Published March 22, 2016

Word Count 10750 words

Reading Time 51 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: March 22, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 22 Mar 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

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

Delegations

(a)

Warden Frances Smith, County of Frontenac

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Campbell - Proposal to Purchase a Portion of Unopened Road Allowance at reduced costs

14 - 19

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Conveyance of Closed Road Allowance between Lots 24 and 25, Concession VII, Storrington DistrictGordon

20 - 24

(c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Recreation Facility User Fees

(d)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Source Water Appointment

Reports for Information - n/a

Rise & Report

(a)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

(b)

Quinte Region Conservation Authority

(c)

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

2016 Ontario Farmland Forum Flyer

(b)

Wilma Kenny, re: Sydenham Parking

(c)

Stephen Kapusta, re: Sydenham Parking

(d)

Graeme Watson, re: Township Initiated Housekeeping By-law

3 - 13

26 - 33

Page 2 of 47

(e)

Jeff Peck, re: Township Initiated Housekeeping By-law

(f)

Ontario News Release - Ontario Transforming Housing and Homelessness System

39 - 41

(g)

Councillor Revill, re: March 1 comments on Hartington Subdivision

42 - 44

(h)

Harrowsmith Community Improvement Plan Poster

(i)

Ontario Association of Fire Chief’s Conference

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

45 46 - 47

County Update March 22, 2016 Warden Frances Smith Page 3 of 47

Budget • Budget passed in December • Includes .65% for capital replacement and $30k for In-field communications gap analysis • Long range financial plan, business plans and rationalization of reserves complete

Page 4 of 47

Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus • Five Priorities for 2016: • Improved/expanded hydro and natural gas service • Closing the cell gap (April 12th – CRTC) • Monitoring/participating in growth planning for Eastern Ontario • Economic Development – Leadership Council • Policing costs

Page 5 of 47

Other Projects • Health Hub – discussion with Richard Schooley from Perth & Smiths Falls District Hospital • Limestone District School Board – Community Involvement

Page 6 of 47

Paramedic Services • Wolfe Island Station now staffed by full time paramedics. Last volunteer station in Ontario • Pressure on delivery of services in the City – third crossing will help. Airport expansion will require service expansion • Denbigh station in Lennox & Addington • Presumptive PTSD legislation introduce for Emergency responders – including paramedics Page 7 of 47

Fairmount Home • Exemplary Accreditation received in 2015 • Passed Ministry inspection in January – no orders • Continued pressure on acuity level and shortening of length of stay is putting pressure on staffing – aging in place strategy of the Province Page 8 of 47

Planning & Economic Development • Official Plan approved – should reduce turn around times for approvals • Planning Act changes – requires County to have a Planning Committee with at least one public appointee • Will change process for Official Plans/ Amendments & Condominiums

Page 9 of 47

Planning & Economic Development • Economic Development Charter (2015) set out three objectives:

Trips and trails
Accommodation and Food
Recreation Lifestyle

Page 10 of 47

Planning & Economic Development • $500,000 set aside for economic development activities over the next 3 yrs • Community Development Advisory Committee is up and running – responsible for guiding the implementation of the Economic Development Charter • RED Application submitted – hope to hear a response in June

Page 11 of 47

Shared Information Services • Introduced January 1/16 • Smooth transition so far • Next Step: development of service standards

Page 12 of 47

Questions?

Page 13 of 47

Page 14 of 47 PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole

Planning Department

Agenda Date: March 22, 2016 Date of Report: March 15, 2016 Subject: Proposal to Purchase a Portion of Unopened Road Allowance at a Reduced Cost: Part Lot 18, Concession VIII, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac:

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information the Planning Report dated March 15, 2016 regarding a request to reduce the cost of purchasing a portion of road allowance. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a request to reduce the fee charged by the Township for the sale of closed road allowances. Background & Discussion: On February 9, 2016, the owners of property at 4378 Atkins Lane received approval in principle from the Committee of the Whole for the closure and sale of a portion of an unopened road allowance that abuts their waterfront property. However, the Committee specified that the ‘orphaned’ piece of road allowance that would result from the closure should also be dealt with. By letter, dated March 4, 2016, the owners’ lawyer is requesting that, to deal with this orphaned/ land-locked section of road, the cost should be reduced. Attachment #1 is a copy of the March 4, 2016 letter. Attachment #2 shows the road allowance abutting the subject property. Attachment #3 is an air photo of the subject land illustrating how the road allowances are configured with orphaned section highlighted.. In giving approval in principle to the closure and sale of the portion abutting the owners’ lands, the Committee considered that the land-locked piece should not be left on its own and that, perhaps, arrangements could be made between all of the land-owners abutting the road allowance to acquire this remaining portion as well. However, it is estimated that the cost of the land would be $41,000.00 based on the Township’s requirement that all residential road allowance sales within 300 feet of the waterfront is charged at $2.41 per square foot. In his letter, the lawyer is requesting a reduction to this fee on the basis that the charge was not meant to apply to any ‘back land’ such as this orphaned piece, but only to road allowances that lead directly to or from water. Attachment #4 is Schedule “B” from the road closing by-law. It requires that the sale of road allowances within 300 feet of water are charged a $2.41 per square foot but it does allow for a reduced fee in some cases. Thus, the Committee may have some discretion in considering the request. Council in considering the request for reduced charges needs to consider: consistent application of the policy and the tradeoff between its decision to deal with the orphaned potion and providing a benefit to abutting landowners. Direction Requested: Staff are seeking direction from the Committee on whether it is prepared to accept a normal fee for the sale of the land-locked portion of road allowance, and if so, at what rate. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

.il’:?’?l:l . ?ti m nl

Page 15 of 47

}

tCrl

r.ElV b-v

QY-Ll W’k? l

y’l;y.p, 0 ‘2 ’tyos6

T Z’

@:@: 0.@. @?@? -y*. ‘:? -*‘3. @-@ ‘33

Cunningham Swan

I LAWYERS T ,

{‘X-

-’

o I’C?" ‘N I)? ?’ h ir 1: ?IS

A&z&aht 411

c,0UY?hh

Robert A. Little, o.c. DirectLine: 613.546.8070

E-mail: rlittle@cswan.com

March 4, 2016

Sent by email to: lmills@southfrontenac.net; Original to follow by regular mail Mr, Lindsay Mills Planner

Township of South Frontenac PO Box 100

Sydenham, ON KOH 2TO Dear Mr. Mills:

RE: Campbell Application to Close and Acquire Road Allowance.

Thank you for your advice and assistance regarding the Application by Ron and Jocelyne Campbell.

