Committee of the Whole - 23 Jun 2015 - Agenda

Published June 23, 2015

Word Count 53233 words

Reading Time 250 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: June 23, 2015 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2015/Committee of the Whole - 23 Jun 2015 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

6:00 PM, Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Agenda Adjustment ***

In light of the number of delegations, Council will begin at 6:00 pm with Agenda items 7, 8 and 9. Delegations and Agenda item 6 and any unfinished business will commence at 7:00pm 4.

***Recess if necessary

Reconvene at 7:00 pm for delegations 5.

Delegations:

All Delegations are permitted up to 10 minutes to address Council, followed by questions from Council. (a)

Sommer Casgrain-Robertson, General Manager, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, re: 2014 Watershed Report

(b)

Utilia Amaral - SunEdison - June 17 Open House - meeting summary by project

20 134

(c)

Kim Pretorius - Sun Edison solar proposals

135 138

(d)

Lori & Orville Hamilton - Sun Edison solar projects

(e)

Tarja Makinen-Potts - Sun Edison solar projects

(f)

Richard Jewitt - Sun Edison solar projects

(g)

Tom Hawly - Sun Edison solar projects

(h)

Brent Ball - Sun Edison solar projects

(i)

Craig Sindall - Sun Edison solar projects

(j)

Susan Kirby - Sun Edison solar projects

(k)

David Hahn - Support for solar projects

(l)

Lee Wendland - Sun Edison solar project (email only)

139 142

(m)

Jeff Allan and Greg Rossetti - Bondfield South Frontenac Sun Solar Project proposal

143 150

(n)

Matt Rennie, Concerns from a large group of residents with respect to the Johnston Point Plan of Condominium.

4 - 19

Page 2 of 225

Reports Related to Large Solar Projects

(a)

Wayne Orr, CAO, re: Large Scale Solar Facilities Agreement

151 157

(b)

Wayne Orr, CAO re: Summary Notes from Sun Edison Open House

158 160

Other Reports

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: License Agreement

(b)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Verbal Update re: Open House - Parking Issues in Sydenham

(c)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Verbal Update re: Hartington Clean up

(d)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Verbal Update re: Portland Scales

(e)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Potential Intersection Reconfigurations

170 172

(f)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Draft Sign Bylaw

173 183

(g)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Project updates

184 185

Rise & Report

(a)

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

(b)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

(c)

Quinte Region Conservation Authority

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

Lynne Gibson, re: Signage By-law

186

(b)

Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca - Off Road Vehicle

187 188

(c)

Councillor Sutherland - questions to staff re: OP

189 191

(d)

Petition - Ann Barlow - rec’d at Council June 16

192

(e)

Letter from R K Denesuik - rec’d at Council June 16

193

(f)

2013 Water Capacity Study

194 225

New Business

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

161 169

Page 3 of 225

WATERSHED REPORTING IN THE RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED

Presentation to Committee of the Whole Township of South Frontenac Sommer Casgrain-Robertson, General Manager Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Page 4 of 225

June 23, 2015

SUBWATERSHED REPORTING Two Products:  Subwatershed Reports (6) and Catchment Reports (66)

Page 5 of 225

SUBWATERSHED REPORTING Draws From:  RVCA Monitoring Programs • Surface Water Quality Baseline/Watershed Watch • Macro-Stream/Benthic Invertebrate • Hydrometric  RVCA Land Cover Classification  RVCA Staff Input • Conservation Lands, Planning and Regulations, Stewardship, Watershed Science  Municipal Input  Agency Input Page 6 of 225

 Community/Landowner Input

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT What It Contains:  Rideau Lakes State of the Environment Indicators * • Forest Cover • Wetland Cover • Shorelines • Water Quality  Rideau Lakes Water Level Management  Actions to Create Healthier Rideau Lakes

Page 7 of 225

Note their relevance to RVCA’s stated goal of “clean water, healthy shorelines and sustainable land use.”

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Forest Cover – Highlights

 44% of the Rideau Lakes subwatershed is forested  Has changed by one percent over a six year period (from 194 to 198 km2)

Page 8 of 225

Forest Cover by Catchment Lower Rideau Lake 24% Westport Sand Lake 30% Big Rideau Lake-Portland 38% Upper Rideau Lake 40% Big Rideau Lake-Rideau Ferry 41% Wolfe Lake 55% Black Lake 56% Black Creek 61%

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Forest Cover – South Frontenac

 54% of South Frontenac Township is covered in forest within the Rideau Lakes subwatershed

Forest Cover by Catchment Westport Sand Lake 30% Wolfe Lake 55%

Page 9 of 225

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Wetland Cover – Highlights

 Wetlands occupy 16% of the Rideau Lakes subwatershed

Page 10 of 225

Wetland Cover by Catchment Upper Rideau Lake 7% Westport Sand Lake 7% Wolfe Lake 13% Big Rideau Lake-Portland 15% Big Rideau Lake-Rideau Ferry 15% Black Lake 24% Lower Rideau Lake 26% Black Creek 27%

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Wetland Cover – South Frontenac

 Wetlands cover 12% of South Frontenac Township within the Rideau Lakes subwatershed

Wetland Cover by Catchment Westport Sand Lake 7% Wolfe Lake 13%

Page 11 of 225

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Shoreline Cover – Highlights

 Natural shoreline cover (along lakes and streams) averages 85 percent across the Rideau Lakes subwatershed

Page 12 of 225

Shoreline Cover by Catchment Lower Rideau Lake 68% Westport Sand Lake 75% Upper Rideau Lake 76% Big Rideau-Rideau Ferry 80% Big Rideau-Portland 84% Black Lake 90% Wolfe Lake 90% Black Creek 95%

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Shoreline Cover – South Frontenac

Page 13 of 225

Shoreline Cover by Lake Bass Lake 31% Upper Rideau Lake 58% Westport Sand Lake 59% Black Lake 61% Lower Rideau Lake 68% Adam Lake 71% Big Rideau Lake 71% Burridge Lake 72% Wolfe Lake 82% Fermoy Lake 93% 96% Green Lake Long Pond Lake 96% Butterill Lake 99% Rock Lake 100% Judy Pond 100% Little Wolfe Lake 100%

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Water Quality – Highlights Lakes  One lake has a “Good” water quality rating (Round)  Eight lakes have a “Fair” water quality rating (Big Rideau, Black, Burridge, Fermoy, Green, Spectacle, Tommy, Wolfe)  Ten lakes have a “Poor” water quality rating (Adam, Bass, Butterill, Hoggs Bay, Long Lake, Long Pond, Loon, Upper Rideau, Westport Sand)  Lower Rideau is “Very Poor” Streams Page 14 of 225

 Adrains Creek and Sheldon Creek have a “Poor” water quality that is unchanged from 2002 to 2013  Black Creek is “Fair”

RIDEAU LAKES SUBWATERSHED REPORT Water Quality – South Frontenac  Burridge, Fermoy, Green and Wolfe Lake rating is “Fair”

Due to a few nutrient exceedances (of TP and TKN) in these lakes along with pH results that occasionally do not meet PWQO objectives (a feature observed throughout the subwatershed where pH values tend to be more alkaline)

Page 15 of 225

 Butterill and Long Pond Lake rating is “Poor”

Due to instances of higher nutrient concentrations, pH values that do not meet PWQO objectives and periods of limited oxygen availability, which are attributable to a lake’s basin character (i.e., shallowness), extensive organic, nutrient rich soils and natural aging (this can hasten aquatic plant growth, including algal blooms)

WATERSHED REPORTING Users Include: Municipalities, Developers, RVCA, NGOs, Communities, Lake Assns., Property Owners:

Reports Provide:  Up-to-date scientific information about watershed conditions  Information about site specific environmental constraints  Informs planning, development and land management decisions  Provides input into Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, other policies  Improves local knowledge and helps motivate local action  Helps gauge effectiveness of current policies and practices  Will continue to evolve to meet the needs of many users

Page 16 of 225

 Targets programs and actions where they are needed most

WATERSHED REPORTING Actions Items – Residents, Businesses, Community Groups & Lake Associations:  Comply with development setbacks  Maintain healthy vegetated shoreline buffers  Plant trees on retired land  Undertake projects to protect water quality (livestock restriction)  Protect and enhance wetlands and fish & wildlife habitat  Ensure septic systems are functioning properly  Remove and prevent invasive species  Support “clean marinas” and respect “watch your wake” areas Page 17 of 225

 Join lake associations, develop Lake Management Plans

WATERSHED REPORTING Actions Items – RVCA:  Review current monitoring program  Target actions and programs where they are needed  Seek opportunities to acquire ecologically valuable lands  Continue providing planning advice & administering regulation  Produce regulation limit mapping around additional lakes Actions Items – RVCA & Municipalities:  Continue septic re-inspection programs  Support sustainable stormwater management practices  Monitor implementation of conditions of regulatory approvals

 Support lake planning, partnerships and project collaboration

Page 18 of 225

 Implement planning & development policies in a consistent manner across the watershed to achieve environmental gains

THANK YOU

Page 19 of 225

Page 20 of 225

Public Community Meeting Summary Report

PREPARED BY

Page 21 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Report

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report H348184-0000-07-124-0004

2015-06-18

Client Review

K. Vukovics

S. Male

DATE

REV.

STATUS

PREPARED BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

Discipline Lead

Functional Manager

H348184-0000-07-124-0004, Rev. 0,

Page 22 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting ……….. 2
Community Meeting Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 3.1 3.2

Materials Presented during the Community Meeting………………………………………………………….. 3 Questions, Concerns and Project Response …………………………………………………………………….. 4

Summary and Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 List of Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Comment and QuestionsSubmitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Table 3-1: Summary of Comments and Questions Submitted During the Community Meeting …….. 4 List of Appendices Appendix A

Presentation

Appendix B

Appendix C

Display Boards

Appendix D

Comment Form

Page 23 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Introduction The Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) is a competitive process for procuring large renewable energy projects (greater than 500 kW). The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO; formerly the Ontario Power Authority) has designated SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of SunEdison as a Qualified Applicant under the LRP process based on the ability to meet a set of mandatory requirements focused on past development experience and financial capability. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, or an affiliate thereof (hereinafter jointly referred to as SunEdison Canadian Construction LP) is now eligible to submit a proposal under the Request for Proposals (LRP I RFP) stage as the Registered Proponent. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is proposing to develop an up to 50 MW (AC) groundmount solar project, known as the Wallace Solar Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). The Project will be located on private property on Part Lots 5 and 6, Concession 6, in the Township of South Frontenac. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP has met with representatives of the Township of South Frontenac on a number of occasions, including on 

February 23, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer



April 14, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer and Planner, and at the Committee of the Whole



April 28, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer, and at the Committee of the Whole



June 3, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer



June 9, 2015 at the Committee of the Whole.

A community meeting was held to discuss the Project with members of the public, as per Section 3.2.5(c) of the LRP Request for Proposal (LRP I RFP), on Wednesday June 17, 2015 at the Harrowsmith Public School, 4121 Colebrook Road, Harrowsmith, Ontario. The first hour of the community meeting was an open house format with poster board displays available for review, while during the second hour a town hall meeting was held with a presentation from SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, followed by a question and answer period. A copy of the presentation material is attached as Appendix A. Conversations regarding specific questions or concerns, questions posed during the town hall portion of the meeting, as well as responses provided by Project representatives were documented during the meeting. This meeting summary report has been prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5.(c)(ix)(1) of the LRP I RFP.

Page 24 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting As per Section 3.2.5(d) a notice of community meeting was 

published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on June 1, 2015 and the Frontenac News on May 28, June 4, and June 11, 2015 (beyond the required 2 postings in the LRP process)



posted to the Project website: www.sunedison.ca/wallace



distributed to neighbouring landowners abutting and within 300 m of the boundary of the Project site (beyond the required 120 m in the LRP process)



distributed to every First Nation and Métis community that may be affected by or otherwise interested in the Project



distributed to the Township of South Frontenac Chief Administrative Officer, along with elected officials and other representatives (beyond the required notification of the Clerk in the LRP process)



distributed to the Director, Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch, MOECC;



distributed to the secretary-treasurer of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority.

Notification was also provided via signage placed at the Project site and on the nearby major thoroughfare, which is not required in the LRP process. A summary of comments and questions submitted in response to the notice of community meeting is provided in Table 2-1 along with the Project response. Table 2-1: Summary of Comment and QuestionsSubmitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting Comment/Question

Response

Will existing trees located along the fence lines be maintained on the solar farm property?

Design of the solar project remains in a conceptual stage at present, and as a result, no determinations have been made with respect to tree removal requirements along the fence lines. However, in general, any trees located on the fence line between the two properties (i.e. shared by both landowners) would not be removed without landowner permission. Trees on the project side of the property may be removed pending final designs, however SunEdison would welcome the opportunity to review the trees along the fence line with property owners to discuss areas where tree removal may be required, and what visual buffering can be installed to replace the removed trees.

What will be the minimum setback from the property lines for the new panel and support installations?

There are no required setbacks from property lines for equipment associated with the solar project. SunEdison is committed to working with our neighbours to develop the project in consideration of potential concerns, requirements and setbacks from property lines.

Can you please confirm the

A stormwater management plan that addresses stormwater

Page 25 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Comment/Question

Response

stormwater management plan for the solar development will accommodate the pre-existing stormwater drainage conditions?

management during both the constructions and operations phases of the project will be prepared during the Renewable Energy Approval process for the project. This plan would assess the movement of stormwater around the site at present, and design the stormwater management system to maintain no significant change in stormwater released from the site.

Community Meeting Summary The community meeting took place on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. A total of one hundred and forty-one (141) people signed in at the public meeting. A sample copy of the sign in sheet (completed sign-in sheets have not been included to protect the privacy of attendees) is provided in Appendix B. The meeting was structured in two parts with an Open House followed by presentation and Question and Answer period. The meeting was facilitated by an independent facilitator. At the beginning of the meeting, South Frontenac’s CAO provided an overview of the Council process for reviewing the proposal and timing for Committee and Council meetings. He indicated that he would be available throughout the evening to take names of individuals who may want to make a deputation on June 23, 2015. The following Sections provide the following:

3.1



copies of all materials presented during the community meeting



summaries of all comments and questions submitted, and responses.

Materials Presented during the Community Meeting The material presented at the community meeting included display boards and hard copy materials providing information about the Project including information to satisfy each of the requirements outlined in Section 3.2.5(c) of the LRP | RFP. Hard copy materials on hand also included the following: 

printed copies of the display boards available for attendees to retain as desired (Included as Appendix C)



Site Considerations Information (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.6(b) of the LRP I RFP)



Community Engagement Plan (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5(a) of the LRP I RFP)



IESO’s Prescribed Template – Notice of Public Community Meeting.

Page 26 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

3.2

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Questions, Concerns and Project Response A Comment Form was available at the community meeting for attendees to provide comments or questions regarding the proposed Project to SunEdison Canadian Construction LP representatives. A total of 7 Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to the Wallace Solar Project, while 17 Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to all projects in South Frontenac. A sample Comment Form is provided in Appendix D. A summary of comments and questions submitted via the Comment Forms, via discussions between attendees and Project representatives during the meeting and submitted during the question and answer session are provided in Table 2-1 along with the Project response.

Table 3-1: Summary of Comments and Questions Submitted During the Community Meeting Comment

Response

“Property value will decrease as a result of increased traffic and eyesore” “I like the notion of photovoltaic energy production but I dislike the inherent issues of property value diminution” “Compensation for property value loss” Requesting a meeting “to discuss the implications that a solar farm will have on the value of my newly built home.” “How will this affect property value” “These projects will lower property values in the area” “Have studies been done to determine how much my property value will decline?” “I am concerned about my pre/post property value, how is that mitigated?” “These projects will irrevocably change the character and charm of the areas they are situated in” “Ensure perimeter fences facing roads are not visible from the road i.e. ensure that trees are installed as a visual barrier and they are maintained.” “Proximity to houses is of concern. Many have purchased to live in the area for the country setting, not to live next to industrial sprawl.” I am concerned about real estate loss. What if I want to sell my property in the next few years. Have you talked to any real estate agents to find out how this will affect my selling price. There are also people here tonight who just got building permits for new homes in this area. They didn’t know that this proposal was possible.

SunEdison is committed to working with our neighbours to ensure that their concerns are understood and mitigated. Landscape architects provide advice on maintaining the look and feel of the surrounding area and will incorporate native species in the buffering design. Abutting neighbours and/or those whose viewsheds are affected will be consulted and concerns will be addressed Noise studies are also completed to meet regulated noise limits There is no evidence of decreasing property values around operating solar facilities. With respect of visual buffer maintenance, SunEdison will be maintaining the visual buffer throughout the life of the project, and is willing to include that clause as a condition of the agreement within the municipality. As a result, were the visual buffer not to be maintained, SunEdison would be in breach of contract, which is a significant issue for publically traded companies.

Loss of water in wells with respect to blasting.

Loss of water in neighbouring wells is not

Page 27 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

“Potential water problems” “Test water wells of properties around the 3 areas and along the connection lines before construction starts and after completion to ensure there have been no detrimental effects.” “Great potential for aquifer contamination. We are all on wells!!!” “How will water wells be ensured for maintained quality and quantity?” How many holes will you be drilling? These could be going down sixteen feet or more. The number of holes could affect our wells.

anticipated as a result of the project. A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented in order to ensure that baseline levels in the area are understood, and should an impact be identified, SunEdison will work with the well owner to resolve the problem, and provide an alternative water source in the interim.

“Loss of trees” “What about the ecosystem” “Municipal Vision Statement and Goals Official Plan – Preserve and enhance South Frontenac Townships environmental quality. How does this farm (solar) lend itself to the official plan?” “What happens to the wildlife that will be misplaced” “I strongly dispute the assessment that the wetlands and watershed are not important environmental areas. I live across from the wetlands, have planted 50 trees on my land, and have noticed a tremendous resurgence in wildlife. There are cranes living in the waterway.” “Displacement of animals potentially harmful to residents and farms” “There are numerous endangered species areas that are encroached and wildlife areas” “Wildlife and habitat destruction cannot be avoided and setbacks from wetlands insufficient”

“Radiation as a result of panels long term health issues that are currently unknown.” “Are there dangers to health” “I’m tremendously worried about EMF” “Major concern – electromagnetic radiation from 44 kV transmission lines.” “I will be living 60 ft away from 44 kV and the electric fields from these high voltage lines. Not a time weighted average of walking near one going down a path, but living beside it day and night. Electric fields are proportional to cancer rates. Measure electric field strength in my house with 7kV and then measure again at 44 kV in same place. What happens if this is higher, how to fix?”

Detailed environmental studies (wildlife habitat, wetlands, woodlands, waterbodies, species at risk) will be completed as part of the Renewable Energy Approval process. These reports will assess all potential impacts on the environment, and identify mitigation measures with respect to the predicted effect. The Project will also comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and should impacts to habitat of a threatened or endangered species be identified, a clear overall benefit to the species will be provided in compensation habitat.

There are no known health effects associated with this solar technology. Solar photovoltaic panels have been in existence for many years, and no health effects have been reported. The National Institute of Environment and Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health document, “EMF – Electrical and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power,” states “The strength of EMF from equipment within the substations, such as transformers, reactors, and capacitor banks, decrease rapidly and with increasing distance. Beyond the substation fence or wall, the EMF produced by the substation equipment is typically indistinguishable from background levels.” Health Canada brochure “It’s Your Health –

Page 28 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response Electric and Magnetic Fields at Extremely Low Frequency” states, “You do not need to take action regarding daily exposure to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies. There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposure at low levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors… Health Canada does not consider guidelines for the Canadian public necessary because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that exposure causes health problems for the public.”

“What is stray voltage and why does it only seem to be a concern to farmers? I run a kennel so should I be concerned?” “I’m tremendously worried about stray voltage” “Effects of stray voltage on livestock”

“Noise pollution” “Who would be monitoring the noise levels during construction and respecting the abutting neghbours, municipal council or SunEdison?”

Stray voltage occurs when a small current passes from grounded metal objects where low voltages occur, which can occur from on property or off property sources. Stray voltage would not be expected to impact your kennel operation, however SunEdison will work with you to ensure that your concerns are addressed. SunEdison will provide for engineering assessment of stray voltage and resolution if related to the project. Further information will be provided at a later date. SunEdison will construct the project in accordance with the local noise by-laws, which restrict hours of operation for construction equipment. Noise monitoring is not typically completed during construction. A noise study report will be prepared during the Renewable Energy Approval process to show compliance with respect to noise levels in rural areas.

Air pollution

Operating solar projects do not release air pollution, and serve to reduce air pollution overall by off-setting generation from other power sources such as natural gas plants. During construction, some localized increase in air pollution would occur from the construction vehicles, however this is localized and would not have a significant impact on local air quality.

“Water drainage from build up on cement platforms”

Cement platforms will represent a small amount of the surface area of the project. A stormwater management plan will be prepared for the project.

“What about potential contamination”

Sources of contamination would be limited to accidental spills from vehicles on site, or the inverters and transformers. Spill prevention and response plans will be prepared to ensure the potential for spills is minimized, and if they do

Page 29 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response occur, are responded to appropriately.

There are absolutely no benefits to the majority of South Frontenac residents, only costs. Much of this is in Stone Mills or other Township. We would like to know who is benefitting from this? “What financial benefit will we get?” “Municipality and OMB have encouraging development in hamlets but now we are considering a solar farm which appears to only have negative impacts adjacent to the village of Harrowsmith directly across the road from the hamlet limits.” “I see no benefit to the favor of this community.” “What financial benefit is there to South Frontenac” “I live near the proposed power lines and solar projects. What is in it for me” Why would I support these projects?” “What if you no longer exist at that time 20 years to make property as it once was?” “Restoration after the 20 years should be completed and any trees that were removed must be replanted” “Reclamation 0 in 20 years this company may not honour their contract – land unable to be used for 5-10 more years” “There must be a tremendous profit for a project to be decommissioned and still make money.” “Restoration of land after project ends huge concern” “What guarantee is there that the panels will be removed following end of useful life span. What if the company goes bankrupt? Who will clean up the mess?”

SunEdison is presently discussing the form of an agreement with the Township of South Frontenac that would provide clearly defined benefits to the Township. The agreement would consist of a financial component, which would be specified for use on community benefit projects. Ultimately, the use of the funds will be at the discretion of the local municipal leaders, however the agreement is expected to stipulate that funds be used for community benefit.

“My property abuts the Wallace project and none one has approached me to discuss this project and I do wonder why?”

A representative from SunEdison will be contacting you in the near future to discuss the proposed project further.

“Why do you want to put projects in South Frontenac? Why don’t you put the project in a less densely populated area?”

South Frontenac was selected as there was available capacity on the grid, lands with appropriate soils classifications, and willing landowners.

