Published January 12, 2016

Word Count 17920 words

Reading Time 85 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: January 12, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 12 Jan 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

6:00 PM, Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session

(a)

Litigation

(b)

Litigation

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

Delegations

(a)

Andrew Schmidt, Development Review Manager, and Tom Beaubiah, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, re: Applewood Docks

3-5

(b)

Louise Moody, Executive Director, Northern Frontenac Community Services

6 - 21

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

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

22 - 32

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Severance applications on Petworth Road: Possible Parkland Dedication

33 - 37

(c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Playground Equipment Replacement Program

38 - 46

(d)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Appointment of Council Members to Committee of Adjustment

Reports for Information

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Site Plan Amendment for PIt Operation, Part Lot 8, Concession 1, Bedford: Fitzgerald Quarry

48 - 52

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Review of Ontario Bill 73: Smart Growth for Our Communities Act

53 - 57

(c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Barry Campbell - Shield Shores

58 - 67

(d)

Chief Administrative Officers Committee Shared Services Report

Page 2 of 79

Card 2015 (e)

Mark Segsworh, Public Works Manager, re:Items from 2016 Budget Discussions

(f)

Councillor Sleeth, re: Planning Process - Verbal Report

Rise & Report

(a)

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

(b)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

(c)

Quinte Region Conservation Authority

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

Karin G. Steiner, Executive Director, New Leaf Link, re: Transitional Grant for 2016

(b)

Arthur Potts, Parliamentary Assistant, OMAFRA, re: 2015 Rural Roadmap: The Path Forward for Ontario.

72 - 73

(c)

Ontario Ombudsman - Complaints about Municipalities

74 - 75

(d)

John Bolognone, City Clerk, re: Request for resolution endorsement -Basic Income Guarantee

76 - 78

(e)

Letter to Sophie Kuwala, MPP, Kingston and the Islands, re: OCIF funding

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

69 - 70

Page 3 of 79 Membn oi

REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CATARAQUI

Q“

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

Conservation 0 N1’AR|o Naturalchamplans

November 27, 2015

File: F-166-1 1-Lough Lk

Sent by Email

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

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

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

. Communal Docking System 0

0 0

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

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

Page 4 of 79 Mr. Matt Rennie November 27, 2015

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

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

. Boardwalk Structure

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

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

Page 5 of 79 Mr. Matt Rennie November 27, 2015

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

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

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

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

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager c.c.

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

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Presentation to Township of South Frontenac Council January 12, 2016

Page 6 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES We have been providing services in Frontenac since 1975. We opened our child centre in Sharbot Lake, in response to the community.

Page 7 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Our services for children, youth and their families include: • Licensed Daycare for 34 children in Sharbot Lake • Ontario Early Years Playgroups throughout Frontenac County • Youth Programming throughout Frontenac County • Family Counselling for adults and couples • Frontenac Transportation Services

Page 8 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Programs for Children 0 to 6

Page 9 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Our focus is on supporting families to ensure their young children have the best start in life.

Page 10 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES We have weekly playgroups in:

• Harrowsmith on Mondays • Verona and Sydenham on Tuesdays • Storrington on Wednesdays.

Page 11 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Playgroups include:

• Time to play, learn, share and have fun • Parent education, One to one family support and new baby welcome packages

We also offer School readiness programs Page 12 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES A majority of our programs are offered in South Frontenac and one third, of south Frontenac children age 0 to 6, attend our programs

Page 13 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Many children in South Frontenac are entering the school system “not on track” in at least one aspect of their development.

Page 14 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Programs for Youth

Page 15 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES We offer FREE afterschool programs, organized sports and youth trips and special events.

Page 16 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Kids Fit Soccer started in 2006 in Harrowsmith. Last year 38 children attended last year. We are introducing lacrosse this year.

Page 17 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES In 2013 we started a weekly afterschool program at Prince Charles. Last year we had 134 youth visits. “Children and youth aged 5–17 should accumulate at least 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorousintensity physical activity daily”

Page 18 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Steps to Success is our leadership program. We offer:

• A Home Alone Program preparing youth to be on their own at home and

• The Red Cross Babysitting Course. 26 kids enrolled in the Verona programs last year.

Page 19 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Thank you for the $1,500 Grant in 2016 for the youth program. We reached 66 youth with this funding. We look forward to working together in the future.

Page 20 of 79

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Contact us: Louise Moody Executive Director Louisem@nfcs.ca Maribeth Scott, The Child Centre Program Manager Maribeths@nfcs.ca Brian Dunford, Youth Program Coordinator Briand@nfcs.ca

Page 21 of 79

Page 22 of 79

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 12, 2016 Date of Report: January 5, 2016 Subject: Possible Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 14, Concession IX, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac: Amey

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

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

Background Doug Amey, a Township resident, has brought forward a request to purchase a vacant 100 acre property owned by the Township. The property abuts land that is already owned by Mr. Amey that is also 100 acres in size. Attachment #1 shows the location of the Township-owned land and the abutting land owned by Mr. Amey. Attachment #2 is a letter from Mr. Amey’s lawyer requesting Council’s consideration of the sale. Council and staff have been dealing with this matter for more than a year – the issue being that Mr. Amey’s land is essentially land-locked and is accessible only through an unopened road allowance from Canoe Lake Road – a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometres. The abutting Township-owned land is also land locked and is accessible only by way of this road allowance. Attachment #3 shows Mr. Amey’s land, the Township land and the unopened road allowance. The attachment shows two problems with the present use of the unopened road allowances to access Mr. Amey’s land as follows:

The road allowance is aligned through a wetland and a waterbody making access physically very difficult.
A number of farm buildings and uses associated with the abutting land appear to be located on the road allowance near Canoe Lake Road causing difficulty for passage through the road allowance. Attachment #4 shows the encroaching uses in more detail. The proposal came before the Committee of the Whole on January 27, 2015 where the Committee appeared to be favourable to the sale of the land and directed that a public meeting be held on the sale as required. However, the Committee also required that the land be valuated by a professional property appraiser before going forward. Accordingly, on November 25, 2015, the Planning Department was advised by Weatherby Real Estate Limited that the value of the subject land is $34,000.00. More recently, the matter came to the Committee on December 8, 2015. While preparing for that meeting Planning realised that there were buildings on the property and air photos showing the development were distributed to Committee members. Based on this new information, the Committee deferred any decision and directed that staff investigate further. Afterwards, on December 15, 2015, staff attended the property and observed a dwelling and out-buildings as well as a gas generator and other equipment and a store of firewood with all indications that someone was living at the site. Air photos from the year 2008 show that no buildings existed at that time so the development occurred sometime after
Attachment #5 shows some of the development and equipment.

Page 23 of 79 This matter was discussed with the applicant Doug Amey who advised that he is not concerned that someone is using the land as a residence and he is still willing to purchase the land. Thus, from staff’s perspective, the illegal development should not affect the sale .

Process If Council wishes to sell this surplus property, there is a requirement to pass a by-law declaring the property to be surplus and to give notice to the public of the proposed sale. An appraisal of the fair market value of the property is also required (which is now completed). Attachment #6 explains the procedure for notice of sale of municipal lands. As noted, the Committee appeared favourable to the sale in January and required that the land be appraised. This has now been done, however, since the matter was last seen by the Committee almost a year ago, staff are bringing this report forward as a reminder and are seeking to confirm that we still wish to proceed with the public meeting and to sell the property. attachments Amey2015ReportToCofW3

Page 24 of 79

O:)/YJI/lYJl'4 12!.:’.)‘4

011-’.J40 1%:.

ATTACHMENT #:

GORDON Y.

Page 25 of 79

eDa, B.Com. (Hons.), aT.]D. ‘TER & SOLICITOR

ASSOC}ATh: JUD:

A. MILLARD, BARRTSTER & SOLICTI’OR

TaEPHoNu - 613-5&3274

3 R!T)EAU STREff, p.o. BOX J O N 0

FAX - 613-546493

KINGSTON, ONTARIO K7L 4)a!

NF,W [MAn.,! @mediarmsi ‘,eR jmMua’rd@riaieaustrmtWaw.es Rea[ ]Figtate: reJi

‘.aR

May 2, 2044

Via Fax: 613-376-6657

Tovzhip of South Frontenae Plm’ning Departhient 4432 (3eorHc Street PO Box 100

Sydenhmn, Ontario KOH 2T0

.ATTENan.ON: M$ ANNB LEVAC -

ASSXSTANT

Dear Ms Levac:

Re: Wegt gaff;Lot U ConeeBston ’l

oJ,BedfoydJoutb 03ntenme $ownship

As you kmow, J am tbe soucNtor $v. Doug).w 3. Arney Jr. of Nnverary. He advises me that be had a reeent discussion wt’tb you about $ possAbNhty of Jis acqu?g from the Township the West Ha!f of ]I’,ot {4 COneession 9, DNstra.ct of peafora (P[N 36245-0033). Tbat parcel of Nand is direetly north of a yope@ tbat Mr. Arney *:y owns * the West H.a{f of Lot :l3 Concessmon 9. Nt is om understanding tbat in ord:y for a eonveyanee of the land to take place, the Township

mugt first deem the land to be ?surplus’j and then the Township must comply with the roles and

regulations fov selling surplus lands.

X atn writing to you to forrnalNy reiuest that you beg’n t?txe proeess that coukl ultimately Nead

to a sale of t?ffs propcr7 to Mr. Arryey.

X wouKd be; moa appreciati,ve d yo0 wouJd keep me tnforrned of the steps tJxat are bemg taken Nn t)hNs yegard,, and ffyou wou?d advNse m4 Nf there Ns any other iomatiorx that you require in order

to eo?erhce tMs process.

Page 26 of 79

Page 27 of 79

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #4

j{ i r t

(Encroaching Land U?ses

,A-

,!J! J

l t 1

! @ 7 {

‘;?

‘T-

‘7

7 f[

[1-

U r?A

7za

l..l

N !ffi

Unopened Road Allowance

r’

! l

0.05

0.025

i Kilometers

]

Mt-AwJ ‘.?r J

l r

i’

y’f

ra f

tk i m

A r" l

ti L

l’l

‘A

il t

%1.

‘k

r’ ‘A w?

s4 j

I’

J l

r @

r t

Jj J

Page 28 of 79

k &

€ € %

]

‘%

!L l

k ‘?l

k k.

€ l

*.?

k fF i?.

4 d

l !

]

d’

-’l

k a

ki * l

1 t

‘?

