-established pat}em of usage, therc is no )oss of its right, regardless of the time it takes to

The Board then ultimately concluded that “section 3 of the CZBL, in its entirety, improperly narrows, amends and restricts the right of a property owner to a legal non-con-

Judgment orders: (416) 609-3800; Fax (416) 298-5094

Page 16 of 129 4 D.M.P.L. (2d), January 2010

formiiig use, contrary to section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act. Section 3 is beyond the jurisdiction of the City” (page 11).

After reviewing the submissions of both parties, Toscano

Divisioiial Court Decision

Roccamo J. found that “the Board’s decision in this matter

The City sought leave to appeal the decision of the Board repealing section 3 of the CZBL to the Divisional Court. As a preliminary matter, the City sought that subsections 3(6) to (8) of the CZBL be restored. There was no evidence before the Board that these three subsections were unlawful pursuant to the Planning Act. In fact, both the planners for the City and TDL supported these provisions. Justice Toscano Roccamo ordered, on consent of both parties, that subsections 3(6) to (8) be remitted to a rehearing of the matter before the OMB pursuant to section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.0. 1990, c. 0.28.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions with respect to the standard of review, the court held the appropriate standard of a review of a decision of the Board to be reasonableness,

ziven that “the Board has specialized expertise in interpreting the provisions of the Planning Act, including Section 34, and in applying its underlying policies” (para. 19). While admitting that “the interpretation of Section 3 of the CZBL is open to considerable debate, such as to arguably run afoul of Section 34(9) of the Plaiming Act” (para. 28) and that its position with respect to the definition of “damage” in the CZBL was “evolving” (para. 29), the City nevertheless asserted that:

“renewal and change” of non-conforming uses as articulated in Saint-Romuald.

[V]oluniary “demolition” of a structure as under Section 3(4) of the CZBL justifies termination of legal non-conforming rights in the absence of airy imemion to continue the non-conforming use at the time the by-law was passed, cotipled with an interruption in continuity or physical existence of the structure. (para. 29)

TDL argued that the Board’s reasoning was an appropriate application of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ottawa (City) v. Capital Parking Ii’ic. (2002), 28 M.P.L.R. (3d) 223, 212 D.L.R. (4th) 342, 2002 CarswellOnt 1197, 158 O.A.C. 174, 59 0.R. (3d) 327, [2002] 0.J. No. 1511 (Ont. C.A.), which concerned whether the defendant, which en-

joyed a legal non-conforming use as a public garage, could be subject to performance standards in the City of Ottawa’s zoning by-laws. All zoning by-laws fall under one of either of two categories: (l) land use provisions; or (2) performance standards provisions. In Capital Parking, Doherty J.A. applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Saint-Romuald and held that performance standards will fail where they are found to interfere

with acquired rights, in that they alter the nature of a legal non-conforming use or interfere with the real and reasonable expectations flowing from a legal non-conforming use (para. 35). TDL took the position, supported by the Court, that section 3 of the CZBL, which was a performance standard because it did not purport to regulate the types of uses of land, ran afoul of the holding in Capital Parking because the prohibition on voluntary repair or renovation unlawfully interfered with the real and reasonable expectation for the right to

was well reasoned and correct” (para. 39), and stated at paragraphs 36-37 that: was

In specif-ic rcrcrence (o Capital Parking, supra, where. it engaged the reiisoniiig ;ipplied in Saint-Romuald, the Board concluded thiit acquired righ}s enti(led property owners to some flexibility in }be operation of the tise, including normal evolution of some uses. The Board concluded (hat nomial evolu}ion of use could encompass demolition

and rebuilding of a property wi(hin i(s foo}print wi}h (he in(en}ion to, contimie (he tise of (he building or structure as it exis}ed prior to the enac(ment of a by-law. I find no error in (he Board’s reiisoning iii (his respect.

In concluding that Seciion 3 of the CZBL operated to fnistrate the nomial evolu(ioii of a legal non-conforming use (hrough renewal and change, the board accepted the reasoning in Rotsteiii v. Oro-Medonte (Tosviisliip of) (2002), 34 M.P.L.R. (3d) 266 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) and Mohammed v. Dysart (Municipality) Building Qfficial (2003), 45 M.P.L.R. (3d) 282 (Onl Sup. C}.) in support of the proposi}ion (ha( svherc a landowner demons(rates a long established pattern of use, there is no loss of rights that tlows (‘rom imerruption in use for renovations or repairs, whether or not within the control of the property osvner. and regardless of the time needed to effect repairs. Again, l find no cause to doubt the Board’s reasoning in this regard.

Accordingly, the City’s motion for leave to appeal to the Division Court was dismissed. Discussion

As noted above, municipalities across Ontario p?irport to restrict property owners’ rights to repair, renovate or use buildings that are iron-conforming as to use, in apparent (and now confirmed) contravention of section 34(9)(a) of the Plaiming Act. This is not surprising given that acquired rights are a thorn iii the side of municipal planners since they interfere with the achievement of the City’s vision articulated in municipal official plans. The decision of the Board and the Divisional Court in the

matter of the Ottawa (City) v. TDL Group Corp. represents a warning to cities across the province that the courts will not tolerate attempts by municipalities to overreach their powers under the Planning Act and the law to contravene legal nonconforming rights. As noted by Killeen J. in 382671 0ntario Ltd. v. London (City) Chief Building Official (1996), 32 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1, 1996 CarswellOnt 1388, [1996] 0.J. No. 1352, 28 0.R. (3d) 718 (Ont. Gen. Div.) by-laws that seek to restrict non-conforming rights are “nothing more nor less than a clever attempt by the municipality to trench upon and even disembowel section 34(9) of the [Planning? Act” (para. 25).

Indeed, many municipalities across the province of Ontario are arguably running afoul of the law with respect to nonconforming rights. At the time of writing, zoning by-laws in the City of Oriuia, the Town of Haldimand, the City of Sudbury, and the Town of Dunnville all essentially permit, with n’iinor variances in wording, the strengthening or restoration to a safe condition of any non-conforming building or structure, while restricting the right to rebuild or repair only

Judgment orders: (416) 609-3800: Fax (416) 298-5094

Page 17 of 129 4

4 D.M.P.L. (2d), January 2010

for situations where the non-conforming building or structure is damaged or destroyed by causes beyond the control of the owner. See City of Orillia’s By-laws No. 2005-72, ss. 3.4.3 and 3.4.5; the TOW?? of Haldimaiid’s By-laws 1-H 86, ss. 6.3.1 and 6.3.2; the City of Sudbury’s By-laws No. 95-5002, s. 4(4)(a); and the Town of Dunnville’s By-laws l-DU 80, ss. 6.3.l and 6.3.2. The effect of these by-laws is to prohibit voluntary repair or renovation other than for the purpose of improving the safety condition of a xion-conforming building or structure. Consequently, renovation for upgrading or modernizing a building, such as the installation of energy-saving windows, would arguably not be permitted. However, as the Board noted in the TDL decision, such restrictions on volun-

tmy repair and renovation are in direct conflict with Binnie J.’s ruling in Saint-Romuald that municipalities cannot frustrate the normal evolution of non-conforming uses through “renewal and change”. Even more egregious violations of non-conforming rights can be found in zoning by-laws that prohibit the restoration of non-conforming buildings or structures when they are

damaged or destroyed even in cases where the destruction is due to causes beyond the control of the owner. For example, the City of Guelph prohibits “the rebuilding of a non-conforn’iing use if it should be destroyed” (Zoning By-law (1995) - ?4864, s. 2.5.3.4). No definition is provided for the term “destroyed”. The City of Barrie prohibits the restoration of any non-conforming building or structure “other than a single detached dwelling, converted dwelling or a multiple fan’iily dwelling which has been destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of the structure (exclusive of walls below grade)” (Zoning By-law 85-95, s. 4.2.6). While residents of the City of Thunder Bay who own legal nonconforming “occupied dwellings” that are “damaged or destroyed by accidental fire or a natural disaster” are permitted to reconstruct their buildings, owners of legal non-conforming buildings or structures “other than a dwelling . . . which has been damaged by accidental fire or natural disaster to the extent of more than sixty percent (60%) of its value are precluded from restoring their buildings or structures” (Zoning By-law 177-1983, s. 5.l1.l(a) and (b)).

Such attempts are contrary to Toscano Roccamo J.’s holding in the TDL Group Corp. case that “where a landowner demonstrates a long established pattern of use, there is no loss of rights that flows from interruption in use for renovations or repairs, whether or not within the control of the property owner” (para. 37). It should be noted that nowhere in the Planning Act are distinctions made with respect to repair and renovation rights between different types of non-conforming uses, and therefore such attempts in the above noted by-laws are unjustified and unlawful. Finally, tl’iere are also examples of zoning by-laws from across the province that place time limits on the repair or re-

construction of a non-conforming building or structure sirnilar to the two-year limitation period in subsections 3(3)(b) and 3(4)(b) of the City of Ottawa’s CZBL that were repealed by the Board and the Court. The City of Kingstoii permits the replacement of a non-conforming building destroyed by any means beyond the control of the owner “provided that construction is commenced within one year from the date of destruction and provided that the buildiiig is completed within a reasonable time thereafter” (Zoning By-law No. 8499, s. 5.24(a)). Similarly, the City of Orillia allows the rebuilding or repair of any building or structure that is damaged or destroyed by causes beyond the control of the owner “provided such rebuilding or repair is conducted within two years” (Zoning By-law 2005-72, s. 3.4.5). However, as the Board held in its decision at page 11, and which was affirmed by the Divisional Co?irt, “[i]f a landowner demonstrates a continuous intention to continue a long-established pattern of usage, there is no loss of its right, regardless of the time it takes to complete repairs.” The above examples of zoning by-laws from across Ontario demonstrate the extent to which municipalities attempt to “encourage” or ca?ise the “evolution” over time from legal non-conforming uses to ones in confortnity with current zoning by-laws. The judgment in Ottawa (City) v. TDL Group Coip. represents for the first time a clear and unambiguous ruling that such efforts by municipalities are contrary to section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act and are, therefore, beyond their jurisdiction. Municipalities must ensure that their zoning by-laws conform to the law with respect to legal noiiconforming rights.

Michael Polouiin is a partner with Gowling LafLeur Henderson LLP in Ottawa, practicing iyi Development and Plaiming Law. Mr. Polowin advises and r-epresents clients through the fidl spectrum of the development process. He has acted for some of the largest developers in Canada, and has been involved in developments throughout the Ottawa area and Eastern and Southern Ontario. Mr. Polowiii also acts on be-

half of municipalities in Eastern Ontario on planning and development (In(/ public-private partnership matters. Elad Gafni is an Articling Student with Gowling LafleuiHenderson LLP in Ottawa, where he also worked as a Sum-

mer Student. He graditated in 2009 with an LL.B. (Cum Laude) from the English Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa. Prior to law school Elad attended Queen’s University on a Chancellor’s Scholarship where he received a B.A. (Hons.) in Economics, as well as the Universitv of Toronto on an Ontario Gradrtate Scholarship where he received an M.A. in Economics.

Judgment orders: (416) 609-3800; Fax (416) 298-5094

Page 18 of 129

Township of South Frontenac Council members,

We, as cottagers on Bobs Lake, together with a multitude of other residents of South Frontenac’s Iakes, are opposed to consideration of any change to Bylaw section s. 11 , or any of Ianguage that would prohibit rebuilding of a domicile within a 30-metre setback after involuntary Ioss, due to fire or tempest as Iisted in section 5.11 .,when the current property cannot be rebuilt within the setback. Please continue to protect in writing grandfathered rights of your tax paying property owners that have Iakefront cottages or other domiciles that are within the 30-metre setback and have a Iot size, location or terrain of property which make it impossible to rebuild within the setback. Thank you, Look forward to your response. Sincerely, Robert J. and Patricia Moss-Vreeland Bobs Lake

Page 19 of 129

Lindsay Mills From:

Walter Meier waltemeier@verizon.net

Sent:

April-25-16 6:20 PM Lindsay Mills Proposed by-Iaw changes

To:

Subject:

l am against the changes proposed for Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By Law. The proposed changes are far from minor and should not be voted into place. They would remove an important aspect of what has in the past been considered

appropriate treatment of grandfathered buildings that are destroyed either by vandalism or by an act of God. Section 5.11 makes it clear that if the destruction of the building is not initiated by the owner but is caused by forces beyond the owners control a duplicate building can be erected. l believe the proposed changes may create some unintended consequences. I have listed below some of consequences that come to mind. Undoubtedly there are others.

1 . Removing the grandfathered cottages will invite overdevelopment around the Iakes. The cottages situated on the riarrow strips of lakefront properties actually protect the Iakes from overdevelopment. Ask developers if they would Iike more access to lakefront footage. The answer, if they are truthful, will be yes. Removing these cottages through attrition, either by vandalism or by acts of God, will have the effect of making more lake front footage available, and an opportunity to develop the large tracts of Iand often located behind the lakefront properties. The net result will be a change from one family having a direct impact on the lake to an entire development with all of the families therein having a direct impact on the Iake. Cottages don’t pollute the Iake: people and their actions do. 2. There will be an impact on taxes if the changes to the by-Iaw is approved.

It is obvious that the properties impacted by these by-law changes will suddenly have much Iess value. Many of them are so narrow that any rebuilding will be impossible. Can you imagine anyone buying such a property? How will the reduced value be assessed? The impact will be immediate. Will the reassessment begin on the same day as the property devaluation? Granted, the increased development of the farmland behind these destroyed cottages may eventually make up for Iost revenue but in the interim there will be a Ioss of taxes. Keep in mind also that these summer settlers require fewer services than those of year round residents because there are no children to be educated and trash collection is required for less than half a year. That means the taxes paid by

the owners of these vacation cottages, in effect, lower the tax rate for year round residents. 3. Approval of the proposed by-law will potentially lead to an increase in vandalism. The summer cottages are extremely vulnerable to vandalism during the off season, so much so that most if not all insurance companies refuse to issue coverage for damage caused by vandalism. I How tempting it will be for criminals to destroy a Iakeside cottage that is ?in the way? for one reason or another. There will be no fear that it will just be a senseless act, because if the change to the by-Iaw is approved, the cottage will not be rebuilt. It might even embolden some misguided person, misinterpreting the changes in the by-law as tacit approval of the vandalism by the establishment. For some people the incentive may be too great to resist. In summary I believe the proposed changes to sections 5.10.2 and 5.1 1 of the by-law to remove the right to rebuild a grandfathered cottage will ultimately have a negative environmental impact. The changes will impact the tax base negatively and potentially lead to an increase in vandalism.

l strongly urge defeat of the proposal to change section 5.10.2 and removal of section 5.11. Walter Meier

A Dog Lake ?summer settler? for the past 45 years.

Page 20 of 129

Lindsay Mills Wayne Orr May-02-16 11:45 AM Angela Maddocks Lindsay Mills FW: 30 metre setback May 10

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

Subject:

Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer

Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON KOH 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225

613-376-6657 (Fax) From: claire moore [mailto:canoodila@yahoo.cal Sent: May-01-16 9:21 AM

To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: 30 metre setback

Morning,

l wanted to voice my concern with the proposed changes to the by-law regarding the 30 metre

setback.

My name is Claire Moore and l own one of the three islands on Knowlton Lake, Cozy Island, and have been in possession of this property for only 4 years. As a young couple, my spouse and l opted to purchase a seasonal residence on a quiet lake instead of investing in a Iarger home where we reside as a military family in Trenton. It took us many years, and Iots of sacrifice, to be able to accumulate {ne the Tunos funds in we have since invested several accumuiate In order oraer to {0 purchase purcnase our our property propeny and dnu we i

thousands of dollars in repair and maintenance to the property. As an island, there is no area 30 metres back from the water and so the changes to the by-Iaw

] would affect us greatly should something happen to our cottage. Given that it is a water-access

property, we are unable to get to the property for a significant portion of the year and so we are at

t"he"merycy ‘of ;ature". ?S?‘ho?‘ul;?’th’e by?law-com’e ainto eff:cr aand as’hould so*aeth:ng aha6pen to our l hope you will take my concerns into consideration regarding the proposed changes.

property, we would potentially be leff with a property with no structure on it and no resale value.

]

Kind Regards, Claire Moore

) Cozy Island

l Knowlton Lake

Page 21 of 129

Lindsay Mills From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Wayne Orr May-02-16 11:43 AM Angela Maddocks Lindsay Mills FW: Reaction to Planning Committee suggested Zoning By-Iaw Mayl0 housekeeping changes

Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer

Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON KOH 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225

613-376-6657 (Fax)

—–Original Message—–

From: Sandy Staples [mailto:sandy.staples@queensu.ca? Sent: May-01-16 12:55 PM

To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; rvanewal@southfrontenac.net Subject: Reaction to Planning Committee suggested Zoning By-law housekeeping changes Dear Mayor Vandewal and Mr. Orr:

My wife, Patricia, and l are residents of South Frontenac (1505 Burnt Hills Road) and recently became aware of some of the proposed changes to zoning by-laws, outlined in the Planning Report dated January 18, 2016 (subject: Townshiplnitiated Housekeeping Amendment to the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-Law). We would Iike to express our concerns and opposition to some of the proposed changes to section 5.10.2 Existing Buildings within 30 metres of a Waterbody and Section 5.11 Replacement of Buildings or Structures. While we agree with and appreciate the need to keep the beauty of our lakes and rivers, some existing buildings already exist within the 30 metre restriction. It appears that the proposed changes would make it considerably more difficult to maintain these buildings well and replace them, if a disaster such as a fire occurred. We do not believe that these changes are in the best interests of South Frontenac residents and urge you to oppose the suggested changes. It could devalue property values (and erode tax base) and is not fair to the people currently owning waterfront property. Replacing the ability to repair or replace your building (damaged by fire, etc.) with the requirement to go through the minor variance process creates delays, expenses and hardship on someone who is dealing with a stressful catastrophe to their home. This does not seem like reasonable governance to us.

We would be pleased to provide more information or answer questions, if you wish. Thank you for your time. Respectfully,

Patricia Staples and D. Sandy Staples

Page 22 of 129

South Frontenac - Proposed By-Law Changes THIS IS A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND EFFECT CHANGE. Vl/e wan( to ensure ‘/ou haVe as tTlanY facks as possible. If this concerns you, or if ’lou are slJppor(ive, we enCollrac}e 70u 10

coI?(acl Sou(h Froll1’inac Townsh:p Collncil and Sla’(f. iVlake s(lre ll’l{E3J haVe ‘ihe opin:ons of resirients, taxpayers 8: Volers. Dear Waterlmnt Residents,

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide information regarding proposed changes to the zoning by-law related to buildings located within the 30m setback from the water. BACKGROUND

Approximately 2 weeks ago, we were made aware of a South Frontenac Housekeeping report prepared by the SFT Planning Department for the Committee of the Whole. I have attached the document to this email for your information. Of concern to us is the recommended removal of s.5.ll and a change to s.5.lO.2 of the SFT Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL).

Currently any new build has to be constructed outside the 30m setback. However, there are many grandfathered ?legal non-complying structures" within the setback. The proposed changes would seriously affect the rights of property owners who have one of these grand-fathered structures on their property.

Our best guess is approximately 1/3 of the lake has a grandfathered structure. This includes everything from a house, cottage, boat house and/or bunkie. Currently, the CZBL allows for any grandfathered structures to be re-built in the event an Act of God (Fire, Fallen Tree, etc.) in the same Iocation as long as it keeps the same foot-print. The proposed changes would take away this automatic right of rebuild. Instead, property owners would have to make an application before the Committee of Adjustment and seek its approval prior to any re-build. LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY

This issue reveals the tension between property rights and environmental concerns.

On one hand, the proposed changes would be consistent with SF Township’s Planners goal of creating a green-ribbon around the lake. Numerous reports can be cited that detail the environmental benefits of a 30m setback. Lake quality has consistently scored as the #1 concern of our members.

On the other hand, an argument can be made that the proposed change is unlawful and inconsistent with section 34.9 of the Planning Act.

This states:(9) No by-Iaw passed under this section applies,(a) to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land,

bu!Iding 6r structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose.

Going to the Committee of Adjustment takes both money and time. It can cost upwards of $1000 without a lawyer, and between 2 - 6 months (at Ieast). In the end your right to rebuild is not automatic and the CoA may deny your application and recommend moving your structure to another location. If a structure is moved, property values will Iikely be affected.

Page 23 of 129

WHAT DID SLA DO

We were not officially informed of this issue. In fact, even our local Councillors were not aware until one of our Board Members stumbled across the notice. With little time to

notify our membership, two board members (Jeff Peck and Graeme Watson) acting personally, and not as SLA Board Members, made representations outlining their concerns. (Two other non-SLA people also made representations at the public meeting). The following questions were asked:

What was the reason behind the proposed change? (Is it for environmental reasons? For a specific issue the planner is dealing with? What is scope of the problem?).
Could we have additional time so that our membership could be notified to ensure a more thorough consultation? (This is really important for seasonal residents.)
Whether or not SFT would be notifying all local lake associations so the affected property owners would have notice? (If Council is going to make a decision that affects hundreds/thousands of its residents we wanted to ensure they did their duediligence and made sure waterfront land-owners are notified.). Originally, it looked like the proposed changes were going to pass, however following discussions at Council a motion to defer for two months passed. This will allow time to communicate with all Lake Associations, obtain a legal opinion and to solicit input from township residents. 50 WHAT - WHAT CAN YOU DO?

At this time SFT Council has not made a decision as to when delegations will be heard on this issue. This will be established the Apri! 5th meeting. This week, we had an SLA Board Meeting. Various points of view on both sides of the issue were debated. We recognized the tension between property rights and the environment. Regardless, of individual Board Members positions it was unanimous that

we had to notify our membership ASAP so that our members would be notified, able to do their own research, and act accordingly. We want to make sure you have as many facts as possible. If this concerns you, or if you are supportive, we encourage you to contact SFT Council and Staff. This is a real opportunity to have your voice heard and effect change. Mayor Ron Vandewal:

rvanewal@southfrontenac. net

Councillor Ross Sutherland:

7846elbe@gmail.com markschjerning@outlook.com

Councillor Mark Schjerning: SFT CAO, Wayne Orr: SFT Planner, Lindsay Mills:

worr@southfrontenac.net Imills@southfrontenac.net

ALSO - Please pass the word to other waterfront property owners in South Frontenac. Our Lake Associations are doing what they can and a group of concerned property owners began an email address in hopes of getting opinions of all those who are affected. It’s important that we all have an opportunity to voice our opinions on this and other proposed bylaw changes that continue to affect our enjoyment of our homes and their value. This is the grass-root effort that is also required. If yOu have any questions. savesfpropertyvalues@gmail.com (text copied {rom email of Mar:< Schjerning, Presiden(, Sydenham Lake ,’-ssocialion)

Page 24 of 129

South Frontenac bylaw change that will hurt your property value Dear South Frontenac waterfront property owner, On March 15, 2016 the South Frontenac City Council tried to pass a bylaw amendment that will negatively impact the property values of those with waterfront and any structures or development within 100 feet of the water, even if these structures have been grandfathered. Unfortunately, they tried to do this without first having a discussion with the hundreds of property owners affected. The first bylaw amendment is to s.5.lO.2 and would mean that if a wall of a structure within 100 feet of the water were removed (even to be repaired) then the entire structure would have to be taken down. It should be known that there is a recent case in South

Frontenac where the addition of two large windows to a wall were deemed to be the equivalent of removing the wall. The second bylaw amendment is to s.5.1 1 and would mean that if a structure within 100 feet of the water were to be damaged by an Act of God (fire, fallen tree, Iightning, wind, storm) there would be no automatic right to rebuild, even if keeping the same footprint. Both of these bylaw changes infringe on the rights of property owners and diminish the property value of any affected property. Would you buy a property where any damage to one of its structures could result in that structure having to be removed? What should you do? aMeehng a a?h .aB 1 . Attend- the Councrl on Apnl 25 at 6.00 rn ydenham. 2. Ask to be a “delegation” at the Council Meeting where you would have an opportunity to tell council why these by law amendments are bad for your

property value. To be a “delegation”: a. Submit a letter or email the CAO at worr@southfrontenac.net stating that you would like to appear before Council with a summary of your concerns b. Provide a written summary of your presentation by l2:00pm on Thursday, April 21 , 2016. 3. If you are not a public speaker or you are a seasonal resident: Email/Write your councilor and Town CAO (Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net ). Your councilor’s contact information can be found on the South Frontenac website:

http ://www.southfronten ac.n et/en/contacts/sea rch.aspx ?s=51A5 H m EY751A5 H U DCOJ m BOcDJJdZLAeQuAleQuAl& mid =13141

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact savesfpropertyvalues@gmail.com we are happy to share our concerns with you.

concenyJ sJe of ${ yap[e rpne

Page 25 of 129

Your honour Mr. Mayor and honourable members of Council, I am pleased to be able to address you today regarding the proposed housekeeping changes regarding bylaw clauses 5.10.2 and 5.11

l have read the Iegal opinion of Mr. Fleming of Cunningham Swan regarding these clauses and have read the amendments 2 and 3 including rate-payers opinions, as well as numerous other

legal opinions, and as a result I have the following comments…..l would Iike to preface the following by considering the doctrine in Iaw called “the doctrine of proximal cause” or the “make one whole doctrine”, it has a “but for” test and it governs most human activity, it goes Iike this…..But for the intent to run for mayor the current mayor would not be there as would the councillors indeed even I would not be functioning as l am today but for the intent to become a dentist… … The But for test can be extrapolated to the actions of council going back to the era

when this bylaw became effective…. and can be viewed as “but for” the intent of council to protect the water bodies and preserve the “ribbon of Iife” around these waterbodies these clauses in the bylaw would not be needed…. This “But for” test can also be viewed from the property owners point of view…..“but for” the intent to have a cottage property these structures would not have been built…. In the legal opinion of Mr Fleming the intent of the township is listed twice as an intent to eventually not have any non-complying structures within the “border of Iife”…this intent expressed to the Iegal council in my opinion skewed the forthcoming Iegal opinion toward this end….Other Iegal opinions could be had to rebut Mr. Fleming’s reasoning and conclusions.

