Committee of the Whole - 13 Oct 2015 - Agenda

Published October 13, 2015

Word Count 62032 words

Reading Time 292 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: October 13, 2015 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2015/Committee of the Whole - 13 Oct 2015 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session

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

Delegations

(a)

Bill Pedersen, re: Culverts on Desert Lake Causeway

(b)

Tony Matias Jr, re: Willowbrook Subdivision

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Revised Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan of Subdivision in Part of Lot 19,Concession II, Storrington Willowbrook Estates

3-7

(b)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: 2016 Capital Budget

8-9

(c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Procedural By-law

10 - 41

Reports for Information

(a)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Updates on Johnston Point and Hartington Developments

42 168

(b)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: PW-2015-11 Otter Lake Culvert Rehabilitation

169

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

Information Items

(a)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Letter to Canadian Solar and Suncor re: Collins Lake Solar Project

170

(b)

Brian D. Weaver, Provincial President, Royal Canadian Legion Certificate of Appreciation in support of Veterans in Ontario

171

(c)

Around the Rideau Newsletter - September/October 2015

172 173

Page 2 of 173

New Business

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

Page 3 of 173

PLANNING REPORT

Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole

Planning Department

Agenda Date: October 13, 2015

Report Date: October 7, 2015 Applicant: 1069823 0nt. Ltd. (Matias) Subject: Revised Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan of Subdivision in Part of Lot 19, Concession II, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac: Willowbrook Estates SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated October 7, 2015 regarding changes to the conditions of draft plan approval for the Willowbrook Estates plan of subdivision for information. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee proposed changes to the previously approved draft plan conditions for the Willowbrook Plan of Subdivision. The changes are need in order for the owner to proceed with the development in two phases instead of one phase. BACKGROUND

On August s, 2014 Council approved draft plan conditions for a sixteen lot residential ‘Plan of subdivision in Storrington District. The subdivision covers 27.79 hectares (68.6 ac.) of land with all proposed lots to be accessed by new internal roads (accessed from Perth Road) that would ultimately be dedicated to the Township. The proposal had been reviewed by the Committee of the Whole and Council on a number of occasions before approval was given. Attachment #l shows the location of the subject land and Attachment #2 depicts the final proposed development layout as originally approved. The developer has now requested that the draft plan conditions be changed so that the

development can come forward in two phases instead of one. Phase 1 would comprise seven lots and Phase 2 would have nine lots. According to the developer, this would allow him to create and develop the lots in Phase 1 before registering the lots in Phase 2. Thus, he would avoid paying taxes on the Phase 2 lots until he is ready to develop them at a future date. Attachment #3 is a sketch from the applicant showing the two phases of the

development and Attachment#4 is a surveyor’s depiction of the Phase 1 layout. ANALYSIS

The changes to the draft plan conditions mostly involve re-numbering of the lots. As shown on the revised plan on Attachment #3, there will be Lots 1 to 7 in Phase I and Lots l to 9 in Phase 2. The draft conditions will need to recognize this new numbering so that the specific conditions still apply to the appropriate plots of land. Also, there are othe

changes that must be made including the requirement for a temporary turning bulb at the end of Meadowland Drive as shown on Attachment #4. CONCLUSION

Staff must still finalize any additional details that must be included in the draft conditions and, once these are determined, the matter will be brought back to Council. The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee that the revisions are forthcoming. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills Prepared by: Lindsay Mills attachments MatiasRevisedDraftConditionsReportToCofW20 15

Page 4 of 173

ATTACHMENT#2

Page 5 of 173 ..l..<-/ a’ -)

WILLOWBROOK ESTATES

:::l

@ . ‘.J

/i’

Th..-4-

, ,:;""

.l?

..‘f

‘% ,,.J

:a0a’.’ l!A

i*??

!’!’

j =,?

-l

1, i;1,

t#mnml?

:<:,si

t)i.4’ , @’:??? ’ ? " ?" :

-…! l? >

?l 1

NOT 70 !iCAlj 1

“}

DRAFT PLAN

{’l Q ‘!1, S

X:l,i la)

‘1

PART OF LOTS 18 AND 19

CONCESSION ,2 AND F}ART OF BLOCK

LOT!5 18 AND 19

FORMERLY MuNlClPAL TWP OF

X S.

nOl

im l

,i,, l'0?-??/

,yk

SECTION 51(17) PLANNING ACT- INFORMATION

N ‘5i ‘1

ir X

A) !laJlll)A?IY OF LAND!i 11) K lulDlVIDD

,-’;11 l’l

, as ssov O% D!IAFT PlAN

D) I)MI8 ’m e! 181) nX RlEmlMNTIAl Nll’Bal

e- ‘( a{ (q .

B) D}fTINa..ANp..llffOPOa .ROADlllAYi: A! 910INN oN DRAII? ?!jm c) pn4n>pe2..so?aoaaox.i uyo;; A! IIHOW ON l)IIAFT PLA)i AN) m MAI

illl

/// ir

?’s

E) !lenNO urn Or ADJA(INT m Ai &ON 11111 bRWl I’LAN

// i

It.,

A! NaW O% 01}AFT PIAN

(

A! !HOW ON ORAn PLAN

H) PlllVATt WATEI! laLS ?O Bt PROVle i i

cJ!’

NT?

l?’-‘IW?”- - " -"" {401

ssaa

ILI2

41lalll

.T (’) ,T

’l ‘{’

l.N

??’-? J-

f7.?l

I(a00

}o (irepore and mubmlt thIs plan to South Frmsbnaa Townmhlp, hr r*vlew and approiial.

T= }

tr il

I(7al Onlada LTD. 0/A Tw@us LJrndhaldln@ h ?a@mwh{

l?’

%’l

/??

S I ON I D i? D A TEi

)1.

!i :;’

.- j

" .a/

‘,k

l:?

’l!: r’

7110 113)C ?

l;:f? a’ ? ?‘i

Ullll Ij

‘I09mlED tLfVAilOll Ial05

‘.1 -’

.u ,i( ;? 2?

dI llfJll!110 IIIW 1111 lllllllWaw fflllllllllll <- ? l%MM lllwww@ h?

, ll??Mwwwwd ljmwl? llwi hw ll lllffl a ??hmhw

%NI-

LECEJrl:

.?,l:Th 2;l il

810CX 17

‘)

, I,l

syk ’s,

I, Tony MaA’as, hwsby authorlz* Josselyi !nglnwliig

‘!,. ….* 12’

U ‘1,

OWNER’S CERTIFICATE

‘..

‘:,!,5’Q<>.;n.,’

‘-‘k

14 J

Iff Rml

; iLoTl3/?ji, .)‘i(i

-"= ?.’l

4!"

f:,(?:,+. 7.al ,a. ’l?’>I. -.a<,?a?,:

Xlll fflAIX ?Q

luXX 11

WTLANO 81110411

(? 11,

.-aa’l

tllNll) a+NDMY A? IY ta!OaAL aAiaAL l!lllllCa OATtl}

SITE DATA

Lllll7

ON ‘IIW ORAIT PLAN

(lablbll is

,,$11

ffil l!l! 0-llmii 0-llm OVFIIWUIIDDI l)l)’ ffil OVFIIWUIIDDIOla OlaaAY. aAY.‘IANO. 14 AN(l (IRAM ?llL a%tR 8FllllCXX .Q a)NmlRS F)IOW NOVEI?BER ‘20011 7DP€QlAPHll. si? e7,,mmw hti?a siiowi > DRAFT PtAN K) al!C!! AALla! lHCulDE H’ltllllll 1180 & AITtl!TINatMiaio LAN(l L)Rl:fflll:ThON€ p?c;ois?wyg;pha aaAm?mNN siow+i

.’.4

–j -?;

n a Mhw

m a l??t?

q hwhhw" llw*? ffii0a a hwhhw lwkl%i@ IE : llllww llhwww4 j?lllm A?l%li

@‘E.

? 71113: llms? film jk. 14M ffilaa Ilffll-88 ? 18-haM

IJI ?-111-11

m & Mlmw lk&& I? NI? lUl&

Ww@b@ hw? & 4N? &&J

SURVEX)FIS CERTIFICATE: l a5!PffT fa

1% l? 4 ky lwib l@ lwi ? ? ? @? v?bw4wsll t -

? ? fi?‘a? b tmm?

?s?f

ijj

i !& q , ‘! ‘T’P Qlt mi-’ i’-l & cHffim ii ‘-1"’l"nW

l –l….9 ll i l -qJ-J antw hw. ’ T-?al mi

al:u

] ? -v-=-x- w- fo 1

(g)r?tyn &iginw- ing Im* im WIIWIIII? ? ma nm?smaa’ i

W?iM ! M?a? o a a ? miataaazm jlWllim

I P’li -"?

Sunitywm l lz

l l “1

‘%-‘Jp(4

ti I lllm xrl V? 11

l ’l-

-jw-Pjf

i (l) NANRAL AHD AllTIFlmAL mTllla

ym3z a-..,

?a;l

:.,%l!1, ,: lj.*

i F) AI’M)0)alA?f DIMD)MMM m lAlteX/T P L@ffi 411 %hWN fIll P?IAIT 61 &u

mlllL 10

495h’yi? ‘=‘l

’l l

SCALE: 1 .-:1500

("‘S

DATE: JLINE 24 2014.

(aN!ATaAlPDI I’s !’.i:aa..

A!’?T fl!? l ? . rH,,r?; aaa

l)A?!D iUlli & ? ?*.a.X?..a j

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

‘Thd?llu

’ JA’

wum mmarr

wuawos lYffl

!5TORRIN(.TON

“l” < l’C.

‘- ..,,cor re

ROAD ALLOWANC:E BETWEEN

IJt llljllJ&l1l jWllT

. .j?

‘, z?} -<

OF SUBDMSION

bmm .ai l-l

:’l

J, '

..’:l::l:‘h

i,lJ :.)1,

‘sLANDS OMIED BY APPuCANT i:??,

,a-’, J’:”

?::S’-?

4? ?l

a’i

." l?l

}

lWe t tut

Ml-

P’i l’l Rli .’l -“IW 011

i+lllllett?l.lJ

‘1 k

R-.?

l’ffi l Mi lQliq

f?-T’T’

ilQ

?y%

i -’t

go>‘o

Page 6 of 173

aadimthd ‘J 4 PLAN

}

WILLOWBROOK ESTATES

11 -

-? ?i ‘A/?

h? ]’:)M??‘7?’:>/X??’?/ ??’/??"/I??a?a??J!

l.0?,’>l

.ri??a :‘Ji-7 ! ?i{ Z

l.:m?:i::]DiyxaluA

-X

).A

3-;. aa :.” (.4:.?,. .p:.:?

f f)r’

X l (?s Vl

80}’

:?h:

EXI!!ING % ELEVA{

l: W

‘j ‘q S

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

r’

S’l

PART OF LOTS 18 AND 19. ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 18 AND 19 FORMERLY MLINICIPAL TWP 01’ STORRINCTDN

< (<

‘%’}fli

BLOCK 1’

FRONTENAC DATE: SEPTEMEIER 19 2014.

v’llAND

D}uNEA’lEl) AS:ES!.MENT

lljE+LAND BY ECOLOOICAL

SCALEI l 11!500

‘ja’y

‘1

g? ’ f /? )“fi

,X 1

B)’ AS EXlgpW,..AIID..P:a'93ED .ROADWAYS :)HOWN ON DRI?FT Pl7 a’l - - -ssgis* - s - as l} -xis c) +iaanossiiip TO ADIACENT IANDS

I ‘- s ..

< ‘i ..!

i TKN ' E+EVAl

y’ps

l)‘SOIL is o-2m OVERBURDEN OP CuY, SAND. ANo

, lsfl?

? rlr

DaAEATED AS?

WETLANDBOuNDMY aii+mOMYASSESSMEIIT A’S-ESSMENTRe RFP;T?

i’l’<S!

i? 1,1

7;!F:

04 ‘S

?D:

EIEVA’llON 100.On

‘<

iii

s'2k S,

O/A !nt” Lan?hnl?lxva lli O*vxlnpmxxk

BLOCK I7

,,il

‘,’l/

’l’

{

;J’ .a9 /

.1 ,.i’

-?? Th

rl) .

k2:? l) ,:-i

gsm’s puumb nm to msunmxwr onaaasws ? d?* IKuJad !?z M?

r?i

{

LECEND:

Nlll {11

{

Cq!wln Lm.

li, C uMIT (F

4- a P+sdlldgMM

COMPE)I!Ai

IN?hsanx gl? m!*)? k? n+

EXIS’llNa }LOODPLAIN

-ia {IE niizo '

EIEllA’ll011 100.00

‘{

A r

!..i’;’

9 ??S

I uM %T4

’l 1

‘7-

/’ .ia

-l -= -l

-iQ

’l-

-I l={

W) Wi-

-=l l W l’f

-l =-l “T

-! -U{ a’{

-I-

l”(

‘f

ituanttiiuiaitono,sw M?I?OMQ OnlMlD Illffi 1%}5 Ilk4ll4uAm

i -m-a!i

IFI–? i?

l-l l-I p;a;)J

7/(

}

l’i;";

r:-?’

I/l ?, /l,/

y.i-l

-4-! -’?

l:s

%/l

‘k i

. . . . . lal:1.1: ‘1,1,l?.-.a:. . .,11!s-, - , ?oA{,I ‘:?s al. :i n.. .,(

‘T M—l W -{ -l i -“T

,) f

m’

llllilll-M4-II{ I?lwlk : d?lyh0haalllm

‘Q

{

HOa ffllla? ? !im

‘i l ir;! // i

!Tha I?? d Iha I? Ia I?* ?M?d ? l!da ayl?k* b ?]msl I? aaa a?*daw ??

’l [?Josseryn engineering Inc.

r.,}7

1(FROM

,=3?:i=.ffi:X?‘1 t=-M4i”-W

71’ j? ’l

4 { s-

8URVEYOR’S C]sRTrF]CATE:

/ .p-d:

ri,o / .l’l '

{

r.ffi

S f

nrrx= ?4! L]:2-4’

Ill,,

NEW INIT Ol?

i:25ffiF;‘Ed,EE;’:’:EA’eVr=“C’:?a?”’

IJ ’ Ismkaa

,l(j

sll

ri,

, 1’X,q

i 27,!! ?? i I0lla l

i’l

12 A l?i

iOWNER’S CERTIFICATE

3Dm :E’lEACK WE?LAND

,11 (IS

BY ECOLO(ilCAl SERVCES OA’ltD uNE 8. 2008.

Rav?

I!.I!

((?

Ip:

WE?wo B(UNDARY

lOJl7

(L Wj

fi’i

.10

uMIT (IF wMP{NSA!

17T’=T??

813 ' Ralb '

ffi,

v*>r

SITE DATA

‘11

‘//

ot}

,),4 ‘I -,,n,t

ON IL?F l.?8kl?I eLAll ‘6NiHE’ORAF’i’PkAN

*’:i

‘//

-S

aRAVEL ‘IILL OVER BEDRO(!K

l) CONTOlll'3 FROM NOVEMBEII 2008 TOiaOGRAPlllC SURVEY Br .R)SELYN m61NEtRlN0 SHOWN’ON DLIAFT PuNk) SERuCES AVAILABIE INCkuDE H’nnR0 AND Btm L) RESIRIC?IO?IS AFFECTING ‘IHE fD AIIE SHOWII

’t k

-/,

‘S

n 111

Si?i>’ do?

i i

?d , I. 0,,t,,

l; ‘}

H) PRmTE WA’ltR WaLS Ttt €E PROWIEO

E ‘P A

L ]

‘}

FROM

3S,? ‘SENSTINQI

A<SHOWN <HriwNON tsN fi!IkFlPLAN OI AN Alln l PLAN ’ AS ORAIT AND KtY D) l))IDS TO BE uSED FOR RESDENnAL PuRlaOSES

E)’ Aa? t=s=;=i!s= o+? .4i>qpr (ANOS SH(IW ON DIIAFT l?im’ F)’ 45 iPRO)OqArE?DlMDlSl(lN.S..AND LAYOUT OF IOT3 SHOI?N ON DRAIT PIAI 0)’ AS NA’lllRAL IIND. ARnRaA5}EA’lllR[S :)HOWN ON DRATT PtNl

" :.,nf

’tl

A) BOuNDARY OF LmDS TO eE SIIBDIVDED ’ AS SHOWN ON DRAFT l’lJN

,t ’s SECTION 5%I7)

DA?ED AlNi’ A’

=H1

PLANNIN(i ACi - INFoRMATIoN

COUNTY OF

l -’m..E

‘S

CONCESSION 2 ANO PART OF

01(ICK 10

es :3

NOT TO?SCALE

Page 7 of 173

{ d4/’

‘i

PLAN of SUBDIVISION of

PJ?JlN 13M -

PART of LOT 18 a,ndl9, CONCESSION 2

,:C:fl7:,

/ CgRT[FY Ihal Ih’ls PLAN is RE(.lSTERED’in lm LAND

PART o’f the ROAD ALLOYANCE betsuem

oactocx OFFICE fitr lha LANI) TiTLES DIV?SION o/ FRONTfi:NAC (l IND ENTffi.RED IN THE l’i PARCEL RECISTER . 2015 -AND on kha - drxy o/ FOR PROPERTY lrlENT]Flaign rto. se292 -0000 00 (LT) AIVZI iTHE REQUIRED CONSmTS

LOTS 1-8 a?id 19(Closed by By-Lasu BL388)

ARE RECISTERED as PLAN DOCUMENT No.). LT

CeograpMc TowrisMp of Longhborrmgh

REPRESENTATIVE FOR LAND REC.iSTRAR

(Forrn,er Ahbnsc%prxl Tosunsh4p of Storrington)

THIS PLAN COMPRISES PART OF P[N 36292-0000

T(fiNSH(P ?of SOUTH FRONTENAC

OBSERVED RKFERENCE IQNTS (0111S) DERIVED FROM C?S OBSERVATIONS USrNC PRECISE POrNT POSITONNC (MP) SERVICE. urw zom ui. rtmas (C.91lSl [iggp.o) COORDNATES IY) RURAL ACC(IIIACY PER SEC. 14[2 0F O.REC. 216/10

COUNTY of FRONTENAC SCA[Jff = 1:1500

WlRTHiNC

ISDme!rax

100

ORP ‘A’ ORJ" H’

HOPKINS CHITTT ImD SURVEYORS INC. -!!(H4-

COORDINATES CANNOT. N THEMSELVES BE USEfl IY) RE-ESTABLISH CORNERS OR BOUNDARIES SH(fiN ON TH[S P(AM

l SS

Th0 lllj6)

i:il

ION

CONC

-)ffi .1

PART 2

EASTINC

?a!r*s

PLAN 13R-8035 4

PAR

‘13 ]

1110 lloail

t 0

01100

6292

(110 ’l’

,-r-0

‘N!Mal

4?v

ga iien

%’ll/

ti: a=: L?O T

:!IL

,,$-

:’ ,,,>

4?l X

sl s

‘}

’l

0 ‘S>

0 ‘9

W l

IJs(;END: SSIB’S PIANTEI? DuE TO INSUfllC]ltNT OVERBIIRW)l m

-0- dmak*s I%uslvl S?ay Mm?

Faunrl SutvtyElwnumanl

SIB

&.i 1.

Skandwi lvm Bar

S!118 : Shbrl Siavubwd ?vmy mar

lvmyBay

’l:

nB RP

RockBw

jM : mm8at(vwundl (WIT? (M) (R.P.] lHF’l

Roch I%sl Wltnaw Maa?d

Raglsk?d Pkm Hydro l%h

(IOID N. Bnxm?Campb.eu 7 !.L.S. (iaaei Hapkk’ns Chu% Land 5uruqorm Inc. ?w IT. Kllkriu Zld - 0.L.S. (141171 120j - Jmrbm A. Mlvims - (I.l.S. (nxD

BEARINOS ARE UTM CIRID. WNVErl FROM OBSERVED REFERtltCE

‘poiis-; ;MD ffi -BY -*‘i2L -TIME -KlNiTlc (RTK? -OBSER VATIONS. IITM ZONE 18. MADa8 (CSm) (1997.0)

FOR BEARIN?: CDllflaARlSONS. A 11(ITATIOAI OF IJffillO’ CLOCKVSK WAS ]U’l’LIED [10 BEARIN(:S 08 13R-19(108 (IISTANCES A?NI CWIJND AN(I Cm BE CONVERTED TO ORffl BY

MDiiiF’LmM6-BY-fi4E-conlllti6-sCm FACTOR O? 0.9907619

DISTANCES Alfil COORDINATES SH€fiN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN IIKTRES Alffl CAN !R CONVERTRD 7YI FgET mY DIV?D?NC BY 0.3048

SURVEYOR’S (JRT(FZCAfis: I CERTIFY THAT:

Tklm Sluruq and Plas arm aartacl and’ln aaaav?a iiiilh ilia SURVEYS ACT. lha SURVEYORS ACT avui lha

LANI? ‘T?TIES ACT mul ‘Ma RECULaTION8 marlm uvulwv lAaa

JdUNrCZPAL CERTIFICATE

(fiNERS CM,RTIFICATE

!I. Tlia SURVEY iuai emnpblad on llia

APF’ROVEII uNDER SECTION 61, OF THE F’LANN?NO ACT

LOTS I Tl) 7. BOTH lNCLuS[VE, STREETS BEINC WILL(fiBROOK DRIVE AND MEAi?OWLAND WIVE HAVE BEEN [AlD OUT ?N

’l’i ;HE rOUNCji 09 iFIE CORPORATION OF THE TCRfNSHlF’ 09 80{iifi FROrt’f’ENAC THIS THE DAY OF 2015.

ACCORDANCE WfTH (HJR INSTRIJCT?ONS.

DAY OF

PHIL 11. CHITTY - 0.LS.

—— –=– —— l —– I

, 2015.

TONY MAT[AS

PRESlDmT, I€I59823 0NTAR?O LTD

(/ HAVE THE AI?THOR?TY ?Y) -BIND THE CORPORATION)

HOPKINS CHITTY SuRVEYlNC INC. rlATE: MARCH 10. 00115

THE STREET 78 HEREBY WDICATED TO THE CORPORATION 6’F -FHE CiTY (IF KINCSTON AS PUBLIC HICHWAY DATED THE

day al

Mavak 2016

THIS /S TO CERT[FY THAT:

RON VANDEIVAL MAYOR

WAYNE ORR CAO

(HAV[W. THE MJTHOR[TY TO B(ND THE CORPORAT]ON)

Page 8 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COWL:

October 8, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

October 13, 2106

SUBJECT: 2016 Capital Budget RECOMMENDATION: Council is asked to provide comment and direction on the capital budget. This input will be incorporated into the 2016 preliminary operating budget. BACKGROUND: Council has adopted a budget cycle and provided direction to staff to prepare the preliminary 2016 capital and operating budgets with a target increase in the Township’s levy of 2.0%. The capital budget is a foundational building block of the operating budget. Once the capital budget is set then the numbers are incorporated into the overall operating budget. The capital budget reflects proposed expenditures that are greater than $5,000 and either have a life span greater than one year, add value to an asset or are a one-time expenditure. Each year Council, as part of its operating budget, makes specific contributions to reserves. These savings are put aside for the purpose of paying for future capital expenses. Previous Councils have adopted a “save then pay” strategy as opposed to any consideration of debt financing. Funding for capital expenses comes from three sources, current year taxation, reserves and other funding / grants. This other source includes but is not limited to City of Kingston Funding for Arterial Roads and County Federal Gas Tax dollars. The Township has adopted a multi-year capital and vehicle replacement program with commitments to, gradually increase the level of investment into building and maintaining its tangible capital assets as well as spreading out the cost of updating the municipal fleet. The 2016 Proposed Non Public Works Capital Budget is $192,500 with $112,500 coming from current year taxation, $80,000 from reserves. The public works budget which includes all facility related projects for the Township as well as road maintenance, construction, solid waste services and equipment is scheduled for presentation on October 27. Details of each proposed capital expenditure will be reviewed at the meeting. Below are the proposed capital budgets. Following presentation of the Capital budget for public works and incorporating all feedback from Council the overall impact on municipal reserves will be presented along with the operating budget on Saturday November 14.

Page 9 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

2016 CAPITAL BUDGET BUDGETED EXPENDITURE

GENERAL GOVERNMENT Corporate Services New Projects Server Migration Parks and Recreation Software Asset Management customizations/document update Total PROTECTIVE SERVICES Building

PROPOSED FINANCING TAX LEVY

RESERVES

GRANT/OTHER

7,500 15,000 10,000 32,500

35,000 35,000

Pick up Truck/SUV (replacing 2007 existing vehicle) Sub-total Fire New Projects Pagers New -Commercial bunker gear washer/dryer - Station 8 Replacement extrication equipment - Station 4 1/2 ton truck - Replace 2003-Unit 27 Sub-total Total

15,000 30,000 35,000 45,000 125,000 160,000

15,000 30,000 35,000 80,000 80,000

45,000 45,000 80,000

0 0

Total non-PW

192,500

112,500

80,000

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Building Equipment

Rolling - Fire Reserve

Page 10 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW:

October 8, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

October 13, 2015

SUBJECT: Procedural Bylaw RECOMMENDATION: That Council provide clarity on the requested changes to the Procedural Bylaw prior to bringing it forward for adoption. BACKGROUND: At the first meeting of Council in December 2014 notice of motions were filed on changes to the procedural bylaw. With concurrence of Council, staff presented Draft revisions on December 9. At the Council meeting of December 16 Council passed a motion to limit the number of terms committee members can server as well as the length of time committee Chairs may serve. Based on the feedback and decisions of Council a revised draft was presented on January 20, 2015. At that time, recognizing the priorities of Council, the issue was deferred until the first Committee of the Whole in May. On May 12 at Council again considered the January 20 draft procedural bylaw. Additional topics before Council included: • the length of delegations from the public • the number of times a delegation may return on the same issue • the length of delegations at the request of Council (Auditor, Consultants etc.) • whether there should be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for questions from the public Councillor Schjerning could not be present at the May 12 meeting so he submitted written comments (see attached) for Council’s consideration. From the May 12 meeting the following was recorded and subsequently adopted in the minutes: The CAO received further feedback on changes to the procedural bylaw. The focus of the discussion was on whether to re-establish the Public Services Committee, a reduction in the number of meetings, and changing the starting time to 6:00 p.m. The committee will need to do further work on the bylaw. With no committee of the Whole meeting scheduled over the summer, on June 23, the CAO committed to scheduling this item for Committee of the Whole in September. In the interim, the topic of a dress code including the wearing of the Chain of Office has been raised and Council may wish to consider it at this time as well. At the September 8th Committee of the Whole meeting Council committed to providing written feedback directly to the CAO to narrow the areas for debate. Three members of Council provided feedback.

Page 11 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT Based on all feedback received the attached Summary highlights areas of the bylaw that still require direction form Council. All other points from the January 20 Draft have been assumed to be acceptable. ATTACHMENTS: • • • • • •

Outstanding items for direction Revised Draft Procedural Bylaw – Jan 20 Councillor Schjerning’s memo – May 10 Subsequent comments from Councillor Schjerning Comments from Councillor Sutherland Comments from Councillor Roberts

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Items remaining for direction from Council 2.2

Page 12 of 173

MEETINGS

(b) RULES OF ORDER – The rules of order of the parliament of Canada will govern the proceedings of the Council and the conduct of its members. The official parliamentary guide is Bourinot’s Rules of Order. However, where the wording of this by-law varies from Bourinot’s Rules of Order, this by-law shall take precedence. SUGGESTION: (b) RULES OF ORDER – The rules of order established by this by law shall govern Council meetings and all Committees of Council. Where the by law is silent on an issue Robert’s Rules of Order shall apply.

(e)

CONVENING MEETINGS -

Unless otherwise stipulated, Council shall meet at 6:00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday in each month from January to December inclusive with the exception of the months of July and August when only one meeting will be held each month, on the first Tuesday of the month. If needed, Council will convene and then proceed into closed session returning to open session at 7:00 p.m.

(f) i.

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Notice to Members of Council and Staff The Clerk will give notice of all Council and Committee meetings to members of Council and to all Department Heads. The notice will be accompanied by an agenda and any other matter to be addressed at the meeting. The Clerk will send the notice by delivery, by facsimile, by electronic mail to the residence or place of business of each member or by posting the agenda to AgendaNotes. Generally members will receive notice at least three days before the day of meeting. However failure to receive the notice will not affect the meeting itself, including the timing of or any actions taken there at.

ii.

Notice to the Public The Clerk shall give notice to the public of all regular meetings of Council by posting a schedule of meeting dates on the Township’s official web site at the beginning of each calendar year. The agenda shall be posted on the Friday preceding the date of the Council meeting. The Clerk shall give notice to the public of all special meetings of Council by posting a notice on the Township’s website as soon as possible after the date of the special meeting has been confirmed.

(i)

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

Committee of the Whole Council meetings will be held on the 2nd, 4th and 5th Tuesdays of each month, if required, except during July and August, and shall follow similar rules of procedure as Regular Meetings of Council, except that discussions may be less formal. As appropriate direction provided to staff will be incorporated into reports and will be brought forward for formal approval at Council. Resolutions adopted by Committee of the Whole shall NOT be binding on Council. Committee of the Whole meetings of Council shall be open to the public except as otherwise provided by The Municipal Act. (See Section 2.2(g)).

The first Committee of the Whole each month shall generally be focused on planning issues and the second Committee of the Whole shall be focused on public services issues. Other organizational issues will be brought forward as needed. Given the timing of some issues, planning and public services issues may need to be intermixed on the agenda. 2.3

Page 13 of 173

AGENDAS (a)

REGULAR MEETINGS - The Clerk will prepare an agenda for the use of members at regular meetings. The Agenda shall be posted in the Municipal Building, Sydenham and delivered to each member of Council by mail, facsimile transmission, e-mail or by posting to AgendaNotes not less than two days (48 hours) prior to the meeting date. The Clerk will attach copies of all relevant correspondence to the agenda package for Council information. All items of business for the agenda will be received by the Clerk by 12:00 noon on the Thursday prior to the meeting date. The business of each meeting follows the order in which it stands on the agenda. The agenda for a meeting may only be amended at that meeting by a motion supported by a majority of the members present. Any undisposed matters will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. NOTE: When a “Closed Session” meeting is required, Council will convene at 6:00 p.m., proceed into closed session and then reconvene at 7:00 p.m. in open session.

COUNCIL Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17)

Call to Order. Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof Scheduled Closed Session Recess Public Meeting Approval of Minutes Business Arising Reports Requiring Action Committee Meeting Minutes By-laws Reports for Information Information Items Notice of Motions Announcements Closed Session (if requested) Confirmatory By-law Adjournment.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

Call to Order. Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof Scheduled Closed Session Recess Delegations Reports Requiring Direction Reports for Information Rise and Report from Committees of Council (rotating basis) Information Items Notice of Motions Announcements Closed Session (if requested) Adjournment.

During July and August a blended meeting agenda will be used incorporating both delegations and public meetings.

Page 14 of 173 (b)

DELEGATIONS – Delegations will be received by Council when sitting as Committee of the Whole only. Delegations will be limited to a maximum ten minute presentation, unless otherwise approved by Council, and are considered in the following order:

Those persons Council has requested or commissioned to appear (e.g. representatives of senior government, consultants).
Citizens, organizations or their representatives who have notified the Clerk in writing of their desire to appear before the appropriate Committee no later than 12 o’clock noon on the Thursday prior to the meeting date.
Those persons not included on the agenda but who have requested and been granted permission by Council to address the meeting. All delegations must provide a written summary of their presentation to the Clerk prior to 12:00 noon on the Thursday prior to the Committee meeting at which they will be appearing. All Delegates will be encouraged by the Clerk to resolve concerns with the appropriate department head, prior to seeking delegation status. Only topics which have come before Council or are scheduled to appear on Council’s agenda are to be scheduled for delegate status. Unrelated topics require the delegate to be sponsored by a member of Council, prior to being scheduled. Members of Council may sponsor a delegation by emailing the clerk requesting that the individual / group be given delegate status. PROCEDURAL RULES Quorum, Presiding Officer

2.4 Page 1 of 1

(c) PRESIDING OFFICER - The Presiding Officer shall oversee the conduct of the meeting including: • Call the meeting to order • Introduce the items listed on the Agenda in the order presented unless otherwise determined by Council • Call on the CAO or Department Head to address staff reports • Call on the Clerk to read the motion or by-law as requested by the Presiding Officer • Designate the Council Member or Staff Member as to who has the floor to speak • To put to a vote all questions which are properly moved and seconded and after full discussion has been provided, and announce the results of the vote • Ensure the preservation of good order and decorum • Ruling on points of order and privilege • Deciding all questions relating to the orderly procedure of the meeting subject to an appeal by any member of Council from any ruling of the Presiding Officer The Presiding Officer may expel any person for improper conduct at a meeting. The Presiding Officer may state his or her position on any matter before Council following the discussion of Council but before a matter is put to a vote. This will not require the Presiding Officer to relinquish the chair. The Presiding Officer will vacate the chair prior to making a motion or serving a notice of motion. If making a motion, the presiding officer shall remain out of the chair during the debate and vote on the subject.

PROCEDURAL RULES

2.5

Conduct of Council Members

Page 1 of 2

Page 15 of 173

2.5 CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS (a) SPEAKING - Each member must be recognized by the Presiding Officer before speaking on any matter or motion. A member may not speak more than once on a matter without leave of the Presiding Officer, except:

In explanation of a material part of the speech which may have been misunderstood; or
In reply after everyone else wishing to speak has spoken Generally no member may speak to the same matter or in reply for longer than 5 minutes. Through the Presiding Officer, a member may ask for an explanation of any part of the previous speaker’s remarks. A member may also, through the Presiding Officer, ask questions to obtain information relating to the report or minutes presented to Council or any clause contained therein. However this must be done prior to the commencement of the debate on the report, minute or clause. Following the reading of a motion and during debate, all questions to staff are to be addressed through the Presiding Officer.

PROCEDURAL RULES Committees

2.7 Page 1 of 1

Page 16 of 173 Any member, including the Committee Chair, may propose or second a motion. When the Committee Chair proposes a motion, he or she must vacate the chair to the Acting Chair of the Committee during the debate on the motion and resume the chair following the vote. All members will vote on all motions except when disqualified by reasons of interest or otherwise. A tie vote at the Committee level shall be considered lost. (h) DUTIES - The Committee may report to Council any Committee member who refuses or neglects to attend a meeting. Council may then remove that member from the Committee and appoint another member in his/her place. Council may discharge from responsibility any Committee, which refuses or neglects to give due consideration to any matter before it. Council may then allot such responsibility to another Committee. All Committees are subject to the control and direction of Council. Each Committee must submit to Council reports including minutes and recommendations on all matters connected with their duties.

SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW 2015-02 PROCEDURAL RULES General

Page 17 of 173 2.1 Page 1 of 2

2.1 GENERAL (a) INTRODUCTION - This section addresses both basic procedural items and other more complex questions and issues that might arise in Council or Committee meetings. Well-documented procedures result in more productive Council meetings and lessen the amount of extraneous debate on unrelated topics. (b)

DEFINITIONS - Listed below are definitions of common procedural terms:

AGENDA and Orders of the Day are synonymous.

AMENDMENT means a change in the form of a Motion. An amendment is designed to alter or vary the terms of the main Motion without materially changing the meaning. It may propose that certain words be left out, that certain words be omitted and replaced by others, or that certain words be inserted or added. Every amendment must be strictly relevant to the question being considered.

CLERK means the C.A.O./Clerk or the Deputy Clerk acting in the Clerk’s absence or in the absence of both the CAO/Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, another person appointed by Council resolution.

CLOSED SESSION means a meeting or a part of a meeting of Council or a Committee which is closed to the public. All meetings shall be open to the public except as provided for in the Municipal Act, 2001, Ch. 25, Section 239.

COMMITTEE means any advisory or other committee, subcommittee or similar entity of Council.

COMMITTEE CHAIR is the person presiding at meetings of Committees of Council. Elected by the Committee from its members and may be removed only by vote of a majority of the Committee.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE means Council sitting in Committee.

COUNCIL means the Council of The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac.

HOLIDAY means a holiday with pay (or statutory holiday) as identified in the current C.U.P.E., Local 4336, Collective Agreement.

IN-CAMERA SESSION shall have the same meaning as closed session (see item #4)

MEETING means any regular, special, committee or other meeting of Council.

MEMBER means a member of Council and a member of a Committee;

MINUTES – In strict accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, Ch. 25, Sect 228, record, without note or comment, of all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings of Council

MOTION and resolution shall be considered synonymous and will include an original motion or an amendment to a motion;

Page 18 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES General

2.1 Page 2 of 2

POINT OF ORDER The purpose of raising a point of order is to bring to the attention of the presiding officer that a rule has been broken or an error in procedure has been made as follows: a) Breaches of the rules of order of Council; b) Difficulty in continuation of the meeting; c) Improper, offensive or abusive language; d) Notice that the discussion is outside the scope of the motion or the notice of motion; e) Irregularities in the proceedings.

PRESIDING OFFICER is the Mayor or in his/her absence, Deputy Mayor or in his/her absence the acting head of Council whom presides at meetings of Council or the Chair of a Committee meeting;

QUORUM means a majority of the whole number of members required to constitute Council or a Committee.

QUESTION means that the vote now be taken.

RECORDED VOTE means the calling for the yeas and nays of all members of Council by any member of Council and the yeas and nays of each individual member of Council shall be so noted in the minutes.

RULES OF ORDER (See 2.2. (b))

WEBSITE means the Official Website of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac – www.southfrontenac.net

PROCEDURAL RULES Meetings

2.2

2.2 Page 1 of 3

Page 19 of 173

MEETINGS

(a) MEETING LOCATION – All meetings of Council shall be held at the municipal complex, 4432 George Street, Sydenham, Ontario, unless otherwise stipulated in a resolution of Council (b) RULES OF ORDER – The rules of order of the parliament of Canada will govern the proceedings of the Council and the conduct of its members. The official parliamentary guide is Bourinot’s Rules of Order. However, where the wording of this by-law varies from Bourinot’s Rules of Order, this by-law shall take precedence. (c) SEATING – During a meeting no person is permitted to come within the enclosure formed by the members’ chairs or to address Council unless that person: • Is a member of Council • Is the C.A.O., the Clerk or Recording Secretary • Has been given permission from the Presiding Officer (d) CHAIR - The presiding officer of the Council shall be the Mayor. In his or her absence the Deputy Mayor shall preside. The Deputy Mayor will have the powers and duties of the Mayor when performing in that capacity. If neither the Mayor nor the Deputy Mayor is present to open the meeting, the Council shall elect a presiding officer. (e) CONVENING MEETINGS - The inaugural meeting of Council shall be held on the first Tuesday in December at 7 o’clock p.m. but shall not be later than 31 days after Council term commences. Unless otherwise stipulated, Council shall meet at 6:00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday in each month from January to December inclusive with the exception of the months of July and August when only one meeting will be held each month, on the first Tuesday of the month. If needed, Council will convene and then proceed into closed session returning to open session at 7:00 p.m. Council will not meet on a statutory holiday nor will it meet between Christmas and New Years. Should a Council meeting conflict with any committee meeting, such committee meeting shall be rescheduled after consultation with the Committee Chair. The Clerk will advertise any meeting date changes caused by this policy. Council reserves the right to dispense with or alter the time, day or place of any meeting by resolution. (f) i.

PROCEDURAL RULES Meetings

ii.

2.2 Page 2 of 3

Page 20 of 173

(g) SPECIAL MEETINGS - A special meeting may be called under the following circumstances: • The Mayor may at any time summon a special meeting. • Upon receipt of a petition of the majority of the members of Council, the Clerk shall call a special meeting for the purpose and at the time mentioned in the petition. Notice may be given by telephone, e-mail or facsimile transmission or posting to AgendaNotes. If there is no by-law or petition fixing the place of a special meeting, that meeting shall be held at the place where the last regular meeting was held. (h)

CLOSED SESSION

Notwithstanding Section 2.6, as per Subsection 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is: a) the security of property of the municipality b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality; d) labour relations or employee negotiations e) litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals effecting the municipality f) advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose; g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body has authorized a meeting to be closed under another Act; or h) if the meeting is held for the purpose of educating or training the members: and at the meeting, no member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee; A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the Council is the head of the institution for the purposes of the Act. Prior to holding a meeting or part of a meeting that is to be closed to the public, Council shall state by resolution the fact that a closed meeting is being held and the general nature of the matter to be considered at the closed meeting. A meeting may only be closed to the public during a vote, if: • the subject matter is as defined above; and • the vote is for a procedural matter or for giving directions or instructions to officers, employees or agents of the municipality or persons retained by or under contract with the municipality

PROCEDURAL RULES Meetings

2.2 Page 3 of 3

Page 21 of 173

All information, documentation or deliberations received, reviewed or taken into a closed meeting is confidential.

ii.

The response of Members to enquiries about any matter dealt with by Council or a Committee of Council at a closed meeting, prior to it being reported publicly, shall be “no comment”, or words to that effect. No member shall release or make public any information considered at a closed meeting or discuss the content of such a meeting with persons other than members of Council or relevant senior staff members included in the Closed Session.

iii.

Any violation of this regulation may result in exclusion of the offending Member from future closed meetings of Council or a Committee of Council and that Member no longer being provided with correspondence, material or information proposed to be dealt with by Council at a closed meeting.

iv.

The determination of whether or not a violation of the closed meeting provision of this By-law and the length of the exclusion from closed meetings if so determined, shall be made by Council, and Council in Closed Session shall consider the issue. Prior to this determination by Council, the offending Member shall have the allegation explained to him/her, and he/she shall have the opportunity to provide his/her explanation regarding he matter. The results of Council’s deliberations shall be reported publicly.

Despite clause (iv), the Member affected shall not be permitted to vote on a motion respecting his/her purported violation of the closed meeting provision of the procedural by-law, his or her exclusion from closed meetings, or the length of any such exclusion.

vi.

The release of any information about any matters dealt with by Council at a closed meeting shall be by the Mayor or his delegate only. Once the Mayor or his delegate has released the information, it shall be considered to be public information and a Member may discuss the matter without being considered to be in violation of this By-law.

vii.

Agendas, minutes or any items thereon for consideration by Council at a closed meeting shall not be released to the public.

(i)

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

nd, th th Committee of the Whole Council meetings will be held on the 2 4 and 5 Tuesdays of each month, if required, except during July and August, and shall follow similar rules of procedure as Regular Meetings of Council, except that discussions may be less formal. As appropriate direction provided to staff will be incorporated into reports and will be brought forward for formal approval at Council. Resolutions adopted by Committee of the Whole shall NOT be binding on Council.

Committee of the Whole meetings of Council shall be open to the public except as otherwise provided by The Municipal Act. (See Section 2.2(g)). The first Committee of the Whole each month shall generally be focused on planning issues and the second Committee of the Whole shall be focused on public services issues. Other organizational issues will be brought forward as needed. Given the timing of some issues, planning and public services issues may need to be intermixed on the agenda.

Page 22 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Agenda

2.3

2.3 Page 1 of 2

AGENDAS (a)

COUNCIL Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17)

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

During July and August a blended meeting agenda will be used incorporating both delegations and public meetings.

PROCEDURAL RULES Agenda

(b)

2.3 Page 2 of 2

Page 23 of 173

Those persons Council has requested or commissioned to appear (e.g. representatives of senior government, consultants).
Citizens, organizations or their representatives who have notified the Clerk in writing of their desire to appear before the appropriate Committee no later than 12 o’clock noon on the Thursday prior to the meeting date.
Those persons not included on the agenda but who have requested and been granted permission by Council to address the meeting. All delegations must provide a written summary of their presentation to the Clerk prior to 12:00 noon on the Thursday prior to the Committee meeting at which they will be appearing. All Delegates will be encouraged by the Clerk to resolve concerns with the appropriate department head, prior to seeking delegation status. Only topics which have come before Council or are scheduled to appear on Council’s agenda are to be scheduled for delegate status. Unrelated topics require the delegate to be sponsored by a member of Council, prior to being scheduled. Members of Council may sponsor a delegation by emailing the clerk requesting that the individual / group be given delegate status.

Page 24 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Quorum, Presiding Officer

2.4

2.4 Page 1 of 1

QUORUM, PRESIDING OFFICER

(a) REGULAR MEETINGS - As soon as there is a quorum after the hour fixed for the meeting, the Presiding Officer will assume the role as Chair and call the members to order. The Clerk will then take note of attendance. (b) TIME LIMIT - The time limit for a quorum is 30 minutes after the time appointed for the meeting. If no quorum is present after 30 minutes, the Council or Committee will stand adjourned until the next regular day of meeting or until a special meeting is called. The special meeting will deal with the matters intended to be addressed at the adjourned meeting. The Clerk will record the names of the members present at the expiration of the time limit and append this record to the next agenda. (c) PRESIDING OFFICER - The Presiding Officer shall oversee the conduct of the meeting including: • Call the meeting to order • Introduce the items listed on the Agenda in the order presented unless otherwise determined by Council • Call on the CAO or Department Head to address staff reports • Call on the Clerk to read the motion or by-law as requested by the Presiding Officer • Designate the Council Member or Staff Member as to who has the floor to speak • To put to a vote all questions which are properly moved and seconded and after full discussion has been provided, and announce the results of the vote • Ensure the preservation of good order and decorum • Ruling on points of order and privilege • Deciding all questions relating to the orderly procedure of the meeting subject to an appeal by any member of Council from any ruling of the Presiding Officer The Presiding Officer may expel any person for improper conduct at a meeting. The Presiding Officer may state his or her position on any matter before Council following the discussion of Council but before a matter is put to a vote. This will not require the Presiding Officer to relinquish the chair. The Presiding Officer will vacate the chair prior to making a motion or serving a notice of motion. If making a motion, the presiding officer shall remain out of the chair during the debate and vote on the subject.

PROCEDURAL RULES Conduct of Council Members

2.5 Page 1 of 2

Page 25 of 173

In explanation of a material part of the speech which may have been misunderstood; or
In reply after everyone else wishing to speak has spoken Generally no member may speak to the same matter or in reply for longer than 5 minutes. Through the Presiding Officer, a member may ask for an explanation of any part of the previous speaker’s remarks. A member may also, through the Presiding Officer, ask questions to obtain information relating to the report or minutes presented to Council or any clause contained therein. However this must be done prior to the commencement of the debate on the report, minute or clause. Following the reading of a motion and during debate, all questions to staff are to be addressed through the Presiding Officer. (b)

CONDUCT - Members shall not:

Speak disrespectfully of the Reigning Sovereign, any member of the Royal Family, the Governor-General or a Lieutenant-Governor;
Use offensive words or unparliamentary language in Council;
Disobey the rules of the Council or decision of the Presiding Officer or of Council on questions of order or practice;
Leave his or her seat or make any noise or disturbance while a vote is being taken and the result is declared;
Enter the Council Chamber while a vote is being taken;
Interrupt a member while speaking, except to raise a point of order;
Pass between a member who is speaking and the Chair.

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Members shall at all times conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter M5O, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, including any subsequent amendments, revisions and regulations thereto. All declarations and disclosures made in accordance with the Act shall be made by the member in accordance with the Act. If, after making such a declaration, the member determines that he/she does not have a Conflict of Interest, then a public statement to that effect shall be made by the member. Such public statement may be in the same form and substance as the original declaration.

Page 26 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Conduct of Council Members

2.5 Page 2 of 2

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

It is not the intention of discipline in a meeting to punish a member but to change the behaviour of the member. If a member commits a breach of conduct, the escalation of remedies is as follows:

The Presiding Officer requests that the member refrain from breaking the rules and specifies the infraction or rule being broken.
If this fails, the Presiding Officer provides a sterner warning by calling the member to order.
If, after this instruction, the member continues with the action or refuses to be seated the Presiding Officer may, if the breach of conduct is serious enough, request that the offending member to apologize or failing an apology to be expelled from the meeting. If expulsion from the meeting is ordered, the Presiding Officer may establish and appoint individuals to escort the member from the meeting room. If the member refuses to leave, the appropriate civil authorities should be called. e)

EARLY DEPARTURE FROM MEETINGS

A member who wishes to leave a meeting prior to the adjournment must so advise the Presiding Officer. The recording officer will note the member’s time of departure. f)

NOTICE OF ABSENCE FROM MEETING

If a member can not be in attendance at a meeting, they should notify the Clerk or the Executive Secretary of their absence at their earliest opportunity.

Page 27 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Motions

2.6 Page 1 of 3

2.6 MOTIONS (a) NOTICE OF MOTION - The Clerk may receive a notice of motion at any time during a Council meeting. However they will become part of the agenda for the subsequent Council meeting unless otherwise approved by Council. A notice of motion requires a seconder only at the time of debate. If a motion is not moved and seconded on the day and at the meeting for which notice was given, it cannot be moved at any subsequent meeting without notice being given on the agenda for that meeting. (b) GENERAL - Every motion, once presented to the Presiding Officer, becomes the property of Council. The presiding officer may call on the Clerk to read the motion. A member can withdraw a motion only when the consent of the majority of Council is present. Motions shall be debated in the order of presentation to the Presiding Officer. Any member may request that the Clerk read the motion under discussion at any time during the debate, except when another member is speaking. Any member may request separation of a motion. Each section of the motion will be voted on separately. When a matter is under debate, no motions can be made other than a motion: • To refer / defer • To amend • To adjourn the meeting • To vote on the matter (c) REFER/DEFER - A motion to refer or defer takes precedence over any motion or amendment, except a motion to adjourn. A motion to refer requires direction as to the body to which it is being referred. A motion to defer must include a reason for deferral. Neither motion is debatable. (d) VOTING - When a member makes a motion that the vote now be taken, it shall be put to a vote without debate. If a majority of the members agree to put a motion to a vote, the motion and any amendments thereto will be submitted to a vote immediately without further notice. No members may speak or present another motion once the Presiding Officer commences the vote on that motion. Each member present at a Council meeting will vote when the vote is taken on a matter, unless prohibited from so doing by statute. Any member who is present but refuses to vote or abstains to vote, their vote will be deemed to be a vote in the negative. A recorded vote on a motion before Council may be requested at any time by any Council member before the vote is taken or after the vote has been taken unless Council has commenced discussion on a new matter on the agenda. When a member requests a recorded vote, all members will vote in the following order when polled by the Clerk in alphabetical order and Mayor. The Clerk will note the names of those who voted for and against in the minutes, and will announce the results. If a member disagrees with the results of the vote, he or she may object to the declaration and ask that the Clerk retake the vote. An objection to any resolution shall not be recorded unless a recorded vote is requested.

Page 28 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Motions

2.6 Page 2 of 3

(e) AMENDMENT - A member may present only one amendment to the main motion at a time. Another amendment may be introduced only after the previous one has been disposed of. In the case of an amendment, the amendment to the motion may not be withdrawn or defeated until the amendment to the amendment has been dealt with. (f) NEW MATTER - A member may not introduce a new matter without notice, unless Council without debate dispenses with the notice requirements by twothirds vote. (g)

RECONSIDERATION i)

A member who voted with the prevailing side may move for reconsideration at the same meeting as follows: If the motion to reconsider receives a seconder, the motion for reconsideration shall be open to debate and voted upon. The motion will require the votes of two thirds of members present to pass. If adopted, the motion to reconsider temporarily nullifies the previous decision. The main motion originally voted on is again pending. The motion may now be amended or considered as moved and voted upon. Example:

Original Motion → Vote
Motion to Reconsider → Vote
Reconsideration of main motion (it may now be amended)→ Vote

ii)

If a member who voted on the prevailing side presents a motion for reconsideration at a subsequent meeting, the motion must be preceded by a notice of motion. At the subsequent meeting, the motion to reconsider follows the same process, as noted above. It will require a two thirds majority vote of the members present to carry. Example: Meeting #1 → Meeting #2 → Meeting #3 → Meeting #3 →

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

No matter may be reconsidered more than once in a twelve-month period. A notice of motion for reconsideration will not stop or delay action on the decided matter unless Council agrees otherwise. In this case, Council must approve the injunction by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. If Council approves a motion to reconsider, the reconsideration will become the next order of business, unless the motion calls for a future definite date. Debate on the matter shall proceed as though it had not been previously voted upon. The debate must be confined to reasons for or against reconsideration only. (h) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

ADJOURNMENT - A motion to adjourn a meeting will be in order except: When a member is in possession of the floor. When it has been decided that the vote now be taken. During the taking of a vote. If determined in the negative the vote shall not be taken again until some intermediate proceedings have been taken by Council

PROCEDURAL RULES Motions

2.6 Page 3 of 3

Page 29 of 173

Members may not leave their places on adjournment until the Presiding Officer vacates the role as Chair. Council will adjourn at 10:00 p.m. if in session at that hour, unless determined otherwise by a majority vote of the members present. (i) BYLAWS - The agenda may contain a summary of the contents of each bylaw. If a majority of Council requests, the Clerk will read the by-law in its entirety. All by-laws must be passed in meetings that are open to the public. A Confirmatory By-law, to confirm the proceedings of Council during the meeting, will be placed before Council each meeting. (j) SUSPENSION OF THE RULES – Any Member may request that the rules of procedure be temporarily suspended. An example of a motion to suspend the rules would be to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. (k) ULTRA VIRES – No motion shall be put on a matter which is Ultra Vires the jurisdiction of Council (l) CHANGES TO COUNCIL COMPOSITION - Where Council wishes to consider changes to the composition of council:

5 votes shall be required to support the change,
At least one Councillor from each district shall support the change,
There shall be widespread consultation with voters before any proposal is adopted including at least one public meeting in advance of day of the meeting where the resolution is decided. Normal municipal procedures for public notice shall apply.

Page 30 of 173 PROCEDURAL RULES Committees

2.7 Page 1 of 1

2.7 COMMITTEES (a) SPECIAL PURPOSE COMMITTEES - Council may from time to time appoint, by resolution, special purpose or “Ad Hoc” committees with Terms of Reference as set out in the appointment resolution. (b) EXTERNAL COMMITTEES/BOARDS – Council may from time to time appoint, by resolution, individuals to external committees or boards. The term of office for community members shall be two terms, the length of which will be decided by Council. Terms are to be staggered such that there is always a productive mix of experienced and new volunteer members. (c) COMMITTEE CHAIR - Each Committee at its first meeting in the year will elect a Committee Chair and Committee Vice-Chair from its members. The Committee Chair may be removed only by a vote of a majority of the Committee. The Chair shall only serve a maximum of two years. The Committee will also at the first meeting arrange its own schedule of meetings. (d) QUORUM - A quorum shall be a majority of those appointed to a Committee by Council. A majority is more than half of the total number of those appointed to the Committee (Bourinet’s Rules of Order). (e) COMMENCEMENT OF MEETINGS - If a Committee Chair or Committee Vice-Chair is not present within fifteen minutes from the time of the opening of the Committee meeting, the members present will elect another member of the Committee to preside. That member will discharge the duties of the Presiding Officer for that meeting, or until the arrival of the Committee Chair or Vice-Chair. (f) RULES - The rules governing the procedure of Council will be observed in all Committees, except that the number of times speaking on a question will not be limited. (g) VOTING - The Mayor or his/her designate will be an ex-officio member of all Committees of Council. Further the Mayor or designate will have the same rights and privileges as any other Committee member and may constitute part of the quorum. Any member, including the Committee Chair, may propose or second a motion. When the Committee Chair proposes a motion, he or she must vacate the chair to the Acting Chair of the Committee during the debate on the motion and resume the chair following the vote. All members will vote on all motions except when disqualified by reasons of interest or otherwise. A tie vote at the Committee level shall be considered lost. (h) DUTIES - The Committee may report to Council any Committee member who refuses or neglects to attend a meeting. Council may then remove that member from the Committee and appoint another member in his/her place. Council may discharge from responsibility any Committee, which refuses or neglects to give due consideration to any matter before it. Council may then allot such responsibility to another Committee. All Committees are subject to the control and direction of Council. Each Committee must submit to Council reports including minutes and recommendations on all matters connected with their duties.

Page 31 of 173

Report to South Frontenac Township Council

From:

Councillor Mark Schjerning

Date:

May 10, 2015

Subject:

Procedural Rules

Mayor Vandewal and Fellow Councillors: I am writing this report as I am unable to attend the May 12, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting where the Procedural Rules are on the agenda for review and discussion. As you are all aware, I feel that there are a number of areas where this document should be changed. My motion to defer discussing this issue until a meeting in May was supported by Council. This allowed us to deal with more pressing issues and gain some experience as a group. The Council of South Frontenac Township has operated under these guidelines for a number of years. I feel that there are some improvements that can be made in how we conduct our meetings. The goal is for us to become more effective and efficient as a Council and Staff. I will list the areas that I feel changes need to be considered and then expand on each item listed and provide the rationale for the change. These are listed in the order that they appear in the current documents. The section number is also listed for reference. It is important that we have a consensus document for this and can adopt the new procedures without the need for amendments. This may require follow-up at the May 26th COW meeting. I would ask that this report be attached to the meeting minutes and copies provided to all members of Council. Thank you.

Suggested Changes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Rules of Order Convening Meetings Closed Sessions Delegations Presiding Officer Other

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 1

Page 32 of 173

Rules of Order (2.2 (b))

The current procedural rules states that “The rules of order of the parliament of Canada will govern the proceedings if the Council and the conduct of members. The official parliamentary guide is Bourinot’s Rules of Order. However, where the wording in this by-law varies from Bourinot’s Rules of Order, this by-law shall take precedence”. The procedural rules are Schedule ‘A” to the By-Law. The statement should say that “the wording in the Procedural Rules made under this By-Law shall take precedence”. Observation To me, Bourinot’s Rules of Order reads like a story book. It does not provide definitive guidance on how meetings are to be conducted and the rules of order applied. It makes many references to the Parliament. We do not have access to these, and as such cannot rely on them to guide us during a meeting. We would be better served by having rules of order that are prescriptive, outline the precedence of motions and procedures and provide clear guidance. Suggested Change 

Adopt “Robert’s Rules of Order” as the rules of order for Council

These are procedural rules that have been adopted by many Councils, organizations, associations and groups They are readily available and many are familiar with them They provide clear direction on how meetings should be conducted They outline the order and precedence of motions and required vote to carry Without changing to these rules we could become bogged down at our meetings as the Presiding Officer would not have a reference readily available to provide guidance

Convening Meetings (2.2 (e) and (i); 2.3 (a))

There are several changes suggested to how often and when we meet. Councils to meet twice monthly vs meeting every week.

It is common for

The suggested changes are outlined below. Meeting Frequency and Names Currently Council meets every Tuesday. Agendas are prepared each week and sent out by the end of the work week ahead of the meeting. This also requires the various reports to be completed by staff in time to be included in the agenda package for the next meeting. A considerable amount of staff time is spent on Council meetings. Reducing the number of meetings would allow staff to devote their time to other matters. Having a week between meeting agendas having to be prepared would allow more time to plan and develop agendas and to prepare the various reports.

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 2

Page 33 of 173

There is a report on the agenda for the May 12, 2015 COW meeting that speaks to the issue of staff needing to manage their time. Not having to prepare reports for the next Council or COW meeting each week would alleviate some of the demands on staff time. Suggested Change 

Reduce meetings to two (2) per month

One “Working Session” and one “Regular Meeting” would be held “Working Sessions” (see below) would take place the first Tuesday of the month “Regular Meetings” would take place the third Tuesday of the month Additional meetings could be scheduled at the call of the Mayor o Special Meetings are currently permitted under 2.2 (g) Examples of additional meetings would be for budget deliberations

Meeting Start Times Currently meetings are scheduled to start at 7:00 pm. Suggested Change 

Move the normal starting time 30 minutes earlier to 6:30 pm.

This could be adjusted as needed An example of this could be when there needs to be a “Closed Session” that requires the attendance of someone other than the members of Council or staff (see below) This would normally occur when Council requires advice on legal matters and the Township Solicitor is required to attend

Meeting Names Currently there are “Regular Meetings” and “Committee of the Whole” meetings. Council is limited to conducting business and passing resolutions at Council meetings. The open debate of a COW meeting is beneficial and should continue. This could be done during a “Working Session” while still allowing Council business to be conducted. Suggested Change 

Change “Committee of the Whole” to “Working Session”

In this meeting, Council could move to meet as a COW This could be done for a number of the agenda items listed under the COW These could include: o 5) Delegations o 7) Reports for Information o 8) Rise and Report from Committees of Council o 9) Information Items Meeting in this format would allow Council to provide direction by passing resolutions and not having to wait until the next Regular Meeting

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 3

Page 34 of 173

Closed Sessions (2.2 (h))

Currently there are Closed Sessions (scheduled) at the beginning of the meeting agendas and Closed Sessions (if requested) at the end of meeting agendas. Previously, we were told that there was a requirement to report in open session (“Rise and Report”) as to the general nature of the discussions in closed session. At our last meeting the requirement to do this was asked and the CAO/Clerk responded by saying that this was not a requirement under the Act. It has also been noted that the reason for having the Closed Sessions at the beginning of the meeting meant that members of the public and media did not have to wait around for the end of a Closed Session held at the end of the meeting to learn about the general nature of the discussions. If there is a requirement to report on the general nature of the closed meeting, it should be done. This does seem a bit redundant as it would pretty much be the same as the resolution to move into Closed Session. “Be it resolved that…Council move into Closed Session to discuss a matter related to “XXX”, followed by, “Council discussed a matter related to “XXX” in Closed Session”, sort of thing. Suggested Change 

Two forms of Closed Session o (i) Where advice (legal or otherwise) is required o (ii) Where only members of Council and staff are required



The first would be scheduled at the start of the meeting and starting time adjusted accordingly (i.e. the current 6:00 pm) This would accommodate the schedule of the individual required to attend to provide information and advice (usually the Township Solicitor) The second would be scheduled at the end of the meeting This would allow members of Council and any required staff to meet as a last agenda item prior to adjournment

  

The length of the Closed Sessions that we have had so far during this current term have varied considerably in length One was just over 30 minutes and one look less than 10 minutes One where we received advice of a legal nature took over 60 minutes The above changes would allow for a more productive use of our time and not have to wait around for the scheduled reconvening of Open Session Council must not be restrained in the time it takes to conduct business during a closed session Closed Sessions that take place early in the meeting agenda should not be cut short to allow Council to make it back into chambers by a specified time If a meeting is called to order at 6:00 pm in “Open Session” and then moves into “Closed Session”, it should move back into “Open Session” when the “Closed Session” business has been concluded. There should be no recess.

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 4

Page 35 of 173

Delegations (2.3 (b))

The current rules allow for delegations at COW meetings only. Delegations are limited to ten (10) minutes. Suggested Change 

Differentiate between “Delegations” and “Presentations” to Council Delegations:

would continue to follow the current process would be during Council sitting as a COW the actual presentation by the delegation would be limited to 15 minutes the delegation would be timed and advised when the time limit is reached members of Council would be able to ask questions following the presentation there would be no time limit for Council to ask questions

Other items to consider regarding delegations include:

who can request a delegation to Council a process for reviewing and screening applications for a delegation an approval process (should one not already exist) - perhaps delegations are reviewed and approved by the CAO and Mayor limiting the number of delegations at any one meeting looking at a limit on the number of times an individual, group, or association can have a delegation on the same topic developing a procedure document that can be sent to delegations that outlines how the delegation can present (should one not already exist) - i.e. 15 minute time limit, will be stopped once the time limit is reached, members of Council may ask questions, etc.

Presentations:

could be made to Council at any meeting there would be no time limit for the presentation members of Council would be able to ask questions at any point during or following the presentation there would be no time limit for Council to ask questions

Presentations would be reports that are required or have been requested by Council. Recent examples of “Delegations” that could have been “Presentations” include:    

Creative Condominiums (Township Solicitor) Strategic Plan Draft (8020Info) Annual Reports on Waste Disposal Sites (AECOM) “The Point” Shoreline Rehabilitation (Riggs Engineering)

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 5

Page 36 of 173

As “Delegations” they were subject to the existing 10 minute time period. Most of these presentations exceeded the allowed timeframe for “Delegations”. When the 10 minute requirement contained in the current Procedural Rules of Council were pointed out, the presentations were rushed and all the required information was not properly presented to Council. These “Delegations” should be named as “Presentations” in the agenda and not subject to a time limit. Council should benefit from hearing the full presentation and have the opportunity to ask any questions. 5.

Presiding Officer (2.4 (c))

In the draft document, section 2.4 (c) reads “The Presiding Officer may state his or her position on any matter before Council following the discussion of Council but before a matter is put to a vote. This will not require the Presiding Officer to relinquish the chair”. There is no issue with this occurring during a meeting where Council is meeting as a Committee of the Whole and open discussion is taking place. An issue does arise when Council is debating a motion that has been moved and seconded and is before Council for consideration. The role of the individual responsible for serving as the chairperson of a meeting (Presiding Officer) is to ensure that debate is conducted in an orderly fashion and to rule on any procedural issues that may arise. This includes ruling on “Points of Order”. There is a reason that procedural rules call for the person presiding over a meeting to step out of the chair to speak to a motion and participate in a debate. This is to ensure that there is someone who can make rulings on any procedural issues that may arise when they are speaking. The Speaker of the House of Commons does not participate in the debate in Parliament. Likewise, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly does not participate in the debate. The “game requires that there be a referee”. Suggested Change 

Amend this to require that “The Presiding Officer must relinquish the chair prior to participating in the debate of any motion before Council”.

This will allow for the orderly debate of a motion You cannot be placed in a position to rule on any procedural issue that is raised concerning your own conduct You are able to freely state your opinion This is the normal and expected way to conduct a meeting

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 6

Page 37 of 173

Other

The present agendas list “New Business” prior to “Closed Session (if requested”). The January 2015 draft has “Notices of Motion” and “Announcements”. I would suggest that “New Business” be kept and both “Notices of Motion” and “Announcements” be added. Perhaps we add “Statements by Members” as well. There may be occasion where there is “New Business" that needs to be presented and discussed at a meeting. I do not support having questions being asked by members of the Public at the end of a meeting. The public should be directed to staff to have their questions addressed and answered. Should they not be satisfied with the response they have other avenues that can be followed. The first step should be to contact their representative on Council. Following this, they could contact the Mayor, write to Council, or request a delegation.

Report to Township Council – Councillor Mark Schjerning

Page 7

Page 38 of 173

Summary of Comments on Microsoft Word - Procedural Bylaw - Jan 20 Revised Draft Page: 3 ~ Number 1

Author Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 08/10/2015 10:29:05 AM

We should consider changing to Robert’s Rules of Order.

Page: 5 Number 1

Author Mark Date: 13/09/2015 4:30:47 PM Subject: Sticky Note Should the format for meetings not change - do we need a 3rd meeting in those months that have a 5th Tuesday? * F

Number 2

Author Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 4:59:48 PM

May need to change or be deleted depending on the agenda discussion.

Page: 6 Number 1

Author Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 5:01:38 PM

Should this now say by^osing to the “AgendaNotes” application with an e-mail notification of same being sent out? .-.Number 2

Author: Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 4:34:26 PM

Should there be agreement to move to 2 meetings per month the agendas will need to be changed to allow for a COW session at each meeting. -Number: 3

Author Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 08/10/2015 10:19:59 AM

What about adding something like:

Statements by Members (this could cover off “Announcements” if we don’t want to have it as a separate item)
New Business

Author Mark Number: 4 Subject: Sticky Note We should have a “Reports/Presentations” item added.

Date: 08/10/2015 10:26:59 AM

This would be for Council to hear such things as the report form the auditor, on the water system, etc. These are the reports that Council requires or has asked for.

^Number 5

Author: Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 4:35:36 PM

Should this be spelled out if we continue with the current meeting format?

Page:7 Number 1

Author Mark

Is “Committee” required here?

Number 2

Author Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date:J.3/09/2015 4:36:31 PM

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 5:03:17 PM

Add “Reports/Presentations” section. These would be those items that we are required to receive or have asked for.

There should not be a time limit for these as there is for Delegations.

Page: 8 Number 1 Author Mark There needs to be discussion on this.

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 08/10/2015 10:22:06 AM

We need someone in the chair who can rule on any procedural issues raised at any time. The Chairperson cannot make a ruling on themselves.

Page: 9 Number 1

Author: Mark

Subject: Sticky Note

Date: 13/09/2015 4:44:07 PM

Can we look at something that will allow the mover of a motion to speak to their motion without a time limit?

Page 39 of 173

Page 40 of 173

MEMORANDUM TO:

WAYNE ORR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

FROM:

NORM ROBERTS, STORRINGTON DISTRICT COUNCILLOR

DATE:

OCTOBER 5, 2015

SUBJECT:

PROCEDURAL BY-LAW –PROPOSED CHANGES

Rules of Order C2.2(b) – change to Robert’s Rules of Order
Convening Meetings (a) Leave it the way current council meetings as is, it’s okay (b) I do not like the idea of making Council meetings longer (c) I don’t agree that less meetings would mean less work for staff because the same amount of reports would still come to Council (d) Longer meetings could add to quick decisions just to shorten meetings (e) Now Council know that every Tuesday is a Council meeting. By changing it to two meetings means Council members may schedule other things on Tuesday and a called for extra meeting could mean not getting a quorum.
Leave Closed Sessions the way they are – also like the break between closed and open if you need to talk to someone
Delegations (a) Delegations should stay at 10 minutes (b) Presentation or reported required by Council 15 minutes (c) If there 10 or delegations or more on the same subject then limit to 7 minutes
Presiding Officer 2.4 (a) Stay the same
Other (a) I agree with new business being kept and both notices of motions and announcements being added (b) Statement by member is a good idea.
Chain of Office (a) Should be worn by Mayor at Council meetings but not at C-O-W (b) Council should have a dress code, shirt and tie or suit

Page 41 of 173

From: John McDougall [mailto:john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca] Sent: September-11-15 7:43 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net Subject: Procedural Suggestions

Wayne, I am overall happy with the present by-law, but have a few suggestions.