The cost of the acquisition of the ?orphaned" part of the road allowance -$4 1,000 - is giving the Campbells some very serious concern. It is unlikely to be attractive to the abutting property owners, Ms. Greenwood and the Days, and would be a very substantial financial burden for the Campbells themselves to undertake. We would ask that some consideration be given to reducing the cost in view of the unique nature of the “orphaned? part of the road allowance. From a practical viewpoint, it is property that is similar to ;‘back land?, and suitable only to be an “add on? to existing parcels of property. While it is located within 300 m. of water, it does not have any water access, and in fact water cannot even be seen from it.

It appears to the Campbells that the rate provided in the bylaw, $2.41 per square foot, may be

mo’re aptly applicableato municipal property which accesses water directly rather than to ?back land”.

CUNNINGHAM. SWAN. CARTY, LlTTtE & BONHAM Lu-

SMITH ROBINSON BUIIDING, SUITE 300 - 27 PRINCESS ST.. T(INGSTON ON K7L 1A3 TEI: 613-544-0211 FAX: 613-542-9814 WEBSITE: WWW.CSWAN.COM

Page 16 of 47 2

The Campbells would appreciate it if you would ask Council if it would be prepared to reduce the rate to take account of the rather unusual features of the “orphaned? part in this case. The Campbells would then approach their neighbours with a reduced rate, to see if they would be interested in acquiring one half of the “orphaned? part, and failing those acquisitions, make the acquisition themselves. This would not only facilitate the expansion of the Campbell’s cottage property, but give the municipality a modest increase to the tax base, and also relief from any possible liabilii? to the public in the future.

We would greatly appreciate consideration of this request by you and the Council, and we look forward to hearing from you. If there are any questions, please let me know.

Yours truly, Cunningham,lu%l Syan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP i’ t

RAL:jk Cc: Ron Campbell

C{INNIN(iHAM, 5Wi’.N. CAR:l’Y. i..l.’l’Tl.i;’ & B.’:?IlkM ilt

Page 17 of 47

ATTACHMENT #2 y

‘,,.,-

{ ..,..J 1 ,, a+/ ,-’,, ,r.,J

‘fsl

:../ +’ .i ‘, !.i

l i—’,-l l ' S iW*Elly l i , ,)a ,! t. .’

‘i

{

,-’-

’l

{. %, li.”:]:/% -,{i"a il} /’’, =,: ,ya’ i

l i

V’

.;l’ ;

./’

i= }’ t,a / J

/ r/ , / %, ,i .,y ,,-,' Dog Lake ,. / i =, .,:,

ji kQ

/*..

,Xal”,/] , l%%,,, lil%. ,,./ “X, l a’VLt,-a'44)+ .’-“i a’taa,’, L .a /a .1 / ‘y /” <%.=-’-=.,-” a’a’Th’a’ ,,e /. )'

.rl'

..'

..t'

,,”

/' l SurveyedRoadAllowance , ‘- …-.–, /

.-/l

. , - = — - - - - - - = :0 (, so %%.,=’ ,

..Jf ,t Orphaned Piece f ( ," / ,/a' ‘a, ,.-s / & ' s . a ' " S, ' ,/

,t Property .*i: .,,: Subject / +-’ /' 1

%3i2 .,y.,! ‘%S // t

Dog Lake (a

r-.

’l

‘p

)

S"-

,a.7

, ,.1la

.,+’ al ….lz’ ,ta’ / ,* ,

,-' -o’ a’-%,,.,-zs, /{a ‘-//ll yl ,’ Meleis

/‘al , l 0 15 30 60 90 izo l

Page 18 of 47

ATTACHMENT #3

r, ri

W I

r* I-

r. 1

]

‘% 1

,./j

‘]

*a4!.

J A

!’%

Ij /

‘0

‘;

;'<

‘?

r 1

yl:

-1

?“l

l!l

{

1 l

(

{

F s l

1 W

l l

.1 &

l k .i 1

l Unopened Road Allowance l

(

n S7?v ull1w

:w"l

)

/ r

ff?

?’ j

4 l

Fnffl

’l

/ l

a r f

t. k l

) 1

X r

k’

]

[

{e{ets

0 6 10

]

/’%

/ /

‘% i %

Atf’aJwehld41

Page 19 of 47

Schedule ?B”

Purchase Price

Land Class,

Price per Sq. Ft.

(See definitions below) Residential Lot on water

$2.41

Residential Lot (l- 2 acres)

.80

Acreage, farm

.25

Acreage, bush

.21

Commercial

1.03

Minimum purchase price - $1,000

Residential Lot on Water - any portion of the closed road allowance which lies within 300 ft .of the water - $2.41/sq. ft. If the applicant owns 2 acres or less then the remainder of the allowance -.i.e. after the first 300 ft. - is charged out at .80/sq.ft. and if the property is over 2 acres, the remainder of the allowance is charged out at .21/sq. ft.

Residential Lot - closed road allowance adjacent to a property of 2 acres or less (where the allowance does not abut water or where a portion of the allowance is more than 300 ft. from the water) - .80/sq.ft.

Acreage, farm - where a road allowance mns tmough a field dividing two farm properties - .25 /sq. ft.

Acreage. bush 7 where a road allowance is located on land not suitable for agriculture (i.e. hilly, rough terrain) - .21/sq. ft.

Commercial - enlargement of commercial property through addition of a closed road allowance $1.03/sq. ft.

The municipality reserves the right to amend these fees under special circumstances, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

a) When considering the sale of a closed road allowance where construction has taken place on a road allowance and where it can be demonstrated that the relevant portion of road allowance has not been correctly identified by surveyors or the Township, Council ? waive, or reduce, the fee for the portion of the road allowance that lies within, or adjacent to, the original lot. b) When considering the sale of a closed road allowance that divides an individual’s property and makes it impossible, because of zoning by-law requirements, for-the owner to construct an accessory building on the separate parcel, Couneil ? reduce the fee for the portion of road allowance that separates the two parcels.

NOTE: Such exceptions or amendments will not apply to the purchase price of closed road allowances when the purpose of closing the allowance is solely to enlarge the applicant’s property.