“Where will you make your access to the site”

Specific access locations are still being determined through the design process, however all access points would be from existing roadways.

“What about pesticide use”

SunEdison does not anticipate using any pesticides or herbicides for this project. Vegetation on the Project lands will be planted following recommendations from landscape

Page 30 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response architects, and manually maintained. Should an area of concern be identified where the use of pesticides or herbicides would be the most effective means of resolving an identified concern, their use would be limited and would be completed in respect of existing regulations and requirements

“What about power disruption for those of us abutting the sites?”

It is not expected that there would be any disruption to power supply of abutting landowners as a result of the project. The Project is isolated from the local distribution network.

“How does this help the Ontario public”

The development of the project assists in the province’s goal of providing more renewable power into the provincial grid.

“Will costs go down for hydro use?” “Because you are getting paid more than the current peak rate, will this cause my hydro bill to go up?”

SunEdison is not involved in the establishment of electricity rates.

“As the Wallace proposal appears to be a necessity for the other sites I feel that it will be pursued more aggressively even though it is adjacent to a more populated area”

The other projects can be constructed without the Wallace Solar Project being constructed.

“SunEdison had problems with subcontractors on construction contracts with contractors who went bankrupt. Some of the smaller contractors are still not paid. How will this be addressed? I spoke with someone at SunEdision on the phone and got no answers. How wil this affect the price of these projects? What have you learned from this?” “SunEdison has bad community business relations. Did not pay bills. Companies went bankrupt. Contracts not fulfilled due to this.”

Due to a major transition to new systems and processes in our accounts payable department earlier in 2015, a number of our vendors and landlords received payments which were significantly later than the original terms required. We recognize that this was completely unacceptable and over the past two months, SunEdison has worked diligently to eliminate these late payment issues so as to become current with vendor payments. We have now almost completely corrected all of the issues which resulted in these late payments. Nevertheless, we want to stress that the late payment situation was very regrettable and SunEdison will endeavor to never allow that to happen again. Typically there are multiple factors relating any bankruptcy. We are not aware of any companies that entered bankruptcy as a result of late payments by SunEdison. Particularly with regards to our past projects that are relatively close to South Frontenac, all payments were made in or around when they were due and those projects were not impacted by the accounts payable issues noted above. With regards to those projects any payments that were not made by the EPC to its subcontractors cannot be attributed to SunEdison. For over 7 years,

Page 31 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response SunEdison has been a partner to landlords, neighbouring residents and townships in Ontario. We are not perfect, but by in large we have an established rack record in Ontario of delivering on our promises and honouring commitments. SunEdison manufactures solar panels all over the world.

“Where are your solar panels and your other materials manufactured”

Most of the modules which are in use in our Ontario solar projects today were manufactured in Newmarket Ontario. Our racking systems were manufacturered in Ontario, and the inverters and transformers were also manufactured in Ontario.

“Do residents have the opportunity to review reports (arch, SAR, heritage, etc)?

All reports will be made available for public review as part of the Renewable Energy Approval process. Notifications will be issued when they are available.

“SunEdison will attempt to buy off the municipal council by offering a sufficient sum of money to get the project approved by councilors who do not represent the affected area. The wishes of the residents affected by these projects will be overridden by a multi-million dollar power company that can bury the Township Council in long expensive legal proceedings. The deck is stacked against the affected resident of the Township. SunEdison has deeper pockets and can influence the municipal and provincial governments to act against the wishes of the affected residents.”

SunEdison is working to pursue a municipal agreement with the Township of South Frontenac. The agreement will stipulate that funds provided to the Township are to be used for community benefit purposes. SunEdison is required to provide clear documentation to regulators showing what funds were provided and how they were used. SunEdison will not be undertaking legal proceedings against the Township of South Frontenac.

“There will be no enforceable controls to keep the project from riding over the residents (i.e. planted borders not maintained; expansion of the project). Please provide a clear example of what the buffer will look like around the solar fields. How will SunEdison be held accountable for maintaining the buffer?”

As the project progresses, SunEdison will complete viewshed analyses to clearly show examples of visual buffering around the solar fields. Should there be a concern with respect to the visual buffering, contact information for SunEdison will be available to raise the concern, which will be addressed to the greatest extent possible.

“There will be more sites put in an around our area. These will compound all the issues listed above.

There are no further plans for additional projects in this area. SunEdison cannot confirm plans of any other developers.

“Are you an American company?”

SunEdison is a publicly-traded company with 35 offices around the world. We trade under the symbol ‘SUNE’, and our employees and shareholders live all over the world. Our largest office is located in the United States, and our Toronto office employs over 40 full time Canadians.

Page 32 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

Why do you expect this to be successful given that the allocation for the entire Province is 140kwt and these projects amount to this?

As an experienced developer in the province of Ontario, with a long history in the solar industry, SunEdison expects to be able to provide the province with a proposal that satisfies the requirements and provides power at a very competitive price.

Why all three projects. Could you go with just the Wallace property?

All three projects are being proposed at this time. Should only the Wallace project ultimately receive a contract from the IESO, SunEdison would only develop that project.

“Are you buying the land or leasing it”

The land for these projects is being leased

“What are you getting paid by Ontario Hydro per kwh?”

SunEdison will be established the price per kwh as part of this process. The final value remains to be determined.

“What is the current peak rate per kwh?”

The Ontario electricity market is comprised mostly of generators which operate under ‘Power Purchase Agreements’ – agreements to sell power at a pre-agreed price for generating and for being available to generate at a moment’s notice. The average amount paid to generators (natural gas, nuclear, hydro-electric, bio-gas, wind, solar, and other) for each kWh generated would be the current wholesale rate for electricity in Ontario, but many of the power purchase agreements are not publicly available, so it is difficult to know at any exact time the wholesale cost of power in Ontario.

“Ontario currently has an abundance of electricity with over production we pay Quebec and NY State to take it. Why do we need additional generating capacity?

Electricity procurement initiatives are not in the control of SunEdison.

“Given that the power lines you want to hook into already exist, why not put solar panels beneath them?”

SunEdison does not have access to the lands in the transmission line corridors.

“Large scale grounding effect problems on high capacity AC transmission” “How will grounding be handled?”

SunEdison and their engineers will ensure the project understands all concerns with respect to working in this area.

SunE Unity Solar Project: Unity Rd. between Sydenham Rd and Corduk Rd. SunE Hwy 2 S Solar Project: South side of Highway 2 east of Fairbanks St. “Provide information and locations of completed projects in this area so we can see what they look SunE Odessa Solar Project: North side of like” Highway 2 east of County Rd. 4. SunE Newboro 4 Solar Project: County Rd. 42 east of Westport, between Hutchings Rd and Noonan Rd. S.

Participants in the LRP have the opportunity

What percentage of the bid price does community to obtain up to 100 points for each LRP input represent?

proposal submission pursuant to certain H348184-0000-07-124-0004, Rev. 0, Page 10 Ver: 04.02

Page 33 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

established criteria. Of the 100 total available points, 80 points have been allocated to activities related to community engagement. In order to achieve the 80 points the following is required: (i) obtaining a municipal council support resolution; (ii) establishing a municipal benefit agreement with the subject municipality; and (iii) obtaining the requisite percentage of abutting landowner support for the project. There is a direct correlation between final bid price and points; in that there is a 8% perceived bid price reduction for every 20 points that are achieved. Accordingly, obtaining the maximum amount of community engagement points effectively correlates to a 32% perceived bid price reduction. For example, if project A achieved no community engagement points and project B obtained 80 community engagement points and both projects bid into the LRP at a rate of $0.20 kw/h, the effective bid price for each project as perceived by IESO in its assessment for awarding an LRP contract would amount to $0.20 kw/h with respect to project A and $0.136 kw/h with respect to project B. In this regard, obtaining community engagement points can provide a significant competitive advantage and is crucial to success in the LRP process.

How many acres are being take out of farm production?

Every 1MW of electricity generation capacity uses approximately 5 acres. Note that we are very strictly limited to constructing in areas which have limited agricultural capacity. 1MW (5 acres) is enough clean electricity to power approximately 200 average Canadian homes.

What can change with the project once it is submitted to the IESO? Will the public be able to review the changes?

All changes to the Project design following the submission of the project to the IESO will be communicated to the public through the Renewable Energy Approval process.

Who will pay for road damages?

Through a road usage agreement with the municipality, SunEdison will cover the costs of road damage.

“I am 100% in favour of this.” We have Hydro power and we need sustainable

Comment noted.

Page 34 of 225

SunEdison Canada Wallace Solar Project H348184

Wallace Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

renewable energy projects for our children and grandchildren. This looks good to me. “I believe that renewable energy should be developed but in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Local contractors should be a must for all aspects and if the land can truly be fully remediated upon decommissioning, then I’m all for it. We need to move away from conventional energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear). Unfortunately, I would have to side with those who directly abut the development areas who are the most directly affected in terms of land enjoyment and property value.

Comment noted.

Not pleased with this project “Build your solar farm somewhere else” “If I wanted to see glass and steel from my front window I would have lived in a city” “I am completely against this project.” “I am not in favour of these projects” “I should have stayed home and watched a Disney movie – presentation a sham without answers to many practical questions. Scientific literature also suggests that the percentage of power requirements that windmills and solar panels can supply is a small percentage of what’s needed – Comments noted. almost useless. A bad political decision by McGuinty and we are left paying the bill at an inflated rate. Once again a screwed taxpayer! Against project.” “Urban sprawl is of concern with the projects. Solar panels should be incorporated on roofs and buildings not infringing on rural and vacant lands and agriculture” “I dislike building power plants in residential areas. Better areas include industrial property, rooftops, buildings, parking lots, basically anywhere but where you’re currently proposing”

Summary and Conclusion A Public Community Meeting was held to discuss the Project with members of the public, as per Section 3.2.5(c) of the LRP Request for Proposal (LRP I RFP), on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 with representatives from SunEdison Canadian Construction LP and Hatch Ltd. available to discuss the Project. There were a total of 141 individuals who signed in at the community meeting. SunEdison is working to actively answer all the questions and comments that have been raised, and will continue to engage with the community on this project throughout the development process. H348184-0000-07-124-0004, Rev. 0, Page 12 Ver: 04.02

Page 35 of 225

Public Community Meeting Summary Report

PREPARED BY

Page 36 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Report

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report H348184

2015-06-18

Final

K. Vukovics

S. Male

DATE

REV.

STATUS

PREPARED BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

Discipline Lead

Functional Manager

H348184, Rev. 0,

Page 37 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting ……….. 2
Community Meeting Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 3.1 3.2

Materials Presented during the Community Meeting………………………………………………………….. 4 Questions, Concerns and Project Response …………………………………………………………………….. 5

Summary and Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 List of Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Comment and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Table 3-1: Summary of Comments and Questions Submitted During the Community Meeting …….. 5 List of Appendices Appendix A

Presentation

Appendix B

Appendix C

Display Boards

Appendix D

Comment Form

Page 38 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Introduction The Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) is a competitive process for procuring large renewable energy projects (greater than 500 kW). The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO; formerly the Ontario Power Authority) has designated SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of SunEdison as a Qualified Applicant under the LRP process based on the ability to meet a set of mandatory requirements focused on past development experience and financial capability. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, or an affiliate thereof (hereinafter jointly referred to as SunEdison Canadian Construction LP) is now eligible to submit a proposal under the Request for Proposals (LRP I RFP) stage as the Registered Proponent. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is proposing to develop an up to 50 MW (AC) groundmount solar project, known as the Groenewegen Solar Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). The Project will be located on Part Lots 7, 8 and 9, Concession 1 Portland and part lots 7 and 8, Concession 3 Portland, in the Township of South Frontenac. A portion of the Project will be also be located east and west of Florida Road, south of Henderson Drive, and northwest of the intersection of Quinn Road West and Highway 38. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP has met with representatives of the Township of South Frontenac on a number of occasions, including on 

February 23, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer



April 14, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer and Planner, and at the Committee of the Whole



April 28, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer, and at the Committee of the Whole



June 3, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer



June 9, 2015 at the Committee of the Whole.

Page 39 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

This meeting summary report has been prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5.(c)(ix)(1) of the LRP I RFP.

Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting As per Section 3.2.5(d) a notice of community meeting was 

published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on June 1, 2015 and the Frontenac News on May 28, June 4, and June 11, 2015 (beyond the required 2 postings in the LRP process)



posted to the Project website: www.sunedison.ca/groenewegen



distributed to neighbouring landowners abutting and within 300 m of the boundary of the Project site (beyond the required 120 m in the LRP process);



distributed to every First Nation and Métis community that may be affected by or otherwise interested in the Project



distributed to the Township of South Frontenac Chief Administrative Officer, along with elected officials and other representatives (beyond the required notification of the Clerk in the LRP process)



distributed to the Director, Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch, MOECC



distributed to the secretary-treasurer of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority.

Notification was also provided via signage placed at the Project site and on the nearby major thoroughfare, which is not required in the LRP process. A summary of comments and questions submitted in response to the notice of community meeting is provided in Table 2-1 along with the Project response. Table 2-1: Summary of Comment and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting Comment/Question

Response

Visual impact

SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is committed to working with neighbouring landowners to consider neighbouring vantage points to the extent possible. Visual buffers will be designed in consultation with the neighbouring landowners and landscape architects, and installed where appropriate.

What impact will the Project have on property values?

SunEdison Canadian Construction LP will work with neighbouring landowners to minimize any potential negative effects on adjacent land values. This includes compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (i.e. satisfaction of Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC’s) Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process requirements), and the installation of visual screening/buffers, where feasible.

Page 40 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Comment/Question

Response

What measures will be in place for security during construction and operation?

Video cameras will be installed and monitored remotely. Cameras will be pointed at the facility and will be installed in consideration of neighbouring landowners. SunEdison will have a service and operations team that will be dispatched immediately if an incident occurs.

Will groundwater monitoring be undertaken?

Groundwater monitoring will be undertaken pre- and post- construction in accordance with the requirements of the MOECC’s REA. This may consist of on-site installed monitoring wells, or sampling of wells of nearby landowners.

How will the Site be accessed?

The site will be accessed from existing access roads. SunEdison will obtain any necessary municipal permits, such as road entrance permits, from the Municipality and will consider any concerns or recommendations submitted by neighbouring landowners. There is no plan to build roads on any unopened road allowances.

What is the impact to health and safety?

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health’s Electrical and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power, the strength of the EMF from equipment with substations, including transformers decreases rapidly across with increasing distance, and is typically indistinguishable from background levels beyond a substation fence or wall. In addition, Health Canada has produced a brochure titled It’s your Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields at Extremely Low Frequencies stating the there is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by daily exposures to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors. Health Canada does not consider guidelines for the Canadian public necessary based on the absence of scientific evidence strong enough to conclude that exposures cause health problems for the public. SunEdison will also work with the local fire department to ensure that staff are properly trained to manage any emergency situations on the Project location. The sites will be remotely monitored, and should any emergencies be detected, members of SunEdison’s operations team will be immediately dispatched. 24 hour contact information will be posted at the facility location should an emergency situation be identified.

Protection of local wildlife

Should the Project proceed into the REA process, additional site investigations will be completed in order to identify features of the terrestrial and aquatic environment from the area. Other additional permits, such as an Endangered Species Act approval from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) or Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse approval from the local Conservation Authority, may also be needed.

Increase in the size SunEdison currently has no plan to expand the facility beyond the proposed of the solar facility from what is currently capacity. proposed. Stray voltage

If the project proceeds SunEdison would take stray voltage measurements before and over the course of construction and after the project went into service. Should the project would have any impact at all on stray voltage in

Page 41 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Comment/Question

Response the extremely unlikely event it did SunEdison would mitigate the impact with corrective measures.

Regarding the proposed Connection Line through Harrowsmith, how many tree will be removed?

No Connection Line design is currently proposed. Tentative routes have been proposed and are the subject of the community engagement efforts. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is currently seeking feedback and input. The Connection Line will likely be constructed by Hydro One, and SunEdison Canadian Construction LP will work with Hydro One in an effort to ensure local landowner concerns are well understood.

Community Meeting Summary The community meeting took place on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. A total of 141 people signed in at the public meeting. A sample copy of the sign in sheet (completed sign-in sheets have not been included to protect the privacy of attendees) is provided in Appendix B. The meeting was structured in two parts with an Open House followed by presentation and Question and Answer period. The meeting was facilitated by an independent facilitator. At the beginning of the meeting, South Frontenac’s CAO provided an overview of the Council process for reviewing the proposal and timing for Committee and Council meetings. He indicated that he would be available throughout the evening to take names of individuals who may want to make a deputation on June 23, 2015. The following Sections provide the following:

3.1



copies of all materials presented during the community meeting



summaries of all comments and questions submitted, and responses.

printed copies of the display boards available for attendees to retain as desired (Included as Appendix C)



Site Considerations Information (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.6(b) of the LRP I RFP)



Community Engagement Plan (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5(a) of the LRP I RFP)



IESO’s Prescribed Template – Notice of Public Community Meeting. H348184, Rev. 0, Page 4 Ver: 04.02

Page 42 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

3.2

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Questions, Concerns and Project Response A Comment Form was available at the community meeting for attendees to provide comments or questions regarding the proposed Project to SunEdison Canadian Construction LP representatives. A total of four Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to the Wallace Solar Project, while 17 Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to all projects in South Frontenac. A sample Comment Form is provided in Appendix D. A summary of comments and questions submitted via the Comment Forms, via discussions between attendees and Project representatives during the meeting and submitted during the question and answer session are provided in Table 3-1 along with the Project response. Table 3-1: Summary of Comments and Questions Submitted During the Community Meeting Comment

Response

We are on a farm around the Groenewegen project. The land in and around this area is mainly “bedrock”, limestone when the put in and add poles, what happens with the stray voltage running through the bedrock. We have many cattle that pasture on some of this land. What are you going to do to prevent our cattle from being affected with this stray voltage. “there is a concern about potential electric leakage and how that would affect the citizens and the animals in the vicinity” “I’m tremendously worried about stray voltage” “Effects of stray voltage on livestock”

Stray voltage occurs when a small current passes from grounded metal objects where low voltages occur, which can occur from on property or off property sources. SunEdison will provide for engineering assessment of stray voltage and resolution if related to the project. Further information will be provided at a later date.

Address the noise and disruption and destruction of lives and animals and nature. What is the cost of that in the long run? The environmental cost of this construction. The local wildlife will be affected, trees will be cut down, the amount of energy that it costs to manufacture these panels is greater than the amount of energy that will be produced. How is this best for the environment? “What happens to the wildlife that will be misplaced” “I strongly dispute the assessment that the wetlands and watershed are not important environmental areas. I live across from the wetlands, have planted 50 trees on my land, and have noticed a tremendous resurgence in wildlife. There are cranes living in the waterway.” “Displacement of animals potentially harmful to residents and farms” “There are numerous endangered species areas that are encroached and wildlife areas” “Wildlife and habitat destruction cannot be

Page 43 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

avoided and setbacks from wetlands insufficient” My major concern was that SunEdison did not do their homework on the connection line requirements upgrading the lines from 7kV to 45kV will require significant changes in setback requirements. The set back requirements will likely result in significant tree removal along the transmission line path. Request that SunEdison investigate all regulations around the upgrade of the transmission lines and determine whether it may be better to design a new transmission path rather than using existing corridors. From my understanding my property will lose approx 25 mature trees that provide shade and privacy from the road. I have also recently planted bunches of fruit trees that are finally becoming mature and bearing fruit that could be affected by the set back or may be affected by the energized magnetic field generated by the higher voltage line. “Will your hydro poles be the same as those used on the Unity Road projects?” “How will transmission lines affect setbacks from lines in terms of existing buildings and existing trees.” “I will not lose my 12 ft mature groomed trees to this project” “I have experience as a lineman working on Hydro lines and can tell you that you will have to cut trees back all along the connection lines. You will have to do major cutting with loss of tree cover. You will be required to do so even if you think that you can do it differently”

There are potential health risks, which could exasperate existing health conditions. We are concerned that the cadmium that exists in the solar panels could leak into our water sources, there is significant electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from the transmitters. “I’m tremendously worried about EMF” “Major concern – electromagnetic radiation from 44 kV transmission lines.” “I will be living 60 ft away from 44 kV and the electric fields from these high voltage lines. Not a time weighted average of walking near one going down a path, but living beside it day and night. Electric fields are proportional to cancer rates. Measure electric field strength in my house with 7kV and then measure again at 44 kV in same place. What happens if this is higher, how to fix?”

Further designs of the connection line would be required in order to determine the poles that will be used for these projects, and any requirements for tree removal. SunEdison understands the concerns with respect to tree removal from municipal right of ways, and will work with abutting landowners to the greatest extent possible. There would be no implication with respect to existing buildings.

There are no known health effects associated with this solar technology. Solar photovoltaic panels have been in existence for many years, and no health effects have been reported. This project is proposed to be constructed of poly crystalline photovoltaic panels, and not using thin film panels which contain cadmium. The National Institute of Environment and Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health document, “EMF – Electrical and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power,” states “The strength of EMF from equipment within the substations, such as transformers, reactors, and capacitor banks, decrease rapidly and with increasing distance. Beyond the substation fence or wall, the EMF produced by the substation equipment is typically indistinguishable from

Page 44 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response background levels.” Health Canada brochure “It’s Your Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields at Extremely Low Frequency” states, “You do not need to take action regarding daily exposure to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies. There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposure at low levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors… Health Canada does not consider guidelines for the Canadian public necessary because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that exposure causes health problems for the public.”

Building such an eyesore so close to our property is sure to decrease the property value of our home. “These projects will lower property values in the area” “Have studies been done to determine how much my property value will decline?” “I am concerned about my pre/post property value, how is that mitigated?” “These projects will irrevocably change the character and charm of the areas they are situated in” “Ensure perimeter fences facing roads are not visible from the road i.e. ensure that trees are installed as a visual barrier and they are maintained.” “Proximity to houses is of concern. Many have purchased to live in the area for the country setting, not to live next to industrial sprawl.” I am concerned about real estate loss. What if I want to sell my property in the next few years. Have you talked to any real estate agents to find out how this will affect my selling price. There are also people here tonight who just got building permits for new homes in this area. They didn’t know that this proposal was possible.

SunEdison is committed to working with our neighbours to ensure that their concerns are understood and mitigated. Landscape architects provide advice on maintaining the look and feel of the surrounding area and will incorporate native species in the buffering design. Abutting neighbours and/or those whose viewsheds are affected will be consulted and concerns will be addressed Noise studies are also completed to meet regulated noise limits. There is no evidence of decreasing property values around operating solar facilities. With respect of visual buffer maintenance, SunEdison will be maintaining the visual buffer throughout the life of the project, and is willing to include that clause as a condition of the agreement within the municipality. As a result, were the visual buffer not to be maintained, SunEdison would be in breach of contract, which is a significant issue for publically traded companies.