Cause and effect have always been paired, and constitute laws of natural behaviour….let me be clear without effect there can be no cause and without cause there can be no effect…….these

two laws are intimately related and cannot be separated.

To then separate “non conforming intent of use” and the “non conforming structures” which flowed out of this intent of use is impossible and it needs to be recognized that these two actions are connected. To allow one as a right and severely curtail the other is Iike cutting your

leg off and expecting to walk normally. There is also the “Iaw of takings” which addresses diminished property values as a result of negative government actions…. for passing this bylaw will run afoul of this law of takings by making properties Iess desirable to future purchasers….. It is my opinion that council is reaching for powers that are unnecessary by virtue of the above argument. Council has a responsibility to protect this “ribbon of Life”, which l support. However, Council needs to accept the fact that there are non-conforming structures within this “Ribbon of Life”, now and for the foreseeable future. Rather than waging war with these structures and their owners, Council should focus on bringing these structures into compliance with the current bylaws so that the impact on the Ribbon of Life and the body of water is minimized. Council should also allow an evolution of use for these non-conforming structures given that technology

changes. Thus, prudent decisions regarding modernization of existing structures may be allowed if these are deemed to show good planning and if they would be deemed acceptable by reasonable ratepayers. It is my understanding that existing Iaws adequately address these issues at present.

Page 26 of 129

To summarize, I propose that the existing bylaw 5.10.2 NOT be amended and the bylaw 5.11 NOT be removed…for the state reasons: You cannot separate Non-conforming intent from Nonconforming structures for the Iatter flow from the former, thus Council has no further jurisdiction over these structures other that ensuring the compliance with existing bylaws and protecting the Ribbon of Life. Further, l feel that the Iegal opinion of Mr. Fleming has been skewed by the intent of Council’s desires being made known to him. Finally, the potential for diminishing property values as a result of these proposed bylaw clauses should be assessed, as it was not included in Mr. Fleming’s analysis.

Yours very Truly Dr. Rob Pasch DDS. IBO. CC Mrs. Debra Pasch CDA 11 1493 Everett Lane.

Sydenham, Ontario K7M 5Z5

Page 27 of 129

Lindsay Mills From: Sent: To:

Cc:

Subject:

Pamela Jones maddogbtw@gmail.com May-04-16 1:29 PM Lindsay Mills; Wayne Orr Angela Maddocks Addendum to my Comment on proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Iaw

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss, please contact me. Regards, Pamela Jones

tel.: (613)237-6902

Addendum to My Comments of 21Apr20l6: To the members of Council of the Township of South Frontenac: Since making my initial cormnents I have had the opportunity to review the updated Planning Report (dated 19 April and posted 22 April for the 26 April meeting), the letter from the Township’s solicitor (that included helpful reference material on municipal law), and some of the many submissions from other property owners. I have also received feedback from a number of the Councillors.

I understand the comments support retention of much of the current wording of section 5.11 as protection of the right to rebuild a non-conforming structure in the event it is destroyed; I also understand the concern regarding the delay that might result should all non-conforming building proposals be required to go through the minor variance application process: I agree it should be clear (and easy) that when a building is destroyed, a property owner is allowed to rebuild on the same footprint with the same building (per my original comment D(c) on the intent); however, based on the above understanding, I would amend my comment (in E(d)) so that the minor variance process would not need to be followed where the circumstances indicate that an act of God has necessitated repairs, provided that the owner wishes to rebuild the same building on the same footprint. I understand that the minor variance process may still be used where a property owner wishes to make a change to a building that is within the 30-metre setback and would expect that - in the situation where buildings are on an island and cannot meet the setback - good sense would prevail in allowing reasonable changes to be made.

Page 28 of 129

Accordingly, I support the option suggested in the Planning Report that section 5.11 be retained. For clarity, I might suggest that section 5.11 begin with the simple statement: ?A building permit is required for the replacement/reconstruction of buildings or stmctures.? Otherwise, my earlier comments stand and I continue to support the proposed housekeeping amendments. Respectfully, Pamela Jones

Begin forwarded message: From: Pamela Jones maddogbtw@gmail.com Subject: Comment on proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive 7oning By-law Date: April 21 , 2016 at 8:04:46 PM EDT To: Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net

Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net, Angela Maddocks <amaddocks@southfro?. > [covering note removed] Subject: Comment regarding proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law To the members of Council of the Township of South Frontenac: A. Introduction.’

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the proposed amendments. My comments are outlined below. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at your earliest convemence.

B. Subject:

There are proposed atnendments to the bylaw that propose to offer greater clarity concerning an owner’ s desire to build (or re-build) within the 30-metre (1 00-foot) edge of a body of water. C. Objective: The existing ?rule? (policy) is that construction may not take place within 30 metres of a body of water. The intent is to preserve the integrity of the body of water by preserving the natural state of the land beside the body of water so that both flora and fauna on land and in the water may continue to thrive. This objective serves two purposes:

a) it respects the Township’s responsibility towards enviromnental protection; and b) it ensures the continuing viability and desirability of waterfront properties for landowners, which in turn contributes to the economic well-being of the Township, recognizing that a significant portion of the taxation base relies on waterfront property valuations. D, IntentofProposedAmendments: My understanding is that the proposed amendments target the following outcomes: a) where an existing building is within the 30-metre zone, its existence is grandfathered, but no additional construction may take place;

Page 29 of 129

b) where a property owner wishes to upgrade or extend a building on the property, that building must be constructed in accordance with current zoning (i.e. a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge), irrespective of where an original building (often pre-dating the current zoning provisions) may have been built; c) where an ?act of God" (e.g. tornado, fire) destroys or significantly damages a grandfathered building, it is reasonable and fair to allow repair/reconstruction of that same building profile in situ; and d) whereas neglect or other actions (or failure to act) on the part of the owner may necessitate significant repair/rebuilding of a building, this situation should not confer the same status/outcome as under item (c) above, but rather such situations should trigger the requirement to build with a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge, as described in item (b) above. E. Comment:

a) I am fully in support of the proposed amendments, as they seek to meet the overall objective of preserving the integrity of the body of water and the corresponding results outlined under Objective above. b) While one might empathize with the desire of an individual property-owner to ?upgrade/expand? a building within the 30-metre zone, I believe this is a situation where the good of the enviromnent and the overall integrity of Township lands and economy are sufficient justification for the provision. c) As a side note: I am aware of a similar context in the Canadian Shield area of Quebec where a property owner is being required to move an existing building from its current (non-conforming) location to behind the 30-metre line.

d) I believe it is appropriate to require approval of all non-conforming building proposals to go through the minor variance application process. Where the circumstances indicate that an act of God has necessitated repairs (item D(c) above), then the Authority will be able to review and confirm that an existing building is simply being maintained; and, where upgrade/extension is being contemplated, the Authority will likewise have the mandate and responsibility to require that the building be done to meet current zoning/by-law requirements; i.e. that it be behind the 30-metre boundary. e) Over time, this approach should provide for more and more buildings to exist behind the 30-metre boundary, thus supporting the overall objective of the policy/rule. F, Cpnclusion:

I tmst that Council members will see the logic of this approach and support the proposed housekeeping amendments.

Respectfully, Pamela Jones

Owner: l197A James Wilson Road (on Canoe Lake)

Page 30 of 129

Your honour Mr. Mayor and honourable members of Council, I am pleased to be able to address you today regarding the proposed housekeeping changes regarding bylaw clauses 5.10.2 and 5.11 I have read the legal opinion of Mr. Fleming of Cunningham Swan regarding these clauses and have read the amendments 2 and 3 including rate-payers opinions, as well as numerous other legal opinions, and as a result I have the following comments…..I would like to preface the following by considering the doctrine in law called “the doctrine of proximal cause” or the “make one whole doctrine”, it has a “but for” test and it governs most human activity, it goes like this…..But for the intent to run for mayor the current mayor would not be there as would the councillors indeed even I would not be functioning as I am today but for the intent to become a dentist…… The But for test can be extrapolated to the actions of council going back to the era when this bylaw became effective…. and can be viewed as “but for” the intent of council to protect the water bodies and preserve the “ribbon of life” around these waterbodies these clauses in the bylaw would not be needed…. This “But for” test can also be viewed from the property owners point of view…..”but for” the intent to have a cottage property these structures would not have been built…. In the legal opinion of Mr Fleming the intent of the township is listed twice as an intent to eventually not have any non-complying structures within the “border of life”…this intent expressed to the legal council in my opinion skewed the forthcoming legal opinion toward this end….Other legal opinions could be had to rebut Mr. Fleming’s reasoning and conclusions. Cause and effect have always been paired, and constitute laws of natural behaviour….let me be clear without effect there can be no cause and without cause there can be no effect…….these two laws are intimately related and cannot be separated. To then separate “non conforming intent of use” and the “non conforming structures” which flowed out of this intent of use is impossible and it needs to be recognized that these two actions are connected. To allow one as a right and severely curtail the other is like cutting your leg off and expecting to walk normally. There is also the “law of takings” which addresses diminished property values as a result of negative government actions…. for passing this bylaw will run afoul of this law of takings by making properties less desirable to future purchasers….. It is my opinion that council is reaching for powers that are unnecessary by virtue of the above argument. Council has a responsibility to protect this “ribbon of Life”, which I support. However, Council needs to accept the fact that there are non-conforming structures within this “Ribbon of Life”, now and for the foreseeable future. Rather than waging war with these structures and their owners, Council should focus on bringing these structures into compliance with the current bylaws so that the impact on the Ribbon of Life and the body of water is minimized. Council should also allow an evolution of use for these non-conforming structures given that technology changes. Thus, prudent decisions regarding modernization of existing structures may be allowed if these are deemed to show good planning and if they would be deemed acceptable by reasonable ratepayers. It is my understanding that existing laws adequately address these issues at present.

Page 31 of 129

To summarize, I propose that the existing bylaw 5.10.2 NOT be amended and the bylaw 5.11 NOT be removed…for the state reasons: You cannot separate Non-conforming intent from Nonconforming structures for the latter flow from the former, thus Council has no further jurisdiction over these structures other that ensuring the compliance with existing bylaws and protecting the Ribbon of Life. Further, I feel that the legal opinion of Mr. Fleming has been skewed by the intent of Council’s desires being made known to him. Finally, the potential for diminishing property values as a result of these proposed bylaw clauses should be assessed, as it was not included in Mr. Fleming’s analysis.

Yours very Truly Dr. Rob Pasch DDS. IBO. CC Mrs. Debra Pasch CDA ll 1493 Everett Lane. Sydenham, Ontario K7M 5Z5

Page 32 of 129

From: Rob Pasch [mailto:paschdent@rogers.com] Sent: April-15-16 2:05 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Re: 30 meter set back at knowlton lake Hi Ross, and Thank you, however that email was sent before I had read the federal courts ruling in a similar issue in Ottawa, I will not recant the sentiments in the email you have, rather I would like to submit an addition to my original email expressing my opinions after reading this legal opinion. I also would like to make a presentation of my opinion at the council meeting of May 10….would I be able to be included in the agenda for that day? Thank you Best Regards Dr. Rob Pasch D.D.S., I.B.O., C.C. General Practitioner. IBO Certified in Orthodontics Thinking of STRAIGHT TEETH in 2016?….We can help! www.robpasch.com 647-207-7398 On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net wrote: Hello Thank you. I will circulate your email to Council with the agenda for the April 26 meeting. 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: Rob Pasch [mailto:paschdent@rogers.com] Sent: April-13-16 1:49 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Re: 30 meter set back at knowlton lake Hello Wayne hope this gets to you Here is my email to Ross Sutherland and I will attend council on May 10th I would appreciate being kept apprised of the results of the April 26th meeting Rob Hello Ross, I read with interest your take on things regarding this 30 meter setback, and I am glad you feel that council leans the same way….the original lots were lucky if they were more that 150 feet deep. However my opinion is that there are enough bylaws and recommended procedures on the books for council to be able to adequately deal with deteriorating properties which owners may want to upgrade or rebuild from the ground up…acts of God nothwithstanding. I am of the opinion that it is not a good idea to grant council powers of deciding when a deteriorated property has deteriorated enough for a pass or not.

Page 33 of 129

We; knowlton lake lakefront property owners are governed with twice as many bylaws and regulations as other lakes in the area. These rules and regs in my opinion more that adequately govern what happens on the shores of knowlton lake. I will not be able to attend the meeting on April 26….but have cleared my agenda so I am able to attend on May 10….would you be so kind as to forward the timetable for that day so I am not late… Best Regards… Rob Pasch Chuck Mecke has asked me to post this email from Ross Sutherland From: Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com Date: April 6, 2016 at 12:53:27 PM EDT To: Chuck Mecke c.mecke@sympatico.ca Subject: Re: 30 meter set back rebuild provisions Hi Charles, the issue came up because a cottage owner who has a building right on the shore, in fact cantilevered over the shore wants to tear their cottage down and rebuild. They also have a wonderful building spot just back from the shore. The planning department felt this was unreasonable and contravened our practice in the Township and the intent of the bylaw. Over the years, there have only been a few in this category and they have all reached some relocation agreement. Anyway this started a discussion about what the wording of the bylaw means and thus this discussion. Personally I do not support the restrictions on rebuilding on the same footprint when caused by involuntary damage, like fire or trees: “Acts of God”, and I think we are moving towards that on Council. They are unfair for a bunch of reasons and, as you point out, a good point, would discourage people from keeping their buildings in good repair. I think it might be helpful to distinguish between the situation where a building is damaged by “an act of God”, out of the owners control, a very rare circumstance, and one where, within the current limitations rebuilding should be allowed, and a situation where the building is l not properly maintained. The challenge with all these changes is getting the balance right between protecting the lakes and not being unfair to property owners. The changes as proposed would continue to allow people to fix up their homes, including fixing roofs, interior changes, new windows, siding. It would only become an issue if they wanted to totally demolish their house and rebuild from the ground up because it had deteriorated. One result of the change would be that people who have houses closer to the water would be encouraged to keep them in good repair as an easy way of maintaining a home close to the water. A core principle in the Township’s planning to protect lakes has been establishing a minimum 30 meter shoreline buffer. The importance of this setback, where no building should take place and clearing should be minimized, was established in the 1992 Rideau Lakes Study, and recently updated in the Hutchinson Report. While this principle is adhered to for new construction there are many older buildings closer to the lake (like yours) and sometimes right on the shore line. These structures are allowed to continue and be fixed up if they do not increase in size. But what to do if they are allowed to deteriorate? This is the reason this bylaw has become an issue, but the proposed change went a little too far, at least for my liking.

Page 34 of 129

I woudl appreciate your comments. A new report with a legal opinion is coming forward tot he April 26 Committee of hte Whole and the public is welcome to come and comment, also on May 10. Please keep me informed of your thoughts and send your comments to the Township or come to the public meeting, Talk soon, Ross. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chuck Mecke c.mecke@sympatico.ca wrote: Hello Ross Sutherland. I have a cottage on Knowlton Lake. I’m wondering why this issue has come to the fore. Have there been examples of people abusing the rebuild provision ? Charles Mecke Dr. Rob Pasch D.D.S., I.B.O., C.C. General Practitioner. IBO Certified in Orthodontics Thinking of STRAIGHT TEETH in 2016?….We can help! www.robpasch.com 647-207-7398 Dr. Rob Pasch D.D.S., I.B.O., C.C. General Practitioner. IBO Certified in Orthodontics Thinking of STRAIGHT TEETH in 2016?….We can help! www.robpasch.com 647-207-7398 On Apr 13, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net wrote: Hello I received your email, however no comments were attached. Please forward and I will circulate to Council. 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: Rob Pasch [mailto:paschdent@rogers.com] Sent: April-12-16 4:41 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: 30 meter set back at knowlton lake Hi it was recommended that my comment were sent to you as well So I am copying my email to Ross Sutherland to you. Thank you and Best Regards Dr. Rob Pasch D.D.S., I.B.O., C.C. General Practitioner. IBO Certified in Orthodontics Thinking of STRAIGHT TEETH in 2016?….We can help! www.robpasch.com 647-207-7398

Page 35 of 129

JOHN AND BETTY SIMPSON Box 11080 Carslake Lane SYDENHAM, ON K0H 2T0 Ph. 613 376 3571

email asdplan@telus.net

April 19, 2016

Mayor and Council Township of South Frontenac Box 100 SYDENHAM, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Mayor and Councillors, RE:

Proposed bylaw changes to Section 5 of the zoning bylaw

It is my understanding that the Township is contemplating some rather major changes to the Zoning bylaw and in particular Section 5 of the Bylaw, without any required public consultation. These changes have significant consequences to all landowners and particularly those with waterfront properties. These changes should be rejected by Council until proper consultation has been undertaken. The zoning bylaw that was approved in 2005 instantly made in my opinion, over 90% and likely close to 100% of lakeshore cottages, houses and buildings non-conforming in that it established a minimum 30 metre setback from waterbodies for such buildings. In establishing this minimum setback, any existing development closer than 30 metres becomes non-conforming. By definition non-conforming buildings are limited in terms of being able to renovate and expand thus limiting the future opportunities for landowners to maximize the use and enjoyment of their property. The proposed amendment would seek to further reduce the rights of property owners by denying owners to right to renovate and reconstruct older and smaller cottage buildings and properties. The approval of the bylaw in 2005 unknowingly or otherwise has created a huge issue for the Township in that anyone seeking to purchase an existing cottage is likely purchasing a non-conforming building and thereby limiting future opportunities for improvement. I am guessing that this likely wasn’t explained to the general public or to Council in 2005. In my time on Sydenham Lake, over 50 years as a family, I have witnessed the transition of cottage development to year round residences as well as the expansion/replacement of

Page 36 of 129

older cottages to newer and larger ones. In most cases, I applaud the improvements that have been made as the new buildings are well designed, well maintained and are a general improvement over the previous existing buildings. This should be something that the municipality should be encouraging not discouraging. With any new development brings the opportunity to improve lakeside development and reduce the overall impact on the lake including the requirement for new sewage systems. This is in addition to creating a larger tax base for the Township. The proposed amendments consist of 2 major changes. The first would change Section 5.10.2 by eliminating any ability for any reconstruction through adding the words “Reconstruction of the building is prohibited”. Based on the information presented in the March 15th memo to Council, the planners believe that this section has allowed existing dwellings to be demolished and rebuilt on the same footprint. They appear to argue that this is not consistent with the policies in the Official Plan and therefore must be stopped. On the other hand, the Building Officials who deal with the public on a daily basis understand that strict enforcement of this policy is not practical and have allowed buildings to be reconstruction on the same footprint. The planners obviously disagree with this and want to force a different agenda. The wording to modify this section to prohibit reconstruction is not acceptable. A landowner should have the right to reconstruct a building on a site provided that the noncomplying portion of the building does not further decrease the area of non- compliance. In other words, a reconstructed building should not be allow to encroach into a water front setback more than what was originally allowed. The second amendment proposes that Section 5.11 be deleted in its entirety. This deals with the replacement of buildings and structures. It could be argued that this section provides the opportunity for reconstruction and therefore is contradictory to the Official Plan. In the absence of a specific regulation (this section) to deal with existing non-conforming buildings (90% of all cottages and dwellings in the township), the planners will argue that the rules do not permit any reconstruction thereby achieving their desire to move everything back beyond 30 metres. The discussion at the time of a permit application will be that the municipality is not allowed to approve anything that isn’t specifically allowed under the bylaw. Removal of this section allows them to invoke a zero tolerance policy to any replacement or renovation to existing non-conforming structures. Moreover they will argue that section 5.2.10 prohibits reconstruction. The suggestion that without the section, the matter would simply be referred to the committee of adjustment to deal with. This is simply wrong and misleading.

Page 37 of 129

It has been suggested that the way around the “new” rules is for the landowner to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for approval to relax the rules. This begs two questions, why have the rules if they are going to be relaxed all the time? Secondly, why have the landowner go through the added time and expense just to relax the rules? This process does not make sense. Further, what is to stop the planners from arguing that the committee of adjustment has no authority to deal with any application as the bylaw prohibits the reconstruction or that the official plan prohibits reconstruction of existing structures?

It is my belief that the current bylaw that created thousands of non-conforming uses is fundamentally flawed. I have never seen an approach taken to deliberately establish rules that created so many non-conforming uses without regard for the rights of the property owners. Indeed, the approach should have been to reduce the number of non-conforming uses unless there is a specific policy direction that is to be applied in which case it should only be done after and with the support of the general public. If the Township policy is “We hate cottages” then the current bylaw and proposed amendments make sense. However I doubt that is Council’s policy. It certainly seems to be the policy of the Township planners however. Make no mistake, non-conformity brings hardship to landowners in terms of ability to obtain and collect on insurance in the event of a catastrophe. It creates issues in terms of arranging for mortgages. It creates a climate of uncertainty. These proposed amendments only add to the hardship. In a note prepared by Jeff Peck, it is suggested that the amendments are not housekeeping but represent major change. I am in complete agreement that the change to Section 5 should not be considered as a housekeeping amendment but rather a major change as it represents a fundamental shift in the application of rules to land and buildings in the Township. The amendment if approved in its current form will prohibit thousands of landowners from making substantial improvements to existing dwellings, all without public discussion. A housekeeping amendment is normally confined to a typographical error, misplaced decimal, a rounding error from imperial to metric or other similar circumstances and not to a significant shift in public policy. This is an abuse of powers. It is noted that there is a major disagreement between the planners, the maker of policy and the Building Officers who are charged with implementing policy. It is clear that the Building Officials recognize the issues with respect to trying to implement this proposed unworkable policy on a day to day basis. It is further noted that there is no background information, analysis or factual information on which to base a decision and support the change, only anecdotal and value based comments.

Page 38 of 129

Therefore, I urge Council to reject the amendments proposed. I will be out of country on April 26th and cannot attend the Committee of the Whole meeting but I understand that a second opportunity may avail itself on May 10th. If possible and if the agenda has this as an issue, I would be happy to attend and answer any questions with respect to this submission. Sincerely,

John A. Simpson

Page 39 of 129

From: Colleen Flood [mailto:colleenmarionflood@gmail.com] Sent: May-02-16 10:10 PM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; elbe@web.ca; markschjerning@outlook.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: Quoting Colleen Flood colleenmarionflood@gmail.com; Matthew Brougham mattb@windowslive.com Subject: Objection to Proposed Amendments to By-Law 2003-75; Legal NonComplying Structures 2 May 2015 Mayor Ron Vandewal, rvandewal@southfrontenac.net Ross Sutherland, elbe@web.ca Mark Schjerning, markschjerning@outlook.com Wayne Orr, worr@southfrontenac.net Re: Proposed Amendments to By-Law 2003-75; Legal Non-Complying Structures (Proposed Amendments) Dear Sirs, I am an owner of property on Knowlton Lake, including a legal non-complying structure within the 30 metre set-back. I am also a law professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. My comments are in two parts: (1) Challenging the legal opinion being relied upon to support the Proposed Amendments and (2) Process. The Legal Opinion Supporting the Proposed Amendments The Proposed Amendments are supported by a legal opinion from Cunningham Swan. With all due respect, this legal opinion should not be relied upon. First, the legal opinion does not explain why it finds recent case-law to be of no weight although clearly contra to the conclusion regarding the legitimacy of the Proposed Amendments. For example, in TDL Group Corp. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 Carswell Ont 7336 (O.M.B.), the Board struck out a portion of the City of Ottawa’s zoning by-law regarding nonconforming rights and this finding was upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court. What was proposed by Ottawa City was far more modest than what is presently proposed by the Township of South Frontenac. Ottawa City would have permitted a rebuild on the footprint in the circumstances where, due to forces beyond homeowners’ control, their homes or other structures were destroyed. It was found, however, that even with this protection the zoning by-law simply went too far and did not comply with the Planning Act. Thus the City of Ottawa’s plans to preclude an automatic right to rebuild in the footprint in circumstances where individuals were arguably at “fault” was not in accordance with the Planning Act. In the view of Michael Polouiin, partner with Gowling Lafleur Henderson, the TDL Group Corp. judgment represents “a clear and unambiguous ruling that municipalities may not limit or coercively bring to an end non-conforming or non-complying rights beyond the narrow constraints permitted by the Planning Act and at common law.” It seems highly unlikely that if tested in court, the Township’s Proposed Amendments would succeed and, indeed, it may well find that its present restrictions on rebuilding in the footprint would be overturned.