7<:.?@;’

Page 20 of 47

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

Planning Department

Agenda Date: March 22, 2016 Date of Report: March 16, 2016 Subject: Conveyance of Closed Road Allowance Between Lots 24 & 25, Concession VII, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac: Gordon

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that Council consider a request to convey to the abutting land-owner a road allowance that was closed in 1968. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide the background information necessary to enable the Committee to consider conveying a closed road allowance in the District of Storrington. Background: The Planning Department received a letter from a lawyer representing the owner of a property at Holmes Road and Perth Road (described as Part 1, Plan 13R7226) requesting that Council authorize the transfer/conveyance of the Township’s interest in that portion of a road allowance that bisect the subject land ie., lying between Lots 24 and 25, Concession VII in Storrington. The letter explains that the road allowance was closed by By-law 1968-9 on March 4, 1968 but the intended transfer of ownership never occurred. Attachment #1 is a copy of the lawyer’s letter dated March 3, 2016. Attachment #2 shows the location of the subject land and Attachment #3 shows the land and the location of the closed road allowance. Discussion: It was clear that By-law 1968-9 was to close the road allowance and transfer ownership to the Gordons. It seems that the land was inadvertently not transferred. Thus, the conveyance seems only to be a minor technicality that should be resolved as simply as possible. While By-law 1968-9 is still applicable, it did have a provision limiting the timeline for the execution of the transfer to one month, thus the need to bring forward to Council. The letter requests that, to avoid the costs of surveying the road allowance itself, Council simply quitclaim any interest in lands described as Part 1 on Plan 13R7226 (which is the whole of the Gordon’s lands). Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated March 16, 2016 for information and consider the request to quitclaim interest in the closed road allowance between Lots 24 and 25, Concession VII, Storrington District. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments RoadClosureReportGordon

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Page 21 of 47

ATTACHMENT #1

<p-, -.:,@@ Cunningham Swan ,-

‘,i@ -*’:.@.

LAWYERS

TW i’

David C. Munday

Direct Line: 613.546.8091

E-mail: dmunday@cswan,com

March 3, 2016

Sent via email only to lmills@southfrontenac.net

The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac

Planning & Development Dept. Att: Lindsay Mills, Planner 4432 George Street

i l

I l

I l r

p.o. Box 100

Sydenham, ON KOH 2T0

Dear Mr. Mills:

RE: Gerald Gordon - Conveyance of Closed Road Allowance between Lots 24 & 25, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Storrington

Our File No. 29055-2

Thank you for meeting with us on February 18 to discuss the above-noted matLer.

We ad for Gerald Gordon, the owner of the properq at 4651 Holmes Road (please see Parcel Register, Deeds and PIN map enclosed).

As previously discussed, the Gordon family has owned the subject property for decades and is in the process of transferring the property.

During the course of the proposed transfer, it became evident that the property is bisected by the original Road Allowance Iying between Lots 24 & 25, Concession 7 (See copy of P!an 1 3R-

7226 attached).

The Road Allowance was stopped up and closed pursuant to By-law No. 1968-9 of the former Township of Storrington and the conveyance to the abutting owners authorized (see Instrument No. FR180431 attached). Unfortunately, the Deed from the (former) Township to the C:ordons cannot be located and does not appear to have been registered on title.

l i

l l l

l l

CUNNINGHAM, SWAN, CART/, Ll?n’lE & BONHAM LLP

SM!TH ROBINSON BUiLDlNG. SUITE 300 - 27 l’RlNCESs Sll, KINGSTON ON K7L lA3 TEI: 613-544-0211 FAX: 613-542-9814 WEBSITE: WWW.CSWAN.COM

i l

Page 22 of 47 2

As a result, the Gordon property is a “Registry Non-Convert” because of the municipality’s undisposed interest in the closed Road Allowance, To that end, our client requests that Council authorize the transfer/conveyance of the

Township’s interest in that portion of the Road Allowance lying between Lots 24 & 25, Concession 7, geographic Township of Storrington that crosses the Gordon property (Pait 1, Plan 13 R-7226) to the owner of the abutting lands (being Gerald Ciordon). For clarification, in order to avoid the additional cost of having the Road Allowance surveyed, we propose that the Township simply ‘Quitclaim’ its interest in all of Part 1, Plan 1 3R-7226 to Mr. Gordon. This will result in the desired Transfer of the Township’s interest in the Road Allowance to Mr, Gordon.

If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,

Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP

,,5 David C. M? /dcm: Endosures

oopy to: P. Trousdale [29055-2]

‘(.UNNINGhlAM. S?N. CARTY, Llrrtt: & BONHAM uv

QXy ‘:‘a

O’J’l

‘i

Page 23 of 47

l -W

r W

ialJ

7?J I/! m

:l Q

RJlu Loughborough Lake

[‘J

z’?

)

‘%

.=?1

-(:S

.=??1

.?‘i%?J

, <l

‘,

!,,l

‘8

J j

[?l

oovijysorq Rl

li i: li

)

HOLMES Fp/)! [[l

lffi

E < (/)

l I

?’

t’-

r 1

l l

I ,d

ffi ROAD

‘ROAD

uu x

SUBjECT LAND

f’Q

t %S

aF6 ‘?

r r

(

‘-m

-1

‘r’

q j

‘-

?, Vall,l??;l. .

‘5

;o o

‘%

’t

(’-l ?‘i

’l

t-’

)

t’?

?? ’s,s p-

Collins Lake

7 l

I l

I i-‘Y’i 111

Page 24 of 47

Page 25 of 47

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

March 9, 2016

Agenda Date:

March 22, 2016

SUBJECT: Recreation Facility User Fees RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to proceed with an evaluation of the current user fees and to develop recommendations on a new program to address the challenges and meet the needs of the Community. BACKGROUND: This report was prepared to provide background information about the Township of South Frontenac’s ‘User Fee Program’ for indoor and outdoor facilities and the challenges that currently exist in administering the programs. On December 3, 2013, staff presented a report to Council recommending that Council approve the Hall Rental and Recreation Facility user agreements as recommended by the South Frontenac Recreation Committee at their meeting held November 18th, 2013 and presented to Council on November 26th, 2013. This was approved by Council for implementation in 2014. At the January 14, 2014 Committee of the Whole meeting several delegations spoke on the issue of ‘Hall Rental Rates’ and ‘Mayor Davison summed up the discussions and directed staff to suspend the implementation of the policy and directed the issue back to South Frontenac Recreation Committee.’ On April 20, 2015, the South Frontenac Recreation Committee passed a recommendation asking that Council revisit user fees for all facilities and the structure of user fees across the Township of South Frontenac. In December 2015 the Loughborough District Recreation Committee was asked by one of the sport associations if user fees would be increasing in 2016. The response provided by the Committee Chair was that fees are currently staying the same unless a change was made through a decision of Council. On February 29, 2016 the South Frontenac Recreation Committee discussed the potential pros and cons of eliminating user fees altogether to increase accessibility to kids participating in healthy activities. Challenges identified with the current program include: • Inconsistency in: what user groups pay a fee for use of halls and fields, the amount of these fees and how they are determined (in kind, donations, set rates etc.). • Fees do not reflect the true cost to process bookings and for the maintenance and operation of the indoor and outdoor facilities • Fees often present a barrier to participation and it is left to the Sport Associations to agree to subsidizing certain individuals • Some user groups have indicated that they feel that for the current rates paid to the Township there should be an increased level of maintenance at the outdoor facilities. • Few rental agreements between the Township and Associations currently exist Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Prepared by: Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Page 26 of 47