Ill

01 %

]

, +’ 4

‘%’

/’

4 c

J s

i l

f r l

-d

s l

T Ii l

1’

i l

%b I l

l! li

o4b

l’

-1

}

Page 29 of 79

AJtacAwant ‘6 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 1999-25

A BY-LAW TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC.

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

NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCn,, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

I[n this by-law,

(a) “appraisar’ shall mean an evaluation of the fair market value of real pmperty;

(b)

“Clerk” shall mean the Clerk of the municipality;

(c)

“Council” shall mean the Clerk of the municipality;

(d)

“fair market value” shall mean the amount that woukl be realized by the sale of real property by a willing vendor to a wffling purchaser.

(e)

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

(f)

“real propertl’ shall mean land and vice versa;

(g)

“sale” shall mean the intention or wil%ness to:

(i) transfer in fee simple ownership of and title to real property; or (ii) grmit a permanent easement or right of way over real property; or (iii) grantaleaseholdinterestinrealpropertyforatermof21yearsor longer;

from the municipality to another person, with or without consideration. 2. Prior to the sale of any real property owned by tbe muriicipality, C?ouncil shau, (a) by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public declare the real property to be surplus; (b)

obtain not sooner than one (l) year before the date of sale at least one appraisal of the farm market value of the real property from such person as the Clerk considers quaufied; and

(c)

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

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

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

(b)

in the case of a proposed sale according to m’iy other procedure prescribed by the %ppicipal 4ct or any other Act, in the manner prescribed.

Page 30 of 79

Page 31 of 79

Despite the requirement of Clause 2(b) of this by-law, the municipality may sell any"of the following classes of real property without first obtaining an appraisal: (a) land O.3 metres or less m width acquired in connection with an approval or

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

(b)

highways, roads and mad allowances;

(c)

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

(d) land that does not have direct access to a highway if sold to the owner of land abutting that larxl;

(e) land repurchased by an owner in accordance with Section 42 of the Expropriations Acil R.S.0. 1990, Chapter E.42, as mnended; (f) land designated in the municipality’s Offlcial Plan for use as sites for the estabushment arxl carrying on of mdustries and of industrial operations and incidental uses;

(g) land sold:

(i) for the purpose of a progrmn to encourage smau business pursuant to Section 112 of the Mpnicipal AJ;

(ji) the sale of land to a Community Economic Development Corporation pursumit to Section 112.1 of the Municipal Act; (iii) the sale of land to a Community Development Corporation pursuant to Section l 12.2 of the Municipal Act;

(iv) thesaleoflandasagrantpursuanttoSectionll3oftheMunicipal ??;

(h) easements granted to public utilities or to telephone companies;

(i) landsoklundertheMunicipalTaxSal@sAct,R.S.0.l990,ChapterM.60. s,

Despite the requirements of clause 2 (b) of the by-law, the municipality may sell any real property owned by it to any one of the followig classes of public bodies without first obtaining an appraisal:

(a) any municipality, including a metropolitan, regional or district municipality and the County of Oxford;

(b) a local board as defined in the Muni<:ipal Mfa3x6 Acl, R.S.0, 1990, Chapter M.46;

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

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

Page 32 of 79

The Clerk shall establish and maintain a public register listing and describing all real property owned or leased by the municipa?ity and which shoukl, to the extent

that it is reasonably possible, include the following information. (a) a brief legal description of the property; (b) the assessment roll number of the real property; (c) the municipal addxe,ss of the real property, if available; (d) the date of purchase;

(e) the name of the person from whom the property was purchased; ihe,inslHmeat r@,mlxar of the Transfer{Deed by which title was transferred (f) to fue ?unlClpaui)r,

(g) the purchase price of the real property;

(h) a brief description of improvement, if any, on the real propcrty; (i) the date of sale of the properly;

(j) the name of the person to whom the property was sold; (k) the sale price of the real property;

Despite the provisions of clause 7, the Clerk is not requmd to list the following classes of real property in the public register:

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

all highways, roads and mad auowances, whether or not opened, unopened, closed or stopped up;

(c)

land formerly used for railway branch lines;

lands sold under an agreement for the providing of municipal capital faci?ities pursuant to section 210.1(2) of the Municipal Aqt, Every Transfer/Deed of real property sold by the municipality shall include a Certificate of Compliance issued by the Clerk m the form prescribed by the

(d)

Regulations to the Mpigipal Act. 10.

iality for This by-law shall not apply to the sale of any land owned by the municipality let which an agreement was entered into by the municipauty prior to January’l> 1998.

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

Dated aJuA4 thJ day of 60 r <,- , 1999. Readafirstmndseoondtimethmddayof,??&yu ,1999. Read a thinl Ume mid nnally pamed this l day of /9/‘2 ‘L- , 1999. THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSfflp OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

i yy

Mayor

,-4-’# Clerk;

Page 33 of 79

PLANNING REPORT: Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 12, 2016 Date of Report: January 7, 2016 Subject: Severance Applications at Petworth Road, Portland District: Possible Parkland Dedication: Kerr

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is that the Committee receive a Planning Report dated January 7, 2016, for consideration and discussion regarding a request to dedicate parkland on Petworth Road in the Hamlet of Petworth. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a proposal to require the dedication of parkland instead of cash-in-lieu as a condition of approval of two severance applications. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2015, property-owner Chris Kerr submitted applications to create two new waterfront residential lots on the Napanee River in the hamlet of Petworth. The parcel is accessed from Petworth Road. Proposed Lot #1 would retain access and frontage on Petworth Road while the other proposed lot would be accessed by a private lane to be constructed through Lot #1. The retained portion would have its access from German Road to the west of the severed portions. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject land and Attachment #2 shows the proposed lot layout. The proposed lots would each be approximately 4.5 acres in size and would meet all of the minimum standards for waterfrontage and road/lane frontage. The applications were advertised and came before the Committee of Adjustment on December 10, 2015 for a public meeting and were given conditional approval. However, at the meeting there was some discussion as to whether the remains of the old historic Petworth Mill building that is located on the subject land should be acquired by the Township for preservation and possible future renovation. As a result of this discussion it was agreed to include in the conditions of final approval of the applications wording that cash-in-lieu or parkland will be taken by the Township to fulfill the parkland dedication requirement under section 51.1 of the Planning Act. The Petworth Mill is one of several mills built by Stephenson and Lott in the 1840’s. As discussed at the Committee of Adjustment meeting, the structure may or may not be worthy of preservation but, in any case, this would be the opportunity for the Township to acquire it for future renovation purposes and at least preserve it until its future can be determined. Attachment #3 is a series of photographs of the remaining structure. It should be noted that a portion of the structure appears to already be located on the township-owned road allowance as shown on Attachment #4. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is asked to consider whether parkland (containing the Petworth Mill) should be taken from the subject land as a condition of approval for the consent applications instead of the normal cash-in-lieu of parkland. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills attachment KerrParklandReportToCofW2016

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 34 of 79

Attachment #1

(,t-

I I I

n l

11 l

/;A

Jr A

(

! / r

[Subject Propertyl

l i

l t

I I

e’>

// l

%€

l l

FO1

:Napanee Rive(’ /’ l

/ /

l l t !

l l

l l l

I l

/ A

I l

l I

i /

l o so qso s? L

r Meters 640

l l

l I i

Page 35 of 79

Attachment #2

7Z {1,?“ll

wffiE

W= s

l ll

Retained Portion

}

Proposed Lot #2

/ r

( l

Proposed Lot #1

ffi

?l Q

(

‘!%.

‘;?

{

‘,,

)

panee River

I>S

‘%

v (

t ll

z f

i j

0 20 40

120

1 Meters reo

y /

Page 36 of 79

Page 37 of 79

l l t

(?C4

i l

l l

]

r J

‘/i STRUCTtmE

U Jmn

/ r

f/”

‘A ll:mll

11 l

/’

‘kT,. /

e”"‘DALJL?owANcE '

l l

PETWORTH ROAD J P

/ /

(

/ l

/ i

l t

f li

/ I

/ /

/ l

Page 38 of 79

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

January 6, 2016

Agenda Date:

January 12, 2016

SUBJECT: Playground Equipment Replacement Program RECOMMENDATION: That Council release the hold on the $36,000 budgeted for Bowes Park Playground Equipment replacement. BACKGROUND: During budget discussions there was some confusion about the policy in effect regarding playground structures. In approving the 2016 capital budget Council placed a hold on the Playground equipment for Bowes Park pending further information. The following is to provide background to Council about the Townships Playground Equipment Replacement Program and the current status of existing equipment. In June 2010, Council adopted a SFRC Resolution regarding the ‘Policy for Funding of Play Structures for Municipal Parks’ (refer to attachment). This policy outlined a funding structure for the replacement of play structures that had the Township and Community contribute equal amounts. In November 2011, as per the staff recommendation made in the ‘Playground Policy for Purchase’ report (refer to attachment), Council rescinded the June 2010 policy pertaining Play Structures for Municipal Parks, ‘in order to provide safe and enhanced play structures without significant fundraising being required by the residents of South Frontenac.’ In April 2012 Council adopted the ‘Playground Equipment Funding Policy’ (refer to attachment). The policy outlined the general, funding and special provisions for the replacement and or expansion of play structures. Update: The provision of safe and available playground equipment continues to be an important part of offering recreation and leisure opportunities in our parks. The Recreation Department, Public Works and the District Recreation Committees continue to work closely to ensure that this need is being met. Further to the existing policy, the Township routinely performs playground structure inspections to assess the condition of each structure and determine if it still meets the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) requirements. Routine maintenance is performed and structure elements are replaced ‘if’ parts are available. In the event that a structure needs to be completely replaced due to being a safety risk or it is out of compliance or if a structure is determined to be required in a park where it didn’t previously exist, the Township works with the district recreation committee to determine the size and type of the structure based on the amount of usage the particular park has and the age of users. Other determining factors are based on Accessibility guidelines and the CSA standard on children’s play spaces and equipment. The following are details about the current state of our Township Playground equipment:

Page 39 of 79

Latimer Park • manufacturer of equipment- Henderson playground equipment (two play structures at this site) • child age range - 1.5 to 5 years and 5 to 12 years • installation date- Aug 2014 / Aug 2004 • additional play equipment on site - one swing set (2004 installation date ) Wilmer Park • manufacturer of equipment - Henderson playground equipment • child age range- 1.5 to 5 years • installation date- Aug 2015 • additional play equipment on site – one swing set (installation date unknown) Centennial Park • manufacturer of equipment – Henderson playground equipment • child age range – 1.5 to 12 years • installation date – Aug 2015 • additional play equipment on site – two swing sets (installation date unknown) McMullen Park • manufacturer of equipment - APE (Active playground equipment ) • child age range- 1.5 to 12 years • installation date -2010 • additional play equipment on site - none Dave Bowes Memorial Park • manufacturer of equipment – Children’s playground Inc. (Henderson Playground Equipment) • child age range- 1.5 to 12 years • installation date –prior to 1994 • additional play equipment on site - one wooden frame swing set • repairs required – entire structure needs to be replaced in 2016 Inverary Park • installation date – 1980’s • play equipment on site - one swing set and one climber Gerald Ball Memorial Park • installation date –1980’s • play equipment on site - one swing set and one slide Battersea Park • installation date – 1980’s • play equipment on site - one slide, one swing set and two climbers Harris Park • installation date - 2009 • play equipment on site - one swing set and one slide Glendower Hall • manufacturer of equipment – Paris Playground Equipment( wooden 8”x8” support posts) • child age range- 1.5 to 12 years • installation date – 1990’s • additional play equipment on site - two swing sets • repairs required – plastic slide along with other components will need to be replaced in 2017 (if available) Tett Park • manufacturer of equipment – Paris Playground Equipment , (wooden 8”x8” support posts) • child age range- 1.5 to 12 years • installation date – 1980’s • additional play equipment on site - one wooden frame swing set • repairs required – swing set main wooden support beam needs to be replaced in 2016

Page 40 of 79

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENTS: • 2010: Policy for Funding of Play Structures for Municipal Parks • 2011: Playground Policy for Purchase (Staff Report) • 2012: Playground Equipment Funding Policy

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Prepared by: Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor Jamie Brash, Facilities Supervisors

Page 41 of 79

Page 42 of 79

Page 43 of 79 %r

yl yi

Oi Nl

w-i

€/) a* a)

-U)

CL,

2 m”-’ C/) Cj)a’c c

n .-vor art C92n –/al.;

-hJ -hj

’t; , p a5A s, CL?1 a) lm ( ul

) o

C/) l+-

@C;.0

c ffi

(D>

n c m

art

J: v 9

‘;D;m

‘,? P ‘-z az?

7 0 z E ), >

€0 J:

(1 i- E :> -o. i-w g?’ m o O m?

O,L. %4 DoE q, .og 5" E u ?‘fin0. “J?i :!,l.” p- u. N

‘uW(Q:

o:moo “mo :‘E5” j"‘c?’ Do’o’ c; a’= Eoo affiE5 >3?s ?oe -“o"2 a"Ef

‘:?oi ‘H"oa:joa’“joEa’:?‘o” o E’o”?‘fl,7"oa:‘o?" o:ga’:" ‘1"‘o E’o:?o :to?o?’.:"‘a as:;‘ao’a"

c?a?o?o’?c :mso??? ?; ?a=o s CO x-%?ac? = ==o=?4cm??2? €c" am. ?zE,:. E,?iolEo==c-E)- jaHoo: i E: w=’ t o , m n’ : K, f

??%D a E,,%??o? E= - cg? ‘?s?.v €.? 8c (/)7? ?o? ff?o? ‘?H?‘a? ?mo c,"’ 0(,a

(/)

m C

I-

‘o Q

a-3

a)ff :

!O U)a)

:>m

m ‘€ €Jbrs lllo

!-(3

“0

m CL

ffi

c )

k m

C/)

ffi

(Q a*

t art

m CL

C/)

ffi m

-hJ

gCq

C:, B Es s Us U)

C:w:

m a

2o??

c :)

C/)

I-)-

art

m c

o CL

ffi

€/)l

‘0

:Cl

SI Sl

oi5

‘C

5(3

a W

i-l

:%m

a5? Wo a:l.ffi :4:

J:O U)a5

n :l U)

-l-l *d

a5g

-5

‘o e

art €

n c )

ffi

o €/)

art

0 2 LLI

O c ) o

21 01

m !

01 Lul

Cel

€/)l Sl 21 Wl

ce ‘;?4) ?C7)o

Q?0

.5 (;6 .@

’ s- m

0 () () cl -,. ?

a - C ' J: ,, C

-l E ?5 ?a:, r? 3.92

0 ’ :;

h-m h5-m

a)ffa)

:((:l ha)0

ffi

‘U c

€/)

oo lj:’

U)l 21

zJ,

,(, As

5p@) .Ej’ iq

l)-

2 s

ffi

? -r:>?

hxi

iial

a)-:

ffi-

o(l)

fo .5%,eEi ?m M eS?m E, ?Q ?o .. s.E'5’oEc %>-== “8 emmffi m ,,r= pa’

-ii

#20) o::a

a?i

Jl CLI

-l

LLi

0J:

- w O

H U)l

s?i

?c,(D i 7c-o ?mm = <iS ,??# ,o- ?C(/) :?,oo ?C2> E,,??c{3) Qfio 01 :):?o:c’oC;Z:J ong,, .gto?m E?o3?m=?o.;m.m,oa?“CE"oz?=’?So?(l) :?5’Eio?eD’a?oo ?i?, ‘?oD-c€af"ml(l)=?mlE::? a"cS; LEE l,oc 8c,c8% :, ?acmo?- Zi o; ' ? f " € n, L=co B. ?? c, (?2?o?o"E??m?? ?a?mm:,o?o?oS3a;?oa??o” Emi? :o’E)o’=?‘o): FEo 3?i,q,oE) ?a’????’!94?aao :o o?JJo ?oo’Eo-oof’a’:N 21

o"“m(/)o”-aO . ‘a?’ =:?‘r- c?’?4"mo AoEmoo’a?co,)? .:?vcm?"€J>???m"o>?".o:)o ?a!?!o’?o?F>o’(Z’lo ‘?cl’u>)oeoco>?‘E?’;Eoo ?c? o” ?a ?B fRH i"Cao lo%:S:” c ;‘a?o ?‘omEom?o ?l.o ‘o: ‘o"mtwa,asa) l a>Wo ??:?=tT!’$??4’-.2’ o a?-wo’o r%.il??o, <o ;: eo’ -S,c-oar 51 z-H ;m €=‘o’ : ‘,A ?ijaS ‘o?5o ?:o ?a’oRo :m ?:?m B,’)’ ??(p ?ot, ,’?DE’?cm.c: j ac 2,", 3’O p-m ;. . OA j ;, =.ts= 2o, s: 5,, :c zco j? J;,, ?a) ffi

? a) m v" ; .;I ‘CL E’ m v E .€ t?’ e c’?!=o n 2o E

L@ .g B U @au", ,o ‘2 a8 N e? .4 .-f .E

o:o :;o :o?"?, ‘o ?; " :‘o’ f;" ? ‘?; ?‘LE?a"7=’? ai?ai-’:?‘ai?‘o"‘o =? ?: o-i?oa?" " :?j?

B-i

,(1) B -g

l

??? ?W g? m?‘aa’) ‘?,o pm?a?’?,= ffiE ?=c ??o =: o,

O m -ffi

air

(3p %V Q

5m @ ?p

tu - gO

J:,CC-

?() =. 2 ’ 2 ,’ (/)ffi, .!" ‘, 5= a m -=

0 - ;’

t:a:: :l

–C,

g) a C

e Cl) w -" -= 0 0–

a.l

? 2 0 J:

(/)

P,E) i Lul U)l

01 Li

)i Cll

U)l U)i

.:5.c Oaa) 5:n

<Da;a @5oi

cl-y .c? @? ()a)a) Oa)a) (/)0’-

v7a4

a’ -S? e

CL m z

a) S

5- -

117 c uJ

E E

sst

O c o :;

m as

11 Ni

-5 m

0 n C m o m c art

u.l

5i Wl U)i

art (Q m € o

a)l €l

)

LLII ffi

o 14-

o o

01 n c )

! (/) C

<.)l

H €/)l

Zl Sl Wl

Cj) )% m

Sl it

a:ll )i

s S a+ U)

Cil Lul Sl

51 21 uJ S

< Cl

< ci 2 Lu

O <

ffi

l

iiii

yi yl

iiii

a51 €l

Z )

01 2

m ‘o C

-hJ

h.>

,i< 0’i.,

rT1 ff

5§ o

y2 !g

<S “’= G< E O

€ o O ce

o L

€L Lu

z CL

Page 44 of 79

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Classification: Parks and Recreation

Subject: Playground Equipment Funding Policy

Approved: Aprfi 3rd, 2012 ?

The Mnuicjpality wul provide safe recreational opportguiities to chfldren and provide funding to enhanee or replace existing playgrounds [ocated throughout the Municipauty as weu as, develop new playground opportunities when deemed appropriate and neeegsary. General Provisions

The South Frontenac Recreation Committee (SFRC) s@y budget annuauy for the potential

replaeement and or expansion of play struetures.

Property on which the playground is situated must be pubnc property owned by the munictpalit)a.

Couneu wffl make provision in its Annual Operating budget for the maintenance of playgrounds. Request for Funding

Local district recremtion committees may make recommendations to enhance, replace or instau playground structures to SFRC. SFRC wfll consider such requests and incorporate their recommendations into their annual budget submission, Couneil may approve such recommendations, inc?ndinp expanded requests supported by pubuc contributions, during their budget deliberaffons.

The fundhig request must be in writing and mnst inclnde the fouowing:

The name and address of the community partner(s)
A proposal oufflning the type of recreation facuity being proposed
The purpose of the funds requested
The total cost of the project
Amoiuit of funds requemd from the muntcipauty.

Page 45 of 79

Funding Provisions:

Where the public requests expanded structures beyond the recommended structure she of the municipality, public contribuUon wul be required.

Township procurement pouey wul be adhered to for the purchase and instauation of such structures.

Invoices wfll be paid up to the amount of the funds approved by Councu.

All fundraising revenues wrill be gubmitted to the municipality who wffl be respongib1e for

payment of all invoiees for the project.

Pubuc contributions do not inelude funding obtained from other levels of government.

Projects reeeiving funding under this Pouey wffl not qualify for funding under other grant

programs of the municipauty.

sr-kind contributions wm also be recognized for purposes of this Policy. In-kind contribntjous include the donation of time for equipment used, or for labor priced at the rate of minimum wage time the munber of hours of labor donated. These tn-kind contributions may be iuclnded as public contributions.