Page 40 of 129

Second, the legal opinion is flawed because it does not engage with the meaning of the word “vacant” in the Township’s own Plan. The Plan presently provides in s .2.7(b)(ii)(2) On vacant lots existing on the day of adoption of this Plan, a minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the high watermark for all proposed structures shall be required. Consideration may be given to very slight reductions to the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback requirement but only if it is not physically possible to meet the setback anywhere on the parcel. Where it is not physically possible to meet the setback, then the structure shall be constructed as far back as possible from the high-water mark. The Council wishes to deem “vacant” lots that clearly are not, for example, deeming a lot to be “vacant” after a fire, notwithstanding a homeowner’s clear intent to rebuild. As another example, the Council would declare a home “vacant” because an aging owner on a fixed income has not been able to keep up with his or her maintenance for physical or fiscal reasons, and ensuing water-damage necessitates a rebuild, potentially destroying the capital he or she needs for future long-term care. The dictionary definition of vacant is as follows: “without any contents” empty” “having no incumbent” “unoccupied“ “having no tenant or occupant”. In the case of a homeowner who has the misfortune to need to rebuild post any kind of damage, the property is clearly not vacant in its normal, ordinary meaning nor within the meaning of any reasonable interpretation of the present Plan.

Further the wording of the Plan states the 30-metre set-back only applies to “vacant lots existing on the day of adoption of this Plan” (emphasis added). “ Non-conforming properties that have structures that need to be rebuilt or repaired were not “vacant” (however creatively interpreted) on the day of adoption of the Plan. Thus the Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Bylaws do not conform with the Township’s own Plan and is, in my opinion, ultra vires its own powers. Process The Proposed Amendments provide for an indirect taking of land. If a home is, for example, set on fire, there is no automatic right to rebuild even if the size of the lot does not permit a 30-metre set back. Further, the price paid for affected homes when purchased was on the basis of continued use of the existing dwelling in its present location. As many homes within the township face the same situation, the Proposed Amendments would result in a sharp decline in the resale value of many homes and properties. The Planning Report detailed 19 April 2016 makes it clear that the Township’s objective is to eliminate all existing structures within the 30-metre set back. I question the validity of this objective in light of the text of the Plan that, as discussed above, specifically states the 30-metre set back applies only to vacant lots existing at the time of the creation of the Plan. But more importantly, even if this was found to be valid objective, it is invalid to achieve this goal on the backs of individual misfortune or hardship rather than through a direct negotiation to purchase land. The nature of the interests at stake are very significant for the people affected and as such general principles of administrative law require a robust level of procedural fairness to be accorded by you. To this end, all affected individuals must be given written notice of this Proposed Amendment and an opportunity to make representations to you. Conclusion

Page 41 of 129

In conclusion, I would ask that the Township not proceed with the Proposed Amendments as they would be ultra vires its own Plan and, according to recent caselaw, they would be ultra vires the Planning Act. However, if the Township wishes to continue with this proposal, general principles of administrative law require that all affected owners be given notice and an opportunity to make comment. Yours sincerely,

Colleen M. Flood

Page 42 of 129 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject:

bjcanton@kos.net May-02-16 10:26 PM Angela Maddocks re: May 10 invitation to comment

Dear Angela Maddocks, I attended the council meeting regarding the zoning bylaw changes. I was specifically interested in the reason for the removal of section 5.11. The stated goal for the 5.11 removal was because “it has been the subject of some controversy because many property-owners will argue that they should be allowed to reconstruct because their structure has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe and unusable. However, this state of dis-repair is often the result of neglect where the building has been neglected” Section 5.11 was to be removed completely and each proposed reconstruction would be dealt with through the minor variance process. A photo of a derelict property was used to illustrate the need for the removal of section 5.11. By-law 2007-13 is the “Safe Properties” by-law. The structure used in the photo appeared to be an excellent example of property in need of the “Safe Properties” by-law enforcement. I find it curious that the architect for the proposed amendment (city planner?) would use the township’s inaction in the enforcement of a current bylaw (“Safe Properties” by-law) to justify amending a different bylaw (5.11 removal). Removal of 5.11 will certainly result in even more controversy in the future when property owners (that have structures within 30 M of the waterfront) are forced to apply for minor variance – with no assurance that the application would be approved - to replace existing structures damaged through no fault of their own. Especially given the Townships stated goal “that existing buildings within the 30 metre setback, once removed, should be set back further so that, some day, all buildings will be well set back from waterbodies to ensure protection of our lakes into the future” I understand that Township may have altered its position and the removal of 5.11 is no longer being considered. If this is the case I would like to thank the mayor and council. If the proposed amendment and removal of 5.11 is still being considered I would like to make a presentation to council regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jeff Canton

Page 43 of 129

May 4, 2016 As a taxpayer of the Township of South Frontenac, I am concerned with regard to the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaws that relate to any structures within the 30-metre setback from water-bodies. The Township classified the amendments as “housekeeping changes.” However, in my opinion, the proposed amendments are not simply “housekeeping changes”, but attempts by Council to take away fundamental property rights of individuals. The proposed amendments, in effect would be contrary to the protection established in section 34(9) of the Planning Act that is clearly designed to protect property owner’s rights. The Bylaw changes deal with structures (such as cottages, etc.) that are located within the 30-metre setback from the shoreline of waterfront lots, but in my view, these proposed amendments represent an attempt by Council to eliminate property owners’ rights to use their property as permitted under the Planning Act. As I see it, the proposed amendments are a blatant attempt to take away property rights of individuals, and the attempt by Council to do this should be recognized as just that. In my opinion, if Council proceeds with the proposed amendments, OMB hearings or Court cases will be necessary to restore the property rights of those affected. The former clauses in the Bylaws should be maintained. Fran Willes, Sydenham

Page 44 of 129

From: Gord Rodgers [mailto:gordrodgers@xplornet.com] Sent: May-05-16 12:28 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Committee of the WHole - May 10, 2016 Hello Mr. Orr I would like to have an opportunity to speak at the May 10th meeting of the Committee of the Whole, on the subject of changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw related to reconstruction within 30m setbacks. My short presentation will make a note of the following: · The importance of our shorelines, and why they are considered the “ribbon of life;” · The rationale for protecting a 30m zone around a waterbody; · Some actions that could be taken should redevelopment/rebuilding be permitted within the 30m setback:

Upgrading septic systems;
Naturalizing shorelines;
Reducing “hard surfaces” I am neither strongly pro nor con the proposed changes to the bylaw, but wish to ensure full consideration for the impacts on the water quality of our lakes and rivers in our planning decisions. I speak on behalf of myself, but I should note that I have experience dealing with environmental and lake planning. I am president of the Fourteen Island Mink Lake Association, President of the Frontenac Stewardship Foundation, and run an environmental planning business that specializes in lake stewardship planning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Gord Rodgers GKR Consulting 1141 Wood Duck Lane RR #1, Hartington Ontario K0H 1W0 613.374.3521

Page 45 of 129

INFORMATION REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW: April 28, 2016 AGENDA DATE:

May 10, 2016

SUBJECT: Decisions on the Proposed Housekeeping Amendments – Sections 5.10.2 and Sections 5.11 BACKGROUND: Council has provided opportunity at the April 26, 2016 and May 10, 2016 Committee of the Whole meetings for members of the public to provide written comments and have delegation status with regard to the proposed changes to Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning by-law ANALYSIS: At the May 3, 2016 Council meeting, Councillor Roberts moved and Councillor Schjerning seconded a motion that any decisions regarding these issues be presented at the June 7, 2016 Council meeting as he is on vacation. Council carried the motion. This will provide staff with ample time to review and assess comments received and to provide a report to Council. This decision has been included in our banner advertising, posted on the website and distributed to the lake associations email contacts. Submitted by: Angela Maddocks Executive Assistant.

Page 46 of 129

Todd Colbourne 1960 Morrison Road (Sydenham Lake) Perth Road, Ontario April 27, 2016 Att: Angela Maddocks, executive Assistant South Frontenac Township 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 Re:

Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendments

Please provide this letter as information to staff and Council for your next Committee of The Whole meeting of May 10, in regard to the proposed amendments to 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. I previously submitted a letter on this topic, that was part of the attachments for the Apr 26 Committee of The Whole meeting, and I then appeared as a delegation at that meeting. As a follow up to that meeting, for staff and Council’s information, I wish to clarify some of the key issues on this topic. Firstly, I want to note that I appreciate that staff and Council are attempting to improve our community, and I applaud that initiative, but in my personal and professional opinion, I believe that the proposed direction is wrong. As an architect, it is part of my professional training, my responsibility, and my duty of care to the public to interpret and apply legislation as it pertains to buildings/structures, including the Ontario Building Code Act, municipal by-laws, and the Planning Act. At the start of the meeting, the municipal planner, Lindsay Mills, noted that there has been a lot of misconception and misunderstanding on the intent of the proposed bylaw amendments, and then summarized the intent. On the contrary, the explained intent confirms my concerns, and those of the many residents that submitted letters and appeared as delegations. Lindsay expressed that the long term vision for the municipality is to eliminate all structures within 30 m of the shoreline, and that the proposed bylaw amendments are a step down that path. I expressed that that is not my vision, nor I am sure is it that of any of the concerned residents that have come forward. It is not a sensible or desirable vision, unless the municipality would like to turn all waterfront property in to an extension of Frontenac Provincial Park (a limited use, natural environment park). A more realistic vision is to preserve and enhance our waterfront community, while recognizing and encouraging the rights of residents and visitors to utilize and enjoy our waterfront, including their right to continue in perpetuity established uses, in an environmentally sensitive manner. The Mayor commented that the vision of eliminating all structures within 30 m of the shoreline is not realistic, so there is at least some disagreement on this by staff. That inappropriate vision is the fundamental issue that needs to be revised in order to align with the rights and the goals of residents. That revised vision would then guide appropriate, and compliant, legislation to realize the revised vision. p. 1

Page 47 of 129

The municipality has just very recently obtained a legal opinion on this issue. And that opinion, and the significant response of residents, has apparently caused the municipality to somewhat reconsider the proposed amendments, as noted at the meeting. However, as I noted at the meeting, not only are the proposed amendments not in compliance with the Planning Act, even portions of the existing by-laws are not in compliance, and therefore not legally enforceable. As pointed out by delegate Tim Ross at the meeting, this was clearly set out in recent case law, and municipalities are now obligated to go back and retract or completely revise bylaws that attempt to infringe on rights established by 34.9(a) of the Planning Act, and under common law, and case law. That means that not only must the municipality abandon the proposed amendments, but they must go back and rethink the existing bylaws, otherwise they open themselves up to a court challenge that case law has clearly demonstrated they will not win. It is interesting that the lawyer that provided the legal opinion refers to the case law that in my opinion disproves his position. His discussion tries to distinguish between uses and structures, but the two are not separable. Similarly, the current bylaw distinguishes between Legal Non-Conforming Uses (Section 5.9) and Legal Non-complying Uses (Section 5.10). However, 34.9(a) of the Planning Act does not distinguish between the two, therefore any such attempt to parcel out and limit the rights between the two groups is not enforceable under law. The current version of Section 5.9 of the By-Law, sentences (1) and (2) simply repeat the wording in Clause 34.(9) (a) and (b) of the Planning Act, however sentence 3 of the By-law adds additional wording that would not be enforceable. The current version of Section 5.10 attempts to restrict the rights of use of a non-complying structure, and the proposed amendment attempts to further restrict that right. Similarly, Section 5.11 attempts to restrict the right of replacement of a structure. According to the by-law definitions, a “Non-Conforming Use shall mean a building, structure, or land existing at the date of the passing of this bylaw which is used for purposes not permitted in the respective zone in which it is located.” Whereas a “Non-complying Use shall mean a permitted land use, building, or structure existing at the date of the passing of this bylaw which does not comply with a setback provision or provisions of the zone within which it is located.” Section 5.9 therefore is only applicable to a building that is used for a use not permitted in the applicable zoning for that lot (e.g. if it is used for a business in a residential zone). Section 5.9 therefore has limited applicability, and virtually every residential lot with a structure within the 30 m water setback would fall under 5.10. The existing clause 15.10.2 attempts to limit a person’s established right of use of a non-compliant structure by not including the word “rebuild”. The proposed amendment would further attempt to reduce this right by trying to define when a structure is deemed removed or demolished (and by the way, the correct definition is when the foundations have been removed as they are by definition the foundation of the structure). In the meeting, Lindsay and Council stated that the purpose is to address derelict structures, but that is a much reduced focus from the originally stated purpose and the stated vision.

p. 2

Page 48 of 129

Everyone at the meeting agreed that a derelict structure should be removed. However, the municipality already has that legal right. 34.9(a) of the Planning Act says that the owner’s right of use continues so long as the use of the land, building, or structure has continued. Where it can be shown to have not continued (under a reasonable definition to avoid for instance saying that a seasonal resident “abandoned” their structure over the winter), then that right ceases. And once an abandoned structure becomes derelict (as every abandoned structure will over time), then under the Building Code Act, the Chief Building Official has the right to enter the property, to inspect the structure, and if he deems it unsafe, to issue an order to comply. This would normally mean that the owner has so many days to make the structure safe or demolish it, or else the municipality has the right to do so and to charge the owner costs. However, where the structure is clearly abandoned and derelict and Legally NonConforming or Non-Complying, I would suggest that the CBO can further require that in order to exercise the option to make safe or rebuild that the owner must first prove continued use, or else have the structure instead demolished. And such demolition would be required to occur under a permit that demonstrates that environmentally appropriate methods will be used (e.g. silt fences). In conclusion, I believe that the municipality should (must) abandon these proposed amendments and instead rewrite or delete bylaw clauses 5.9.3, all of 5.10 and 5.11, to bring them into compliance with the Planning Act and precedent case law, and based on a revised vision. We should leverage our communities’ envious natural environment in a community focused new vision statement that both recognizes and encourages the exploration and use of our natural environment, and also recognizes the rights of waterfront residents to maintain in perpetuity established uses, in an environmentally sensitive manner. South Frontenac is at the heart of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, and is very fortunate to be part of one of only 610 UNESCO designated Biosphere Preserves on the planet. I looked at their web site today, and was pleased to see that their vision statement aligns with mine, and I quote from the Frontenac Arch Biosphere website: “This unique juncture of humanity and biodiversity presents both a challenge and an opportunity: maintaining a high quality of life, a rich culture, robust economy, and healthy environment while recognizing the realities of growth and development in this region. This requires the development and maintenance of a healthy symbiotic relationship between people and nature: the fundamental pillars of sustainability. Life at this crossroads is rich indeed.” Let us work together as a community to build upon this vision. Sincerely,

Todd Colbourne, Architect, OAA, AAA, MRAIC

p. 3

Page 49 of 129 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Hello Lindsay and Wayne, Since sending the forwarded message below (dated 21 Apr 2016), which Wayne advised would be appended to the Agenda for the 10 May meeting, I have reviewed the Agenda for the 26 April meeting, notably the proposal to retain (and not remove) section 5.11 (perhaps to be revised?), the legal opinion and some of the many submissions from other property owners. I have also received feedback from a number of the Councillors. In view of these, I would like to offer an addendum (below) to my comments that I hope is in time to be included with my original comments for the 10 May meeting. I had hoped to be able to attend the 10 May meeting to listen to the discussion, but regret that it does not look possible at this point. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss, please contact me. Regards, Pamela Jones tel.: (613) 237-6902 Addendum to My Comments of 21Apr2016: To the members of Council of the Township of South Frontenac: Since making my initial comments I have had the opportunity to review the updated Planning Report (dated 19 April and posted 22 April for the 26 April meeting), the letter from the Township’s solicitor (that included helpful reference material on municipal law), and some of the many submissions from other property owners. I have also received feedback from a number of the Councillors. I understand the comments support retention of much of the current wording of section 5.11 as protection of the right to rebuild a non-conforming structure in the event it is destroyed; I also understand the concern regarding the delay that might result should all non-conforming building proposals be required to go through the minor variance application process: I agree it should be clear (and easy) that when a building is destroyed, a property owner is allowed to rebuild on the same footprint with the same building (per my original comment D(c) on the intent); however, based on the above understanding, I would amend my comment (in E(d)) so that the minor variance process would not need to be followed where the circumstances indicate that an act of God has necessitated repairs, provided that the owner wishes to rebuild the same building on the same footprint. I understand that the minor variance process may still be used where a property owner wishes to make a change to a building that is within the 30-metre setback and would expect that — in the situation where buildings are on an island and cannot meet the setback — good sense would prevail in allowing reasonable changes to be made. Accordingly, I support the option suggested in the Planning Report that section 5.11 be retained. For clarity, I might suggest that section 5.11 begin with the simple statement: “A building permit is required for the replacement/reconstruction of buildings or structures.” Otherwise, my earlier comments stand and I continue to support the proposed housekeeping amendments. Respectfully, Pamela Jones

Begin forwarded message: From: Pamela Jones maddogbtw@gmail.com Subject: Comment on proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Date: April 21, 2016 at 8:04:46 PM EDT 1

Page 50 of 129 To: Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net, Angela Maddocks amaddocks@southfrontenac.net [covering note removed] Subject: Comment regarding proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law To the members of Council of the Township of South Frontenac: A. Introduction: Thank you for the invitation to comment on the proposed amendments. My comments are outlined below. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at your earliest convenience. B. Subject: There are proposed amendments to the bylaw that propose to offer greater clarity concerning an owner’s desire to build (or re-build) within the 30-metre (100-foot) edge of a body of water. C. Objective: The existing “rule” (policy) is that construction may not take place within 30 metres of a body of water. The intent is to preserve the integrity of the body of water by preserving the natural state of the land beside the body of water so that both flora and fauna on land and in the water may continue to thrive. This objective serves two purposes: a) it respects the Township’s responsibility towards environmental protection; and b) it ensures the continuing viability and desirability of waterfront properties for landowners, which in turn contributes to the economic well-being of the Township, recognizing that a significant portion of the taxation base relies on waterfront property valuations. D. Intent of Proposed Amendments: My understanding is that the proposed amendments target the following outcomes: a) where an existing building is within the 30-metre zone, its existence is grandfathered, but no additional construction may take place; b) where a property owner wishes to upgrade or extend a building on the property, that building must be constructed in accordance with current zoning (i.e. a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge), irrespective of where an original building (often pre-dating the current zoning provisions) may have been built; c) where an “act of God” (e.g. tornado, fire) destroys or significantly damages a grandfathered building, it is reasonable and fair to allow repair/reconstruction of that same building profile in situ; and d) whereas neglect or other actions (or failure to act) on the part of the owner may necessitate significant repair/rebuilding of a building, this situation should not confer the same status/outcome as under item (c) above, but rather such situations should trigger the requirement to build with a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge, as described in item (b) above. E. Comment: a) I am fully in support of the proposed amendments, as they seek to meet the overall objective of preserving the integrity of the body of water and the corresponding results outlined under Objective above. b) While one might empathize with the desire of an individual property-owner to “upgrade/expand” a building within the 30-metre zone, I believe this is a situation where the good of the environment and the overall integrity of Township lands and economy are sufficient justification for the provision. c) As a side note: I am aware of a similar context in the Canadian Shield area of Quebec where a property owner is being required to move an existing building from its current (non-conforming) location to behind the 30-metre line. d) I believe it is appropriate to require approval of all non-conforming building proposals to go through the minor variance application process. Where the circumstances indicate that an act of God has necessitated repairs (item D(c) above), then the Authority will be able to review and confirm that an existing building is simply being maintained; and, where upgrade/extension is being contemplated, the Authority will likewise have the mandate and responsibility to require that the building be done to meet current zoning/by-law requirements; i.e. that it be behind the 30-metre boundary. e) Over time, this approach should provide for more and more buildings to exist behind the 30-metre boundary, thus supporting the overall objective of the policy/rule. F. Conclusion: I trust that Council members will see the logic of this approach and support the proposed housekeeping amendments. Respectfully, 2

Page 51 of 129 Pamela Jones Owner: 1197A James Wilson Road (on Canoe Lake)

Page 52 of 129

From: Pamela Jones [mailto:maddogbtw@gmail.com] Sent: April-21-16 8:05 PM To: Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Angela Maddocks amaddocks@southfrontenac.net Subject: Comment on proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Good Day, Lindsay Mills, I have seen the discussion regarding this item in the minutes of Council and/or Committee of the Whole of the Township of South Frontenac and the Frontenac News, would like to offer my comments — I have phrased them as a letter to members of Council, but am not sure if this is the appropriate approach; please use my comments as appropriate. Regards and thanks, Pamela Jones tel.: (613) 237-6902 Subject: Comment regarding proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law To the members of Council of the Township of South Frontenac: A. Introduction: Thank you for the invitation to comment on the proposed amendments. My comments are outlined below. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at your earliest convenience. B. Subject: There are proposed amendments to the bylaw that propose to offer greater clarity concerning an owner’s desire to build (or re-build) within the 30-metre (100-foot) edge of a body of water. C. Objective: The existing “rule” (policy) is that construction may not take place within 30 metres of a body of water. The intent is to preserve the integrity of the body of water by preserving the natural state of the land beside the body of water so that both flora and fauna on land and in the water may continue to thrive. This objective serves two purposes: a) it respects the Township’s responsibility towards environmental protection; and b) it ensures the continuing viability and desirability of waterfront properties for landowners, which in turn contributes to the economic well-being of the Township, recognizing that a significant portion of the taxation base relies on waterfront property valuations. D. Intent of Proposed Amendments: My understanding is that the proposed amendments target the following outcomes: a) where an existing building is within the 30-metre zone, its existence is grandfathered, but no additional construction may take place; b) where a property owner wishes to upgrade or extend a building on the property, that building must be constructed in accordance with current zoning (i.e. a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge), irrespective of where an original building (often predating the current zoning provisions) may have been built; c) where an “act of God” (e.g. tornado, fire) destroys or significantly damages a grandfathered building, it is reasonable and fair to allow repair/reconstruction of that same building profile in situ; and d) whereas neglect or other actions (or failure to act) on the part of the owner may necessitate significant repair/rebuilding of a building, this situation should not confer the same status/outcome as under item (c) above, but rather such situations should trigger the requirement to build with a setback of 30 metres from the water’s edge, as described in item (b) above.

Page 53 of 129

E. Comment: a) I am fully in support of the proposed amendments, as they seek to meet the overall objective of preserving the integrity of the body of water and the corresponding results outlined under Objective above. b) While one might empathize with the desire of an individual property-owner to “upgrade/expand” a building within the 30-metre zone, I believe this is a situation where the good of the environment and the overall integrity of Township lands and economy are sufficient justification for the provision. c) As a side note: I am aware of a similar context in the Canadian Shield area of Quebec where a property owner is being required to move an existing building from its current (non-conforming) location to behind the 30-metre line. d) I believe it is appropriate to require approval of all non-conforming building proposals to go through the minor variance application process. Where the circumstances indicate that an act of God has necessitated repairs (item D(c) above), then the Authority will be able to review and confirm that an existing building is simply being maintained; and, where upgrade/extension is being contemplated, the Authority will likewise have the mandate and responsibility to require that the building be done to meet current zoning/by-law requirements; i.e. that it be behind the 30-metre boundary. e) Over time, this approach should provide for more and more buildings to exist behind the 30-metre boundary, thus supporting the overall objective of the policy/rule. F. Conclusion: I trust that Council members will see the logic of this approach and support the proposed housekeeping amendments. Respectfully, Pamela Jones Owner: 1197A James Wilson Road (on Canoe Lake)

Page 54 of 129

Dear Council: I am concerned about the proposed by-law as it applies to my cottage property near Davidson’s Beach on Loughborough lake (South Shore).