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW:

March 15, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

March 22, 2016

SUBJECT: Joint Appointment to Cataraqui Source Protection Committee RECOMMENDATIONS: That the nomination of Greg Newman to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee representing the Central Area, be supported; and That John Conley, the incumbent member, serving as the Municipal representative at-large, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee be supported. BACKGROUND: Staff received correspondence (see attached) from the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority advising the Township that it was restructuring the composition of the Source Water Protection Committee to reflect the lighter workload that is anticipated. In keeping with the legislative framework for the committee and the initial planning in 2007 the new committee would have a joint representative for the “central” nomination area. The central area is composed of Frontenac Islands the City of Kingston and South Frontenac. In addition to an East West and Central municipal appointees there is a requirement for confirmation of a Municipal Appointee at large. The Authority has indicated that Mr Conley, former Mayor of the Township of Athens and member of the committee since 2007, has indicated a willingness to serve in this role. The three Municipal CAOs / Clerks were asked to discuss the process and bring forward to their Council’s resolutions for support. Frontenac Islands and South Frontenac do not have the staffing resources to appoint a staff member. The City of Kingston previously had appointed Kevin Riley from Utilities Kingston as their representative. The City has proposed to appoint Greg Newman, Manager of Policy Planning. South Frontenac staff are supportive of this appointment as well as affirming support for Mr Conley. This City’s is considering a staff report on March 22 regarding this appointment and their report is attached. ATTACHMENT: • •

Letter from Cataraqui Source Protection Authority Staff report from City of Kington

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 27 of 47

January 29, 2016 To:

Municipal CAOs and Clerks Cataraqui Source Protection Area

RE:

REQUEST FOR INPUT / COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS MUNICIPAL APPOINTMENTS – CATARAQUI SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

This letter seeks input from your municipality regarding proposed appointments to the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee (‘SP Committee’) by the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority (‘SP Authority’). The appointments are under review this winter, and accordingly we would appreciate reply correspondence by Wednesday March 23, 2016. Municipal input regarding SP Committee appointments is normally communicated via a resolution of council. More information is provided below. The SP Authority is composed of the CRCA Full Authority Board plus a representative from the Township of Frontenac Islands. It is responsible for appointing and maintaining the SP Committee, which guides the development of drinking water source protection technical studies and policies for our area. Established in 2007, the SP Committee successfully completed its initial mandate with the approval of the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan (2014). Over the next few years, the SP Committee will support implementation of the plan and will help to prepare for further source protection work. In accordance with the Ontario Clean Water Act, municipalities are represented by one-third of the voting members on the SP Committee. The municipal ‘seats’ may be assigned to council members or other persons that represent municipal interests. They must live, work and/or own or rent land in the study area; they may not be a CRCA Board member or employee. In 2007 it was agreed that the municipal representatives would be drawn from ‘eastern’, ‘central’, and ‘western’ nomination areas, corresponding with geographic counties (see the attached chart). Last fall the SP Authority determined that it would be appropriate to reduce the overall number of voting members on the SP Committee from 15 to 12, reflecting a lighter workload at this stage of the source protection process. Going forward under this approach there would be four (4) municipal representatives, one from each of the three nomination areas, plus a representative at-large who represents the interests of all of the municipalities. As part of its membership review process, the SP Authority wishes to confirm that local municipalities support the proposed appointments for the next few years. Per the attached chart, incumbents are prepared to continue representing the ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ areas, and to serve as the representative at-large. Alternatively, other eligible persons could be nominated for those positions. Owing to a vacancy, there is a need for the central municipalities to nominate a candidate for their area representative.

Page 1 of 2

Page 28 of 47 We have the following specific questions for consideration: For municipalities in the eastern nomination area: (1) Please indicate whether there is support for Mr. Raabe, serving as your area representative. (2) Please indicate whether there is support for Mr. Conley, serving as the representative at-large. For municipalities in the central nomination area: (1) Please identify the name, address and contact information for a nominee who is eligible to serve as your area representative. (2) Please indicate whether there is support for Mr. Conley, serving as the representative at-large. For municipalities in the western nomination area: (1) Please indicate whether there is support for Mr. Bresee, serving as your area representative. (2) Please indicate whether there is support for Mr. Conley, serving as the representative at-large. CRCA staff are available to provide further information at joint meetings amongst the municipalities in each nomination area, upon request. We recall that the eastern area municipalities previously discussed this topic at the Leeds Grenville Joint Services Committee, and that the central area municipalities met via the Rural / Urban Liaison Advisory Committee. We look forward to hearing from you. Please contact the undersigned with any questions or comments at 613546-4228 ext. 224 or via rmcrae@crca.ca. Yours truly, (Original signed by)

Rob McRae MCIP, RPP Watershed Planning Coordinator Attachment:

Proposed Appointments to the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee at 2016 – Municipal Sector

c.c.

Robert Morrison, Chair, Cataraqui Source Protection Authority John C. Williamson, Chair, Cataraqui Source Protection Committee

Page 2 of 2

Attachment to Cataraqui Source Protection Authority Letter to Local Municipalities, January 29, 2016

Proposed Appointments to the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee at 2016: Municipal Sector 1 (Prepared by CRCA staff, January 2016)

Area

Municipalities

Candidate

Notes

Eastern Area

Township of Athens City of Brockville Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley Township of Front of Yonge Town of Gananoque Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Township of Rideau Lakes

Peter Raabe, Lyn2

Mr. Raabe is resident of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley and is the Director of Environmental Services for the City of Brockville. He has served on the Committee since 2007.

Central Area

Township of Frontenac Islands City of Kingston Township of South Frontenac

(Vacant)

There is a need to identify an eligible nominee for this position.

Western Area

Town of Greater Napanee Loyalist Township

Ric Bresee, Amherstview2

Mr. Bresee is the Deputy-Mayor of Loyalist Township. He has served on the Committee since 2007.

Municipal representative at-large

This member represents the interests of all municipalities in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

John Conley, Athens2

Mr. Conley is the former Mayor of the Township of Athens. He has experience in working across the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. Mr. Conley has served on the Committee since 2007.

All appointments are subject to confirmation by the members of the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority.

Incumbent member on the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee.