Change to Roberts Rules of Order. The County uses this and it seems to work well with their Clerk.
I support weekly meetings. I like routine and can plan the rest of my life around Tuesday nights. I watch you plan well ahead for agenda items and it seems that the staff effort is not overly onerous. It also supports timely continuity. Rather than having meetings called ‘ at the call of the mayor’, I like the meetings to be cancelled ‘at the call’.
I support the COW followed in a week by a Council meeting. It gives us a week of sober thought before ratifications. In my experience, most of our miss-steps have occurred from moving too quickly.
The current starting times for both in camera and regular meetings is fine. If we have a free wait time, I enjoy the opportunity to chat with colleagues. The public needs continuity about starting times.
I think clarifying the definition of the COW might help Council. I like the definition and detail in George Rust-D’Eye’s Handbook for Municipal Councillors on Pg, 13. This includes where and when the mayor can speak. 6.We should perhaps have a conversation about the COW being chaired by the Deputy Mayor. However, I am not convinced that the COW agenda that involves the public should not have the Mayor in charge. We are not bound by ‘ Westminster’ like the Federal and Provincial governments and do not have a speaker, so our chair may speak freely in a COW and step away from the Chair to speak in a Council meeting.
I support 10 minute delegations, with flexibility for requested reports and presentations that require in depth analysis that cannot be achieved in the 10 minutes framework. This should be decided by the Chair, without debate.
There should be no limits on the number of the public delegations. It is our way of ensuring direct. meaningful taxpayer involvement. I also like giving the public the question time at the end, although at County Council this rarely happens except by the press.
I find the ‘Rise and Report’ presentations often come at the end of a long meeting, and if they could come earlier in the COW they might be more meaningful. We need to have a clear understanding of these organizations that affect our decisions and budget. Thank you. John McDougall

Page 42 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW:

October 8, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

October 13, 2105

SUBJECT: Updates on Johnston Point and Hartington Developments RECOMMENDATION: For information only. BACKGROUND: Two proposals have been working there way through the planning process. Both have had reviews beyond those coordinated by the County. Johnston Point: The attached report is a response from the developer’s consultant to the Township initiated reviews. The project has been appealed to the OMB by the developer and is awaiting a hearing to be scheduled. Hartington Subdivision The attached report is a response from the County’s peer evaluator (Malroz) to a citizen initiated review by McIntosh Perry. The developer is reviewing the response and the item will be placed on a future agenda when the Township receives a response from the developer. Staff are not aware of a formal change in the application being submitted to the County. ATTACHMENTS: •

Peer Review Response (and 21 appendices) – Johnston Point

•

Malroz review of McIntosh Perry review – Hartington Subdivision

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 43 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Ecological Services 3803 Sydenham Rd. Elginburg Ont. K0H 1M0 mail@ecologicalservices.ca

August 25, 2015

Peer Review Response Magenta Waterfront Development Johnston Point, Loughborough Lake Summary The following response to the McIntosh Perry Peer Review of July 28, 2015 on the Johnston Point EIS is intended to provide decision makers clarity on issues that were raised therein. While some potential issues have been raised in the Peer Review, we feel that we have provided sufficient information to provide reassurance to decision makers that the proposed development will not cause a negative impact to significant natural heritage features for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the South Frontenac Township Official Plan (OP), and will not be in violation of the Endangered Species Act. By local standards the ecological footprint of the development will be small with an average lot size of 5.3 acres, large vegetated setbacks from water and wetland, recommended mitigation measures, and specific conditions in the Condominium Agreement that restrict activities of individual purchasers. In order to provide the clarification requested, the format of this response letter will be organized to match key points made in the Peer Review starting with Methodology. Finally, we would like to thank the peer reviewers Jeff King and Matt Wheeler of McIntosh Perry for their insights, which will help provide clarity and move this process forward. Methodology The Peer Review requested a greater level of methodological detail than that provided on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS of June 12, 2014. This information could have been provided if requested, and will be provided here on a species by species basis further on in this report. It is important to note that consulting Biologists such as ourselves and the peer reviewers do not have a professional association such as Professional Engineers, nor do we operate under a professional Standards of Practice for producing impact assessments. As a result, there is a wide range of reporting styles used for impact assessments. Our reports evolve to match new information as it arises, as well as the policies and regulations, and the guidelines that stem from that. This is especially relevant as more species are added to Species at Risk lists every year. We work with the reviewing agencies to ensure that the 1

Page 44 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

assessment procedures and format are met to their satisfaction. Comprehensive species inventories are normally not requested by the local agencies as we focus attention on those species relevant to the study areas. Under this regimen, we have produced hundreds of impact assessments that were similar in methodological reporting as the Johnston Point EIS without issue or challenge. While we typically just provide a general outline of procedures, we do employ focused field effort in the collection developed through certification (training) and in consultation with local, Provincial, and Federal environmental agencies. Through this certification and consultation we ensure that the agencies are aware of our practices and adapt accordingly when advised to do so.

Species at Risk Species at Risk were a main focus of the Peer Review. Using Section 2.13 of the the PPS as a guide, we cover Endangered or Threatened species under the heading of Species at Risk in our reports, including the Johnston Point EIS. Other species at risk, such as provincial S1, S2, and S3 species, or Special Concern species are discussed under Significant Wildlife Habitat, as prescribed by Section 2.14 of the PPS and the Significant Wildlife Habitat manual. For convenience we will discuss all Species at Risk that were raised in the Peer Review below. Cerulean Warbler (Threatened) The Cerulean Warbler was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List on June 8, 2011 as a Category 3 (i.e., threatened) species. The Act is intended to protect individuals of this species from direct harm, as well as key aspects of their habitat, such as nesting areas. The Cerulean Warbler is a migrant species whose summer habitat in Frontenac County represents the northern edge of their populations. Hagan and Johnston (1992) note that their winter habitat in the Andes is heavily logged and attribute this as a key factor in their population decline. However in Frontenac County this species is not habitat limited and Jones and Robertson (2001) found that available habitat goes unoccupied. This species prefers core habitat (i.e., large contiguous woodland with at least 100 m of woodland edge buffer) with large trees in mature moist deciduous woodland. In contrast, Johnston Point is predominately composed of younger drier woodland and it contains no core habitat, and therefore does not represent good habitat. An examination of Cerulean Warbler sightings in eBird Canada (http://ebird.org/content/canada/) has most observations in the region concentrated in Frontenac Park and in woodland associated with Opinicon Rd. Except for a single inconclusive report from the Kingston side of Loughborough Lake, there are no reports near the lake. Detection of this bird would have been covered during the standard three early morning breeding bird surveys using standard protocols as described on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS, in the spring in of 2013, and two spring visits in 2011. During all surveys on the property that extended from 2010 to 2015 we would also be listening for any unusual species, and this species was not detected. As a result, and in regards to the Cerulean Warbler, the proposed 2

Page 45 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

development will not be in violation of the Species at Risk Act, and will be in compliance with the policies of the PPS and the South Frontenac Township OP. Cerulean References Hagan, J., and D. Johnston. 1992. A warbler in trouble: Dendroica cerulean. Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press. Jones, J., and R. Robertson. 2001. Territory and nest-site selection of Cerulean Warblers in eastern Ontario. The Auk. 118: 727-735. Least Bittern (Threatened) The Least Bittern was already assessed as threatened when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. The Act is intended to protect individuals of this species from direct harm, as well as key aspects of their habitat, such as nesting areas. As noted on page 19 of the EIS, there is a lack of suitable wetland habitat around Johnston Point for this species. They are a marsh associated species, preferring emergent vegetation like cattails or tall reeds, and except for a few small reedy patches, the wetlands associated with Johnston Point are either open water wetland or treed/thicket swamp, and therefore not suitable for the Least Bittern. The NHIC listing for this bird in the 1 km squares linked to Johnston Point is over 100 years old which is too old to have relevance in the current context. There are also no sightings listed for Loughborough Lake in eBird Canada. As a result there would be little justification for a focused search. We undertook the requisite early morning breeding bird surveys, as described on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS, in the spring in of 2013. We also assessed the wetland habitat by kayak in the summer of 2010, and spring of 2011 and 2013 to better assess the presence of potential wetland species. No Least Bittern were observed. As a result, and in regards to the Least Bittern, the proposed development will not be in violation of the Species at Risk Act, and will be in compliance with the policies of the PPS and the South Frontenac Township OP.

Whip-poor-will (Threatened) The Eastern Whip-poor-will was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List on September 10, 2009 as a Category 3 (i.e., threatened) species. The Act is intended to protect individuals of this species from direct harm, as well as key aspects of their habitat, such as nesting areas. We have had extensive experience surveying for Whip-poor-will in our work with solar power companies and quarry operators. Solar power companies are not allowed to build on Class 1 and Class 2 farmland, and it is problematic to build in woodlands, and so they often target poor farmland or scrubland, which is also preferred by Whip-poor-wills. These birds are also attracted to quarries and will often nest in close proximity.

Page 46 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

We have observed Whip-poor-will in several scrubby areas south of Sydenham, and have also found them in forested regions of the Canadian Shield that contain open areas such as rock barrens. Prior to road construction at Johnston Point we felt that the woodland lacked the necessary openings and the canopy was too dense to contain prospective Whip-poor-will habitat and therefore did not conduct Whip-poor-will surveys. In the spring of 2014 we conducted several Whip-poor-will surveys in the region for various projects. Although we felt the possibility of their presence to be low at Johnston Point, we included one site visit on one of our regional survey nights using the OMNR (2012) survey protocol for Whip-poor-will. During the evening of the site visit they were calling at many of the sites we surveyed in the region, but not at Johnston Point. During the site visit to Johnston Point we did hear this bird calling much further to the east on Loughborough Lake, which also coincides with observations documented in eBird Canada. In regards to the Eastern Whip-poor-will, the proposed development will not be in violation of the Species at Risk Act, and will be in compliance with the policies of the PPS and the South Frontenac Township OP. Whip-poor-will Reference Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch, Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 10 pp.

Butternut (Endangered) The Butternut was already assessed as threatened when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. The Act is intended to protect individuals of this species from direct harm, as well as key aspects of their habitat. Butternuts do not have key habitat aspects as they are found in most habitats throughout the region. As the various taxa focused surveys required us to cover all of Johnston Point, we were always on the lookout between 2010 and 2015 for this species. In particular, we put a specific focus on the laneway route in 2011, and on all potential building sites in 2014, due to potential tree clearing. During the peer review site visit I came across a Butternut tree not previously noted and led the peer review team to its location to show it to them, which was next to an area of swamp. I have subsequently done a butternut health assessment and determined it to be a Category 2 tree for the purposes of Regulation 242/08. This means that the tree is retainable. Although it is infected with the canker disease, the infection had not progressed far enough to kill the tree. The normal disturbance related setback distance prescribed by MNRF for retainable Butternuts is 25 m, and the nearest possible building location to this tree would be 40 m. The Regulation is focused on people who wish to remove Butternut trees, but there are no plans to remove this tree and therefore no authorization is required. The Regulation also allows for

Page 47 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

the removal of up to 10 Category 2 trees on a property as long as new saplings are planted in compensation. As acknowledged by the peer reviewers it is unlikely the tree will be impacted, and they further note that the landowner/purchaser of the lot should be made aware of its presence and the regulations protecting it. We agree with this recommendation and the landowner will inform the purchaser of the presence of this tree and the restrictions associated with it.

Gray Ratsnake (Threatened) The Gray Ratsnake was already assessed as threatened when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. The Act is intended to protect individuals of this species from direct harm, as well as key aspects of their habitat, such as hibernacula. Regulation 242/08 came out on June 1, 2012 and provides a more detailed assessment of this species as it relates to the Act. Not all species in the Endangered Species Act are covered under Regulation 242/08. This species has several common names such as the Black Rat Snake, Gray Ratsnake and the Eastern Rat Snake. Normally one can depend on the Latin name as the definitive name, but here there are also several versions including Pantherophis spiloides, Scotophis spiloides, and Elaphe obsoleta. I prefer Black Rat Snake as the common name as this is the name commonly used in the early 1980’s when I first encountered this snake when accompanying researchers undertaking the ground breaking ratsnake research at the Queen’s University Biology Station (QUBS) at Lake Opinicon by Dr. Patrick Weatherhead. Much of the current knowledge of this snake in the province extends from the research at QUBS by Dr. Weatherhead, and by his graduate student and now eminent researcher, Dr. Blouin-Demers. For this report the name Gray Ratsnake will be used as this is the name used in the Act. The populations in this region represent the furthest northern reach of this species, which faces thermal challenges in order to survive. Surviving the Canadian winters is a particular challenge and hibernacula are critical to that survival. OMNR (2012) notes that sites located below the frost line are needed, but underground sites must also have the necessary moisture regime to keep snakes from desiccating during winter dormancy. The importance of hibernacula is also noted in the Gray Ratsnake Recovery Strategy by Kraus et al. (2010), which was cited extensively in the Peer Review. Specifically Kraus et al. (2010) recommended the following. It is recommended that the area prescribed as Gray Ratsnake habitat in a habitat regulation include all known hibernacula and the area within a 150 metre radius of them; and all known oviposition sites and the area within a 30 metre radius of them. This recommendation was subsequently implemented in Regulation 242/08 of June 1, 2012 and is also described in OMNR (undated b). Interestingly, the subsequent MNRF Mitigation Tool of 2014, only calls for a 30 m radius around hibernacula for other snake species. Regardless, we were well aware of the critical nature of hibernacula and the Endangered Species Act when we began our field work for the 14 proposed lots.

Page 48 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

There was discussion in the Peer Review as it pertains to the construction of the existing Johnston Point laneway and a possible conflict with Ontario Regulation 242/08. The peer reviewers may not have been aware that Regulation 242/08 was not in place when the laneway was being considered. As noted previously, the Regulation came out on June 1, 2012, while the first draft of the impact assessment for the laneway was completed in November of 2011, and finalized on March 1, 2012. Construction of the laneway was completed by the end of April of 2012 and inspected by Township officials. Prior (1977) noted that preferred hibernacula sites are south facing rock walls with fracturing, with some sun exposure to provide emergent snakes the necessary thermoregulation to get over winter dormancy. This was also suggested by Prior and Weatherhead (1996) who found all of the hibernacula they discovered facing south. There were some prospective areas like these on Johnston Point and we put a particular focus on these during the 2013 field work, as well as a focus on the potential building sites. Nevertheless, it is well acknowledged that finding actual hibernacula entry points can be very difficult, which is why we rely on the presence of spring congregations to indicate the presence of hibernacula. During the spring and fall, Gray Ratsnakes emerge from their hibernacula and will stay within the immediate vicinity for several days to bask in the trees (see Prior 1997) before foraging outwards, and Prior and Weatherhead (1996) noted that large partially dead trees were preferred. In this way they are not difficult to observe and we have observed several emergent congregations in this region. According to Blouin-Demers et al. (2000) peak spring emergence in this region occurs in early May with more emerging on hot days. Emergence can also occur over several weeks as not all snakes will emerge from a hibernacula at the same time, which increases the probability of discovering emergent snakes. With this in mind we looked for evidence of emergence congregations on three warm days in early May of 2013 throughout Johnston Point. These site visit days also involved basking turtles surveys and early morning bird surveys, resulting in double coverage for snakes. Throughout all other site visits between 2010 and 2015 we kept a lookout for Gray Ratsnakes, because we were aware of the importance of this snake as I mentioned to the peer reviewers during the site visit. Aside from the two impact assessments we produced for Johnston Point, we also discussed this snake in a September 3, 2014 letter to the CRCA, who raised no further issues in this regards. It would appear that the Peer Reviewers did not have access to this letter. It would be reasonable to conclude that hibernacula were present if emergence congregations were observed on site, but no congregations were found and the only snake species observed on Johnston Point were Garter Snakes. Hibernacula are used repeatedly over the lifespan of a Gray Ratsnake, and this is important, because this would increase the chance of finding them on Johnston Point during field visits from 2010 to 2015. The fact that we did not observe them further supports our belief that Johnston Point is not an important area for these snakes. Based on a review of several radio-tracking studies, Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead (2012) determined the average size to be about 7.7 hectares. This also provides further confidence for

Page 49 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

our view that Gray Ratsnakes are not on Johnston Point, as resident snakes staying in one home range area would more likely be observed than a transient snake. The Gray Ratsnake does well in a habitat with a mix of woodland and open areas. BlouinDemers and Weatherhead (2002a and 2002b) found that forest edges were greatly favored, and that fragmentation of forests by humans has actually created preferred habitat. Prior to the laneway construction, Johnston Point was entirely forested and lacked open areas, indicating a less than desirable habitat. In contrast, it is well known that there is a greater density of these snakes in the many intertwining wetlands, rock barrens, and clearings of the more rugged areas of the Canadian Shield further north and east of Johnston Point. The historical use of Johnston Point may also be relevant to the lack of Gray Ratsnake sightings, as it had once been mostly denuded of trees and used for cattle grazing, and this would not have been favorable to Gray Ratsnakes. When the cattle were removed, initial colonization was by juniper and red cedar that would initially thrive in the shallow soils and this vegetation would also not have been favorable Gray Ratsnake habitat. In summary, we did not find any Gray Ratsnakes on Johnston Point and therefore are confident in our assessment of no negative impacts for the purposes of the PPS and the South Frontenac OP. For sites where Gray Ratsnakes are known to hibernate, MNRF (2014) provides a mitigation support tool for snakes that recommends speed controls on roads, signs, public education programs, and constructing hibernacula. MNRF (undated) also provides suggestions for enhancement features such as keeping roads to gravel (as opposed to paving) to make them less attractive to this snake. Although no Gray Ratsnakes are known to Johnston Point, there is no intention to pave the laneway, and mitigation measures such as speed controls, signs and landowner education programs are recommended. As well, please see mitigations for Blanding’s Turtle on page 10. The landowner is also receptive to the idea of working with the MNRF and the CRCA to develop Gray Ratsnake enhancement features that could increase the overall population base such as creating brush piles for nesting and creating artificial hibernacula (e.g., see Gillingham and Carpenter 1978). In this vein, and as per our recommendations, the landowner took the Amphibians and Reptile course at the Elbow Lake Environmental Education Center to become better informed regarding the implementation of appropriate protection measures under condominium rules and regulations. With respect to Gray Ratsnakes, the Endangered Species Act and Regulation 242/08 could apply to a multitude of activities in the region such as logging, farming, cottage development, or even something as simple as upgrading a driveway or adding an addition, if a snake were found within 1000 m of those activities. Since these snakes are not uncommon in the region, that 1000 m distance means that much of the region is covered. However, like the Johnston Point development, this does not necessarily mean that these activities cannot take place.

Page 50 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

There is some pragmatism in the application of the Act (e.g., see OMNRF undated b), and in those instances where the perceived impact might be great, then the MNRF suggests contacting them in order to better assess the situation. We did not contact the MNRF for the proposed 14 lots because of the lack of sightings during our field work, the large size of the lots, and the large amount of woodland to be retained in the development. Furthermore none of the reviewing agencies raised this issue. However as a result of comments in the Peer Review we contacted Kate Pitt of the MNRF on August 4, 2015 regarding the Gray Ratsnake. To evaluate whether or not a Benefit Permit is required, MNRF requires information that has since been provided including our EIS, and our peer review response which includes our field methods. If she feels an Authorization is required, the landowner will apply for a Benefit Permit, which would apply certain conditions such as mitigation measures or restrictions on development, such as timing of construction, pre-site assessment, or shifting building footprint locations. Gray Ratsnake References Blouin-Demers, G, K. Prior, and P. Weatherhead. 2000. Patterns of variation in spring emergence by black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). Herpetologica 56: 175-188. Blouin Demers, G. and P. Weatherhead. 2002a. Habitat use by black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) in fragmented forests. Ecology 82:2882-2896 Blouin Demers, G. and P. Weatherhead. 2002b. An experimental test of the link between foraging, habitat selection and thermoregulation in black rat snakes Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 1006-1013. Blouin-Demers, G. and P. Weatherhead. 2002. Implications of movement patterns for gene flow in black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80:1162-1172. Gillingham, J., and C. Carpenter. 1978. Snake Hibernation. Construction of and Observation on a Man-Made Hibernaculum. Journal of Herpetology 12: 495-498 Kraus, T., B. Hutchinson, S. Thompson and K. Prior. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis spiloides) – Carolinian and Frontenac Axis populations in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi+23 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (undated). The Black Rat Snake. A landowners guide to helping it recover. Kemptville District Office. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (undated b). Habitat Protection Summary for the Gray Ratsnake. Frontenac Axis Population. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule. Draft. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool Version 2014. Peterborough, Ontario. 8

Page 51 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Prior, K. 1997. Conservation biology of Black Rat Snakes. PhD Thesis. Carleton University. Prior, K. A. and P. J. Weatherhead. 1996. Habitat Features of Black Rat Snake Hibernacula in Ontario. Journal of Herpetology. 30:211-218.

Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened) The Blanding’s Turtle was already assessed as threatened when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. It is not covered in Regulation 242/08. Our main survey protocol, which would cover all turtle species potentially present, involved site visits in early morning on warm sunny days in May with a focus on basking spots (which also coincide with good breeding bird survey and snake survey conditions), and in the evenings in mid-June for ovipositor sites. For better viewing access to possible basking spots we also undertook surveys by kayak with one in the summer of 2010, one in spring of 2011 and one in the spring of 2013. Due to its low profile and quiet ride we have had much success with viewing basking turtles by kayak. During our kayak site visits we determined that there was a scarcity of basking logs or basking rocks in the wetlands around Johnston Point, and did not observe any turtles using the few basking sites available. This is not particularly surprising as Loughborough Lake is a large lake, and greater turtle densities are normally found in smaller water bodies such as ponds and wetlands. We also searched for basking turtles during the 2 spring birding/snake visits in 2011 and 3 spring birding/snake visits in 2013. The dense vegetation in the wetland thickets restricts shoreline access and so all turtle assessments involved the use of some of the optimal land viewing points on Johnston Point. We also considered basking turtles during all other day-time site visits between 2010 and 2015. During the June 11 2015 peer review site visit, we led the McIntosh Perry surveyors out to the island south of Johnston Point in order to point out where good turtle viewing could be done. In the photo provided in the Peer Review, the Blanding’s Turtle that was observed that day was observed from this site, basking on one of the few basking logs in the wetland, and one in which we always assessed when visiting this site. Blanding’s Turtles lay their eggs in the evening and Standing et al. (1999) found that nest construction is usually underway by around 10 PM. Although we found there to be a lack of ovipositor sites around Johnston Point we undertook two evening site visits with flashlights between 11 PM and 1 AM at possible sites in June of 2013. We also undertook amphibian call surveys on these evenings. Blanding’s Turtles usually nest within close proximity to water and Steen et al. (2012) lists 71 m as the average distance to water in Ontario. They also require deep enough soil and a sunny exposure to provide their eggs the thermal qualities required for successful incubation. The shore along Long Bay is north facing and heavily treed and has shallow soils, and therefore lacks

Page 52 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

good nesting features. The southern shore of Johnston Point is also heavily treed and adjoining areas of wetland are thicket swamp which means there are few appropriate sunny shoreline edges suitable for nesting Furthermore, the soils on Johnston Point are mostly shallow, which means there are few good spots for possible egg laying. We did observe some potential nesting spots in Loughborough Lake within 500 m of Johnston Point. These include some waterfront homes that have lawn to the water’s edge. Blanding’s Turtles will nest in lawns because they usually have the necessary conditions for successful incubation. There are also some meadows that run to the water’s edge in association with Emerald Lane to the east of Johnston Point, and Ross and Anderson (1990) found 14 of the 16 nests in their study were situated in grasslands, situated away from water. While Blanding’s Turtle can be found in almost any aquatic system in the region, big water areas are less suitable (Millar and Blouin-Demers 2012). Preferred habitat would be those parts of Frontenac County where the landscape is made up of a mosaic of many small wetlands, such as in the more rugged areas of the Canadian Shield. In these areas, overland travel from wetland to wetland is undertaken in order to optimize use of individual wetlands to take advantage of seasonal food availability, different water temperatures, and mating opportunities (see Hartwig and Kiviat 2007, and Millar and Blouin-Demers 2011). In big water situations such as Loughborough Lake where conditions are more static there would be less need to undertake overland travel to get to another wetland, and MNRF (undated) notes a preference for moving through water, and therefore it is expected that Blanding’s Turtles would swim around Johnston Point rather than undertaking the difficult task of navigating some of the steep slopes in an overland passage. Although we did not observe Blanding’s Turtles during the field surveys, we would never discount the possibility for Loughborough Lake as the surrounding wetland has appropriate habitat foraging features, and we have observed them in several lakes and wetlands nearby, including Hart Lake, which feeds into Loughborough Lake. The potential risks to any turtle species was one reason why we put in the various mitigative measures in the EIS including vegetative setbacks, and was a reason why we deferred the construction of docks in the wetland in our Sept. 3, 2014 response letter to the CRCA. This is because we felt (and still do) that dock approvals are the responsibility of individual landowners who must get approval from the CRCA, and if necessary, the MNRF and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), as this is how dock approvals are undertaken in the Township. Those approvals may also require more detailed field assessment by a qualified biologist in order to find dock locations that would have the least impact to the natural heritage features. The Township may approve the development, but not whether a dock can be built, as we don’t believe they have the authority to give this approval. In their August 11, 2015 report that was authorized by the Township, McIntosh Perry noted the low risk to Blanding’s Turtles in relation to building docks in Long Bay and also suggested standard mitigative measures (e.g., dock type, building periods, etc.). We concur with many of their findings, but again note our understanding that approvals must initially come through the CRCA, and if necessary, the MNRF and DFO.

Page 53 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

There is always an element of ecological risk in all developments no matter where they are located. For example, when the Home Hardware in Sydenham is relocated and the site is redeveloped, there will be a risk to Blanding’s Turtles as we have observed them in Sydehnam Lake, and the water in front of the hardware site has appropriate habitat, and the shoreline has potential for nesting. Similarly, any development south of Rutledge Road and west of Sydenham provides a risk as we have observed Blanding’s in the wetland that is south of the road. For various reasons, the risk would likely be low and it is also likely that a no negative impact conclusion would be drawn. The reasons for this are varied, but given that it is never possible to provide a 100% guarantee that there will be no risk, an assessment strives to provide decision makers with an informed decision on risk that may also include mitigation measures to reduce possible impacts, such as setbacks, timing restrictions, and building placement. In response to the sighting of the Blanding’s Turtle in 2015, we recommend the following mitigation measures: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A 30 km posted speed limit on the laneway. Post a turtle crossing and education sign on the laneway near the southern end of lot 13. Maintain the laneway with a gravel surface. Develop a landowner education program and implement best practices and information into the condominium rules and regulations. In this vein, and as per our recommendations, the landowner took the Amphibians and Reptile course at the Elbow Lake Environmental Education Center to become better informed regarding the implementation of appropriate protection measures under condominium rules and regulations. 5. Erect a permanent exclusion fence on either side of the laneway in front of lots 6 and 8. The probability of a turtle crossing at this location is low, but the fence reduces the risk even lower. Exclusion fencing is a common mitigation tool, and technical notes are provided by MNRF (2013). The landowner is also receptive to the idea of working with the MNRF and the CRCA to develop Blanding’s Turtle enhancement features that could increase life cycle success and therefore increase the overall population base such as the placement of basking logs, or creating nesting structures, such as those outlined by the Northeast Blanding’s Turtle Working Group. The Peer Review recommends updating the EIS to reflect the Blanding’s Turtle General Habitat Description (OMNR undated) which is a good point as this is the MNRF document produced for such situations, and one that McIntosh Perry has referenced in their impact assessments involving Blanding’s Turtles. In this document, Blanding’s habitat is covered under three categories as follows: Category 1 sites are areas within 30 m of egg laying areas and hibernation areas and require a 30 m buffer. We encountered no Blanding’s Turtle egg laying on Johnston Point, and for reasons previously described do not feel it has good egg laying features. Nevertheless, we would endorse a 30 m buffer, and in those instances where a 30 m buffer is not possible due to existing infrastructure (i.e, house or road) then temporary fencing can be employed. If hibernation were

Page 54 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

to take place in association with Johnston Point it would take place in the wetland and the development already provides more than a 30 buffer as described in the EIS. Category 2 sites are wetlands and MNRF recognizes a 30 m buffer around wetlands for maintaining functional habitat attributes. The proposed development provides more than a 30 m buffer as described in the EIS, and that buffer will be forested. Category 3 sites are considered to have the highest tolerance to alteration and involve areas beyond the 30 m described for Category 1 and 2, and up to 250 m. Category 3 represents a zone of caution and not a restrictive buffer as described for Category 1 and 2. Category 3 sites are intended to address the well-known long distance travel behaviour of Blanding’s Turtles, where extreme distances of up to 6 km are cited in MNRF (undated). As we discussed earlier, we doubt that Johnston Point is used for travel purposes, but refer to the mitigation measures previously discussed as a way to reduce risk. As a result of the Blanding’s Turtle observed during the peer review visit, we consulted with Kate Pitt of the MNRF on August 4, 2015. To evaluate whether or not a Benefit Permit is required, MNRF requires information that has since been provided including our EIS, and our peer review response which includes our field methods. If she feels an Authorization is required, the landowner will apply for a Benefit Permit, which would apply certain conditions such as mitigation measures or restrictions on development, such as timing of construction, pre-site assessment, or shifting building footprint locations. Blanding’s Turtle References Hartwig, T., and E. Kiviat. 2007. Microhabitat association of Blanding’s turtles in natural and constructed wetlands in southeastern New York. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 576-582. Millar, C., and G. Blouin-Demers. 2011. Spatial ecology and seasonal activity of Blanding’s Turtles (Emyboidea blandingii). Journal of Herpetology. 45: 370-378 Millar, C., and G. Blouin-Demers. 2012. Habitat suitability modelling for species at risk is sensitive to algorithm and scale: A case study of Blanding’s turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, in Ontario. Journal of Nature Conservation. 20: 18-29. Northeast Blanding’s Turtle Working Group. Guidelines for enhancing and creating nesting habitat for Blanding’s turtles in the Northeastern United States in the context of regional conservation.(http://www.blandingsturtle.org/uploads/3/0/4/3/30433006/nebtwg_nesting_ reduced.pdf) OMNR (undated). General Habitat Description for the Blanding’s Turtle. (Emydoidea blandingii). OMNR. 2013. Reptile and Amphibian Exclusion Fencing: Best Practices, Version 1.0. Species at Risk Branch Technical Note. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

Page 55 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Peterborough, Ontario. 11 pp. Ross, D. and R. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting in Emydoida blandingi in Central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology. 24: 6-12. Standing, L. Herman T., and I. Morrison. 1999. Nesting ecology of Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Nova Scotia, the northeastern limit of the species’ range. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77: 1609–1614. Steen et al., 2012. Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation. 150:121-128.

Eastern Wood-pewee (Special Concern) The Eastern Wood-pewee was added to the Species at Risk registry on June 27, 2014 as a species of Special Concern, after the submission of the June 12, 2014 Johnston Point EIS. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. To detect for the presence of this and other avifauna we undertook the requisite three breeding bird surveys, as described on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS, in the spring in of 2013. However during all surveys on the property extending from 2010 to 2015, including two birding surveys in 2011, we would specifically be listening for any unusual species, and since starting work in 2010 this species has not been detected on the point. The Eastern Wood-pewee is a woodland species that typically nests in forest edges. It prefers deciduous woodlands, but can be found in a wide variety of woodlands of different ages, stand compositions, and structures. As such, Johnston Point would provide suitable habitat. In the Response Statement of Government of Canada Species at Risk Public Registry, it is noted that this species is common and widespread, and resilient to many different types of habitat changes. However overall population numbers are in decline and the reasons are not well understood, but several other long distant migrants that survive on flying insects have also experienced similar declines, and a pesticide link is suggested (see Nebel et al. 2010). A loss of habitat in their South American wintering grounds is also a possible key factor. There is no lack of summer breeding habitat in this region and we have observed untouched suitable forest habitat that used to contain this bird, no longer does so. This adds weight to the suggestion that factors outside of this region are the reason for the population declines. It also means that the development of Johnston Point would not be a limiting factor to this species. Wood-pewee Reference Nebel, S., A. Mills, J. D. McCracken, and P. D. Taylor. 2010. Declines of aerial insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2): 1.

Page 56 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Broad Beech Fern (Special Concern) The Broad Beech Fern was already assessed when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. As noted on page 20 of the EIS, this species was not observed, and Johnston Point does not have appropriate habitat for this species as it requires mature maple/beech forests with a moist understory. Milksnake (Special Concern) The Milksnake was already assessed as Special Concern when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. Milk snakes are found in a variety of habitat, and Row and Blouin-Demers (2006) found that they have a strong preference for open habitats for thermoregulatory reasons. This has also been our experience, and we often encounter these snakes in South Frontenac Township in an agricultural setting or associated with barns and building foundations. As woodland habitat, Johnston Point does not represent ideal habitat, and none were observed during the site visits from 2010 to 2015 during snake surveys (see survey details for Gray Ratsnake discussed above). Milksnake Reference Row and Blouin-Demers. 2006. Thermal quality influences effectiveness of thermoregulation, habitat use, and behaviour in milk snakes. Oecologia. 148: 1-11. Golden-winged Warbler (Special Concern) The Golden-winged Warbler was already assessed as Special Concern when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. To detect for the presence of this and other avifauna we undertook the requisite three breeding bird surveys, as described on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS, in the spring in of 2013. However during all surveys on the property extending from 2010 to 2015, including two birding focused surveys in 2011, we would specifically be listening for any unusual species in specific habitats, such as thicket swamps, and since starting work in 2010 this species has not been detected on the point. The nearest sighting to Johnston Point on eBird Canada is about 4 km to the northeast. This causes of their population declines are discussed in Roth et al. (2012) and include loss of habitat in North America as their preferred shrubland/thicket gives way to maturing forests.