I request that my cottage property and others like it be grandfathered because the lots are only about 60 feet deep and the buildings were built around 1950 close to the shore. Hence it is not practical to conform to the proposed by-law. In fact, as the depth of our lot is smaller than the setback required by the proposed by-law changes any rebuilding would be impossible.
There are many cottages and permanent dwellings with the exact same problem on the west basin of the lake.
If you need more details about my property, they are all contained in the township office or I can supply you with some details as well. We, Brian McCurdy and Carol Anne Muncaster are the joint owners of the property. (bmccurdy50@gmail.com) Sincerely, Brian McCurdy

Page 55 of 129

—–Original Message—-From: Sandy Staples [mailto:sandy.staples@queensu.ca] Sent: May-01-16 12:55 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; rvanewal@southfrontenac.net Subject: Reaction to Planning Committee suggested Zoning By-law housekeeping changes Dear Mayor Vandewal and Mr. Orr: My wife, Patricia, and I are residents of South Frontenac (1505 Burnt Hills Road) and recently became aware of some of the proposed changes to zoning by-laws, outlined in the Planning Report dated January 18, 2016 (subject: Township-Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-Law). We would like to express our concerns and opposition to some of the proposed changes to section 5.10.2 Existing Buildings within 30 metres of a Waterbody and Section 5.11 Replacement of Buildings or Structures. While we agree with and appreciate the need to keep the beauty of our lakes and rivers, some existing buildings already exist within the 30 metre restriction. It appears that the proposed changes would make it considerably more difficult to maintain these buildings well and replace them, if a disaster such as a fire occurred. We do not believe that these changes are in the best interests of South Frontenac residents and urge you to oppose the suggested changes. It could devalue property values (and erode tax base) and is not fair to the people currently owning waterfront property. Replacing the ability to repair or replace your building (damaged by fire, etc.) with the requirement to go through the minor variance process creates delays, expenses and hardship on someone who is dealing with a stressful catastrophe to their home. This does not seem like reasonable governance to us. We would be pleased to provide more information or answer questions, if you wish. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Patricia Staples and D. Sandy Staples

Page 56 of 129

From: claire moore [mailto:canoodila@yahoo.ca] Sent: May-01-16 9:21 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: 30 metre setback Morning, I wanted to voice my concern with the proposed changes to the by-law regarding the 30 metre setback. My name is Claire Moore and I own one of the three islands on Knowlton Lake, Cozy Island, and have been in possession of this property for only 4 years. As a young couple, my spouse and I opted to purchase a seasonal residence on a quiet lake instead of investing in a larger home where we reside as a military family in Trenton. It took us many years, and lots of sacrifice, to be able to accumulate the funds in order to purchase our property and we have since invested several thousands of dollars in repair and maintenance to the property. As an island, there is no area 30 metres back from the water and so the changes to the by-law would affect us greatly should something happen to our cottage. Given that it is a water-access property, we are unable to get to the property for a significant portion of the year and so we are at the mercy of nature. Should the by-law come into effect and should something happen to our property, we would potentially be left with a property with no structure on it and no resale value. I hope you will take my concerns into consideration regarding the proposed changes. Kind Regards, Claire Moore Cozy Island Knowlton Lake

Page 57 of 129

From: Mary Pearson [mailto:marympearson@sympatico.ca] Sent: April-29-16 9:46 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Re proposed planning changes

Hello again, I wrote to you earlier about our extreme concern over the planning changes being considered in South Frontenac regarding set-backs on grandfathered properties. Our other island neighbours are as concerned as we are regarding wording such as: “eventually all properties will be 30 meters from the water” then having to

depend on the benevolence of a variance committee to approve renovations based on acts of God." This means our property rights and the value of our property would be susceptible to the benevolence and whims of a variance committee. As island property owners, this lack of certainty over our buildings would devalue our properties significantly. As long time responsible & tax paying summer residents we are very alarmed that the community would take such ruthless action against cottagers. We urge you to vote against this legislation. Many thanks and hope to see you on the lake this summer. Mary Pearson Bird Island, Bobs Lake 416-923-1905 Sent from my iPhone

Page 58 of 129 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca on behalf of Wolsey3030@hotmail.com May-01-16 12:07 PM Website Administrator Proposed zoning change / setback from lakes

To all members. of council and especially Linsey Mills .Im a land owner on Canoe Lake and take pride in my property and consider this proposal unfair to people like myself that sacrificed in life to acquire a lake front property only to have it made useless by such a change .I strongly oppose this zoning change . ————————————Origin: http://www.southfrontenac.net/en/index.asp ————————————This email was sent to you by Alan WolseyWolsey3030@hotmail.com through http://www.southfrontenac.net/.

Page 59 of 129

—–Original Message—-From: Lynn@HLGiles.net [mailto:Lynn@HLGiles.net] Sent: April-27-16 12:45 PM To: 7846elbe@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed Setback Policy My family has owned Hurricane Island on Loughborough Lake since 1950. I’m the third generation owner, and we’re now in the process of working with our children and grandchildren to perpetuate our continued family ownership and involvement in our island. So I have a vested interest in policies that affect my history and my legacy. Hurricane Island was initially privately owned and developed in 1928 as a fishing camp. Like other islands developed at that time it was built with a main house for living and cooking, separate sleeping cabins and outhouses scattered around the island. We now have five sleeping cabins on our island plus a separate bathhouse. The main house has no bedrooms or bathrooms. All of the buildings are closer than 30 meters from the lake with the possible exception of the bathhouse. (We’re not there to measure at this time.) If we were to lose one building due to fire or storm and needed to rebuild, the 30m meter policy might preclude our rebuilding at all. (It’s highly unlikely we’d lose a building due to lack of maintenance.) Our island is relatively small. There might be no location on the island that would accommodate a building of any size if this policy were implemented I’m sure we’re not the only island that would face this dilemma. This policy would certainly impact any resale value, if we ever came to that point. Have you considered doing a survey to assess the number of properties that would be negatively impacted if this were implemented? What is the real objective with this proposed policy? Is the thought process that viewing a cabin from the lake is an eyesore? If it’s well-maintained and fits well into the landscape I don’t think that’s the case. We’ve had multiple people comment on how attractive our cabins look to them when they’ve been fishing near our island. Surely you’re not suggesting that there should be no hint of civilization on Loughborough Lake that can be seen from the water? Going in that direction, you will next want to ban motor boats, then all boats. I’d suggest you spend more time discussing what the real objective is here. If it’s to make sure there aren’t eyesores visible from the water, perhaps there should be standards for maintenance. In that case it might make sense to adopt a policy that requires a level of upkeep dealing with the integrity of paint or stain, of the roof, the external walls or the docks. Or if it’s to maintain the water purity then address plumbing and septic issues. Frankly, I find the “Do not anchor here” signs that the hydro company has installed all over the lake to be real eyesores. If they insist on having such signs, they could have made them less intrusive. Once more I notice that you’ve scheduled meetings to discuss real issues on the lake for dates when many or most seasonal owners, like us, can’t attend. I hope that doesn’t signal that our input doesn’t count. Sincerely, Lynn Giles Hurricane Island

Page 60 of 129

From: Cynthia Fiber rmailto:cfiber^earthlink.net1

Sent:April-26-163:15PM

To: Wayne Orr <worr(5)southfrontenac.net>; Ross Sutherland <7846elbe^amail.com> Subject: FW: Re: 30 meter setback from lakes

I am out of the country and unable to attend this meeting tonight. Attached are

comments from my husband and I.

Please advise if they should be sent to anyone else. Cynthia Cynthia Fiber cfiberOiearthlink.net 239- 963-4593

From: Cynthia Fiber rmai[to:cfiber®earthlink.net1 Sent: April-26-16 2:55 PM To: Cynthia Fiber Subject: Fwd: Re: 30 meter setback from lakes Cynthia Fiber

Forwarded message From: Cynthia Fiber <cfiber(5).earthlink.net> Date: Apr 26, 2016 2:46 PM Subject: Re: 30 meter setback from lakes To: Ross Sutherland <7846elbe©iamail,com>

Cc: Lynn Giles <Lvnn0),hlailes.net>.Nancy McCrae <nancvmcrae1(a)amail.com>

As the owners of Pail Island on Loughborough Lake for 25 years we appreciate Council’s concern for preservation of the environment. We have no difficulty with the 30 meter setback for new construction.

However it retroactively penalizes us if you allow a bylaw that does not allow us to

replace on the existing footprint in the case of an unforeseen disaster to our dwelling. This is a very serious matter to us and many of our neighbors as it would leave us with virtually unusable property. If necessary we will take all means to block this by law. It is totally arbitrary and an attack on our rights as home owners in this township. Cynthia & David Fiber 20860 Pail Island

Battersea, On

On Apr 6, 2016 3:31 PM, Ross Sutherland <7846elbe(a)amail.com> wrote:

Hi Folks, sorry for any double emails. As a lake resident I thought you might be interested that Council agreed to the following timetable on the 30 meter setback discussion on non-conforming uses.

A new report, with legal opinion, will be released on April 22. Public delegations can

be made on this report at both the April 26 and May 10 meeting. This should give most

who wish to make a comment a time they can make. Written comments are welcome at any time. Please contact me if you have any questions, keep in touch, Ross.

Page 61 of 129

From: KEVIN MCDERMOTT [mailto:kmcde@cogeco.ca] Sent: April-26-16 1:22 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; councillorrevill@gmail.com Cc: Ingrid Jansons ingrid.jansons@rmc.ca Subject: Concerns with the proposed by-law changes affecting cottage properties Dear Councillors, It has come to our attention that Council is considering proposed by-law changes to cottage properties currently grandfathered within 30 M of the water.

The ‘Act of God’ clause should be maintained and allow the lakeshore owner to rebuild on their grandfathered footprint. It should not take a minor variance or appearing in front of a municipal board to allow such an action.
Future improvements on the existing footprints should remain grandfathered.
The “housekeeping amendments”, of “continually neglected buildings”, implies that cottages within the 30 M set back are all subject to undo discrimination. These clauses should apply to all properties not just those within 30M or apply to NONE at all as this criteria is very subjective and open to challenge. Regards, Kevin McDermott Ingrid Jansons 12B Butternut Lane, Crow Lake

Page 62 of 129

From: James Pettingill [mailto:pettingill@gmail.com] Sent: April-26-16 9:18 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed Changes to the CZBL

Hi, I am concerned over the proposed changes to sections s.5.10.2 and s.5.11 of the comprehensive zoning bylaw (CZBL). I have a cottage in Battersea on Loughborough lake that is a currently a legal non-conforming structure being only ~7m from the water. My concern is that if the proposed changes are passed then my property will become essentially valueless. There is nowhere on my property where the foot print of the cottage can be far enough from the lake, septic, or a right of way. If there was an act of god I feel I should have the automatic right to rebuild and not have to go through a lengthy and expensive CoA application. As it stands right now there is potential for myself and other’s with similar properties to lose financing for their properties as no bank is going to lend money for an asset that is worth less than the outstanding balance on it. If the proposed changes are made the value of my land goes from $220,000 (MPAC value - structure cost) to about $20,000-$40,000 and the only ones who would be interested in it would likely be my neighbours. I understand we have a responsibility to the environment and but I also feel the township needs to respect the rights of current owners of grandfathered structures to use/maintain them. If the concern is over derelict properties or ones that haven’t been maintained, then please change the wording to reflect this. What I think would also be prudent would be to make it mandatory that all rebuilds and renovations on grandfathered structures be held to a higher environmental standard. For example, attach conditions that force best environmental/building practices be used, septic system functionality tests are done (and have to be fixed if they aren’t functioning properly) and sample ports installed, and such inspections need to be done semiregularly ( annually, bi-annually, etc..).

Sincerely,

James Pettingill

Page 63 of 129 From: Walter Meier [mailto:waltemeier@verizon.net] Sent: April-25-16 6:28 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed “Housekeeping Changes” To Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law I am against the changes proposed for Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By Law. The proposed changes are far from minor and should not be voted into place. They would remove an important aspect of what has in the past been considered appropriate treatment of grandfathered buildings that are destroyed either by vandalism or by an act of God. Section 5.11 makes it clear that if the destruction of the building is not initiated by the owner but is caused by forces beyond the owners control a duplicate building can be erected. I believe the proposed changes may create some unintended consequences. I have listed below some of consequences that come to mind. Undoubtedly there are others.

Removing the grandfathered cottages will invite overdevelopment around the lakes. The cottages situated on the narrow strips of lakefront properties actually protect the lakes from overdevelopment. Ask developers if they would like more access to lakefront footage. The answer, if they are truthful, will be yes. Removing these cottages through attrition, either by vandalism or by acts of God, will have the effect of making more lake front footage available, and an opportunity to develop the large tracts of land often located behind the lakefront properties. The net result will be a change from one family having a direct impact on the lake to an entire development with all of the families therein having a direct impact on the lake. Cottages don’t pollute the lake: people and their actions do.
There will be an impact on taxes if the changes to the by-law is approved. It is obvious that the properties impacted by these by-law changes will suddenly have much less value. Many of them are so narrow that any rebuilding will be impossible. Can you imagine anyone buying such a property? How will the reduced value be assessed? The impact will be immediate. Will the reassessment begin on the same day as the property devaluation? Granted, the increased development of the farmland behind these destroyed cottages may eventually make up for lost revenue but in the interim there will be a loss of taxes. Keep in mind also that these summer settlers require fewer services than those of year round residents because there are no children to be educated and trash collection is required for less than half a year. That means the taxes paid by the owners of these vacation cottages, in effect, lower the tax rate for year round residents.
Approval of the proposed by-law will potentially lead to an increase in vandalism. The summer cottages are extremely vulnerable to vandalism during the off season, so much so that most if not all insurance companies refuse to issue coverage for damage caused by vandalism. I How tempting it will be for criminals to destroy a lakeside cottage that is “in the way” for one reason or another. There will be no fear that it will just be a senseless act, because if the change to the by-law is approved, the cottage will not be rebuilt. It might even embolden some misguided person, misinterpreting the changes in the by-law as tacit approval of the vandalism by the establishment. For some people the incentive may be too great to resist. In summary I believe the proposed changes to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the by-law to remove the right to rebuild a grandfathered cottage will ultimately have a negative environmental impact. The changes will impact the tax base negatively and potentially lead to an increase in vandalism. I strongly urge defeat of the proposal to change section 5.10.2 and removal of section 5.11. Walter Meier A Dog Lake “summer settler” for the past 45 years.

Page 64 of 129

From: Carol Shaw [mailto:shaw.carol100@yahoo.com] Sent: April-26-16 12:46 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: By Law s.5.11 I wish to voice my objection on the proposed removal of bylaw ‘s.5.11 and a change to s.5.10.2 of the SFT Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL). I live on a lake and would not want my house to be reconstructed further back from the water line than it is if there was a catastrophe. I have a dug out basement with block construction underground. Your proposed change would not make rebuilding acceptable or financially feasible. I strongly oppose your proposed change. Carol Shaw 94 Pero Lane RR1 Hartington, ON K0H 1W0 613-532-2227 sha

Page 65 of 129

From: Ron Vandewal Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 7:48 AM To: ludorfc Subject: Re: Zoning By-law

Basically what has changed is there is no judgement of neglect you can keep it repaired but the only way to replace on that footprint is if it was destroyed Thanks Ronv any other.questions don’t hesitate to email me Sent from my iPad On Apr 16, 2016, at 6:50 PM, ludorfc ludorfc@yahoo.ca wrote: Ron, Thank you for your prompt response to my email. Much appreciated. My question now would be: What has changed since the original Zoning By-law was approved to necessitate the current proposed changes? Also, who would be the judge of “deemed unsafe because of neglect”? I feel quite strongly that my privacy and property ownership rights are being infringed upon by these proposed amendments to the current By-law. In my case, it would appear that, under the proposed changes, I cannot replace my boathouse with an upgraded one unless the current one has been destroyed by an act of nature. This does not make much sense so it will be interesting to attend future Council meetings where further information and reasoning may be forthcoming. Regards, Christine Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Ron Vandewal Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:42 PM To: ludorfc Subject: Re: Zoning By-law

This was not brought before newsletter was printed reality is it doesn’t change hardly anything that was in effect other than you could not replace structure if it is deemed unsafe because of neglect you still can repair but if it is tore down then it is no longer grandfathered because now it doesn’t exist but if it burns down or act of nature you can still replace where it is .We will take all comments into considerations before making a decision if you have any other questions don’t hesitate to email me. Thanks Ronv Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2016, at 2:01 PM, ludorfc ludorfc@yahoo.ca wrote: It has recently come to my attention that the SF zoning by-law as it relates to buildings located within the 30M water set-back is in the process of being re-written. While the proposed changes could be construed as being environmentally friendly, I would be interested in reviewing any specific scientific studies which support or recommend the proposed changes. If there are none that specifically address the changes as proposed, then, as a property owner on Dog Lake, I would have to question the validity of and necessity for the proposed changes. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no SF property owners/taxpayers were consulted in this matter and it is difficult to understand why such a proposed change could be put into effect without such consultation. The timing is also somewhat suspect, given that most seasonal cottage owners have yet to return to their properties and some may still be at their southern winter abodes. It is also interesting to note that no mention of this proposed change was included in your March 2016 newsletter (Connecting with you…..) which accompanied the interim tax bill! It should also be noted that this same newsletter contains the phrase “Staff in all departments are working on your behalf.” There could be a disconnect here for which an explanation would be appreciated. Sincerely, Christine Ludorf 1629 Don Moore Lane (Dog Lake) 613 547 4265 (Kingston) Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Page 66 of 129

2nd May. 2016. “MrMayorand CoundBors. I own Lot 2. Registered Plan 1584 situated on the east shore of Knowtton Lake. have have had a cottage (or over 40 yre and have Bved here pennanenfly for 20 years.

Ptease see attached map showing ttwt ft fe Impossible to get 30 meters back as the lot isnt even 30 meters deep. A terga portion of the tote are big enough; they ham to conteirt with teige WBs. etc.

I am opposed to your plan to not tet my home gat rebuilt If the waUs came

down, TWs wB ateo drop the value of aU property that cannot meet this

requtrement. ABpmpertywoidd have to be reassessed as ft wBI be of no use or value.

t am sunrounded by a quantify of large trees that couW (to serious damaged if blown down.

George E. Hunter, 1405 Everett Lane, R.R.#1

Sydenham, Ontario KOK2TO

V.7.

a .?(

. 01

^ Vs

“2

^5 (^

»ys s;

^ r

^ ^

CONCESSION 9

^ ^

–*^

,f *

f lH

vI-

..’"^

‘-^S£

^ 0

«. 1

..*.

t J< t

“.^.. Ss-,..

<“u^*

<”

St*..>. IL\ 7» t 1,

.^ ;-«…”… ^

^ i6^?

<9 <. “A

&’

““J^

S^o"w .NN»

3S-’ **“nS s.’^””. m

. sl

**’l^ ft

l»mt. -.*«,,^.

.“t. <:

.»

‘^,.

ORSER STREET”"^ °^\

t.^

(4.00*

fN-^3T^

0-,t

^*fr

!’t/r’[

.d ^, M

%’

M ^1

A^^z.

“rf

-6

–.

8 i ltwf^

.^A

\ ^^. .’<*

,<»<

=^5

/%^ IfHWW, ^

in’-d-.

0 \

r^^.

!S^ -I., /

?J.^ ‘<?

<i,

…^’””

.wwn -*!.<.< …«w->f < i rw"n’ “inn’ouKmnawi iimw’n jiin <w inuwrt w««i»»^n»»«-^>*fm *<wmw .wn’ >*nii»nx

^in»ir^ii

-<*- ^^^^^” ^ w^

^U^d ^ ^/-& ?r / S4–

<^*»^fh»<

^^.4-H .t’.lA

-t

-Tl

^-»

*^l .^

" <* ^

a/?*e,

¥*

^ ***

T* a’*

…..

-/. -”

,’^t ,-”.

hri ^

^f r

1^f

-””

…’

yW->l^".-^,..WW^-.. rfrf*

<F<»

^f ^"

r.-*- *-’ ‘<t

‘“7 ^ *

rf*

-*’” f^

-I

^»

.Hjf

-I.-’

*** d

^.–"

f^ f

…–"

f* I*

»h « A»^t >.fl ». -^i > Niir mnMit^n «^n +.+<i .rt- ^ i ^^ -i^ftffrtn t^

hi»t^MIJp»tti(4,»f»t»if^|l^lV»’^»^-l» >^H .^trrft«ton^J^HH’*i1U

6 ?

Page 67 of 129

*. ^f

#A,

^tr.

^%^ .;

;NOWLTOM LAKE

mdrf

^^ ^

^o"

*».

-^.A

:>-£ ^

^Iki^^^^^-^i^^^

rss

»*

0’

^.’’^-ssssw.swsw.fias-.t^.^

^ :&’

ltt

^^^SS£SS-^.. ^V^r-t^ ^^

Q h»

*"»>. ^t».

^.axsuKif.-.ss ..c, ^

.^^ ."»=-

.-^»^3S’

:** or-".

" :^–.. ^FO^fi^££;RV£

,-^ * * <rd

‘.ii’’*-u-L-"." ..’“N-‘i.~–rE;ste: ~~.n^

t *

.^^ /.

?”, 0

F<«^ n

^ ft

..^»

^ »ftl

“^

s.1

Page 68 of 129

Mayor and council re: zoning by-law 5.10.2 and 5.11 amendments The latest updated planning report, dated April 19y 2016 from. the planning department is a devious attempt by the township planner to appease the

water&ont property owners affected by the zoning by-law 5.10.2 . By changing the wording from the initial “once the walls of an existing structure within the 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is deemed vacant and the stmcture may not be reconstructed within the 30

metre setback” to " once more than 50 % of the exterior load bearing walls of a structure located within the minimum 30 metre setback have been

removed, the land is deemed vacant and the structure may not be reconstructed within the 30 metre setback”.

The latest arbitrary condition proposed by the township planner of 50% of the exterior walls must remain, ignores the comments of the former CBO

and the Ontario Building Code and the purpose of the building permit process which ensures bmldmgs are constructed in a safe manner

compatible to the intended use of the building. To allow us to only correct 50% of deteriorated walls would result in half the walls being substandard. If a cottage or home within the 30 metre setback requires a new trusse roof and the structure has a hip roof or cottage roof, where four walls are load

bearing, and the building department assesses that the walls will not support the snow load and should be upgraded. It is feasible the property owner will

lose the non-conforming status by taking the advise of the building inspector’s expertise and replace all the walls to ensure the safety of the occupants.

The building department is responsible to administrate the building pemut process for the township and have the expertise and knowledge to evaluate and enforce the Ontario building code. The building inspectors shoidd be the determining factor when appraising the magnitide of the renovation

required to meet the current Ontario building code. The township planner lacks the expertise and authority to override the building department’s recommendations. Remember, the planner proposes the policies, the council adopts the policies and the building inspectors are required to enforce the comprehensive zoning by-laws.

Page 69 of 129

If the amendments are a

by councily the planner’s advise and

direction to the committee of adjustment on each individual application for a minor variance will m effect, give the planner the power to demand the owner to re-locate the structure as far back on the lot within the 30 metres as

possible resulting in re-landscaping- the original footprint and installing a new foundation. If the structure was damaged by a fire, for instance, the

insurance appraiser would estimate the cost to rebuild from the existing foundation up and the cost of the re-located foundation would be the

responsibility of the property owner. To re-loeate the structure would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Since the adoption of the current official plan and the comprehensive zoning by-laws, as a contractor, I have been involved in three projects within the 30 metre setback to a water body. All of the three examples were built with a building permit and health unit

approval to re-use the existing or a permit for a new septic system and was inspected during the rebuilds and didn’t require a minor variance or the

expense or time delay of an application to the committee of adjustment. The first two examples would be categorized as acts of God of fire and

flooding while the third example was a voluntary rebuild to redesign a home to make it handicapped accessible. An example of fire destruction,

One was a total replacement, mcluding the footings and foundation of a house that burned on Sydenham lake within 12 feet of the water on an

undersized lot which at some points on the road side, was less than 15 feet from the road. The home was designed with a walkout basement on the lake side.

An example of flooding

The second project was a malfunction of the plumbing system during the winter while the owners went south for the winter that resulted in a mould situation caused by flooding, where the mould contamination was to the

point the house was torn down and rebuilt on the same foot print, includmgthe footings and foundation within 50 feet of the high water on Howes lake.