The increased traffic, dirt, dust, noise and debris from the machines involved in the construction of the solar panel farm. We moved into the country to get away from all of this.

SunEdison will endeavour to minimize all disturbances associate with construction of the project. This will include road watering as required to minimize dust, and ensuring the construction contractor maintains a site free of fugitive debris.

There are absolutely no benefits to the majority of SunEdison is presently discussing the form of an South Frontenac residents, only costs. Much of agreement with the Township of South Frontenac this is in Stone Mills or other Township. We would that would provide clearly defined benefits to the

Page 45 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

like to know who is benefitting from this? “I see no benefit to the favor of this community.” “What financial benefit is there to South Frontenac”? “I live near the proposed power lines and solar projects. What is in it for me” Why would I support these projects?”

Township. The agreement would consist of a financial component, which would be specified for use on community benefit projects. Ultimately, the use of the funds will be at the discretion of the local municipal leaders, however the agreement is expected to stipulate that funds be used for community benefit.

Who gets the energy that is produced?

The energy would be provided to the transmission network, and ultimately distributed to the distribution network.

“Why are they building so close to residents? Why not build them up in the far north where the population is fewer?” “Why do you want to put projects in South Frontenac? Why don’t you put the project in a less densely populated area?”

South Frontenac was selected as there was available capacity on the grid, lands with appropriate soils classifications, and willing landowners.

“What about pesticide use”?

SunEdison does not anticipate using any pesticides or herbicides for this project. Vegetation on the Project lands will be planted following recommendations from landscape architects, and manually maintained. Should an area of concern be identified where the use of pesticides or herbicides would be the most effective means of resolving an identified concern, their use would be limited and would be completed in respect of existing regulations and requirements.

“Reclamation 0 in 20 years this company may not honour their contract – land unable to be used for 5-10 more years” “There must be a tremendous profit for a project to be decommissioned and still make money.” “Restoration of land after project ends huge concern” “What guarantee is there that the panels will be removed following end of useful life span. What if the company goes bankrupt? Who will clean up the mess?” “SunEdison had problems with subcontractors on construction contracts with contractors who went bankrupt. Some of the smaller contractors are still not paid. How will this be addressed? I spoke with someone at SunEdision on the phone and got no answers. How wil this affect the price of these projects? What have you learned from this?” SunEdison has bad community business

SunEdison is committed to the full operational life of the project and will be required to decommission the project as a condition of the Renewable Energy Approval permit. Residual value of the equipment on site will provide sufficient financial incentive for the decommissioning of the site in the unlikely event that SunEdison no longer exists. Planting of trees will certainly be considered in the decommissioning plan, however as SunEdison does not own the project lands discussions will need to be held with the individual landowners at that time. Due to a major transition to new systems and processes in our accounts payable department earlier in 2015, a number of our vendors and landlords received payments which were significantly later than the original terms required. We recognize that this was completely unacceptable and over the past two months, SunEdison has worked diligently to eliminate these late payment issues so as to become

Page 46 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

relations. Did not pay bills. Companies went bankrupt. Contracts not fulfilled due to this.”

Response current with vendor payments. We have now almost completely corrected all of the issues which resulted in these late payments. Nevertheless, we want to stress that the late payment situation was very regrettable and SunEdison will endeavor to never allow that to happen again. Typically there are multiple factors relating any bankruptcy. We are not aware of any companies that entered bankruptcy as a result of late payments by SunEdison. Particularly with regards to our past projects that are relatively close to South Frontenac, all payments were made in or around when they were due and those projects were not impacted by the accounts payable issues noted above. With regards to those projects any payments that were not made by the EPC to its subcontractors cannot be attributed to SunEdison. For over 7 years, SunEdison has been a partner to landlords, neighbouring residents and townships in Ontario. We are not perfect, but by in large we have an established rack record in Ontario of delivering on our promises and honouring commitments.

“Potential water problems” “Test water wells of properties around the 3 areas and along the connection lines before construction starts and after completion to ensure there have been no detrimental effects.” How many holes will you be drilling? These could be going down sixteen feet or more. The number of holes could affect our wells. “Great potential for aquifer contamination. We are all on wells!!!” “How will water wells be ensured for maintained quality and quantity?”

Impacts to water in neighbouring wells is not anticipated as a result of the project. A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented in order to ensure that baseline levels in the area are understood, and should an impact be identified, SunEdison will work with the well owner to resolve the problem, and provide an alternative water source in the interim.

SunEdison manufactures solar panels all over the world. “Where are your solar panels and your other materials manufactured”

“I am 100% in favour of this.” We have Hydro power and we need sustainable renewable energy projects for our children and grandchildren. This looks good to me.

Comment noted.

“Do residents have the opportunity to review

All reports will be made available for public review

Page 47 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

reports (arch, SAR, heritage, etc)?

as part of the Renewable Energy Approval process. Notifications will be issued when they are available.

“There will be more sites put in an around our area. These will compound all the issues listed above.

There are no further plans for additional projects in this area. SunEdison cannot confirm plans of any other developers.

“Are you an American company?”

“Are you buying the land or leasing it”

The land for these projects is being leased

“What are you getting paid by Ontario Hydro per kwh?”

SunEdison will be established the price per kwh as part of this process. The final value remains to be determined.

“What is the current peak rate per kwh?”

Page 48 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

“Because you are getting paid more than the current peak rate, will this cause my hydro bill to go up?” Will my Hydro rates go down?

SunEdison is not involved in the establishment of electricity rates.

“Why are you going to run your lines through the small town of Harrowsmith?” There will be a big impact to the Village. Where else in Ontario have there been these kinds of towers and lines put through a village.

The connection line routes were selected to minimize the length of connection line required. SunEdison is not specifically aware of other villages where these lines have been run, but will make these locations known as we identify them.

“Ontario currently has an abundance of electricity with over production we pay Quebec and NY State to take it. Why do we need additional generating capacity?

Electricity procurement initiatives are not in the control of SunEdison.

“Given that the power lines you want to hook into already exist, why not put solar panels beneath them?”

SunEdison does not have access to the lands in the transmission line corridors.

“I believe that renewable energy should be developed but in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Local contractors should be a must for all aspects and if the land can truly be fully remediated upon decommissioning, then I’m all for it. We need to move away from conventional energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear). Unfortunately, I would have to side with those who directly abut the development areas who are the most directly affected in terms of land enjoyment and property value.

Comment noted.

“Large scale grounding effect problems on high capacity AC transmission” “How will grounding be handled?”

SunEdison and their engineers will ensure the project understands all concerns with respect to working in this area.

Comment noted.

Participants in the LRP have the opportunity to What percentage of the bid price does community obtain up to 100 points for each LRP proposal submission pursuant to certain established input represent? criteria. Of the 100 total available points, 80 points have been allocated to activities related to

Page 49 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response community engagement. In order to achieve the 80 points the following is required: (i) obtaining a municipal council support resolution; (ii) establishing a municipal benefit agreement with the subject municipality; and (iii) obtaining the requisite percentage of abutting landowner support for the project. There is a direct correlation between final bid price and points; in that there is a 8% perceived bid price reduction for every 20 points that are achieved. Accordingly, obtaining the maximum amount of community engagement points effectively correlates to a 32% perceived bid price reduction. For example, if project A achieved no community engagement points and project B obtained 80 community engagement points and both projects bid into the LRP at a rate of $0.20 kw/h, the effective bid price for each project as perceived by IESO in its assessment for awarding an LRP contract would amount to $0.20 kw/h with respect to project A and $0.136 kw/h with respect to project B. In this regard, obtaining community engagement points can provide a significant competitive advantage and is crucial to success in the LRP process.

We have been farming on Class 4 – 7 Soils for seven generations. How many acres are being take out of farm production in Ontario for these kinds of energy projects?

The lands presently proposed for the project are not in active agricultural production. Lands proposed meet the requirements of the IESOs rules with respect to agricultural lands with the projects located on areas not considered to be prmie agricultural (i.e. not Class 1-3 or organic soils). Every 1MW of electricity generation capacity uses approximately 5 acres. Note that we are very strictly limited to constructing in areas which have limited agricultural capacity. 1MW (5 acres) is enough clean electricity to power approximately 200 average Canadian homes.

Why do you expect this to be successful given that the allocation for the entire Province is 140kwt and these projects amount to this?

Page 50 of 225

SunEdison Canada Groenewegen Solar Project H348184

Groenewegen Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

What can change with the project once it is submitted to the IESO? Will the public be able to review the changes?

All changes to the Project design following the submission of the project to the IESO will be communicated to the public through the Renewable Energy Approval process.

Why all three projects. Could you go with just the Wallace property?

All three projects are being proposed at this time. Should only the Wallace project ultimately receive a contract from the IESO, SunEdison would only develop that project.

Who will pay for road damages?

Through a road usage agreement with the municipality, SunEdison will cover the costs of road damage.

“Build your solar farm somewhere else” “If I wanted to see glass and steel from my front window I would have lived in a city” “I am completely against this project.” “I am not in favour of these projects” “I should have stayed home and watched a Disney movie – presentation a sham without answers to many practical questions. Scientific literature also suggests that the percentage of power Comment noted requirements that windmills and solar panels can supply is a small percentage of what’s needed – almost useless. A bad political decision by McGuinty and we are left paying the bill at an inflated rate. Once again a screwed taxpayer! Against project.” “Urban sprawl is of concern with the projects. Solar panels should be incorporated on roofs and buildings not infringing on rural and vacant lands and agriculture”

Page 51 of 225

Public Community Meeting Summary Report

PREPARED BY

Page 52 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Report

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report H348184-0000-07-124-0002

2015-06-18

Final

K. Vukovics

S. Male

DATE

REV.

STATUS

PREPARED BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

Discipline Lead

Functional Manager

H348184-0000-07-124-0002, Rev. 0,

Page 53 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting ……….. 2
Community Meeting Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 3.1 3.2

Materials Presented during the Community Meeting………………………………………………………….. 3 Questions, Concerns and Project Response …………………………………………………………………….. 3

Summary and Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 List of Tables Table 3-1: Public Questions, Comments, Responses and Actions ………………………………………………. 3 List of Appendices Appendix A

Presentation

Appendix B

Appendix C

Display Boards

Appendix D

Comment Form

Page 54 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

Introduction The Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) is a competitive process for procuring large renewable energy projects (greater than 500 kW). The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO; formerly the Ontario Power Authority) has designated SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of SunEdison as a Qualified Applicant under the LRP process based on the ability to meet a set of mandatory requirements focused on past development experience and financial capability. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP, or an affiliate thereof (hereinafter jointly referred to as SunEdison Canadian Construction LP) is now eligible to submit a proposal under the Request for Proposals (LRP I RFP) stage as the Registered Proponent. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is proposing to develop an up to 100 MW (AC) groundmount solar project, known as the Freeman Road Solar Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). The Project will be located on private property on part lots 16, 17 and 18, Concession 4, Portland, in the Township of South Frontenac, and part lots 47 to 49, Concession 1 and 2 in the Township of Stone Mills. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP has met with representatives of the Township of South Frontenac on a number of occasions, including on 

February 23, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer



April 14, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer and Planner, and at the Committee of the Whole



April 28, 2015 with the Chief Administrative Officer, and at the Committee of the Whole



June 3, 2015 with Mayor Vandewal and the Chief Administrative Officer, and



June 9, 2015 at the Committee of the Whole.

Page 55 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

This meeting summary report has been prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5.(c)(ix)(1) of the LRP I RFP.

Comments and Questions Submitted in Response to the Notice of Community Meeting As per Section 3.2.5(d) a notice of community meeting was 

published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on June 1, 2015 and the Frontenac News on May 28, June 4, and June 11, 2015 (beyond the required 2 postings in the LRP process)



posted to the Project website: www.sunedison.ca/freeman.;



distributed to neighbouring landowners abutting and within 300 m of the boundary of the Project site (beyond the required 120 m in the LRP process)



distributed to every First Nation and Métis community that may be affected by or otherwise interested in the Project



distributed to the Township of South Frontenac Chief Administrative Officer, along with elected officials and other representatives (beyond the required notification of the Clerk in the LRP process)



distributed to the Director, Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch, MOECC



distributed to the secretary-treasurer of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority.

Notification was also provided via signage placed at the Project site and on the nearby major thoroughfare, which is not required in the LRP process.

Community Meeting Summary The community meeting took place on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. A total of 141 people signed in at the public meeting. A sample copy of the sign-in sheet (completed sign-in sheets have not been included to protect the privacy of attendees) is provided in Appendix B. The meeting was structured in two parts with an Open House followed by presentation and Question and Answer period. The meeting was facilitated by an independent facilitator. At the beginning of the meeting, South Frontenac’s CAO provided an overview of the Council process for reviewing the proposal and timing for Committee and Council meetings. He indicated that he would be available throughout the evening to take names of individuals who may want to make a deputation on June 23, 2015. The following Sections provide the following: 

copies of all materials presented during the community meeting H348184-0000-07-124-0002, Rev. 0, Page 2 Ver: 04.02

Page 56 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184



3.1

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report

summaries of all comments and questions submitted, and responses.

3.2



printed copies of the display boards available for attendees to retain as desired (Included as Appendix C)



Site Considerations Information (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.6(b) of the LRP I RFP)



Community Engagement Plan (prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.5(a) of the LRP I RFP)



IESO’s Prescribed Template – Notice of Public Community Meeting.

Questions, Concerns and Project Response A Comment Form was available at the community meeting for attendees to provide comments or questions regarding the proposed Project to SunEdison Canadian Construction LP representatives. A total of six Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to the Wallace Solar Project, while 17 Comment Forms were completed and returned at the community meeting in relation to all projects in South Frontenac. A sample Comment Form is provided in Appendix D. A summary of comments and questions submitted via the Comment Forms, via discussions between attendees and Project representatives during the meeting and submitted during the question and answer session are provided in Table 3-1 along with the Project response.

Table 3-1: Summary of Comments and Questions Submitted During the Community Meeting Comment

Response

“This Project is 90% in Stone Mills. We don’t need the burden (traffic, stray electricity, other impacts) to residents of South Frontenac. SunEdison – approach the correct municipality – Stone Mills – on this property project – Not South Frontenac”

The nearest available connection point for the project is in the Township of South Frontenac. SunEdison is working on a municipal agreement with the Township.

“Freeman Project Connector line on Colebrooke Road – Bad Choice - Find another route!!” “A transmission line along Colebrooke Road through Harrowsmith for a project in another Township is simply not acceptable.” “Could the connection line be placed within the abandoned rail corridor?”

This route was selected as it is the shortest route between the project and the connection point.

Page 57 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

“I have concerns about the connection lines on Colebrook Road, The lines will change the look of the road and impact people living on it.” What about the traffic on Colebrook – we already have problems? “A year of construction on Colebrooke Road one of the busiest roads in the municipality is totally unacceptable!” “During this construction what is the impact on our local road system?”

A traffic management plan would be prepared as part of the development process for this project. At this point, it is unclear whether construction traffic would access the Freeman Road project from Colebrooke Road, or through the Township of Stone Mills.

“My family has farmed in this area since 1811. Although new ways of generating hydro is needed The project complies the requirements in respect of agricultural land stipulated by the IESO. using farm land and flat solar is the last way that should be used” I’m all for green energy, but you’re going to rip up thousands of trees. You need to think about the carbon footprint.

Comment noted.

“Plant trees along the entire fence line if it abuts to a homeowner property. I want them along my fence line so I don’t have to see the panels.” “How do you plan to camouflage the visibility of this project? There is only one such project in this area that can’t be seen from the road? It is well off the road and up on a hill.” “What is this project doing to property values. I certainly would not buy a home across from a solar farm” “These projects will irrevocably change the character and charm of the areas they are situated in” “Ensure perimeter fences facing roads are not visible from the road i.e. ensure that trees are installed as a visual barrier and they are maintained.” “Proximity to houses is of concern. Many have purchased to live in the area for the country setting, not to live next to industrial sprawl.” “These projects will lower property values in the area” “Have studies been done to determine how much my property value will decline?” “I am concerned about my pre/post property value, how is that mitigated?” I am concerned about real estate loss. What if I want to sell my property in the next few years. Have you talked to any real estate agents to find out how this will affect my selling price. There are also people here tonight who just got building permits for new homes in this area. They didn’t

Page 58 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

know that this proposal was possible. Sounds like you have a tough road. I propose powering the homes of all neighbouring properties as the first beneficiaries of the solar farm. Give us power and you may get more support.

SunEdison is unable to provide power directly to abutting landowners under the rules of this process.

What kind of noise may there be from the mechanics of the farm?

There will be some electrical noise associated with the transformers and inverters on the project location, however the project will comply with the noise requirements for rural areas in the Renewable Energy Approval process.

“What happens to the wildlife that will be misplaced” “I strongly dispute the assessment that the wetlands and watershed are not important environmental areas. I live across from the wetlands, have planted 50 trees on my land, and have noticed a tremendous resurgence in wildlife. There are cranes living in the waterway.” “Displacement of animals potentially harmful to residents and farms” “There are numerous endangered species areas that are encroached and wildlife areas” “Wildlife and habitat destruction cannot be avoided and setbacks from wetlands insufficient” “In areas there is a large area of trees. You are destroying a large area of animal and bird habitat. If coyotes have no wildlife to eat, they attack farm animals, e.g. local sheep.” “Re endangered and threatened species areas. How can you justify building directly inside some of these gridlines?”

How are you controlling weeds and brush? If spraying what about runoff – installation is close to wetlands and local wells.

The majority of the site would be maintained by mowing. SunEdison does not anticipate using any pesticides or herbicides for this project. Vegetation on the Project lands will be planted following recommendations from landscape architects, and manually maintained. Should an area of concern be identified where the use of pesticides or herbicides would be the most effective means of resolving an identified concern, their use would be limited and would be completed in respect of existing regulations and requirements.

“Insurance premiums to homeowners: what is the fire hazard to abutting properties?”

SunEdison is not aware of any changes to homeowner insurance premiums as a result of proximity to solar projects.

“Living under high voltage power lines can affect health. I have concerns about the line crossing my Dad’s front lawn and the electro magnetic

There are no known health effects associated with this solar technology. Solar photovoltaic panels have been in existence for many years,

Page 59 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

fields involved.” “I’m tremendously worried about EMF” “Major concern – electromagnetic radiation from 44 kV transmission lines.” “I will be living 60 ft away from 44 kV and the electric fields from these high voltage lines. Not a time weighted average of walking near one going down a path, but living beside it day and night. Electric fields are proportional to cancer rates. Measure electric field strength in my house with 7kV and then measure again at 44 kV in same place. What happens if this is higher, how to fix?”

Response and no health effects have been reported. The National Institute of Environment and Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health document, “EMF – Electrical and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power,” states “The strength of EMF from equipment within the substations, such as transformers, reactors, and capacitor banks, decrease rapidly and with increasing distance. Beyond the substation fence or wall, the EMF produced by the substation equipment is typically indistinguishable from background levels.” Health Canada brochure “It’s Your Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields at Extremely Low Frequency” states, “You do not need to take action regarding daily exposure to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies. There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposure at low levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors… Health Canada does not consider guidelines for the Canadian public necessary because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that exposure causes health problems for the public.”

“What is the CO2 footprint in manufacturing the solar panels, frames and electrical harness and wires, etc.?”

We do not have detailed data to provide at this point, but the benefit of solar electricity generation is that it has the same or less CO2 input costs to constructing other forms of generation, but the fuel (sunlight) does not generate any CO2 over the 25-30 year life of the project. Fuel for nuclear generators must be mined, refined, transported and disposed of, natural gas must be mined and extracted, transported, and burned, and coal must be mined and burned.

Stray voltage occurs when a small current passes from grounded metal objects where low voltages “Stray voltage – how can or do you make an effort occur, which can occur from on property or off to control it?” property sources. “I’m tremendously worried about stray voltage” SunEdison will provide for engineering assessment of stray voltage and resolution if “Effects of stray voltage on livestock” related to the project. Further information will be provided at a later date. “What about pesticide use”

Any use of pesticides would be completed in respect of existing regulations and requirements.

“Reclamation 0 in 20 years this company may not honour their contract – land unable to be used for 5-10 more years”

SunEdison is committed to the full operational life of the project and will be required to decommission the project as a condition of the

Page 60 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

“There must be a tremendous profit for a project to be decommissioned and still make money.” “Restoration of land after project ends huge concern” “What guarantee is there that the panels will be removed following end of useful life span. What if the company goes bankrupt? Who will clean up the mess?”

Renewable Energy Approval permit. Residual value of the equipment on site will provide sufficient financial incentive for the decommissioning of the site in the unlikely event that SunEdison no longer exists.

Planting of trees will certainly be considered in the decommissioning plan, however as SunEdison does not own the project lands discussions will need to be held with the individual landowners at that time. Due to a major transition to new systems and processes in our accounts payable department earlier in 2015, a number of our vendors and landlords received payments which were significantly later than the original terms required. We recognize that this was completely unacceptable and over the past two months, SunEdison has worked diligently to eliminate these late payment issues so as to become current with vendor payments. We have now almost completely corrected all of the issues which resulted in these late payments. Nevertheless, we want to stress that the late payment situation was very regrettable and SunEdison will endeavor to never allow that to happen again. Typically there are multiple factors relating any bankruptcy. We are not aware of any companies that entered bankruptcy as a result of late payments by SunEdison. Particularly with regards to our past projects that are relatively close to South Frontenac, all payments were made in or around when they were due and those projects were not impacted by the accounts payable issues noted above. With regards to those projects any payments that were not made by the EPC to its subcontractors cannot be attributed to SunEdison. For over 7 years, SunEdison has been a partner to landlords, neighbouring residents and townships in Ontario. We are not perfect, but by in large we have an established track record in Ontario of delivering on our promises and honouring commitments. Impacts to water in neighbouring wells is not anticipated as a result of the project. A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented in order to ensure that baseline levels in the area are understood, and should an impact be identified, SunEdison will work with the

Page 61 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

be going down sixteen feet or more. The number of holes could affect our wells. “Great potential for aquifer contamination. We are all on wells!!!” “How will water wells be ensured for maintained quality and quantity?”

well owner to resolve the problem, and provide an alternative water source in the interim.

There are absolutely no benefits to the majority of South Frontenac residents, only costs. Much of this is in Stone Mills or other Township. We would like to know who is benefitting from this? “I see no benefit to the favor of this community.” “What financial benefit is there to South Frontenac” “I live near the proposed power lines and solar projects. What is in it for me” Why would I support these projects?”