Page 57 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Loss of habitat in South America to farming, and hybridization with the Blue-winged warbler are other possible factors in their decline. It is conceivable that they inhabited the uplands of Johnston Point at one time as it was covered by shrubland after pasturing was abandoned. However, that shrubland has succeeded to woodland and the uplands no longer contains suitable habitat. Golden-winged Warbler References Roth, A. M., R. W. Rohrbaugh, T. Will, and D. A. Buehler (Editors). 2012. Golden-winged Warbler status review and conservation plan.

Eastern Ribbonsnake (Special Concern) The Eastern Ribbonsnake was already assessed as Special Concern when the Endangered Species Act took effect in 2008. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. Eastern Ribbonsnake are well known to be closely associated with water, and this is usually where we observe them in the region. In their radio tracking study, Bell et al. (2007) found that these snakes spent most of their time within 5 m of a water body from June to September. If present on Johnston Point, they would be expected to be using the shoreline areas of Johnston Point, but during surveys from 2010 to 2015, including those dedicated to snakes, none were detected. As well, many trips to Johnston Point also involved shoreline surveys and again no Ribbonsnakes were detected. Ribbonsnake References Bell, S., Herman, T., and R. Wasserug. 2007. Ecology of Thanmophis sauritus (Eastern Ribbon Snake) at the Northern Limit of its Range. Northeastern Naturalist 14: 279-292.

Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern) The Northern Map Turtle was already assessed as Special Concern in 2008. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. As noted on page 19 of the EIS we stated that they were present in Loughborough Lake but we did not observe any directly associated with Johnston Point. The wetlands closely associated with Johnston Point are mostly lacking in basking logs, which are especially important for this and other turtle species.

Page 58 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

This species is highly aquatic, and spends little time on land, rarely venturing far from shore except to nest, which is another reason why basking logs are important. Nesting is usually done close to shore, and mean distance to a water body for nesting in Ontario was determined to be about 35 m (Steen et al. 2012). All development will be at least 40 m from the lake, however Johnston Point is forested with shallow soil, so it lacks the necessary thermal and soil qualities needed for nesting. In a September 3, 2014 letter to the CRCA we discussed the issue of the Map Turtle who raised no objections. For the Map Turtle survey effort, see that described for Blanding’s Turtle in this report. Map Turtle References Steen et al., 2012. Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation. 150:121-128.

Wood Thrush (Special Concern) The Wood Thrush was listed as a Special Concern species in Ontario on June 27, 2014, which is after the submission of the June 12, 2014 Johnston Point EIS. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. It was heard calling on Johnston Point in 2011, 2012, and 2013, but not in 2014 and 2015. eBird Canada has sightings listed for this species throughout Frontenac County. To detect for the presence of this and other avifauna we undertook the requisite three breeding bird surveys, as described on page 7 of the Johnston Point EIS, in the spring in of 2013. However during all surveys on the property extending from 2010 to 2015, including two birding surveys in 2011, we would also listen for any unusual species. We have observed them in a wide range of woodland habitats in the region and it is commonly suggested that they prefer mature forests. However, Ahlering and Faaborg (2006) has assessed reproduction in the summer breeding range and found the maturation of woodlands to be reproductively unfavorable, and found greater reproductive success in a younger more fragmented woodlands. Changes in wintering habitat outside of Canada are considered one of the main factors in declining numbers (McKinnon et al. 2015 & Taylor and Stutchbury 2015). We had assumed this to be the case because there is no lack of available habitat in the region, as untouched woodlands where we once noted them calling are no longer being used. This means that the development of Johnston Point would not be a limiting factor to this species, and these birds do live near urban areas and roads and so it does not appear that development is unfavorable.

Page 59 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

Wood Thrush References Ahlering, M.A., and J. Faaborg. 2006. Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: if you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312. McKinnon, E., Rotenberg, J., and B. Stutchbury. 2015. Seasonal change in tropical habitat quality and body condition for a declining migratory songbird. Oecologia. Taylor, C. and B. Stutchbury. 2015. Effects of breeding versus winter habitat loss and fragmentation of the population dynamics of a migratory songbird. Ecological Society of America.

Snapping Turtle (Special Concern) The Snapping Turtle was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario list in September 10, 2009. As a Special Concern species it is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but it is given consideration under the PPS as potential Significant Wildlife Habitat. Snapping Turtles are found throughout Frontenac County in association with lakes, rivers, and wetlands, including Loughborough Lake. Although we did not observe them during field work, they would be expected to use the open water wetlands around Johnston Point, and one Snapping Turtle was observed during the peer review visit. For a description of our turtle field assessment protocol please see the Blanding’s Turtle information provided above. In our experience Snapping Turtle density is higher in the many ponds and marshes of Frontenac County compared to the lakes, which is similar to findings by Galbraith et al (1988) who found significantly higher Snapping Turtle populations in ponds and marshes in comparison to lakes. As a result we would not expect Snapping Turtle densities to be high in Loughborough Lake. Most Snapping Turtle nesting sites we have seen in the region are within about 10 meters of water, although in their study Steen et al, (2012) measured a mean distance of about 50 m from water for Snapping Turtle. Nevertheless Johnston Point is forested and the shaded canopy and the mostly shallow soils lack the thermal qualities needed for nesting. For a more in-depth analysis, see the section covered Blanding’s Turtles previously discussed. We did observe a depredated nest site on the small island south of Johnston Point in 2015 that was likely a Snapping Turtle nest due to the round shape and ping pong ball size of the eggs. It is not surprising this island is used for nesting as it has a south facing non-forested slope. However since this site had soil depths of a few inches, successful nesting even without predation would be questionable. Furthermore Marchand and Litvaitis (2003), found that nests adjacent to water, such as this one were more prone to nest predation, although interestingly they found that nests besides roads (not close to water) or suburban lawns were less prone to predation.

Page 60 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

No turtles have been observed on the uplands of Johnston Point during surveys from 2010 to 2015 and due to its location up on the spine of the point it is doubtful that the laneway will be crossed by turtles, especially when they can swim around the point to get to the other side. With respect to road mortality as raised in the Peer Review, high turtle mortality would be expected in areas with paved roads with high speeds and high traffic volumes such as Perth Road in contrast to the low speeds and low volumes expected on the Johnston Point laneway. High mortality would also be expected in regions where roads pass through areas of high turtle density, which would not be the case for Loughborough Lake and Johnston Point. Regardless MNRF (2014) provides a mitigation support tool for roadways associated with herpetofauna such as speed controls on roads, signs, and public education programs and these are recommended. As well, please see mitigation measures recommended for Blanding’s Turtles on page 10. Snapping Turtle References Galbraith, D., Bishop C., Brooks, R., Simser, W., and K. Lampman. 1988. Factors affecting the density of populations of common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentine serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:1233-1240. Marchand, N. and J. Litvaitis. 2003. Effects of landscape composition, habitat features, and nest distribution on predation rates of simulated turtle nests. Biological Conservaton. 117:243-251. Steen et al., 2012. Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation. 150:121-128. Juniper Hairstreak (S2) In Ontario, rare species can be identified as endangered, threatened, or special concern. The Ontario government also uses S ranks to denote relative abundance. S1 are considered critically imperilled, S2 are considered imperilled, S3 are vulnerable, S4 are apparently secure, and S5 are secure. S ranked species are not covered under any Endangered Species legislation, but they are one of the categories covered under Significant Wildlife Habitat, and therefore are covered under the PPS. The NHIC listing for this butterfly in the 1 km squares that encompasses Johnston Point is 31 years old, which is considered too dated to be relevant. This species lay their eggs on Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar), and when cattle were removed from Johnston Point the shallow disturbed soils were colonized by Red Cedar which could tolerate the marginal growing conditions that would have been present at the time, and it it is conceivable that the Juniper Hairstreak were present. However Denomme-Brown and Otis (2012) point out that when cedar stands mature into dense woodland, they are no longer favorable to the Juniper Hairstreak, and this would be the case for Johnston Point. Juniper Hairstreak Reference Denomme-Brown, S., and G. Otis. 2012. Status of Juniper Hairstreak (Callophrys gryneus) 18

Page 61 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

populations in Southwestern Ontario. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario. 144: 107–114. Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) We sent an email to Jeff King of McIntosh Perry on July 27, 2014, prior to the release of the Peer Review, and noted that the ANSI north of Johnston Point was likely a Candidate ANSI. The MNRF has since confirmed to the County in early August that it is a Candidate ANSI. The Candidate status of the ANSI was also acknowledged in the Peer Review. The Peer Review notes that conclusions regarding ANSI’s in the EIS would need to be revisited. Aside from acknowledging the Candidate ANSI status, we are unsure why the Peer Review suggests the need for a reassessment as the PPS does not apply to a Candidate ANSI. Regardless, we did undertake an ANSI analysis and sent this report to McIntosh Perry before the release of the Peer Review. There was no reference to this in the Peer Review, and we therefore assume it was not received in time. We also sent out our ANSI report to the County planner, the Township planner, the MNRF, and the CRCA and it can be found in the Additional Information Appendix. The gist of our ANSI report is that there would be no negative impacts to the ANSI because the feature (i.e., large lacustrine swamp areas) that prescribed possible ANSI significance is well removed (i.e., >120 m) from Johnston Point. Finally, it is recommended that Frontenac County and South Frontenac Township learn the true nature (Candidate or otherwise) of all ANSI’s in their jurisdiction as there are land tax implications and important planning considerations that could be impacted.

Wetland Impact Assessment The Peer Review suggested that a wetland evaluation could not be used as an impact assessment tool, and in their August 8, 2014 review, the CRCA also took exception to our use of the scoring of the wetland evaluation for impact assessment. We acknowledge this objection with regards to quantitative scoring, but still feel it is important to discuss the wetland features and functions that are described in the wetland evaluation because the PPS requires the investigation of relevant features and functions in order to determine negative impacts. It wouldn’t make sense to ignore features such as biodiversity, fish habitat, and functions such as flood control simply because they are covered in the wetland evaluation. In this vein we responded to the CRCA (response dated September 3, 2014), but it appears that the peer reviewers did not have access to this response letter which can be found in the Additional Information Appendix. The gist of our no negative impact viewpoint for the wetland is that key wetland features and functions of the type described in the wetland evaluation will continue to thrive after development completion. For example, the wetland vegetation community structure will be unchanged and will continue to maintain the base ecology of the wetland ecosystem, the wetland will continue to provide habitat for wetland fauna including fish habitat, the wetland will continue to provide hydrological function, and the wetland will not shrink in size. The large lot sizes (average size is 5.3 acres) means there will be no focused areas of degradation and the 19

Page 62 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

abrupt wetland/upland interface means there is a distinct boundary without a gradual interface, where incremental encroachment impacts might otherwise take place. Furthermore, the vegetated shoreline buffer will be maintained as per the Condominium Rules and Conditions and there will be no storm water sedimentation issues. Finally, we have been studying wetlands for over thirty years and we have found that swamps and marshes to be robust ecosystems, and other than direct intrusion by sedimentation or filling, have found them to be resistant to most impacts. Wetlands can also contain rarities, but potential impacts to these would be discussed in the Species at Risk section of the EIS, or in the relevant sections of the Significant Wildlife Habitat section. With respect to the wetland boundary, we consulted with Todd Norris of the MNRF on the wetland boundaries around Johnston Point which culminated in some boundary changes that were reflective of those in the Johnston Point EIS. Peter Young of Frontenac County confirmed the changes to these wetland boundaries in a March 20 2015 email (see attached email in the accompanying Additional Information Appendix). Wetland boundaries in open water areas in lakes are primarily determined by the 2 m depth guideline, and the 50% coverage rule, in that an area must have at least 50% coverage with wetland vegetation to be considered wetland. During our kayak surveys in Long Bay we noticed several patches in the bay where there was less than 50% coverage, but decided not to raise this issue in the EIS as we took a more conservative approach that assumed wetland was present. The peer reviewers also noticed this lack of vegetation during the Peer Review site visit. Subsequently, in their August 11, 2015 report for the Township, the Peer Reviewers note how large sections of Long Bay may not actually be wetland. The Peer Review makes a good point with the following statement regarding a possible impact to the significant wetland: “several lots where access to the lake would need to occur through emergent vegetation and shrub marshes”

Although there are no shrub marshes around Johnston point as noted in the above statement, we agree with the sentiment, and this point could have been more clearly laid out in the EIS and in subsequent correspondence. We discussed the issue of pathways, but were specifically referring to upland pathways and did not consider possible pathways through the swamp, which should be a noted restriction in the Condominium rules and regulations especially as it relates to lots 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13. A request for a boardwalk or span bridge should require a separate approval process through the CRCA by an individual landowner under the Condominium rules and regulations, similar to that required for a dock.

Docks as they relate to Fish Habitat, Significant Wetland, Species at Risk We agree with the Peer Review in that the construction of docks in the wetland is problematic, although the Peer Reviewers do suggest that docks would be possible in their subsequent August 11, 2015 report, commissioned by the Township. Where we may differ from the Peer Reviewers 20

Page 63 of 173 Johnston Point Peer Review Response

is in the approach. It is our understanding that individual landowners would be required to get a permit through the CRCA, and if deemed necessary, the MNRF and/or DFO, as this is normally how dock approvals are undertaken in the Township. This may also require further field assessment by a qualified biologist in order to find dock locations that would have the least impact to the natural heritage features, and we would be happy to assist the various agencies in this regards. Finally, as noted previously, the Township may approve the development, but not a dock itself, as we don’t believe they have the authority to do so. Our position on docks has not changed throughout this process. Assuming that dock approvals are a separate issue from the normal Planning Review process with the Township, and not feeling qualified to state whether a dock (or boardwalk) is “development” for the purposes of the PPS, we have purposefully deferred discussion of docks in our various reports and responses. Going forward, we are assuming three possible scenarios in this regards as a result of a landowner request:

The CRCA determines that a dock is “development” and prohibits any construction in the significant wetland as per the PPS.
The CRCA determines that a dock is “development” but given the minimal amount of wetland present (see August 11, 2015 report by McIntosh Perry commissioned by the Township) may consider some docks allowable such as a floating dock or a cantilever dock. If requested we would work with them to determine what location would have the least impact to the significant natural heritage features. If necessary, we would also work with the MNRF and/or DFO to determine possible dock locations in order to avoid impacts to Species at Risk or fish habitat.
The CRCA determines that a dock is not development, and if requested we would work with them to determine a dock type and location, which would have the least impact to significant natural heritage features. If necessary, we would also work with the MNRF and/or DFO to determine possible dock locations in order to avoid impacts to Species at Risk or fish habitat.

General Comments An editing error in the EIS was pointed out on page 5 of the Peer Review, and speculation was raised about the assembly of the report. This was simply an editing error.

Respectfully submitted,

Rob Snetsinger August 26, 2015 21

Page 64 of 173

Peer Review Response Appendix – Additional Information Items

Planning Report – Johnston Point.pdf
KB12366_SITECONDITIONS.pdf
KB12366_DRAFTPLAN.pdf
Ecological Services response to Wicklam and rennie.pdf
Ecological Services response to Mariotti.pdf
Ecological Services response to Anthony Cameron – Oct 1 14
CRCA letter (Aug 8 14).pdf
Ecological Services Sept 3 Letter.pdf
FOTENN Technical Response – Sept 5 14.pdf
CRCA letter (Nov 12 14).pdf
COW Delegation January 13 15.pdf
CRCA letter to Bartsch February 26 15.pdf
Ecological Services Road letter Feb 9 15.pdf
FOTENN Technical Response – Feb 25 15.pdf
SF Township Planning Report – Draft Plan Conditions – March 4, 2015.
SF Township Councillor’s 11 questions.pdf
FOTENN Response – 11 Councillor questions – Mar 17 15.pdf
SF Township Planner response to Councillor’s 11 questions.pdf
MNR email to Frontenac County – Wetland Boundary Confirmation – Mar30 15
Johnston Point Candidate ANSI Impact Addendum – Jul 27 15
MNR Confirmation of Candidate ANSI Status – Aug 13 15

Page 65 of 173 Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment

Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Planning Justification Report June 2014

PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

Magenta Waterfront Development Corp.

FOTENN Consultants Inc.

P.O. Box 98

4 Cataraqui Street, Suite 15

Battersea, ON K0H 1H0

Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 613-542-5454

Page 66 of 173 Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

REPORT CONTENTS

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Overview of Applications ……………………………………………………………………… 3 Site Context and Adjacent Uses …………………………………………………………….. 3 Development Proposal ………………………………………………………………………… 5 Supporting Studies ……………………………………………………………………………… 6 Environmental Impact Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Hydrogeology Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Stormwater Management Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Archaeological Assessment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

Review of Policy Documents …………………………………………………………………. 8 Provincial Policy Statement ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Township of South Frontenac Official Plan ……………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Existing and Proposed Zoning………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Appendix A – Draft Plan of Condominium ……………………………………………… 20 Appendix B – Proposed Zone Schedule ………………………………………………….. 21 Appendix C – Proposed Zoning ……………………………………………………………. 22

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 67 of 173

INTRODUCTION This Planning Rationale, prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc., is being submitted in support of applications for Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium. The Vacant Land Plan of Condominium proposes 14 units as lots for single detached homes which will be tied to a common element private road and park. The Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, dated March 2003 and the Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law #2003-75, dated May 2003, provide policy direction and regulate the development of the lands. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the manner in which the proposed vacant land condominium meets the goals and objectives of the Official Plan and represents good land use planning. This report will summarize the existing conditions of the property and surrounding land use context, outline the nature of the proposed development, summarize supporting studies and reports, review the development in relation to provincial and municipal land use planning policies and regulations, and propose required amendments to the Zoning By-law.

OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS The proposed project consists of a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium containing 14 units as lots for single detached residential dwellings which will front onto and be tied to a common element private road. Each lot within the condominium containing a dwelling would be a parcel of tied land attached to the common element lands consisting of the roads and a waterfront park. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone the property from Rural to Site Specific Residential (R) Zone and Environmental Protection Area (EPA) Zone. The site specific residential zone will recognize relief needed in the minimum required road frontage and interior side yard.

SITE CONTEXT AND ADJACENT USES The subject lands consist of 37 hectares (91 acres) of land located in parts of Lots 23 and 24, Concessions 6 & 7 of the Geographic Township of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac. The property is located on North Shore Road, situated on the north shore of Loughborough Lake. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the subject property.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page4 68 of 173

Figure 1: Site Location

The subject site is currently vacant with the exception of an existing laneway. The property consists of a densely wooded lot which contains mixed trees, brush and marshlands. Much of the area contains bare rock outcrop or low relief marshy depressions. A pronounced ridge and steep relief areas runs across the property through the middle of the point of land. The eastern shore of the point contains many small inlets and bays and the tip of the point, known as Johnston’s Point, rises well above the water below. The western shore is bound by a thin inlet bay which is known as Long Bay.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page5 69 of 173

The lands within the vicinity of the site are characterized by rural and waterfront residential development, vacant land and agricultural uses. The site is approximately 5 km west of the hamlet of Battersea, about 5 km north of the village of Inverary and 15 km north of the City of Kingston.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Figure 2 illustrates the proposed condominium layout. Appendix A includes a reduction of the Draft Plan.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page6 70 of 173

Figure 2: Concept Plan

The proposed vacant land condominium consists of 14 units which will each accommodate a detached residential dwelling. The lots range from 1.37 to 3.9 hectares in size and have a minimum road frontage of 50 metres. Each dwelling will be serviced by an individual private well and septic system. Lots 1 and 2 will be accessed via a shared driveway. A single condominium road will traverse the middle of the property providing access to the proposed waterfront lots. This road will be maintained by the condominium corporation. A 3.9 hectare park block is proposed in the northwest portion of the property. No development is proposed within the park block and it will be left in its natural state.

SUPPORTING STUDIES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT An Environmental Impact Statement, dated June 11, 2014, was prepared by Ecological Services. Natural heritage constraints were identified for this impact assessment and include significant wetland, significant woodland, significant wildlife habitat and fish habitat. For the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the South

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page7 71 of 173

Frontenac Township Official Plan (OP), there will be no negative impacts to the identified significant heritage features if recommended mitigation measures are applied.

HYDROGEOLOGY ASSESSMENT A hydrogeological assessment, terrain analysis and servicing options statement was prepared by WESA Environmental in June 2014. This report summarizes the results of an investigation of the geology, physiography and the study of groundwater occurrence, quantity and quality available. Long-term sustainable yield and potential well interference was evaluated by six-hour constant rate discharge tests on five wells throughout the property. Analysis of the drawdown and recovery data indicates that all five of the test wells can provide adequate supply for the proposed development type. Chemical analyses of the groundwater samples collected during the constant discharge tests indicate that the quality of the groundwater is suitable for domestic supply. Soil type and overburden thickness is variable but indicate that the area is suitable for class IV septic systems/infiltration bed. Based on the results, a number of recommendations were provided to assist in placement and subsurface disposal system selection for the proposed developments. The closest municipal water and sewer infrastructure is approximately 15 km away from the proposed development making municipal servicing impractical. The area is rural and individual water and septic services are utilized on properties in the vicinity of the subject property. Test wells installed as part of this investigation indicate suitable quantity to support the proposed development. Private water and waste water servicing is the preferred and recommended option for the proposed development.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT A Stormwater Management Report, dated June 2014, was prepared by Asterisk Engineering Corporation. The purpose of the brief was to provide documentation of the Stormwater Management and drainage concept that has been developed for the proposed subdivision layout. The stormwater management works are intended to provide water quality and quantity control in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Ministry of Environment, CRCA and the Township of South Frontenac. While the proposed development will generate some increase in runoff volume, the stormwater management scheme proposed will mitigate impacts and improve existing drainage conditions within the subdivision, protect future home owners from flooding, and protect the wetlands and Loughborouh Lake.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT In November 2013, Abacus Archaeological Services was retained to undertake a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the subject site. Based on the established potential for archaeological resources within the subject property a Stage 2 study was recommended and performed concurrent to the Stage 1 assessment between November 20 and November 22, 2013. Based on the results of the assessment, Stage 3 archaeological assessments are recommended for the sites which should focus upon determining the limits and level of cultural heritage value of the site. Stage 3 assessments are currently ongoing.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page8 72 of 173

REVIEW OF POLICY DOCUMENTS The following review includes consideration for the provincial and municipal land use planning policy and regulatory context.

PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS provides direction on matters such as managing growth, the efficient use of land and protecting water and significant natural features. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of municipal councils shall be consistent with the PPS. In broad terms, the PPS requires Council to ensure the efficient use and management of land and infrastructure, protect the environment and natural resources, and ensure appropriate opportunities for employment and residential development, including support for a mix of uses. Section 1.0 – Building Strong Healthy Communities Section 1.1.5.1. states that when directing development on rural lands, a planning authority shall apply the relevant policies of Section 1: Building Strong Healthy Communities, as well as the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety. Section 1.1.5.2. On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are: a) The management or use of resources; b) Resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings); c) Limited residential development; d) Home occupations and home industries; e) Cemeteries; and f) Other rural land uses. The proposed development represents limited residential development, which is a permitted use in the rural area. Section 1.1.5.3. Recreational, tourism and other economic opportunities should be promoted. The proposed development includes waterfront residential uses which typically appeal to households seeking to participate in water based recreational activities. Section 1.1.5.4. Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted. The proposed development will maintain the property’s rural, picturesque landscape through generous lot sizes, large frontages and the retention of natural features. The residential units will not result in the undue expansion of municipal services. Wells and septic systems as well as the common element roads will be maintained at the owners’ expense. Garbage and snow removal currently exist along North Shore Road.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page9 73 of 173

Section 1.1.5.5 Development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure. The units (lots) will be serviced by individual private wells and septic systems and the internal roads will be maintained by the condominium corporation. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in the unjustified expansion of municipal infrastructure.

Section 1.1.5.6. Opportunities should be retained to locate new or expanding land uses that require separation from other uses. There are no separation distance requirements applicable to the subject property. Section 1.1.5.7. Opportunities to support a diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses. According to the Ontario Agricultural Atlas, the lands have predominantly Class 7 soils. Class 7 soils have no capacity for arable culture or permanent pasture. Thus, the proposed development is not expected to constrain locally important agricultural and resource uses. Section 1.1.5.8 Agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices should be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards. The proposed development will not displace any existing agricultural uses in the Township nor will it interfere with surrounding agricultural or agricultural-related uses. New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. There are no operational barns within 2 km of the subject property. Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources Section 2 of the PPS contains policies that encourage the protection of natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. The proposed development is consistent with these policies as it:     

Maintains an appropriate development setback from Provincially Significant Wetland; Is not expected to compromise local drinking water supplies; Will implement stormwater management practices to minimize stormwater volumes; Is not located on prime agricultural land; Will not preclude or hinder the expansion or continued use of mineral mining operations, petroleum operations or mineral aggregate operations; and

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac



Page 10 74 of 173

Conserves significant archaeological resources.

Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety Section 3 of the PPS contains policies intended to reduce the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazards. The proposed development is consistent with these policies as it:  Does not situate dwellings on lands impacted by flooding hazards or erosion hazards; and  Is not located on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards; oil, gas and salt hazards; or former mineral mining operations, mineral aggregate operations or petroleum resource operations.

Based on this review of the PPS with respect to residential development in rural areas, it is our opinion that the proposed low density residential development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC OFFICIAL PLAN The Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Schedule A illustrates the lands are designed ‘Rural’ and ‘Provincially Significant Wetland’.

Figure 2: Excerpt from Schedule A – Land Use

Section 5 – Land Use Policies Section 5.2 of the Official Plan includes policies that direct the use of lands designated Environment Protection.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 11 75 of 173

It is the general intent of the Official Plan that the majority of permanent non-agricultural residential development be encouraged to locate in the Township’s Settlement Areas. However, limited nonagricultural residential development may also be permitted within the Rural area so as to provide a variety of living accommodation for the residents of the Township. Subdivisions and severances to permit new residential uses shall be appropriately separated from incompatible agricultural areas, existing and proposed waste disposal, mineral extraction site and resource areas, natural heritage features and areas and natural hazards. The following development policies, as found in Section 5.7.4 (ii), must be addressed when considering residential development in the rural area: a) As a rule, the minimum lot size shall be 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft) of frontage on a public road for non-waterfront lots and 1 hectare (2.5 acres) with 76 metres (250 ft) of frontage on a public road and 91 metres (300 ft) of water frontage for waterfront lots. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained. The Vacant Land Condominium Policies (Section 7.3) require that new condominium units comply with the ‘Limited Service Residential Policies’ related to lot size and frontages, which are generally larger than the requirements found in the ‘Rural’ area policies mentioned above. These policies will be discussed later in this report. b) Rural residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary sewer disposal systems approved by the appropriate authority. All lots will be serviced by individual well and septic systems and will be approved by the appropriate authority. Sufficient space has been provided to accommodate both primary and alternative septic tile beds and at a scale that is similar to other recently approved developments in the Township. c) New lots for rural residential purposes should be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with lot creation policies included in Section 7 of this Plan. However, a maximum of three rural residential severances may be permitted from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan by Council in accordance with the lot creation policies of Section 7 of this Plan when the consent approval authority is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not warranted. Any proposal which would create more than three new lots (three plus a retained) from a lot existing on the day of adoption of this Plan shall only be considered by plan of subdivision. Units in a vacant land condominium are effectively vacant lots upon which dwellings can be located after the condominium is registered. A plan of vacant land condominium therefore resembles a plan of subdivision, but with land identified as either a unit or a common element. Because the project proposes to create more than three new lots, a draft plan of vacant land condominium is appropriate. d) All new rural residential lots shall have public road frontage.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 12 76 of 173

The subject lands have frontage on North Shore Road. All new lots will have frontage on the condominium road, which is operated through a common element condominium arrangement. The formation of a condominium corporation will provide the administrative framework to address routine maintenance (e.g. snow plowing) and periodic upkeep (e.g. road repair) of the common element road. Section 7 – Division of Land According to Section 7.1.1. a narrow waterbody is an area where the minimum general distance from shoreline to shoreline is 150 metres. No lot with water frontage shall be approved adjacent to a narrow waterbody unless the water frontage is at least 150 metres in order to ensure safe boating and swimming conditions, to avoid an overdeveloped appearance in a constructed area and to help ensure a reasonable separation between residential uses. The lots fronting on to Long Bay are less than 150 metres from the opposite side of the bay. As such, these lots have been designed to have a minimum water frontage of 150 metres. Section 7.3 of the Official Plan provides general condominium policies that apply to all land use designations. a) Development of land by plan of condominium shall be required when the creation of individual units and common areas within a single lot, is proposed. The proposed development includes the creation of 14 individual units that will function as lots for detached dwellings. b) The proposed plan of condominium shall be at a scale which is compatible with the existing or anticipated scale of development in the area. The neighbourhood is currently characterized by rural residential development and some agricultural uses. The proposed development reflects the scale and character that is already established in the area, as it maintains the property’s rural, picturesque landscape through the provision of generous lot sizes, large frontages, retained woodlands and wetlands and natural waterfront area. c) Existing public access roads shall have the capability to support the additional traffic loads anticipated from the proposal. Where upgrading and additional maintenance may be required, the Municipality will assess the financial impact of these additional expenditures and may levy charges or request a contribution from the developer to offset these costs. All development shall occur on a common element private lane that is maintained through the condominium corporation. North Shore Road is expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. All proposed lots will front onto the new condominium road, which is a common element to be maintained through the condominium corporation.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 13 77 of 173

d) New condominium units shall comply with the minimum lot areas and frontages outlined in section 5.7.7 (ii) of this Plan. Reductions to these general requirements may be considered provided they are justified through the condominium approval process and provided they are based on good land use planning principles. For greater certainty, all units shall be supported by a sufficient area of land so that a private well for water supply can be located without danger of contamination by the sewage system and so that a serious draw down of groundwater levels beyond the boundaries of the lot itself can be avoided. An application for a privately serviced plan of condominium shall be accompanied by a detailed hydrogeological study and such other analysis as is required in accordance with Ministry of the Environment guidelines, all of which shall be prepared by a qualified professional and satisfactory to the Municipality. Section 5.5.7 (ii)(a) of the Official Plan states that the minimum lot size shall be 1 hectare (2.5 acres) with a minimum of 91 metres (300 feet) of water frontage and 76 metres (250 feet) of frontage on a private road. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained. Although not all of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements, they are all generously sized and can adequately accommodate a private well and septic system. A hydrogeological study was prepared in support of the proposed development which indicates that the site is suitable for the long-term provision of private services. In addition, the proposed frontages (minimum 50 metres) are consistent with the frontages found in other approved developments of similar scale elsewhere in the Township. e) All applications for condominium development shall be accompanied by a preliminary stormwater management/drainage plan prepared by a qualified professional and satisfactory to the Municipality. A Stormwater Management Report and Plan has been prepared by Asterisk Engineering Corporation. The proposed scheme will mitigate impacts and improve existing drainage conditions within the subdivision, protect future home owners from flooding, and protect the wetlands and Loughborouh Lake.

Condominium units shall have access on an interior common elements private lane, engineered and constructed to meet or exceed the Township’s standards for new private lanes. A higher standard of lane construction may be required by the Township based on the scale of the development and/or conditions that would adversely affect the quality of the lane construction. Nothing in the aforementioned shall be construed as encouraging access to existing roads. All of the proposed condominium units will have access via the interior common element private road which will be built to meet the Township’s standards for private roads.

g) As many trees as possible shall be preserved as part of the development, particularly mature and healthy stands of trees and reforestation shall take place where appropriate. Many of the existing trees will be retained; however, some will require removal to accommodate the proposed development. According to the Environmental Impact Statement,

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 14 78 of 173

those portions of the site’s woodlands that are adjacent to fish habitat and wetland are significant. To prevent any negative impacts, the following mitigating options are recommended:  All buildings and septic beds will be located at the top of slope with maximum setback distances to prevent erosion impacts.  The removal of any standing living greater than 8 inches DBH within 40 m of any wetland or lake area will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. Trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be removed. h) Topography and/or vegetation shall be maintained and augmented to create an appropriate or desirable environment and buffering may be requested to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. All new development will be setback a minimum of 35 metres from the PSW and Loughborough Lake to ensure adequate separation from sensitive vegetation and habitat. 13 out of 14 of the proposed lots will actually be greater than 40 m from the PSW and the Lake. i)

Plans of condominium shall be designed to allow for the appropriate integration of the subject land with the adjacent lands. The subject land shall front onto a fully maintained public road and any newly-created private lane on the subject land shall gain its access directly from the public road. The subject lands front directly onto North Shore Road, which is a fully maintained public road. The proposed condominium road will have direct access to North Shore Road.

The proposed development shall be appropriately served by existing levels of municipal services such as fire protection, police protection and school facilities. Additional services shall be provided by the Condominium Corporation including communal garbage facilities at the public road. The corporation may be required to enter into an agreement with a private firm for the provision of these services. Any proposal requiring substantial upgrading to existing municipal services will generally not be permitted unless it is determined by the Municipality and any pertinent agencies to be appropriate. The proposed development can be serviced by existing levels of municipal services. Garbage pickup and snow removal are currently available along North Shore Road. A communal garbage facility will be established at North Shore Road and internal snow removal will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation.

k) The Municipality shall enter into a condominium agreement with the owner in accordance with the Planning Act and Condominium Act as a condition of final approval of a plan of condominium. This agreement will set out the internal and external services and obligations that shall be required of the developer and will specify the necessary financial securities required by the Municipality to ensure that conditions of approval are fulfilled. The applicant is prepared to enter into a condominium agreement.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 15 79 of 173

The developer shall provide background information satisfactory to the Municipality demonstrating the appropriateness of the location for the plan of condominium. This information shall include a hydrogeological study (as noted above and may include drainage studies, traffic impact studies and environmental impact statements). A Hydrogeological Study was prepared which indicates that the site can accommodate the proposed development given the ground water quality and quantity conditions. Terrain Analysis was also performed which reveals the subsurface soil conditions are sufficient to accommodate the development. A Stormwater Management Report is provided which recommends best management practices to minimize potential surface runoff. An Environmental Impact Statement was also prepared, the recommendations of which were integrated into the design of the development.

m) Plans of condominium shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the general intent of this Plan. The proposed vacant land condominium will include a low-profile common element private road and large lots. As well, the site’s significant natural features will remain intact. The result will be a development that is consistent with the area’s rural residential landscape. n) A cultural heritage resource assessment and/or an archaeological assessment may be required for any lands to be developed. The assessment and any recommendations for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources identified through the assessment may be a condition of condominium approval and may be included in the final agreement with the condominium corporation. A Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment has been completed. A Stage 3 Assessment is currently underway and it is anticipated that the majority of finds will be located within the environmental setbacks. Once areas of archaeological interest are delineated, we expect no further archaeological work will be required. o) Where units in a plan of condominium are created that front onto or are accessed by a common elements private lane maintained by the condominium corporation, a building permit may only be issued for the erection of a building or structure providing the applicant enters into an agreement with the Township which is to be registered on title of the subject property. This agreement is to indicate:

that the owner recognizes that the lot is located on a private lane which is not snowplowed or in any other way maintained by the Township.
that the disposal of garbage, snowplowing and any other road maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner; and
that the Township assumes no liability in the event that emergency vehicles are not able to access the lot because of impassable road conditions. The applicant is prepared to enter into such an agreement.