Page 70 of 129

An example of the need for handicap accessibility

The third project was a partial teardown to the sub floor, that was reqmred to move the second storey master bedroom to the main floor. The existing sub floor was supported by 6" x 6" cribbing to allow the replacement of the footings and foundation, to bring the structure up to code. The second floor

was eliminated resulting in a bungalow design. This expense was incurred to accommodate the needs of a handicapped owner who could not climb stairs. The house on Loughborough lake was 47 feet from the water. The three examples above of the legal rebuilds proves the re-constmctbn

within the 30 metre setback has not resulted in the further degradation of the lakes and retains the cumulative $ 15,000.00 per annum of land taxes

collected by the township of the three properties of the ratepayers. Lot size constraints and the location of the existing tile bed and well in the majority of cases, dictate the logical location to rebuild would be the existing footprint.

On. April 26, 2016 at a committee of the whole meeting I attended, Liadsay Mills made two statements m his presentation to rationalize his reason to make such a drastic change to zoning by-laws 5.10.2. And 5.11.

His first suggestion that a nominal fee of perhaps a free fee or a charge of $100.00 to appear at a committee of adjustment to rebuild a destroyed home on the same footprint was an option and would result in a net loss to the township if township staff were involved in administrating the file. The

user pay model is used by the township on a daily basis and it would only be a matter of time before the fees of the free administration would be

increased to the standard fees of $1,000.00 plus legal costs to the property owner, if required.

The second suggestion of not sterilizing any lot with a structure within the

30 metre setback is contradictory to his initial intent statement and goal of “that existing buildings within the 30 metre setback, once rcmovedy should be setback further, so that some day, all buildings will be well set back from water bodies to ensure protection of our lakes into the future.

Page 71 of 129

The former chief building official stated in his letter to council, that these

proposed changes to the zoning by-law flies in the face of the primary purpose of the Ontario Building Code, which is building safety. Section. 5.11 has been revised as well by the planner. The additk>n. of a

suggestion that a peer review could be required by council of an engineered report that a building is unsafe due to stmctiral weakness, as an example of a tree falling on a roof, appears to be another ploy by the township planner to add further complications and bureaucratic delays to obtain the building permit to rebuild.

I anticipate, the committee of adjustment would be ask^d to be the peer reviewers, rather than rely on the expertise from the building department, resulting in just another attempt to force us before the committee of adjustment. The most important question- to ask is what constitutes a demolished

structure and does the township planner have the legal right and constmction expertise to impose his interpretation of demolished. The zonmg by-laws determine the rules the building mspectors have to adm-inistrate on a daily basis, and if approved, would be almost impossible to reverse unless challenged at the 0MB. The recommendation of the planner in the latest report still proposes the

removal of section 5.11 and the added level of bureaucracy of appealing to the adjustment committee if your property is destroyed. The majority of council appear to be persuaded the right to rebuild is the right choice, but the council has not elaborated their position regarding the minor variance requirement suggested by the planner.

I approached people that own waterfront properties on Howes lake Hambly lake and 40 property owners signed the petition. 100% of the people agreed, the changes proposed by the township planner would have a

negative impact on their properties with regards to potential loss of property values and the complexity and the time delay of dealing with the committee of adjustment if their home was destroyed by fire etc.

Page 72 of 129

In my opinion, the ratepayers of south Frontenac deserve a new planner for the township who weighs the environmental and the economic aspects equally, who realizes the reality thousands ofnon-confomiing structures have been legally built over the years within the 30 metres setback and a planner who doesn’t live in an academic dream world and make statements such as one day all watcrfront structures will be well set back 30 metres

from the water bodies. We all have a major financial investment in our properties and are here to protect our mvestment. Jamie Curragh

Page 73 of 129

Memo

January 26,2016

To: Wayne Orr, Lindsay Mills, and Members of Council From: Brian Gass, Chief Building OfRciaL Administrator of the Zoning By-law Re: Proposed housekeeping changes to Zoning By-law have reviewed the proposed text changes to the Section 5.10.2 of the Zoning By-law

concerning renovations to existing buildings wrth Existing Buildings Within 30 Metres (98.4 ft.) of a Waterbody or Watercourse and must express my opinion as Chief Building Official that these proposed text changes to the zoning by-law flies in the face of the primary purpose the Ontario Building Code, which is building safety. The purpose of building permit process governed by the Building Code Act is twofold; »

First and foremost, to ensu buildings are constructed in a safe manner, compatible to the intended the proposed use of the building.

Then, secondty, to confirm other “appHcabte” iaws are adhered to, a Zoning By-taw is applicable taw.

The courts always confirmed that a matter of public safety always t^kes precedence over other competing interests of matters such as zoning by-laws.

When people feel that a By-law is unfair and not reasonable/ they resort to protecting their investments “iHegally”, meaning by not obtaining building permits for renovations that require substantial removal of bwlding etements to be replaced to make it safe again. It is proven the illegal construction is one of the mast common causes of unsafe construction practices.

Furthermore, not only is the public is already frustrated with this provision of the by-law as it stands, the following intent statement;

Mthat ex’fstSng buiSelmgs within the 30 metre setback, once removed, should be set bade further so tfaot some day. crff bwttSincss wW be weli set back from wcrterbodies to ensure protection of our fakes into the future” in the Official Plan, of which this by-law provision in question is structured around, is not realistic or achievable, at least not without sterilizing many existing building lots in the Township. These lots would revert back to being vacant which will mean a loss of property tax revenue.

Page 74 of 129 <

As forprotecting the future of the lakes, that is a responsibility of the Conservation Authority, a

point in which the 0MB has already confirmed by siding with a South Frontenac resident on this

jurisdictional issue in the past.

A building consists ofthe^ve basic structural elements^ footings, foundations, floors, waits and a roof. The proposed zoning changes would declare that once only two ofthose elements are removed the roof and the walls that a building no longer exists. In effect we are asking lawful property owners to abandon thousands of dollars of value

structure contained within the footing, foundation and floor systems of these buildings. Never mind the additional thousands of dollars to be spent building new structure, but there is also

environmental impact?

When you move a building, you end up with two areas where vegetation and the natural

contours of the land have been destroyed, one at the demolished building footprint area and the second at the new building footprint area. On the matter of demolition, the forced removal of all the construction materials typically cannot be reused and ends up in our landfill. In conclusk?n, I advocate implementing measure or policies that would see controlled redevelopment of such sites, for example;

Say to a property owner you may rebuild, but only the same size footprint, location and

volume, and to ensure this occurs,

^ They would only be given partial building permits until they have a OLS (a Surveyor)

confirms the new foundation has not increased, changed the shape of the existing building footprint, or moved from the exact original location.

^ Th9t in lieu of a septic re-inspection program, they must obtain a performance permit proving the existing one is in good working order, or a permit to construct a new system from the health unit.

^ That to ensure safety from flooding that they must obtain from the local Conservation Authority comments on what, if any, flood-proofing measure would have to be undertaken/ i.e. waterproofing a basement area, etc-..

Y That they enter into a site plan agreement, registered on title, to spell out what, if any,

ftrture site alterations are permitted. i.e. cutting of trees, altering grades and contours of land» etc…

This way in the end the township would help ensure the health of the lakes, and still allow many properties to remain practically functional for the enjoyment of our residents. Respectfully s

Briag^e Ss,CBCO «s0?SSf Build fef Building Official

review

-t^ ~0 ^
…1 '’-‘1;

^ ^F ‘o r b( ^~ ^-3 £ “< KJ ^ ^ *

R f<

ty /

1^ frt yf

p==»

)

0 -*I

iii

^ t^s

i +

<J,f

? 1^

f
t;

‘p

C-i

<-”,".^

t if

<:. f

<It.

‘<r

-i

».\

r>. f^-

., *

s’ +.’^ -,-i

J i.

3 ^9 r <- -

w ^ 3

ft<

“c\

<^ ^

^ l^s

^ Q?

<t ,,t

:.-J

<^1 -J -s^

.^ c^ ~PL.

M:. ^

^^ 0 -s

Cv,’ .1

^’

“n

^ 1^

‘,;

.^1

^ ^

)

-< N) ^

^3 .T*

I-

-^Sj–

^ ^

^ kT

.^ °! ‘S ^ 0^ ^. bi ^ .J

/ f

-f -

‘1

i,l

..^ ;,

^J : OJ

y-i

<-^

a-i

cv;;;’"< <-^

*‘f ‘. r

^ 1

^ r"u

C^s

.+,1

-^ -<

-£-

r<.

c* <;’

^ <^J

.;?

<1 I

\ f

I-

.(J

^ J ^c

(sl % ^

,^-.

»*»»

‘1;

^ ?f

l/J

-r

,* ^

^ ^ *

< f

^ 0

v.*J

^ ft i^

T-”

f»

n: .^

<-^3

f t f

/ 1

f~»-

<s^ .‘f

^- <

;. ,1 I

V.’ / ;.

pahM*

1.r^c-’

*
1

i’

r’i (i;-

.r. ‘.^ 1

3?Ps M “*3

^ ^

§!^ ^ c-

^^ -J

;s ;NS ^

^!. ^

-h

a u^<h

f ^ -^ .^.f ,

-'^

^ K- .J

1»

‘1

^ ^ ;’;-.

-..ft

,< ^

.^ w t

.’ t ‘. J

»1 I

0

WJS 0 <

a ^^^^-

‘S

.^ ^

f^t

v tl?

‘} ‘^1 \

h1 S-SJ a nj

~~t>

.,ll

*’’’

^‘3 “3

M:_

ffl

^ v>

w f_

s” ‘3 5 n ° 0 .1. (fl

^.;

<'l

1 ^ s -I

‘.(..

^>3 “J s’; T! ^ a S>3. 3 (1 s

D ^

d’

^^ t .
^.h.

-J

Page 75 of 129

^ t?

C3>

f-1

k-/

a A

mi m. ?§’ 8. s i

,f»,:w,

nrl

JLJ;

~i

,-i

^ h

fil.

^ f ft

?f. I

7, C4-

»1

er?M ^ 2 5J ‘..’*”?

*-3

^ t

^-BQ.’§.&-f5 1^

=1^’ F1-;

‘1

‘*-

^tD

^ 1^1 mm ‘± 13 ^

1.1;

1,)

“^ ^ r ^

(f. r.

3- -^-,

‘D

.- ^^

;)

fl-

J»

..»>

(rt

‘^

T. ->!’.

^ nil.m^ cu r5^ (/i &,s-ErwS {Q ^.

.1 A_

.^r

^n’

t’

.u’/!W-J

‘*>.

.

^ ^T

riu

.-^

^&1 cy

f^ ^

F^Q w F^. ^ ^

<.^

c ./’

-s

. “-^

3 r-

^ ^

“<

^ s^ ^

<2. ^

.SRfy RJ ff 3 ro H”’ ^ Wi’S ^^ ^

^*1

(If

-t? 0. ‘5^ Sia

-, ‘1;.’

‘,»

_..! n

y j;n ::s?

‘^

hrtN

^”

&1 § ?[n

tt (Q

<t t;

‘>) °\

©.

0’

‘^

f»HH

cr^ .^

I”

..mh

li^i

F-L .f n»

^:..u;1. ^ ‘-<h. /

‘^

r”

1^-

^^.

.I.

‘.-.*’ .f.i. f-” h

‘.^

.*-

i.-

.*.

ferh

c\ <

C^S

^>..

(*.

/«,

.sl

^

“.vr

-^>

»^

-> ;,1

f..i: "

^ ,-f

L; >I

,0;

,&I

ia^-

r^ ®

.

-\3

“I

«f f

=fc

^^.

^ /

<3T”

fc>-

r%>;: ^ -<

^’

^> 1.

^»

^ 1^

5”

f s^?

P! r

1 f

*<.>-. V.

-.1

^ f

iiF^

A’:

c ‘“T. .»+-

R?’ f

0; .{..I

»9

0 ^

^ T^SS.

(-3

‘.I;

IB^S

l*

!»

0 c&

.^ L^f

.^ c

<^J 0^

^ ^

.ss ^

-sGi ^ )s^

Us) .

=^ ^

^? “u

<5S

<=^^t^s ^

Tl I

l^O fl

^ c^

\AI

^ ^ K “ty

(/v

“0s

»t

1 / ^

^;.;

J-

t »

‘.I /;

^ ^

<s. ^

‘.

. \s

-t

& CN^ ^ IN> ^ ^^;

“-

^ )->

MT^

§ ^ ^

o? V-t

^ ^ <-Jv

^
f*

^s>

<J»

.J"T

“<.

iri

^ -^ -c^ “^ 9

–^ “^ ^ ^

? ^.

^<~.Y .y \

^.->

w<n’ i

4i *.

^ 1

vj <^-

.?-^ 00 4 ^

<-. t

^ 1AS

f <^ l/y ^

,1 I.

;3 )^ ,J r”

F’l

^ tft …..(

^ f- .

£> “?

ES M 5

.7t

^ p 3-mi f6

B’il?l: ^p.^ &

\J ,*> I-.-’ h

3Pi%ef3: t ^ * .^

fl |1’H~L

..’l\n .^\

BT ^

.-!

^ J’ * f,

!.:’ t < .f

/ir

I ^

‘(0

‘‘II .1

“,1

? ,,i

-.-t,

+. *

1 >

r’kl

0’ ^..l ‘.

.’.:(. -\

-* <

I” .I .:,.) ri /-t

1-.

n t,

K-

/ .f

-i

I’

‘.1

‘,

S^K 91 1^ g-g,^ ’s’

<;’.’’»

-.J

%8§au1 ^

Q ;=h

^ r^s -g” f n. r5 ^ ^ yi

-»

‘.)

ft:f ?.’

i:^

<. .<^’.»

’’’ -

‘’->..

tl’’

t’J

0 0T. u

».»

/ .,
1

l’[ 1

“<"*n fWH

»"t

m ^ a

<-!’

;‘’l J J*

J h

‘.I

|u-J, ^

\ri

,
?, <;

,-t/

Ef <.
<

r 1

^ii

i’;i

“”"’s

N^£

v^ ^f. !

^<-<

-^ t

<”’

*-^

fr ,-t

ic”

1*^

tj (

in)

f t

4 CT-E&

“/

‘o?

{’:.

…i

8G A%^ »^

n> .;..) .}

mmf

<ll
a. ^ S” ^’ j
Tt LQ
\
/
Jr’
‘“L^
/-.
SB.? r nj
3
t^>.
r
*.
^.^ & a
.=&
}
‘.^ ;1
f
^
f
^ &’ 3. Hi’ ^ ^*
§.al.s 3
T”
.»
</
»
w^ .s
lilS^S §S-S?f5
i! h .t1
^
V–’
/
‘*
^
i0
^J
1
Q ^ ^
‘f
:55-~
^4
/:
/
‘. ….f
“I
a^S,B'2: ^°3;
I
‘^
t-. ' & ‘^.f ^
/
1
^ <
^
;»IEH
/
I,
:T 9:h Q
(.
t^-
.r
^
-I.
1^
^ c'11
/.
1
^
^\
^
f
1^
-c:
^\
4
IJ
1 jf
<i .f
t
-^
.I
tl
r
t
^
i ‘1
a
T
^ f~’
^'^
; *
^
~>
^. ro ro ^ £?’
t
-‘I
\ ^- ‘.
i’
(.’
-K .^ ^»fl
,»
-I
w*
<
Page 76 of 129
-^
^\
^
^ ^J
IL
G> ^’
*^
ai^ 2T “3 0 CD
. ‘i
\
(;
w*”
r” J
^
Q
1r
^
^-h°-
!*.
^
0’^ S^-S I ^ cy w
ff
f "”
^ sf~**
s>
v*\
^ ^J
TSi
‘^>
^ si
S3 ^ ^ T^ -"<
f
^
?)
7?
^;
I’
^n a: ‘^
t/
r/r
I’ i
Jtfl
r
c-~: . .T .t
-s, »
rss
it
‘I
£. ^
^
t
t
j
(:;
.f
/
V*
^ ^ ^’
PI!I % y!
%
1
^ “s,’ -
-s”? c s
\
^”
f
Q & Q -^
f^
“1
\
^
t
^ b
n
a
^1
^
<-;
^.
\1
.J
^
£*k
f.-.
^
^
^ n:
T’‘L’L
<
v~^*
.&^
^l?
^f^ <".y
A
sk^tft II
n (^ ,4
^?
^.
^ 3^ “i!
11^ ^
(D
<k
^.
^ ^ ^ ?? .& ^
^1
cs\ ^
I.
-J
»
r^
.r
b
‘*~s.
c^ ^D -^ s
.^
a.;:
I ‘.
0
s.
^
-^
.
^s
^
^
f
^””
ft ‘..^
^
^
v
hri
^1
v>
f
?-
1
^ w
\
« s
\
I’l
I.
§
Vs^
^
^ ft
4
.».
s
*^t
.’ L
;- f. \
s-
H
^~-
.**<f *
^ 0
»>
.I
^
^\
^
r^v t
.-'^
^~
\
y ^ ^
^
^
-r
e-
:>.
fx-S.
*?:-.
pl
s
^ ^ ^
;<»/
p ^
<^>
ff lih
**.
.:\
K
P1**.
J
^
\
^
^
A
<
1
f’
tn.
3
f~>
^
.k
fJ
<N
F^
.=.»
/
d ;/T ^r
s.
s.
f
~^. .;-.
“.
^ -^
^5>
Tf
1^
N
Page 77 of 129
Sou’-.h .-rontenac - Proposed 3y-Law Chznges T*t
i
f
s^
/-”: .L
;‘J –
TJ.
^ 1 ~i’l i 0 N FRCiVI ^^DENTS, tAX-F^YERo a VOTERS OF 30l;TH i’RONTENAC
1 -. ' *
T:i.; rn:rpo”..? c;f .rT^ r3:Kion ?– to 3,;s;’ th^ a^ 7 w-^^it; -;>nc<i^rr.-ir>.s tc Cjmp^.’.ensive “-cr.iry B^-tc.^- ..^^svs
fi£^’^t^^%lS-^’’°^lStl£ir*^^SSls^ ^%i^’^nI^^S^^|^^p?E^^i1^^Jry:T^ ^y”^l^^{c TTie undersigned demand that any amendments to secb’ons s5.11 and s.5.10.2 of the South
^nS5Z?!!v^hlp5Dnlr^B^-la?IVS^.^BL^, b^ de!a.Yed forthi^ months/ to allow Staff/ Council
and Residents alike the opportunity fco invesfcfgate the fuH impact of proposed changes on eidsb’nq structures (whether or not they are legal non-compfying structures). Also the impact on the n’ghfs of the residents to enjoy their homes and cottages and to protect: the values of their properties. ..:^n"3
/
/
f
/
/ -^
/ w /
Cs^
t
~T
0W^{ ft
^to^
^/
t^
,-i?1> i
\ <;iyt£J
^/M^t C
7W^h
a
ff_ .’-V*-’ L s
‘’..i^.’lr. .‘A.’,
L ./
‘.7;
^
.s
-1^Ay^^f15^o/J°
!^-4 *^c-/ c /^ ^v «^<A^
fA^A. ^[^y^ ‘I
c-
<^<s£
.3. *a
?7^ o f
t.
Cc"tc;3t
r>
/-.
0-^2. (<*<
!
L/^
3
iZ.
L/ » <-
“^^ h^ ,3 1^
/^ S5 c./^ l^\
f-
-“ti-iC>! ess
^ont.‘c^
fo^ff ^
fl^ >
f^A
^?’^-L-6-C( n.
<
iy& y-cf y^ct F^L’T; T-
6*3.3^1 66Af
{60 ^.{-\t.iui[k. ^
^
^^^
1, v “>!”! ^Lii’t;J’,[
:>’-.-1 .^
r- …’le.‘i
»-
^
/
/^/^^M-s^^^^ Ai>
“-f. ^t
?f.5
^
6/3. 3- ,9
^^
c ‘–>
.SC.‘f’A’R
^
.
Cmtact
Ary ^/v 1?^ /c-2. <& /”.’^rt^t
J.A^ J^^c^^
;
37-
t
r-t^
’m<.‘i
-’?
v
conta u
A? ‘Of6-: 3
/ 3
.:. i.;
^/3-J7y–?^7
I?
^
.
f
^.i1^ <^-
‘-V
Co.itac.
{/E^^fi
/y^t /^>-.
^ ^-
^"£>83-^yytf
7e ^ ^v^l4JJe’ “^dji’ess
1
w?-r .sr
‘.Jl’.”.’’
SicV-t R^- .^ ^ ^’^ :rie
</sW
.- -w^/^-^-7^^^<-