Special Provisions

In the event of an unanticipated 1088 of a play structure, in which the play strueture is deemed cruciai to the recreational activity of children, an urgent purchase would be considered by Councu subject to both budget and procurement poucy.

/n,K’i> A’N64 i %’ -

Agesla [tem g

!i!JJ! i ii

Pagdl ?

TOWNSHlPOFSOUTHFROffiENAC RESOL UTION

ResolutionNo.20l2: , l,Q-*$ Moved by:

4A&

Seg>nderl by:

Date: April 3’, 2022

That Counoil a&pt the Playground Equ?ent Punding Policy as pmsented at the April 3’,2012 Counml’Meeting,

CARRIED MAYOR

DEFEATED

DEFERRED

I certify that tbis ts a tue copy of No.???.. Dated

and approved at

CIERK-ADMINISTRATOR RECORDED VOTES TN M

Page 46 of 79

J. Md)ougall A. MaPhail C. Naish B. Robinson

D. Stowe M. Tinli R. Vandewal

L. York G.Dav

Page 47 of 79

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED:

January 4, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

January 12, 2016

SUBJECT: Appointment of Council members to Committee of Adjustment RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: Council policy sets out the Committee of Adjustment/Land Division Committee as being comprised of 8 members – one Councillor from each District, and one noncouncillor from each District. The Planning Act requires that any non-council members of the Committee serve for the term of Council, but that Council members of the Committee be appointed annually. Current Committee of Adjustment:

Bedford Loughborough Portland Storrington

Citizen (4yr term) David Hahn John Sherbino Larry Redden Ken Gee

Councillor (1yr term) Pat Barr Mark Schjerning Bill Robinson Ron Sleeth

The bylaw to appoint Councillors is scheduled for January 19, 2016. Staff are looking for direction as to whether the current Council members are interested in remaining on the committee or whether there will be changes.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 48 of 79

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 12, 2016 Date of Report: January 4, 2016 Subject: Site Plan Amendment for Pit Operation, Part Lot 8, Concession I, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac: Fitzgerald Quarry

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 4, 2016 for information.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee information about a proposal to amend the site plan agreement for a pit operation to permit deeper extraction of the aggregate material.

Background By letter dated November 26, 2015 from MHBC Planning, the Township of South Frontenac was notified of an application by Lafarge Canada Inc. for a site plan amendment on its Fitzgerald Pit operation. Lafarge has a licence with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to extract material from the site. The site plan amendment application is being made to the ministry to permit excavation of aggregate deeper into the ground below the water table. The current site plan, approved in 1995, limits excavation only to areas above the water table. Attachment #1 shows the location of the 95 acre subject land and Attachment #2 is an air photo indicating the area of the subject land being excavated. Attachment #3 is a copy of the November 26, 2015 letter.

Discussion The subject land is designated ‘Mineral Aggregate’ in the Official Plan and is zoned Pit ’A’ in the zoning by-law. Thus, the use of the land for the aggregate extraction is permitted in both Township documents. As noted in the letter, a hydrogeological report was prepared to justify the deeper excavation. This report notes that all existing neighbouring wells are a good distance away from the site (approximately 500 metres) and that the potable water bearing zones of the wells are well below the depth of the final excavated pit floor and, thus, the activity is not expected to impact the wells nor is it anticipated to affect the creeks observed on the site. The MHBC Planner has advised that the footprint of the excavated area will not increase and the amount of material taken out per year will not increase. The proposal is only to excavate deeper into the ground. The setbacks, treed areas and buffers that are shown on Attachment #3 will remain unaltered. Attachment #4 is an excerpt from the report which illustrates the depth of the proposed excavation. The Aggregate Resources Act requires that a public meeting be held to notify neighbours of the proposed site plan amendment. This meeting was held on December 16, 2015 and was attended by approximately 25 members of the public. Stephan Duerst, the property owner abutting the subject land on the east (see attachment #3), had planned to establish a sculpture studio and yoga centre on their 60 acre property. The haul route for the aggregate operation, however, is a rightof-way through his land (shown on Attachment #3) and he is concerned that this continued use will adversely affect his plans for his property. However, as the MHBC Planner advised, the operation is not proposed to be expanded – only continued. Any comments on this application must be provided in writing to the MNRF Kingston Area Office by January 25, 2106.

Recommendation This report is submitted for the Committee’s information. attachments FitzgeraldQuarryReportToCofW

Page 49 of 79

Attachment #1 i m

-@- Barrel(Pond WhiLe Lake

<) 46 <(

,o%‘0

oTh

o! + ,,<(e 4<2 ‘( Cl

A# S

SubjectLand , % ,ogN #d’ 7 (

‘O

‘6

,16 %)‘Thirly lsland Lake

MCNICHOLS LANE

j-IILL, . , . /

BROOKS

at X

,,,e

% %

,,,x6 r

o Y

Meters

0 140280 560 840 1120

Tahirleem island La e Q

–

Page 50 of 79

Attachment #2

W-fa'7 /

‘,,

-j

‘(

€-

‘(

r’:,

‘j r

S .1

r! ,.?

}

j t

P ffi

‘r

€

l l

‘j

l l

s i

? I’!

m’

‘I r

‘,, 4

’lr

I -J

11’

a d

l’

&’ m.

L .*

‘Q

bX i

4 l

!’!‘1

a a

‘Y ?’

/ m?

111 Th

w?/ :#-

f ‘ffi

‘(

’d

il 11

‘j

r m

1 ad’l

db4” ?

lli

I a

ii’l

Th1

L’ w

k’ v *

tlk

f I

-l

N Jk.

& l

%-l %

k.%

a i:i 7

:d r

i *

ki’! 61

l*?i .1

‘!

k l

%l 7’ l

il J

“j

’l r

Q #: !i ffi

l’ r

{?.

r’:w

W!T-

[.1 }l

4 k

? 7 /

‘?

JJ F-’l

P-0&

r"r

r la

m ?1 lm

‘;h?

l’a!

s *

V v?

.‘J

€

A P

< s

I’

1 j

il l

‘Q

r 1

%. %

je-

P’l

‘. %

-1

‘]

l?q

k g

nTh

b’

’l

‘1

}

r L

??l

ffi

r’

Meters

a200 300 400

0 50 100 &

‘!A

1 l

Page 51 of 79

A’TTACHMENT #3 t sImEW i Niu I m i t i I lf g e s

R gi f

KITCHENER

mm ! a! m!

WOODBRIDGE

LONDON

lsig 4 fl Jmg3 g i a 1,!lJJ m

KINGSTON

jYa<[EJ !i 3i ] h ]In b

BARRIE

m m m m sms

BY PE!RSONAL DELIVERY

November 26, 2015

Wayne Orr, CAO Township of South Frontenac p.o. Box 100, Sydenham ON KOH 2T0 DearSir: RE:

LAFARGE CANADA ‘FITZGERALD PIT’ - ‘BELOW WATER’ SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, COUNTY OF FRONTENAC - OUR FILE ‘9526 GE’

Lafarge Canada Inc. is making application to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) for

a Site Plan Amendment (SPA) to its Fitzgerald Pit operation, Licence ID 5058, in South Frontenac Twp. (Bedford District). The site is Iocated at Part Lot 8, Conc. 1, in the geographic township of Bedford. The SPA is to permit the excavation of aggregate from below the water table. The current site plan, approved in 1995, Iimits excavation to above the water table only. MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC Planning) has beeri retained by Lafarge to act on its behalf in the application process.

In accordance with MNRF Procedures for a ‘below water’ SPA, please find enclosed: Revised Site Plan, MHBC Planning (Nov. 2015) - see Tab A; *

Level I Hydrogeological Assessme?nt, Malroz Engineering (Nov. 18, 2015) - see Tab B; and, Proposal Notice for a Site Plan Amendment and Public Information Session - see Tab C.

Pursuant to the Procedures, two report binders are provided so one may be kept for public review. The Proposal Notice contains information prescribed by MNRF. As indicated in the Notice, any comments to this application must be provided in writing to the MNRF Kingston Area Office by January 25, 2016. Note that this date represents an extension of two weeks beyond the normal comment period for this type of application. The Notice also outlines information of interest to the general public and it has been provided to landowners within 120 m of the site and will appear in a local newspaper. If you have any questions on this, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, MHBC Planning

,-A;’-

‘?

Amarjit S. Sandhu, B.Sc. (

c.c.

Rod Price, Lafarge Canada Inc. 1

10 DAVEY CRESCENT / KINGSTON / ONTARIO / K7N lX6 / T 613 384 7067 / F 613 384 8959 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM

.hssi

gm,

ATTACHMENT #4

Page 52 of 79

-wh?

& ?*

(?i

o o

(% (’

€ ?&

4 *

o e e

–?4 *-

*I a -%

C):

.5-i ‘5o OE

4% Th

G? i

u o

f W h

art -*

: i

o o m

o a

(!a

itl

’ !l’%”

@ * m a

-€/) IU-!: 111% ol-

o e tq

<fl

}l;

fl:lS x@

lL?

1 ‘,

.,i 32

i 11

‘i

aaal

,,2

2;; ;g OE

x a

e O

)

l11

Z o

‘ah< B

o o wi

)u>€;

ja.

2 0

‘*

o o

? Be, ‘a0 ?Zt’v

0’: ,O ()a <N

lk(l)

%4-

IIIC

Z'111!ui

:)z Ol-

o e

18 ?CL

:‘O k< 21/)

f o

a) 116

q’ -?? O(N

CLffi X(L

klJ)

C’)

o o

’s ?j’

B o

<’

-6

o o

€Q

a: Q

-l/l

(rr’u’

t+ 0 a:

U) (/)

‘y

W J

U m

114

Q? ?i

m (i

0,,

111 a. o

€n @;5Q.

e W

Q" <h’ O,’

.44

H M

O C

W w

o as

J Q

o. ;?

,.?4

C-s :D L (Efl

.4€D

:,:;3

kl J

- Cl i€J

‘;l i2 HOe

%ir:n

11 ‘i 1%

([:

i.l

Page 53 of 79

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 12, 2016

Planning Department

Report Date: January 8, 2016 Subject: Review of Ontario Bill 73: Smart Growth for Our Communities Act: Changes to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information the report dated January 8, 2016 from the Planning Department regarding ministry amendments to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring back to the Committee a review of the implications of Bill 73 – Changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act as they relate to developments in South Frontenac.