“Where are your solar panels and your other materials manufactured”

“I am 100% in favour of this.” We have Hydro power and we need sustainable renewable energy projects for our children and grandchildren. This looks good to me.

Comment noted.

“Do residents have the opportunity to review reports (arch, SAR, heritage, etc)?

All reports will be made available for public review as part of the Renewable Energy Approval process. Notifications will be issued when they are available.

Why do you expect this to be successful given that the allocation for the entire Province is 140kwt and these projects amount to this?

Why all three projects. Could you go with just the Wallace property?

All three projects are being proposed at this time. Should only the Wallace project ultimately receive a contract from the IESO, SunEdison would only develop that project.

If you get the go ahead, what is the timing for Construction would commence following receipt construction? How long will the construction take? of all permits and approvals, When would the project be in place? “SunEdison will attempt to buy off the municipal SunEdison is working to pursue a municipal council by offering a sufficient sum of money to agreement with the Township of South Frontenac. get the project approved by councilors who do not The agreement will stipulate that funds provided

Page 62 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

represent the affected area. The wishes of the residents affected by these projects will be overridden by a multi-million dollar power company that can bury the Township Council in long expensive legal proceedings. The deck is stacked against the affected resident of the Township. SunEdison has deeper pockets and can influence the municipal and provincial governments to act against the wishes of the affected residents.”

to the Township are to be used for community benefit purposes. SunEdison is required to provide clear documentation to regulators showing what funds were provided and how they were used. SunEdison will not be undertaking legal proceedings against the Township of South Frontenac.

“There will be more sites put in an around our area. These will compound all the issues listed above.

There are no further plans for additional projects in this area. SunEdison cannot confirm plans of any other developers.

“Are you an American company?”

“Are you buying the land or leasing it”

The land for these projects is being leased

“What are you getting paid by Ontario Hydro per kwh?”

SunEdison will be established the price per kwh as part of this process. The final value remains to be determined.

“What is the current peak rate per kwh?”

“Because you are getting paid more than the current peak rate, will this cause my hydro bill to go up?”

SunEdison is not involved in the establishment of electricity rates.

“Will your hydro poles be the same as those used on the Unity Road projects?” “How will transmission lines affect setbacks from

Further designs of the connection line would be required in order to determine the poles that will be used for these projects, and any requirements

Page 63 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

lines in terms of existing buildings and existing trees.” “I will not lose my 12 ft mature groomed trees to this project” “I have experience as a lineman working on Hydro lines and can tell you that you will have to cut trees back all along the connection lines. You will have to do major cutting with loss of tree cover. You will be required to do so even if you think that you can do it differently”

for tree removal. SunEdison understands the concerns with respect to tree removal from municipal right of ways, and will work with abutting landowners to the greatest extent possible. There would be no implication with respect to existing buildings.

“Ontario currently has an abundance of electricity with over production we pay Quebec and NY State to take it. Why do we need additional generating capacity?

Electricity procurement initiatives are not in the control of SunEdison.

“Why do you want to put projects in South Frontenac? Why don’t you put the project in a less densely populated area?”

South Frontenac was selected as there was available capacity on the grid, lands with appropriate soils classifications, and willing landowners.

“Given that the power lines you want to hook into already exist, why not put solar panels beneath them?”

SunEdison does not have access to the lands in the transmission line corridors.

Comment noted.

“Large scale grounding effect problems on high capacity AC transmission” “How will grounding be handled?”

SunEdison and their engineers will ensure the project understands all concerns with respect to working in this area.

SunE Unity Solar Project: Unity Rd. between Sydenham Rd and Corduk Rd. SunE Hwy 2 S Solar Project: South side of “Provide information and locations of completed Highway 2 east of Fairbanks St. projects in this area so we can see what they look SunE Odessa Solar Project: North side of like” Highway 2 east of County Rd. 4. SunE Newboro 4 Solar Project: County Rd. 42 east of Westport, between Hutchings Rd and

Page 64 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response Noonan Rd. S.

“Huge concerns about connection line through Harrowsmith – directly in from of my house and many others, very close to the road”

Comment noted. Participants in the LRP have the opportunity to obtain up to 100 points for each LRP proposal submission pursuant to certain established criteria. Of the 100 total available points, 80 points have been allocated to activities related to community engagement. In order to achieve the 80 points the following is required: (i) obtaining a municipal council support resolution; (ii) establishing a municipal benefit agreement with the subject municipality; and (iii) obtaining the requisite percentage of abutting landowner support for the project.

There is a direct correlation between final bid price and points; in that there is a 8% perceived bid price What percentage of the bid price does community reduction for every 20 points that are achieved. input represent? Accordingly, obtaining the maximum amount of community engagement points effectively correlates to a 32% perceived bid price reduction.

How many acres are being take out of farm production?

For example, if project A achieved no community engagement points and project B obtained 80 community engagement points and both projects bid into the LRP at a rate of $0.20 kw/h, the effective bid price for each project as perceived by IESO in its assessment for awarding an LRP contract would amount to $0.20 kw/h with respect to project A and $0.136 kw/h with respect to project B. In this regard, obtaining community engagement points can provide a significant competitive advantage and is crucial to success in the LRP process. Every 1MW of electricity generation capacity uses approximately 5 acres. Note that we are very strictly limited to constructing in areas which have limited agricultural capacity. 1MW (5 acres) is enough clean electricity to power approximately 200 average Canadian homes.

What can change with the project once it is submitted to the IESO? Will the public be able to review the changes?

All changes to the Project design following the submission of the project to the IESO will be communicated to the public through the Renewable Energy Approval process.

Who will pay for road damages?

Through a road usage agreement with the municipality, SunEdison will cover the costs of road damage.

“No thanks! Go away…for good!” “Against this project” “Build your solar farm

Comment noted

Page 65 of 225

SunEdison Canada Freeman Road Solar Project H348184

Freeman Road Solar Project - Public Community Meeting Summary Report Comment

Response

somewhere else” “If I wanted to see glass and steel from my front window I would have lived in a city” “I am completely against this project.” “I am not in favour of these projects” “I should have stayed home and watched a Disney movie – presentation a sham without answers to many practical questions. Scientific literature also suggests that the percentage of power requirements that windmills and solar panels can supply is a small percentage of what’s needed – almost useless. A bad political decision by McGuinty and we are left paying the bill at an inflated rate. Once again a screwed taxpayer! Against project.” “Urban sprawl is of concern with the projects. Solar panels should be incorporated on roofs and buildings not infringing on rural and vacant lands and agriculture”

Page 66 of 225

Appendix A Presentation

Welcome to the South Frontenac Community Meeting June 17, 2015

Page 67 of 225

Company Overview Company Strength • •

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

Global Market Leadership •

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

•

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

Built first utility scale project in US and CAN

Global Financial Leadership • •

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

Technology Innovation • • •

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

Company History •

P. 2 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 68 of 225

•

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

Ontario Highlights

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

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

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

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

School tour of solar plant

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

Page 69 of 225

P. 3 | SunEdison Confidential

SunEdison Canada First Light Solar Energy Park Napanee, ON

Vertical Integration Provides broad industry perspective on:

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

Page 70 of 225

P. 4 | SunEdison Confidential

Why are we here? SunEdison is submitting proposals to develop solar projects as part of the Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) program. The LRP is a competitive process without an established contract price, in order to obtain the best value for Ontario. There will only be 140 MW of solar capacity available through the LRP in 2015. SunEdison will be submitting several proposals, of which up to 3 are in the Township of South Frontenac. Other municipalities currently include the City of Kingston, City of Kawartha Lakes, and the Township of Stone Mills. These locations were initially selected as they are appropriately zoned, avoid prime agricultural lands, have available connection capacity, and have willing landowners. Page 71 of 225

P. 5 | SunEdison Confidential

Large Renewable Procurement I RFP Timelines: • March 10th final RFP opened • September 1st RFP will close • November, 2015, contract award

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

Page 72 of 225

P. 6 | SunEdison Confidential

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

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

P. 7 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 73 of 225

Evaluation Study Peer Review Attestation

Mandatory Requirements Includes, but not limited to: • Community Engagement: ̶ Proposed community engagement plan ̶ At least one municipal meeting (Directly Affected Communities) and Prescribed Form to be completed ̶ At least one public community meetings also to be confirmed through a Prescribed From ̶ Notice of public meetings (newspaper, website, property owners within 120 metres and property owners along connection lines, clerk and secretary-treasurer of municipality hosting all of the project or some and the connection line) Page 74 of 225

P. 8 | SunEdison Confidential

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

Aboriginal Participation: Max 20 points ̶ Aboriginal Participation (equity participation)

Page 75 of 225

P. 9 | SunEdison Confidential

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

Green Energy Act compliance Proximity to available interconnection capacity Topography Environmental considerations (ie. the ability of a proposed site to meet the REA)

Page 76 of 225

P. 10 | SunEdison Confidential

Data Collected so far Soil studies: Clark Consulting Services Land use evaluation: IBI Consulting Land constraints and archeological reviews: Hatch Consulting Engineering and design: SunEdison ̶ All reports are available for review ̶ These are initial studies and will continue to be refined

Page 77 of 225

P. 11 | SunEdison Confidential

Project Timeline Post Contract Award

Once contract granted in November, project development will occur over the following 2 – 3 years

The following phases will occur (timelines are subject to change):

•

Obtain REA permit (approximately 18 months), including addressing ̶ project description, construction plan reports, archeology studies, Species at Risk compliance, natural heritage assessment, waterbody assessment, noise study (maintain less than 40 dB from the nearest receptor), traffic impact study/plan, drainage/storm water management plan (water flow pre-construction must be maintained post construction), consultation report; public consultation; decommissioning plan ̶ During the REA application preparation process, SunEdison will consult with the Township of South Frontenac regarding road user agreements and compensation, drainage, Species at Risk, natural heritage preservation, and so on

•

Conduct Connection Impact Assessment and Connection Cost Agreement with utility (6 months in parallel with REA) and engage with the Township of South Frontenac regarding road use agreements and site plan considerations

•

Obtain Notice to Proceed from IESO (20 days) subsequent REA approval and CCI and CCA finalization. Construction can start thereafter.

•

Construction (9 –12 months) ̶ Standard 6’ chain link fence as per Ontario Provincial Standards Specification (OPSS) ̶ SunEdison will continue to discuss with the Township of South Frontenac regarding on-going construction considerations: noise, dust and road use. It is our goal to ensure that problems are resolved before they occur.

•

Post construction, testing and commissioning (one month)

•

Post construction, abide by REA conditions (drainage and noise monitoring; compliance with Species at Risk, etc.)

Page 78 of 225

P. 12 | SunEdison Confidential

Wallace Solar Project • Located in Township of South Frontenac

• Alton Rd. & Hwy 38 • ~205 Acres • ~45 MW AC

Page 79 of 225

P. 13 | SunEdison Confidential

Wallace Solar Project Land Use and Official Plan Designation

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

Eligible • Eligible as per Scenario A-

P. 14 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 80 of 225

̶ Property designated as Rural and any CLI Soil classification applies.

Wallace Solar Project

Page 81 of 225

P. 15 | SunEdison Confidential

Wallace Solar Project Site constraints • Wetlands & Woodlands ̶ Only a small area of unevaluated wetlands are found within the site boundaries, as shown in the following map (next slide). ̶ Any provincially significant wetlands would be avoided in the proposed development. ̶ While the site does contain some woodlands, any woodlands deemed significant would be avoided, or compensation planting would be provided.

• Wildlife and Association Habitat ̶ The region has shown some occurrences of species at risk, including the Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Eastern Meadowlark, and Juniper Hairstreak. ̶ Site investigations will be completed to determine if these species are present within the proposed site boundaries. ̶ SunEdison will fully comply with the Species at Risk Act (SC 2002, c 29) Page 82 of 225

P. 16 | SunEdison Confidential

Wallace Solar Project

Page 83 of 225

P. 17 | SunEdison Confidential

Wallace Solar Project Site constraints • Regulated Areas ̶ The project area (outlined in orange) is in the Cataraque Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction, and the map below shows the minor amounts of regulated area around the Project site. Development within the regulated area is not expected.

Page 84 of 225

P. 18 | SunEdison Confidential

Freeman Road Solar Project • Located in Township of Stone Mills and South Frontenac

• Camden Portland Boundary Rd. & Freeman Rd.

• ~112 Acres in Township of South Frontenac

• ~15-20 MW AC in Township of South Frontenac

Page 85 of 225

P. 19 | SunEdison Confidential

Freeman Road Solar Project Land Use and Official Plan Designation

4-7

Eligible • Eligible as per Scenario A-

P. 20 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 86 of 225

̶ Property designated as Rural and any CLI Soil classification applies.

Freeman Road Solar Project

Class O Class 4-7

Class 1-3

Page 87 of 225

P. 21 | SunEdison Confidential

Freeman Road Solar Project Site constraints • Wetlands & Woodlands ̶ Small areas of unevaluated wetlands are found within the site boundaries, while a provincially significant wetland is located east of the site boundaries, as shown in the following map (next slide). ̶ Any provincially significant wetlands would be avoided in the proposed development. ̶ While the site does contain some woodlands, any woodlands deemed significant would be avoided, or compensation planting would be provided.

• Wildlife and Associated Habitat ̶ The region has shown some occurrences of species at risk, including Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. ̶ Site investigations will be completed to determine if these species are present within the proposed site boundaries. ̶ SunEdison will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act, 2007 Page 88 of 225

P. 22 | SunEdison Confidential

Freeman Road Solar Project

Page 89 of 225

P. 23 | SunEdison Confidential

Freeman Road Solar Project Site constraints • Regulated Areas ̶ The project area in the Township of South Frontenac (approximate boundary in red) is in the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and Quinte Conservation jurisdictions. Quinte Conservation does not have any online mapping freely available, however there is regulated area east of the Project location identified by CRCA. Any required permits would be obtained prior to construction.

Page 90 of 225

P. 24 | SunEdison Confidential

Groenewegen Solar Project • Located on two properties in Township of South Frontenac

• One property is at Florida Rd. & Henderson Rd.

• The other property is at Quinn Rd. W & Hwy 38

• ~25-30 MW AC

Page 91 of 225

P. 25 | SunEdison Confidential

Groenewegen Solar Project Land Use and Official Plan Designation

4-7

Eligible • Eligible as per Scenario A-

P. 26 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 92 of 225

̶ Property designated as Rural and any CLI Soil classification applies.

Groenewegen Solar Project

Class 4-7

Class 1-3

Page 93 of 225

P. 27 | SunEdison Confidential

Groenewegen Solar Project Site constraints • Wetlands & Woodlands ̶ Small areas of unevaluated wetlands are found within the site boundaries, as shown in the following maps (next slides). ̶ Any provincially significant wetlands would be avoided in the proposed development. ̶ While the site does contain some woodlands, any woodlands deemed significant would be avoided, or compensation planting would be provided.

• Wildlife and Associated Habitat ̶ The region has shown some occurrences of species at risk, including the Cerulean Warbler, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. ̶ Site investigations will be completed to determine if these species are present within the proposed site boundaries. ̶ SunEdison will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act, 2007 Page 94 of 225

P. 28 | SunEdison Confidential

Groenewegen Solar Project

Page 95 of 225

P. 29 | SunEdison Confidential

Groenewegen Solar Project Site constraints • Regulated Areas ̶ The project area (approximate boundary in red) is in the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction, and the map below shows the minor amounts of regulated area surrounding small waterbodies on each property. Any required permits would be obtained prior to construction.

Page 96 of 225

P. 30 | SunEdison Confidential

Project Layouts SunEdison considers many factors when creating Project layouts • Regulatory Requirements ̶ 30 m setbacks from watercourse high water marks ̶ avoidance of provincially significant wetlands ̶ avoidance of prime agricultural areas

• Consultation with provincial agencies (MNRF, MTCS, MOECC) through the Renewable Energy Approval process. • Consultation with the local municipality to understand local requirements • Consultation with our Project neighbours to understand site specific concerns

Conceptual Project layouts have been prepared based off of our consultation to date. These layouts will be changed as we continue to work through the development process. Page 97 of 225

P. 31 | SunEdison Confidential

Connection Line A Connection Line will be required for the Freeman Road and Groenewegen Solar Projects The connection line will be at the local distribution voltage The line would be constructed in the municipal right of way It is currently anticipated that the line would consist of an overbuild on the existing distribution line, however this needs to be confirmed with Hydro One It is expected that Hydro One would construct the line Page 98 of 225

P. 32 | SunEdison Confidential

Construction Construction would occur once all

P. 33 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 99 of 225

approvals have been received (REA, municipal entrance permits, etc.). Locally sourced materials and companies will be used to the greatest extent possible Traffic management plans will be prepared prior to construction Entrance locations will be from existing roadways Construction will be completed in respect of the local noise by-law SunEdison will maintain active engagement with neighbours and the municipality.

Operations SunEdison would operate the solar project The site will be remotely monitored Site visits will be required to inspect and maintain the facility Contact information for Project staff will be provided at a sign at the facility entrance

Page 100 of 225

P. 34 | SunEdison Confidential

Decommissioning If successful, the Project would have a 20 year contract with the IESO At the end of life, the facility would be decommissioned and the land restored A Decommissioning Plan will be put together as part of the REA process A condition of the REA is that the site be decommissioned SunEdison is also working on an agreement with the municipality is anticipated to make commitments with respect to decommissioning

Page 101 of 225

P. 35 | SunEdison Confidential

FAQ – Property Values SunEdison works with our neighbours to

P. 36 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 102 of 225

ensure that their concerns are understood and mitigated Landscape architects provide advice on maintaining the look and feel of the surrounding area and will incorporate native species in the buffering design Abutting neighbours and/or those whose viewsheds are affected will be consulted and concerns will be addressed Noise studies are also completed to meet regulated noise limits There is no evidence of decreasing property values around operating solar facilities

FAQ – Fire Safety Fire Safety is a top priority for SunEdison SunEdison helped develop the “Solar Electricity Safety Handbook for Firefighters” in conjunction with the Fire Chiefs of Ontario and the Canadian Solar Industry Association (CanSIA)

SunEdison will provide all the necessary information to the local fire department, and assist with their training to ensure they know how to handle any potential solar-related emergency situation

Page 103 of 225

P. 37 | SunEdison Confidential

FAQ – Stray Voltage Stray voltage occurs when a small current passes from grounded metal objects where low voltages occur. Stray voltage can occur as a result of off-farm or on-farm sources, and is predominantly a concern with respect to dairy operations Should stray voltage be suspected by a farm operator after the Project is complete, SunEdison will arrange for testing by a licensed electrician to confirm whether a stray voltage problem exists If confirmed, SunEdison will work with Hydro One and the farm operator to resolve the problem

Page 104 of 225

P. 38 | SunEdison Confidential

FAQ – Groundwater SunEdison will complete groundwater monitoring for the Project This may consist of establishing on-site monitoring wells, or testing wells of neighbouring landowners Impacts to surrounding wells are not anticipated, however if a surrounding landowner identifies a problem that is attributable to the solar project, SunEdison will arrange to test the well and provide an alternative source of water

Page 105 of 225

P. 39 | SunEdison Confidential

FAQ – Drainage A stormwater management plan addressing both the construction and operations phases of the projects would be prepared as part of the Renewable Energy Approval process. The objective of the plan will be no significant change in stormwater runoff from the Project location. The plan will include a sediment and erosion control plan to control sediment runoff during the construction phase.

Page 106 of 225

P. 40 | SunEdison Confidential

Questions?

Page 107 of 225

P. 41 | SunEdison Confidential

Page 108 of 225

Appendix B Sign In Sheet

June 17, 2015 Harrowsmith, Ontario

Sign-In Sheet Thank You for Attending this Community Meeting! Please Print Clearly

First Name

Last Name

Mailing Address

Would you like to be included on our Stakeholder Mailing List for Future Mailings?

Page 109 of 225

Page 110 of 225

Appendix C Display Boards

Page 111 of 225

Welcomes You to the Community Meeting for the proposed;

Wallace, Groenewegen and Freeman Road Solar Projects • Wednesday, June 17, 2015, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm • Open House from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Presentation and Q&A Session 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm • Harrowsmith Public School, 4121 Colebrook Road, Harrowsmith ON

Your Comments are important Please Sign in and Complete a Comment Form

Page 112 of 225

Who is

SunEdison?

SunEdison is dedicated to transforming the way energy is generated, distributed, and owned around the globe. We manufacture solar technology and develop, finance, install, own and operate solar and wind energy power plants. SunEdison is one of the world’s largest renewable energy asset managers and provides asset management, operations and maintenance, monitoring and reporting services for its renewable energy customers around the world. Leader in Utility Scale Power Plants Wind. Solar. A complete clean energy platform. SunEdison works with the world’s leading utilities to help them meet their clean generation needs.

Global and Financial Leader • Over $5.6 Billion in structured solar financing • Original inventor of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) • Leading finance partners

SunEdison in the Community Engagement: Committed to open and honest communications with stakeholders.

SunEdison is the World’s Largest Renewable Energy Developer • Formed in 1959

Committed to working closely with local Municipalities and First Nation and Métis Communities.

• Listed on NYSE (SUNE), Member of Fortune 1000 •

5,600+ employees in 35 global locations

• Manufacturing plants on 3 continents • Over 5 GW of wind and solar interconnected

Rural Electrification: Publicly committed to electrifying 20 million people by 2020. Gender Diversity: Committed to attracting top women executives, providing career growth

Innovation and Technology Leader • Over 750 patents awarded • Leading the next generation of solar panel performance and cost reduction with the world’s lowest cost silicon via HP-FBR technology and the world’s most efficient n-type silicon via proprietary CCZ technology

opportunities, mentorship, and ensuring family friendly office policies.

Page 113 of 225

How

Solar Energy Works At SunEdison, we believe in the power of the sun and we want everyone to understand how it works, so they too can benefit from the power of photovoltaic electricity. How Solar Energy Works Photovoltaic (PV) literally means “light” and “electric.”

A photovoltaic module is made of an assembly of

Photovoltaic technologies are used to generate solar

photovoltaic cells wired in series to produce a desired

electricity by using solar cells packaged in photovoltaic

voltage and current. The PV Cells are encapsulated

modules.

within glass and/or plastic to provide protection from the weather. Photovoltaic modules are connected

The most important components of a PV cell are the

together to form an array. The array is connected to an

two layers of semiconductor material. When sunlight

inverter which converts the Direct Current (DC) of the

strikes the PV cell, the solar energy excites electrons

PV modules to Alternating Current (AC).

that generate an electric voltage and current Extremely thin wires running along the top layer of the PV cell carry these electrons to an electrical circuit.