Page 29 of 47

Page 30 of 47

City of Kingston Report to Council Report Number 16-097 To:

Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Cynthia Beach, Commissioner, Corporate & Sustainable Initiatives

Resource Staff:

John Bolognone, City Clerk

Date of Meeting:

March 22, 2016

Subject:

Nomination to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Source Protection Committee

Executive Summary: The Cataraqui Source Protection Committee is requesting a municipal appointment for its Central Area which is comprised of the Township of Frontenac Islands, City of Kingston and Township of South Frontenac. The Committee guides the development of drinking water source protection technical studies and policies for the area as part of Ontario’s Clean Water Act program. Recommendation: That the following recommendation be approved and forwarded to the Township of Frontenac Islands and the Township of South Frontenac with a request for endorsement, and that subject to their endorsement, that it be forwarded to the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority: That the nomination of Greg Newman to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee representing the Central Area, be supported; and That John Conley, the incumbent member, serving as the Municipal representative atlarge, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee be supported.

Report to Council

Report Number: 16-097 Page 31 of 47 March 22, 2016 Page 2 of 4

Authorizing Signatures:

Cynthia Beach, Commissioner, Corporate & Strategic Initiatives

Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team: Lanie Hurdle, Community Services Denis Leger, Transportation, Facilities & Emergency Services

Not required

Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston

Not required

Desirée Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer

Not required

Report to Council

Report Number: 16-097 Page 32 of 47 March 22, 2016 Page 3 of 4

Options/Discussion: The Cataraqui Source Protection Authority (SP Authority) is composed of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Full Authority Board plus municipal representatives from three areas, namely the eastern, central and western areas, corresponding with geographic counties. The central area is comprised of the Township of Frontenac Islands, City of Kingston and the Township of South Frontenac. The SP Authority is responsible for appointing and maintaining the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee (SP Committee) which guides the development of drinking water source protection technical studies and policies in our area. The SP Committee was established in 2007, and has successfully completed its initial mandate with the approval of the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan (2014). Over the next few years, the SP Committee will support the implementation of the plan and will help to prepare for further source protection work. Last fall the SP Authority determined that it would be appropriate to reduce the overall number of voting members on the SP Committee from 15 to 12, reflecting a lighter workload at this stage of the source protection process. Therefore there would be four municipal representatives, one from each of the three nomination areas, plus a representative at-large who represents the interests of all of the municipalities. As part of its membership review process, the SP Authority wishes to confirm that local municipalities support the proposed appointments for the next few years. The incumbents are prepared to continue representing the Eastern and Western areas and to serve as the representative at-large. The Central area is vacant and there is a need to nominate a candidate. The City of Kingston initiated a discussion with the Township of Frontenac Islands and the Township of South Frontenac and assumed a co-ordinating role in the nomination of the Greg Newman, the City’s Manager, Policy Planning, in the Planning, Building and Licensing Services Department as the central area representative. Following Council approval of the report recommendation, staff will forward a communication to the Township of Frontenac Islands and the Township of South Frontenac with a request for endorsement, and that subject to their endorsement, staff will forward the resolution to the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority. Existing Policy/By-Law: None Notice Provisions: There are no notice provisions with this report. Accessibility Considerations: There are no accessibility considerations with this report.

Report to Council

Report Number: 16-097 Page 33 of 47 March 22, 2016 Page 4 of 4

Financial Considerations: There are no financial considerations in this report. Contacts: John Bolognone, City Clerk (613) 546 4291 extension 1247 Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted: None Exhibits Attached: None

Page 34 of 47

2016 Farmland Forum

A day of networking, sharing and learning about the policy innovation & practical actions helping to make Farmland Forever a reality in Ontario. Join us for presentations & discussion on: • Provincial and municipal priorities for farmland protection planning • Case studies of leading land protection initiatives in Ontario • Inspiring land protection stories from the U.S. Forum Details Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 Time: 10:00 am - 6:00 pm Place: Bingemans Conference Centre, Kitchener Cost: $110 early-bird rate by March 25th; $90 for OFA, CFFO, NFU members; $60 for students (includes lunch & dinner)

Who should attend?

Tickets

• Land Conservation Enthusiasts

To reserve your seat:

• Farmers

www.ontariofarmlandtrust.ca

• Land Use Planners

519-824-4120 x 52654

• Researchers

info@ontariofarmlandtrust.ca

• Provincial Policy Makers • Municipal Councillors

2016 Forum Supporters:

Page 35 of 47

—–Original Message—-From: noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca] On Behalf Of willorkenny@gmail.com Sent: March-05-16 4:19 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: COW sydenham parking Dear Wayne On George st from Wheatley to Bedford, the west sidewalk is a foot narrower than the east side, and pedestrians are exposed to sometimes heavy traffic and large trucks travelling close to (and occasionally on) the already-narrow sidewalk. This is a particularly dangerous strip during winter. Pedestrians using the east side have a wider sidewalk, plus hydro poles and parked cars as further protection. It seems this hazard could be greatly reduced by moving the parking on this strip to the west side of the road. Traffic is faster and heavier on this small portion of road, for it gets all the Wheatley - Bedford flow, which carries most of the (often speeding) commuter and high school traffic from north of the village, and presently at least, large supply trucks to the three busiest village retail outlets. I asked about this change at the public meeting, and was told it would be taken into consideration, so I assume it was part of the planning. However, I’d greatly appreciate if the question could be reopened. I regret I’m still in Vancouver until late on the 8th, so will not be able to attend the COW meeting. regards Wilma

Page 36 of 47

Your Worship and members of Council, My name is Stephen Kapusta and I am the homeowner of 3002 Freeman Road. I am a Transportation Planner with 15 years of experience dealing with everything from road design, active transportation, school transportation, bylaws, environmental assessments, traffic impact studies and development review. I am a Registered Professional Planner with the Ontario Institute of Professional Planners. I have taken some time to review the proposed parking and traffic bylaw amendments for the village of Sydenham and I offer the following comments for your consideration. I would like to state firstly, that the proposed plan by and large is a very good one. Your staff should be commended for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the plan proposed. I see only one location on the proposed plan that could be improved and that is opposite the Royal Bank on George Street. While I can understand and appreciate the need to maximize parking, this particular location is a concern. I feel that the corner clearance should be extended. The current location where parking starts on George is very close to the intersection. This creates sight line issues for vehicles traveling northbound on Mill Street to George Street. Drivers cannot see pedestrians cross from parked cars at this location. Worse yet, when vehicles are travelling southerly at the same time a pedestrian is present, the pedestrian is placed in an unsafe position as there is no means for the northbound driver to go around the waiting pedestrian, nor does the pedestrian have a safe refuge out of traffic. Through discussions with South Frontenac Staff, I have been told that there is a blanket bylaw that would allow the extension of the corner clearance at this location to 9 metres. I feel that this would be an appropriate enhancement to the proposed plan. By extending the corner clearance, the Northbound driver is given more time to slow down and the waiting pedestrian has enhanced visibility of approaching traffic. With respect to the area around the schools, I have been informed that it is felt that further consultation with the school should take place prior to any changes to the parking bylaw. This is of course both fair and reasonable, as it is always wise to seek willing partners for any changes, especially with a stakeholder such as the school board. I have numerous suggestions for safety improvements, based on my many years of work with the School Boards in Windsor on parking and traffic issues near school sites. I therefore wish to have some involvement so that I can assist your staff in working with the school board to enhance the safety around both the elementary and high school. On the topic of Bedford Road, I have been informed that the parking bylaw changes initially proposed are not part of this amendment as a result of a proposed study to review the design of the road from the Village to Alton Road. I have mixed feelings on this, only because the current paved surface is too narrow to permit parking, and as such any parking that does take place is an immediate hazard. This hazard of course does not happen very often. If the Township does take action in the very near future to study, come up with a reasonable design with public input and then fund the project soon after, the problem could be quickly rectified. I also suggest that this project review and offer solutions that will enable walking and cycling on Bedford. I intend on being present at the meeting on Tuesday March 8th for my own information and so as to answer any questions you may have regarding my comments. I do not however feel the need to speak on the matter unless called upon by Council to do so. Sincerely, Stephen Kapusta MCIP, RPP