<v*
f^; ^
f .‘‘‘jl’g^S
<-’
t
fr
.///,
^
-?
Co.^£3f
A^C”<T;SS
*.’
^
^ff
i*:e.ri’;^
/
^JJ,
-^^. ^r r;;t-^
Jt 1
<p-
v^
^s-^Vf ^ t ^
Con^:lt
/ ^,w:::f ^f
Vff^G m^TiRS /oo6 W/^o^(U^ K3>. ^- ^9-^//r ^-
-^
Jl
<3-
,
I ‘.-;
-G
-I (
v
n-
I/o o^
.t
‘’. t*
COiT: -t
*1
*»?.^
76 ^rf< Lo^^,e^
^J-j?y-/i7j^ ^ -^
-.ajrj^s
I i-
^l^-wt-‘uJ ^^AA4–<e, i” \
-< uf
/(SB C^^^J^ ^/?- W -53^
,(\VU^, \0t!l(c ^^L^ w^& ^
jn’ia^
,.
^
L’cni-’?’’^.
G
SWl-^3
Page 78 of 129
—–Original Message—-From: warandy@juno.com [mailto:warandy@juno.com] Sent: May-04-16 6:32 PM To: rvanewal@southfrontenac.net; 7846elbe@gmail.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net Subject: Bylaw changes To: Mayor Ron Vandewal; Councillor Ross Sutherland; Councillor Mark Schjerning; SFT CAO, Wayne Orr; SFT Planner, Lindsay Mills From: Warren and Judith Jones, 704 North Madison Street, Rome, NY 13440, warandy@juno.com. We own a waterfront cottage on Howes Lake at 1024 High Falls Lane, Verona, Ontario KOH 2W0. We have owned it and have lived in it every summer for 45 years. The building was 10 or 12 years old when we bought it. In reference to proposed South Frontenac Bylaw Amendments s.5.10.2 and s.5.11: We strongly oppose proposed changes to rights which were in place when we bought the property and which we believed would always be protected by being “grandfathered” if codes changed. We believe that the value of our property would be lessened by the proposed amendments. Applying for a variance in order to rebuild if the cottage were ever damaged would result in extra costs, financial and emotional, of money, time, and paperwork, with approval not assured, and with the possibility of some owners being treated more favorably than others. Uncertainty in regard to being able to rebuild if needed would certainly impact our ability ever to sell. We respectfully ask for more direct and timely notification of significant changes in the future. These proposed changes deeply impact seasonal residents who are normally unavailable until late spring. Until very recently we were unaware that changes were even being discussed and therefore our input and probably that of many others like us is limited and late.
Page 79 of 129
From: Donald Jennings jennings@queensu.ca Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 11:48 AM To: Wayne Orr Subject: setback in zoning by-law Dear Mr. Orr, With regard to the proposal before Council to remove the permission in the current by-law for rebuilding on the current footprint of buildings (within 30 meters of the shoreline) when damaged by an “ act of God”, we would like to document our extreme and outraged disagreement that this should be enacted by Council. We have used and improved our cottages at Crow Lake since 1967 (about 58 years) and four generations of our family have enjoyed our property. We have planted red pine, spruce and black Walnut , which have now forested what was initially empty pasture when we first arrived. As part of the Bobs and Crow Lake Association for several years we monitored lake clarity with secchi dish, sampled the water for nutrient, and helped the Rideau Conservation Authority in their annual multiple testing of the lakes. We organized water safety of the entire lake system with buoys for shoals, upgrading of speed signs for boats and the development of cottage watch local organizations. We participated in the placement of 911 address signs around the lakes. We have nurtured flora and fauna on our land. What the proposed changes would do is to immediately significantly depreciate the value of our property. It is difficult to understand why Council is considering this extreme proposal. It seems likely that passage would result in expensive legal challenges to the township. We plan to attend the May 10th meeting in Sydenham. Yours sincerely, Dr. Donald and Gail Jennings 323 Alf Patterson Lane, Patterson Point, Crow Lake
Page 80 of 129
From: Ed Wilson [mailto:epwilsonjr@sbcglobal.net] Sent: May-05-16 12:52 PM To: Ed Wilson epwilson@msn.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Re: Buildings on Loughborough shore line.
Hello again. I have read some of the editorials along with Lindsay Mill’s quotes in the Whig and would like to reiterate my concerns for your upcoming May 10th meeting. Dear Lindsay Mills and other Council members: I am again writing to oppose your planned changes to the South Frontenac Township’s zoning by-laws. In your effort to have a “ribbon of life around our lakes”, it appears to me that you are trying to reclaim property within 30 meters of the shoreline right out from under the property owners. Property owner footprints that were granted under the by-laws at the time of their construction should be grandfathered. You may want to use the 30 meter set-back rule for new construction, but I contend that distance is a general guideline since there is no way to define criteria that would apply to each and every case. The 30 meter set-back does not take into account the composition of the ground (ie: granite vs. limestone), the slope of the parcel in question, the proximity to wet lands or tributaries, or the type of ground cover (which I believe is one of the greatest concerns). I wonder how the Applewood and Johnston point development projects on Loughborough Lake ever got approved. There were environmental concerns raised about wetlands, etc. However, there will no doubt be roads made and septic systems installed that will impact the tributaries and wetlands. In addition, there will no doubt be docks and boathouses built ON the shoreline and paths and clearings made. Yet, you have an issue with us potentially rebuilding a building that has been standing within 30 meters of the shoreline for over 90 years. Again, the 30 meter set-back was defined in an attempt to say “on average” that is an appropriate distance but there is no magic that happens at say 25 meters or 20 meters. So, it should not be applied to structures that were built under the zoning by-laws of their time. I also do not see any mention of how you are going to reimburse land owners that will be materially damaged by your zoning changes. I know you mention that situations will be evaluated on a “case-by-case basis” but that just seems to me to add undue burden onto landowners and onto those that administer the by-laws. What are the specific criteria that they can use to approve a case or do you leave it completely up to one person’s discretion at the time. If denied, and it causes material harm to the land owner, how will the landowner be compensated? You cannot just reclaim property from property owners without compensation….well I guess Castro, Peron, Hitler, and other well-known politicians have thought it appropriate. Forcing compliance of a standard that is meant to deal with a belief that “on average” structures should be 30 meters from the shoreline to structures that are already standing is simply not reasonable. Should we decree that if your car breaks down you “have to by a Tesla”, or if you bass boat engine breaks down you “have to replace it with a sail”. Should Kingston’s waterfront buildings be removed? Should we tear down Boldt Castle? I certainly understand and share your passion to preserve our lakes for the future. However, as an owner of a small island with structures 70 to 90 years old and unable to rebuild more than 30 meters from the shoreline (without being in the water on the other side), your by-law changes could materially harm my family. I have some comfort that we would be granted a waiver on your “case-by-case” evaluation, but I am also writing on behalf of my many neighbors that will also be impacted. If I want to replace a pine / creosote structure with a cedar structure, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO. Best Regards, Ed Wilson, Jr. Inverary and Los Angeles On Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:21 AM, Ed Wilson epwilsonjr@sbcglobal.net wrote:
To add to my father’s email, my concern is that many islanders, due to the shape and size of our properties, cannot comply with the 100 foot set back. Islands with dwellings
Page 81 of 129
are worth far more than those without and it is on that higher value that we pay thousands of dollars in taxes and thousands of dollars in insurance to replace structures in the event of loss. In our case, if we are unable to rebuild on our footprint, we would lose $500K+ of value. What is the proposal to compensate property owners who would suffer these loses? The proposal is clearly being made by folks who will not be impacted if it passes and discussing it in April and May when a significant volume of islanders will not be around. I agree with my father that we have taken every step possible to keep the lake we love clean and have left natural vegetation that almost hides our dwellings. I live in Los Angeles so will not be there in April or May Best Regards, Ed Wilson, Jr. 323-951-1901 646-703-4832 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Ed Wilson epwilson@msn.com wrote: I find it hard to believe that perhaps you want to eliminate boathouses. What is next? Docks! I don’t have a boathouse on the water but would strongly object to any idea of someone who has one to have to remove it. A boathouse does not pollute! Our island is Bear Berry Island which my father bought back in 1946 and which we have enjoyed for numerous years. 70 years to be exact! Over the years we have pumped many thousands of dollars into the local economy. Being a small island, most of our buildings are not far removed from the shoreline. However we are very concerned about the environment and go out of our way to be sure we do not pollute. We only use biodegradable soap and have replaced our toilet with composting toilets in order to be sure our septic is not a problem. Our laundry washing machine only uses cold water and no soap since we bought an ozone generator for it which eliminates the need for soap. I think that you should honor longtime neighbors that are environmentally conscious and not even think of requiring them to remove any of their buildings. Since I live in Colorado during the winter I can’t get to your meeting to voice my opinions. I hope you consider some of my comments that are found in this letter. Sincerely, Edwin P Wilson & Edwin P Wilson Jr. 303-526-1923 412-488-6434 Island # 613-353-2085 Sent from my iPhone
Page 82 of 129
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport
Office of the Deputy Minister
Bureau du sous-ministre
9th Floor, Hearst Block 900 Bay Street Toronto ON M7A 2E1 Tel. 416-326-9326 Fax: 416-314-7854
Édifice Hearst, 9e étage 900, rue Bay Toronto ON M7A 2E1 Tél. : 416 326-9326 Téléc. : 416 314-7854
April 22, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM:
SUBJECT:
Municipal Clerks and Chief Administrative Officers Maureen Adamson Deputy Minister Update on Ontario’s Culture Strategy
I would like to provide an update on Ontario’s Culture Strategy. Last fall, the government launched Culture Talks to start a conversation with Ontarians about the value of culture in their lives and communities to help us develop the province’s first Culture Strategy. I’d like to thank those of you who helped us spread the word as well as those who participated in Culture Talks. We heard from thousands of participants and many municipalities who shared their ideas and thoughts on what culture means and the many ways they contribute to and take part in culture. We now invite you to participate in the next stage of consultations by providing feedback on the key parts of the draft Culture Strategy, and to share the draft strategy with your contacts who may be interested. The strategy sets out a new vision for culture and identifies three overarching goals to strengthen culture in communities, fuel the creative economy and promote cultural engagement and inclusion. These goals are supported by strategies and actions to guide Ontario’s support for culture so that it continues to grow and flourish in the years to come. The consultation period on the key parts of the draft strategy closes on Friday, May 13, 2016. We would also like to let you know that we have posted A Summary of What We Heard from Ontarians. This document is an overview of the first stage of consultations held from September 2015 to December 2015, in which we capture the key themes and ideas that emerged during the engagement process. Our next step will be to review the feedback we receive on the draft strategy. We will then finalize the strategy and release it in June.
Page 83 of 129 We look forward to receiving your feedback and continuing the conversation with Ontarians. Sincerely, original signed by Maureen Adamson Deputy Minister Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 84 of 129
Core Elements of Ontario Culture Strategy Draft for Public Comment Background and Purpose of this Document The process of developing Ontario’s first Culture Strategy began with the September 2015 release of “Telling Our Stories, Growing Our Economy,” a discussion paper to stimulate a conversation about culture in Ontario. In the fall of 2015, we held public town halls and community conversations with smaller groups and met with representatives from Indigenous communities. We also encouraged people to submit ideas online or post them on an interactive discussion forum. We heard from a wide range of culture sectors, communities and individuals, including artists, educators, youth, seniors, people with disabilities, newcomers, Indigenous communities, Francophone communities and people living in urban, rural and northern communities. We reported back with “Culture Talks: A Summary of What We Heard from Ontarians” and published an environmental scan describing culture in Ontario and other jurisdictions. We used the input we received through the public consultations to develop the core elements of Ontario’s Culture Strategy. Now, we invite your comments and ideas on them. They include a vision statement, guiding principles, and three overarching goals, along with strategies, actions and expected results. This document also includes a brief description of the Arts Policy Framework we will be developing as part of the implementation of the Culture Strategy. Your comments on this document will be considered as we develop the final Ontario Culture Strategy. When complete, it will contain more context on the importance and impacts of arts and culture and more detail on Ontario’s vibrant culture sector.
Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 85 of 129
A Vision for Culture in Ontario An Ontario where every person has the opportunity for creative expression and cultural participation, and where the diversity of our stories and communities is reflected and valued.
Principles to Guide Government Support for Culture Creativity and Innovation Culture exposes us to new ideas, inspires new ways of thinking, and fosters creativity and innovation. Support for culture should help to enrich our lives, animate our communities and build a dynamic business environment in Ontario.
Quality of Life and Economic Development Culture contributes significantly to both quality of life and economic development in Ontario. Support for culture should maximize the social and economic benefits of culture for individuals and communities.
Diversity and Inclusion Ontario’s rich diversity is one of our greatest strengths. We should all have the opportunity to participate in Ontario’s diverse cultural life, regardless of age, background, language, ability or where we live in the province.
Respect for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, languages and heritage represent distinct identities, histories and ways of life. Ontario is committed to reconciliation by strengthening and transforming its relationship with Indigenous communities and by implementing changes that reflect their own priorities.
Collaboration and Partnerships The talents and contributions of many people and organizations make our culture sector strong and vibrant. Support for culture should encourage collaboration and partnerships among them, including provincial ministries and agencies; municipal, provincial/territorial, federal and Indigenous partners; culture and not-for-profit organizations; the private sector and all communities and individuals. 2 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 86 of 129
Public Value and Accountability Government investment in culture should be guided by what Ontarians value and by what makes a positive difference in the lives of individuals and communities. The Ministry, its agencies and the organizations we fund are accountable for achieving the best possible outcomes within available resources.
GOAL 1: Strengthen Culture in Communities Focus on strengthening community-based arts, culture and heritage
Strategies and Actions Help build strong community-based culture organizations  Work with government partners and culture stakeholders to maximize the use of public libraries and other culture facilities as community hubs, and explore opportunities to integrate arts and culture activities and spaces into schools and other community hubs. 
Review and update provincial funding programs for public libraries to build the capacity of libraries serving rural and remote communities, improve digital services, and support leadership and innovation.

Work with First Nation public libraries to better understand their unique needs and identify how we can respond through improved supports.

Review and update provincial funding programs for community museums and heritage organizations to build capacity, strengthen leadership, and support more diverse organizations.

Collaborate on the continued implementation of the Ontario Volunteer Action Plan, and promote the Partnership Grant Program, which helps build the capacity of the not-forprofit sector, including culture organizations.
Conserve and promote Ontario’s diverse cultural heritage  Develop additional tools to help communities identify and protect their cultural heritage, including guidance on cultural heritage landscapes, cultural planning and the interests of Indigenous communities in conserving cultural heritage to support municipalities in implementing the Provincial Policy Statement (2014).
3 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 87 of 129

Work with Indigenous partners, archaeologists, museums and other stakeholders to develop a framework to improve conservation of archaeological artifacts so that current and future generations can learn about and understand our past.

Review the “Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists” to reflect the evolving practice of archaeology in the land use and development contexts, including the engagement of Indigenous communities and the care of artifacts.
Connect people and communities by sharing and celebrating our diverse heritage and cultures  Provide online access to information about Ontario’s cultural heritage, including designated heritage properties and provincial heritage properties. 
Bring together culture and tourism agencies and attractions and Indigenous partners to increase public awareness and understanding of Indigenous histories and contributions to arts and culture in Ontario.

Collaborate with sport and recreation partners to strengthen opportunities to integrate cultural engagement into community recreation and sport, and encourage cultural celebration as a part of multi-sport games held in Ontario.
Goal 1 Expected Results 
Funding more targeted to support a greater diversity of organizations and key priorities (e.g. digital services)

More recognition and use of public libraries and other cultural facilities as community hubs

Greater understanding of cultural heritage conservation and more tools to assist in conserving Ontario’s unique cultural heritage

Greater involvement of Indigenous communities in cultural heritage conservation

More awareness of Indigenous contributions to arts and culture in Ontario
4 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 88 of 129
GOAL 2: Fuel the Creative Economy Focus on maximizing the contributions of culture and creativity to a strong and competitive knowledge economy
Strategies and Actions Make Ontario a culture leader at home and internationally  With the permanent Ontario Music Fund as its foundation, further develop the Ontario Live Music Strategy to set a vision and directions to continue to build Ontario as a leading North American centre for production and performance. 
Continue to work with Ontario’s growing interactive digital media companies to build a globally competitive industry that can innovate and succeed in the next generation of interactive digital media products, including video games, mobile content and transmedia storytelling.

Establish a public/private film and television industry advisory panel to examine priority issues facing the industry and collaborate on strategies to promote the growth, innovation and global expansion of Ontario’s film and television sector.

Help ensure Ontario’s competitiveness as a top production jurisdiction by modernizing provincial supports to the screen-based industries.

Seek opportunities to grow the culture sector within the framework of the Business Growth Initiative by working with partner ministries to foster innovation and help scale up companies in the arts and cultural industries: o Explore the development of entrepreneurship and commercialization programs designed for the arts and cultural industries. o Explore the development of risk capital programs designed with an entertainment focus and reflecting the rapid product development cycle of the arts and cultural industries. o Attract investment that increases Ontario’s productivity, creativity and global competitiveness in the culture sector.
5 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 89 of 129
o Accelerate the creation and adoption of new disruptive technologies1 to strengthen the culture sector’s role in the knowledge economy. 
Work collaboratively with the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure and other ministries across government to inform the development of a long-term infrastructure plan for Ontario.

Collaborate with government partners and the tourism industry to identify opportunities to grow cultural tourism in Ontario, including Francophone tourism and Indigenous-led tourism, and offer authentic and compelling visitor experiences.

Continue to engage with the federal government on issues impacting Ontario’s Entertainment and Creative Cluster to help ensure the health of the province’s broadcasting and production industries.
Build the talent and skills of Ontario’s cultural workforce  Develop a better understanding of the impact of the digital transformation on culture and, as a first step, work with partners to organize a digital culture symposium to bring together stakeholders from all culture sectors to share experiences and expertise, build capacity to address digital challenges and take advantage of new opportunities. 
Increase awareness and uptake of the Canada-Ontario Job Grant among employers in the culture sector to assist them in developing their workforces through employer-led digital skills and other training.

Help ensure that Ontario’s cultural workforce is positioned to succeed in the knowledge economy by fostering experiential learning opportunities and creating opportunities to enhance business skills training for the people who work in the arts and culture sector.

Explore ways that provincial and federal immigration programs can contribute to the growth and success of Ontario’s culture sector and eliminate barriers to the successful integration of cultural workers.

Engage federal, provincial and territorial culture partners on strategies to improve the socio-economic status of artists and to improve support for cultural infrastructure.
1
A “disruptive technology” is an innovative product or process that displaces established technology and may challenge existing firms or create a completely new industry.
6 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 90 of 129
Goal 2 Expected Results 
More effective government tools to help Ontario’s cultural industries compete in a digital world

More opportunities for government/industry collaboration to drive cultural industry productivity, innovation and exports

Better coordination across government to integrate the cultural industries into Ontario’s broader economic agenda

More Ontarians equipped with the skills and knowledge necessary to contribute to the creative economy
GOAL 3: Promote Cultural Engagement and Inclusion Focus on removing barriers and increasing opportunities for cultural participation
Strategies and Actions Inspire the next generation and help youth build careers in the culture sector  Continue to identify opportunities for collaboration and partnerships between the culture and education sectors to increase opportunities for participation in arts and culture and learning through the arts. 
Continue to support Ontario’s culture agencies, attractions and organizations in offering exciting opportunities for children and youth to engage with arts and culture.

Build new community partnerships through Student Success to support high school students who are interested in further learning or exploring careers in arts and culture.

Promote youth engagement in the heritage sector by continuing to support programs offered by culture agencies and provincial heritage organizations and by identifying new ways to engage youth in the sector.
Reduce barriers and allow for greater participation in culture  Bring together cultural granting partners to share best practices and increase access and inclusion throughout the grant application and assessment process for Indigenous communities, Francophone communities, ethno-cultural communities, people with disabilities and others who may face barriers to accessing culture funding. 7 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 91 of 129

Continue to support culture agencies, organizations and other partners to remove barriers for people with disabilities and people who are Deaf2 to increase opportunities for participation in arts and culture.

Identify ways to increase opportunities for Ontario’s seniors to engage with arts and culture in their communities.
Strengthen our relationship with Indigenous communities and work toward reconciliation  In collaboration with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, establish a forum for ongoing dialogue to address shared culture priorities, such as preservation of Indigenous cultural heritage and languages. 
Help facilitate cross-cultural understanding between First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and museums and other culture organizations to create stronger relationships and partnerships.
Goal 3 Expected Results 
Fewer barriers to accessing culture funding

More opportunities for Ontarians of all ages and abilities to engage with arts and culture

More information and supports to help youth pursue careers in the culture sector

Stronger relationships with Indigenous communities to address culture priorities
2
The Canadian Hearing Society’s definition of “Culturally Deaf” refers to individuals who identify with and participate in the language, culture and community of Deaf people.
8 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 92 of 129
Arts Policy Framework Developing an Arts Policy Framework will be part of the implementation of the Ontario Culture Strategy. The Framework will build on the Status of Ontario’s Artists Act, which recognizes the invaluable contributions artists make to Ontario’s economy, quality of life and sense of identity. Jurisdictions around the world have recognized the arts, not only for their intrinsic value, but also for their contribution to achieving broader policy goals, like improving health and wellness, supporting better academic outcomes for children and youth, and decreasing isolation for seniors and others in the community. The Framework will help increase awareness within government of the size, scope and diversity of Ontario’s arts sector, and of the many opportunities available to creatively integrate the arts into other policy and program areas. In turn, this will create new opportunities for artists and arts organizations to engage with other sectors. The Framework will also encourage and support government ministries and agencies to consider the needs of artists and arts organizations when they develop or review programs. The Arts Policy Framework will provide a toolkit of information: key facts about Ontario’s art sector, key sector organizations and associations, best practices and case studies for successfully integrating the arts into policy development and program delivery, information on monitoring use and measuring outcomes and links to additional resources.
9 Core Elements of Culture Strategy – draft for Public Comment, April 2016 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Page 93 of 129
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
A Summary of What We Heard from Ontarians
©Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2016 ISBN 978-1-4606-7743-8 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4606-7742-1 (HTML)
Page 94 of 129
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Why Ontario needs a Culture Strategy now ……………………………………………………………………………….. 4 About this report …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
The Culture Talks Engagement Process ……………………………………………………………………………………..6
What We Heard: What Culture Means………………………………………………………………………………………8 Perspectives on culture ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Many ways to participate …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Challenges and barriers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
What We Heard: Themes and Ideas ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 Theme 1: Make participation in culture more inclusive, affordable and accessible ……………………….. 11 Theme 2: Promote cultural literacy …………………………………………………………………………………………. 14 Theme 3: Foster more partnerships and strengthen collaboration ……………………………………………… 16 Theme 4: Invest in arts and culture …………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Theme 5: Support the culture sector in its digital transformation ……………………………………………….. 20
What We Heard: Ideas to Inspire Youth………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
What We Heard: Indigenous Cultures are Vital to Ontario ……………………………………………………….. 24
Moving Forward on Developing the Culture Strategy ………………………………………………………………. 27 APPENDICES│Town Halls…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 APPENDICES│Community Conversations ……………………………………………………………………………………. 29 APPENDICES│Discussion Paper Questions ………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
Page 95 of 129
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Culture is not easy to define, but its many creative expressions can be found everywhere: in music festivals, art shows, movies, video games, books, design, public libraries, museums, community gatherings, buildings of heritage value, language and natural landscapes. Ontario is rich in creative talent and home to many artists, creators, producers and audiences who take pleasure in a range of cultural activities. The Ontario government is committed to supporting and growing Ontario’s vibrant arts and culture environment and we recognize the many social and economic benefits culture brings to our communities and to individuals. We are also keenly aware of the new context in which the culture sector operates: the current fiscal environment, how digital technologies have transformed the way we create and participate in culture and the changing diversity of Ontario’s population. In fall 2015, we set out to facilitate a province-wide discussion, Culture Talks, to hear new ideas on actions we could take to strengthen culture in Ontario. We held public town halls, community conversations with smaller groups and met with representatives from Indigenous communities. We also encouraged people to submit ideas online and post ideas on an interactive discussion forum. There was no shortage of feedback. We heard from a range of culture sectors and individuals, including artists, educators, youth, seniors, people with disabilities, newcomers, Indigenous communities, Francophone communities and people living in urban, rural and northern communities. In this summary, we report back on what we heard. This input will play a key role in developing a Culture Strategy for Ontario to guide our support for the sector in the years to come. Our plan is to share a draft Culture Strategy later this year.
WHAT WE HEARD Diverse perspectives on culture During Culture Talks, Ontarians clearly indicated that they value culture and its overall power to enrich the lives of individuals and communities. We also heard what culture means to people and how they participate in culture is wide-ranging. Indigenous communities emphasized the holistic nature of culture and its inseparable connection to identity, as well as the fundamental importance of language to Indigenous culture. Many participants also emphasized the importance of sharing cultural experiences between generations and passing on cultural knowledge, such as between Elders and youth. We also heard that for many Ontarians culture includes personal heritage and cultural background. It includes attending festivals, visiting museums or going to a fashion show. It is also the act of producing and creating, such as making a movie, performing on stage or designing a video game. Many people also highlighted a number of challenges to fully participating in culture. For audiences, we heard about high costs, lack of availability, inaccessible or intimidating venues, daunting travel distances and lack of awareness of activities and events. For individual artists and culture makers, we heard about the difficulty of accessing government funding and the challenges in making a reasonable living.
Page 96 of 129
Many voices, some common themes
funding eligibility to a wider range of individuals and groups; in particular, to Indigenous and Francophone communities, people with disabilities and other non-mainstream artists and organizations.
We heard from a diversity of individuals and groups, but looking at all of the feedback we received throughout the engagement process, some key themes emerged: 
Ontarians would like to be able to participate in cultural experiences that are more accessible, affordable and inclusive and that better reflect Ontario’s diversity. Many said that culture needs to be more accessible, with central, barrier-free welcoming places to offer arts and culture programs, exchange ideas and share resources. At the same time, many also wanted culture to travel to them, giving people in rural and northern communities access to a wider array of cultural activities.

Improving arts education, especially in the early years, is essential to the success of future generations. Ideas included strengthening the arts curriculum and ensuring that our schools, libraries, communities and cultural organizations work together to enhance cultural literacy. Feedback also emphasized the value of lifelong learning.

Breaking down silos and fostering collaboration across culture sectors and with other sectors, large and small organizations, municipalities and ministries will help strengthen the sector and, in turn, enhance creative and economic benefits for Ontarians. People also spoke about expanding partnerships with the private sector, for example to develop technology, business and entrepreneurial skills.

Sustained, reliable funding is essential to artists, cultural organizations and infrastructure. Many participants said it was important to increase funding and expand

Technology offers a multitude of opportunities, but there are a number of significant challenges the culture sector needs help to address. Opportunities mentioned included reaching new audiences, encouraging artistic innovation and growing cultural organizations. Issues raised included the need for more training on technology, better sharing of resources and lessons learned, more support for the rights of creators and helping audiences discover content created in Ontario and Canada.
Inspiring the next generation We set out to hear directly from young people, our future artists, creators, producers and consumers of culture. Throughout Culture Talks, we asked for ideas on how to inspire youth. We heard that it is important for young people to be engaged and empowered in creating programs designed for them. We also need to provide young people with a range of cultural opportunities throughout their lives, from early arts education to volunteer opportunities in high school and paid internship programs at college and university. Technology came up frequently in discussions with young people as a way of accessing and learning about culture. Many said that culture is often about selfexpression, and technology allows them to make their own music videos, compile playlists and share photos, for example.
2
Page 97 of 129
Indigenous cultures are vital to Ontario
discussed how Ontario could collaborate with them. In strengthening Indigenous culture in Ontario, it is important to recognize the diversity and distinctiveness of Ontario First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status Indigenous peoples, each of whom has a unique identity and history.
Indigenous participants told us that a strong and healthy culture is fundamental to the well-being of individuals, communities and the natural world. We heard that the diverse Indigenous cultures in Ontario are integral to strengthening culture for all of us. Participants from other cultural backgrounds told us of their desire to learn more about Indigenous history and cultures in Ontario.
A roadmap for supporting culture Culture Talks shone a spotlight on culture and on the many great cultural activities and creative productions happening across this province. It was also an opportunity to share ideas on how we can move forward on supporting culture in Ontario so that it continues to grow and flourish in the years to come.
There were many ideas for keeping Indigenous culture strong, with a particular emphasis on supporting Indigenous languages. Other areas included better promotion of Indigenous history and stories to Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and youth in schools, and supporting economic opportunities such as cultural tourism.
Our next step is to develop a draft Culture Strategy, informed by the feedback we heard. We invite you to read through this summary of the many ideas Ontarians shared with us during Culture Talks.
Participants said that Indigenous communities are in charge of their own cultural priorities. They also
3
Page 98 of 129
Introduction Culture as a concept is not easy to define, but it boils down to the idea of telling stories about ourselves and each other, to each other, and to the world. — Written submission 
This past fall, we launched Culture Talks to start a conversation with Ontarians about the value of culture in their lives and communities to help us develop Ontario’s first Culture Strategy. The strategy will set out a vision for culture and guide the Ontario government’s support for the culture sector in the years to come.
A thriving culture sector brings significant individual, social and economic benefits. Participating in cultural (and leisure) activities is one of the indicators in the Canadian Index of Wellbeing that measures quality of life. In Ontario alone, the culture sector adds almost $22 billion to the economy. The sector also supports more than 280,000 jobs and includes more than 58,000 artists—nearly twice as many as any other province in Canada.
Culture Talks is part of our Open Government commitment to engaging citizens and gathering public input before making policies. Thousands of Ontarians participated in the conversation, sharing their ideas on directions the government should consider and their thoughts on what culture means to them. What they told us will play an integral role in shaping Ontario’s Culture Strategy.
Ontario’s culture sector is experiencing the impact of some important influences:
Why Ontario needs a Culture Strategy now Supporting culture is an important priority for the government of Ontario. In 2014-15, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s investment in culture was approximately $800 million. The ministry currently supports four areas of culture: 
The arts (including craft, dance, literary arts, media arts, music, opera, theatre and visual arts);

Cultural industries (including film and television production, interactive digital media such as video games and applications, the music industry, and book and magazine publishing);

Cultural heritage resources (including built heritage, cultural heritage landscapes, archaeology and museums).
Public libraries; and
4

Ontario is culturally diverse. It includes the largest Francophone community in Canada outside of Quebec and more than 40 per cent of all newcomers to Canada settle here.i Ontarians come from more than 200 ethnic backgroundsii and speak as many different languages.iii

First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities have identified unique cultural needs and priorities. They are also the youngest population in the province, with almost half under the age of 30.