Energy from the Sun

Inverter & Transformer

Solar PV Panels ®

Th graphic illustrates the main The components of a ground-mount solar photovoltaic (PV) facility

Page 114 of 225

Large Renewable

Procurement Process

The Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) is a competitive process for procuring large renewable energy projects (greater than 500 kW). The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO; formerly the Ontario Power Authority) has designated SunEdison Canadian Construction LP as a Qualified Applicant under the LRP process based on the ability to meet a set of mandatory requirements focused on past development experience and financial capability. SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is now eligible to submit a proposal under the Request for Proposals (LRP I RFP) stage. In the current process, the IESO may award contracts for up to 140 MW of solar power. Large Renewable Procurement Process Notice of Public Community Meeting

Community Meeting

Publication of Community Engagement Plan on Project Website

Publication of Consultation Report on Project Website

IESO Selection of LRP Projects

Development Process Continues

Publication of Site Consideration Information on Project Website

MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ONGOING CONCURRENTLY • Municipal Support Resolution • Council Approval An important part of the Project proposal will be meaningful community engagement. The LRP Process provides credit to projects that are able to obtain community support. There are several mandatory community engagement requirements stipulated within the LRP Process. These include: • Meeting with ofﬁcials from the local municipality • Creating and maintaining a Project website, on which various documents must be made available • Preparing and distributing this Community Engagement Plan • Hosting a community meeting, and providing notiﬁcation of the community meeting via direct mail to landowners within 120 m of the Project, and via publication in local newspapers • Preparation of a meeting summary report upon the conclusion of the community meeting. providing notice of the community meetings via direct mail to landowners within 120 m of the Project site, and publication in local newspapers • Preparation of a consultation report upon conclusion of the above activities

The deadline for the submission of application under the LRP I RFP Process is September 1, 2015. The IESO currently anticipates awarding contracts by the end of 2015. Should this Project be successful in the LRP process, the Project would then move to obtain the requisite environmental permit, a Renewable Energy Approval (REA), from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. However, as a competitive process, not all projects submitted to the IESO will be awarded contracts. Should the Project not be successful in the LRP process, no further action would be taken at this time; however the Project may be resubmitted to the IESO under future procurement programs (such as the proposed LRP II RFP Process).

Page 115 of 225

Renewable Energy

Approval Process “Ensuring the Project is Built Right!”

Should the Project be successful in the LRP Process, there will be additional community engagement requirements associated with the REA Process, including: • Further meetings with officials from the local municipality, and provision of a prescribed municipal consultation form • Maintaining the Project website, on which additional REA documents will be made available • Preparing and making available for review, various requisite Project reports • Hosting of two community meetings, and providing notice of the community meetings via direct mail to landowners within 120 m of the Project site, and publication in local newspapers • Preparation of a consultation report upon conclusion of the above activities

Meeting with Key Agencies

MOECC, MNRF, MTCS, other provincial, federal, municipal approving bodies

Scoping the Project Concept

Conduct Site Assessments & Other Studies

Completing REA Reports

• Project Class

• Natural Heritage Assessment

• Project Description Report

• Project location • Ancillary equipment • Activities for construction/ operation

• Cultural Heritage/ Archaeological Assessment

Application may be returned if not deemed complete

Refinement

• Construction Plan Report

• Water Assessment

• Design and Operations Report

• Others as required

• Decommissioning Plan Report

• Obtain Confirmation/ Comment Letters from MNRF and MTCS

• Consultation Plan Report • Additional reports as required Draft Reports required

Consultation

• Public Information Centres • Public Notices • Project Website • Signs on Project Location

Municipal/Public Consultation First Nation and Métis Consultation

Application Submission & Review

Appeals Process (if applicable)

• Completeness Check • Environmental Registry Posting • Focussed Review • 6 Month Service Guarantee

REA Decision by MOECC

Proposed Capacity: Up to 50 MW AC

•

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Wallace\Wallace_Project Location_PIC.mxd

Graham Rd

Renewable fuel of the Large Renewable Project: Non-Rooftop Solar

•

Petworth Road

Jamiesion Road

Alton Road

Site Location: The Wallace Solar Project is located on part lots 5 and 6, Concession 6 in the Township of South Frontenac.

•

Wallace Solar Project Location

Information

Site Location

Park St

HWY 38

a hw

Newburgh

Picton

Municipal Boundary

Transmission Line

Railway

Site

Connection Point

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Lake Ontario

Kingston

1:10,000

125

250

500 Metres

Figure 1-1

Gananoque

Project Location

Wallace Solar Project

Athens

SunEdison Canada

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Project Site

Township of South Frontenac

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2015.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

Hig

Big Gull Lake

401 Highway Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

LEGEND

Hig hw ay 62

Tweed

ay 41

Highway

Highw

Page 116 of 225

RD 5 RD /

LOUGHBOROUGH PARK LANE

en Syd

ak am L

WALLACE RD

PETWORTH RD

YARKER RD

LEY ST

RUTLEDGE RD

WATSON LANE

Hardwood Creek

Pondlily Lake

MCCALLUM LANE

MILL ST

S GIB ON

BOYCE RD

DR FOREST HILL

BRADFORD RD E

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Wallace\Wallace_SiteConsiderations_Fig1.mxd

MITH OWS

WHEAT

RUTLEDGE RD

CH UR CH

AM TY RD 1 E COUN

SY DE NH

N LA RT PO

1:20,000

INSERT B E AV

COLEBROOK RD

BRADFORD RD W

Napanee River

H A RR

Harrowsmith The Site Considerations Information is presented to illustrate selected River environmental and land use features COLEBROOKNapanee RD as per Section 3.2.6 (b) of the Independent Electricity System Operator’s Large Renewable Procurement I Request for Proposals. Napanee Lake

MARIA ST

ST GE GE OR

KERR LANE

BELLROCK RD

MCCONNELL RD

WATSON RD

ly L mb Ha

CHURCH ST

MCLEAN RD

Hambly Lake

INSERT A

BRACKEN RD

OKE RD

HINC HINB RO

Pero Lake

CHURCH ST

QUINN RD W

18UQ6820

ALTON RD

Peters Lake

QUINN RD

HARROWSMITH RD / RD 5

PETERS LANE

REDMOND RD

VANLUVEN RD

HOLLEFORD RD

BELL RD

ORILEY RD

AMEY RD

HARROWSMITH RD

SY D

SCANLAN RD

1:43,000

WA LK

D AN

E AV

Sydenham Lake

L RT PO

LAMBERT RD

SEE INSERT B

0.75

1.5

3 Km

Hig hw ay 62

Tweed

Picton

Highway

a hw

Newburgh Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

401

Hig

Big Gull Lake

@ ?

Lake Ontario

Kingston

Project Site

Township of South Frontenac

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Gananoque

Athens

Transmission Line Figure 1

Site Considerations Information

Wallace Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

5 Km from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(v) - Heritage Resources (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iv) - Approved Plan Areas (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(i) - NHIC Grid Squares Containing an Endangered or Threatened Species Record

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(14) - Provincial Crown Land

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(13) - Other On-Shore Wind Facilities (N/A)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(10) - Airports, Aerodromes and Weather Radars (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(9) - National and Provincial Parks; Conservation Reserves (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(8) - Railway (None)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(6) - Geographic Township Boundaries (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(5) - First Nation Lands (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

RAILTON RD Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

MP CA

LR EL

RUTLEDGE RD

EN HA M

COTTAGE LANE

McGuinns Lake

FREEMAN RD

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

JAMIESON RD

TROUSDALE RD

Babcock Lake

18UQ6819

SEE INSERT A

Harrowsmith

18UQ6719

18UQ6720

HWY 38

ak e RD WIL TO N

1:10,000

Wallace Solar Project

R RY

AMELIA ST

on L a ke Know lt

Information

ND LA DA UN BO

RT PO EN MD CA

WHITTY LANE

NOTRE DAME ST

OTTAWA ST

MILL ST

GOULD LAKE RD

KINGSTON RD WOLF SWAMP RD

MURVALE RD

QUARRY RD ELLERBECK RD

ST WILLIAMS ND RD LOUGHBOROUGH PORTLA

MCCALLUM LANE

ROSEDALE RD

ay 41

LIA

YORK RD

W IL

Highw

Highway

STAGE COACH RD

Site Considerations

Page 117 of 225

GRAHAM RD

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Wallace\Wallace_SiteConsiderations_Fig2.mxd

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

Centre of Site Easting 368010m Northing 4920005m UTM NAD83, Zone 18N

ALTON RD

Connection Point Easting 368367 m Northing 4920571 m UTM NAD83, Zone 18N

JAMIESON RD

PETWORTH RD

The Site Considerations Information is presented to illustrate selected environmental and land use features as per Section 3.2.6 (b) of the Independent Electricity System Operator’s Large Renewable Procurement I Request for Proposals.

Wallace Solar Project

Information

Site Considerations

PARK ST

HWY 38

a hw

Newburgh

Picton

401 Highway Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

Hig

Big Gull Lake

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Kingston

120 m from Site

Transmission Line

1:12,000

150

300

Figure 2 Wallace Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

Site Considerations Information

600 Metres

Athens

Gananoque

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Potential Construction Area

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project:

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line (NONE)

Lake Ontario

Project Site

Township of South Frontenac

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2015.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.
Location of Crown Land is approximate, obtained from Crown Land Use Policy Atlas at http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUPS/ CLUPA/Viewer/Viewer.html.

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

Hig hw ay 62

Tweed

ay 41

Highway

Highw

Page 118 of 225

Wallace Solar Project

Layout

Conceptual

Alton Road

Page 119 of 225

Proposed Capacity: Up to 100 MW AC

•

d6 oa R try un o C Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Freeman\MXD\Freeman_Project Location_PIC.mxd

Graham Rd St ch n a Br

ad Ro n ma ee r F

Ya rk er Ro ad

en md a C E Country Road 1

ad Ro y r a nd ou B nd rtla Po

Renewable fuel of the Large Renewable Project: Non-Rooftop Solar

Yarker Road

Alton Road

Wallace Road

Picton

Lake Ontario

Project Site

Kingston

Municipal Boundary

Transmission Line

Connection Line Option

Proposed Freeman Solar Project Site

Connection Point

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Township of South Frontenac

1:15,000

200

400

Figure 1-1 Freeman Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

Gananoque

Athens

Project Location

800 Metres

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2015.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

Newburgh

Township of Stone Mills

401 Highway Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

LEGEND

Hig hw ay 62

ay 41

•

Colebrook Road

Tweed

a hw

Site Location: The Freeman Road Solar Project is located on part lots 16, 17 and 18, Concession 4, Portland, in the Township of South Frontenac, and part lots 47 to 49, Concession 1 and 2 in the Township of Stone Mills.

ad Ro h t or tw Pe

Hig

Big Gull Lake

Highway

•

Freeman Road Solar Project Location

Information

Site Location Highw

Page 120 of 225

RT VA

F HU

TIS

R AY QU

GA WA

AN FM

D OO

RD WN

Camden East Alvar

I LS W

AN EM

18TUQ6017

N OW

TY UN

TOWNSHIP OF LOYALIST

2 RD

3,000 Metres

U Q

1:20,000

RT PO

ND LA

SCANLAN RD

U CH

RUTLEDGE RD

Millhaven Creek

N BI

ON RT MU

INSERT B

Millhaven Creek

GORR RDPeters Lake

QUINN RD

AMEY RD

E AV

ORSER RD

en Syd

ham

VAN ORDER RD

LOUGHBOROUGH PARK LANE

FOREST RD

E RD

ake

RAILTON RD

E PB

SEE INSERT B

RUTLEDGE RD

Sydenham Lake

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

1:64,000

1,500

Notes: S N

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of MO Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014. MNatural SI 2. Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

750

QUINN RD W

McGuinns Lake

Holleford Lake

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

18TUQ6820

HARROWSMITH RD

18TUQ6718

ALTON RD

SEE INSERT A

Harrowsmith

18TUQ6618

VANLUVEN RD

HOLLEFORD RD

JAMIESON RD

REDMOND RD

Holleford Crater

M HA EN

HOLLEFORD RD

18TUQ6720

HENDERSON RD

CUMMINS RD

CLARK RD

18TUQ6517

Pero Lake

GRAHAM RD

18TUQ6719

PETWORTH RD

BOYCE RD

YA5 HARROWSMITH RD / RD R

WALLACE RD

18TUQ6417

Harrowsmith Bog

18TUQ6317

YARKER RD

18TUQ6116

18TUQ6216

18TUQ6217

COLEBROOK RD

18TUQ6117

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON

TY UN

T KE UC

18TUQ5917

Napanee River

BRADFORD RD W

Napanee Lake

Pondlily Lake

Hambly Lake

D SY

E FR

Napanee River

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Freeman\MXD\Freeman_SiteConsiderations_Fig1.mxd

R EL TH BE

Napanee River

T CU

TOWNSHIP OF STONE MILLS

RD MITH

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON

A YL

RD AP RD LS W MI CO S MO

H RT

RD CA

O WS

Hardwood Creek

QUARRY RD

Harrow Lake Babcock Lake

RD COLEBROOK RD

MARIA ST R HAR

Cameron Creek Swamp

ILT ON W

Harrowsmith

D KR PA R

ke Varty La

KERR LANE

MCCONNELL RD

BELLROCK RD

BRACKEN RD

LIONS CLUB RD

RD WIL TO N

HWY 38

NEW MORIN RD

CHURCH ST

COUNTY RD 6

Depot Creek

INSERT A

1:10,000

FLORIDA RD

IL L E 1

RD Y UN T

MURVALE RD

Freeman Road Solar Project

Know

lton

L ak e

Information

W IL LI AM

STAGE COACH RD

ess a

La k e

GE OR

ES T

GOULD LAKE RD

Y RC PE PR

SHALLOW LANE

6 EM

RD OK

TY RO

UN LE B

NOTRE DAME ST

CO CO

OTTAWA ST

HWY 38

KINGSTON RD

ON BS GI

ST WILLIAMS

WOLF SWAMP RD

R GE

ELLERBECK RD

WATSON RD

YORK RD

Tweed

Picton

Highway

a hw

Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

401

@ ?

Lake Ontario

Kingston

Gananoque

Athens

Transmission Line

Figure 1

Site Considerations Information

Freeman Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

5 Km from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(v) - Heritage Resources (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iv) - Approved Plan Areas (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(i) - NHIC Grid Squares Containing an Endangered or Threatened Species Record

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(14) - Provincial Crown Land (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(13) - Other On-Shore Wind Facilities (N/A)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(10) - Airports, Aerodromes and Weather Radars (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(9) - National and Provincial Parks; Conservation Reserves (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(8) - Railway (None)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(6) - Geographic Township Boundaries (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(5) - First Nation Lands (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Township of South Frontenac

Project Site Newburgh

Township of Stone Mills

Hig

Big Gull Lake

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

Hig hw ay 62

LOUGHBOROUGH PORTLAND RD

CO V E

ay 41

SA IL O

Highw

Highway

Site Considerations

Page 121 of 225

EY ST WHEATL

MILL ST

ST H RC

C E OL BR OO KR ST

COUNTY RD 1 E

BS GI ON

CHOCTAW RIDGE ST

RD ILS

COUNTY RD 1 E

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Freeman\MXD\Freeman_SiteConsiderations_Fig2a.mxd

A BR

D H NC

M EE FR

R RY

Napanee River

TW PE

TH OR

BRADFORD RD W

Freeman Road Solar Project

Information

E UN

MD BO

UN T

CA TL OR NP D AN

er Riv Nap ane e

Centre of Site Easting 360460 m Northing 4916373 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

COLEBROOK RD

YARKER RD

WALLACE RD

Harrowsmith Bog

a hw

Newburgh

250

500

Freeman Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

Figure 2a

Gananoque

Site Considerations Information

1,000 Metres

120 m from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Transmission Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Potential Construction Area

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project

1:20,000

Kingston

Westport Newboro

Lake Ontario

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

Bath

y 33 Highwa

Figure 2b

Township of South Frontenac

Project Site

Highway 401 Napanee

Figure 2a

Township of Stone Mills

Deseronto

Hig

15 Hig hw ay

Site Considerations

Page 122 of 225

MCCONNELL RD

BRADFORD RD E

HA R R ELLERBECK RD

WOLF SWAMP RD

OW S

MITH

1:10,000

INSERT A

RD / RD 5

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Freeman\MXD\Freeman_SiteConsiderations_Fig2.mxd

Harrowsmith Bog

COLEBROOK

MARIA ST

MCLEAN RD

Harrowsmith

GRAHAM RD

Connection Point Easting 368367 m Northing 4920571 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

SEE INSERT A

250 1:20,000

PETERS LANE

500

1,000 Metres

HARROWSMITH RD

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

ALTON RD

N CK L CO BA B

HARROWSMITH

CHURCH ST

RD ILT ON W

WATSON LANE

Freeman Road Solar Project

Information

NOTRE DAME

OTTAWA ST

a hw

Bath

Highway 401 Napanee

Kingston

Figure 2b

Gananoque

Site Considerations Information

Freeman Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

120 m from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Transmission Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Potential Construction Area

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project

Westport Newboro

Lake Ontario

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Potential Site

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

y 33 Highwa

Figure 2b

Township of South Frontenac

Project Site

Newburgh

Figure 2a

Township of Stone Mills

Deseronto

Hig

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

KINGSTON RD

ST WILLIAMS

15 Hig hw ay

Site Considerations

Page 123 of 225

HWY 38

Freeman Road Solar Project

Layout

Conceptual

Alton Road

Page 124 of 225

Proposed Capacity: Up to 50 MW AC

•

McLean Rd

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\GW\MXD\GW_Project Location_PIC.mxd

Graham Rd

Henderson Road

Bracken Road

Renewable fuel of the Large Renewable Project: Non-Rooftop Solar

•

Ya rk er Ro ad

Quinn Rd W

Gorr Road

E Quinn Rd

oad nR o t r Mu

Alton Road

Picton

Newburgh

Lake Ontario

Kingston

City o fKingston

Project Site

Municipal Boundary

Transmission Line

Connection Line Option

Proposed Groenewegen Solar Project Site

Connection Point

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Township of South Frontenac

150

1:20,000

300

600 Metres

Figure 1-1

Gananoque

Project Location

Groenewegen Solar Project

Athens

SunEdison Canada

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2015.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

LEGEND

Hig hw ay 62

a hw

401 Highway Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

ay 41

The Project will be located east and west of Florida Road, south of Henderson Drive, and northwest of the intersection of Quinn Road West and Highway 38.

Hig

Big Gull Lake

Site Location: The Groenewegan Solar Project is located on Part Lots 7, 8 and 9, Concession 1 Portland and part lots 7 and 8, Concession 3 Portland, in the Township of South Frontenac.

Wallace Road

Tweed

Highw

Highway

•

Groenewegen Solar Project Location

Information

Site Location

Page 125 of 225

HWY 38

Florida Road

T CU

COUNTY

HEATH ST

TY UN CO

OTTAWA ST RD E PL MA

ILS

COUNTY RD

N MA EE

RD 2

ID BR

AN TL

BOYCE RD

18UQ6719 18UQ6819

CO U NTY

T ES

RD E

HOWES RD

RD 2

Millhaven Creek 18UQ6812

18UQ6712

D NR

E RD

HWY 401

D LEE R

CREEKFORD RD C

VAN ORDER RD

See Insert D

GEN G

ORSER RD

FOREST RD

CITY OF KINGSTON

18UQ6908 18UQ7008

RAILTON RD

FRANK ST

G LO

Hogan Lake

D AN

MORRISON RD

KEELEY RD

RUTLEDGE RD

E AV

INSERT C

UNITY RD

1,250

EUNICE DR 1:88,000

HOLMES RD

WAG N

ER S T

5,000 Metres

Lakes Bay

SYNER La SPOO DEN RD HAM llins CoRD

BUR BROOK RD

2,500

a ke

LATIMER RD

DAVIDSON SIDERD

ProducedRby Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of D Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014. Little Cataraqui Creek Reservoir
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

MC I Notes:VO R

Barretts Bay

RD KEPLER DOVER RD HORNING RD

1:15,000

ha d en

LOUGHBOROUGH PARK LANE

DD FA MC

Lower Awada Lake

Indian Lake

Spectacle Lake

NORWAY

RD Harves Lake

L RT PO

BAY

RUTLEDGE RD

See Insert C

ESS ST

PRINC

D IL R

AMEY RD

See Insert B

ALTON RD

FREEMAN RD

Little Long Lake Bulls Eye Lake EEL Blakes Lake

McGuinns Lake

Glassy Lake Cronk LakeDoubloon Lake Mica Lake

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

O 18UQ6813 RT Millhaven Creek MU

18UQ6713 Peters Lake

INN QUINN RD W QU

18UQ6716

18UQ6717

HENDERSON RD

Millhaven Creek

JAMIESON RD

VANLUVEN RD

18UQ6720 18UQ6820

Harrowsmith

CUMMINS RD

N HA S

See Insert A 18UQ6718 HARROWSMITH RD

PETWORTH RD

YARKER RD

WALLACE RD

COLEBROOK RD

Pondlily Lake

Blue LakeRush Lake INSERT B Darling Lake Little Devil Lake Gould Lake 1:20,000

MILDRED ST

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\GW\MXD\GW_SiteConsiderations_Fig1.mxd

STONEHENGE ST SHARPE RD AMARYLLIS ST

Napanee River

L IL M

O M M SI ROSHAN DR

INSERT D

R LE

Napanee River

BRADFORD RD W

Napanee Lake

RD MITH

O WS

D YR UA

R HAR

HOLLEFORD RD

RD GAR WA D LR E H BET

TIS

MARIA ST

D KR PAR

M FF HU

1:10,000

D RRD

COLEBROOK AN

Varty Lake

Harrowsmith

D WIL TO NR

KERR LANE

MCCONNELL RD

Hardwood Creek

Babcock Lake Pero Lake Hambly Lake

Hambly Lake

KANANASKIS DR

Napanee River

CHURCH ST

MATIAS CRT

BELLROCK RD

LEYTON AVE

Know lt

on L

ake

ILT ON

WESTBROOK RD

RD KE LA MU D

MCLEAN RD

e sa La k es Od

FLORIDA RD

MURVALE RD

INSERT A

HWY 38

IL LI A

SMITH RD

RETREAT LANE

1:10,000

CORDUKES RD

Groenewegen Solar Project

WOODFIELD CRES

ER OS

N TO WIL

Information

STAGE COACH RD

SILLS BAY RD

U CO 6

D OL

QUABBIN RD

SYDENHAM RD

La m en Sy d

RD Y NT

U CO

KS O

E RP

IL L W

DALEY RD FLANIGAN RD LO U G CL HB DIXON RD O IF FS 4 SEASONS DR ROU GH ID E DR

O TH

JA C

MIL LS

LA KE

R EA D H

OR GE S

LAKEHEAD RD

VE SHALLOW LANE SA ILO RS CO

RD PE RT H

LA NE

EM AN

K FIS

BABCOCK RD

COLE HILL RD

LANE LANDFILL

HARPERS BAY LANE

BEDFORD RD

WOLF SWAMP RD

L AY DS

Tweed

Hig hw ay 62

a hw

Newburgh

Picton

401 Highway Napanee Deseronto Bath 33 ay hw Hig

Hig

Big Gull Lake

@ ?