Page 37 of 47

From: Graeme Watson [mailto:graemewatsonkhs@gmail.com] Sent: March-14-16 11:09 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Mark Schjerning markschjerning@kos.net; Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com; Ron & Nancy Vandewal lakevalley@kos.net; Website Administrator admin@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed change s.5.10 and s.5.11 of the CZBL Gentlemen; As a waterfront owner this issue is of great concern to myself. Personally, I proactively exercise environmental stewardship of my land, including waterfront protection and implementing SAR measures. I work for the Ministry of Transportation and we routinely practice environmental compensation measures such as; developing fish habitat to compensate for lost fish habitat due to construction; and planting 10 Butternut trees for every one cut down. I see no reason why equivalent measures could not also be part of the Zoning Bylaw, rather then the inflexible amendment proposed. In fact, my small zero impact structure, acts a environmental placeholder on the waterfront. If it was to be removed for some reason, based on current trends, it would be replaced by a much larger structure at the limit of the setback, beyond the waterfront restrictions, and having a large environmental impact. The land clearing for construction alone would have an immediate and long term effect on the current natural land cover and the environmental migration it provides. As an professional whose job entails enforcement of environmental standards, I am aware that there can be more effective language for the bylaw, which requires appropriate environmental measures,while retaining the rights of the landowner to retain their structure. The amendment also appears to contradict the practice of the municipality itself regarding waterfront roads, for example; Little Long Lake road. If the road was washed out, would it be relocated further inland? That would result in significant environmental degradation, and have a permanent effect on the Provincial Significant Wetland that is located alongside the road, and disruption to Blanding’s Turtle habitat. If the argument is made that the environmental concerns I have expressed will still be addressed under the amendments, I must stress that the amendments fundamentally moves the governance of the waterfront away from the set municipal legislation, and shifts it to the more subjective realm of the Committee of Adjustment. I see this as an unacceptable degradation of property rights through application of and extension of Eminent Domain, without examining alternative language which would fulfill the intent of the Planning Act, without infringement of current standing individual rights. At the very least I believe for legal, public consultation, and research requirement reasons, that council should deferred any decision on the proposed amendment, and look to drafting a more environmentally aware alternative based on current environment science and practices. I am also concerned about the lack of public consultation. Although this bylaw is being proposed from a Planning perspective, it’s source is environmental and I would suggest that the EA process must have some bearing. Thank you, Graeme Watson 2086 Little Long Lake Road

Page 38 of 47 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject:

jeff peck peck.ja@kos.net March-14-16 12:03 AM Wayne Orr; Lindsay Mills; Wayne Orr; Mark Schjerning; Ross Sutherland; Ron & Nancy Vandewal; Website Administrator Peck Comments- Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Gentlemen, I have attempted to include all key staff and councillors for whom I have contact information. I ask that this email be given distribution to all elected officials. I have recently been informed that discussion has been initiated to change s.5.10 and s.5.11 of the CZBL. I take a very pragmatic approach to watershed development. On one hand I am of the opinion that watershed development must be responsible and water quality is paramount. On the other hand I recognize the legal right of noncomplying land owners. These land owners, have paid a premium for their legal non-complying structures. Furthermore, technology and best-practices exist that mitigate (if not eliminate) any environmental risk when noncomplying structures are responsibly re-developed regardless of the reason. I have been told informally, that the purpose of the SF OP and CZBL are to create a green ribbons around our lakes. The intent is to eventually make non-complying structures extinct through rigid interpretation of the Planning Act and corresponding OP and CZBL. This is ironic considering s.34 (9) of the Planning Act specifically prohibits the use of a Municipal Bylaw which is effectively designed to limit/frustrate use of a grandfathered structure. I have conducted extensive legal research across multiple jurisdictions and studied both OMB decisions and jurisprudence in cases involving similar situations. I would suggest to you that the Supreme Court of Canada (and Lower Courts) have ruled any frustration of a non-complying land owners right to re-develop their non-complying structure as void as long as the intent to use the land has remained consistent and the size/use of the structure has remained the same I can appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive issue. I would also suggest that there is a middle ground to this discussion. I would suggest attaching conditions such as septic upgrade and green building practices while allowing the footprint to remain strikes the appropriate compromise. Technology and best-practices exist that mitigate (if not eliminate) any environmental risk when non-complying structures are responsibly re-developed regardless of the reason. This would strike the appropriate balance between protecting the watershed and respecting the rights of the property owners Unfortunately, I have just recently received notice of this meeting. Furthermore, it is occurring over March Break and I cannot attend. I would very much like an opportunity to address Council and staff of my thoughts on this issue. Sincerely, Jeff Peck 613-376-6459

Page 39 of 47

News Release Ontario Transforming Housing and Homelessness System March 14, 2016

Province Announces Update to Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy Ontario is introducing a suite of legislative and policy measures, and investing $178 million over three years, to ensure that the people of Ontario have access to affordable and adequate housing and to help them secure employment, raise a family and build strong communities. Last year, Ontario announced that it would consult with communities to update the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, first launched in 2010. The updated strategy is informed by feedback from key stakeholders including clients, developers, municipalities and advocates. It will make housing programs more people-centred and co-ordinated, and provide municipalities with flexibility to meet local needs. To increase the supply of affordable housing and support the province’s goal of ending chronic homelessness in 10 years, Ontario is: •

Creating a framework for a portable housing benefit that would give people who receive housing assistance the flexibility to choose where they want to live. Further, the province will invest more than $17 million over three years to provide a portable housing benefit on a pilot basis to eventually support up to 3,000 survivors of domestic violence.