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 16 80 of 173

p) The specific provisions of the Planning Act and the Condominium Act relating to plans of condominium shall apply in addition to the policies set out in this Plan. A vacant land condominium is a newer form of condominium ownership found within the Condominium Act, 1998. As per Section 155(1), it cannot apply where any unit is located above or below any other unit. Furthermore, no building or structure can be constructed prior to the registration of the condominium plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Condominium Act in this regard, as units are located on either side of one another and buildings and structures will only be constructed after plan registration. The same sections of the Planning Act that describe the approval process of a plan of subdivision application (sections 51, 51.1 and 51.2) also apply to a plan of condominium application. The Planning Act prescribes information that the applicant must provide to the approval authority. The Draft Plan of Condominium attached includes items (a) through (l) as found in Section 51(17). According to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, in considering a plan, regard shall be had to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. The proposed development conforms to these considerations as it:  Is in line with matters of provincial interest  Conforms to the policies of the Official Plan  Is suitable for the subject lands  Is adequately accessible via an existing public road  Conserves the site’s natural resources  Does not require the expansion of municipal services Section 51.1(1) of the Planning Act addresses parkland dedication requirements. As discussed below, the proposed waterfront park provides sufficient parkland to meet the Planning Act requirements. q) The Township is entitled to and will require a dedication of parkland or cash-in lieu of parkland under the terms provided in the Planning Act. The Planning Act states that in the case of a subdivision proposed for residential purposes, 5% of the land included in the plan shall be conveyed to the local municipality for park purposes. Based on the proposed 30.37 hectares of proposed residential lands, 1.52 hectares of land must be dedicated for park purposes. The proposed waterfront park is 3.9 hectares in size and therefore meets this requirement.

EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING According to Zoning By-law #2003-75, the subject property is zoned Rural (RU) Zone (Figure 3).

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 17 81 of 173

Figure 3: Current Zoning

A Site Specific Residential (R) Zone is proposed. The following reliefs are being required for the proposed special R zone. Provision

Requirement

Proposed

Compliance

Lot Area (minimum)

8000 m2 (86,114.1 sq. ft.)

14,000 square metres



Road Frontage (minimum)

76 m (250 ft.)

50+ m

Relief required

Water Frontage (minimum)

91 m (299 ft.)

91 m south shore / 150 m north shore



Front Yard (minimum)

20 m (65.6 ft.)

20 m



Rear Yard (minimum)

10 m (32.8 ft.)

10 m



Interior Side Yard

6 m (9.8 ft.)

Relief required

150 m for narrow water bodies (Official Plan requirement)

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 18 82 of 173

(minimum) Exterior Side Yard (minimum)

10 m (32.8 ft.)

10 m



Gross Floor Area (minimum)

89 m2 (958 sq ft.)

89 m2



Lot Coverage (maximum)

20%



Building Height (maximum)

11 m (36.1 ft.)

11 m



Off-street Parking

2 spaces for every dwelling unit



The proposed Site Specific Residential ‘R’ Zone seeks relief in the minimum required road frontage and interior side yard. Despite the requested reduction in road frontage, the proposed lots are all generously sized and can adequately accommodate a private well and septic system. A hydrogeological study was prepared in support of the proposed development which indicates that the site is suitable for the long-term provision of private services. In addition, the proposed frontages are consistent with the frontages found in other approved developments of similar scale elsewhere in the Township. Due to the unique shape of the subject property, several lots do not meet the minimum interior side yard setback requirement of 6 metres. Those lots with a minimum side yard setback of 3 metres will still have adequate separation from adjacent dwellings.

CONCLUSION Based on the descriptive information and policy analysis presented within this report, we are of the opinion the proposed vacant land condominium to allow for the development of 14 single family dwellings is appropriate from a land use planning perspective. The lands within the vicinity of the site are occupied by rural residential and agricultural uses. The proposed development is similar and compatible with adjacent uses. Approval of the proposed Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment will provide an opportunity for additional residential development in a manner that is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of South Frontenac’s Official Plan, such as providing a diverse range of living accommodations for the residents of the Township. The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as it represents limited residential development and does not require the unjustified expansion of municipal services. A review of the

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 19 83 of 173

supporting studies indicates the proposed development can be serviced appropriately while accommodating the ecological features present on the site. We trust the above noted and enclosed information and materials are sufficient to allow the Township to process this application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned at 613-542-5454 extension 221.

Yours truly,

Mike Keene, MCIP RPP Senior Planner

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

APPENDIX A – DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM

Page 20 84 of 173

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

APPENDIX B – PROPOSED ZONE SCHEDULE

Page 21 85 of 173

Planning Justification Report - Application for Draft Plan of Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

Page 22 86 of 173

APPENDIX C – PROPOSED ZONING R-X1 (Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concessions 6 & 7, Loughborough District) (applies to Unit 14) Notwithstanding anything in this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Site Specific Residential (R-X1) shall be used only in accordance with the following: a)

The minimum private road frontage shall be 50 metres.

b) The minimum interior side yard shall be 3 metres. c)

The minimum setback from the established wetland boundary or high water mark shall be 35 metres.

R-X2 (Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concessions 6 & 7, Loughborough District) (applies to Units 1,8-11) Notwithstanding anything in this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Site Specific Residential (R-X2) shall be used only in accordance with the following: a)

The minimum private road frontage shall be 50 metres.

b) The minimum interior side yard shall be 3 metres. c)

The minimum setback from the established wetland boundary or high water mark shall be 40 metres.

R-X3 (Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concessions 6 & 7, Loughborough District) (applies to Units 2-7, 12,13) Notwithstanding anything in this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Site Specific Residential (R-X3) shall be used only in accordance with the following: a)

The minimum private road frontage shall be 50 metres.

b) The minimum interior side yard shall be 3 metres. c)

The minimum setback from the established wetland boundary shall be 50 metres.

d) The minimum shoreline frontage shall be 150 metres

LEGEND EMERALD

JPTP22

TW1

JPTP23

1010 PEBBLE

JPTP24

600mm CULVERT

Property Line Lot Lines Wetland Proposed Septic Bed Footprint (Primary)

92 450mm CULVERT

Proposed Septic Bed Footprint (Alternate)

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

1101EMERALD

Proposed Well Test Pit Location

JPTP17 JPTP20 JPTP16 JPTP21

TW3

TW2

JPTP25

JPTP19

JPTP18

JPTP10

6 JPTP09

REFERENCES

25 m

50 m

75 m

100 m

125 m

9 THIS SCALE TO BE USED TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS FOR INFORMATION

10 5

8 CLIENT 300mm CULVERT

JPTP07

MAGENTA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JPTP08

0 5. 12

JPTP06 JPTP05

PROJECT JPTP04

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

JPTP03

JPTP02

JPTP01

TITLE

TW5 125.0

125.0

TW4

SITE CONDITIONS

WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc.

JPTP11 JPTP12

2 .0

125

A JPTP14

JPTP13

JPTP15

P PROJECT #

DATE

2014-06-11 5.0 12

DRAWN

DWG NO.

REV Page 87 of 173

CMR/KC

CHECKED

LEGEND

6 11

REFERENCES

10 5

25 m

50 m

75 m

100 m

125 m

THIS SCALE TO BE USED TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS FOR INFORMATION

8 CLIENT

0 5. 12

MAGENTA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROJECT

JOHNSTON’S POINT DEVELOPMENT LOT 23 & 24 CON. 6 & 7 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC - COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 125.0

125.0

TITLE

DRAFT PLAN

WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. SITE DATA

2 .0

125 5 12

LAND USE

UNITS

AREA +/-

DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

30.77

0.45

ROADS/STREETS

1.98

PROJECT #

DATE

2014-06-12

PARKLAND

3.90

DRAWN 36.65

CMR/KC

DWG NO.

REV Page 88 of 173

TOTAL SITE AREA

CHECKED

Page 89 of 173

Rob Snetsinger EcologicalServices October 2, 2014

The format of this letter first posts specific concerns, raised by Erin Wicklamand Matt Rennie in their Sept. 14, 2014 letter to township council, following by our comments. From Erin Wicklam and Matt Rennie: in reading the Environmental impact Assessment, it doesn’t paint a realistic picture or the area. On a regular basis, we see much of the wildlifethe EIAmentions there is ‘no evidence’ of. just to name a few: an abundance of gray rat snakes, milk snakes, salamanders, ospreys, turtles, tree frogs and the list goes on and on contrary to what the assessment would iead you to believe. Attached are plenty of pictures we have taken on our property, which is directly adiacentto the PSW.

Our comment:

We are aware that the species mentioned above are found in the area and as a result spent some effort searching for them on the point. Ospreys, turtles, tree frogs, and salamanders were found in association with the point, gray rat snakes and milk snakes were not.

Although some of these species are rare in the province, all areas of the Canadian Shield in this region contain potential habitat for them. if we were to say that there can be no development in their habitat, then we would have to say no to any development in the shield areas of South Frontenac Township including the addition of sheds, or additions to existing lots. Allof the species listed above have some tolerance to human activity. We have observed ospreys nesting in light standards above sports fields, and often see turtles using road

embankments to lay eggs. We have also found both snake species mentioned above using building structures to their advantage and we notice the photographs accompanying the authors letter have them set in a developed setting. it is important to understand that the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) allows for development in association with all of the species mentioned above if it is deemed through the as process that there will be no negative impact. This is determined through several methods that are predominately based on instructions supplied by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). For example, it would be deemed a negative impact if the hibernacula of snakes was

destroyed by development, which is why we paid particular attention searching for them. Research has shown that the best areas for hibernacula are fractured rock on south facing slopes next to wetlands, and this has been our experience, having found many hibernacula over the years. We searched all sloping areas on the point(not just south) for appropriate hibernacula and found none, and also searched during the spring and fall in two different years when snakes congregate for hibernacula and found none. Furthermore, the potential location of all houses and roads were surveyed with a greater focus for hibernacula, and again none were

Page 90 of 173

found. Nevertheless, as a caution for this {and to protect other ecological features) all potential houses are to be located on top of slope.

From Erin Wicklam and Matt Rennie: We have carefuilv reviewed the EIAfor each “phase” of this development, and noticed that each seems to be written with a ievei of partiaiity in favor of the development, but has the following discrepancies: EIAHeading Water Fowl and Staging .

Areas

Significant Features 7

Speciai Features Component

Amphibian Breeding Habitat

First EIAStates Pointed out “none of the proposed buildings will be within 120 meters i of the Bay”. 0 States, “Wetlands scored high for spawning and rearing”. “No doubt Long Bay is important for fish spawning, but all houses wili be more than 120 rn away”.

Second ElAStates No mention of proposed buildings adjacent to the staging areas. 0 No mention the area is high for spawning at all or adjacent houses

0 States, “The closestthe proposed road will be to potential spawning areas in Long Bay will be approx. 110m.” 0 Notes ”calling amphibian numbers passed the threshold for significance. None of the houses wiii be within 120 m of these swamps. The closest distance to the proposed road will be 50 m.”

0 No mention of distance to road or setbacks

I Changes to “all development wiil be 35 m or more” and also concludedthere will be no significant impacts.

Our comment: The PPS and the township OP use the 120 m adjacent land distance for determining whether discussion of negative impacts is required. Discussion was not required

for many features in the first EIS because distances were greater than 120 m. in the second EIS,discussion was required because the proposed house locationswould be set within the 120 m adjacent land distance.

it is important to understand that the 120 m is not a no-development setback. Development is

allowed within 120 if it is deemed to have no negative impact. Negative impact is defined in the PPS and informationfrom OMNR helps to determine how to apply that de?nition. For example it would be a negative impact if the ability of the bay to provide waterfowl staging was reduced. This ability stems from several factors such as submergent aquatic vegetation and location within the fly route. Since there will be no development within the bay and the houses will be

Page 91 of 173

set well back from the shoreline, this functional ability will not be reduced. Finally, staging

waterfowl are tolerant of nearby human activity and can often be observed in waterways next to busy highways and areas of high density development.

From Erin Wlcklam and Matt Rennie:

The fact that the developer was not open about the full extent of the development from the start shows the lack of respect for the Township, Provincial, and Environmental Policiesthat are in place to protect the wildlife and the residents that live in our area. Our comment: The foundation of Environmental policy in the PPS and passed down to municipalities for adaptation in their OfficialPlans can be traced back to the Brundtland

Commission of 1983. At that time there was a sense that development was going unchecked and that the environment needed to be considered in development decisions. This idea of sustainable development has been an evolving process and we have seen many positive changes to environmental protection policy since we started work in 1985, such as well entrenched wetland protection. We often see people opposing a development because of well placed passion, without understanding the details of the EIS process. For example, in one development the adjacent

landowner wanted it stopped because there were deer using the site and nobody disputed that they would be displaced by the development. This is an impact, but not a negative impact for the PPS because many years of effort by agencies such as the OMNR have determined what types of impact are aliowable. in the case of the deer, a negative impact would occur if the site were to lose a certain type of deer yard. The landowner was understandably unhappy when the development went in, but the tenet of sustainable development was followed via the PPS and the OP. There will be impacts from the Johnston Point development. For example some trees will be removed reducing the nesting opportunities for some species. However, EISguidelines were followed and in our opinion there will be no negative impacts for the purposes of the PPS and the township OP from this development.

Page 92 of 173

From Erin Wicklam and Matt Rennie: initially the road on Johnston Point was proposed to give access to three lots. me nrst tie states ”Due to the set back distances of the road (Slim), the intervening forest, and low road use, there willbe no negative impacts to amphibian breeding habitat”. Thisnow is a concern because what previously was 60m of intervening Forrest, has become 30m of a proposed condominium park with increasedvolume of traffic on the road. with such a drastic change it would only stand to reason that there could be a significant impact on the amphibian breeding in the PSW.

Our last concern is that the road to Johnston Point was suggested in the initial BA to be 60 in from the PSW. There was some confusion with distances to the property line and when the developer realized there wasn’t physically enough room to put a road 60 m away, there was simply a revision made to the BA that changed this setback to 30 in. This shows us the lack of due diligence for the important parameters set out by the Environmental Consultant and the inherent pressure to make EEAfit the development. Allowing this type of manipulation of the system is setting a very dangerous example, and therefore we ask that this land remains zoned residential and no further subdivision of the lots takes place.

Our comment:

Our concern with the initial road was at one location (i.e., the 60 m) because it

was on a sloping area above the wetland. We felt a negative impact would occur if there was a road blowout that caused sedimentation to a valuable area of the wetland, which also contained significant amphibian breeding habitat. To mitigate for this, engineers provided a road design at that location to insure minimal risk of a road blowout.

The road was in place when we surveyed for amphibian road use during the second phase of the development. We surveyed during high movement periods (rainy nights) when amphibians move into uplands, or move from one wetland to another and can often be found on roads, where they are at risk. We observed no road use at Johnston Point, while on the same nights observed high use at several other locations in the township where we were surveying. One key difference is that the roads at these other sites were directly adjacent to wetlands, whereas the Johnston Point road is mostly placed high up on the spine of the point.

Page 93 of 173

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services October 6, 2014

the Johnston Point Note- In their letter Aland Nona Mariotti voice several concerns with relevant to the EIS development. We are restricting our comments to the concerns that are process as we are not qualified to address other issues, such as road access. by Al and Nona Mariotti, The format for this letter is to first provide an excerpt from the letter followed by our comments. From Al and Nona Mariotti:

WHO[World Meteorological Organizationiat their annual Spring meeting remindedus that we need to “minimize human pressures on the global and local environment to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems. Prudent actions include reducingair pollution, protecting the quality of water supplies and aquatic habitat, minimizing urban sprawl, reducing habitat destruction and fragmentation, restoring critical habitats and preventing the spread of invasive species. This organization recognizes the role of lawmakers to anticipate and plan for future adaptations which could even include changes in building codes, farming activities and even shifts in fishing management and making preparations for extreme events.” These changes will not emerge from the top down but from the local municipal ievel up. We ask our local council to seriously look again at what is being proposed for another condo site [Johnston Point] on Loughboroughlake meters away from Mr. Beach’s ApplewoociSite. Not miles or kiiometers separate the sites but meters. 14 more homes in addition to the 3 lots on Johnston’s point have to warrant at least 15 boats in addition to the 26 slips at the Applewood site. There are four Provincial Signi?cant wetland sites within Loughborough Lakearea. ironicaiiy Mr Beach’s Applewood Condominium and .iohnstons’s Point Condominium plans fail within two of them, both within sight of each other. Again we say he had to have known this when he purchased both sites for development. This area of the lake has a narrow channeicoming from the bridge bordered by the marrowlike silk moving between the west and east basin. These two wetlands are the ?ltering agents for this part of the

lake and beyond as well as the home to many species of animalsand reptiles. developing plans for Our comment: The authors’ correctly point out the role of lawmakers in the Official environmental protection. In South Frontenac township these plans are enshrined in years ago to the current Plan (OP). It is an evolving process and a comparison of the OP from 30 version show that environmental protection has become more important.

it is, but unless We acknowledge that all development will have an impact no matter where acceptable under the OP. these impacts reach certain prescribed thresholds they are deemed requirements of the The EIS for the Johnston Point development has met the environmental Policy Statement (PPS) and the township OP and is therefore a defendable document

Provincial

within the municipal planning approvals process.

Page 94 of 173

We have been involvedwith the Loon count for the lake association for a number of years and have included the Long Bay icons in our observations, recordings and count each year .Our regular observationsand count in conjunction with other observers throughout the lake are sent every fall to

BirdStudies Canada .They in turn are able to see whether the pattern for birds especially ioons is heaithy or not in our lakes. Thiswas the first year we have seen one baby loon observedfrom this pair of icons in three summers. it was the previous pattern to see one or two chickseach summer. Summer storms with extreme winds might wash the nest /eggs as weli as research indicates changes around the and vibrations also have an impact.111is “little” observation is environment such as constructionfnoise only a small sample of what the WHOhighiighted. Change must come with respect attached.

There are no regulations restricting boat use within Long Bay, and on many occasions we have observed motor boats using the bay. lfthere is concern about boats in the bay it may be possible to have it designated as a fish sanctuary, which would restrict all motorized boat use from the bay. This is only possible if it meets certain criteria as determined by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. This is not relevant to the planning approvals

Our comment:

process, but concerned citizens might be interested to pursue the designation as a separate issue.

There are several criteria related to the EIS process that can restrict development, such as a negative impact to a significant wetland, significant woodland, and significant wildlife habitat. Within the latter there are 42 categories that must be considered in an EISto determine if significant wildlife habitat is present. A single loon nest by itself does not meet the threshold for significance within the categories and therefore cannot be considered with respect to negative impacts to significant wildlife habitat. In a Sept. 3 2014 response letter we wrote to the CRCA,we made several recommendations regarding the Johnston Point development including the following four. These were intended to help protect species, including those (e.g., loons) that are not covered under the normal “negative impact” EIS process. In particular, the third recommendation below was aimed at

dock construction (seen as a form of development) and is seen as a more effective means of protection because it is more focused on site specific controls (i.e., proximity to a nest) that may arise when an application is made.

Recommendation: In regards to the open water wetland that is located to the north of the development we recommend that the large trees that have fallen into the wetland be left in place. These trees have beneficial attributes for fish, but are also potential turtle basking sites.

Recommendation: The removal of any standing native woody vegetation (tree or shrub) greater than 10 cm (4 inches) within 40 m of any wetland or lake area (except 35 m for Lot 14) will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. Trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be removed.

Page 95 of 173

Recommendation: Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that an EIS be required for any development on or within 30 m ofthe wetland or lake.

Recommendation: Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that no fill be placed within 30 m of the wetland or the lake. Research in loon nesting has shown success with artificial floating platforms at attracting

breeding pairs to a site, but also at producing successful hatches that might otherwise be at risk from boat wakes. The developer is interested in working with the Loughborough Lake loon organization

in order to build a nesting platform in Long Bay.

The topographic makeup of this Johnston’s Point property leads us to ask whether the Provincial Signi?cant wetlands regulations are going to be adhered to as stated orjiist enunciated as being Signi?cant wetlands with accommodated Modi?cations.As observers, we now have to ask why these protective measures have been put in place and by whom? We actuaily be-iieveour forefathers had the knowledge that these wetlands have a value and function! The tax payer in us says ‘ifmunicipalities

don’t feel the need to adhere to the regulations perhaps to save tax money, time and energy it makes

sense to abolishall the wetlands deemed signi?cant. Now reading in reports 30 40 ’ or 60 met resawa‘ from PSW compare dt o 120 is beyond stretching . limits-in our estimation. Obviously someone thought this 120 t res as a guideline when creating the Of?cialPlan was relevant. it .is expected all these modi?cations,all setbacks and any addition of backfillwill be monitored dgse iy bythe municipality, ii33 ml (3epa?me?t W0? Seimcland for CRCA.Andwho -is responsible to monitor any lot grading l’m’t ! 8 t‘IONS th at is required and appears already to be -in progress? of course one shouldbe a owed to work their land but not when a PSWis disturbed. '

‘

rrie

‘

obviously ‘

Our Comment:

When we first started working on wetlands in the province in the mid—1980s,it was a transitional period where wetland protection was starting to be part of the development process. However, up until a few years ago there were no regulations in place to protect wetlands. Instead they were, and continue to be, protected through planning that restricts development from occurring in significant wetlands. The Johnston Point development will not occur in a significant wetland. As part ofthis planning process, development

is not allowed in adjacent lands of a significant

wetland if it causes a negative impact to the wetland. The adjacent land distance is 120 m and since the Johnston Point development will be occurring in this 120 m, the EIS process was initiated to determine if a negative impact was possible. As described in the PPS, a negative impact would occur if the value ofthe features and functions that prescribe significance is reduced. Wetland values are numerically provided in the wetland

evaluation document and we went through every step of the wetland scoring and found no instance of where the numerical value would be lowered. As a result there will be no negative impact as described by the PPS and reproduced in the OP. We are well qualified to assess the

Page 96 of 173

evaluation and make this statement

because we have been completing wetland evaluations

since 1984 and have done more than 100 since that time. As a final note, we did say that there were no wetland regulations until a few years ago. In the last several years the conservation authorities in Ontario have each developed a waterways

regulation that restricts development within 30 meters of wetlands (even certain wetlands that are not significant). The buildings and septic fields of the Johnston Point wetland will not be within 30 meters ofthe wetland.

Page 97 of 173

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services

Response Letter to Anthony Cameron with respect to the Johnston Pt. subdivision. From Mr. Cameron (in bold):

From the OP: All lands within 90 metres (295 ft.) of the high water mark of all lakes and rivers which are not designated Environmental Protection are included as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Where development and site alterations are proposed in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, it is the intent of this Official Plan that all buildings, campsites and structures not related to the use of the water and all sewage disposal system leaching beds be well set back from the highwater mark. More specifically, a minimum setback of 30 metres (98.4 ft.) from the highwater mark shall apply but greater setbacks may be required depending on conditions specific to individual sites. Our comment: For the purposes of the OP and the PPS the 30 meter setback was met and exceeded for most of the development. As well, development features are to be placed on top of slope to minimize impacts to adjacent water bodies. As noted in the EIS, we feel that the proposed development has met the standards for no negative impact, as defined in the PPS. Ducks Unlimited has no jurisdictional control here and this is not an issue concerning DFO as there is no in-water work proposed.

Our comment: From the beginning we have been consistent in our message, which has primarily been to keep development to top of slopes.

Our comment: I am unaware of how building codes have relevance to the EIS process, other than through policy related setbacks via the building permit process. This stems from the OP which requires a 30 m setback from the water bodies and wetlands. The EIS will also be reviewed by the CRCA who will also be insuring that the 30 m minimum is met.

Page 98 of 173 Member of

REGION CONSERVATIONAUTHORITY CATARAQUI 1641 Perth Road, PO. Box 160 Glenburnie, Ontario KOH 1S0 Phone: (613) 546-4228 Toll Free (613 area code): 1-877-956-CRCA Fax: (613) 547-6474 E—mai|: info@crca.ca Websites: www.crca.ca & www.c|eanwatercataraqui.ca

.“ ’\’5 _

80£STeIr\vl1 C/rampioru {tllo(r)) Natural

August 8, 2014

CRCA File: CDM/FRS/159/2014

Sent by email (pyoung@frontenaccounty.ca) Peter Young, Community Planner County of South Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenbumie, Ontario KOH 1S0

Dear Mr. Young: Re:

Application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 10CD-2014/002 Johnston Point Development Part of Lots 23 & 24, Concessions 6, 7 . Township of South Frontenac (Loughborough District), County of Frontenac East Basin of Loughborough Lake

Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed the above-noted application for draft plan of vacant land condominium approval, including the following:

Notice of Complete Application Application for Plan of Condominium (June18, 2014) Planning Justification Report (FOTENN, June, 2014) Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (WESA, June 12, 2014) Site Conditions Plan (WESA, June 11, 2014) Environmental Impact Statement (Ecological Services, June 12, 2014) Storrnwater Management Brief (Asterisk, not dated) Staff provide the following comments for the County’s consideration and for action/response from the applicant. Recommendations will be numbered and italicized for easy reference. Summary

of Proposal / Site Description

The proposal involves the creation of a vacant land condominium development consisting of 14 residential units which will be tied to a single common private road, as well as a 3.9 hectare park block on approximately 37 hectares of property. The subject property is located on a large piece of land bounded by Loughborough Lake to the north, west and south. The property has road frontage on North Shore Road. The 14 units range in size from 1.37 to 3.9 hectares and are proposed to be developedwith single—detacheddwellings and individual private septic systems and wells.

Mr. Young (1 OCD-2014/002 Johnston Point) August 8, 2014 —

Page 99 of 173

The subject property contains a mix of heavily wooded upland area, and low—lyingwetland area. The entire north shore of the development fronts onto the Loughborough Lake provincially signi?cant wetland (PSW) complex. In addition, there are two locations along the south shore that front onto the PSW. All of the proposed units, plus the waterfront park have frontage on Loughborough Lake and/or the PSW. There were no other drainage features identi?ed on the subject lands. The subject property is designated ‘Rural’ and ‘Provincially Signi?cant Wetland’ in the Township of South Frontenac Of?cial Plan and is zoned ‘Rural’ (RU) in the implementing Zoning By-law. A proposed Zoning By-law amendment would rezone the property from Rural to Site Speci?c Residential (R) zone and Environmental Protection (EP). The site speci?c residential zone will seek relief from the minimum required road frontage and interior side yard requirements. Discussion

The main interests of the CRCA in this application are the protection of surface water quality of the PSW and Loughborough Lake, the protection of natural heritage features (Wetlands and woodlands), the avoidance of natural hazards associated with the shoreline of the lake (e.g. ?ooding and erosion), as well as the provision of adequate storrnwater management. Water Quality The Township Of?cial Plan recognizes the need to minimize impacts to waterbodies by reducing phosphorous inputs, preventing erosion and maintaining natural appearances. Accordingly, the Of?cial Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law require that all development occur at a minimum setback of 30 metres from the high water mark of a waterbody. The intent of this setback is to provide a buffer of undisturbed soil and vegetation along the shoreline, which will help to ?lter runoff, prevent soil erosion, and provide wildlife habitat. The EIS also recommends a minimum 30 metre setback for development and suggests that greater setbacks will be established for each of the units. It is unclear if the line shown as the ‘Property Line’ on the Site Conditions drawing is also intended to be a representation of the high water mark of Loughborough Lake where it touches the lakeshore. It is

also unclear how or by whom the wetland boundaries shown on the drawing were established. I.

Sta? recommend that the high water mark be clearly identi?ed on the drawings.

Sta?’recommend that the wetland boundary delineation be established by a quali?ed professional. If this has already been done, the wetland boundary should be labelled on the drawings as being established by a quali?ed professional.

Natural Hazards A) Flooding Hazard

—

Laughborough Lake

Page 2 of 6

Mr. Young (1OCD—2014/002 Johnston Point) August 8, 2014 —

Page 100 of 173

Loughborough Lake is 125.03 metres geodetic. The CRCA’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 requires that new development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the furthest inland extent of the regulatory ?ood plain. There are Very few contour elevation labels shown on the Site Conditions drawing, nor is it clear what the contour interval is for the drawing. This makes it dif?cult to ascertain if the development meets the minimum requirements of Ontario Regulation 148/06. In addition, it is unclear if the contours are tied to a geodetic elevation on the drawings. 3 . Sta? recommend that additional contour

labels be added to the drawings.

Staffrecommend that the contour interval be added to the drawings.

Sta?’recommend that a note be placed onto the drawings indicating if the contour to a geodetic elevation or based upon an assumed elevation.

elevations are tied

Staffrecommend that if the contour elevations are not tied to a geodetic elevation, that the applicant have the maximum recorded water level elevation surveyed and that it be indicated on the plans.

In addition, the CRCA, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 148/06, requires that buildings, structures, roads and septic systems meet speci?c ?oodproo?ng standards when proposed adjacent to a waterbody. The minimum ?nished ?oor elevation (i.e. basement ?oor) and all exterior openings of all dwellings on the subject property must be located at or above 125.33 metres geodetic (0.3 metres above maximum recorded water level). Roads and driveways must have a finished grade no lower than 124.78 metres geodetic (0.25 metres below max. recorded water level). Finally, individual leaching beds must be located at or above 126.03 metres geodetic (1.0 metre above). The applicant must demonstratethat these ?oodproo?ng requirements can be met on each proposed unit prior to final approval. 7. Staffrecommend that a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevationsfor each dwelling unit and septic system prior to ?nal plan approval. The grading plan should include proposed sediment and erosion control measures. B) Erosion Hazard

The CRCA defines the extent of potential erosion hazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance for till shorelines of 3(h):1(v), plus an equipment access allowance of 6 metres. Staff note that there is suf?cient area outside of the erosion hazard for development to occur on the 14 units that are proposed. Natural Heritage A) Loughborough Lake Provincially Signi?cant Wetland As noted previously, a large piece of provincially signi?cant wetland (PSW) is located along the northern shoreline, and to a lesser extent, in two locations along the southern shorelineof the property. The wetland comprises the entire length of shoreline for units 3 through 7, 12, and 13.

Page 3 of 6

Mr. Young (l0CD-2014/002 August 8, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 101 of 173

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to natural heritage features unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by Ecological Services (June l2, 2014) and reviewed by staff. Generally, staff support the ?ndings of the EIS. However, in the opinion of staff, it is inappropriate for the consultant to present a methodology that uses the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) scoring as a means to assess negative impact. The OWES is a system to evaluate a wetland and does not provide suf?cient categories to address development on adjacent lands. With respect to the EIS, it is stated that there has been a line by line review of the evaluation scoring. The EIS uses the main headings of Biological component, social component, hydrological component and special features for the purposes of summarizing scoring changes. It should be noted that the scoring is often assessed at a larger landscape scale and does not take into account site speci?c impacts. There are only a limited number of lines within the OWES that would be affected by localized development. The only score that would signi?cantly change would be “absence of human disturbance” which would decrease due to increase is human presence over the current status. Staff note that disturbance levels at a localized scale are anticipated to increase. It should be noted that although the consultant has done considerable ?eld work, the habitat of the marsh and upland does provide the opportunity for a number of threatened and endangered species that although not observed, habitat suitability would support. There should also be mention of how vegetation removal should be managed within the 30 metre setback. In addition, staff are concerned that there is no clear summary of recommendations incorporated within the EIS with respect to mitigation measures that should be incorporated into an approval.

Sta? recommend that the following be considered by the ecological consultant: a) consideration should be given to the anticipated increased human disturbance and that additional recommendations to mitigate these impacts be included. This review should include an evaluation ofthe anticipated human activity / disturbance along the shoreline that is adjacent to the PS W. b) it would be appropriate for an NHIC records search to be conducted in order to determine which species have been identi?ed in the area, the suitability ofthose species to use the wetland/adjacent lands in question, and any mitigation measures to avoid impacts. c) that management recommendations (e.g. restricting vegetation removal) within the 30 metre setback be considered to ensure continued wetland health.
Sta? recommend that all recommendations within the EIS be summarized and that appropriate text with respect to these recommendations be included in the Condominium Agreement to the satis?zctionofthe County and the CRCA. I0. Sta?recommena’that all driveway access laneways be located a minimum horizontal distance of 30 metres from any wetland and that this be depicted on the Site Conditions drawing. By virtue of Ontario Regulation 148/06, the CRCA regulates all development and site alteration activities (including grading and ?lling) within 120 metres of a provincially signi?cant wetland on the

Page 4 of 6

Mr. Young (10CD—2014/002 August 8, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 102 of 173

subject property. CRCA guidelines, under Ontario Regulation 148/06, suggest that development may be permitted in the area between 30 metres to 120 metres of a provincially signi?cant wetland if the interference on the hydrologic functions of the wetland has been deemed to be acceptable. Staff are satisfied that the interference on the hydrologic functions of the wetland is acceptable. B) Woodlands

While the property does not contain designated Signi?cant Woodlands, it does contain mature, dense forest throughout a substantial portion of the property. 1].

Sta? recommend that tree removal be limited to those areas required for proposed development.

Withinthe 30 metre adjacent lands to the PSW, vegetation removal should be limited (e.g. removal for safety reasons), or prohibited depending upon the recommendations ofthe ecological consultant as requested in 8(c) above. Stormwater Management

This application includes preliminary plans and a stormwater management brief. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates and storage volumes are calculated. The main contributor to increased runoff and reduced water quality will be the roadway. Quality control will be provided by enhanced swales that include rock check dams. Quantity control storage volumes for minor and major storms will be provided in the roadside swales. Runoff rates will be held to pre-development levels. Page 4 of the SWM brief states that all discharge points (i.e. of stormwater) shall be directed towards the lake and not to wetlands. Contrary to this, drawings M-Ol and M-02 (tributaiy areas and concepts) suggest that the only wetland Q receiving stormwater discharge is the one in the south—east. Currently, a gravel driving surface is proposed. This is the assumption on which the stormwater design is based. During ?nal design, we recommend that consideration be made to the possibility that the driving surface may be paved in the future. What are the implications for quantity and quality control should this occur. Will sufficient quantity storage exist in the event of this change? Can quality treatment measures be designed to handle this potential future condition? '

We assume that road elevations will be similar to existing and that swale inverts will be located accordingly. The soil types and depths indicated in the hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis report suggest only marginal in?ltration will be possible with existing soils.