Newboro

Lower Rideau Lake Westport

Lake Ontario

Kingston

Gananoque

Athens

Transmission Line

Figure 1

Site Considerations Information

Groenewegen Solar Project

SunEdison Canada

5 Km from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(v) - Heritage Resources (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iv) - Approved Plan Areas (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(i) - NHIC Grid Squares Containing an Endangered or Threatened Species Record

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(14) - Provincial Crown Land (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(13) - Other On-Shore Wind Facilities (N/A)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(10) - Airports, Aerodromes and Weather Radars (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(9) - National and Provincial Parks; Conservation Reserves (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(8) - Railway (None)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(6) - Geographic Township Boundaries (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(5) - First Nation Lands (NONE)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project (SEE FIGURE 2)

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

City o fKingston

Project Site

Township of South Frontenac

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

MCKENDRY RD

AND RD

LIN

A RM

OTTAWA ST ST

KINGSTON RD

LOUGHBOROUGH PORTL

ROSEDALE RD

QUARRY RD

WILMER RD

MILL ST

MAPLE LAN

OLD BAY RD

GE AM H EN

EY ST

D SY U CH H RC

NOTRE DAME ST

HWY 38

ST WILLIAMS

YORK RD WHEATL

HOLLEFORD RD

PERTH RD

ay 41

Highw

Highway

Site Considerations

Page 126 of 225

KINGSTON RD

OTTAWA ST

SMIT

D D/R

BRADFORD RD E

Centre of Site Easting 366843 m Northing 4915957 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

YARKER RD

COLEBROOK RD

Harrowsmith Bog

WATSON RD

KERR LANE

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\GW\MXD\GW_SiteConsiderations_Fig2.mxd

WALLACE RD

BRADFORD RD W

HARROWSMITH PETWORTH RD

MARIA ST

MCCONNELL RD

OW AR R

MCLEAN RD

YA R

QUINN RD W

SEE INSERT A

HARROWSMITH

CHURCH ST

GRAHAM RD

ST CHURCH LANE WATSON

D NR WIL TO

HWY 38

PETERS LANE

QUINN RD

AMEY RD

SCANLAN RD

RAILTON RD

Napanee

Bath

Highway 401

Newburgh

Project Site

y 33 Highwa

Kingston Lake Ontario

250

500

Figure 2(a) Groenewegen Solar Project

Site Considerations Information

1,000 Metres

Gananoque

SunEdison Canada

120 m from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Transmission Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Potential Construction Area

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

1:31,500

ay hw

City o fKingston

Figure 2(b) Hig

Figure 2(a)

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

WestportNewboro

Township of South Frontenac

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

Deseronto

RUTLEDGE RD

Knowlton Lake

NR EE M A

HARROWSMITH RD

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

SO IL

Connection Point Easting 368367 m Northing 4920571 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

JAMIESON RD

ALTON RD

HOLLEFORD RD

SCANLAN CT

N KL OC AB C

BOYCE RD

e La k

rs te Pe

Cameron Creek Swamp

Napanee INSERT A Lake

Groenewegen Solar Project

WHITTY LANE

BRACKEN RD

WILLIAMS ST

Information

WOLF SWAMP RD

MURVALE RD

VANLUVEN RD RD VANLUVEN

ELLERBECK RD

LAND RD

NOTRE DAME

LOUGHBOROUGH PORT

Site Considerations

Page 127 of 225

KR FI S D K LA

FLORIDA RD

QUABBIN RD

ON RT

BUR BROOK RD

VAN ORDER RD

FOREST RD

ORSER RD

CITY OF KINGSTON

Connection Point Easting 369375 m Northing 4907615 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

UNITY RD

DRAKE RD

SR WE

D NR

D GA

MCCONNELL RD

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\GW\MXD\GW_SiteConsiderations_Fig2b.mxd

D MU

RAYMOND RD

Connection Point Easting 370171 m Northing 4910965 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

Millhaven Creek

A RD

Millhaven Creek

MUN K RID GE R

FLORID

Centre of Site Easting 366321 m Northing 4913037 m UTM NAD83 Zone 18N

CUMMINS RD

FELLOWS RD

e sL ak Pe t er

Millhaven Creek

GORR RD

CHIP

E NN

CLARK RD

HENDERSON RD

H WY

20 RD Y UN T

RD ILT ON W

Groenewegen Solar Project

Information

RD NS

IM M

sa La

SE R

Napanee

Bath

Highway 401

Newburgh

Project Site

y 33 Highwa

ay hw

Kingston Lake Ontario

City o fKingston

Figure 2(b) Hig

Figure 2(a) 15

250

500

Figure 2(b) Groenewegen Solar Project

Site Considerations Information

1,000 Metres

Gananoque

SunEdison Canada

120 m from Site and Proposed Connection Line

Transmission Line

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(iii) - Provincially Significant Wetland

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(15)(ii) - Provincially Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody/Watercourse

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(12) - Waterbody

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(11) - Property Boundaries

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(7) - Highway

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(4) - Municipal Boundaries

Potential Construction Area

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(3) - Key Features of the Project

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Point

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(2) - Connection Line

1:31,500

WestportNewboro

Township of South Frontenac

Notes:

Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2014.
Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83, Zone 18.

Section 3.2.6(b)(i)(1) - Site

LEGEND Site Considerations Information

Deseronto

Site Considerations

Page 128 of 225

WESTBROOK RD

SMITH RD

Groenewegen Solar Project

Layout

Conceptual

Ya rk er Ro ad

Alton Road

Page 129 of 225

d6 oa R try un o C

Page 130 of 225

The Proposed

Connection Line Route

CA E MD

RUTLEDGE RD

HARROWSMITH RD

E AV

MILL ST

N LA RT PO

NP BO DA UN RD RY

BRACKEN RD RD

YA R

HENDERSON RD

CLARK RD

SILLS BAY RD

RAILTON RD

SUMAC RD

FOREST RD

FELLOWS RD

GORR RD

BUREGA LAN

ON RT MU

ORSER RD

Option B

Groenewegen Solar Project

BABCOCK RD

ILT ON

CUMMINS RD

VE LO

SCANLAN RD

EL KE

QUINN RD

Freeman Road Solar Project ON ILS

LEE R

E KEPL

R RD

HARPERS BAY LANE

Option A QUINN RD W

FLORIDA RD

WALLACE RD

MCCONNELL RD

IL L

KE UC DM

B MP

SYDENHAM RD

6 RD

COUNTY RD 1

N MA

A AMEY RD C

STAGE COACH RD

ER TL CU

MCLEAN RD

R TY EE FR

COLEBROOK RD

MURVALE RD

T OR

UN CO

RD R GA WA RD L HE BET

SHEILA LANE

Option A

RETREAT LANE

ALTON RD

GRAHAM RD

BEDFORD RD

Wallace Solar Project

HWY 38

WHITTY LANE

BRADFORD RD W

FREEMAN RD

JAMIESON RD

ELLERBECK RD

WOLF SWAMP RD

R AY QU MC

Option B

AND LOUGHBOROUGH PORTL

PETWORTH RD

ROSEDALE RD

R GE

WATSON RD

A Connection Line will be required for the Freeman Road and Groenewegen Solar Projects. This line will be at the local distribution voltage and constructed within the municipal right of way. It is currently anticipated that the line would consist of an overbuild on the existing distribution line; however this needs to be confirmed with Hydro One.

VAN ORDER RD

KR FIS

U CO

YR NT

RD RD WN RS TE PE

D E

A DL MU

WE HO SR

PL MA

CORDUKES RD

SMITH RD

ER RD

UNITY RD

RAYMOND RD

RP NS

QUABBIN RD

O TH

O MM SI

BRO

T UN CO

D FRE

Document Path: P:\SUNEDISON\348184\SPECIALIST_APPS\GIS\Wallace\Wallace_AllSites1_PIC.mxd

Freeman Road Solar Project: The Connection Line for this Project will run north along the Camden Portland Boundary Road, then east along Colebrook Road into Harrowsmith, then north to the intersection with Alton Road (Option A), at which point it will travel east to the Wallace Solar Project connecting via lines from Alton Road or Jamieson Road (Option B).

Wallace Solar Project: There will be no Connection Line for this Project as the Connection Point is within the Site boundary. ®

Groenewegen Solar Project: The Connection Line for this Project will run north from the Project along Florida Road, to the intersection with Henderson Road, where it will travel east to the intersection with Yarker Road, and then east to the Intersection with Highway 38. From here, the Connection line will either travel north through Harrowsmith to the Wallace Solar Project (Option A), connection from Alton Road or Jamieson Road or travel south along Highway 38 to one of two possible Connection Points in the City of Kingston (Option B).

Page 131 of 225

Next Steps

In the Process

The next step in the process is for SunEdison to prepare a Meeting Summary Report, to document your questions and concerns. This report will be posted to the Project website and distributed to the Municipality.

Notice of Public Community Meeting For Project Proposals Under the Large Renewable Procurement

The proponent identi¿ed below is proposing to submit up to 3 proposals to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to design, build, and operate up to 3 Large Renewable Projects for the generation of electricity under the IESO’s Large Renewable Procurement (LRP). The LRP is a competitive process for procuring large renewable energy projects generally larger than 500 kilowatts. At the conclusion of the LRP, the IESO may award contracts for successful projects up to the speci¿ed procurement targets for each renewable fuel: 300 megawatts (MW) for wind, 140 MW for solar, 75 MW for waterpower, and 50 MW for bioenergy. This notice is being distributed to notify members of the public of a public community meeting that has been scheduled to discuss the Large Renewable Project proposals. Information regarding the proponent, the Large Renewable Project proposals, and the meeting details are described below. This public community meeting is being held as part of the early community engagement requirements of the LRP. The public community meeting will present details about the Large Renewable Projects and their proposed connection lines. Representatives of the proponent will be available to discuss the Large Renewable Projects and the overall LRP process. Should these Large Renewable Projects be awarded a contract, the Large Renewable Projects would need to obtain all required permits and approvals and conduct any further required TOWNSHIP OF Wallace SOUTH FRONTENAC community engagement activities. Solar Project Further details regarding the LRP are available at www.ieso.ca/lrp. Location Petworth Freeman Road Harrowsmith Proponent and the Large Renewable Project proposals Solar Project Connection Line Location Proponent: SunEdison Canada Quali¿ed Applicant from the LRP SunEdison Canadian Construction LP Colebrook Request for Quali¿cations stage Connection associated with the proponent: Line Option 1 Name of the Large Renewable Wallace Solar Project Project proposals: Groenewegen Solar Project Star Corners Freeman Road Solar Project Connection Renewable fuel of the Large Non-rooftop Solar Line Options Renewable Projects: Yarker 2/3 Groenewegen Proposed capacity of the Large Wallace Solar Project – Up to 50 MW AC Solar Project TOWNSHIP OF Renewable Projects (MW): Groenewegen Solar Project – Up to 50 MW AC Murvale STONE MILLS Location Freeman Road Solar Project – Up to 100 MW AC N Proposed connection point of The Wallace and Freeman Road Solar Projects 0 2.5 km the Large Renewable Projects: will connect at the same point: 44.42, - 76.65 KINGSTON N The Groenewegen Solar Project will connect at the Jamieson Road point above, or at one of the two options following: Wallace 44.31, - 76.63 or 44.34, - 76.62 Solar Project Location N 0 1.25 km Proposed locations of the Large Renewable Projects and proposed connection lines Alton Road The Wallace Solar Project is located on part lots 5 and 6 , Concession 6 in the Township of South Frontenac. There will be no Connection Line for this Connection Line Project as the Connection Point is on the subject property. Option 1 The Groenewegen Solar Project is located on part lots 7, 8 and 9, Concession 1 Portland, and on part of lots 7 and 8, Concession 3 in the Township of South Frontenac. The Connection Line for this Project will run north from the Project Harrowsmith Road 6 along Florida Road, to the intersection with Henderson Road, where it will travel Harrowsmith Colebrook Road east to the intersection with Yarker Road, and then east to the Intersection 0

Colebrook Road

1.25 km

Location of Potential Land

Colebrook

Freeman Road Solar Project Location

Contact information for the proponent Utilia Amaral Managing Director – Strategic Affairs, Canada 647-426-0667 uamaral@sunedison.com 60 Adelaide Street E, Suite 600, PO Box 6, Toronto, ON, M5C 3E4

County Road 1

www.sunedison.ca/wallace www.sunedison.ca/groenewegen www.sunedison.ca/freeman www.sunedison.ca

Star Corners

Groenewegen Solar Project Location

This meeting is not a Public meeting as per the Planning Act. Community meetings in respect of the Freeman Road Solar Project and the Groenewegen Solar Project will also be held in the Township of Stone Mills and City of Kingston, respectively, at later dates.

Quinn Rd. West Ya rke rR oa d Henderson Rd.

Florida Rd.

Location: Harrowsmith Public School, 4121 Colebrook Road, Harrosmith, ON Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 Time: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Open House from 7:00 to 8:00 Presentation and Q&A Session 8:00 to 9:00

Location of Potential Land Connection Line Option 1

1.25 km

Public Community meeting information

NOTE: NOTE:

Utilia Amaral Managing Director – Strategic Affairs, Canada 647-426-0667 uamaral@sunedison.com 60 Adelaide Street E, Suite 600, PO Box 6, Toronto, ON, M5C 3E4 www.sunedison.ca/wallace www.sunedison.ca/groenewegen www.sunedison.ca/freeman

2.5 km

land Port d den Roa Camundary Bo

with Highway 38. From here, the Connection line will either (i) travel north through Harrowsmith to the Wallace Solar Project, connecting via lines from Alton Road or Jamieson Road or (ii) travel south along Highway 38 to one of two possible Connection Points in the City of Kingston. The Freeman Road Solar Project is located on part lots 16, 17 and 18, Concession 4, Portland, in the Township of South Frontenac, and part lots 47 to 49, Concession 1 and 2 in the Township of Stone Mills. The Connection Line for this Project will run north along the Camden Portland Boundary Road, then east along Colebrook Road into Harrowsmith, then north to the intersection with Alton Road, at which point it will travel east to the Wallace Solar Project connecting via lines from Alton Road or Jamieson Road.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO PROVIDE COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT:

Location of Potential Land Connection Line Options 2/3

Murvale

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS COMMUNITY MEETING Your attendance at this meeting is appreciated. Please write down any

comments, questions or concerns you have and place them in the comment form box.

THANK YOU FOR COMING. ®

Page 132 of 225

Appendix D Comment Form

Page 133 of 225 June 17, 2015 Harrowsmith, Ontario

COMMENT FORM SunEdison Canadian Construction LP is committed to comprehensive and transparent engagement regarding the proposed Wallace, Freeman Road and Groenewegen Solar Projects, and your comments are important to us.

Thank you for attending this community meeting! Please use the space provided below to provide us with any comments or questions about the proposed projects and indicate the specific project these comments or questions are relevant to (circle all that apply). Wallace Solar Project

Freeman Road Solar Project

Freeman Road Solar Project Connection Line

Groenewegen Solar Project

Groenewegen Solar Project Connection Line

Page 134 of 225 June 17, 2015 Harrowsmith, Ontario

The following information is optional: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________

Email: _______________________________________________________________________________ Would you like to be included on the Stakeholder Mailing List for the Projects? (If so, please circle those that apply and ensure that your full mailing address is provided) Wallace Solar Project

Freeman Road Solar Project

Groenewegen Solar Project

A meeting summary report will be prepared following the community meeting which will include copies of all materials presented during the community meeting and summaries of all comments and questions submitted, along with SunEdison Canadian Construction LP’s response. A copy of the meeting summary report will be posted to the Project website. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Page 135 of 225

Wayne Orr From: Sent: To:

Subject: Attachments:

Pretorius, Kim <Kim.Pretorius@cibc.ca > June-18-15 4:47 PM

Way ne Orr

Letterregarding the proposed solar projects in South Frontenac County [Untitled].pdf

Dear Wayne,

As peLyour !nstructlons’am emai"ng you the tetter save you last night at the Community meeting with Sun Edison and it’s partners in crime. Obviously we wrote this letter before the meeting based on my own knowledge and research so far.

After.h.ea^gmyesteemed fe"owr^‘dents comments and concerns, I would have to add many additional concerns and include that we oppose ALL proposed sites in the community.

lfound-lt.frlghten^tohe^that theNorth Fronten^ Township in its wisdom rejected the same type of proposal and

somehow were afflicted with the projects anyways. I would hope that our Mayor and CouncilI will be far betterTrmed and

^‘iT! ^v!L^;rLS!.t^?^nce should it?e required ?oveto these Pro’ects in our-community:7t would appear

=xcx;i-l^=^T.aK-sa±^^ax:^^

that_weare^up against a company who will say whatever we want to hear to get what’theywant’andthennotTiv’eup to their commitments. Please let me know what I should prepare for the Council meeting on the 23rd to oppose these projects. Respectfully yours, Kim

Kim Preton’us Client Associate

CIBCWoodGundy E-Mail: kim.pretorius@cibc.ca <"?s ^.1;

Telephone: (613) 531-5509 / (800) 267-0254

www.bklwinvestmentadvisors.com

We can not accept any instructions by e-mail

T;he comments and opinions expressed herein are the result of work done by Kim Pretorius. They may differ from the opinions of CIBC

^^^^^^n^^M^wre;^^re^tiverfcBCWO^Mark^nc/s^^n"“LTOmmlndations=-J<hlsinfo^-ationlincludinganyoPinion-ls based o” various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy ‘cannot

beguara^ltisfor infor.ation only, and is su^ect to change at any time. If applicable a copy of theanyapUCBCWorid Ma’tots Resea"*Department report is ava"abte UPOn rec-tThis infor^on, indudina any opinionjs based on-varioussourc^ b2!;eved tobereliabte-but its accuracycannot be S^ranteed and is subject to change: CIBC and CIBCWorid Markets’Tnc.:th"ek a^tes.d.ecto,., officers and e.ployees .ay buy, sell, or hokl a positon in securiiies o^<»^>any .enfcnedhereki; s affiiiates subsldss^ndmay.aj_soperf^financjaladviso^semces-in^^^^^^ re!~~iKW lu’esame-CBCWOrid Mari^’-. -.- -P-sentatives^ll receive sales co^.sionsand/oras^d between bLd.and.ask pnces,if-you purcha&e-,sellor hold the securities referred to.above- @ CIBC WorTd~~MarketsTnc:2015:Cliente’are"a7v1sedto seekadv’cere?ard"!9 the^articular oi-stances ^ fteir personal tex and legal advise.; Any endosed-research.portsfro^P Morgan, Credit Suisse, Standard & Poors, or Value Line are not prepared subject to the’disclosure’requiremente under thetiROCRute 3400. Thismaterialmaycome frumthe Pereonal calc"latio"s of Kim Pretonus. In the event of a discrepancy between the data used in this ,report andthe data 9enerated by C’BC wood Gundy.renan^ ^ be placed on the date generated through-thefacilNes of CIBC Wood Gundy.

Page 136 of 225

^ntendedreci?ien^unauthorizedand may b° “^”. ciBCWoridlMarkets-m.^se.ves^e^tto.o^o^re-^ =u^S^ through its networks for quality control purposes.

No.tradlng instructions wiilbe accepted by e-^a."- This information, including any opinion, is based on various but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change without noticY

sources believed to be reliable,

alcwood Gundy^s a.dJV;sionof.cIBC,_wor[d Ma^ets.Inc-.‘a subsidiary of CIBC and a Member of the Canadian Investor Protection Fund and

^?leS^tnin^tc7=>^e9i^aJ:,o^?i^,anizcltionofcanada’ Ifyouwishtounsubscribefrom<-IBC Wood Gundy, please click j^^ this message and state “Unsubscribe”.

^?^,en^r^L^T^?.!^^I^?^c^.of.d .G=^dx Fi^n?_al^eryices Ln.^J^..QU^b?c’ insLJrance services are available through CIBC

w°°dGundY.Rnancialseraces ebec)Inc.If ^ “^ ^ -Scribe fro. CIBCWoodGun^Finan.^e^Inc-.^aBC^od Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc., please click hgre, or reply to this messagYand state “Unsubscr7be”~

5lmf^i^e^cSSlSJ^J!S^!]! ^iY^r-t.?-OLn-ts.i>^^c?n.t:en’rdes.rens^‘gnement5..co.nfldentiels-si vo.us n’etes Pas le destinataire ^^,r^’^i^^’^e-lT-m^?^T^tj!TX^_diteu en repond3nta ceme^^ ^i?^fiio^^^?a^d^ls^^e5l’e^e-^^r,UJ1^^ _ne_au,!:.re?ueJ ^e^ ^S^S^T^?‘iu^^LB^’^f: ^^!f^-e_L^lt^e su^lllertouteslescommunlc^ I’intermediaire de ses reseaux a des fins de controle de la quality.

^J^S^?’^l£CISI^tLLd^ ??^!?’^s.fc-h-eTi^!i=??^^u^i-er_61^ct^ol’"?ue.n?seront pas accept6es. Ces renseignements, y compris les ^ri^s’-?nt 6te obtenus de sources <1ue “ous considerons dignes de foi, toutefois nous ne pouvons en gaTantirT’exactitude etiEs peuvent &tre modifies.

£^^^a^n^r^t1’^fldri^^n^^^hH?rT^^Ti^^cJ^C^^I^^^B^U.l.c^ desepargnants et de rorganjsme canadien de reglementBtion du commerce des valeure mobilieres. Si vous souhaitezvouTdesabo’nneTde CIBC Wood Gundy, veuillez cliquenci, ou repondre a ce message en indiquant « Desabonnement »

^ts^Ssnda^^S^^LO^SR^^I^?^S^£^^^^?jLG/u^.dL?!^?fs^!na/1CJe-T-i^^

sent offerts par nntermediaire de CIBC Wood Gundy Services financiers (Quebec) inc. Si vous souhaitezvous~~d6sabonner"de’CIBC~~‘Wood

Gu.ndy-servssFlnanders_inc-et CIBC wood Gundy services Financiere (Quebec) inc., veuillez cliquer-i£i, ou’ripondrea’ce message en indiquant« Desabonnement ».