Our young people are the future creators and audiences of culture. At the same time, our population as a whole is getting older.

New and emerging technologies have transformed and will continue to change how
Page 99 of 129 we create, share, consume and experience culture.
Part 1 of this report describes the Culture Talks engagement process.
Against this backdrop of influences, the culture sector continues to focus on sustainability and on finding ways to make the most of limited resources. In developing the Culture Strategy, we are committed to finding the best way forward to strengthen the culture sector in individual communities and throughout Ontario.
Part 2 is a summary of what we heard about what culture means to Ontarians and how they participate in culture. Part 3 describes the overarching themes and ideas emerging from the engagement process. Part 4 discusses ideas for engaging youth in cultural activity.
About this report
Part 5 summarizes the feedback from our meetings with Indigenous communities and organizations.
This report is a summary of the many ideas we heard. Although we have not included all of the ideas we heard, we have tried to capture the themes that recurred across Culture Talks and provide an overall picture of the input we received.
In Part 6, we discuss next steps in developing the Culture Strategy.
5
Page 100 of 129
The Culture Talks Engagement Process To help ensure that we heard from a wide range of the groups and individuals that make up the diversity of this province, we invited Ontarians to participate and share ideas in a number of ways.
meaning of culture in their lives and potential barriers to their participation in culture. We engaged more than 300 people in 24 community conversations. (See Appendices for the list of organizations and locations.)
We heard from arts and culture organizations and individuals representing a range of areas: the visual, literary and media arts, music, dance, theatre, cultural industries, heritage, museums and public libraries. We heard from festival organizers, educators, youth, seniors, people with disabilities, newcomers, municipalities, individuals living in urban, rural and northern communities, and from Francophone and Indigenous communities.
Meetings with Indigenous communities and organizations The Honourable Michael Coteau, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, invited the Chiefs of Ontario, all First Nations in Ontario, the Métis Nation of Ontario and other Indigenous communities to share their priorities for culture. We invited 133 First Nations communities to attend one of four regional meetings at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, Fort William First Nation, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, and the Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation. Facilitated by Former Grand Council Chief John Beaucage, the meetings drew more than 100 participants from 49 First Nations communities, including representatives from remote areas in Northern Ontario.
Town halls Last fall, more than 1,400 Ontarians participated in 11 town halls across Ontario in: Barrie, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa, Markham, London, Toronto, Kingston, Mississauga and Windsor. Facilitated by community engagement expert Jane Farrow, each evening began with a conversation between two guest artists or culture makers who shared their experiences of culture. Town hall participants then had the opportunity to join in roundtable discussions on what culture means to them and to contribute ideas and proposed actions for the government to consider in supporting culture. (See Appendices for more information on the town halls.)
We also met with the Métis Nation of Ontario (where representatives from 29 Métis communities gathered), Red Sky Métis Independent Nation, Historic Saugeen Métis, the Algonquins of Ontario and the Huron-Wendat First Nation. We spoke to the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres, the Tungasuvvingat Inuit and Indigenous artists and arts administrators.
Community conversations In the communities where we had town halls, we also held meetings with local community groups, including Francophones, youth, seniors, newcomers, ethno-cultural communities and people with disabilities. We wanted to hear from underrepresented groups and individuals about the 6
Page 101 of 129
Written submissions and the Culture Talks online forum
(See Appendices for the questions we asked.) We also received more than 200 ideas on Culturetalks.ca, an interactive discussion forum where people could post, discuss and vote on ideas. More than 30,000 votes were cast.
We received and reviewed about 600 written submissions in response to our discussion paper.
7
Page 102 of 129
What We Heard: What Culture Means Perspectives on culture An important goal of the engagement process was to get a picture of what culture means to Ontarians.
designing and programming a new app, passing along stories, preserving a landmark or curating an art show. Culture includes the natural landscape and environmental stewardship.
We found that Ontarians have a broad view of culture. Most of the feedback emphasized the overall value of culture and its power to enrich the lives of individuals and communities, broaden thinking, enhance health and well-being, and build the creative talent of future generations. Ontarians said that culture has the power to be bold, innovative and thought-provoking.
For some, culture is intrinsically linked to another area of interest, like sport, tourism or science. Despite the breadth of activity included in the view of culture, most people valued the areas supported through the government: the arts, cultural industries, public libraries and cultural heritage resources.
Indigenous communities emphasized the holistic nature of culture and its inseparable connection to identity, as well as the need to preserve and promote their languages. Participants from other cultural backgrounds recognized the importance of Indigenous cultures, and wanted to know more.
Culture is connection to the land, medicine, fish, food and ‘everything we do.’ —Participant, Native Canadian Centre of Toronto meeting
More often than not, we heard that culture is not one thing, but many things. Ontarians said that culture includes personal heritage, language and cultural background, as well as expressions of associated traditions and food—their own or the opportunity to experience those of others.
We heard additional perspectives on culture from the groups we met:
They also said that culture includes attending festivals, participating in outdoor activities (such as angling, hunting or camping), reading books, listening to music, going to museums, attending art galleries, going to the opera, taking art classes, using Instagram and playing video games. Others mentioned street art, fashion, pow wows, architecture, movies, cultural heritage and crafts. Ontarians also see culture as the act of producing and creating: making a movie, writing a book,
8

Francophone communities emphasized the interconnectedness of culture, language and identity. They also said that culture is what brings the Francophone community together to celebrate its history, traditions and language. Some participants felt that culture is best experienced collectively, for example as part of a festival.

Many newcomers to Ontario said they identified with more than one culture—their original and adopted cultures.

Young people put a strong emphasis on music, food, experiencing many cultures, fashion, festivals and video games.
Page 103 of 129 
Many parents spoke about the importance of opportunities to expose their children to culture, helping them become the transmitters of culture to the next generation.
performing on stage, painting and selling their artwork. Shared cultural experiences, many participants said, brought communities together and created a sense of belonging. Best shared cultural experiences included going to Riverfest (a music festival in the Township of Wellington), attending a pow wow on Manitoulin Island, visiting the St. Williams Forestry Interpretive Centre in Norfolk and walking the interpretive trail, attending a multicultural food festival in Victoria Park in Kitchener, and going to the Festival du Loup in Penetanguishene.
Many ways to participate We asked people to tell us about their best cultural experiences in Ontario. Many experiences were memorable because of their highly personal impact, the opportunity to participate actively, or because the experiences connected communities. One person wrote about hosting a workshop with a playwright-actor and 30 students from a local high school. At that event, the playwright described being a newcomer teen and finding her voice through theatre.
The chance to share Ontario’s cultural wealth, nationally and internationally, or to take part in hosting world-class talent in Ontario, was also cited as a best cultural experience; for example, the annual Toronto International Film Festival.
Best cultural experiences included going to the Stratford Festival, attending Canadian Deaf Theatre performances, visiting the National Gallery of Canada, going to Afrofest in Toronto, attending Hallscreek Festival of Creativity in Ingersoll, and visiting Kay-Nah-Chi-Wah-Nung, an Ojibway Cultural Centre on the Rainy River.
Challenges and barriers When town hall participants were asked to choose words to describe culture today, top of mind were: diverse, enriching, evolving, collaborative; but also: underappreciated, underfunded and disconnected.
Active participation was the highlight of many peoples’ best cultural experiences. Examples included participating in “The Whole Shebang,” an afternoon of dancing and singing at the Tett Centre for Creativity and Learning in Kingston. For some, it was participating through their work as artists, creators and producers. Examples included working as a Summer Youth Cultural Program Interpreter with the Métis Nation of Ontario, and setting up a volunteer-run art gallery.
The majority of people we heard from take part in a range of enriching cultural experiences and said that they value and appreciate culture. But we also heard about challenges and barriers to participating more fully in cultural activities—high costs, lack of availability, inaccessible or intimidating venues, daunting travel distances and lack of awareness of activities and events. Relevance was an issue often raised. Many participants spoke about the lack of access to cultural activities that felt relevant and inclusive, or reflective of their age, diversity and cultural backgrounds. For example, participants in Francophone communities wanted to see more cultural expression reflecting their cultural heritage and presented in their language.
We heard from many organizations about the range of creative talent that actively participates in culture and comes together to create engaging cultural content: designers, writers, illustrators, trades people and directors. Young people talked about the value of making and starring in music videos,
9
Page 104 of 129
Artists, creators and producers talked about the challenges of financing their work through the entire life cycle of artistic production, from initial concept to audience engagement. Creators also discussed the ever-increasing challenge of bringing their work to the attention of global audiences. Individual artists and culture makers also spoke about the ongoing difficulty of finding affordable live-work spaces and the overall challenge of the high cost of living relative to their incomes and changing employment status.
limited exposure or access to cultural activities earlier in life, perhaps affecting their desire to participate as young adults. Some young people expressed a preference for experiencing culture via digital technology. Ontario’s cultural offerings are focused too much on cities and not enough on rural and northern communities, some people told us. They travel long distances to urban centres to participate in cultural activities. Others talked about the challenge of finding information about cultural activities and events in their own communities.
Young people frequently identified specific barriers to engaging in cultural activities: high costs, limited time, inconvenience, transportation challenges and lack of personal relevance. They also talked about
The responses indicate that many Ontarians would like to have more opportunities to participate in culture.
10
Page 105 of 129
What We Heard: Themes and Ideas Theme 1: Make participation in culture more inclusive, affordable and accessible Access to the arts is transformational, because it eliminates barriers between people, especially young people. The arts help us understand and empathize with each other, and feel that we belong. — Written submission As creators, producers and consumers of culture, many people throughout Culture Talks expressed a desire to be able to participate in a full range of cultural activities. We heard many ideas on how to remove barriers and make it easier to take part. The ideas mainly revolved around helping to make participation in culture more inclusive, affordable and accessible for both the audience and the artist.
When town hall participants were asked to choose words to describe what they would like to see culture look like in ten years, the top words chosen were: accessible, inclusive, collaborative, valued and innovative.
Ideas included establishing visiting artist programs and encouraging artist exchanges. At the London town hall, the Maker Bus program was described as an example of a travelling maker space initiative to bring culture and science to communities and school groups. Some Indigenous participants suggested programs for Indigenous artists to bring their knowledge and expertise directly to communities and schools. Another suggestion was cultural exchanges among Francophone, Englishspeaking and Indigenous community organizations.
Create central hubs for culture Community centres, public libraries and schools were offered as examples of places that could serve as inclusive, central hubs—welcoming places to offer arts and culture programs, bring people together to exchange ideas, encourage participation in cultural activities, and provide resources and training to support artists and arts and culture organizations. Francophones expressed the wish to have places in their communities to access cultural content in French.
Professional artists and cultural industries spoke about the issue of exporting culture, highlighting the need to travel to global markets to promote their work.
Take culture on the road We also heard about the importance of culture producers proactively reaching out to audiences and providing people in rural and northern communities access to a wider array of cultural activities.
11
Page 106 of 129
Encourage culture in daily life
devices or access to sign language. They said that facing barriers at a cultural centre reduces their ability and desire to participate in cultural activities.
Our heritage places should be valued as the cornerstones of our identity, memory and sense of place, and recognized as essential to a vibrant economy and a sustainable future for all. — Written submission
Provisions need to be made for artists with disabilities—it’s not just about people with disabilities being able to attend cultural events, it’s also about artists with disabilities being able to perform and participate. — Participant, Ottawa Culture Talks town hall
We heard that it is easier to discover culture if we see it in our daily lives. Many municipalities and some participants suggested the need to create and fund art in public spaces and encourage art in nontraditional places such as workplaces and waiting rooms.
Reflect Ontario’s diversity “Diverse” was one of the words we heard most often throughout Culture Talks, including at the town halls. People used it to describe culture in Ontario now and for the future. Indigenous communities, Francophone communities, northern and rural communities, people with disabilities, ethno-cultural communities and youth all pointed to the need for cultural activities that are relevant to their experiences. They said they want to participate in ways that connect them with their communities and across generations. And they want to tell their stories from their own perspectives and in their own languages.
Participants also highlighted the importance of architecture, design, fashion, buildings of heritage value and landscapes in helping to enrich daily life and make culture more accessible. We heard, for example, how people enjoyed celebrating heritage associated with the rivers and waterways that were Ontario’s first transportation routes and brought settlement to the province.
Help make participation in culture affordable
One young person said, “As a young Francophone it takes real effort to live in our culture. You have to get involved and make a point of speaking your language. You have to go far to take in culture events, i.e. travelling from Thunder Bay to come and see Stromae in Toronto… ”
We often heard that participating in cultural activities should be more affordable, especially for children and youth. Ideas included free admission, subsidized tickets, event or venue passports and tax credits for families participating in cultural activities.
Ensure barrier-free access for people with disabilities
Culture is inclusion; culture is transformation. — Written submission
Ontarians told us that existing cultural spaces like museums and galleries should be physically accessible and barrier free. People with disabilities talked about the many barriers they face, such as obtaining accessible transportation, assistive
12
Page 107 of 129 We heard a number of ideas for supporting diverse cultural experiences and creative expressions: 
Broaden the definition of culture within the ministry’s mandate to ensure that a wider range of groups and individuals are eligible for funding.

Better promote funding opportunities to Indigenous communities.

Create an accessible and simplified process for funding/grant applications to ensure that more artists have an opportunity to participate in the production of art.
13

Ensure that Ontario’s diversity is reflected in funding criteria and on juries, and across provincially funded arts organizations at the staff and board level.

Deepen and broaden community engagement—for example by strengthening partnerships with local ethno-cultural organizations and grassroots initiatives.

Support municipalities in serving the culture sector of their diverse communities.
Page 108 of 129
Theme 2: Promote cultural literacy I want the Culture of Ontario to be one where the creative talent of every Ontarian is encouraged, and has opportunity and support to thrive in whatever medium she or he chooses. — Written submission Throughout Culture Talks, we heard significant support for boosting cultural literacy in Ontario, especially among children and youth. Our schools and communities are seen as playing a fundamental role in fostering an early appreciation and awareness of arts and culture and in nurturing lifelong creativity and cultural literacy.
(science, technology, engineering and math) should become STEAM by adding the arts as a key curriculum component. Other ideas included enhancing teacher training in arts and culture, ensuring that Canadian books are an integral part of the curriculum, strengthening local and Ontario history content, adding new areas such as design thinking (creative problem-solving and learning tool) and enhancing music education.
I think culture is central to my child’s development and our ability to integrate into the community. Make it easy for me as a parent to access places, heritage, arts and culture. — Participant, Sudbury Culture Talks town hall
Many people also told us that the curriculum should better reflect the diversity of culture. Francophone communities emphasized the importance of including more Francophone culture. Indigenous participants spoke about the need to ensure that the curriculum includes a rebalanced history of Indigenous culture and contributions. As one high school student wrote to us, “We need to be more informed about Residential Schools, Treaties and Land Disputes.” Participants also called for consideration of ways to integrate Indigenous languages into the curriculum.
Support early arts education Participants sharing ideas on early arts education highlighted the benefits, such as equipping children with a variety of ways of thinking and expressing themselves, developing more innovative and creative adults and creating engaged audiences and culture producers. Those sharing ideas on cultural heritage resources pointed out that early education increases awareness of shared stewardship responsibilities in preserving culture.
Safeguarding our cultural resources is a shared responsibility for the benefit of present and future generations. Our heritage buildings, cultural landscapes, sacred places, archaeological resources, archives and collections inspire creativity, tell the story of our past, educate our people, stimulate economic activity, create destinations for tourists and create healthy communities in which to live.
Strengthen cultural experiences in the school curriculum There were many calls for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to work with the Ministry of Education to strengthen and broaden the curriculum to better integrate arts and culture into core teaching subjects. It was suggested that STEM
– Written submission
14
Page 109 of 129
Encourage schools and the culture community to work together more
of cultural activity to overall health and well-being, in particular pointing to the therapeutic benefits for people with physical or learning disabilities or degenerative diseases. We also heard about the importance of cultural programs for seniors in general, and about how opportunities to express their creativity bring a wide range of physical and mental health benefits.
Some participants underscored the importance of strengthening relationships among communities, boards of education and local culture stakeholders. In this way, in-class learning would be complemented with hands-on experiences, and young people could visit cultural venues early on to give them a chance to develop an appreciation for an array of cultural expression. The Francophone community placed special emphasis on this as well, since French-language schools have a mandate to promote, enhance and transmit French culture in their communities.
There are health benefits [to culture]: it keeps seniors out of hospital systems; keeps individuals stronger; creates a healthy community. It also keeps professionals in the community, which is important for quality of life. — Participant, community conversation with seniors in Thunder Bay
Some participants suggested that cultural organizations and artists should play a more active role in developing and delivering arts programming in schools and in communities, and that artists should be engaged to assist and mentor teachers in the classroom.
Champion our culture sectors Many community conversation participants were surprised to learn about the economic contribution of Ontario’s culture sector. Active promotion was proposed as key to reaching new audiences and building confidence and pride in Ontario’s culture, including championing the excellence of Ontario’s culture producers throughout Canada and around the world.
Support public libraries to fulfill their potential as cultural hubs Libraries and librarians play an important role in fostering creativity and appreciation of culture, especially in their programs for children and by promoting literacy for all ages. However, we heard that some libraries, including First Nation public libraries, struggle with capacity and resource issues in trying to meet the demand for their services. They called for more support to fully engage and inspire students, and all members of their communities, in cultural activities.
Some spoke about the important role arts and culture play in building Ontario’s reputation, attracting tourists and in helping Ontario’s artists remain competitive in the global marketplace. Promoting our culture sector was also seen as a way to raise awareness of the individual, social and economic benefits of culture. Creative use of technology was often mentioned as a tool to increase awareness and broaden engagement for a range of groups, including youth, newcomers and rural communities.
Support lifelong learning Many Ontarians spoke of the value of culture to lifelong learning and advocated for access to affordable and engaging cultural programs for all ages. Some cited information about the importance
15
Page 110 of 129
Theme 3: Foster more partnerships and strengthen collaboration It is important to understand how through collaboration all of the organizations and individuals can work together to help improve and build upon the economic and creative potential of the cultural sector. — Written submission A common thread in the feedback we received was the value of partnerships and collaboration in helping artists and the culture sector flourish and grow. “Collaborative” was one of the top words chosen at the town halls to describe how participants would like to see culture in Ontario in 10 years.
Indigenous participants spoke about the value of being able to share information and best practices to help one another address culture priorities.
Encourage partnerships beyond the culture sector Many people talked about expanding partnerships outside of the culture sector, for example, with the private sector and health and community organizations to leverage their expertise, innovations and funding.
Help different culture sectors connect with one another We heard that it is important to help foster relationships between culture sectors to break down silos. Participants called for the province to help create opportunities for culture producers to work together to share creative resources and best practices, as well as physical resources, such as databases and artist spaces. Tools suggested to help support collaboration included funding incentives, community hubs and artist exchange programs.
It was suggested that partnerships with the private sector could help artists and culture workers develop technology, business and entrepreneurial skills to support their work and organizations. Consideration of various funding mechanisms was highlighted by some, such as matching public and private sector contributions. Participants also emphasized the value of partnerships in helping to expand audience reach; specific examples included travelling exhibits and satellite museums.
Help large and small culture organizations to collaborate We heard about the value of collaboration between larger institutions and smaller groups to increase capacity and share best practices. Smaller galleries, museums and libraries, for example, sometimes face capacity, resource or expertise issues, and larger organizations could potentially help. At the same time, smaller organizations can be flexible and nimble in generating creative ideas that can be shared and grown within the larger organizations. Groups involved in heritage conservation told us that small and large organizations should be brought together to digitize Ontario’s collections.
We also heard frequently that culture and health organizations should collaborate to further explore the therapeutic benefits of participation in cultural activities.
Work with other ministries and other governments Many people spoke of the potential benefits of closer collaboration within Ontario’s government, across ministries, to ensure that culture is a key 16
Page 111 of 129 consideration in making decisions and policies, and to ensure that the government’s approach to supporting culture is consistent and coordinated. Culture intersects with so many other areas. Some ministry portfolios mentioned included education, training, health, economic development, innovation, housing, and natural resources and forestry. Our conversations with Indigenous participants echoed this idea. We heard that cultural priorities should be considered and integrated into all government activities. Not only will this help strengthen culture
in Ontario, but it will also strengthen the initiatives and mandates within the other ministries. The need for collaboration was also raised with respect to local, regional and federal governments. In particular, the need for the province to work more closely with Ontario’s 444 municipalities was often mentioned. Participants called for the province to more fully acknowledge and incorporate the unique role of municipalities in strengthening the culture sector, including developing and implementing cultural plans.
It is the responsibility of the government as a whole to ensure that the different ministries are connected and mutually supportive of the government priorities. All the pieces come together in the common goal for a better future —one where we can collectively address the economic and environmental challenges with [the] foundation of a strong culture. — Written submission
17
Page 112 of 129
Theme 4: Invest in arts and culture Access to government funding relies too heavily on proving your worth through metrics such as headcounts and dollars spent, instead of qualitative information or a story. For instance, how does a library go about quantifying the value of community meeting spaces, and the experiences people can have when they have access to information for free? — Participant, London Culture Talks town hall There was unwavering support across Culture Talks for investing to better support individual artists, ensure organizational sustainability (for arts and other cultural organizations, museums, libraries and galleries, for example), and meet infrastructure needs (such as new artist spaces, maintenance of aging cultural facilities, and conservation and repurposing of buildings of heritage value).
Francophone communities, artists with disabilities and other artists and organizations facing barriers. Francophone participants, for example, pointed out that funding criteria should take into account their smaller or more dispersed audiences. We also heard that funding criteria should recognize the greater length of time it may take people with disabilities to emerge as artists given the barriers they must overcome.
Make funding more stable and take a fresh look at criteria
Most of the discussion about funding focused on areas that need financial support or more of it. Some organizations and individuals called for new or increased support for areas such as fashion, industrial and graphic design, and architecture.
Many organizations and individuals highlighted the need for reliable, consistent and long-term funding, and often advocated a need for more of it, in order to foster a strong culture sector in Ontario and promote it internationally. Tax credits were suggested for some sectors.
In the community conversations, some people questioned the need for government funding in certain areas. They wondered why commercial entertainment projects such as film, television production and book publishing required financial support. On the other hand, many in the cultural industries spoke about the essential role the cultural industries play in enriching individuals and communities and contributing to job creation and economic prosperity in Ontario.
We also heard throughout the engagement process, including from Indigenous participants, that funding programs and processes should be revised to make them more simple, inclusive and accessible. Some participants recommended exploring opportunities to streamline the granting process, increase awareness of funding opportunities and encourage coordination between government funding agencies (for example, the Ontario Arts Council and the Ontario Media Development Corporation).
Understand community priorities We heard that by working closely with communities and local governments, the province could better understand their funding priorities. Some suggested that provincial financial support should concentrate on helping municipalities to develop and implement
Overall, we heard significant support for expanding funding eligibility to a wider range of organizations and individuals to promote the diversity of cultural experiences and expressions. There was a particular focus on reducing barriers for Indigenous peoples, 18
Page 113 of 129
Plan for the future cultural workforce
their community-driven culture initiatives, including funding for cultural infrastructure. Indigenous participants emphasized the importance of ongoing engagement to better understand their needs and priorities. Examples included youth education and language support, financial supports for Elders as the transmitters of culture and knowledge, and increasing support to First Nation public libraries and Indigenous cultural tourism.
We heard that there is a need to invest in capacity building and training for culture sector workers where there may be a future shortage. Examples included archaeologists and heritage consultants. We heard about the potential need for new skilled workers, such as digital curators. It was also suggested that we need to look for ways to inspire youth to pursue careers in the culture sector.
Balance funding between the large and the small
Help the culture sector find new revenue streams and funding sources
Many participants wanted to see a more balanced distribution of funds between larger institutions and smaller community organizations, and between rural and northern communities and Ontario’s urban centres. It was suggested that urban centres are at a funding advantage. Feedback from public libraries, for example, pointed out that current funding does not address the extra costs and capacity issues facing libraries in smaller communities.
Studying what other jurisdictions are doing was a frequent suggestion for discovering ideas for finding new revenue sources and new ways to fund cultural activity. Other ideas included the following:
Invest in creativity and entrepreneurship We heard support for investing in start-ups, grassroots initiatives, and innovative ideas and programs. Many people identified a need to help fund digital initiatives as a way to support innovation and to promote Ontario’s cultural offerings overall. Some people spoke about the need to develop entrepreneurship and business skills across the culture sector to encourage innovative ways of doing business, generating revenue and improving productivity. This included helping individual artists and culture workers develop new skills to help grow their careers.
19

Leverage private-public funding partnerships and philanthropy through matching endowment funds.