Rock check dams are proposed in the grassed swales, “Locations to be determined during construction stages”. We recommend that the grass swales and associated rock check dam locationsbe designed prior to approval to ensure the system provides adequate protection and facilitates ef?cient maintenance. To improve quality protection for stormwater discharge to wetland areas, we recommend that soils with in?ltration rates of greater than 15 mm/hr be employed in the proposed grass swales nearest to said storrnwater discharge points. This may necessitate replacement of some of the existing soils in these areas. Pre-treatrnent (e. g. vegetated ?lter strips, gravel diaphragms and/or sedimentation forebays) is also recommended, in the interest of sediment removal and ease of maintenance (e.g. cleanout).

Page 5 of 6

Mr. Young (10CD—2014/002 Johnston Point) August 8, 2014 —

Page 103 of 173

Staff note that the submitted plans and stormwater brief provide enough information for draft plan approval (i.e. appropriate lot layout). Final design should be able to ?nalize the details. 12. Sta?’recommend that a ?nal stormwaier management plan be prepared by a qualified Professional Engineer and approved to the satisfaction ofthe County and the CRCA, and that appropriate text to imP lement its findings be included in the Condominium Agreement prior to final plan a1?proval.

Recommendation Staff recommend deferral of application l0CD-2014/002 until recommendations #1-6, 8, 10 & 11 are addressed. Once these concerns are addressed, CRCA staff will be able to provide conditions for Draft Plan approval. As indicated above, portions of the property are subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06,Development, with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, made pursuant to Section Interference 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. The purpose of Ontario Regulation 148/06 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, as well as to preserve the hydrologic and ecological functions of wetlands. By virtue of this regulation, the CRCA regulates all development and site alteration activities (including grading and ?lling) within 120 metres of the PSW, and within 50 metres of the shoreline of Loughborough Lake. Within a regulated area, written permission must be obtained from the CRCA prior to development or site alteration taking place.

Please inform this of?ce in writing of any decisions made by the County regarding this application. If you have any general questions, please contact the undersigned at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, or via e—mailat aschmidt@crca.ca. Stormwater management queries should be directed to Shawn Fairbank at extension 284, or by e—mailat sfairbank@crca.ca. BIS queries should be directed to Tom Beaubiah at extension 240, or by e—mailat tbeaubiah@crca.ca. Yours truly,

/fi’/L/J“/C—=;»/V’; Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager cc:

Magenta Waterfront Development Corp, P.O. Box 98, Battersea, ON, KOH 1H0 Lindsay Mills, Plarmer, Township of South Frontenac (via email) Mike Keene, FOTENN, Agent to Owner (via email)

Page 6 of 6

Page 104 of 173

EIS Johnston Point Response to the CRCA letter by Andrew Schmidt (CRCA File: CDM/FRS/159/2014)

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services 3803 Sydenham Rd. Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca

Sept. 3, 2014

The following addresses concerns by CRCA in regards to the June 12, 2014 Johnston Point EIS produced by Ecological Services. From the CRCA: 8) Staff recommends that the following be considered by the ecological consultant: a. Consideration should be given to the anticipated increased human disturbance and that additional recommendations to mitigate these impacts be included. This review should include an evaluation of the anticipated human activity/disturbance along the shoreline that is adjacent to the PSW. As part of the EIS process we did consider anticipated increases in human disturbance to Johnston Point. It is recognized that any development will have impacts, but it is the purpose of the EIS to determine whether they are negative impacts for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement and the South Frontenac O.P. Our conclusions were that there would no negative impacts if recommended mitigation measures were followed. It was anticipated that landowners will want access to open water shoreline areas and would build trails to access points for nature viewing, launching a canoe, small boat, or for swimming. Based on the nature of the habitat at Johnston Point these small incursions were not considered to have a negative impact. To reduce the risk we did include the recommendation for the 40 m tree cutting restriction from any shoreline area. We have few concerns with impacts associated with larger boats being launched within the PSW as this would require more significant infrastructure such as a dock and possible dredging. We consider both activities to be a form of development and since the PPS does not allow development within provincially significant wetlands we feel that this restriction is already covered by existing legislation.

Page 105 of 173

From the CRCA: b. It would be appropriate for an NHIC records search to be conducted in order to determine which species have been identified in the area, the suitability of those species to use the wetland/adjacent lands in question, and any mitigation measures to avoid impacts. The NHIC records search was undertaken and this was covered on pages 19 and 20 of the EIS. None of the species mentioned were found in association with the development property, and the habitat associated with the property is only appropriate for two of the species, the Gray Ratsnake and the Map Turtle. Over the last several years we spent considerable effort on the property searching for the Gray Ratsnake and their hibernacula without success and are confident that they are not present. As a result we do not feel that mitigation measures are warranted for this species. In an earlier report we did recommend that before constructing any building that efforts be undertaken to insure that no hibernacula are being destroyed. However for this phase of the development we visited each prospective building site and are confident that no hibernacula are present. Map Turtles have been reported for Loughborough Lake, although we found none in the wetland associated with the development property. They are an open water species and are more often found in rivers as they require well oxygenated water under the ice during the winter hibernation period. They spend most of their life in water, only coming to shore to lay eggs. We found no evidence of map turtle nesting on any of the shorelines and since there will be no development within at least 35 meters of the shoreline, we feel that map shoreline turtle mitigation is unwarranted. With respect to potential map turtle use, we add the following recommendation, Recommendation: In regards to the open water wetland that is located to the north of the development we recommend that the large trees that have fallen into the wetland be left in place. These trees have beneficial attributes for fish, but are also potential turtle basking sites.

From the CRCA: c. Management recommendations (e.g. restricting vegetation removal) within the 30 metre setback be considered to ensure continued wetland health. In the EIS we provided the following recommendation: The removal of any standing live tree greater than 8 inches DBH within 40 m of any wetland or lake area will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. Trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be removed.

Page 106 of 173

The purpose of this recommendation was to insure that the forest be maintained between the houses, and the lake or wetland. Otherwise, we feel the development could result in a negative impact. The removal of blowdown was specifically added because a recent windstorm knocked down a large number of pine trees in a few of the lots and this could result in a potential fire hazard. We did not include a total vegetation restriction recommendation because there are situations where it would be advisable to remove vegetation. For example, the invasive and damaging Dog Strangling Vine is becoming a significant problem in forested areas of the Canadian Shield and it would be a burdensome problem to request permission for its removal every time a new infestation flared up. We also don’t see a problem with some vegetation removal for the purposes of shoreline access and point out there is a difference between vegetation removal that might be perceived as a negative aesthetic, as opposed to vegetation removal that would actually result in a negative impact to natural heritage features and functions. Our main focus in preventing negative impacts is to maintain the forest between the houses and shoreline areas. In view of CRCA’s concerns with maintaining intervening woodland vegetation we suggest the following changes to the tree removal recommendation in the EIS to as follows: Recommendation: The removal of any standing native woody vegetation (tree or shrub) greater than 10 cm (4 inches) within 40 m of any wetland or lake area (except 35 m for Lot 14) will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. Trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be removed. As part of this recommendation we also include the following two recommendations. Recommendation: Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that an EIS be required for any development on or within 30 m of the wetland or lake. Recommendation: Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that no fill be placed within 30 m of the wetland or the lake.

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services .

Page 107 of 173

September 5, 2014 Peter Young County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 Dear Mr. Young, Re:

Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment Response to Technical Comments Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

The following submission provides responses to the technical comments received from staff and external agencies regarding the applications referenced above. In addition, the following submission items are provided:     

Revised Draft Plan of Condominium Revised Service Plan Memorandum from Ecological Services Response to Hydrogeological Assessment Peer Review This response letter

County Comments 

The planning report says that the parkland would meet the Planning Act parkland dedication requirements. The proposed park is shown in the report as common elements, not dedicated to the municipality or accessible to the public, and proposed to be zoned EP. Having this as a separate block not owned by an individual landowner can avoid potential future development impacts and potentially offer a nice area for walking for unit owners. However the Township would still have the right to ask for parkland dedication/cash-in-lieu, as this private park would appear to only benefit unit owners.

The proposed parkland block is intended to be used and maintained as a common element by the residents of the development. We recognize that for this reason, the parkland block does not satisfy the dedication requirements as outlined in the Planning Act. However, we hope that the Township would take into consideration the quality and quantity of parkland provided when calculating the required cash-in-lieu. Bell 

The Developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/telecommunication

Page 108 of 173 2 infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development to provide communication/telecommunication service to the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure is not available, the Develop is hereby advised that the Developer may be required to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure. If the Developer elects not to pay for such connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Developer shall be required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e., 911 Emergency Services). The developer traditionally works with Westport Telecommunications to provide Fibre Optic Services to his developments. It is not likely that Bell services will be sought for this development. Canada Post The development provides sufficient land to provide for a communal mailbox for the development. Union Gas 

It is Union Gas Limited’s (“Union”) request as a condition of final approval that the owner/developer provide to Union the necessary easements and/or agreements required by Union for the provision of gas services for this project, in a form satisfactory to Union.

We have made a request to Union to retract this request. There is no gas service within 20 km of the property and it does not make sense to require a condition where the service is not available. Public Health The Health Unit has conducted a site visit and review of the test pitting for the proposed septic systems. Each lot was found to have a site suitable for onsite sewage disposal as well as a reserve area of equal size. As such the Health Unit is satisfied with the development and has provide conditions to be included with the draft approval. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Comments

Staff recommend that the high water mark be clearly identified on the drawings. The plan has been amended by labelling the high water mark.
Staff recommend that the wetland boundary delineation be established by a qualified professional. If this has already been done, the wetland boundary should be labelled on the drawings as being established by a qualified professional.

Page 109 of 173 3 Ecological Services is qualified to establish the boundary of the PSW. Figure 2 of the EIS is an accurate representation of the boundary. 3) Staff recommend that additional contour labels be added to the drawings. 4) Staff recommend that the contour interval be added to the drawings. 5) Staff recommend that a note be placed onto the drawings indicating the contour elevations are tied to a geodetic elevation or based upon an assumed elevation. 6) Staff recommend that if the contour elevations are not tied to a geodetic elevation, that the applicant have the maximum recorded water level elevation surveyed and that it be indicated on the plans. In response to the above noted points, the contours have been labeled along with the interval. We can also clarify that the contours are based on DRAPE mapping which is geodetic reference, as is standard practice. The contours were also verified in the field. This is labelled as letter J on the plan, under the Planning Act section. No further labelling on the plan is proposed. 7) Staff recommend that a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevations for each dwelling unit and septic system prior to final plan approval. The grading plan should include proposed sediment and erosion control measures. Noted, it is expected that this requirement will be included with the draft conditions of approval, and will be prepared at that time. 8) Staff recommend that the following be considered by the ecological consultant: a. Consideration should be given to the anticipated increased human disturbance and that additional recommendations to mitigate these impacts be included. This review should include an evaluation of the anticipated human activity/disturbance along the shoreline that is adjacent to the PSW. b. It would be appropriate for an NHIC records search to be conducted in order to determine which species have been identified in the area, the suitability of those species to use the wetland/adjacent lands in question, and any mitigation measures to avoid impacts. c. That management recommendations (e.g. restricting vegetation removal) within the 30 metre setback be considered to ensure continued wetland health. Please refer to the attached response from ecological services. 9) Staff recommend that all recommendations within the EIS be summarized and that appropriate text with respect to these recommendations be included in the Condominium Agreement to the satisfaction of the County and the CRCA. The following is a summary of recommendations:

Page 110 of 173 4

All building and septic beds will be located at the top of slope with maximal setback distances (Table 1) to prevent erosion impacts.
The removal of any standing native woody vegetation (tree or shrub) greater than 10 cm (4 inches) within 40 m of any wetland or lake area (except 35 m for Lot 14) will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. Trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be removed.
Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that an EIS be required for any development on or within 40 m (except 35 m for Lot 14) of the wetland or lake.
Under the condominium zoning it is recommended that no fill be placed within 30 m of the wetland or the lake.
It is recommended that any trees that have fallen into the open water portions of the PSW be left in place in order to enhance fish and turtle habitat. We recommend a condition of draft approval be included to ensure the Conservation Authority the opportunity to review the condo agreement, which intends to provide the protections as requested.

Staff recommend that all driveway access laneways be located a minimum horizontal distance of 30 metres from any wetland and that this be depicted on the Site Conditions drawing. The Site conditions drawing has been amended to show the proposed driveways.
Staff recommend that tree removal be limited to those areas required for proposed development. Within the 30 metre adjacent lands to the PSW, vegetation removal should be limited (e.g. removal for safety reasons), or prohibited depending upon the recommendations of the ecological consultant as requested in 8(c) above. Noted. We recommend a condition of draft approval be included to ensure the Conservation Authority the opportunity to review the condo agreement, which intends to provide the protections as requested.
Staff recommend that a final stormwater management plan be prepared by a qualified Professional Engineer and approved to the satisfaction of the County and the CRCA, and that appropriate text to implement its findings be included in the condominium Agreement prior to final plan approval. Noted, it is expected that this requirement will be included with the draft conditions of approval, and will be prepared at that time. Please contact me at 613-542-5454 ext. 221 should you require any further information.

Page 111 of 173 5 Thank you,

For Mike Keene, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

Page 112 of 173 Memberat

REGION CONSERVATIONAUTHORITY CATARAQUI 1641 Perth Road, P.O. Box 160 Glenburnie, Ontario KOH1S0 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 & wwwicleanwatercataraquica

November 12, 2014 I

.“ ‘"3

CRCA File: CDM/FRS/159/2014

Sent by email (pyoung@frontenaccounty.ca) Peter Young, Community Planner County of South Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenbumie, Ontario KOH 1S0

Dear Mr. Young: Re:

Application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 10CD-2014/002 Johnston Point Development Part of Lots 23 & 24, Concessions 6, 7 Township of South Frontenac (Loughborough District), County of Frontenac East Basin of Loughborough Lake

Staff of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) have reviewed a second submission in support of the above~noted application for draft plan of vacant land condominium approval, including

the following: Response to Technical Comments, FOTENN (September ,5, 2014) Response to Peer Review Comments, WESA (September 5, 2014) Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, WESA (September 5, 2014) Site Conditions Plan, WESA (September 5, 2014) Letter to Address CRCA Concerns, Ecological Services (September 3, 2014) Staff provide the following comments for the County’s consideration and for action/response from the applicant. Recommendations will be numbered and italicized for easy reference. Additional CRCA staff comments are noted in bold and italicized. Summary of Proposal/

(C)°r5i5reX’iiti Natural Champions %

Site Description

The proposal involves the creation of a vacant land condominium development consisting of 14 residential units which will be tied to a single common private road, as well as a 3.9 hectare park block on approximately 37 hectares of property. The subject property is located on a large piece of land bounded by Loughborough Lake to the north, west and south. The property has road frontage on North Shore Road. The 14 units range in size from 1.37 to 3.9 hectares and are proposed to be developed with single-detached dwellings and individual private septic systems and wells.

Mr. Young (l0CD—2014/002 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 113 of 173

The subject property contains a mix of heavily wooded upland area, and low-lying wetland area. The entire north shore of the development fronts onto the Loughborough Lake provincially signi?cant wetland (PSW) complex. In addition, there are two locations along the south shore that front onto the PSW. All of the proposed units, plus the waterfront park have frontage on Loughborough Lake and/or the PSW. There were no other drainage features identi?ed on the subject lands. The subject property is designated ‘Rural’ and ‘Provincially Signi?cant Wetland’ in the Township of South Frontenac Of?cial Plan and is zoned ‘Rural’ (RU) in the implementing Zoning By-law. A proposed Zoning By—lawamendment would rezone the property from Rural to Site Speci?c Residential (R) zone and Environmental Protection (EP). The site speci?c residential zone will seek relief from the minimum required road frontage and interior side yard requirements. Discussion

The main interests of the CRCA in this application are the protection of surface water quality of the PSW and Loughborough Lake, the protection of natural heritage features (wetlands and woodlands), the avoidance of natural hazards associated with the shoreline of the lake (e. g. ?ooding and erosion), as well as the provision of adequate stormwater management. Water Quality

The Township Of?cial Plan recognizes the need to minimize impacts to waterbodies_by reducing phosphorous inputs, preventing erosion and maintaining natural appearances. Accordingly, the Of?cial Plan (OP) and Zoning By—lawrequire that all development occur at a minimum setback of 30 metres from the high water mark of a waterbody. The intent of this setback is to provide a buffer of undisturbed soil and vegetation along the shoreline, which will help to ?lter runoff, prevent soil erosion, and provide wildlife habitat. The BIS also recommends a minimum 30 metre setback for development and suggests that greater setbacks will be established for each of the units. It is unclear if the line shown as the ‘Property Line’ on the Site Conditions drawing is also intended to be a representation of the high water mark of Loughborough Lake where it touches the lakeshore. It is

also unclear how or by whom the wetland boundaries shown on the drawing were established.

Sta? recommend that the high water mark be clearbz on the drawings. identified A ddressed.

Staffrecommend that the wetland boundary delineation be established by a quali?ed professional. If this has already been done, the wetland boundary should be labelled on the drawings as being established by a qualified professional. Addressed.

Natural Hazards A) Flooding Hazard

—

Loughborough Lake

Page 2 of 8

Mr. Young (10CD»2014/O02 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 114 of 173 r

In our review of development applications, CRCA staff, in accordance with Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement and through Ontario Regulation 148/06, direct development away ?‘om areas subject to potential ?ood risk. In the absence of engineered ?ood plain mapping, the CRCA uses the maximum recorded water level to de?ne the extent of the ?ood hazard. The maximum recorded water level for Loughborough Lake is 125.03 metres geodetic. The CRCA’s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 requires that new development be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the furthest inland extent of the regulatory ?ood plain.

There are very few contour elevation labels shown on the Site Conditions drawing, nor is it clear what the contour interval is for the drawing. This makes it dif?cult to ascertain if the development meets the minimum requirements of Ontario Regulation 148/06. In addition, it is unclear if the contours are tied to a geodetic elevation on the drawings. 3. Sta? recommend that additional contour labels be added to the drawings.

Addressed. 4. Sta)?’recommend that the contour interval be added to the drawings. Addressed. 5. Sta)?”recommend that a note be placed onto the drawings indicating the contour elevations are tied to a geodetic elevation or based upon an assumed elevation.

A ddressed. 6. Sta? recommend that if the contour elevations are not tied to a geodetic elevation, that the applicant have the maximum recorded water level elevation surveyed and that it be indicated on the plans.

Addressed In addition, the CRCA, through implementation of Ontario Regulation 148/06, requires that buildings, structures, roads and septic systems meet speci?c ?oodproo?ng standards when proposed adjacent to a waterbody. The minimum ?nished ?oor elevation (i.e. basement ?oor) and all exterior openings of all dwellings on the subject property must be located at or above 125.33 metres geodetic (0.3 metres above maximum recorded water level). Roads and driveways must have a ?nished grade no lower than 124.78 metres geodetic (0.25 metres below max. recorded water level). Finally, individual leaching beds must be located at or above 126.03 metres geodetic (1.0 metre above). The applicant must demonstrate that these ?oodproo?ng requirements can be met on each proposed unit prior to ?nal approval. 7.

Sta?’recommend that a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevationsfor each dwelling unit and septic system prior lofinalplan approval. Thegrading plan should include

proposed sediment and erosion control measures.

This will be addressed as a condition ofdraftplan approval.

Page 3 of 8

Mr. Young (lOCD—2014/002 Johnston Point) November 12, 2014 —

Page 115 of 173

B) Erosion Hazard

The CRCA de?nes the extent of potential erosionhazards to include an allowance for toe erosion, a stable slope allowance for till shorelines of 3(h):l(v), plus an equipment access allowance of 6 metres. Staff note that there is suf?cient area outside of the erosion hazard for development to occur on the 14 units that are proposed.

Natural Heritage A) Loughborough Lake Provincially Significant Wetland

As noted previously, a large piece of provincially signi?cant wetland (PSW) is located along the northern shoreline, and to a lesser extent, in two locations along the southern shoreline of the property. The wetland comprises the entire length of shoreline for units 3 through 7, 12, and 13. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to natural heritage features unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by Ecological Services (June 12, 2014) and reviewed by staff.

Generally, staff support the ?ndings of the EIS. However, in the opinion of staff, it is inappropriate for the consultant to present a methodology that uses the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) scoring as a means to assess negative impact. The OWES is a system to evaluate a wetland and does not provide suf?cient categories to address development on adjacent lands. With respect to the EIS, it is stated that there has been a line by line review of the evaluation scoring. The EIS uses the main headings of Biological component, social component, hydrological component and special features for the purposes of summarizing scoring changes. It should be noted that the scoring is often assessed at a larger landscape scale and does not take into account site speci?c impacts. There are only a limited number of lines within the OWES that would be affected by localized development. The only score that would signi?cantly change would be “absence of human disturbance” which would decrease due to increase is human presence over the current status. Staff note that disturbance levels at a localized scale are anticipated to increase. It should be noted that although the consultant has done considerable ?eld work, the habitat of the marsh and upland does provide the opportunity for a number of threatened and endangered species that although not observed, habitat suitability would support. There should also be mention of how vegetation removal should be managed within the 30 metre setback. In addition, staff are concerned that there is no clear summary of recommendations incorporated within the EIS with respect to mitigation measures that should be incorporated into an approval.

Sta? recommend that thefollowing be considered by the ecological consultant: a) consideration should be given to the anticipated increased human disturbance and that additional recommendations to mitigate these impacts be included. This review should include an evaluation of the anticipated human activity / disturbance along the shoreline that is adjacent to the PS W

Page 4 of 8

Mr. Young (lOCD-2014/002 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 116 of 173

b) it would be appropriate for an NHIC records search to be conducted in order to determine which species have been identified in the area, the suitability ofthose species to use the wetland/adjacent lands in question, and any mitigation measures to avoidimpacts. c) that management recommendations (e.g. restricting vegetation removal) within the 30 metre

setback be considered to ensure continued wetland health. The response provided by Ecological Services (Sept. 3, 2014) recommends that “the removal of any standing woody vegetation (tree or shrub) greater than 10 cm (4 inches) within 40 m of any wetland or lake area (except 35 m for lot 14) will be prohibited under condominium zoning and site plan control. ” Staff are concerned that this will allowfor considerable vegetation removal of the understory that could cause detrimental impacts. Staff believe that the forest understory should be preserved within 30 metres of any wetland or the shoreline of the lake (invasive and non-native species can be excluded) except for a small pathway to allow access to the waterfront Therefore, staffsuggest that the following be added as a condition to draftplan approval: That the Condominium Agreement include wording that restricts vegetation rem oval within 30 metres of any wetland or the lake with the exception of a small pathway not to exceed 3 metres in width (invasive and non-native species can be excluded from this provision). _

Sta?’recommend that all recommendations within the EIS be summarized and that appropriate text these recommendations be included in the Condominium Agreement to the satisfactionofthe County and the CRCA. with respect

Addressed, provided that the condition noted above is included as a condition to draft plan approval. 10. Staffrecommend that all driveway access laneways be located a minimum horizontal distance of 30 metres fromany wetland and that this be depicted on the Site Conditions drawing. A d dressed. By virtue of Ontario Regulation 148/06, the CRCA regulates all development and site alteration activities (including grading and ?lling) Within 120 metres of a provincially signi?cant wetland on the subject property. CRCA guidelines, under Ontario Regulation 148/06, suggest that development may be permitted in the area between 30 metres to 120 metres of a provincially signi?cant wetland if the interference on the hydrologic functions of the wetland has been deemed to be acceptable. Staff are satis?ed that the interference on the hydrologic functions of the wetland is acceptable. B) Woodlands

While the property does not contain designated Signi?cant Woodlands, it does contain mature, dense forest throughout a substantial portion of the property. I I. Sta?’recommend that tree removal be limited to those areas required for proposed development. Within the 30 metre adjacent lands to the PS W, vegetation removal should be limited (e.g. removal for safety reasons), or prohibited depending upon the recommendations ofthe ecological consultant as requested in 8(c) above.

Page 5 of8

Mr. Young (l0CD-2014/002 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 117 of 173

This will be addressed as a condition to draft‘ plan approval Stormwater Management

This application includes preliminary plans and a stormwater management brief. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates and storage volumes are calculated. The main contributor to increased runoff and reduced water quality will be the roadway. Quality control will be provided by enhanced swales that include rock check dams. Quantity control storage volumes for minor and major storms will be provided in the roadside swales. Runoff rates will be held to pre-development levels. Page 4 of the SWM brief states that all discharge points (i.e. of stormwater) shall be directed towards the lake and not to wetlands. Contrary to this, drawings M—0land M—02(tributary areas and concepts) suggest that the only wetland Q receiving stormwater discharge is the one in the south-east. Currently, a gravel driving surface is proposed. This is the assumption on which the stormwater design is based. During ?nal design, we recommend that consideration be made to the possibility that the driving surface may be paved in the future. What are the implications for quantity and quality control should this occur. Will suf?cient quantity storage exist in the event of this change? Can quality treatment measures be designed to handle this potential future condition? We assume that road elevations will be similar to existing and that swale inverts will be located

accordingly. The soil types and depths indicated in the hydrogeological assessment report suggest only marginal in?ltration will be possible with existing soils.

and terrain analysis

Rock check dams are proposed in the grassed swales, “Locations to be determined during construction stages”. We recommend that the grass swales and associated rock check dam locations be designed prior to approval to ensure the system provides adequate protection and facilitates ef?cient maintenance. To improve quality protection for stormwater discharge to wetland areas, we recommend that soils with in?ltration rates of greater than 15 mm/hr be employed in the proposed grass swales nearest to said stormwater discharge points. This may necessitate replacement of some of the existing soils in these areas. Pre-treatment (e. g. vegetated ?lter strips, gravel diaphragms and/or sedimentationforebays) is also recommended, in the interest of sediment removal and ease of maintenance (e.g. cleanout).

Staff note that the submitted plans and stonnwater brief provide enough information for draft plan approval (i.e. appropriate lot layout). Final design should be able to ?nalize the details. 12. Sta? recommend that a ?nal stormwater management plan be prepared by a qualified Professional Engineer and approved to the satisfaction ofthe County and the CRCA, and that appropriate text to implement its ?ndings be included in the Condominium Agreement prior to ?nal plan approval. This will be addressed as a condition to draftplan approval

Page 6 of8

Mr. Young (1OCD-2014/002 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 118 of 173

Recommendation

Staff have no objection to the approval of application IOCD-2014/002 provided that the following are required as conditions of draft plan approval:

That a lot grading and drainage plan, and a sediment and erosion control plan be completed to the satisfaction of South Frontenac Township (‘Township’) and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (‘CRCA’), and be included in the Condominium Agreement between the

Owner and the Township. 2. That a detailed storrnwater management plan be prepared by a quali?ed Professional Engineer and approved to the satisfaction of the Township and the CRCA, and that appropriate text to implement its ?ndings be included in the Condominium Agreement. The detailed stormwater management plan will include more detailed elevation information than currently provided. 3. That the Condominium Agreement include wording to re?ect the following: i) All building and septic beds will be located in consideration of the setback distances noted in Table 1 in the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Ecological Services dated June 12, 2014. ii) Vegetation removal within 30 metres of any wetland or the lake is restricted with the exception of a small pathway not to exceed 3 metres in width (invasive and non-native species, and trees knocked over by natural blowdown can be excluded from this provision). iii) There will be no disturbance of the soil mantle or vegetation cover, and the placement of ?ll within 30 metres of the wetland or lake is prohibited. iv) An EIS will be required for any development on or within 40 metres (except 35 metres for Lot 14) of the wetland or lake. v) Trees that have fallen into the open water portions of the PSW will be le? in place to

enhance ?sh and turtle habitat. As indicated above, portions of the property are subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06, Development, with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, made pursuant to Section Interference 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. The purpose of Ontario Regulation 148/06 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, as well as to preserve the hydrologic and ecological ?inctions of wetlands. By virtue of this regulation, the CRCA regulates all development and site alteration activities (including grading and ?lling) within 120 metres of the PSW, and within 50 metres of the shoreline of Loughborough Lake. Within a regulated area, written permission must be obtained from the CRCA prior to development or site alteration taking place.

Please infonn this office in writing of any decisions made by the County regarding this application. If you have any general questions, please contact the undersigned at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, or via e-mail at asclnnidt@crca.ca. Stormwater management queries should be directed to Shawn Fairbank at extension 284, or by e-mail at sfairbank@crca.ca. EIS queries should be directed to Tom Beaubiah at extension 240, or by e-mail at tbeaubiah@crca.ca.

Page 7 of 8

Mr. Young (lOCD—20l4/O02 November 12, 2014

—

Johnston Point)

Page 119 of 173

Yours truly,

’%_/A; Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech. Development Review Manager cc:

Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., P.O. Box 98, Battersea, ON, KOH 1H0 Lindsay Mills, Planner, Township of South Frontenac (via email) Mike Keene, FOTENN, Agent to Owner (via email)

Page 8 of 8

Page 120 of 173

COW Meetigg

—

South Frontenac Township Council

—

Tuesday January 13L2O15.

Johnston Point Overview & Histogy 0

The JP Development was introduced to SF Township Councilon the Sept 2/14, Council Meeting (usually developments are introduced at COW meetings, however 1/2 the Council & COW meetings were cancelled throughout the 2014 summer, and the COW meetings were cancelled for the Fall 2014 due to the election. Lindsay Mills reported on the development; to be received for information purposes for Council. The Public Meeting was then set for Oct 7/14. The meeting was very well attended, with standing room only. The intent of a Public Meeting is to gain their input. it was never requested by the developer or suggested by staff that a decision would be rendered at the Public Meeting. We were not requesting a decision. To our knowledge, Council never renders any decision at Public Meetings regarding subdivisions and condos they are simply held to hear what the Public has to say. Staff did not prepare any by—|awsor opinions at this meeting. The resulting exchange amongst the Council members was to suggest this development be handled by the incoming Council. This has led to the next Council requiring another Public Meeting. To require us to have another Public Meeting is unprecedented in this Township particularly where comments received have not altered the development proposal. The development has not been altered since its submission. All comments received support the advancement of the application to Draft Approval. Since Sept. 2 & Oct. 7, 2014, any interested person has had full access to all Studies and Materials from the Township Planning Department, the County Planning Department or directly through the developer. in addition the Loughborough Lake Association representative Sherry Corneil stated at the Oct. 7/14 Public Meeting she would provide any interested individual or group all the information on the development, which is maintained and available on the County of Frontenac’s website. This County direct web site to the JP development for all reports and correspondence is: htt;g:[[goo.gi{mrl<Ji/i3. The County has stated there have been at least 160 hits on this web site with 75% of those hits coming during the Sept. & Oct., 2014 at the Public Meeting time. Reply responses have been provided to all letters and posted on this web site immediately before and immediately following the Oct. 7/14 Public Meeting. Additionally, Council is fully aware —The Planning Act provides a mechanism that those who wish to oppose the development. As pointed out above, all information has been readily available for many months now providing ample time allowing the public to assemble a valid rebuttal or challenge before Council renders a decision. To our knowledge, no comments, new information or professional technical peer reviews of our studies have been received to date. —

—

Page 121 of 173

Long term development thinking is what its about:

The Township should be the stewards of proper quality long term development on our lakes that includes BOTH new development (JP as proposed) and redevelopment of existing developed shoreline. The table below compares JP to an adjacent Minor Variance approval.

—

Johnston Pointlmroposéa lotson LongBay) A

Frontage Area Setback ElS Conducted Frontage on PSW OP Requirements Met

Notification

10N9’.ll PebbleLaneMinorVariance (I’.ong”Bay)

150 m + (over 500 ft) 5 acres + 50 m + Yes

Yes/varies Yes (ElS required for development within 120 m of a PSW) Extensive

Frontage Area

Setback ElS Conducted Frontage onPSW OP Requirements Met

Notification

47 m (less than 150 ft) 3.31 acres 22.1 m No Yes No (EISrequired for development within 120 m of a PSW) Minimal and with errors

Response to Public Meetin,<=LMinutes dated October 7, 2014

Attached to this memo is Minutes of Council, dated October 7, 2014 with paragraphs numbered to coincide with the responses below.

—

Par 11majority of the proposed lots have setbacks of 50 meters for homes and 50 metres to 80 meters for tile beds.

l_3_a_i;;) the main misconception that was out there and still may be out there is people think development cannot occur within 120 meters of a PSW. Even the County’s Frontenac Maps lists the 120 metres distance as a ”buffer”. This is misleading in that the 120 meter distance from a PSW is commonly known as a distance where further study is a requirement i.e. an Environmental Impact Statement or Assessment is required (ElS or ElA) is a must. —

—

P_ai;§) Helen Bartsch

requested another public Meeting so there was continuity on with

development. Whether she requested it or not, it was guaranteed that the next Council would be the body that would decide on this development based on the timing of the Public Meeting. There simply wasn’t enough Council Meetings left before the election for the existing Council to approve Draft Conditions of the JP development.

Helen Bartsch was questioning the agencies, planners and consultants as to their methodology used for making professional decisions. She has had the benefit of extended time to contact professionals in this regard.

Page 122 of 173

Regarding Township planning and road frontages it is very common that road frontages in many recent developments (and other than the developer’s other project) whereby —

frontages are greater than or equal to 50 meters. The same holds true on the side yard comment. This can be confirmed with the Township Planning Dept.

The true contradiction here is that the bending of the rules that she speaks of isn’t with the JP development proposal; rather it lies with the 1091 Pebble Lane l/linor variance situation whereby the setback of 21 meters was granted without an EIS. P_ar_? Ed Koen signed the permission forms and assisted along with his niece Dianne by permitting the use of their wells in the Hydrogeological Study. Mr. Koen cannot suggest he only had 2 weeks to research the water study and any other concerns he might have as he was directly involved with the development process. Mr. Koen has now had 3 additional months to look further into the WESA well water study report. Our Hydrogeologist has also been made available to Mr. Koen to answer any and all questions. From the process side of things see attached letter from WESA.

Malroz, the County of Frontenac’s Peer Reviewer has signed off WESA study work. —

Par Sl Matt Rennie concerns regarding our EIS have been addressed and were made

available on the County’s website before the October Public Meeting. Rather than reattach those responses here, please see the County’s website. We agree with Mr. Rennie’s comments which can be summarized as a goal to ensure responsible development is conducted in this Township. We suggest that as part of the Township’s OfficialPlan Review existing undersized lots be reviewed and that a compulsory septic tile bed/tankinspections be considered particularly where any beds are less than 30

meters from water bodies.