Page 137 of 225 Kim & Menno Pretorius 4328 Henderson Road

Harrowsmith, Ontario KOH 1VO

613-372-5886

June 16, 2015

South Frontenac Township Mayor and Council

Township of South Frontenac P 0 Box 100

Sydenham/ Ontario KOH 2TO

Dear Mayor and Council,

^LV^it-e-to.^l?,ose.-thepTP°^d solar farr^ at.the site of Henderson and Florida road. This neighbourhood

Tns.“ma”,communityof homes and familtes wh° have chosen a picturesque/quiet, private and rura; lifestyle which will be ruined by the proposed solar development.

Henderson Road is one of the prettiest country roads in the area. Quite a few of the families on our road

have dogs.andw chi!dren:“is common tosee -y P-P’e, young and old; walking-with^rwlthout^ir

^s^^kid^^^^e-^c^-.I^S_a.9re?t^,ayt?9reetnel?hboursande^^^^ safe roads. This kind of solar development will make our strolls extremely’hazardous:

wecan see the proposed site on. Henderson Road which currently is a thickly forested parcel of land. I have

^,^b^sewoods,contmueas;tis P-ate property (and I would-not^pas^butTdo

admTOJt-‘sl°velyfollag"s we walkand drlye by- As residents of’HendersonRoad’wed’rh/’ethrough’o’ur little p"ce(^erenityatdecreased speeds out of respe^ for each other. It Is a peaceful communrtywhich-would not benefit from the kind of Industry proposed for this site.

This area is full of wild life - - - there are bears, wolves, coyotes, bunnies, deer, skunks/ porcupines,

groundhogs, frogs and birds. _I wake up every morning to the most beautiful sounds of’the’birds and go to

^^9^th esonwe fro^.Thesearesomeofthe reas°- - l.vehe.:Thesean,^ls^uid be irradiated by this project. At a minimum their habitat will be severely diminished’;

This whole peaceful existence will be completely disrupted and invaded by such a vast solar project.

^i-sl,lfl?.o.rt-^.s^l1a^l?,_ener^y onthe whole. Perhaps there are spaces which would be unencumbered by suc.h lar9e projects °f,this.nature. However, to “plant” them right in the middle of our^community’isnot the right place nor is it the right scale.

Lh.T/,e-f<ie^-,o!ih?,r’comTuni,tles that sufferthe ongoing installation of these vast solar “farms” on Unity Rd/ Mud Lake Rd &Howes Road for example. Disrupting the operation of equine farms, spoiling the beau’tyof na!:u,rT anc?ther!the constant flow of trucks, workers and supplies destroys why people live in these !1.eig^bou^hooodsl. It.is. devastatin9 to witness. The whole community looks like a construction zone. I can’t imagine the extent of damage to roads etc… I encourage you to drive by and see if you would like it in our

community.

?^ ^?^^y-^?=Tl^ej:h^de^!ine_in.real estate vaiues of adjacent properties in other jurisdictions where l^s_oJaMnj;tallations_exist. There is no reason why I should be impoverished for’the sakeofa"sola’r installation in our community. For zoning reasons alone this application should be denied.

These “solar"Jarms are not farms llkea9rlculturalfan’T1s’horsefarms/ sheep farms/ cattle farms/ dairy farms etc-;:–The,y.really,arenot"farms"ata"and .should not be Permitted to usetheterm.“Truefa’mNy’farms~such as currently exist in my neighbourhood are the only farms that should be allowed.

Page 138 of 225

To summarize, some of our concerns as residents of this community are: Disruption of our daily lives

Devaluation of our homes and properties

Health risks from electromagnetic and radio frequency radiation Destruction of wild life habitats

Destruction of forests/ heavily mature treed areas

Possible pollution & destruction of wells from digging Destruction of the views of trees, fields and wildlife

Toxic waste from the solar industry - silicon tetrachloride waste, if it comes in contact with water it releases acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes

Pollution of waterways located in the planned area as well as areas sited as “environmentally sensitive lands

overlay” on the zoning map on South Frontenac website

PotentiallyjiigNy flammable/explosive materials en mass and no fire station anywhere near by Excessive Traffic

General unsavory industrial activity in a rural area where it has no place. We respectfully submit that this proposal be denied in our community. There is no benefit at all but rather only risk to the residents and taxpayers of South Frontenac Township. v

Yours ve\y truly, <s-/I?

Kim & Menno Pretorius

L ^

Page 139 of 225

Wayne Orr From:

Lee Wendland Lee.Wendland@rmc.ca

Sent: To:

June-18-15 4:09 PM bnahiddi@sunedison.com

Cc:

Wayne Orr SunEdison Groenwegen Project solar projects.docx

Subject: Attachments:

Bob/

To say the least, last night’s meeting was a huge eye opener for me. I do believe that projects like your company’s will become much more prevalent in the future as the demand for power continues to increase and we turn to “green” energy to supply this demand. Therefore, I am willing to accept that there will be some growing pains as these projects take shape and understand that it is in our best interest to make sure all planning aspects are carefully looked at and all options explored. I also believe that it is my duty then to voice my opinion to ensure that all concerns are considered and addressed; thus the sending of this email.

As I indicated last night/ my biggest concern with your project is the routing of the transmission lines. This does not mean that I do not have concerns with the aesthetic appeal of the sites/ the loss of wildlife habitat that will occur and

the potential disruption of the ecosystem, but the effects of having to upgrade the transmission lines and the resultant corridor set back requirements will directly affect my property. At the time of the meeting, I was not aware of the issues that upgrading the transmission lines would have. However, based on the discussion with neighbours and the quick bit of research I have since done, I have confirmed that the right of way corridor and tree management zone requirements for the higher voltage lines will certainly have a major effect on the trees along the front of my property as well as the whole portion of Florida Rd and Hwy 38 which will have the transmission line upgraded. Given that my military training has driven into me to never simply identify a problem without providing a solution, I have included a proposed transmission line path for both the Groenwegen and Freeman project sites. Please review the attached word

file for the proposed new transmission paths. Keep in mind that this is a rather crude depiction but I am sure someone within your company will be able to turn the concept into something more refined.

In identifying this route, I used that assumption that the upgrading of the power lines in the existing distribution corridor is essentially equivalent to installing a whole new transmission system. Therefore/ designing a new corridor should be of equivalent cost (other than the new land rights that would need to be obtained) as to “upgrading” the existing system. Note, that the route depicted does not appreciably change the transmission length of either project to the point just south of the Village of Harrowsmith. It does however use a path that minimizes the passage of the high voltage lines near residential dwellings. This minimizes the impact that the right away corridor and tree management zones will have on property values and aesthetic appeal due to the required cutting of trees. It also allow property owners to maintain their current trees or allow the planting of new trees along property lines. For example, in the

Groenwegen project/ the new route would take the number of residential dwellings being passed from about 35

(depending on how rou:ing actually occurs up Hwy 38) to 10 (3 of which are Groenwegen properties). Also, closer inspection shows that likely 6 of these properties do not have trees which would be affected by -the introduction of a

high voltage power line, In addition, where the original transmission line route had much of the route passing through

wood lands, the majority of the proposed route is not/again reducing the impact of tree cutting required.

I hope you find the solution offered helpful in developing your next round of proposals. Again this was a hastily

developed solution. In i:he end all I can hope is that your company investigates the possibility of re-working the transmission line routing as to minimize the passage of the lines near residential dwellings so as to minimize the impact on peoples properties.

Page 140 of 225 thanks jCee <^Vendftm£

Capt L.A. Wendland, CD

Adjutant/ Royal Military College of Canada Department of National Defence / Government of Canada

Lee.Wendland@rmc.ca / Tel : 613-541-6000 - Ext 6503 / Cell: 613-449-4861 Capitaine-Ajudant, College Militaire Royal du Canada Ministere de la Defense nationale / Gouvernement du Canada Lee.Wendland@rmc.ca / Tel: 613-541-6000 - Poste 6503 / Cell: 613-449-4861

Page 141 of 225

Groenwegen transmission line to travel north on Groenwegen property then cut northwest to meet cnty rd 18 approximately 200 metres south of the entry rd 18 and Henderson rd junction. Cross county rd 18 and travel up the west side of cnty rd 18 to a point approximately 250 metres south of St Patrick’s public school. Line will then cross cnty rd 18 to the east to the junction of the Cataraqui trail and Hwy 38.

Freeman transmission line to travel south on west side ofCamden Portland Boundry Rd to the Junction with the Cataraqui trail. Turn east and parallel north side of Cataraqui trail to junction of Wallace Rd. Turn east again along south side of Wallace rd to Bracken Rd. Cross Bracken Rd and continue east until joining new transmission line from Groenwegen project.

Recommend that this transmission line does not continue along Hwy 38 through the Village of Wilton as originally planned but from junction of Hwy 38 and Cataraqui trail turn east and parallel north side of Cataraqui trail till it reaches the current Hydro one transmission corridor then turn north along that corridor to Alton connection point.

Page 142 of 225

Page 143 of 225

Bondfield Construction South Frontenac Sun Solar Project

Page 144 of 225

South Frontenac Sun Solar Project Bondfield Construction Company Limited, one of Canada’s largest construction companies, plans to construct and operate a single 35MW AC solar power facility on privately owned land. Bondfield plans to apply to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to deliver electrical power to Hydro One. Bondfield is eager to engage the Municipality of South Frontenac in proposing to design, build and operate the groudmount solar Photovoltaic (PV) project on Mulrooney and McCallum properties. The properties are located in the Township of South Frontenac, on the northeast side of the intersection of Battersea Rd and McGarvey St. The Mulrooney and McCallum properties were hand selected and screened as an ideal site to adhere to all environmental, soil, and community requirements. The Sun Solar Project site has significant benefits for construction of a solar project with the entire site having Class 4 Soils and access to the S1K transmission circuit crossing directly over the site with 100MW of available capacity. South Frontenac Sun Solar will require ZERO infrastructure to be built off of site to accommodate the solar project. The substation and tap point of transmission will be self-contained well within the property lines. The current use of the properties is primarily as annual cash crops with some gravel pit operations. Engineering data estimates PV panels to cover sixty-five percent (65%) of the properties with aggressive setbacks from abutting property lines. Engineers are working on amending and designing site layouts as feasibility of those designs become clear while conducting all site considerations. Bondfield is looking into hosting a public meeting down the road from the project site at the Storrington Lions Club, 2992 Princess Rd. This hall being so close in proximity to the Mulrooney and McCallum properties will ensure ease of local property owners to attend. This meeting is to be held upon the final completion of the Community Engagement Plan, Site Considerations Information, and 15 days after notice has been provided. Notice will be provided in many forms including published in a local newspaper, continuously posted to the Bondfield LRP website, and delivered to every assessed landowner of property within 120m of the site. Bondfield has fully executed lease agreements with both Mulrooney and McCallum properties. A law firm has provided a list of all abutting property land owners. Bondfield is currently in progress of reaching out to all specified landowners to inform them of the project and seek support. All abutting property land owners are to be contacted prior to the public meeting being held. Bondfield would like to thank the municipality of South Frontenac for allowing this presentation to be conducted and look forward to working together to bring sustainability and economic development to the community. A Prescribed Form – Municipal Meeting Confirmation is attached at the end of this document. Bondfield would like to request confirmation of this meeting being held and all representatives of the municipality in attendance provide their name, title, and signature on the final page.

Page 145 of 225

Property Information: Mulrooney (20MW) Pin: 36294 – 0289 LT Description: PT LT 38 CON 7 STORRINGTON/KINGSTON PT 1 13R10403 & AS IN FR138311 EXCEPT PT 6 & 7 13R13045 & PT 27 13R343 LYING N OF TRAVELLED RD AKA COUNTY RD 11, S/T FR782251; S/T STN8940; SOUTH FRONTENAC Pin: 36294 – 0288 LT Description: PT LT 38 CON 7 STORRINGTON/KINGSTON AS IN FR497704 LYING N OF TRAVELLED RD & PT 2 13R10403 AKA COUNTY RD 11, S/T FR782251; S/T STN8940; SOUTH FRONTENAC Pin: 36294 – 0287 LT Description: PT LT 39 CON 7 STORRINGTON/KINGSTON AS IN FR782251 (PCL 1), S/T FR782251; S/T STN8940; SOUTH FRONTENAC McCallum (15MW) Description: STORRINGTON CON 7 PT LOTS 39 AND 40; SOUTH FRONTENAC Roll Number: 060 030 12100 0000, 1029060030124000 A map indicating the properties is provided below in Figure 1.

Page 146 of 225

Figure 1: Mulrooney and McCallum Properties and Approximate Solar Array Design

Page 147 of 225

Figure 2: S1K Transmission Circuit TAT Table

Page 148 of 225

120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1

T 416-967-7474 F 416-967-1947 www.ieso.ca

Prescribed Form – Municipal Meeting Confirmation Name of the Large Renewable Project:

South Frontenac Sun Solar

Registered Proponent:

Bondfield NCC Solar LP

Renewable Fuel of the Large Renewable Project:

Non-Rooftop Solar

Contract Capacity of the Large Renewable Project :

Page 1 of 3

Mar 2015

IESORP/f-LRPIRFP-011r2

Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the LRP I RFP. The Local Municipality confirms to the IESO the following: 1.

I am the/an of South Frontenac (the “Local Municipality”) and have the delegated authority to provide this confirmation on behalf of the Local Municipality and without personal liability.

The Registered Proponent has advised the Local Municipality that it proposes to develop, construct and operate a Large Renewable Project and/or proposed Connection Line, with the characteristics outlined in the table above, under the LRP I RFP.

On the 23 day of June , 2015, at , the Registered Proponent held a meeting with representatives of the Local Municipality to discuss the particulars of the Large Renewable Project and/or proposed Connection Line (the “Meeting”).

Representatives of the Local Municipality that attended the Meeting are listed in Exhibit A.

Local Municipality: South Frontenac Signature:

Name: Title: I have the authority to sign on behalf of the Local Municipality. Dated this

day of

, 20

Page 149 of 225

120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1

T 416-967-7474 F 416-967-1947 www.ieso.ca

Prescribed Form – Municipal Meeting Confirmation

Page 2 of 3

Mar 2015

IESORP/f-LRPIRFP-011r2

The Registered Proponent acknowledges that this confirmation: 1.

is not an approval by the Local Municipality of the proposed Large Renewable Project and/or Connection Line;

is not a promise by the Local Municipality to host the proposed Large Renewable Project and/or Connection Line;

is not a contract and cannot be relied upon by the Registered Proponent, IESO or any third party as containing any promises by the Local Municipality; and

is only for the purpose of the Registered Proponent satisfying section 3.2.5(b) of the LRP I RFP and for no other purpose.

Registered Proponent: Bondfield NCC Solar LP Signature:

Name: Title: I have the authority to bind the Registered Proponent. Dated this

day of

, 20

Page 150 of 225

120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1

T 416-967-7474 F 416-967-1947 www.ieso.ca

Prescribed Form – Municipal Meeting Confirmation

Page 3 of 3

Mar 2015

IESORP/f-LRPIRFP-011r2

EXHIBIT A REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY THAT ATTENDED THE MEETING

Name and title of representative from the Local Municipality

Page 151 of 225 SH/?

STAFF REPORT

CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL: June 17, 2015 AGENDA DATE:

June 23, 2015

SUBJECT:

Facilities agreement for large scale Solar Projects RECOMMENDATION: OPEN

BACKGROUND:

The IESO has opened a window for large scale solar projects. To date Council

has had two firms express an interest, (Sun Edison and Inverenergy) with a third

one approaching Council on June 23 (Bonfield).

Proponents need to acquire up to 80 points through a combination of activities including gaining a resolution of Municipal support. Prior to passing such a resolution, council will negotiate a community benefit, which is primarily a

financial incentive. Additionally it is prudent to enter into an agreement with any proponent to have them commit to a number of other items that are to be captured in a “facility agreement”

Loyalist Township has adopted the City of Kingston’s approach. Attached is the

City’s framework.

Senior staff have been asked to provide further insight into areas of concern to better protect the municipality’s interests. Identified issues to date include .

Pre and post road assessments with assurances that the Township will not be disadvantaged

Requirements for building permits where required

Training for our fire department

The final document will be edited to reflect a South Frontenac perspective. Council is asked to review the Kingston framework and provide any additional comments for inclusion into a final document.

ATTACHMENTS: .

Landscaping and site design guidelines for Large Scale, ground oriented Solar Energy facilities.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Page 152 of 225

Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities Since the Green Energy Act was passed in 2009, most renewable energy projects are exempt from most Planning Act approvals, and have instead been subject to a provincial‐led approval process. Part of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process set up by the Province of Ontario includes consultation with affected municipalities. Developers of renewable energy projects must submit specific materials to the municipality within a certain timeframe, and consult with the municipality. This includes having the municipality complete the Municipal Consultation Form provided by the Province, which the developer must then submit with their REA application. The purpose of these guidelines is to outline the minimum standards that the municipality would ask for with respect to the landscaping and site design for solar energy facilities in their comments to the Province as part of the REA process. The guidelines apply to large‐scale, ground‐oriented solar energy facilities, where the generation of electricity is the primary use of the property, excluding MicroFIT projects. These types of facilities cover large amounts of land, and can have significant impacts on the surrounding environment, particularly in rural areas that do not generally contain such large‐scale facilities. The guidelines are intended as a starting point in helping to mitigate the visual impact that these solar energy facilities have on the landscape.

Access a) All solar energy project sites will be required to have a civic address. If a civic address does not exist for the property, one will be created by the municipality. b) The creation of access points (driveways) to any property, or the alteration of an existing access point, will require an Access Permit from the appropriate approval authority. c) The access road bed will be constructed to the appropriate standard to accommodate the weight of a standard‐size fire (pumper) truck.
Setbacks a) Structures, panels and fencing associated with a solar energy facility will be set back from all property lines and public road rights‐of‐way a minimum of 20 metres (66 feet). b) A 100 metre (328 ft.) setback for fencing and solar arrays will be required from any residence, unless otherwise negotiated by the property owner.

Page 153 of 225 Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities c) Additional setbacks may be required, if identified through the review process, to address certain issues, including, but not limited to, mitigating noise or glare impacts, providing for road or utility corridors, or protecting significant natural or cultural heritage features.

Visual Appearance and Impact a) No solar energy facility will produce glare that would constitute a nuisance to occupants of neighbouring properties, to persons traveling on public roads, or within known local flight routes to the Kingston Municipal Airport. Glare resistant solar panels should be used wherever possible. b) The visual impact of electrical lines and all other utility connections will be minimized wherever possible (refer to Section 5. Utility Connections). c) Appropriate landscaping, screening materials, and architectural treatments will be required to help screen or buffer the impact of the solar energy facility and accessory structures from public roads and adjacent properties (refer to Section 4. Accessory Structures, Section 7. Landscaping, Section 8. Berms, and Section 9. Fencing).
Accessory Structures a) All solar energy facility buildings and accessory structures, including, but not limited to, equipment shelters, storage facilities, transformers and substations, will be screened from view, particularly when adjacent to a public road or residential property, using a combination of landscaping elements (refer to Section 7. Landscaping, Section 8. Berms, and Section 9. Fencing). b) Where buildings or accessory structures are visible from a public road or adjacent property, and cannot be appropriately screened, additional architectural treatments will be required to help the structure blend into the surrounding landscape.
Utility Connections a) In designing the plans for the connection of the solar energy facility to the electricity grid, the proponent will consider all options, including placing all utility connections (e.g. electrical lines and wires) from the solar energy facility underground, as well as the feasibility of running the lines overhead in the rear of properties, away from public roads. b) The placement of utility connections underground will have to take into consideration soil conditions, shape and topography of the site, and any adjacent natural or cultural heritage features. c) The proponent will consult with the City regarding its plans for utility connections. The City will confirm whether the utility connections should be underground or overhead, as there may be the possibility of using existing pole systems, and it may not always be suitable to have private infrastructure buried within the municipal right‐of‐way. 2

Page 154 of 225 Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities d) Electrical transformers or substations for utility interconnections may be above ground, if required, but any of these facilities that are visible from a public road or an adjacent property will be appropriately screened or architecturally treated (refer to Section 3. Visual Appearance and Impact and Section 4. Accessory Structures).

Site Alteration and Stormwater Management a) Any removal of topsoil, placement of fill, or alteration of the grade of the land required for the construction or operation of a solar energy facility will require a Site Alteration Permit, in accordance with the City’s Site Alteration By‐Law. b) There will be no negative impact on public rights‐of‐way or adjacent properties with respect to stormwater runoff from solar energy facilities. c) Fixed panel solar arrays will be considered pervious surfaces for the purposes of calculating stormwater runoff and detention. The impervious surfaces will include the support posts and bases of the panels, any roads or impervious driveway surfaces, parking areas, and buildings on the site.
Landscaping a) A full landscape plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect, will be submitted to the municipality for review and comment. b) Where solar energy facilities are visible from a public road or adjacent property, appropriate screening and buffering will be employed to mitigate the presence of the facility through a combination of landforming, vegetation and fencing. This may include wrapping the landscaping treatments from the road frontage around to a portion of the side yards of the property. c) Wherever possible, mature trees and vegetation will be preserved, particularly where it can be used to screen and buffer adjacent properties and public roads from the solar energy facility. d) The structures comprising the solar energy facility will be constructed and located in a manner so as to minimize the necessity to remove existing trees upon the lot. e) Any tree removal on the property will require a Tree Permit, in accordance with the City’s Tree By‐ Law. f) Any trees to be retained on‐site will be protected from development activity in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Tree Preservation and Protection. g) Accessory structures on the property that will be visible from a public road or adjacent property will be screened or architecturally treated so that they blend in with the surrounding landscape (refer to Section 4. Accessory Structures).

Page 155 of 225 Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities

h) The chain link fence surrounding the solar energy facility will be screened from view using a variety of landscaping options, such as berms, vegetation, wood fencing, or living fences/walls (refer also to Section 8. Berms and Section 9. Fencing). i) Within the fenced enclosure, and on the grounds of the facility around the solar panel arrays, there should be vegetated groundcover, preferably drought‐tolerant species. Interior to the site, the vegetated groundcover, as well as any granular or hard surfaces, should not require any herbicide treatment for maintenance or growth control. A management plan for sustainable maintenance of the site should be produced. j) Plantings on the property used to screen and buffer public roads and adjacent properties should include a mix of native coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs, and allow for the landscaping material to be visually effective in a short period of time. k) The planted size of trees and shrubs may vary from site to site, based on proximity, land elevations, and soil types in order to have a greater mitigating effect for the solar energy facility. l) Emphasis on year‐round screening should be prioritized in plant material selection. m) Multi‐storey plant material for screening and habitat should be integrated into the design. n) There is a preference for native vegetation and heritage species to be planted. Non‐native species may be considered for more landscaped areas. However, whatever species are chosen, they should not be invasive, and they should be appropriate to the existing landscape and natural environment. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) and City of Kingston Forestry Division and Parks Development staff should be consulted when determining appropriate plant species. o) Wherever possible, landscaping elements used to screen and buffer public roads and adjacent properties should be installed prior to construction.