Background Approximately three years ago the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) announced Bill 73, the “Smart Growth for our Communities Act”, which introduces changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act, 1997. Bill 73 is the result of a formal public review of the land use planning and appeal system that took place near the end of 2013. The Bill received first reading before the Legislative Assembly on March 5, 2015 and was passed in the legislature and received Royal Assent on December 3, 2015. Most of the changes will come into effect on a day to be named by proclamation. Committee members may recall that the Planning Department brought a report to the Committee of the Whole on September 22, 2015 which gave a brief outline of the proposed changes as they specifically relate to the public consultation process for development proposals.

Discussion As explained on the ministry’s website, the legislation provides for enhanced tools and processes for communities and residents to determine how their neighbourhoods grow and to plan and pay for growth. The legislation aims to help municipalities recover more costs for growth-related infrastructure, give residents more input in how their communities grow, protect and promote greenspaces, enhance transparency and accountability, set clearer rules for land use planning, give municipalities more independence to take local decisions and make it easier to resolve disputes. Attachment 1 hereto is a list of examples of changes to the two Acts. The language in the documentation that accompanies the amendment to the two Acts reveals that the policy changes are GTA-centred referring to neighbourhoods and green spaces and even referring directly to the Toronto-York subway extension. However, the following is a review of some of the changes to the Acts which would directly affect how new development is reviewed in South Frontenac. Staff comments are included in bold type:

Development Charges Act

Councils shall ensure that a development charges background study is made available to the public at least 60 days prior to passing the development charge bylaw and until the by-law expires (ie., for 5 years) by posting the study on the website of the municipality.

Page 54 of 79 Staff Comment A background study is always required as the basis for any new development charge by-law that must be renewed every 5 years. Making the study more available to the public for review seems appropriate and may help resolve disputes from developers who question the rates. Making the document more available would not add appreciably to staff time. 2. Development charges are being tied in more directly with asset management. Now, asset management plans shall demonstrate that all assets are financially sustainable over their full life cycle. Staff Comment This requirement may help deal with and justify funding for new assets that may be required as a result of the many new developments coming forward in the Township – we may be able to fund new fire halls and emergency response facilities, for example. Planning Act 3. One of the changes to the Act would allow municipalities to create a community planning permit system to encourage public participation and which, once established, would not be subject to any appeals of private applications for five years. Under this change the ministry would make an order requiring a municipality to adopt a Development Permit System for certain purposes. The Development Permit System is a Planning tool that promotes development, enhances environmental protection and helps deal with matters of provincial priority such as brownfield redevelopment or community building. It is basically a combination Official Plan, zoning by-law and site plan developed for a specific area and it may be intended to develop a certain “look” or “theme” for an area. Development of these permit areas is undertaken by the municipality and requires a great deal of work and preparation. The use of development permits has been very limited in this area of the province since it was introduced into the Planning Act in 2005 but the system is used extensively in other areas. Bill 73 would allow municipalities to require “community planning permits” seemingly with the aim of encouraging them to be used more often. The Bill would also prohibit any changes to the new development permit area for 5 years. Staff Comment It is difficult to comment on this change because the reasons that the ministry would require a municipality to adopt a new DPS have not been included with Bill 73. As noted above, establishing development permit areas requires extensive work involving background studies and other work to be done up front. If the province is dictating that municipalities must develop development permit areas there is concern that our Township does not have the financial and staff resources for the undertaking.

Require municipalities to set out in their official plans how and when the public will be consulted on land use planning matters and to explain how public input affected its planning decisions. This would provide additional emphasis on public participation in plans of subdivision and consents. Municipalities could make a provision in their official plans to allow for alternative forms of public consultation such as a description of the public consultation procedures for Official Plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments and consents. Staff Comment Planning has no major concerns with including provisions in the Official Plan to describe alternative forms of consultation on these planning matters. However, there would be major concern with the requirement to include a description of the effect of all written and oral presentations on all development applications in the notice of decision. It should be noted that staff already cover this detail in reports to

Page 55 of 79 committee and Council. Notices already describe the decisions on development matters and include detailed descriptions of the procedures for appeal of the decision. Addressing each individual submission in the notice of decision would add considerably to its length, especially in complex applications that have undergone significant public input. If the notice is required to be placed in a local newspaper this added wording would add to costs to the Township. There seems to be no clarity on this and it remains to be seen what level of detail must be included in the notice. Better recording of minutes of public meetings may be required.

Provide municipalities with an additional 60 days to engage in alternative dispute resolution to resolve appeals prior to forwarding the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. Under this amendment, Council may refer appeals to an alternative dispute resolution before submitting the appeals to the OMB. Thus, upon receiving an appeal on a decision related to official plan or zoning by-law amendments or consents or subdivisions Councils may elect to refer the matter to mediation (for example) prior to forwarding the appeal on to the OMB. Staff Comment Staff have no real concerns over this scenario. The time period for submitting the appeal to the OMB would be extended from 15 days to 75 days. Any opportunity to resolve issues through other dispute resolution methods before preparing the OMB record or proceeding to a hearing could result in time and cost savings to the Township. It should be noted that, under the present process, mediation is always encouraged after the appeal is sent to the OMB. This mediation takes the form of a special meeting between all parties to come to a settlement agreement so that an actual hearing is not required. Thus, in either scenario, mediation is always an option to a full-blown hearing.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 8, 2016 for information. attachment Bill73ReportToCofW2

atraJiaatl #’/

Page 56 of 79

Some examples of important improvements to the development charges and planning systems introduced by the new Act include:

Increasing Funding for Growth-Related lnfrastructure by:

removing the mandatory 10 per cent discount required when levying a charge

for transit services

creating an authority to identify services for which a planned service level calculation would replace the historic 10 year average service level creating an authority to identify ineligible services exclusively through regulation (a commitment to bring forward regulatory changes to make waste diversion as a service for which development charges can be collected has

already been announced)

Enhancing Municipal Transparency by:

requiring detailed reporting for municipal collection of density bonusing and

parkland fees

changing the alternative parkland dedication rate for cash-in-Iieu payments to

incent the acquisition of physical parkland

requiring some municipalities, in consultation with school boards and the public, to prepare parks plans to help plan for parkland, greenspace, and park

facilities

requiring municipalities to reflect capital projects funded through development

charges in a detailed report

strengthening the language in relation to ‘voluntary payments’, not permitted

under the Development Charges Act

Increasing Predictability and Accountability by:

linking development charge background studies to municipal asset management planning

requiring development charges for individual buildings to be set as of the date an initial building permit is issued, and for development charges to be payable on that date (there is an exception for multi-phase developments)

Enhancing Citizen Engagement by: *

requiring explanation of how public input affected a municipal planning

decision *

@ *

ensuring consideration of public input at the municipal level by approval authorities and the Ontario Municipal Board requiring locally designed public consultation policies

facilitating the modernization of the giving of notice through additional methods (e.g. email)

increasing use and ensuring citizen membership on planning advisory committees

Increasing Certainty, Stability and Reducing Costs by: *

limiting requests for amendments to new official plans and/or new comprehensive zoning by-laws for 2 years after documents are approved, unless council authorizes the application(s) to proceed

providing regulation-making authority to limit requests for amendments to the renamed community planning permit system policy (official plan) and by-law for

Page 57 of 79

s years after documents are approved, unless council authorizes the application(s) to proceed *

removing the ability to apply for a minor variance for 2 years after a site specific rezoning, unless council authorize the application(s) to proceed limiting approvals and appeals of lower-tier official plans, unless in conformity with upper-tier plans

removing requirements to review employment land policies

Resolving Disputes, Improving Local Decision-Making and Accountability by: allowing time to be added to planning decision timelines to resolve disputes *

prior to appeals (90-day “timeout”) *

restricting appeals of specific provincially-approved matters (e.g. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved source water protection boundaries)

removing appeal of second unit residential policies at official plan updates

requiring clearer reasons for appeals

removing the ability to appeal entire new official plans

providing enhanced opportunities for alternative dispute resolution

A copy of the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2C)15 can be viewed online at: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills detail.do?BilllD=3l76.

Please visit the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s website periodically for further updates: ontario.ca/municipalaffairsandhousing.

If you have any questions related to the Planning Act, please contact Luke Fraser at (416) 585-6088 or send an e-mail to PlanningConsultation@,ontario.ca. If you have any questions related to the Development Charges Act, 1997, please contact John Ballantine at (416) 585-6348 or send an e-mail to DCAConsultation@,ontario.ca.

l would also like to take this opportunity to thank municipalities for your efforts, input and advice in helping us to reform the Iand use planning system. Sincerely,

y. yHHm % Kate Manson-Smith

Assistant Deputy Minister

Page 58 of 79

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 12, 2016 Date of Report: January 5, 2016 Subject: Proposed Plan Of Condominium:, Part Lots 15, 16 & 17, Concession IX, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac: Shield Shores

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 5, 2016 for information regarding a proposed 18 unit plan of condominium development.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee information about a proposal to develop a parcel of land into a vacant land condominium.

Background Property-owner Barry Campbell has brought forward a proposal to develop an 81 acre parcel of land in Storrington District into a residential plan of condominium. The development would comprise 18 residential units (or lots) to be accessed by a newlyconstructed private lane. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject land. All of the units in the development would be at least 1 hectare (2.5 ac.) in size and would have a minimum of 76 metres (250 ft.) of frontage on the new lane. Six of the units would have waterfrontage on Dog Lake and each of these would have a minimum waterfrontage of 91 metres (300 ft.). A private park (common element) is proposed in the northwest portion of the development and two common element blocks of land are proposed at the waterfront to facilitate water access for all of the non-waterfront residences in the development. As on all rural lots in the Township, each unit would be serviced by a private well and septic system. Attachment #2 shows the layout of the proposed development and Attachment #3 is a chart listing the size and frontages of each proposed unit. As shown on Attachment #2, there are two existing residential waterfont lots encompassed within the subject land accessed by an existing lane off of Wellington Street. It should be noted that their access is to be maintained and enhanced by the proposed development. At this point in time the proposal has been discussed with Township staff and has undergone a pre-consultation at the County of Frontenac with all commenting agencies in attendance. Also, the following studies have now been completed or are still being undertaken in support of the proposal:

a hydrogeological study and terrain analysis, an archaeological study a planning analysis, an environmental impact study a stormwater management study a traffic impact study.

The owner has not yet submitted a formal plan of condominium application to the County.