•

Proposing legislation for inclusionary zoning that would enable municipalities to mandate the inclusion of affordable housing units in new development projects.

•

Developing a Supportive Housing Policy Framework to improve client outcomes, and providing more than $100 million in funding over the next three years for new supportive housing to improve access for up to 4,000 families and individuals to services like counselling, dispensing medication, and life skills, as well as support the construction of up to 1,500 new supportive housing units over the long term.

•

Providing an additional $45 million over three years to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative.

•

Developing an Indigenous Housing Strategy in partnership with Indigenous communities.

Investing in long-term, stable funding for affordable and adequate housing is part of the government’s economic plan to build Ontario up and deliver on its number one priority – to grow the economy and create jobs. The four-part plan includes investing in talent and skills, including helping more people get and create the jobs of the future by expanding access to high-quality college and university education. The plan is making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history and investing in a low-carbon economy driven by innovative, high-growth, export-oriented businesses. The plan is also helping working Ontarians achieve a more secure retirement.

ontario.ca/housingstrategy

Page 40 of 47

QUICK FACTS •

The updated strategy reflects input the government received at 38 stakeholder meetings during summer 2015, and from 113 formal written submissions that reflect the housing needs of Ontarians across the province.

•

The updated strategy also reflects the recommendations made by the Expert Panel on Homelessness’ 2015 report [PDF] and the recent report by the Mayor’s Task Force on Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION •

Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy Update

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES •

Ontario’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy

•

Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy

•

A Place to Call Home: Report of the Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness [PDF]

QUOTES “We’ve achieved a lot since we launched our strategy in 2010 — we started transforming our housing system into one that’s more flexible, and more people-centred. Today, I’m proud to announce new investments that will help us achieve our commitment to a fair society and I’m looking forward to working with the federal government so that everyone has a place to call home.” — Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing “Coming out of the Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness, we set an ambitious target to end chronic homelessness in 10 years. With the updated Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy, we are making key investments that will help us achieve that target — investments that will not only help people find a home and stay in that home, but give them the freedom to choose where they want to live. " — Deb Matthews, Deputy Premier, President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy “I am proud that our government is looking at new ways to help those who have experienced domestic violence find safe and affordable housing. I know that investments in supportive housing, such as the new portable housing benefit pilot, will really make a difference in the lives of women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence. These investments demonstrate the province’s commitment to its goals of ending violence against women and chronic homelessness.” — Helena Jaczek, Minister of Community and Social Services

Page 41 of 47

“Today’s launch of the updated housing strategy means more youth at risk will get a secure place to live and the support they need to build strong independent lives. Ontario’s vision is to provide services when and where they are needed — right in the community.” — Tracy MacCharles, Minister of Children and Youth Services

CO^I^G^-T^ Ft^ /}./C ^CL. - ^^.Ci-t f/Zot(ff Comments respecting Proposed Hartington Subdivision I consider myself to be relatively pro development and I believe that a 13 lot

subdivision within the boundaries of the hamlet of Hartington to be generally positive, in that a development of that size would not overwhelm the character of

the existing Hamlet. Despite my personal misgivings, it appears that the province proposes that the majority of our Township development should take place within the hamlets.

In some respects, I was looking for positive reports supporting the revised 13 lot development. At this stage when we are being asked to consider Draft Plan Conditions so the development can proceed/1 am not comfortable with the reports that we are basing our decision on. Some examples:

The Fotenn Letter dated Oct 9, 2015 to Mr. Joe Gallivan indicates that the

existing groundwater chemistry for water quality indicates that treatment

for common aesthetic and health related parameters may be necessary in the hamlet portion of the property. ASC, the developers Hydrogeologist reports that there were at least one well that had to be abandoned due to elevated salt content. It has also been reported to Council by letter from

the community indicating that they noticed changes in their water quality during and following the major pumping test performed/monitored by ASC. recall a need to seek water storage and improved well yields when the car wash was being developed and recently hearing anecdotal evidence of changes to water from community members.

It confirms to me that the aquifer has sensitivity to high draw downs that may occur with this development

Municipal Drain; I was involved with the design, the aerial photography, the construction and monitoring the Drain through annual walks for a 25 year period. The Drain was designed for a one in two year storm period, which means that it was considered acceptable for the Drain to overflow its banks 50% of the time during peak events like spring run-off. While I believe there

are reasonable controls in the Draft Plan conditions requiring further storm water management evaluation to minimize overwhelming the existing Drain, I believe a storm water pond may be required to control overland

Page 42 of 47

Page 43 of 47

flows to the Drain since all of the development will eventually find its way to the Main or Branch Drain. I note from my work on the Drain which is

quite shallow, that there is rock showing in the ditch bottom of virtually all areas. No tile drainage was possible because of the shallow overburden and depth of ditch. While I am not able to evaluate the effects of Karst

topography on the variables of the proposed development, I am aware of at least one clear evidence of Karst conditions in the Drain south of the Petworth Road. I know that it exists in the area.

Hydro Carbons: The consultant SOS that has worked on the clean-up of the site at the south east corner of Road 38 and Holleford Road concludes that

migration to the west to the site of the proposed development is unlikely. am inclined to accept that position given that testing for hydrocarbons in

adjoining off site wells has so far been negative and I am not aware of any community members having indicated otherwise. I believe that the cleanup that has taken place to date will likely mean low risk of significant migration off site. Nevertheless/ while I believe the risks are low, the potential

damage to the water aquifer can be significant. Additional monitoring as a minimum is required/ for protection of all areas of the community and an assessment of further remediation would be appropriate. 4. Nitrates: The rationale as I recall and appears to be used here is that one

cannot discharge groundwater to a neighbouring property that exceeds the 10 mg/L. We currently have a single property and ASC has made their calculations based on a single boundary. Mark Boone the Quinte

Conservation Hydrogeologist told me that in his opinion any water samples for nitrate taken from a well drilled into the granite would likely have a lower nitrate reading for the granite vs a limestone aquifer. If this was done it could affect the overall calculations. I wonder how the calculations or

actual readings may change if the lots were developed and instead of one large property there are now 13 property boundaries to consider. The community’s consultant Macintosh Perry arrives at a different conclusion

than ASC. I note in an email from Malroz to Joe Gallivan dated January 15, 2016, they acknowledge the rationale for background nitrates that ASC

used in their calculations and that Malroz acknowledges that they did not audit the ASC calculations, but they appear reasonable. They say that

satisfies their request for that information. I am left feeling that the County

Page 44 of 47

peer review agency did little in this instance to offer much critical evaluation for this issue.