To Mr. Rennie’s last point

he doesn’t support the condominium approach as the lots will have ”swamp” in front of them. This could be the identical situation with a Standard Plan of Subdivision with a Public Township maintained road. We believe that the Condominium approach combined with the proposed zoning and further ElS requirements for docks will ensure the long term protection of the wetland and lake features. Par 6) Dianne Koen

—

suggested the scale of the development is too intense.

The development proposal exceeds all lot creation minimum requirements. The vast majority of other developers would justify more lots by meeting minimum standards only (i.e. 2.5 acres lots), simply as minimum standards far exceed what was in place back in the 505 through to the 80s. —

Page 123 of 173

it should also be noted the proposed lots average 5.41 acres versus earlier development regimes of an average of 0.54 acres throughout much of the Loughborough Lake area. (See attached Map for comparable). We would also suggest there are very few areas left capable —

of new development, and we would further suggest it is not the new development that affects lake water quality but rather the undersized existing lots. —

Par 7) Mike Koen

“suggests every inch of this property is being exploited”. Long Bay is practically the same depth as the main channel and the narrow water body (not in all spots on Long Bay) is acknowledged with lot frontages proposed of 150 meters or 500 feet. Setbacks are excessive relative to any location on Loughborough lake, at 35-50 meters for homes and tile beds setbacks of 50 80 meters. ~

—

Par 8} We concur with Mr. Merz comments surprized he supported

—

about people and nature can co—exist. We are 1091 Pebble Lane MV application.

Par 9} We fully support The Battersea/Loughborough Lake Association and their goals. We also acknowledge that all our study materials and reports, correspondence with agencies has been made available since September by the County of Frontenac, on their website. Par 101The Conservation Authority full letter of support for Draft Approval came after the JP Oct. Public meeting was held. it is available on the County’s website and is dated November 12, 2014.

Conclusion 0

We ask that the Committee of the Whole formally receive all information found on the County’s

website, all Township staff reports, the attached information and our presentation ‘

January 13,2015.

delivered

Page 124 of 173

Minutesof council October,7, 2014 3)

Page3of12

Reviewof Appilcationfor Planof Candorninium and Associated Amendment -Concession VI 8: VII,Part of Lots23 and 24, Laug District:Johnston Point

LindsayMmerefermdIn the applicatlon and noted thatthis Loughborough Lakeis not Iaketmutsenaltive. Thecondo Milown1113 lane and wilthaw to maintainit.W?h respect significant We?ands,the setbacks referred to his report that referenced Study which gave considera?onto

Page 16 of115

Page 125 of 173 Minutesof council

Page 4 of 12

eondomlniurn developmentappmach and felt thelots protectingthe wildilfe and habitat.

fundamenta haveawamplnfrantnf?tammvmersw?lbeusirtg?teiakend not

not kept up, does it become

another ‘fans’In the making

thatthe townshipwill askodtttattttiabedefarradforoonsidarntionbythanew counc?and cautioned

havetarapai?sha

CaumdItobacarefulshmmrdsoftheenvImnment.A attnahadto the minutes.

copy of her comments are

property is being exploited. He felt tharawasno for the shallow waterfmntlots and thatthereshouklhe soars consideration

He was concerned that approving

setbacksraquiraforthesslate.

this developmentwauid set a n

Page 17 of115

Page 126 of 173

Page 5 of 12

Minutesof Council October,‘3’,2014

conservationauthoritypiersan onvironmonhl impactawry.He noted ihattha average lotis ovar?veacmsand Ihafmntaga requirements aremaion alllors except the lotswiththa shared entranoo._W?|1 respoatino?rsslgrrl?cance unopened road allowance. he noted lhauhararsno real impaottoihe ofthe developmentotherthan the norih lotswould healterad.

ResolutionNo. 2014-26-6 Movedby Councillor Robinson

secondedby Deputy MayorVandewal

rapnasonti

comments on the propowd JohnstonPointPlanat

development: Fiie # 10T-2014f002.

eating

VacantLand condomlnlurn

Reviewof Appiica?onfor Road Closure. Part of Lot24, Concessions VI and II5 JohnstonPalm, boughborough District

of?1oraedaibwanoa.Mr.M?|saloopointadout?1at?1emisarightafway?xat 1‘

Page 18 of 115

Page 127 of 173

Mnuliasof council

October. 7.2014

Page6ef12

Page 128 of 173

Page 129 of 173

Page 130 of 173

Page 131 of 173

Page 132 of 173

A?acnmaw?sa EcologicalSmlices R..R.1.3803Sydenhamkmd Elginburg, Ontario KOHiM0 Phone:(613) 3766916 E-mnil:mail@ecologicaImvi::cs.ca. February9, 2015 Mr. LindsayMills Townshipof SouthFrontenac P.O. Box 100 Sydenham,Ontario K0}! 2T0

DearLindsay:

‘VIAEMAIL:lmilIs@souihfmntennc.ne¢

Withthe current development pmposai, we did

considarincneased road traf?c when

wetland,thelackof a movement comdor,anda

If you haveany ?mherquestions.pleasedon’t

Respectfully,

/W Rob Snatsinget

ln_ck sightingson ofam;_:hibian_or rept.i1e

hesitau:to contact me.

Page 133 of 173

February 25, 2015 Peter Young County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 Dear Mr. Young, Re:

Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (File # 10CD-2014/002) Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

The following submission provides a response to technical comments received from the County on February 20, 2015 regarding the application referenced above. A revised draft plan of condominium will be provided in support of this response subject to further comment from the Township and County. For reference, comments from the County are italicized. 

Please explain the discrepancy between the Ministry of Natural Responses and Forestry (MNRF) provincially significant wetland boundary and the wetland boundary shown on the draft plan. Units 7 and 12 in particular are drawn on the plan through areas shown as wetland in the MNRF mapping. Has MNRF been consulted to review the revised wetland boundaries? If so, what formal response has been provided?

Ecological Services consulted MNRF regarding the wetland boundary. Discussions revealed that MNRF did not visit the wetland as part of a recent boundary update, but instead performed a desktop exercise to delineate the boundary. As such the boundary can only be treated as approximate in accordance with both the County and MNRF’s mapping disclaimer as follows: The County’s mapping disclaimer, “These maps are intended for general reference only and shall not be used to establish legal lot size or dimensions. These maps shall not be used for navigation.” MNRF similar disclaimer on their mapping website, “information in this application is illustrative only; it should not be used as a precise indicator of travel routes, ownership, location of features, or guide for navigation.” On the contrary Ecological Services were provided with processed Digital Rastor Acquisition Project for the East imagery (DRAPE) which was sourced from MNRF in 2014 (processing is done align the digital imagery with actual survey and topographical information). This processed layer then provides the base for the plan the various consultant team members to test and further refine through ground truthing. As part of Ecological Services ground truthing of the various site features, they visited the site numerous times over a number of years, performed extensive field work, in addition to conducting its own commissioned aerial flights in 2010 and 2014. Given the ecologist’s extensive work in the field and actual “boots on the ground” boundary verification, we are confident with the accuracy of

Page 134 of 173 2 the boundary identified in the EIS. It should further be noted that the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority has provided sign-off on the ecological work performed, including the identified wetland boundary. 

The water frontage on Loughborough Lake/Long Bay for Units 5, 7, 8 and 12 appears to be less than 150 metres. Please address how these units meet the narrow water body policy in Section 7.1.1 of the Township Official Plan, which requires water frontage of at least 150 metres, and how the units meet the other minimum water frontage requirements found in Section 5.7.7 ii) and 7.3 d) of the Plan.

Water frontage has been defined in South Frontenac’s Zoning By-law as any land having frontage on a Lake or Provincially Significant Wetland. The frontage is measured 9 metres back from the lot line that directly abuts the lake and/or wetland. This is the approach consistently used in the Township for measuring water frontage and was confirmed early in the process with the Township Planner. Lots 5, 7, 8 and 12 all have minimum lot frontages of 150 metres, thus providing conformity with sections 7.1.1, 7.3 d) and 5.7.7 ii) of the Official Plan. 

The residents group provided a depth chart showing that the area on the south side of Johnston Point may fall under the shallow water body policy in the Township Official Plan (Section 7.1.1). Could you provide a response to this information? We understand this issue was looked at for the previously approved severances. If certain condominium units are subject to this policy and have less than 150 metres of frontage, please provide the justification required under the policy for the reduced frontage.

The Official Plan policy in question states the following, “Waterfront lots which are proposed adjacent to a shallow waterbody (less than 3 metres (10 ft.) deep, 30 metres (100 ft.) offshore at low water) may be required to have a water frontage of 150 metres (492 ft.). Unless the property abuts a natural sand beach, shallow waterbodies tend to be more environmentally sensitive and less intensive usage is appropriate. Reductions to this requirement will only be considered if convincing environmental evidence prepared by a qualified professional is presented by the applicant demonstrating that no negative impacts will result.” The intent of this policy is to ensure the long term protection of shorelines from overdevelopment. As you are aware an extensive EIS was conducted along with a peer review from the CRCA that has concluded the proposed development in appropriate. We are confident that the proposed lot layout which includes large lots, large setbacks and a condominium approach (allowing for further restrictions such as vegetation protection) meets the intent of policy 7.1.1 as it related to development that abuts shallow water. It is also important to note that Lindsay Mills, Township Planner conducted field work when the previous severances were approved. His field work determined that the waterbody located adjacent to the three originally created lots is deeper than 3 metres (10 feet). As such those lots were permitted to be created with 90 m of frontage. We suspect the map source used may have similar clauses to those noted above with respect to their use as definitive information. Despite our policy confirmed opinion or the prior field verified opinion of the Township Planner, the majority of the development conforms to these policies. All but two lots fronting onto the lake

Page 135 of 173 3 or wetland have a minimum water frontage of 150 metres, as measured 9 metres back from the lot line in accordance with the Zoning By-law. Lots 10 and 14 have 143 metres and 139 metres of water frontage respectively. If a change was required by either the Township or County minor lot line adjustment can be made to achieve a larger water frontage for lots 10 and 14 without altering the proposed development. 

The line weighting on the draft plan needs some minor improvements. For example, there is a solid line between Units 8 and 9, and it can be difficult to tell the difference between the wetland lines and lot lines on the printed version of the draft plan.



The owner’s certificate on the draft plan says “County of South Frontenac” and should be changed to “County of Frontenac”.



You may want to consider separating the parkland and wetland blocks or changing the labelling of Block 19. Right now one could conclude that the wetland is included for use as parkland (Described as “BLOCK 19 – COMMON ELEMENT (PROVINCIALLY SIGNFICIANT WETLAND) – PARKLAND” in the land use schedule.) The land areas shown on the draft plan may also be reversed as the wetland (labelled as 2.70 ha) appears larger than the parkland (labelled as 3.90 ha).

The draft plan will be revised according to these comments pending any further comments that result from our response to this letter. Please contact me at 613-542-5454 ext. 221 should you require any further information. Respectfully submitted,

Mike Keene, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc – Lindsay Mills, Township Planner

Page 136 of 173

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

Planning Department

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

County File No. 10T-2014/002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 137 of 173 the subject property presently extends to these private lands and must obtain legal access through these lands and be extended beyond to give access to Units 1, 2, 3 and 14.

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

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

Page 138 of 173 of a new roadway and associated driveways and rooftops, the stormwater scheme using swales and directing roof runoff to infiltration beds or grassed areas will mitigate any impacts on the wetlands and would improve existing drainage to prevent flooding of homes. The Environmental Impact Study, among other analyses, considered anticipated increases in human disturbance to the environment of Johnston Point. Recognizing that any development would have an impact, the EIS determined whether there would be negative impacts for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Township Official Plan. The report concludes that there would be no negative impacts if recommended mitigation measures are followed. The EIS recommends specific setbacks for buildings and for septic systems from any waterbody for each of the 14 proposed units. This is based on the fact that building and septic bed sites would be located above slopes with varying setback distances of between 35 metres and 80 metres. These specific setbacks will be incorporated into the special zoning for the development. At this point it should be mentioned that public concerns have been expressed relating to whether the increased traffic on the existing lane nearest the wetland would adversely affect the wetland. The concerns were that the EIS did not anticipate this heavier use of the lane. However, by letter dated February 9, 2015, the environmentalist related that he had used an engineered road design at this location and explained that he did consider increased road traffic when developing the current impact assessment and concluded that there would be no increase in negative impacts. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment #3.

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

Page 139 of 173 The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority relayed a number of comments mostly concerned with setbacks from the lake and the inland wetlands. They advocate a restriction of vegetation removal within the 30 metre setback from the lake. They also require that a grading plan be submitted showing the proposed elevations for each dwelling unit and septic system prior to final plan approval. KFL&A Public Health noted that each proposed unit in the Plan of Condominium was found to have a site suitable for onsite sewage disposal and a reserve area of equal size. They are prepared to endorse approval of the plan. Public Comments At the open house/delegation meeting of March 3, 2015, delegations were heard and submissions received related to the speeches. These are reviewed as follows with comments from the Planning Department in bold script: A submission by Mike Koen questions the boundaries of the wetland on the plan and states that they do not match MNR boundaries. He further lists the following concerns:

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

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

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

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

Page 140 of 173 The other large lots on Loughborough Lake that may in future be developed for subdivisions are either land-locked or are accessed by private lanes. No development could be contemplated until they can be accessed by a fully maintained public road as per the conditions of the Official Plan. ——————————————————————————————————A submission by Helen Bartsch cites section 7.1.1 of the Official Plan which says that all new lots (units in this case) shall have a minimum of 150 metres of waterfrontage on a narrow waterbody and may need to have 150 metres on a shallow waterbody. She states that the measurements in this proposal have been done incorrectly because the highwater mark shown on the plan should have been used as constituting the waterfrontage not the wetland boundary. The Plan shows all the lots/units to have a minimum of 150 metres of waterfrontage on the narrow waterbody (Long Bay). Only Unit #14 on the south side at Loughborough Lake appears to have less than 150 metres. However, in the opinion of Planning, Unit #14 and other units on the south side do not appear to require a minimum of 150 metres because they neither front on a narrow waterbody nor a shallow waterbody. Under the definitions in the zoning by-law, a wetland is included as a waterbody on which waterfrontage is calculated. Under the definitions the Township has no choice but to consider the wetlands as part of the waterfrontage calculation.

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

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

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

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

Page 141 of 173 raccoons and gulls tend to permeate and “push out” the niche species. For this reason the subdivision should not be allowed and it should remain nutrition poor. He believes that the proposed subdivision is of an urban density and size that is distinct from other low impact cottages in the area and he states that people that are likely to live in what he considers a large and dense suburban development are not like to engage in a low impact ecologically sensitive lifestyle. He also cites the unsafe condition of North Shore Road. In the opinion of the Planning Department, Mr. Vertegaal’s assertion that the development represents a large and dense suburban development is the opposite of the truth. As noted earlier, the proposed lots are ten times larger than the average lot size on Loughborough Lake, thus low density rural development. He is right that the development would be distinct from other developments on the lake because it would constitute low impact development with large setbacks, large lots, carefully placed buildings – all consistent with preserving the natural environment as opposed to existing development close to the water on tiny lots. It should be questioned how Mr. Vertegaal knows what type of people will move here.

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

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

Page 142 of 173 2. That the owners of the subject land enter into a plan of vacant land condominium agreement with the municipality, prepared to the satisfaction of the municipality, to be registered on title of the subject land. 3. That the road allowances included in this draft plan identified as ‘Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18’ shall be shown and constructed to Township standards for new private lanes. 4. That traffic counts be undertaken at North Shore Road and that the entrance location at the road be constructed to a standard acceptable to the Township particularly in regards to safe sight lines. 5. That the lane identified as ‘Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18 Common Element’ be named to the satisfaction of the municipality. 6. That a 0.3 metre reserve be identified by survey along the road allowance of North Shore Road where it abuts proposed Unit 12 to be conveyed to and held in trust by the municipality for the purpose of denying additional access onto North Shore Road. 7. That the owner convey up to five percent of the land included in the plan to the municipality for public park purposes. Alternatively, the municipality may require cash-in-lieu for all or a portion of the conveyance. 8. That the condominium agreement contain wording applying to all of the proposed units setting out the municipality’s limited service policies to recognize that there is no commitment or requirement by the municipality to assume responsibility for ownership or maintenance of the private lane within the plan. In addition, the condominium agreement applying to all the units shall set out the municipality’s environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. 9. That legal access to proposed Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 14 be obtained over the abutting portion of the existing lane that is on other private lands and that the condominium agreement contain wording to permit this access. This wording must also acknowledge that the existing residential lots’ access over the lane will be maintained all the way back to the public road. 10. That prior to final approval, the County of Frontenac is to be advised by the municipality that this proposed development conforms to the Zoning By-law in effect of the Township of South Frontenac including that the zoning is satisfactory to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 11. That all conditions outlined in the letter dated August 8, 2014 from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to the County of Frontenac, be included in the Condominium Agreement with the Township including that all driveways be placed a minimum of 30 metres from any waterbody and the recommendations of the stormwater management plan. 12. That the recommendations outlined in the letter dated September 3, 2014 from KFL&A Public Health to the County of Frontenac , be addressed to the satisfaction of the municipality. 13. That the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated June 12, 2014 prepared by Ecological Services, be included in the Condominium agreement with the Township and that they be implemented. 14. That site drainage design, construction and maintenance be in accordance with the recommendations contained in the ‘Stormwater Management Brief for the Johnston Point Condominium Development’, undated, by Asterisk Engineering Corporation and associated drawings be included in the

Page 143 of 173 construction of ditches and culverts be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the municipality. 15. That all requirements and recommendations specified in the Hydrogeological Assessment at Johnston’s Point report, dated June 2014 from WESA, and all associated drawings be complied with. 16. That the condominium agreement include a clause stating that 911 civic addressing and locations of all entrances to the units including the construction and locations of any entrance culverts shall be shown on a plan prepared to the Township’s satisfaction prior to any development of the property. 17. That the condominium agreement include a provision that access to the open water for Units 6, 9 and 13 be gained through either a free-span walking bridge or an easement through another waterfront unit or a combination thereof and that the scenario be approved by the Township and the CRCA. 18. That, prior to final approval, the portion of the unopened road allowance of identified on the Plan through Units 12 and 13, be closed and the ownership transferred to the owner of the subject lands. 19. That, prior to final approval, the municipality be satisfied that all servicing issues are resolved such as private lane construction and any required upgrades to North Shore Road. 20. That the condominium agreement include all recommendations contained in the Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2) Report, dated May 13, 2014 by Abacus Archaeological Services. 21. That, prior to final approval a garbage collection facility be installed at the entrance to the development at North Shore Road. 22. That, prior to final approval any required Canada Post box be installed at on the right-of-way for the lane near the entrance to the development at North Shore Road. 23. That, prior to final approval, street lighting shall be installed to the Township’s satisfaction at the location for the Canada Post boxes and garbage collection area near North Shore Road. 24. That, prior to final approval, street signage shall be installed according to Township standards and to the satisfaction of the municipality. 25. That the owner agree in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the municipality concerning the provision of private lanes and upgrading of roads, installation of services and drainage, in accordance with the municipality’s standards and procedures.

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments JohnstonPointDraftPlanConditionsToCofW

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Page 144 of 173

Whereas, Council is encouraging Lake Associations to be actively involved as key points of reference for lake development and the comments and recommendations of the Battersea and Loughborough Lake Association were not acknowledged in the planning report; and, Whereas, the issues of wetland boundaries, depth of water around Johnson Point, road stability, road frontage and high water mark have been part of the public discussion on the proposed Johnson Point development for months and they have not been adequately resolved, and, solving these issues is important to determining, water frontage, setbacks, storm water drainage patterns, and how many lots can be developed on Johnson point before site conditions for the development can be formulated,

Whereas,

Therefore, be it resolved that the planning report and draft site conditions for the Johnson point development be referred back to the Planning Department to include: 1)

A response to comments and recommendations from the Battersea and Loughborough Lake Association; and,

‘A map of the development

from the Planning Department that is appended the report showing the development and it’s relationship to all adjacent

wetlands; and,

%§“‘

A proper map indicating the high water ark. If, at this stage of the project development, the developer wishes to hange the high water mark from the , 2014, map prepared by WESA for one previously submitted on the Magneta Waterfront Development Corporation, and updated in the September 29, 2014 planning report, an explanation of why this is a more appropriate high water mark and the technical work that was done to justify the change. The high water mark on this diagram would indicate insufficient for the creation of lots 12, 13 and 7. The impossibility of these, and possibly all the lots on Long Bay having wetland frontage that is not viable waterfront in consideration of the 2005 CRCA planning regulation Section 3.2.7 also needs to be considered; and,

An explanation of why the high water mark changed from the June 14 map to the September 29 report as the rational is unclear in the reports; and,

A formal report on water depth in the lake and wetlands; surrounding Johnson point be taken at low water if the developer wishes to apply for these lots as if

Page 145 of 173

they were not a shallow water body (the County map depth charts shows all of these as shallow water bodies and frontages should be determined accordingly); and, 5)

Ifthe developer wishes to change the wetland boundariies from those indicated on the MNR’s map, a confirmation from the MNR that this is acceptable and that the developer has gone through the process outlined in the official plan, section 5.2.7 (d), to change the wetland boundaries; and,

A written explanation from the planner of why the Provincially Significant Wetland abutting the Applewood development is not considered waterfront, as the planner stated in the March 3, 2015 Council meeting and is apparent in the approval documents for the Apple wood development, while the wetland on Johnson point is now being used as waterfront; and, An assessment, through the EIS, of the impact of increased motor boat traffic into the Long Bay provincially significant wetland on fish spawning, wetland species, loon nesting and phosphate release into the lake due to sediment disruption as part of the requirement for evaluating negative impacts of the development; and, (requirement from Official Plan section 5.2.11(c)). The response (September 3,2014) from Ecological services to the CRCA recommendations goes part way in meeting this requirement but assumes that dock development into Long Bay would be prohibited. it can reasonably be anticipated that if lots on Long Bay are sold as waterfront then purchasers are going to expect to be able to install a dock. This assumption is complicated by the lack of clear regulations on small dock approval with the probability of significant conflict on this issue. This issue remains unresolved and would a condominium benefit from comment by the Planning Department on iincluding prohibition on docks in Long Bay, or other approaches to protecting the provincially significant wetland from increased boat traffic so that purchasers are aware of this restriction before purchasing, reducing the potential for increased conflict in the Township. Similar concerns and recommendations were raised by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association: and.

An evaluation from an engineer that the road structure is capable of withstanding the expected use from 17 lots, approximately 170 car trips a day plus increased heavy truck traffic, rather than from the original three lots that were contemplated in the original engineering design. As noted by the environmental consultant the road was engineered to minimize the risk of blowout, but that engineering was done on the assumption of minimal traffic on

Page 146 of 173

the road related to three cottages, there has not been subsequent engineering evaluation. The letter submitted saying the road poses no threat was from an environmental consultant not the engineers who designed the road and addressed run-off issues not possible blowout, and,

An explanation of why no lake capacity assessment the Official Plan, section 5.2.10; and,

was done as required by

No recommendation from the planning staff, rather information on the issues raised and proposed site plan conditions with a request: for direction. Considering the considerable controversy and debate over the development, Council is in a position to consider the development on its own terms.

Page 147 of 173

March 17, 2015 Members of Council Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, Sydenham, Ontario Re:

Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Johnston Point – Township of South Frontenac

The following letter provides a response to a motion prepared and presented by Councillor Ross Sutherland at the March 10, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion recommends that Council refer the planning report and draft site conditions back to the Planning Department to address 11 specific issues raised in a document circulated by Councillor Sutherland at the March 10 meeting. It is our understanding that this motion is going to Council for a decision at the March 17 meeting. We have read Councillor Sutherland’s notice of motion and offer the following responses.

A response to comments and recommendations from the Battersea and Loughborough Lake Association; and, The Township Planner has provided a response to the comments of the Lake Association which has been attached to this letter. Representatives from the association have been to the property and we remain willing continue to an open dialogue with them.
A map of the development from the Planning Department that is appended to the report showing the development and its relationship to all adjacent wetlands; and, The draft Plan of Condominium is consistent with the requirements of the Planning Act. Through the documents that have been prepared in support of this development proposal we have acknowledged that Long Bay is part of the wetland complex.
A proper map indicating the high water mark. If, at this stage of the project development, the developer wishes to change the high water mark from the one previously submitted on the September 5, 2014, map prepared by WESA for Magenta Waterfront Development Corporation, and updated in the September 29, 2014 planning report, an explanation of why this is a more appropriate high water mark and the technical work that was done to justify the change. The high water mark on this diagram would indicate insufficient for the creation of lots 12, 13 and 7. The impossibility of these, and possibly all the lots on Long Bay having wetland frontage that is not viable waterfront in consideration of the 2005 CRCA planning regulation Section 3.2.7 also needs to be considered; and, The high water mark of Loughborough Lake is based on the CRCA’s defined elevation which is 125.03 metres geodetic. As this is a defined elevation and we have detailed topographic

Page 148 of 173 2 information for the site we can say with confidence that the wetland boundaries closely match the high water mark. We appreciate that the draft plan could be labelled more clearly, but it does not change that fact that the wetlands are within the high water mark of the lake. 4) An explanation of why the high water mark changed from the June 14 map to the September 29 report as the rational is unclear in the reports; and, The high water mark did not change from the June 14 map to the September 29 map. As noted above, we are prepared to revise our draft plan to more clearly indicate 125.03 m geodetic on the draft plan. We expect this clarity may assist Council and others with understanding the location of the high water mark on the property and its relationship to the measurement of water frontage. Again, we are prepared to provide this clarity on the plan as part of the draft approval. 5) A formal report on water depth in the lake and wetlands surrounding Johnson Point be taken at low water if the developer wishes to apply for these lots as if they were not a shallow water body (the County map depth charts shows all of these as shallow water bodies and frontages should be determined accordingly); and, The Official Plan policy in question states the following, “Waterfront lots which are proposed adjacent to a shallow waterbody (less than 3 metres (10 ft.) deep, 30 metres (100 ft.) offshore at low water) may be required to have a water frontage of 150 metres (492 ft.). Unless the property abuts a natural sand beach, shallow waterbodies tend to be more environmentally sensitive and less intensive usage is appropriate. Reductions to this requirement will only be considered if convincing environmental evidence prepared by a qualified professional is presented by the applicant demonstrating that no negative impacts will result.” The intent of this policy is to ensure the long term protection of shorelines from overdevelopment. As you are aware an extensive EIS was conducted along with a peer review from the CRCA that has concluded the proposed development in appropriate. We are confident that the proposed lot layout which includes large lots, large setbacks and a condominium approach (allowing for further restrictions such as vegetation protection) meets the intent of policy 7.1.1 as it related to development that abuts shallow water. Despite our policy confirmed opinion, the majority of the development conforms to these policies. All but two lots fronting onto the lake or wetland have a minimum water frontage of 150 metres, as measured 9 metres back from the lot line in accordance with the Zoning By-law. Lots 10 and 14 have 143 metres and 139 metres of water frontage respectively. If a change was required by either the Township or County minor lot line adjustment can be made to achieve a larger water frontage for lots 10 and 14 without altering the proposed development. 6) If the developer wishes to change the wetland boundaries from those indicated on the MNR’s map, a confirmation from the MNR that this is acceptable and that the developer has gone through the process outlined in the official plan, section 5.2.7 (d), to change the wetland boundaries; and, The County of Frontenac and Ecological Services consulted MNRF regarding the wetland

Page 149 of 173 3 boundary. Discussions revealed that MNRF did not visit the wetland as part of a recent boundary update, but instead performed a desktop exercise to delineate the boundary. As such the boundary can only be treated as approximate in accordance with both the County and MNRF’s mapping disclaimer as follows: The County’s mapping disclaimer, “These maps are intended for general reference only and shall not be used to establish legal lot size or dimensions. These maps shall not be used for navigation.” MNRF similar disclaimer on their mapping website, “information in this application is illustrative only; it should not be used as a precise indicator of travel routes, ownership, location of features, or guide for navigation.” On the contrary Ecological Services were provided with processed Digital Rastor Acquisition Project for the East imagery (DRAPE) which was sourced from MNRF in 2014 (processing is done to align the digital imagery with actual survey and topographical information). This processed layer then provides the base for the plan the various consultant team members to test and further refine through ground truthing. As part of Ecological Services ground truthing of the various site features, they visited the site numerous times over a number of years, performed extensive field work, in addition to conducting its own commissioned aerial flights in 2010 and 2014. Given the ecologist’s extensive work in the field and actual “boots on the ground” boundary verification, we are confident with the accuracy of the boundary identified in the EIS. It should further be noted that the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority has provided sign-off on the ecological work performed, including the identified wetland boundary.

A written explanation from the planner of why the Provincially Significant Wetland abutting the Applewood development is not considered waterfront, as the planner stated in the March 3, 2015 Council meeting and is apparent in the approval documents for the Apple wood development, while the wetland on Johnson point is now being used as waterfront; and, The Zoning By-law amendment for the Applewood development has not been brought forward to Council for consideration. We are confident the relationship of wetland areas in the Applewood development will be addressed at that time.
An assessment, through the EIS, of the impact of increased motor boat traffic into the Long Bay provincially significant wetland on fish spawning, wetland species, loon nesting and phosphate release into the lake due to sediment disruption as part of the requirement for evaluating negative impacts of the development; and, (requirement from Official Plan section 5.2.11(c)). The response (September 3,2014) from Ecological services to the CRCA recommendations goes part way in meeting this requirement but assumes that dock development into Long Bay would be prohibited. It can reasonably be anticipated that if lots on Long Bay are sold as waterfront then purchasers are going to expect to be able to install a dock. This assumption is complicated by the lack of clear regulations on small dock approval with the probability of significant conflict on this issue. This issue remains unresolved and would benefit from comment by the Planning

Page 150 of 173 4 Department on including a condominium prohibition on docks in Long Bay, or other approaches to protecting the provincially significant wetland from increased boat traffic so that purchasers are aware of this restriction before purchasing, reducing the potential for increased conflict in the Township. Similar concerns and recommendations were raised by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association: and. Ecological Services report has been Peer reviewed by the CRCA. Anyone wishing to install a dock on any water body regardless of its size is required to consult with the Conservation Authority and to apply for a permit. An EIS can have several conclusions.  Impact is too great, resulting in no dock.  Impact is manageable if the dock is of a certain type, or put in a certain location.  Impact is no concern. The conditions of draft approval, Condominium documents, sales agreements and site plan control applications can all ensure the process for installing a dock is made clear to any future buyer, consistent with the approach recommended in the EIS. 9) An evaluation from an engineer that the road structure is capable of withstanding the expected use from 17 lots, approximately 170 car trips a day plus increased heavy truck traffic, rather than from the original three lots that were contemplated in the original engineering design. As noted by the environmental consultant the road was engineered to minimize the risk of blowout, but that engineering was done on the assumption of minimal traffic on the road related to three cottages, there has not been subsequent engineering evaluation. The letter submitted saying the road poses no threat was from an environmental consultant not the engineers who designed the road and addressed run-off issues not possible blowout, and, All new lots will have frontage on the condominium road, which will be built to meet the Township’s standards for private roads. It is expected that a condition of draft approval would require the Township’s sign off on the quality of the construction of the road. Furthermore, the road will be operated through a common element condominium agreement. The formation of a condominium corporation will provide the administrative framework to address routine maintenance and periodic upkeep of the common element road. 10) An explanation of why no lake capacity assessment was done as required by the Official Plan, section 5.2.10; and, The purpose of a Lake Impact Assessment, according to Section 5.2.10 of the Official Plan, is to assess potential impacts of development on water quality and how that directly or indirectly impacts fish habitat. More specifically, computer modelling is used to measure increases in phosphorus as it relates to development. While it is unfortunate this section of the Official Plan is not clear as to when a Lake Impact Assessment is required, one only has to read the sections on Lake Trout Lakes just prior in Section 5.2.8 for a better understanding of when a Lake Assessment is required. The policies of Section 5.2.8 states that a Lake Impact Assessment prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.10 of the Official Plan may be required on lakes that are highly sensitive lake trout lakes or moderately sensitive lake trout lakes. Only the west basin

Page 151 of 173 5 of Loughborough Lake is considered highly sensitive to new development and site alteration. Therefore, a Lake Impact Assessment was not a requirement. The Conservation Authority and MNRF have both signed off on the development as proposed. 11) No recommendation from the planning staff, rather information on the issues raised and proposed site plan conditions with a request for direction. Considering the considerable controversy and debate over the development, Council is in a position to consider the development on its own terms. In opposition to this comment, the Township Planning Department has recommended draft approval of the proposed Plan of Condominium. The Planning Department’s position is based on sound planning principles including the advice it receives from its peer review agencies. It is with the full support of these agencies that allows the Planning Department to know with confidence the development can advance to draft approval. We respectfully request that Council make no further delay in making a decision on this development application.

Finally, the matter of water frontage has been the subject of much conversation. For clarity our position supports that of the Township Planner which is summarized as follows: Township Zoning By-law definitions: “WATER FRONTAGE” shall [mean] all property abutting a waterbody measured perpendicular to the side lot lines in a straight line between the two said lot lines at a point where the side lot lines intersect with the high water mark. “WATERBODY” shall mean any bay, lake, wetland or canal but excludes a drainage or irrigation channel. Water frontage is measured at the high water mark of a bay, lake, wetland or canal. The measurement as provided on the draft plan is consistent with this approach. Please contact me at 613-542-5454 ext. 221 should you require any further information. Respectfully submitted,

Mike Keene, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc

Lindsay Mills, Township Planner Peter Young, County Planner

Enclosure – Township Planning Department’s Response to Lake Association

Page 152 of 173

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 9, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

April 14, 2015

SUBJECT: Johnston Point Development Proposal

—

Response to Council request

RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: On April7, 2015 Council passed the following motion in response to a Notice of Motion served by CouncillorSutherland, “That Council refer the planning report and draft site conditions prepared and presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 10, 2015 back to the Planning Department to address the first 10 specific issues raised in the document circulated by Councillor Sutherland” Council was advised at the time of the initiallydebating the notice of motion that staff would be able to respond at the April 14 Committee of the Whole meeting.

The Township Planner has prepared the attached written response. Council is asked to provide further direction. ATTACHMENT: Response from Planning Department

Submitted/approved Wayne Orr, CAO

by:

Page 153 of 173

PROPOSAL JOHNSTONPOINT DEVELOPMENT TO COUNCIL’SMOTION FOR MORE RESPONSEFROM PLANNINGDEPARTMENT INFORMATION Responses from Planning are in bold type:

”A response to comments and recommendations fromthe Battersea and Loughborough Lake Association.” Planning has responded to the BLLAin a handout that was distributed to the Committee of the Whole on March 10, 2015.