Discussion The land is located 1.2 kilometres east of the Village of Battersea near the end of Wellington Street and is approximately 32.8 hectares (81 ac.) in size. It is bounded by Wellington Street in the south, Dog Lake in the east, an unopened road allowance and open farmland on the north and farmland on the west. The land is extremely hilly (in fact

Page 59 of 79 the upland portion of the property defines the southern edge of the Canadian Shield) and is elevated well above the surface of Dog Lake. Accordingly, the proposed new lane tends to follow along the existing contours of the slope. The land is designated ‘Rural’ in the Official Plan. The Plan allows for residential development in the rural areas especially at the waterfront and preferably by way of a plan of subdivision or condominium. The layout appears to be consistent with the intent of the Plan to permit only low-density development at the lakefronts with private servicing. The land is zoned Rural (RU) in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The zoning by-law will need to be amended to permit the residential uses as proposed. Attachment #4 is copies of two letters (undated) recently sent from the owner to adjacent land-owners and Councillors explaining the rationale for and details of the development.

Recommendation This report is submitted for the Committee’s information. attachments ShieldShoresReportToCofW

Page 60 of 79

Page 61 of 79

Attachment #2 . BATTERSEAROAD -’ W-E N S

Unit12

Unit 14 Unit 13

Common Unit9

UnitlO

Unit18

Existing Unit16

Unit11

Elemem Unit 15

Unit7

House

Unit 8

Unit6 Block2l

Unit 17 Unit 5

Unit4

oogtahe

Existing

House Common Element

Unit3 Unit 1

ToBe

Retained

Unit2

,,…….. .- … D o g L a k e

Meters

0 30 60 120 180 240

Page 62 of 79

ATTACHMENT #3

!!?;

i t w?

BLK 20

l l l l l t l l I l f l L r l l l l ]

BLK 21

llll

k h

lla’l IIJ

[

I 0&&

lTh

k’

92 l

l l l l I l l l

153

l l

76 82

1/l

i 40

110 go 88 81

106 76 76

BLK 22

l I

23( ROAD-1)

TOTAL UNlTs 1-18

l’+r’W’)/ l.J:l

<rl lnMl(2 $1’!Wl 111/‘fW

1.47,

3-63?

“-=l.

2.52

a 1.11? losl ? Q Q31 1.331 Q 1.541 10062.58 1.011 igsza.’:ya i.gg( ? 15388..20, 1.541 , 11082,73J 1.111 4

124 “i:

ias 138

134’ ?

102

1338969

1.7287.38 1.74 . 14197.51

1.42

. {’ :?aigs.6q -? ‘i 13114.28 . 1.31, T 18385.67 1.84 l ;>isgs.sJ7

Jql 2303.13

l 311447 li l oss.m-;r’l’ l

A.rl

/..//l

3.001

g.,>4

3.811 i 4.911 3.801 ?? 3.311 i :i.s.tl 3.261 ‘4 4. 540

5.361 3.651 0.571 l

4111

-i rr*i

n ‘141

ririsl %J..l

n’

?-l

0.121

/ /n I??A’:>%

2.70,

6.671

rail’

ya’+.Jll

0.68

759501.45

25.95

64.101

328671.06

32.87

? &. 11 0

-+ n 177

0.23

184

1 l

AR? %

RoadFronta e m ShorelineFrontaye(m)l AREA(mz)

UNIT

ffi

TOTAL AREA l

Page 63 of 79

ATTACHMENT #4 Greetings,

Please find attached a draft plan of a development proposal which will be brought forvvard in the near future. l am the owner and overseeing the development. It is being brought to the early attention of neighbours and other potentially interested persons for information purposes. The proposal is still being worked on and will likely be revised over time, but any comments or suggestions you now have are welcome. Before any development can proceed, it must be reviewed by County and Township staff and Councils and other regulatory agencies and be supported by a number ofindependent, professional reports. There will be a formal public meeting and an opportunity to review the reports. The purpose of this correspondence is simply to provide some advance information and to solicit comments and suggestions. PROPOSAL

The proposal is for a Iow density, Iarge Iot, residential vacant Iand condominium. A vacant land

condominium is a development where units of Iand are individually owned (Iike traditional building lots) and other parcels of Iand known as common elements are commonly owned. Houses are built by the unit owners according to normal Township rules and any condominium restrictions. The plan is for 18 residential units and some commonly owned parkland and roads. Each unit is at Ieast two and one half acres, and the averag,e is over three and one half acres. Six of the units have waterfrontage on Dog Lake, all at least 91 metres. Each unit has frontage on one of two privately maintained roads. The roads will meet or exceed Township standards. All units would be serviced by private wells and septic beds. A large open space park Iand connected by walking trails is proposerJ for the north west corner of the property. Two shared waterfront access sites are planned. No dock or boat launch is proposed for either of these. The tentative name for the development is ?Shield Shores? to reflect its topography and location within the Frontenac Axis section of the Canadian Shield. SITE DESCR?PTION

The land is approximately 81 acres and is bordered by Wellington Street to the south, Dog Lake to the east, an unopened road allowance and farmland to the north and farmland to the west. There is an existing gravel lane off Wellington Street leading to two private residences. These residences will continue and do not form part of the condominium, although they would benefit from improvement of the laneway. The terrain is typical of Canadian Shield land with rock outcroppings, ridges, low Iands and forest cover.

There is more than 700 metres of waterfrontage. Notably, the shoreline is not natural as it was flooded when the Rideau Canal was created some 150 years ago. The original shoreline was some distance out into Dog Lake. The northern portion of the shoreline is significantly elevated, providing great views of the lake, but difficult access to it.

Historical records indicate that much of the land along the water in the middle of the property was farm land for many years. A significant apple orchard existed, with many of the trees remaining, and much of the land was also apparently grazed by cattle. However, it has not been farmed for some time.

Page 64 of 79

At some point, Ontario Hydro had hydro towers running through the land, which have been removed. The clearing of Iand for these towers is evident from Google Earth images. STUDIES AND REPORTS

Bringing forward a development proposal takes considerable time and effort since various levels of government and regulatory agencies impose extensive restrictions and obligations before any application will be considered. At present, the following studies/work/reports have either been completed or are in the process of being completed: test wells, hydrogeological study, septic test pits and terrain analysis, archaeological study, planning analysis, environmental impact study, stormwater management study, traffic impact study, legal work, civil engineering work and surveying work. Most of these studies are not completed yet and it is not possible to tell what these independent professionals will conclude, but based on preliminary discussions, there do not appear to be obvious planning or policy obstacles. However, most of the reports deal with complicated issues offering no clear conclusions so it is not unlikely that some matters will generate questions requiring further studies and work.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OBJECTIONS AND SUPPORT

Anybody with any questions, comments or concerns about this proposal is inVited to contact me and l will do what l can to answer them. If there are suggestions for improving the development, please send them along.

It is recognized that new development is often Iooked upon skeptically by existing neighbours and others for reasons both good and bad. There is often a general fear of change without any expectation of potential benefit. Concerns about changing the character of the area, the environmental impact, property values, overcrowding and the types of people who might move in are sometimes raised. Such concerns almost always have some validity to them, but they are often exaBgerated. This proposal is low density with larger Iots than most nearby residences. It is on land which is already used residentially and which has been subject to significant human impact in a variety of ways for decades. It is expected to attract people who Iike the existing neighbourhood and environment much the way it is, who might add to it and perhaps make great neighbours.

Interestingly, developments rarely receive much support when they are initially proposed. This is understandable since the biggest beneficiaries of an approved development are the future residents of it, and they do not know who they are. There is a benefit to each Township resident of the increased tax base, but this is relatively small. Nevertheless, it is hoped that neighbours can overcome any natural skepticism of this proposal for the benefit of others who might wish the same opportunity to live in this area.

E3arry Campbell November 2015

shieldshores@gmail.com

Page 65 of 79

RE: NEW SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

l am the proponent of a new vacant land condominium development near Battersea. A formal application will be submitted shortly and the proposal will be presented at a meeting of the Committee of the Whole in the near future. Councilors and others are being contacted at this time to seek any input that would be beneficial. I am also making myself available for discussions or to answer questions about the development, now or as the process moves forward. Neighbours are being contacted in a similar way to inform them and to seek any early comments. The difficulties Council, the County, developers, the community and the different regulatory agencies and staff have had with recent subdivision applications have been noted, and it would be preferable to do what is possible in the early stages to make things work in a smoother and more sensible way in the Iong run. PROPOSAL

The proposal is for a low density, large lot, residential vacant land condominium. A draft of the plan is attached. Eighteen residential units, two private lanes and some common element parkland are proposed. Each unit is at Ieast two and one half acres, and the average is over three and one half acres. Six of the units have waterfrontage on Dog Lake, all at least 91 metres. Each unit has at least 76 metres frontage on one of two privately maintained lanes. All units would be serviced by private wells and septic beds. The tentative name for the development is “Shield Shores” to reflect its topography and location within the Frontenac Axis section of the Canadian Shield.

Consultations with the Township and County Planning Departments, the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and others have been held. The following studies/work/reports have either been completed or are in the process of being completed: test wells, hydrogeological study, septic test pits and terrain analysis, archaeological study, planning analysis, environmental impact study, stormwater management study, traffic impact study, Iegal work, civil engineering work and surveying work. Some of these studies are not completed yet, but based on preliminary discussions, there do not appear to be obvious planning or policy obstacles. SITE DESCRIPTION

The land is approximately 81 acres and is bordered by Wellington Street to the south, Dog Lake to the east, an unopened road allowance and farmland to the north and farmland to the west. There is an existing gravel lane off Wellington Street which also serves as a right of way to two private residences. These residences will continue and do not form part of the condominium. The terrain is typical of Canadian Shield land with rock outcroppings, ridges, Iow lands and forest cover.

There is more than 700 metres of waterfrontaHe. Notably, the shoreline is not natural as it was flooded when the Rideau Canal was created some 150 years ago. The northern portion of the shoreline is significantly elevated, providing great views of the lake, but difficult access to it.

Page 66 of 79

Historical records indicate that much of the land along the water in the middle of the property was farmed for many years. A significant apple orchard existed, with many of the trees remaining, and much of the land was apparently grazed by cattle. However, it has not been farmed for some time.