Water quantity: There appears to be some conflicting opinions of the water

quantity. At this stage we do not know what level of hydro tracking was carried out nor whether it might have any impact on the proposed

development water tests. There have been reports from community members about interference with their wells and there has also been some interference noted in the earlier ASC reports. In summary, I am left feeling that Council is left trying to evaluate the

completeness, care and lack of bias in the consultant reports. I am not suggesting that any consultants are untruthful in their findings or opinions, but each put different weights on the benefits and risks that are under discussion. It is my opinion that Council does not have the power to compel consultants to appear nor to cross examine their evidence/findings to try to sort out conflicting information.

While I believe any one of the key elements that I have considered could be

managed if the development were to proceed, it is unlikely that all elements will

turn out to have no consequences for the surrounding community and within the

development itself. It is for this reason that will not support approving the Draft Plan Conditions

HARROWSMITH COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORKSHOP

#harrowsmithcip

APRIL 13, 2016

6PM-8PM GOLDEN LINKS HALL – HARROWSMITH

Page 45 of 47

Page 46 of 47

‘f^ f. a c

1f: ‘<

‘r*

‘0’ 0 ^»

. -<

0 * A-

tar.^

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS Leading innovation and excellence in public and Itfe safety

March 4,2016 Dear Mayor and Members of Council,

RE: OAFC 2016_Municipal Officials Seminar: The Essentials of Firefighting and Firefighting 101

Saturday, April 30th and Sunday, May 1st

The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs Municipal Officials Seminar, The Essentials of Firefighting and Firefighting 101 offers municipal officials and staff the opportunity to understand the challenges of the

fire service and its importance in their communities.

This two-day session includes customized presentations that will provide you with essential information and knowledge about the fire service. The highlight of the program is our interactive, hands-on fire training experience that you will not forget.

On Saturday and Sunday morning, you will hear from informative speakers on topics specifically

designed for municipal officials. This year’s agenda highlights include: .

How Legislation Impacts the Delivery of Fire and Emergency Services in Your Community, presented by Deputy Chief Jim Jessop, Toronto Fire Services and former Ontario Fire Marshal.

Legal Responsibility and Liability of the Municipality and the Fire Service, presented by Julia Nanos, Hicks Morley.

Councillor or Fire Chief….Who are You? presented by Rob Browning, Chief Administrative Officer for the Township of North Kawartha and part-time Executive Director for the Eastern Ontario Emergency Training Academy. .

Keynote Presentation: The Lac-Megantic Rail Disaster, presented by Fire Chief Denis Lauzon,

Keynote Presentation: Civil Unrest: A Real Threat to Public Safety - Baltimore Riots Lessons

Lac Megantic, Quebec.

Learned, presented by Assistant Chiefs Jeffrey Segal and Mark Wagner, Baltimore City Fire Department.

On Saturday afternoon, attendees will slip into bunker gear and experience firsthand the job of a firefighter by participating in a live fire training session including a simulated search and rescue, vehicle extrication exercise and extinguishing a fire! This program has been specifically designed for municipal officials by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority Fire Department. Previous attendees who

have participated in this seminar have repeatedly said that it was one of the best seminars and training

sessions that they had ever attended! Past attendees included mayors, councillors, chief administrative officers, directors and government officials.

On Sunday afternoon you have the opportunity to visit the OAFC 2016 Trade Show - the largest fire

and emergency service show in Canada. You and your fire chief will be able to see a wide variety of fire vehicles and equipment, talk directly to suppliers and manufacturers and gain valuable information that can assist in your purchasing decisions.

520WestneyRd.S.,Unit22AjaxONLlS6W6 ® 905-426-9865 ® 1-800-774-6651 fi 905-426-3032 H www.oafc.on.ca

Page 47 of 47 « ‘<f. ’tf

‘o-i

tf ^

. “I

~ a 0

1 1 ‘«’’ /

LO ‘< ^ fr

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

Cf ^

Leading innovation and excellence in public and life safety

In the evenings, there are networking functions included in your registration package encouraging you

to interact with your colleagues and special guests. Ladders Up Reception in support of the Canadian Fallen Firefighters Foundation is held on Saturday and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs annual Memorial Service and Reception is held on Sunday. The seminar takes place at the Toronto Congress Centre at 650 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario on

Saturday, April 30th and Sunday May 1st. The main seminar hotel is the Crowne Plaza Toronto Airport

Hotel located at 33 Carlson Blvd, which is only a few minutes away from the Toronto Congress Centre. A shuttle will be doing continuous loops from the hotel to the congress centre all throughout the seminar ensuring a convenient experience for all guests.

The early bird rate for the OAFC 2016 Municipal Officials Seminar is $310.00 plus HST. The seminar includes customized educational sessions on Saturday and Sunday morning, a once-in-a-life-time, live

fire training exercise, the OAPC 2016 Trade Show, breakfast, lunch and coffee breaks on both days, an invitation to the Ladders Up Reception on Saturday and the Memorial Service and Reception on Sunday. The registration rate increases by $100 after April 15, 2016, so register early and save.

If you have any questions about the program, I encourage you to contact the OAFC board office at 905426-9865 and speak to our planning team. In addition, please visit our website at www.oafc.on.ca/event/oafc-2016-attendees to view seminar details, the agenda,speaker and presentation overviews, trade show information, location and to register.

The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs looks forward to welcoming you to the 2016 Municipal Officials Seminar. We hope that you will consider attending and participating in this educational and unique event.

Yours truly,

rz^^ pt^ t7

M. D. (Matt) Pegg

President

“The politicians live fire training session is something that all municipal politicians with fire services should attend.

/ can’t say enough about how much respect for fire seMces this session gave me”. Dennis Lever, Mayor of Puslinch, Ontario

“The politicians’ agenda was most informative and very interesting. The fire training session gave me some

appreciation for what firefighters must endure. All information sessions were excellent and some could be longer to discuss issues more in-depth. The special speaker, Dr. David Griffin was amazing…riveting. What an experience. What an eye-opener” Gerry Last, Councillor, Township Leeds and the Thousand Islands, Ontario

This was a very good experience that I feel all politicians should at feast attend one time throughout their term.

You get a different perspective on what firefighters have to deal with on a day-to-day basis and develop a new

respect for when they ask us for what they need. It doesn’t take long to realize the asking is because it is needed and not just a nicety that would be great to have! 2015 Municipal Official Attendee

520WestneyRd.S.,Unit22AjaxONLlS6W6 ® 905-426-9865 S 1-800-774-6651 i5 905-426-3032 S www.oafc.on.ca

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.