Explore digital opportunities such as crowdfunding to support artists or web portals with philanthropic organizations.

Provide tax credits for volunteer hours, as many culture organizations rely on the work of volunteers.

Support municipalities in seeking new revenues to dedicate to culture development (for example, levying taxes on billboards) or improved conservation of cultural heritage resources (for example, changes to property taxation).

Collaborate with partners to share financial resources and strengthen both culture and related areas (focusing on, for example, festivals, sport, health, education, tourism).
Page 114 of 129
Theme 5: Support the culture sector in its digital transformation Like all cultural industries sectors, magazine media is in the midst of the digital evolution, whose forces were at first experienced as disruptive, but which will, we believe, ultimately be understood as transformative. — Written submission We heard from individual artists, museums, libraries, performing arts, heritage organizations and cultural industries about how they are adopting technologies for a range of creative and business needs (digitizing collections, live-streaming performances, reaching broader audiences via social media). The potential benefits they hope to realize include engaging youth and other new audiences, generating new revenues, encouraging artistic innovation and collaboration, and enhancing the audience experience. But the majority of feedback focused on the number of challenges organizations and individuals are facing and the need for a range of supports.
Help the culture sector respond to digital challenges and opportunities As one submission put it, “Responding to digital challenges and opportunities…will make or break our success in the coming decade.”
To share resources and lessons learned, individual culture sectors need help to establish partnerships and exchange ideas with other culture sectors and with the private sector outside culture.

Culture producers need help with intellectual property and copyright issues to protect the rights of creators.

More training is needed to better understand and use digital tools, for example to reach audiences, help audiences discover Ontario and Canadian cultural content online, and grow cultural organizations. Training ideas included working closely with colleges, universities and youth-led programs; tech-savvy young people could help culture sectors develop and execute digital innovations.
Respond to different sector needs Many museums, archives and cultural heritage organizations highlighted their current work to digitize their collections to preserve historical information, provide greater public access and expand relationships within and outside their sectors. At the same time, they also emphasized the need for significant funding and staff resources to make any real progress.
Some participants called on the province to lead the development of a digital strategy to help establish a framework for the culture sector and identify best practices. They also called for the province to set up a task force or working group to ensure the future success of the culture sector in the digital age. Other recommendations included the following: 

Participants from the music, book, magazine publishing, public library and other sectors told us that they have made progress in responding to the digital world by providing digital products. At the same time, they said, there is still a demand for the
More funding is needed for digital projects to support technology research projects and to encourage collaboration between the digital sector and the culture sector.
20
Page 115 of 129
Support improved access to digital cultural content
Enabling public collections to be accessed on-line, educational programs and performances to be live-streamed to communities across the province, digital forums for the exchange of ideas to be launched, and courses and workshops to be delivered digitally reaching schools and centres in remote communities, are only some of the ways the cultural community can connect many cultures through the arts, while reaching and growing broad and diverse audiences. — Written submission
Free public WiFi and access to high-speed Internet were seen as essential to accessing and participating in culture. For example, artists in remote areas need this to be able to disseminate their work and to collaborate with other artists. We heard that many rural and northern communities are underserved, and that not all public and First Nation public libraries have the technology infrastructure that is available to their urban counterparts. We also heard about the need to support the accessibility and dissemination of Francophone cultural content across all technology platforms.
physical products, therefore placing greater pressure on limited business resources.
Many people saw digital technologies as an opportunity to reach wider audiences and facilitate inclusive participation for people with a range of abilities. At the same time, however, there were many who cautioned that relying solely on technology could create isolation, while live cultural experiences increase connection to the community.
Participants from sectors such as architecture, design and fashion told us that they have successfully adopted new technologies. They said they would like to have opportunities to share lessons learned with other sectors. At the same time, many of them said they needed support to continue to innovate and push ideas farther, grow their domestic industry and anticipate the next digital challenge or opportunity.
21
Page 116 of 129
What We Heard: Ideas to Inspire Youth There should be more opportunities for young artists and performers to compete, appear in talent shows, have their work publicized…” — Participant, community conversation with youth in Kingston We talked to young people in our community conversations to discover what culture means to them and how they would like to be able to participate more than they do now. We also heard many ideas on the subject at the town halls and in the more than 600 written submissions we received.
Promote careers in culture The arts are widely undervalued. When I get asked what I do and I say I’m a painter, I get asked, ‘interior or exterior’? – Young participant, Thunder Bay Culture Talks town hall
Provide youth with a continuum of opportunities
Some young people suggested that working in the culture sector is not seen as a viable career option. Yet we heard from a number of culture sectors that they need more skilled workers (for example, in the entertainment industry and in the conservation of cultural heritage resources) and specialized professionals (for example, archaeologists). We also heard about the emerging need for new skilled workers such as digital curators. Some sectors highlighted the important contributions the cultural industries make in attracting and employing youth. The video game sector is a good example, where the average age is 31—10 years younger than the average age of Canadian workers overall.
Often, we heard about the importance of ensuring that young people have “a continuum of opportunities” (written submission). This begins with a strong foundation in elementary school education to establish an early appreciation of culture. Interest is sustained in high school through experiences such as community theatre or volunteering in the culture sector. Interest then carries through to university or college with opportunities such as paid apprenticeships and internships. Mentorship was also suggested as a way to engage youth while transmitting knowledge and culture (such as information about local history or new artists and technologies) between youth and older members of their communities.
Ideas on how to connect culture to future careers included paid internships, artist mentorship programs, arts-friendly apprenticeship programs, a combination of arts, business and technology skills training workshops, and stronger links with youth employment strategies. Some participants suggested replicating existing programs, such as the internships offered by the fashion sector, or activities of organizations such as The Remix Project in Toronto (which serves young people wishing to enter into the cultural industries).
Funding for paid internships for recent grads as well as funding for developing highly educational volunteer programs would go a long way to keeping young people engaged pursuing careers in arts, heritage and culture. — Written submission
22
Page 117 of 129
Give youth a voice in program design
Incorporate technology in any youth engagement strategy
We heard that one of the best ways to engage young people in cultural programs is to include them early in the decision-making process and give them a voice in program design. Many young people told us they find museums and galleries intimidating and not interesting and suggested promoting more interactive and relevant activities as a first step to encourage visits. They may want to go to galleries, attend cultural events and make movies if they can incorporate their ideas and help shape the programs and activities. As one young town hall participant in Mississauga said, museums and arts organizations should get youth “in the boardroom” and on grant juries.
I can bring Picasso or the Taj Mahal to me. I can see the architectural wonders of the world…on the internet. – Participant, community conversation with youth in Ottawa Many youth participants said that technology is key to engaging them, and that they access a range of cultural experiences online through various devices. They also create culture by compiling playlists and sharing photos and videos on social media. We frequently heard that discovering content from Ontario and Canada is a unique challenge given the high number of cultural experiences available through technology. At the same time, young people may be well positioned to help Ontario’s culture sector navigate the challenges of discovering content, and they could potentially advise organizations on new ways to reach young audiences.
Meet the needs of youth outside the mainstream Meaningful engagement with youth emerged as a high priority in conversations with Indigenous communities, Francophone youth, and youth from rural and northern communities. They called for consideration of their unique needs across culture programs and activities. Some told us that part of the challenge for northern and rural communities is retaining talent. Often, talent is fostered locally, but then young people move away to urban areas.
A number of cultural organizations and municipalities recognized the importance of including youth strategies in their plans and overall mandates. They said that the challenge often lies in creating awareness of the youth programs. They recognized the need to more effectively reach out to youth through digital media.
23
Page 118 of 129
What We Heard: Indigenous Cultures are Vital to Ontario My culture means a lot to me and I don’t know where I would be without the support from the Métis Nation of Ontario. Being knowledgeable on my cultural heritage allows me to share it with people who may be unaware of whom the Métis people are. I am always doing cultural art on my free time because I am able to express myself freely and it really helps me connect back to my cultural identity. — Written submission
Keep culture strong
We heard about how Indigenous communities are strengthening their cultures. Participants also pointed out that Ontario’s culture can be strengthened through its connection to Indigenous cultures.
We heard it was important to recognize the diversity and distinctiveness of Ontario First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status Indigenous peoples, each of whom has a unique identity and history.
Support Indigenous languages
Indigenous participants in the Culture Talks process told us that a strong and healthy culture is fundamental to the well-being of individuals, communities and the natural world. Participants said that culture cannot be separated from their way of life.
Language is interrelated with culture, so if you lose your language, you lose your culture. – Participant, Fort William First Nation meeting Indigenous participants said that language is the foundation of culture, and that knowledge of Indigenous languages is fundamental to understanding the grounding concepts of Indigenous culture, such as the connections between all living things.
Participants spoke of the lasting, intergenerational negative effects of culture loss stemming from the legacy of Canada’s residential school system and colonial past. They also spoke about the need to recognize and celebrate Indigenous knowledge, including developing ways to recognize and protect Indigenous intellectual property.
Some participants described language loss as a crisis situation and said that time is of the essence as Elders age and knowledge is lost.
They emphasized the need for their communities to be in charge of their own cultural priorities, while also discussing how Ontario could collaborate with them on shared priorities.
Ideas to promote Indigenous language learning included expanding support for Indigenous languages in the education curriculum, creating economic opportunities for Indigenous language users (for example, as interpreters and translators)
As such, participants saw culture as integral and fundamental to their relationships with government and across all provincial ministries.
24
Page 119 of 129
Protect cultural legacy
and recognizing Indigenous languages as official languages.
Concern about preserving cultural heritage was frequently raised in our meetings. There was also concern about the treatment of Ancestors when Indigenous burial sites are disturbed during excavation for development projects.
Focus on youth Participants repeatedly spoke of the importance of youth in Indigenous communities. The cultural connection between youth and Elders is important, they said, for creating strong, healthy individuals, reducing the risk of marginalization and mitigating intergenerational trauma. A number of participants also emphasized the importance of sport as a cultural strategy for engaging youth.
Participants described the importance of integrating Indigenous interests early on and throughout the process of archaeology, from background studies to fieldwork to the management of artifact collections. Protection of artifacts and sacred objects was raised as a key concern. Indigenous communities would also like to increase their involvement in archeology to create economic, educational and cultural opportunities.
Promote Indigenous history and stories Our culture is important to all of Ontario; we’re the base. – Participant, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation meeting
Participants saw a need for better relationships between Ontario’s museums and Indigenous communities. They said museums should provide more roles for Indigenous people in curation and interpretation and give a higher profile to local Indigenous communities. Participants also emphasized that Indigenous communities are seeking the return of artifacts and sacred objects.
Many participants spoke about wanting Ontario’s schools to do a better job of supporting and promoting Indigenous history and stories to Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth and children. This includes increasing awareness of treaties and highlighting the positive contributions Indigenous peoples have made in the development of the province.
Support culture and economic opportunities Ontario provides funding to Indigenous communities, organizations and individuals for cultural purposes. We heard that these programs need to be better promoted and barriers need to be addressed, such as by implementing culturally appropriate criteria and processes and reducing the paperwork required.
Non-Indigenous participants also indicated their desire to learn more about Indigenous history and cultures in Ontario and called for more support to ensure that Indigenous culture makers can “take their place within the core of Ontario’s cultural activities and enterprises” (written submission). Participants also expressed the need to raise awareness about Indigenous history in urban areas to promote relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, as well as to help urban Indigenous people connect to the land. Indigenous Friendship Centres were valued for the cultural programs and activities they provide.
It was suggested that Ontario work with communities to design programs to meet specific cultural needs. For example, funding support could help Elders, interpreters and community members to engage in cultural heritage work. Participants saw a role for government in working with communities to develop Indigenous culture25
Page 120 of 129
based tourism and other economic opportunities, such as audience development, professional training for arts administrators and support for entrepreneurs.
There were also discussions about the need to financially support cultural infrastructure, including how Ontario could improve its existing support for First Nation public libraries.
26
Page 121 of 129
Moving Forward on Developing the Culture Strategy Everything depends on creativity. It underpins human enterprise, bolsters our daring, keeps fresh our past and thus ensures our prosperity, a precious bequest to leave our children. — Written submission At the concluding town hall in Windsor, guest artist Cameron Bailey (Artistic Director of the Toronto International Film Festival) remarked in his closing comments that what he liked most about the evening was hearing “the variety of opinions and perspectives.”
We would like to express our thanks to everyone who shared their stories and their passion about what culture means to them and the many ways they contribute to culture in Ontario. We are now in the process of looking at the feedback we received and developing a draft Culture Strategy. The strategy will articulate a new vision for culture and include a set of priorities to guide Ontario’s support for culture so that it continues to grow and flourish in the years to come.
It was this diversity of rich ideas that underscored the entire Culture Talks process: at the town halls, community conversations, meetings with Indigenous communities and in the written submissions.
Later this year, we will share the draft Culture Strategy for your feedback. We look forward to continuing the conversation
Culture Talks also served as a strong reminder of the many creative initiatives happening across Ontario, and of the many artists, culture workers, volunteers and organizations it takes to bring to life the vast range of cultural activities and creative expressions.
27
Page 122 of 129
Appendices│Town Halls We held 11 town halls across the province to gather a range of ideas on culture. We’d like to thank the host organizations and the artists and culture makers who inspired the conversation at the beginning of each meeting. 
Barrie—MacLaren Art Centre Nova Bhattacharya (choreographer, dancer) and Peter Lynch (filmmaker, documentarian)

Hamilton—Art Gallery of Hamilton Lynn Coady (author, screenwriter) and Tyler Tekatch (film and video maker)

Thunder Bay—Thunder Bay Art Gallery (with cultural partner Thunder Bay Museum) Lora Northway (visual artist) and Molly Johnson (musician)

Sudbury—Science North (with cultural partner Art Gallery of Sudbury) Danielle Daniel (writer, painter) and Jack Blum (actor, director, filmmaker)

Ottawa—National Arts Centre Joel Beddows (playwright, professor) and Bear Witness (musician, Tribe Called Red)

Markham—Markham Museum (with cultural partner Varley Art Gallery) Bryan Prince (author, historian) and Alison Evans Adnani (Maker culture, founder Maker Junior Ottawa)

Toronto—Toronto Reference Library (with cultural partner Canada’s National Ballet School) Alana Wilcox (editorial director, Coach House Press) and Kardinal Offishall (musician, producer)

London—London Museum Ravi Jain (director, playwright, actor) and Ali Al-Aasm (web developer)

Kingston—Tett Centre for Creativity Jamie Kennedy (chef) and Merilyn Simonds (writer, editor)

Mississauga—Mississauga Civic Centre Great Hall (with cultural partners Mississauga Arts Council and Art Gallery of Mississauga) Bonnie Devine (artist, writer, professor) and Arlene Paculan (musician)

Windsor—Art Gallery of Windsor Cameron Bailey (Artistic Director Toronto International Film Festival) and Daniel Wells (publisher Biblioasis)
28
Page 123 of 129
Appendices│Community Conversations We also held 24 community meetings with local community groups, including Francophones, youth, seniors, newcomers, ethno-cultural communities and people with disabilities. We’d like to thank those who participated and the host organizations:    



 


Barrie, YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka, Newcomer Services program Penetanguishene, Clé d’la Baie Hamilton, Wesley Urban Ministries Thunder Bay
Thunder Bay 55 Plus Centre
Regional Multicultural Youth Council Sudbury
l’ACFO du Grand Sudbury
Walden Seniors and Pensioners Centre
Independent Living Sudbury Manitoulin Ottawa
Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa
Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne Toronto
Centre Francophone de Toronto
Auberge Francophone
Harbourfront Community Centre
East Metro Youth Services Town of Ingersoll, Fusion Youth Activity and Technology Centre Kingston
Four Directions Aboriginal Student Centre, Queen’s University
Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Children and Youth Services Planning Committee
Kingston Immigration Partnership
Seniors Association Kingston Region Mississauga
Coalition for Persons with Disabilities
Bramalea Community Health Centre
YMCA-GTA, Peel/Mississauga Windsor
New Beginnings
Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County
29
Page 124 of 129
Appendices│Discussion Paper Questions In our discussion paper, Telling our Stories, Growing our Economy: Developing a Culture Strategy for Ontario, we posed a series of questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
What does culture mean to you and your community? What is the greatest cultural experience you have had in Ontario? What made it great? How do you and members of your household (if applicable) participate in culture? Are you participating as much as you would like? If not, why? How can we strengthen and grow the culture sector in Ontario so that it continues to contribute to our social and economic well-being? 6. How can we inspire more youth to create, consume and participate in Ontario culture? 7. How can we help ensure that support for culture reflects Ontario’s diverse regions, communities and populations? 8. How can we help the culture sector respond to digital challenges and opportunities? 9. In a time of scarce resources, what key culture priorities should the Ontario government support? How can your organization (if applicable) work in partnership with the government to support these priorities? 10. Do the guiding principles* reflect what is important to you? Are there others we should consider? 11. What is the Ontario government doing well to support the arts, cultural industries, public libraries and cultural heritage sectors? What would you like to see changed? Are there best practices that Ontario could learn from and adapt? *Guiding principles: Creativity and innovation Culture exposes us to new ideas, inspires new ways of thinking, and fosters creativity and innovation. Support for culture should help enrich our lives, animate our communities, and build a dynamic business environment in Ontario. Quality of life and economic development Culture contributes significantly to both quality of life and economic development in Ontario. Support for culture should maximize both the social and economic benefits of culture for individuals and communities. Diversity and inclusiveness Ontario’s rich diversity is one of our province’s greatest strengths. People in all parts of Ontario, and from all of our communities, broadly defined, should have the opportunity to enjoy and benefit from cultural experiences according to their individual interests and abilities.
30
Page 125 of 129 Respect for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples First Nations, Métis, and Inuit perspectives on culture and heritage represent distinct identities, histories and ways of life. Ontario is committed to strengthening and transforming its relationship with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, and to implementing changes that reflect First Nations, Métis, and Inuit priorities. Public value and accountability Government investment in culture will be guided by what Ontarians value and what makes a positive difference in the lives of individuals and communities. The ministry, its agencies, and the organizations that receive funding through us are accountable for achieving the best possible outcomes within available resources.
i
According to Statistics Canada, “In 2010/2012, two out of five (40.2%) immigrants settled in Ontario, the largest share among the provinces and territories.” Please see Statistics Canada webpage. ii
Ontario Ministry of Finance, “2011 National Household Survey Highlights, Fact Sheet 2: Ethnic Origins and Visible Minorities.” (Analysis of data from Statistics Canada’s 2011 National Household Survey.) iii
Ontario Ministry of Finance, “2011 Census Highlights, Fact Sheet 6: Mother Tongue and Language.” (Analysis of data from Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census.)
31
Page 126 of 129
From: ROMA Communications [mailto:romacommunicate@roma.on.ca] Sent: April-28-16 3:21 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: ROMA Will Deliver a Stand Alone Municipal Conference in January 2017 For the past 16 years the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) has partnered with the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) to host the OGRA/ROMA Combined Conference each February. We have valued this partnership. At the same time, we know there is frustration from all four corners of province and from rural municipalities of all sizes. We need to come together, harness this energy and ensure that we are heard. There is no doubt that rural Ontario needs its own forum to explore solutions and press for meaningful change. To that end, we have decided that ROMA will return to its roots by hosting its own, dedicated conference. ROMA hosted its first rural municipal conference in 1934 and they were an important tradition for more than 65 years. By reviving this tradition, we believe rural priorities can be better aligned, better understood, and better addressed. So, mark your calendars: Sunday, January 29 to Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel. As ROMA works to strengthen our voice and renew our focus on advocacy, we’ll be reaching out to rural municipalities. Our goal is to develop a high-impact, three-day program that reflects your priorities and speaks to your needs. Given the important work that OGRA does, particularly regarding rural transportation and public works, we look forward to OGRA’s continued support for rural Ontario and cooperation between the two associations on matters of shared interest. Please stay tuned for more information and opportunities for input. We look forward to charting this course with you. Sincerely, Ron Holman, Chair Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Mayor, Township of Rideau Lakes
Page 127 of 129
Clarington May 3,2016
The Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport Transport Canada 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 Dear Minister: Re:
No Wake Resolution
File Number:
C10.GE
At a meeting held on May 2, 2016, the Council of the Municipalityof Clarington approved the following Resolution #PD-065-16: That the following Township of Georgian Bay Resolution, endorsed by the Township of South Frontenac, regarding a no wake restriction, be endorsed by the Municipality of Clarington: Whereas the Office of Boating Safety, which administers the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (VORRS) pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, has advised that the issue of “No Wake” is currently addressed by limitingthe speed or power of a vessel; And whereas the Office of Boating Safety has advised that “No Wake” is not a restriction found in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, or its regulations, and therefore is not an enforceable restriction; And whereas a boat’s wake can do a great deal of damage, including:
the erosion of shorelines
the swamping of nests of loons and other waterfowls
the damaging of docks and vessels moored at docks and at marina gas pumps
the danger to swimmers
the interference with safe navigation
the disruption of wetland habitat
the upsetting of canoes and small boats, especially in narrow channels ~
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET,BOWMANVILLE,ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
Page 128 of 129
The Honourable Marc Garneau
2
May 3, 2016
Be it resolved that the Township of Georgian Bay requests the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, to address this dangerous and harmful situation, by implementing legislation that would provide authorities with the ability to enforce a “No Wake” restriction in Ontario’s navigable waters; And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable Tony Clement, M.P., Parry Sound Muskoka. —
Yours truly,
une Gallagher, B.A. Deputy Clerk JG/mc c.
The Honourable Erin O’Toole, MP, Durham Region Township of Georgian Bay Township of South Frontenac
Page 129 of 129
From: AMO Communications [mailto:communicate@amo.on.ca] Sent: May-05-16 12:52 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: AMO Support for Fort McMurray - Call to Action May 5, 2016 Dear Colleagues, Like you, I have been deeply affected by the disturbing images and the heartbreak we are seeing of those fleeing the wildfires around Fort McMurray. We appreciate the hard work of emergency services, civic employees and volunteers to assist in the multitude of efforts to tackle this situation. It is a situation that cries out for compassion and action. AMO today challenged the 100 plus delegates at the Ontario Small Urban Conference to reach into their pockets and contribute personally. Delegates are meeting here in Goderich, the site of a devastating tornado that ripped through the community in 2011, learning more about being prepared for the unexpected, including natural disasters. In only 5 minutes, the challenge here raised $1233.00. The OSUM delegates asked me to challenge all municipal governments to donate as well. Municipal governments can contribute through AMO and we’ll ensure the funds are placed so that the Canadian government and Alberta government can match the dollars. Donations can be made by cheque payable to Association of Municipalities of Ontario, with “Fort McMurray Disaster” in the description field. Let’s grow today’s $1233.00 funds so that in several weeks, we can tell our colleagues in northern Alberta and across the country that Ontario’s municipal governments care and are making a difference. Let’s help their recovery! Sincerely, Gary McNamara AMO President amopresident@amo.on.ca
DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record. OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please Click Here.
Share

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.