At some point, Ontario Hydro had hydro towers running through the Iand, which have been removed. The clearing of land for these towers is evident from Google Earth images. NOTES AND POSSIBLE ISSUES

It is hard to foresee which, if any, issues might cause concern about this proposal, but here are some possible ones:

The laneway into the property off Wellington Street starts with a steep hill. This would require a significant amount of work to make the road suitable for its intended use.
There is a parcel of land labelled ?To be severed? and another one “To be retained”. The

severed parcel has been conditionally approved for severance. It is proposed that the retained parcel be an independent parcel of land outside the condominium plan, since its best access is from the laneway between it and the severed land, and it should not be responsible for condominium expenses covering the common road.

The waterfrontage for Unit 1 and Block 19 is part of a bay with privately owned parcels of land on both sides. There are provisions requiring more waterfront when the water is shallow and/or the waterway is narrow. However, this is a pre-existing piece of waterfront which cannot be made wider. An alternative could be to add the waterfront of Unit 1 to Block 19 as common parkland, but this might provide a worse result.
There are two common element water access units proposed, Blocks 19 and 21, neither of which would have a dock or boat launch. The intent of these of course is to provide the non-

waterfront unit owners some opportunity to enjoy the lake. There were no ideal spots for such sites unfortunately and regulations, restrictions and anticipated opposition made proposing a common dock problematic. Block 19 is in a fairly shallow bay so any motorized watercraft other than a small motor boat is unlikely to work. It would be mainly a place to enjoy the ambience of the lake and/or to launch kayak/canoe type watercraft. Block 21 has more potential uses, but without a dock, the use it receives should not be that intensive. The result is that shared waterfront access ends up being available, but not spectacular, which should lead to it being gently used.

s. MNR mapping shows four ?watercourses” on the property. The watercourses on Block 20 and 4,d no development is Unit 3/Block 19 are not Iarge but are the more substantial of the four a4fd air planned near these. The other two watercourses are much smaller, and in fact the one crossing units 8 and 9 was dry for many months this year. Nevertheless, the Conservation Authority regulations apply a standard 30 metre setback to all watercourses regardless of whether they are a mile deep or there is any water in them at all. There is a provision for reduced setbacks when appropriate professional opinion can show that there is no risk of flooding or other harm, and an engineer has been asked to provide an opinion justifying a reduced setback accordingly.

Page 67 of 79

Much of the land has steep topography. This has the benefit of providing a great Iooking landscape, but practically it reduced the amount of land available for the placement of roads and the building of houses. The roads and lot lines were placed as much as possible to work with the existing landscape. The availability of an appropriate spot on each unit for a house and a septic system was considered.
The two existing houses each have a right of way over parts of the laneway. The house shown

as “Existing House 1” has a 20 foot right of way from Wellington Street to the end of its property along the existing Ianeway. As the condominium road is proposed to follow this Ianeway as far as this house, there should be no effect other than these residents will have the benefit of an

upgraded road. “Existing House 2” follows the same right of way to the end of its property. If the development goes ahead, discussions will be had with this owner about the possibility of her releasing the right of way in exchange for the right to use the new condominium road. If agreement is reached, then the right of way over units 6 and 8 would be terminated. This result would align better with regulations discouraging Ianeways being near the water. If no agreement is reached, this right of way will remain open and houses will have to be placed with this taken into account. It is important that the plan be able to work either way and that the existing home owner be able to freely choose what is best for her.

There are presently 29 listed species at risk in the Frontenac region. Not surprisingly, at least one of these, the Gray Ratsnake (aka black ratsnake) has been seen on the property, although not for several months. It is anticipated that the implications of this will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, possibly recommending some follow up study and restrictions to protect any hibernacula.

It has been suggested that opposition to this development will inevitably arise from both immediate neighbours and people opposed to development in general. Somewhere in the many rules that apply, there will be a provision that can be relied upon to demand extra expense, hardship or delay to be imposed or to reject the plan completely. Councilors are probably aware of this better than anybody. This is a low density development, on land already used residentially, without a natural shoreline, which has already been subject to significant human impact which complies with most or all of the standard minimums set out in the Official Plan and zoning requirements. During the review of this proposal, when some question is raised about some possibly less than absolutely perfect compliance with one of the rules, it is hoped that balance will be applied in deciding whether this is a good development which should be supported, or whether it should be discouraged because it is not a perfect development which everybody is happy with but otherwise will never exist.

If anybody has any questions, comments, or suggestions for improvement, please send them along. If helpful, l would be happy to meet with Councilors or others to review things. This can be at the property or elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration. Barry Campbell

shieldshores@gmail.com

613 545 0393

613 893 0393 (cell)

Page 68 of 79

Frontenac: Chief Administrative Officers Committee Shared Services Report Card December 2015 Service Area • Human Resources

•

Planning

• • •

Corporate Communications Council Coordination Finance

Economic Development

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Emergency Planning Information Technology and G.I.S.

• • • • •

Discussion Limited discussion to date – staffing changes at South Frontenac and the County. Continue sharing resources on an ad hoc basis for health and safety and policy development. Re-visit when staffing is in place. Limited discussion to date. Continued resource sharing for day to day planning with Frontenac Islands, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac. Re-visit when County staffing are in place. Limited discussion to date. Continued sharing resources on an ad hoc basis for media related issues. Data sharing, communications and website integration/cooperation will be possible under the shared I.S. model being implemented. Implemented. Ongoing sharing/cooperation as required. Treasurers to meet post 2016 Budget approvals to review opportunities. Implementation of shared I.S. systems will enable shared services/backup/efficiency in the delivery of financial services. Currently under budget review at County Economic Development Charter developed to select themes. Work priorities by municipality being reviewed for submission to RED. Shared G.I.S. platform/support will improve service delivery for all municipalities. Joint meetings, training and resource sharing continuing. Agreement approved. Shared/integrated I.S. systems will enable other technologically dependent services to be shared. Implementation target Jan 2016. Service level agreement to be developed in 2016.

Other:

Public Works Managers to continue to review further opportunities to share resources, including: a. Landfill operations b. Road Maintenance c. Procurement

Page 69 of 79

INFORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: January 7, 2016 AGENDA DATE:

January 12, 2016

SUBJECT: Items from 2016 BUDGET Discussions BACKGROUND: During the 2016 Budget Discussions the following items were raised warranting additional information. The items are:

Winter Maintenance Contracts
Tipping Fee Analysis from Portland Waste Disposal Site (WDS) Scales
Scrap metal revenue from waste sites
Duration of Loughborough Waste Disposal Site (WDS) Contract
Cleaning of Storrington Centre
Automated Vehicle Locating (AVL)
Plastics Baler ANALYSIS: Winter Maintenance Contracts The Arterial road contracts expire at the end of the 2017/18 winter season. The Township has the option of 2 – (1) year extensions. Tipping Fee Analysis Weigh Scales were installed at the Portland Waste Disposal Site last summer. Calibration and installation of the various features of this system, including proximity cards for Township and contractor vehicles, became fully operational last month. It will take a good year of data to provide an informed analysis of the various types and quantities of waste delivered to the Portland Site. Scrap Metal The current, and long standing, arrangements for scrap metal revenue are that the contractor who hauls the scrap metal from the waste site receives the revenue. Loughborough Waste Disposal Site The current arrangement with the operator of the Loughborough Waste Disposal Site is a one year contract effective May 1, 2013. This has continued on a month by month basis since. Storrington Centre Cleaning The Storrington Centre Janitorial Services has not been tendered, not unlike all other Township facilities. Automated Vehicle Locating (AVL) The proposed AVL System is intended to be installed on approximately 60 Township owned vehicles and Arterial Road Contractor Plow Units. Township vehicles include:
5 tonnes and up
½ and ¾ tonnes
Loaders, Backhoes and Excavator

Page 70 of 79

INFORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Graders
Trackless and Roller
Garbage truck
Building Inspection vehicles

Submitted/approved by: Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

Page 71 of 79

speciat initiative for speciat adutts

A?\ud:1

I’

Noye’tnln-t” 2O75

DqrDovwr: At thp/ e,A"dt of ou.t 7* yeat, of ope,t at’uonu, a.Ad/ tvv vnpxnD{y of ou,t" fot und,i,trgO0.ertor o’ndz Pret,Ld,ent, tlwlatsDt.llowa’rdre. Svwitlu, tlvi*l,ettet" LywretrotpecttueowNen Le,a,f LtnHy (NeLL’v) p,.og4ew, wlhanL-yowfor d,ona.tinw rerp,i.tted’ i,vv 20L5, and’a,vv appenLto- nasu d,onorU we dtahopqLh^attlwpwlw Lwlva g,itvew i.zvtlwpa’tt wilL coytirute tttppol’tturg, NeLL goi’ng’ fo{w a,rdt i,at fu 2O 1- 6 .

fTv’plwtogaaplw t’vdd"ed’lwreframn’thi retrotpertLtte. Frotw itv Lywe+tLow )vv 2OO9 tc ptleva1t, NzLL habeelv y’t’ttai’netzby ttvvoh’v,ez. Board,,ofDfue(tory ( 3), Eyz,cufwe’(5), Me.dte.ry and,,AdNi,tory Cor,r’nr,il’ (+); prog.ratwpalfwipaatv (fi.otw + t’vv 2OO9 to 15 rega..da,r ottend.eei,yv20L5);progrwrwvoLntenrv(frotw2 tw2OO9 to wpooLof 9 atprerc,nt); fiA d{eLr{rryvoL,wtqry(Lh’iye.a’rthellarrottt’n4iflvWonp’vvyInttutqd,onated’tlwproceed.* of t1^“eir fa’h,tow thow enentto- NeLL!); wn,tr’ dAilry (llo,rrouttrwitlv Od"d{dlotsv ond’Relrcalv, Hat rotttvnitlvlilonefiylnttuta, Ord.e.r ofthe’foerwSta,v’f romtenaoChapter #9O, ?otaLand,, Coawvu nity Ca’rtng<, 1?.C. Legi,o-vvBra’vwlv496, St?atrtUyCaTl^bLLal’t)otne,yiy Lea&up, Sydzdwtw LLotw, q’n^d/thp’Wotn"o+ivTompe,ranrzltninru); ind'1vi^druol q ^d’l,o%l/Hqi.rene* i,yv thz Tou nah.ip of Sou.tlv f rortena,o q n"Wo{^d” Iw2Ol-5 NzLL ura’yfu{A^4wtsto’lnnefuf-rorwwnotmJ:e,r of gaaafu. VJe’q,rqnnotg.ratefi.tLto-th.et Unitd..lDay €rtlv’City ofrcinaatowfot wvna’jot g.rqnt Lvvtttuppffiof NelL’s,Mu]tt’-Cultu,raL lledLhal LtvtuW.?t oje<t. tTuigra’vrt tqpffieeknrn’ilW, about rtre-ba.aed,,c,odttu.ea,nd, healfh’y I’itving’ chDi,cp, andt ltpe,rvwitted’ cnwtwunity olrtLvtq’yto-pl^a{p* of c^^ltt^,t aL {,nte,t et. Iw ald’[tLow, thi ga.a,rf a4o,en4et/NeLL’t capactty to- ytuppoT"tthp’l^%.r^inq, of a"dn ittor,,al pqr.tir,ipa^ty a.’nd, vnoye typt og.ra4wto’ffie2fuil’y ol.slAorrowww(tlvf ree-mr,t1"ad"it Clw".clv. A frontetaoCotwrty g.rante’ndnzflNelL’v purdwze’of 6 LPad,a^d.’th^e’Sydnnha,tw LLo’yt’y npen’u’tpu".cha,e/q/+O-L^plvTv a,AfuLPq&a{,ceato{iz{or grotqlpal.wittq’. NzLL t alaa g4.atofi^LtathezToym"hfp of Soulh/Frofitenar/for w cnrwnomity g.ra’v,$to’boo*t ott,t, ouJine’ profilrzvia, wl>1,o9, owtlw NeLL wely *ito at www.ne,wl"eafr,hk-.cn’.