“A map of the development fromthe Planning Department that is appended to the report showing the development and its relationship to all adjacent wetlands.” The Planning Department displayed a large air photo map at the March 10, 2015 meeting illustrating the location of all the proposed lots/unitsand the new dwellings in relationship to the wetlands and the other existing developments on Long Bay. This map was also on display at the Open House meeting of March 3, 2015.

”Aproper map indicating the high water mark. If, at this stage of the project development, the developer wishes to change the high water mark fromthe one previously submitted on the June 14, 2014, map prepared by WESAfor Magenta WaterfrontDevelopment Corporation, and, updated in the September 29, 2014 planning report, an explanation of why this is a more appropriate high water mark and the technical work that was done to justify the change. The high water mark on this diagram

would indicate insufficient for the creation of lots 12, 13 and 7. The impossibility of these and possibly all the lots on Long Bay having wetland frontage that is not viable waterfrontin consideration of the 2005 CRCAplanning regulation Section 3.2.7 also

needs to be considered.” The Planning Department is not aware of any map from WESA dated June 14, 2014 but there is a map dated June 12, 2014 that was used in the September 29, 2014 Planning Report at the Public Meeting. This map was also used as a large display at the same meeting. On a subsequent map dated September 5, 2014 the highwater mark was labelled but there appears to have been no change to the actual highwater mark boundary or to any wetland boundary from the previous map. It is Planning’s understanding that the wetland boundary as shown on the Frontenac maps website is based on the latest evaluations from MNRF. These boundaries are slightly different than shown on the WESA maps but appear to be slightly less extensive than the

boundaries on the WESA maps. The highwater mark was placed on the revised map at the request of the CRCAand its delineation is based on CRCA’suse of the 125.03 metre Geodetic Survey of Canada. The lots] units proposed to be created meet the minimum standards of the Official Plan under the definition of waterfrontage as specified in the zoning by-law which includes any waterbody or wetland. 4.

”Anexplanation of why the high water mark changed fromthe June 14 map to the September 29 report as the rational is unclear in the reports.”

Page 154 of 173

Any change to the highwater mark came as a result of the MNRF revising their mapping as noted above. However, as far as Planning can determine, the high water

mark did not change between the two maps submitted. The “highwater mark” was only titled and the boundary of the property was highlighted. This boundary includes

the highwater mark in some places. ”A formalreport on water depth in the lake and wetlands surrounding Johnson Point be taken at low water if the developer wishes to apply for these lots as ifthey were not a shallow waterbody (the County map depth charts show all of these as shallow waterbodies and frontages should be determined accordingly .”

All of the frontages of the units/lotsalready meet the minimum 150 metres as required in the Official Plan for narrow waterbodies and for shallow waterbodies, thus there would be no need to undertake such a formal report. The only exception is Unit #14 which is shown as having approximately 143 metres of waterfrontage (according to an updated scaled measurement by Planning). In the opinion of Planning, the water level at Unit 14 is not shallow, however as the developer has stated, this unit could be given more frontage to makeup the extra 7 metres in any case. The policy in the Official Plan allows some flexibility on shallow waterbodies anyway and, therefore, it does not appear to be necessary to meet the full 150 metres for this unit. Because the development already appears to meet these minimum criteria, water depth is no longer a relevant consideration in evaluating the plan.

’’Ifthe developer wishes to change the wetland boundaries from those indicated on the MNR’s map, a confirmation fromthe MNR that this is acceptable and that the developer outlined in the officialplan, Section 5.2. 7{d), to change the process through the has gone wetland boundaries.” It is important to note that if the developer made any changes to the wetland boundaries they were based on observations in the ?eld. Normally, this is a more accurate method of de?ning the boundaries than any MNRF mapping which is based

on air photo interpretation mainly. Regarding section 5.2.7(d) (iii) of the Official Plan, the ministry advised by e-mail that they will confirm the changes shown on the condominium plan and comment on them. On March 9, 2015 revised mapping was received from the ministry (by way of the County). There is very little change to the wetland boundaries but, as stated, observations in the field are recognized even by the ministry as being more accurate. the changes in the wetland boundaries do the not directly affect the demarcation of lot/unit boundaries anyway but Council should know that Planning feels very strongly that any roadway or driveway will need to be a minimum of 30 metres from any waterbody or wet|and.,To emphasize this requirement, one of the conditions of draft plan approval will be that all roadways and driveways must be surveyed showing their relation to any waterbody confirming a minimum separation of 30 metres and this separation must be re-confirmed in the In the opinion of the Planning Department,

field by Township staff.

“A written explanation fromthe planner of why the Provincially Significant Wetland abutting the Applewood development is not considered waterfront, as the planner stated in the March 3, 2015 Council meeting and is apparent in the approval documents

Page 155 of 173

for the Applewood development, while the wetland on Johnson point is now being used as waterfront.” The PSW abutting the Applewood development d_oe_§ constitute waterfrontage. Originally it did not seem appropriate to consider the lots as waterfront lots for the reason that the PSW is basically land (I walked it in October—it was spongy in places but otherwise it was hard to tell that it was wetland). Planning has only recently

determined (in February) that it does, in fact, constitute waterfrontage. This was determined through discussions with the Township’s solicitor and considering a strict interpretation of the de?nition of waterfrontage in the zoning by-law. Under this definition, we seem to have no choice but to regard them as waterfront units and this will be recognized in the zoning by-law amendment for Applewood when it is brought fonivard. At the March 3, 2015 Council meeting, Applewood was discussed as it related to a road closing. As I recall, it was at that meeting that I stated that these |ots/ units were

waterfront lots.

”An assessment through the EIS,of the impact of increased motor boat trafficinto the Long Bay provincially significant wetland on fishspawning, wetland species, loan nesting

and phosphate release into the lake due to sediment disruption as part of the requirement for evaluating negative impacts of the development; and, (requirement fromOfficialPlan section 5,2.11(c). The response (September 3, 2014) fromEcological services to the CRCArecommendations goes part way in meeting this requirement but assumes that clockdevelopment into Long Bay would be prohibited. It can reasonably be anticipated that if lots on Long Bay are sold as waterfrontthen purchasers are going to expect to be able to install a dock. This assumption is complicated by the lack of clear on this regulations on small dock approval with the probability ofsignificant conflict issue. This issue remains unresolved and would benefitfromcomment from the Planning Department on including a condominium development prohibition on docks in Long Bay, or other approaches to protecting the Provincially Significant Wetland fromincreased boat trafficso that purchasers are aware of this restriction beforepurchasing, reducing the potential for increased conflictin the Township. Similar concerns and recommendations were raised by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association.” If the EIS did not address the impact of increased boating on Long Bay perhaps it could be appended to further examine this. However, it should be emphasized that the EIS has already been peer-reviewed by the CRCAwho also is the authority for granting permits for docks. CRCA’sreview and comments did not mention the introduction of more clocks as being an issue so further examination of this would be difficult to justify.

Also, from a Planning perspective, it should be realized that docks are contemplated in all the Township’s planning documentation for waterfront lots including development and site plan agreements and docks are permitted in the zoning by-law agreements subject to obtaining a permit from the conservation authority. The north shore of Long Bay already has six clockslocated at the existing lots there. To try to prohibit docks on the south shore while the lots on the north shore continue to enjoy this right does not seem workable. If we’re trying to reduce conflict within the Township i believe this would only increase conflict as any owner of the new units would not

Page 156 of 173

easily accept this prohibition while others on the bay continue to make use of their

docks. In terms of any planning tools to restrict new docks in the bay, the following might be considered: a) Require that any dock for Unit it 2 be located on the west-facing shoreline so that it is not within Long Bay but would be in the open portion of Loughborough Lake, b) Require that any proposed dock in Long Bay be subject to an environmental report that would address any potential negative impacts on the environment. Any recommendations would be incorporated into an agreement registered on the title of the property. c) It appears that docks on Units 6 and 12 would be located on a wetland (ie., not attached to dry land). Perhaps these two lots should be reconfigured so that they do not have frontage on either wetland or water (ie., they would not be waterfront lots at all). This would eliminate two potential docks in the bay. Note that Planning would like to confirm this matter in the ?eld when the weather will permit. 9. “An evaluation froman engineer that the road structure is capable of withstanding the expected use from 17 lots, approximately 170 car trips per day plus increased heavy

truck traffic, rather than fromthe original three lots that were contemplated in the original engineering design. As noted by the environmental consultant the road was engineered to minimize the risk of blowout, but that engineering was done on the assumption of minimal trafficon the road related to three cottages, there has not been subsequent engineering evaluation. The letter submitted saying the road poses no threat was from an environmental consultant, not the engineers who designed the road and issues not possible blowout.” addressed run—o?‘ New lanes in the Township are required to be constructed to minimum standards and they are checked by the Public Works Department. These standards are the same

whether they are planned to accommodate 40 cars per day or 170 cars per day. The engineer from Ainley Group who was involved in the original design of the road has advised the Planning Department that the road is stable and is built on a granite base. She advises that the road is well capable of sustaining the anticipated extra traffic. The condominium agreement the lane. 10. ”An explanation

will specify the conditions for proper maintenance

of why no lake capacity assessment

was done as required by the O?icial

Plan, Section 5.2.10.” Section 5.2.10 does not require a lake capacity assessment. It only states that, when a lake impact assessment is required, it must be prepared by a qualified individual in

consultation with the municipality and the Ministry of the Environment. Lake impact assessments are required for development near sensitive lake trout lakes (see page 24 of the Official Plan) but this portion of Loughborough Lake is not lake trout sensitive. JohnstonPointResponseToSutherland

Page 157 of 173 From: To: Subject: Date:

Mike Keene “M & G Beach” FW: Loughborough Lake Complex wetland August-28-15 11:49:27 AM

From: Peter Young [mailto:pyoung@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA] Sent: March-30-15 4:15 PM To: Mike Keene; Lindsay Mills Subject: FW: Loughborough Lake Complex wetland

FYI..MNR has signed off on the revised wetland boundaries for Johnston Point. We will update Frontenac Maps with the revised boundaries from LIO. Peter

Peter Young MCIP RPP Community Planner County of Frontenac – Planning and Economic Development 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON. K0H 1S0 Phone: 613 548-9400 Ext. 359 Fax: 613 548-8460 Email: pyoung@frontenaccounty.ca From: Norris, Todd (MNRF) [mailto:todd.norris@ontario.ca] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:58 PM To: Peter Young Subject: Loughborough Lake Complex wetland Hi Peter, As per our discussion this afternoon, please note that changes to the Loughborough Lake Complex wetland boundary have been made and should be currently visible and active in LIO. Thanks,

Todd Norris (Management Biologist) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 51 Heakes Lane Beechgrove Complex Kingston, ON., K7M 9B1 613-531-5728 todd.norris@ontario.ca

Page 158 of 173

Think about our environment. Print only if necessary. Confidential: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the email immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that disclosing, copying, distributing or using the content of this transmission is strictly prohibited.

Page 159 of 173

EIS Addendum Johnston Point

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services 3803 Sydenham Rd. Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca

July 27, 2015

The following addendum addresses the Loughborough Lake Swamp ANSI (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest) that was not covered in the June 12, 2014 Johnston Point EIS produced by Ecological Services. We were recently informed of an ANSI report concerning Johnston Point, entitled the Loughborough Lake Swamp. We regret that we did not find any reference to this report when we did our background work in 2011 with Frontenac County, South Frontenac Township, and the Natural Heritage Information Center. However, when we learned of the report we immediately informed the peer reviewers in case they were unaware of this information. From a planning perspective, it is our understanding that Candidate ANSI’s are not recognized under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). As such, it should be noted that authors of ANSI reports only propose areas for ANSI consideration (i.e., Candidate ANSI’s), and it is up to the province to review the proposals to determine if they will be formally acknowledged as an official ANSI. There is some confusion as to the status of the Loughborough Lake Swamp ANSI, and Todd Norris of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry noted that it is still likely regarded as a Candidate ANSI. However he also noted the likely intention to formally acknowledge it as an official ANSI at some point. The ANSI system stems from the International Biological Program (IBP) that started in 1964, and was intended for ecosystem preservation. Ian MacDonald completed much field work for the IBP and for some of the first ANSI’s in Eastern Ontario, and was instrumental in setting a standard for later work. As based on the work by Hills (1959), and by Chapman and Putnam (1973), the province was sectioned into different Site Districts representing different ecological regions of the province. Johnston Point falls within Site District 6E-10, which includes Sydenham, and extends east past Mallorytown, west to near Verona, and includes both Frontenac Park and Charleston Lake Provincial Park. According to Henson and Brodribb (2005) Site

Page 160 of 173

District 6E-10 contains nearly 83% natural cover, primarily forest, and also contains approximately 12,000 hectares of wetland. In order to help in the ANSI designation process, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (now called the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry) contracted out the Site District assessment work. For example, we undertook the assessment of Site District 6E-15 (see Snetsinger et al. 2001), and David White completed the ANSI work for Site District 6E-10 (see White 1993), which includes the Loughborough Lake Swamp. The five criteria used by assessors such as David White for ANSI consideration are representation, diversity, condition, special features, and ecological consideration. Beyond that, selection necessarily falls under a broad mandate because of the large differences in Site District ecology across the province. White (1993) based his selection of the Loughborough Lake Swamp as a Candidate ANSI on representation, for which he stated it represented the largest area of lacustrine swamp in the site district. Specifically, it contains two large areas of lacustrine swamp. One is about 190 m from Johnston Point, and the second is about 2 km to the northwest of Johnston Point. It also contains small areas of lacustrine swamp, some of which are part of Johnston Point. If we assume that the Loughborough Lake Swamp is recognized as a formal ANSI, then under the PPS and the Official Plan of South Frontenac (OP), development would not be allowed within the Loughborough Lake Swamp ANSI if it were to cause a negative impact. With respect to the Johnston Point application, this would not be a concern as there will be no development within the ANSI. Like most mapping in the ANSI reports, the boundaries provided by White (1993) are not precise, but there are no areas mapped as ANSI next to Johnston Point, that are not already mapped as provincially significant Loughborough Lake Wetland Complex. The wetland mapping is provided in the Johnston Point EIS, and in our experience wetlands are typically held to a more rigorous standard when undertaking an EIS. Under the PPS and the OP, development within 120 m of an ANSI is also not allowed if it will cause a negative impact. For clarity, a negative impact is one that specifically impacts the key features and/or functions that designate significance. In the case of the Loughborough Lake Swamp ANSI, that feature is the large areas of lacustrine swamp and therefore any development within 120 that causes the reduction of that size would be considered a negative impact. We put forth three reasons why a negative impact (i.e., loss of swamp) will not occur:

All development areas are more than 120 m from the two large lacustrine swamp areas that David White used to justify Candidate ANSI inclusion.
There will be no development in any wetland area, including the smaller lacustrine swamps directly associated with Johnston Point.

Page 161 of 173

There are forested setbacks of at least 35 m between all development and the small lacustrine swamps on Johnston Point. Some of the main impacts to swamps in this region would be changing lake levels and beaver activity. A potential future factor for swamps dominated by black ash would be the loss of tree cover by the emerald ash borer. None of these have any direct relevance to the development of Johnston Point.

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services

Work Cited Chapman, L, and D. Putnam. Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Research Foundation, Toronto. Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. Hills, G.A. 1959. A ready reference to the description of the land of Ontario and its productivity. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Division of Research, Maple. Snetsinger, M.A., R. Snetsinger, D. Kristensen, and I.D. Macdonald. 2001. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 6E-15: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in Site District 6E-15. Parks and Recreation Areas Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Kingston Ontario. White, David J. 1993. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 6-10: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Kemptville and Tweed Districts. 122 pp., plus map.

Page 162 of 173

Page 163 of 173

via: e-mail

September 24, 2015 File: 840-105.00R01

ENGINEERING INCORPORATED

308 Wellington Street 2nd Floor Kingston, ONK7K 7A8 Canada 613-548-3446 www.malroz.com

Mr. Peter Young, Community Planner County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, Ontario, K0H 1S0 Subject:

Review of McIntosh Perry Letter Dated September 1, 2015 Review Technical Support Documentation - Hartington Subdivision Part Lot 7, Concession 7, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac (MP File No. 0CP-15-0397)

Dear Mr. Young, Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) is pleased to present our comments on the McIntosh Perry review. Malroz was retained by the County of Frontenac to review the following: Review Technical Support Documentation - Hartington Subdivision, Part Lot 7, Concession 7, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac (MP File No. 0CP-15-0397), prepared for Ms. Michelle Foxton, Mr. Charlie Larbarge and Mr. John Lesperance, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated September 1, 2015. 1.0

Comments

The review included 12 documents as well as Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change procedures D-5-4 and D-5-5. McIntosh Perry identified 8 issues in their letter and we offer the following comments for your review and consideration below their comments (in italics below). 1.

Environmental Scientists & Engineers KINGSTON ◊ TORONTO ◊ OTTAWA

While pumping tests were performed on test wells advanced on site, the pumping tests were performed during periods more typical of recharge and relatively high water levels. Specifically, the initial pumping tests were performed in March of 2013 when approximately 100 mm of precipitation was recorded for the month preceding the tests and in August-September of 2014 when approximately 156 mm of precipitation was recorded for the month preceding the tests. Furthermore it was revealed through monitoring of groundwater static levels in 2013, groundwater level dropped between 2 to 5 metres between the period of March and September, 2013. No pumping tests were performed when the supply aquifer(s) were stressed.

Page 164 of 173

County of Frontenac McIntosh Perry Peer Review, Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 2 File: 840-105.00R01

McIntosh Perry is of the opinion that satisfactory information regarding the abilities of the source aquifers to adequately supply users has not been presented; in this regard pumping tests performed during stressed period should be undertaken. The March pump testing was conducted by simultaneously pumping wells for the approximate subdivision demand and the August testing included pumping wells independently. We note that of the approximately 100 mm of precipitation received in August –September, 2014, approximately 54 mm occurred on August 12. We understand that water level data has been collected at the site over a number of discrete monitoring events. Further the proponent used the site specific parameters to support an analytic evaluation (computer model) of the subdivision. Table 2 of the ASC March, 2015 letter identified that based on their analytic model, in the eleven test wells, assuming the proposed staggered well layout, 71% or more of the water column in each well would be available during peak demand. We recommend that the proponent evaluate the comment from McIntosh Perry and discuss whether the comment affects their interpretation of seasonal variability provided in the ASC Environmental (ASC) letter dated March 23, 2015 item 10a. We are satisfied with the ability of the aquifer at the site to reasonably supply water to the subdivision, considering the investigations to date and the proposed assessment of future water supply wells. 2.

One of the test wells (TW-02) utilized for pumping tests intersects groundwater from both the aquifers (upper limestone bedrock as well as the lower Precambrian granite bedrock). While the pumping test conducted on this well does demonstrate that it has an adequate yield, McIntosh Perry does not believe that the results of the pumping test can be correlated to an individual aquifer. Comments should be made as to the ability of both aquifers to supply water for development. We understand that the granite is not intended for use as a water supply aquifer in their evaluation of the project. The proponent should confirm this understanding.

During the pumping tests, the time between the collection of samples to determine groundwater quality ranged from one to five hours with the average more in the order of two to three hours. Procedure D-5-5 outlines that, during a six-hour pumping test, samples are to be collected within the first and within the last hour of pumping. The purpose of collecting samples approximately five hours apart is to demonstrate that the quality of the groundwater is consistent and what future users may be able to expect in the long term. McIntosh Perry believes that back-to-back collection of samples (i.e., less than Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 165 of 173

County of Frontenac McIntosh Perry Peer Review, Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 3 File: 840-105.00R01

five hour separation) cannot necessarily provide an adequate characterization of the longer term groundwater quality. We have reviewed MOECC Procedure D-5-5, Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1. Based on our review we interpret that the guideline requires a minimum of a 6 hour pump test and that at least one water sample is to be collected in the last hour of the test. Our understanding is that collection of the second sample is at the discretion of the consultant. We agree that collecting samples back-to-back without sound reasoning would be considered poor practice. Our review of the pump test field monitoring indicated that the consultant did not collect a water sample until the chlorine residual monitoring indicated the raw water was free of chlorine (chlorine would impact evaluation of bacteria). Whereas some of the second/final water samples from the eleven wells analysed were collected in the last hour of the pump test, not all of the samples were. We recommend that the consultant provide comment on this. In our opinion the water quality generated to date and, recommendation that each new well be evaluated, are adequate for characterizing the raw water quality. 4.

Complete characterization of groundwater quality in the area was not performed. Specifically, there are existing and former nearby land uses (gasoline retail outlets and a rail line) which could have potential effect on the groundwater quality. No assessment of the groundwater with respect to petroleum hydrocarbon parameters (PHC), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were performed. As the sources for all of the aforementioned parameters are found within 250 metres of the site and that these parameters have health based standards, McIntosh Perry believes that assessment in this regard is required. Groundwater flow at the site is generally southerly from the figures provided by ASC. A north to northeasterly groundwater flow was reported at the north end of the property. Review of the groundwater flow direction indicated that the proposed subdivision is cross/upgradient of the concerns identified. Though the site maybe downgradient of historic properties along Boyce Road. The proponent may want to consider collection of groundwater samples from wells near to the Hartington Hamlet and Boyce Road for petroleum hydrocarbons fractions F1-4 (PHC) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) which are common indicators of the petroleum contamination. As for concerns with the historic rail corridor, the consultant may consider a representative well be sampled for PHC, BTEX, volatile organic compounds(VOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which would be indicative of contamination associated with a rail line.

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 166 of 173

County of Frontenac McIntosh Perry Peer Review, Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 4 File: 840-105.00R01

If residents are aware of contamination that may impair potable water quality they are encouraged to promptly report this information to the MOECC and the County. 5.

With respect to the wells advanced into the Precambrian granite bedrock, McIntosh Perry is of the opinion that the groundwater obtained from these wells should be assessed for radionuclides as Precambrian bedrock is a known source for these parameters. We understand, through a telephone conversation with Quinte Conservation, that a Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network well is located in the vicinity of Hartington. Quinte Conservation, as a part of the water quality evaluation, sampled and analysed water from the well for parameters, including radionuclides and in our conversation with Quinte Conservation concerns with radionuclides were not identified. The proponent should respond to this comment and evaluate the need for site specific groundwater analyses.

In regards to the terrain assessment, the proponent sub-divides the site into thirds and then applies the average background nitrate-nitrite concentration for each third in determining the attenuation capabilities for the site; we do not believe that this is a correct application for the attenuation assessment as prescribed in Procedure D-5-4. When applying a conservative approach, the maximum concentration should be utilized (in this case, 4.21 mg/L detected at TW-10). As it is also our understanding that the present proposal by the proponent is for phased development commencing at the north end, then the higher background nitrate concentration should be used in calculating the number of possible lots. When utilizing the spatial area for the 13 northernmost lots (1 to 6 and 41 to 47; 10.72 ha) and the 4.21 mg/L detected nitrate-nitrite concentration, McIntosh Perry calculates a lot density of 7-8 lots (7.7) for this portion based on nitrate dilution. The proponent should update their terrain assessment to account for the change in the size and layout of the subdivision.

Review of the hydrogeological reports does not reveal the implementation of hydrofracturing during the well construction. If hydro-fracturing was utilized the proponent should explain the rationale for utilizing this methodology and any possible requirements for the future development of the property, if hydro-fracturing is required to obtain a suitable yield. Furthermore, if hydro-fracturing was employed, what were the well yields prior to fracturing?

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 167 of 173

County of Frontenac McIntosh Perry Peer Review, Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 5 File: 840-105.00R01

We are unaware of any hydrofracturing as part of the hydrogeologic evaluation or for future proposed wells. The proponent should identify if any hydrofracturing has occurred or is proposed as part of this proposed subdivision. 8.

It is noted the proponent considers the site to be moderately to highly sensitive from a hydrogeological perspective. It was also noted that there were a number of parameters in groundwater that were elevated and would require treatment, including fluoride which is a health-related parameter. These conditions would suggest a higher level of investigation is required prior to approval and approval of development is questionable if treatment of groundwater is required for health-related parameters to meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards. We concur with McIntosh Perry that based on the site sensitivity and water quality a higher level of investigation is required. Based on the comments we have provided to date the proponent has advanced additional wells, conducted additional field work and developed an analytic model to assess the impact of the proposed subdivision on the water quantity. Further, the proponent has committed to having each additional well installed at the site evaluated by a qualified hydrogeologist who is licensed by the Ontario Association of Professional Geoscientists or Professional Engineers of Ontario. In our opinion, the additional work undertaken to date by the proponent has exceeded the minimum requirements in the MOECC D-5-5 Procedure. In consideration of the investigations to date, our comments regarding additional supplementary water quality investigation identified above, and the proposed assessment of future individual water supply wells, we are satisfied with the level of investigation to date. Malroz recommends that the proponent review the comments prepared by McIntosh Perry and respond to each of these issues.

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 168 of 173

Page 169 of 173

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

October 8, 2015

Agenda Date:

October 13, 2015

SUBJECT: PW-2015-11, Otter Lake Culvert Rehabilitation RECOMMENDATION: For information only. BACKGROUND: A Tender for Relining the Otter Lake Culvert was prepared and advertised. This tender closed on September 9th, 2015. Three submissions were received and all exceeded the budgeted amount of $200,000. As a result this tender was cancelled, and letters sent to those that submitted explaining the situation with their bid deposit. Staff met with the engineering firm to find ways to reduce costs and complete the project. A revised tender was advertised and closed on October 7th, 2015. One bid from PipeFlo Contracting was received for an amount, before HST, of $129,000.00. PipeFlow is a qualified contractor for these types of projects providing this service for other municipalities and also completes 80 structures per year on the 407 ETR Highway. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: An amount of $200,000 for design, lining the Otter Lake Culvert, and Engineering inspection from McIntosh Perry was approved in 2015 Capital Budget for this purpose. As this project will be under budget the contract has been awarded to PipeFlo Contracting for $129,000.00 plus HST.

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday, CET Area Supervisor

Page 170 of 173

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC P.O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario, K0H 2T0

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

October 7, 2015 VIA: Registered Mail Tyler Balding Director of Project Business Development, SM Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. 545 Speedvale Ave. West Guelph, ON N1K 1E6 Marnie Dawson Suncor Energy Project Developer - Renewable Energy Refining & Marketing Box 2844 150 6th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 3E3 Dear Mr. Balding and Ms. Dawson, Re: Collins Lake Solar project The Council of the Township of South Frontenac has directed me to write and advise you of their extreme displeasure with your decision to proceed with a submission to the IESO for the Collins Lake Solar project in light of a clear and overwhelming lack of support from the community and Council. Council acknowledges that you did reduce the size of the project from the original 13MWs to only 7MWs, however despite the size and the intent of any reduction, Council feels that that any submission disrespected both the community’s wishes and the authority of Council You should be aware that your decision to proceed may have a negative impact on any future dealing between our organizations. Council has specifically asked that this letter be forwarded to the IESO. Yours truly, Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer c.c.

IESO Council

n ’s

Certificate of Appreciation ^

^"^ .^

legron

Presented to

Legion^

^!<ww^ift. Off 2<wt^ ^fUMten^e For supporting the Military Service Recognition Book of The Royal Canadian Legion Ontario Command. Your recognition and support for Veterans in Ontario is sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation. ^

i^-2

Brian D. Weaver Provincial President

2015 “LEST WE FORGET”

^ ^.

Page 171 of 173

THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ONTARIO COMMAND

Page 172 of 173

U WATE A E D R I R

EW ED N S SH

40 YEARS OF

September | October 2015

YEARS

1975-2015

A r o und

au e d i R the

Conservation Authorities Act Under Review The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) recently announced a review of the Conservation Authorities Act. A discussion paper has been posted to solicit feedback around governance, funding mechanisms, and roles and responsibilities of Conservation Authorities. Comments are being accepted until October 19, 2015. We invite you to get involved. Visit Ontario’s Environmental Registry at www.ebr.gov.on.ca and reference EBR Registry number 012-4509 to get more details on the process, the discussion paper and how to submit your comments. SOMMER can tell you more at ext. 1214 or sommer.casgrain-robertson@rvca.ca.

Conservation Areas Highlight! New Digs for Barn Swallows at Chapman Mills Barn swallows have experienced a significant decline since the 1970s due to habitat loss and other factors. Modern buildings are increasingly replacing older wooden barns and farmhouses, which are ideal for barn swallow nesting. A barn swallow structure, to be built at Chapman Mills, will provide a new home for local swallows. It is being built by Claridge Homes in return for a barn being removed in Riverside South. We look forward to seeing the new, feathered residents at Chapman Mills — just one more reason to visit this Conservation Area! Contact KRISTY at ext. 1178 or kristy.giles@rvca.ca.

Fall Foley Foliage! It’s hard to believe the autumn is upon us and with that comes spectacular colours. Why not take a trip to Foley Mountain Conservation Area to enjoy the change of season? With shorter days, the trees stop producing green chlorophyll and the remaining chemicals (carotenoids — yellows and oranges and anthocyanins — reds and purples) have their time to show off before the snow flies. Plan your optimum viewing by visiting www.ontarioparks.com/fallcolour or watch for posts on Foley’s Facebook page. Contact REBECCA at 613-273-3255 rebecca.whitman@rvca.ca

Get Schooled! Baxter/Foley Education Programs! Awesome outdoor environmental education programs are offered at both Baxter and Foley Mountain Conservation Areas. School groups can participate in a multitude of year-round programs. All programs are designed to be interactive and experiential while meeting curriculum guidelines. Visit www.rvca.ca/careas to learn more about programs at Baxter and Foley Mountain Conservation Areas. For Baxter Education program information contact ANDREA at 613-489-3592, andrea.wood@rvca.ca; for Foley Mountain information contact REBECCA at 613-273-3255, rebecca.whitman@rvca.ca.

2016 Annual Pass — Available After Thanksgiving!

What better way to kick off the shopping season by picking up a 2016 Conservation Areas Annual Pass! They make great gifts. The pass will give access to the remainder of 2015 and all of 2016! It costs $45 (includes HST) and is a great value — year-round access to our five developed conservation areas: Baxter, Foley Mountain, Perth Wildlife Reserve, Rideau Ferry and W.A.Taylor. Any questions? Contact CHRISTINA or GLORIA at 613-692-3571 (1-800-267-3504), ext. 1100 or email info@rvca.ca.

Page 173 of 173 September | October 2015

Infrastructure

Update

Haggart Island Dams Decommissioning

The Haggart Island Dams are located on the Tay River in the Town of Perth. These dams are comprised of two separate and independent weirs that were constructed in 1971 and need to be replaced. After much consultation with the community and town council, RVCA and Town of Perth staff will decommission the old weirs and replace them with two rocky ramps (a river restoration technique to maintain existing water levels). Rocky ramps are a significantly less costly and more ecologically friendly alternative to traditional dams. RVCA and Town of Perth staff, working with Matrix Solutions Inc./Parish Aquatic Services, are to begin work this fall. MIKE can give you more information at ext. 1176 or michael.yee@rvca.ca.

Motts Mills Dam Replacement Patience, perseverance and phenomenal partnerships have led to the replacement of Motts Mills Dam. Work to decommission the failing, 63-year-old dam located just off County Road 1 in Elizabethtown-Kitley is to begin this fall. It’s being replaced with an earthen weir just upstream from the existing dam. Duck Unlimited, who has vast experience in designing and building these structures, will oversee construction. The existing dam will maintain current water levels until the new weir takes over. The weir will then maintain the same water levels for at least a year until a wetland restoration plan is finalized. This is the first in a series of steps to restore the provincially significant Hutton Marsh to its former glory with more open water to attract a diversity of wetland inhabitants. Contact TERRY for more information at Motts Mills Dam c.1968 ext. 1107 or terry.davidson@rvca.ca.

2015 Lake Links

Free Shoreline Makeovers!

Join us for the Annual Lake Links Workshop: Lake Fisheries Management and How to Get Lake Projects Done to be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Perth Civitan Hall (on Highway 43). This year’s workshop will focus on strategies for protecting lake fisheries with a special focus on fish habitat restoration. In the afternoon experts will teach participants how to manage lake projects, including partnership development and fundraising. Registration is $20 payable at the door and includes lunch and refreshments. This workshop is always a great networking opportunity. For more information check out the weblink: http://watersheds.ca/lake-links-2. To register, contact Karen Ballentine at Watersheds Canada at ballentine@watersheds.ca or 613-264-1244.

RVCA’s Shoreline Naturalization Program provides free shoreline site visits and planting projects to landowners in target areas. Natural shorelines are one of the best ways you can help protect water quality, mitigate erosion and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. If you live within the Rideau Lakes or Kemptville Creek subwatersheds and would like to increase natural plant cover along your shoreline, give us a call. Since the program’s inception we’ve assisted 260 landowners, planted 50,000 shoreline plants and naturalized 16 kilometres of shoreline. For more information call MEAGHAN at ext. 1192 or meaghan.mcdonald@rvca.ca

New App to report Algae Blooms! Thanks to this innovative app, algae and aquatic plant observations can now be made with a click of a button on your smart phone. This justreleased Android app is called Citizen Water Watch and can be downloaded for free at the Citizen Water Watch Google play store. App users will be asked to take a photo and provide a description and the location of their observation. Data from the app will be stored and will provide information on when, where and how often algal blooms and excessive aquatic plant growth are occurring. The People, Aquatic Plants and Healthy Lakes Project is funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation and is run by a collaborative group of Friends of the Tay Watershed Association, Carleton University, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, RVCA and Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation. Be sure you check it out. For more information contact KAITLIN at ext. 1154 or kaitlin.brady@rvca.ca.

New Viewing Bench at Richmond Conservation Area The group at itSMF has made a very thoughtful and long lasting donation to the Village of Richmond — a viewing bench at Richmond Conservation Area. itSMF Canada is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and facilitating the recognition and growth of its members in service management. Donating a bench that the entire community can enjoy is a fitting alternative to the usual gifts they would give to speakers at HDI — Eastern National Professional Development Days. Call DAN at ext. 1124 or dan.cooper@rvca.ca.

Back to School They Go! Twenty plus talented students loaned us their skills this summer. These hard-working students (with the help of federal and provincial funding) assisted with core and special projects including: water sampling, monitoring, tree planting, outdoor education, conservation land maintenance and so much more. They return to school with valuable work experience and the satisfaction of knowing they made a difference to the health of the Rideau watershed. Well-done guys! Contact ROSIE at rosie.maclean@rvca.ca or ext. 1145 for more.

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

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

Bird Richard, Lawyers for Employers — 613-238-3772, www.lawyersforemployers.ca Representing management in labour and employment law across Ontario John Callan, Accredited Senior Agent (ASA) & Sales Representative with Coldwell Banker Rhodes & Co., Brokerage — Proud to be part of and provide professional real estate services to the Big Rideau Lake community for over 10 years

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

Thank

You TO OUR GENEROUS

Spon sorS!

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.