T’l,ersare re’verdtwa.yvtc tt +pottNeLL ywvt and’ Lwfu,h,vu ao.,Iry voluntez’rLvr4.orvb,’ {tla.‘rcLaLtupportW vnaill atthp’a^dtz’e*bd,oyt or onli’nezu+lng,theCana^d.a’lldpvhtttwv e,ywbedd,ed’ ixv o1M’ weU ytte,

Owl:elw).f ofLhp’NeLL cnar4,vvuntty I wouLd,.l,ikn’taw(*lvyow a,v’d’yott’t"vth,every lre,rt of thp’ te,a’row Ka’rt’nt G. Ste[,net", ?hD Exe.outiNeDLt erto-r

po Boxe HartingtonoN KoH 1wo rer.613-374-3451

WWW.newleaflink.Ca

Page 72 of 79 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales

Office of the Parliamentary Assistant

Bureau de l’adjoint parlementaire

th 77 Grenville Street, 11 Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 1B3 Tel: 416-326-3074 Fax: 416-326-3083

77, rue Grenville, 11e étage Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1B3 Tél.: 416-326-3074 Téléc.: 416-326-3083

December 16, 2015 Wayne Orr CAO Township of South Frontenac worr@township.southfrontenac.on.ca Dear Wayne Orr: I am writing to you regarding the recent release of our government’s report, 2015 Rural Roadmap: The Path Forward for Ontario. Building on the valuable input we have received from rural stakeholders this report outlines key government priorities and highlights the progress made in Ontario since the original report was issued in 2014. It also identifies additional initiatives impacting rural Ontario and sets the stage for ongoing consultations and engagement with rural Ontarians. Ontario is committed to creating conditions where the province’s rural municipalities, businesses and regional economies can grow and prosper. That is why Ontario is: 

Investing in infrastructure –, approximately $15 billion has been committed through the Moving Ontario forward Fund to support investments in roads, bridges, transit and other critical infrastructure in communities outside of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.



Improving rural health care- the Telehomecare Expansion Project is reducing the need for rural patients with chronic health conditions to travel to receive health care. The project helps patients manage their health using remote monitoring technology with the support of specially trained nurses. As of March 31, 2015, more than 5,000 patients with congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have benefited from the program.



Helping youth to develop skills for success - as part of Ontario’s renewed Youth Jobs Strategy, the new Youth Job Connection program offers paid pre-employment workshops, job placement opportunities and mentorship to youth between the ages of 15 and 29, who are unemployed, in school, or in training. The program also offers parttime after-school and summer job opportunities to high-school students between the ages of 15 and 18, facing challenging life circumstances. …/2

Ministry Headquarters: 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Bureau principal du ministère: 1 Stone Road West, Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2

Page 73 of 79 

Supporting Aboriginal people in rural Ontario - $25 million has been committed through the Aboriginal Economic Development Fund, to support Aboriginal businesses and communities over the next three years.

Thanks to the roadmap Ontario better understands how to provide rural communities with the tools they need to succeed. These tools help to support good jobs, attract investment, and ensure that rural Ontario continues to be a vital part of the Ontario economy. The 2015 Rural Roadmap report can be viewed online here: www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rural/roadmap.html Thank you for your contribution to this effort. Sincerely,

Original signed by

Arthur Potts Parliamentary Assistant

Good Things Grow in Ontario À bonne terre, bons produits

Ministry Headquarters: 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Bureau principal du ministère: 1 Stone Road West, Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2

fcC

^ti Onfano

has the power

WTi o i;ai

to Ifivestigats and resolve compiai^

complain;

aoout munhwfities, ^msUfes ar i scl^ol sbogsrds, ay of fuse dates:

;r.nnrcip^I:ty?

‘iU.l^lpU 1?V 3S

Customer service

Residents,

Conduct, of staff and/or councit menribers

ratepayers or

family members .

officials 7

. K^ V, .

Conflicts of interest

M unicipal staff, members of council or other

Services. Gaibage collection, snow removal, etc ^

Members of nterest groups

Municipally-owned utilities

Anyone with

Accouniability mechanisms (or lack thereof)

concern

Based on complaints received before Bill 8

Municipalities Universities School boards

Jan. 1,2016 Jan. 1,2016 Sept 1,2015 This new mandate is thanks to Bill 8, the new Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014.

It means we can help Ontarians who have problems with these bodies, just as we help them

with the 500+ provincial government organizations we oversee.

-yoi.na"e^c(..npi?-/… .

Have you already contacted the municipality about the problem? If not, we may refer you

f^Oi’y’hin^ hc^,; b-^n

back to the appropriate local officials. We can help if your issue isn’t resolved. Can you provide information about the issue and the steps you’ve taken (name of the municipality, officials you’ve dealt with, relevant documents, etc.}?

S3LL,^^

‘.

^/-

FiT’ \

Sr}^; “^ f” .-’*’^ 1-J

i4’.

..c; ycLir n^;p.

irlQ :*>

‘I

I 1 .* .-,

^Hl:0n

Li:i~c;-i ;TO\iC-.’,l::^\l:-!-^“i

You can review our complaint forms and information about the complaint process, our

work and Bill Son ourwebsite, or call to speak

to our staff for help.

Our services include referrals, complaint resolution, independent investigations of individual and systemic issues, and recommendations to improve government

administration, service and accountability.

; ’lwwewc’t<

We assess all complaints and refer them to

lid you know? .

wherever possible.

may attempt resolution and may contact the municipality for more information.

We ,‘u [ici r^piac^ -‘iyist’ii^ c^ip!dr:i. m^cnanisn’,:;: we

-0!v.L;UrXK;,i;.W’J,..,_,-:Er-GiT ,1

record 1,656 complaints about municipalities

If the Ombudsman makes recommendations,

the municipality will have a chance to respond before any report is made public.

The Ombudsman follows up on all recommendations to ensure they are implemented and have the desired effect.

Our office has experience with municipalities.

Since 2008, the Ombudsman has been the

closed meeting investigator fot about 200

municipalities across Ontario We have handled

hundreds of closed meeting complaints and issued scores of lepoits and publications promoting best practices for transparency and accountabdity in municfpal government

Page 74 of 79

^i’s1 TO ii,.y \ ^cr;< p^ tncy phou’d.”

Ombudsman received a

If an investigation is necessary, the municipality

will receive written notice and will be required to provide relevant information and documents.

SIX other ombudsmen in

Canada already oversee municipalities In 2014-2015, before Bill 8 was in effect, the

relevant local mechanisms for quick resolution

If local mechanisms are unsuccessful, we

^Jr-^.

,J"» <-r

0 Cmbudsman

1 he “-nbu'3sn^ is: An independent officer of the Ontario legislature A watchdog who resolves and investigates complaints about provincial government bodies

ONTARIO’S WATCHDOG

CHIEN DE GARDE DE L’ONTARIO

and municipalities, publicly funded universities

and school boards

An impartial investigator who makes recommendations to improve public services

An office of last resort that steps in when other

Complaints

Confidential: All investigations are conducted

about

complaint avenues hit a dead end

in private; complainants are not identified

without consent

Free af charge: No fees are charged to complainants

or to the organizations complained about

r “ff

t-ti

*1 .I.

Resolve individual complaints Investigate issues that cannot be resolved locally Conduct large-scale investigations into broad, systemic issues affecting large numbers of people (past examples-lottery security, property tax assessment, newborn screening. Hydro One billing) Require officials to co-operate with investigations and provide relevant evidence

Recommend changes to fix bureaucratic problems and improve governance, accountability and

transparency t *

air o,:

Overturn decisions of government bodies, including municipalities, universities or school boards

Issue penalties; his recommendations are not binding Investigate private corporations, decisions of

Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario

Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street/ 10th Floor/ South Tower Toronto, ON

courts, the federal government or municipal police

M5G 2C9

1-800-263-1830 www.ombudsman.on.ca

t ycr ^.*cw^ “Ombudsman” is Swedish

s

Twitter.com/0nt_0mbudsman

was created in Sweden

Facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman

The first ombudsman

in 1809 to help people bt ing their concerns to the government’s attention.

Page 75 of 79

for “citizen’s representative.”

www.ombudsman.on.ca . 1-800-263-1830

Page 76 of 79

Page 77 of 79

Page 78 of 79

Page 79 of 79

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC P.O. Box 100

4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario, KOH 2TO

Telephone 376-3027 / 1-800-559-5862 FAX (613) 376-6657 E-mail: W0tr@soutfafrontenac.net

December 16, 2015

Sophie Kiwala, MPP Kingston and the Islands 2-303 Bagot St Kingston ON K7K 5W7

Dear Ms. Kiwala:

At the December 15, 2015 meeting, Councillor Ron Sleeth provided an update on recent discussions with you about provincial funding for South Frontenac. He indicated that you had requested a copy of correspondence we received.

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated November 5, 2015 from Joel Locklin, Manager, Program Operations, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs regarding the second intake of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to an update on

any action taken. Yours sincerely, ^ r

a-y c

w :am End.

rVe Officer

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.