Berms a) Berms should be used in appropriate situations, where they will not impact drainage on the site and adjacent sites. b) Berms that are constructed should not be so large as to look out of place. Instead, they should be appropriate to the location and surrounding environment. c) Contoured landforms with a naturally undulating design, ranging in height from 0.5 metres to 2.4 metres, with cross‐sectional slopes not exceeding 1:5, are encouraged to blend (feather out) into the landscape and not present an obvious and jarring intrusion into the landscape.

Page 156 of 225 Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities d) Any berms that are installed will be fully landscaped with appropriate vegetation (refer to Section 7. Landscaping). e) All berms will be constructed on private property and will not be permitted in the municipal right‐ of‐way.

Fencing a) While chain link fencing is required by the proponent around the perimeter of all solar energy facilities, it should be screened from view from public roads and adjacent properties. b) Additional types of fencing may be used to act as a buffer and screen the chain link fencing. Examples include wood fencing or a living fence/wall. c) Any solid fencing used should be installed with other landscaping elements, including vegetation, to soften the appearance of the fence. d) All fencing is to be properly installed and maintained in good repair.
Lighting a) Lighting of a solar energy facility, including entrances and accessory structures, will be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes, and will be reasonably shielded from abutting properties. b) Where feasible, lighting of the solar energy facility will be directed downward and will incorporate full cut‐off fixtures to reduce light pollution. c) Lighting of large‐scale, ground‐oriented solar energy facilities will be consistent with applicable local, provincial and federal law.
Signage a) Signage posted on the property will comply with the City’s Sign By‐Law and may require a permit. b) Signage will be posted at the entrance to the site, so that it is clearly visible from a public road or right‐of‐way. c) Signs will only identify the manufacturer, installer, owner and/or operator of the system, and any operational or public health and safety information applicable to the facility.

Page 157 of 225 Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale, Ground‐Oriented Solar Energy Facilities

Site Plan Drawings Site plan drawings will be submitted to the municipality for review and comment, and should contain the following information: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

An aerial plan of the solar energy facility location, including all properties within 120 metres of the site; Property lines, public roads and other physical features of the site; Location of access roads; Location and spacing of solar panels; Location of all accessory structures, including inverters, transformers and substations; Location of underground or overhead electrical lines connecting the solar energy facility to any buildings, substations, or other electric load; Proposed changes to the landscape of the site, such as grade changes and the removal of vegetation, including the grade six metres onto any adjacent properties; Drawing of the solar energy installation showing the proposed layout of the system and the proximity to adjacent properties, and potential shading from nearby structures or trees; and, A landscape plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect, showing all landscape elements that will be installed on the site, including, but not limited to, trees and other plantings, fences, berms, exterior lighting, and signage.

Approved by Council: Prepared by:

May 1, 2012

City of Kingston Planning and Development Department 613‐546‐4291, ext. 3180

K:\D05_Natural Resources\Renewable Energy\Solar Farms ‐ Landscaping & Site Design\Design Guidelines for Large‐Scale Solar Energy Projects (FINAL ‐ May 1, 2012).docx

Page 158 of 225 SH;?

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL: June 18, 2015 AGENDA DATE:

June 23, 2015

SUBJECT:

Staff summary from Sun Edison Open House RECOMMENDATION: OPEN

BACKGROUND:

Sun Edison hosted a Community Meeting at the Harrowsmith Public School on June 17 from 7:00 to 9:00. The meeting was to present information on and address questions related to three proposed large scale solar projects. Approximately 150 residents were present. Six members of Council and three staff attended to hear what was being said. Residents were offered the

opportunity to sign up for delegation status on the June 23 Agenda. The following is a summary from the event and is no way meant to be a complete reflection of all comments, questions or answers. The summary attempts to

highlight the key themes and questions that I was able to capture during and after the session and to bring this information to the attention of Council. Will a substation be built on the Wallace property? How big (MW) and how much land will it occupy?

If there are only 1 00 points, how does price fit into the equation? Is price a larger determinant than the community engagement? Does the community engagement have any value in the process? How is price weighted into the process? .

I own adjacent property to the Wallace site and I’ll sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. With the bulk of the Freeman site being in Stone Mills why not run the connection through Stone Mills? Why should South Frontenac, put up with the impact, inconvenience etc.? Will our taxes have to cover the repairs to roads etc.?

Who wants taller poles on their front lawns, what about the impact on the tree cover? New poles are twice as high. These are new lines replacing existing lines, but will there be more poles than there are now?

Why are we taking this rural land out of farm production? How much land will be taken out of production over the next 20 years?

Given the limited depth of soil grounding will not be able to be achieved easily as required by ESA.

With 1000’s of holes being drilled what is the impact on our wells? Most of our wells are dug and only 16 feet deep.

Page 159 of 225 Sl»?

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

What are the implications for homeowners, trimming and cutting down trees? Colebrook is a narrow road. ESA requires clearance around each pole, trees will be cut. Look into the regulations.

What is the impact on the value of our homes?

A new line will have a bigger impact even though it is on an existing path Is this an all or nothing project? Do you expect to get 120MW of the provinces 140 MW? If the Wallace project does not go through what

then?

Ironic that your firm includes the name of Edison and yet the historical

implications would suggest we are being “hoodwinked” .

Everyone in the room should contact their members of Council

Check out the TVO program about Stray Voltage

After this step, if the projects are awarded what can change? And at what stage and how would we be involved or notified?

Prior generations had to fight to get hydro put in. Renewable energy is the way of the future. We have to do something to improve things for our

grandchildren. Could the rail bed be used to route the poles? People already live under lines.

Given the experience of SunEdison on other projects, what will be different

related to contractor bankruptcies and litigation? Small contractors are bearing the brunt.

In Loyalist projects, site plan and drainage issues are still problems 2

years out.

A large showing of hands indicated that the audience was not in favor.

I don’t want to see a chain link fence behind my property. I want it tree covered. Not confident that screening will be effective or that it will be done.

Camden boundary line road is already in poor condition. Who is going to compensate for the roads?

Will this impact the power in my home, will there be more outages? If awarded when does construction start, and how long will it take?

How do you actually restore 20 years out; not just bringing in soil and planting but the wildlife and wet lands?

Who compensates for the loss in real estate values? Why are building permits being issued for the area and not telling people of the project?

The Unity Road project look like a war zone.

Is there anywhere in the Province where this type of connection line runs through a village?

Page 160 of 225 ^SUf?

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

These type of lines intensify the number of poles - 3 for every 1

What is the impact of this project on the hydro rates that individual families are going to pay?

The drainage problems that are happening in Hamilton Township have reduced the lifespan of roads by half, the maintenance of culverts etc. has raised dramatically, after a couple of years silt is pouring off the sites

Do homeowners have adequate protection against future liens if a contractor goes broke owing money to creditors?

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Page 161 of 225

PLANNING REPORT

Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: June 23,2015

Date of Report June 17, 2015

Applicant: Scott

Subject: Licence Agreement on Unopened Road Allowance Between Concessions in & IV, Lot 85 Portland District, Township of South Frontenac: Scott

Summary of the Recommendation: The recommendation is that consideration be given to approval of a licence agreement

between Lori Scott and the Township of South Frontenac for access along an unopened road allowance to a property that lies between Road 38 and Wilton Road. Background Lori Scott owns approximately 220 acres of land lying generally between Road 38 and Wilton Road. (see Attachment #1). Access to the property is by way of Road 38. Ms. Scott has been approached by a firm to locate a solar project on part of her land. However, since the only access to the large acreage is from Road 38, off which fhe Of&cial Plan discourages new entrances, she is requesting to know whether Council would agree to allow her to access the land from the western side, offofanunopened road allowance leading from Wilton Road. This would require her to enter into a licence agreement with the Township to allow her legal access over this unopenened and unimproved Township-owned land. Attachment #2 is a copy of the letter dated May 29, 2015, from Lori Scott requesting the agreement. Attachment #3 shows the location of the road allowance from Wilton Road in to the subject land. The distance over which the licence agreement would apply is approximately 100 metres.

Attachment #4 is an air photo indicating that the subject road allowance is a continuation of the Wallace Road allowance (Wallace Road exists to the west). It appears that Wallace Road was never constructed any further east because of the wetland (Wilton Creek) as can be seen.

Discussion

There are examples where Council has agreed to enter into such licence agreements in the past - e.g. to property on an extension to Mount Chesney Road and on an extension to Billy Green Road. Normally, the point of such an agreement is to allow the propertyowner to make whatever upgrades are necessary to the road allowance to provide safe, emergency-vehicle access to the lot in a way that is suitable to the municipality, while at the same time, making it possible for the owner to develop the lot. In this case the development would be in the form of solar arrays. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any member of the public from using any road allowance, but the licence agreement is different in that it legally allows the property to be developed. The air photo shows that fhe road allowance is treed and there would need to be some clearing and improvements to provide the proper standard of access. The Public Works

Manager advises that any damage to Township Road associated with the improvements would need to be repaired by the property-owner at their expense and to the Township’s satisfaction.

Page 162 of 225

A sample licence agreement is attached hereto as Attachment #5 tor the Committee’s reference. It should be emphasized that an approval to enter into a licence agreement for purposes of allowing development on the subject land should in no way be construed as approval of any subdivision of the land through severance. If the Committee is in favour of the proposal in principle, staff would proceed with the preparation of a by-law, and licence agreement, to be brought to a future Council meeting

such agreement to provide access for Lori Scott to her property in Part of Lot 8, Concession III, District of Portland, over an improved road allowance (approximately

100 metres long). Such an agreement should require the road allowance to be surveyed (at the owner’s expense) and would require upgrades to the road at such time as development is proposed on the property - i.e. before fhe solar arrays are constructed. It should also specify that this agreement would permit development of a solar project only and is not intended to provide access for any future lots to be severed from the property. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee provide direction to staff on proceeding with this proposal. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments ScotticenceAgreementReport

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Oi <i

Page 163 of 225

qi c):i

ATTACHMENT#1

=ni

ILI 11 i i it

‘T’

ThFI Rl

(

n #ffi

??EASl

cl,

‘.u

S9??,.s?“s’ “!?”

‘[J

AfJ

[)=:i

‘:

}‘9’s’l

,l(((, 9’o’

Clra

‘T”

WE:)

ffl

OJ Mill

?????.???GORRROi nl

ENpEl

30NM

7iik! Nlhav

Ia’:K

ree

C 44 e Ji

ATTACHMENT #2

SoutH Ronkrac,?l(jl?)s() (*ey-i.’ kinasoy /’l b? Is,

Page 164 of 225

f!?ail ,‘i g / 15

??{ 1,1 ricls cky .’

lKo-rrs?L ;4cs ‘4Y fhe? m<rl-ty-q Na? ae,2015

h atscciss Io+ ar)rat-hoia cyt-icl -;clo-.ir po*nha? f

ori?rro?s csorm):bvope/t-i iocqkck P L(Ats ?yl 89) sfS ,

Plc>x o-e-e?p-t- tlgts a-s mq o’Tf’tcio-]-

c.=>e o9- ?-e- roo,?&

e:>’;“r ‘yt(’+ori ?? &v ?’:"?7o?,

(;(-!-,Hdu <6?O rcrvc a(?1’-/ qceifieris fle?rz?clo v-o’v’r<sc%k * x,-t-hc??+ rsne?? z-+- tls zzei-so"y3 Th(yi-Jlc. p,e’e In oJymv-sc(, l-B p ;’ 3 c-blT-

ffi,

Ri:

Page 165 of 225

ATTACHMENT #3 .5!

&4& !mwl’w&h r((Ir,”?. Gd& a Ji-lN? l?ea3 gh???

’t l

[! oav5’i’l

S,s,, @

Th A -T

?’l k

ffi W

.fl

4’:’?

Page 166 of 225

s lii

)

-j r

l ‘P

4’

m .*

I }

’d ‘-

t I’

l l

R’

I I

I:l

I !;a

P; %

l li

?’ <

/ 1

47 !aa j

€ N

1 s

/ r! j

j,,), 1

I p-

r 1

I t s 3!

i’

ffi

?*l

.l.

-J LMo*

i %”?

li 11

[

‘4?

i-’ s

l;l }1

% k

A r

s ?

]Ailii

r!1

‘2

k’. ‘1

‘#’

r %

‘!y<!UJ

‘M

l:!

’l

@@..,.

?:’!‘x? 4J 4

‘T?El .*?

k’

??‘ra’? ;l

.:. )li l

M i<

,;.-J

ffl

!I’>*’ fl?

!. l"J

Page 167 of 225

Page 194 of 259

ATTACHMENT #5 THI8 } ,I(‘ENCE kGRKF,M%NT made tbis BETWBEN:

l r

4ay of

, 2014

Herdmsi’fter eaued the “Owmer” OM TmC Fm8T PART -sudTHR

ON TH?!: TOWNSH[P OF SOUTH FRONTKNAC htr aIled t?ga “Mmnhdpfflty”

%a?k: h

011;11-?ln %p4

OF THR sxcoms pmx

WHRR?EAS the Owma’r b tk* vw@htmaal owner in fee dmpb ot m? ?ainds loaited sr the Township of Soutk !ronteme more pirtiwln$ demiribaa sr Sehedule “A’ (aie (maers’ ?Lsuids”);

AND WHF,RRA8 tke Council of tke Corporation of tke Township of 8outk Frontemc, by By-?m 2014- hu sgreed to entev hh a Htenm mgreanent mth flie Owner to provide vehieular seems alon@ s port!!o’n of the Towmahip romd dlowanee betwreen mmewaiom

.? lot .., and mneaasrion …, lot .,Dimid of South Fmmteme;

, Towmmhlp of

AND ? the mgreement it s ‘prerequWte to The bs’amrr of bundhig permit to the Owner for the Owmr’s property tn lot .., Co’neemiion .., Di?d of

AND ? Seetion 28, @Xl) of the Munidpd Act, 20h1, a 25, @sm hesl mwnieipw’Utim ,i’ur&detion ovw a roid muowamam bated bi the mwidpality; sind wherem Coumeu b *etbovkwd h umns ths use of mb’iveuai portiomi of bighwq umder iti juriidktion; NOW THEREFORE

that in considaation ofthr mutim covenmds and

agreammb mntaimad herein and other good and valuable comderation, the partim a@ee with exds other as fouows: 1 Inthis? a.

“Lioansee’s Propmty” means those lands ownod by the Licenma desmibed in Sehedule

“A” to %s A@eamen@

b. ‘Road Allowance” means ? pmtion of the unopened ? allowance desxibed in Sdxdn?e ‘IB’ to this A@eanent;

The Munimpality @atds to the Li? a non-mclusive licenoe h use the Romi Al1owanoe for the purpose of vehiolar accem to and from the T,icenser% Pmpeay. 3. ThetamofthisLicenceshallbaft?thedateoftMsAg?aMtoDece?31,20.,

and tberea? from yag to year.

Upan entaring this A@eamem4 €be Ijcensee shau pay the Mnn{cipaltty the gm of $10.00 and, pzior to January 31 of eadi year tberea? the fuArm stun of $10.00 during the tmm of this Ij?ce.

The T ,ioansee acknowledges that he has no rights, title ox ?m i the Road Allowanoe other than as provided in this A@?ent

Page 168 of 225 Page 195 of 259 2

The Mnnicipality

mof60dawwM*#mmayatanytim’ T ,icensee a minimrtm of 60 days written notice. e;hre.. “an? ?O tbis agreanent by giving the

The Li?e covenants with the Municipality:

To aocept tbe Road Allowmice in mi “i vuuuuuon ? -. – ? - -ia w’ss a!la n is” oondition andnOf not’U) to require the

Muni4pality to pay for or do my work or supply any equipment or services in conneetion with the Lioensee’s use of the-Roady"All?“oJwance?’;

To pay the Licence fee;

To obtain a? l necessary essary permits and approvals required by lawo,

Not to ?ove any trees or (almence any work, or make any d?es- - in ?acing, grade or landg?no nn +ks vasba an….,.— —– a a

“sne:efi ocatir’na?n::on*tsflaZR??’?oJJ,t’aaa”=’,ax?, =””;‘J: :o’j k’aa?aia’ahm pa"Iaaaao:? spedcations submitted to and apptoved-by the Msuniwc?ipali"ty”;

To meet and maintain

t the ?ditions of the Township’s poligy on private lane standmds

lp ?11’ as outlined in Schedule ‘!3’;

To keep the Road Allowanz m a clemi and well ordered condition, and not to permit

any rubbiah, refuse, debris or other obiectionable material to be stored, or to acmmulate

thereon; g.

To use the Road Allowance only for the purpose of aczss to and from the Licensee’s

Pmperty and not to intdere, obgtrud or iWpede-in-ffi wa"yth’;“use?of’th"e’R"oad Allowance by tbe Mnnicipality or miy ot?w memW of the 4pubu?c; h.

Not to assign ar otherwise transfer tbis Licence witbout the prior written consent of the Mmiicipality whim consent may be arbitrmily witbheld;

To erect and maintain a sign m the point of intersection of the Road Allowmioe and the

traveued road that states: “Road Not Assumed by Munimpauty?,-but omrwi; not to

erect any signs, fences, buiklit@, structures or rmurcs on me Road mowance Wkut the prior written consent of the Muicipality;

To ensure that notbing is done or kept at or on the Road Allowance wMch is or may be a ’nuisance, or carry on any activity or do anything else, which causes dis€utbance’to-or

interferes ‘mUh the users or o?pants of any neighbouring property,-or -wMdi-in-the opinion of the Munimpality my cause damage to the-m’mi mowmim or any neighbouriny propetty,

TO take, at the Li?’s own mpense, all measiireq necessgy to ensure to the Munimpauty’s satisfamon tbat any mimimpal services or utilities now or in the future

on, under or adjacent to the Road Allowance are or will be adeqium,?y protected agawt damage, impairmed, dmtruction or loss;

To ensure that no inflammab?e or explosive substmices, contaminants pouutants, or bazamoiis or

sensitive materials are brought on to the Road Allowance,

other tban materials legally permitted on Township roads without special permit; m.

Upon failure by the l,ioensee to comply with any covenants or obligations imposed under this Agreement within 14 days written notice requiring su& compnance from the M?ci4, the Mnnicipa?ity may enter the Road Auowmice and ffll guch covenant

at the sole expense of the Ijcensee, who shall forthwith upon being invoiced tbetefor,

reimburse the Muicipauty for all of its oosts; 0.

That the Mnnimpality ? no obligation durmg the tarm of this licence to compensate or remburse the Licensee for any oosts or expanses incntm by the Licensee to improve or maintain the Road Allowance, au of wMch will be done fo; the benefit of the Licensee and not the Municipality; 2

Page 169 of 225

Page 196 of 25’.g 3

p. To inde?fy and sava hamiless the Municipality jmm and ngainm wl and all manner of claims, demands, losses, costs, ?ges, adorn and other proceedings made ot brought against, suffered by or imposed on the Mimicipality in respect of any loss, damage or injury to any person or proparly directly or ind?y miaing out of, regulUng from or sustained as a result of the Licensee’m occupation or use of b Road Allowanz: To further ?fy and save hamiless b Munimpa]lity from mid against my and au claims, demands, losses, oosts, cbarges, a4om rod other pmoeedinga under the Comkuction Lien Act in connection with mry work done for the Licensee at or on the Road A}lowance, and to promptly attend at the Licensee’s expense to the ranoval of every clam for uen or oertdi? of m4on hamg to do with suda work witbin 14 days of being notified in writing by tbe Munieipality to do so, failing wMch the Municipaltfy may attend to auch removal and recover the expense and all att?t costs from tbe Licensee;

TO mmntain in fors at an times during the tmm of tlffs licence and any renewal theteof, at the Lisnsee’s expense mid in the nmnes of the Licensee and re Municipa?ity, ooverage for legal liabuitydollars, for bodily injury, death or ptope4 datnage in an amount of not less tban two miluon dollars, to provide with proof of such 15’day insumnce no later tban b 1 5m day ofandJanuary eada the yearMunicipality or upon request. 9.

This ? sball be binding vpn, mid enure m the benefit of, the parties and their respemve successors and assigns.

.IN WITNESS WHEREOF the pmties have executed tbis A greement aq at the date ? set our above.

SIGNED , SEATjED AND DELIVERED

IN THE PRESENCE OF

THE CORPORATION OF THE

ToWNSHu’ OF SOUTH FRONTBNAC

Per:

Gary Davison, Mayor

‘Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Licensee

Witness

Page 170 of 225 s@i

^FORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW: June 1 8,2015 AGENDA DATE:

June 23, 2015

SUBJECT:

Intersection Reconfigurations RECOMMENDATION: For information

BACKGROUND:

There are a few intersections in the Township where the through road is not

typically where drivers not familiar with the area would expect it. This report identifies three such intersections for possible reconfiguration. The three intersections are:

Holleford Road and Vanluven Road
Holleford Road and Trousdale Road
Round Lake Road and Latimer Road

Staff will bring back options to the Committee of the Whole at a later date.

ATTACHMENTS: .

Intersections 1 and 2

Intersection 3

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

Page 171 of 225

Page 172 of 225

Page 173 of 225 5@B

INFORMATION REPORT

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW: June 23, 2015 AGENDA DATE:

June 23, 2015

SUBJECT:

Draft Sign By-Law RECOMMENDATION: For Information

BACKGROUND:

ft^^^r,p^vlo^?.l^?^i?^i^i!h^!Le^^lJ?JS<T^C^-c^^1^ a new Sign By-Law. Listed below are minutes from this Committee pertaining to

this initiative:

March 18, 2014 6. Signage By-law from the United Counties of Prescott & Russel

Comments/suggestions from Committee members

Mark presented the Committee with the first Draft of the updated Signage By-law for South Frontenac Township.

Mark mentioned that the current Signage By-Law for South Frontenac has a 400 meter setback for signage and felt that this distance should be decreased.

The Committee suggested that a fee be attached to the sign permit application to help recoup the cost of follow up by Township employees to ensure the signage was in accordance with the By-law.

The Committee agreed that the objectives of the update Signage By-law were to create a sim pl ified, u pd ated By-law to ach ieve greater

enforcement; less clutter and greater beautification throughout the Township and health and safety of residents.

It was suggested that pictures be taken throughout the Township at sites where numerous signs currently occupy one area to better see how the By-law could be better defined. Pictures to be forwarded to the Committee

for their perusal prior to the May meeting. June 17, 2014

Signage By-Law

David Holliday attended the meeting and presented pictures of sign “clusters” along Perth Road and Road 38 as examples of what the signage by-law should address. The Committee inquired as to what the by-law does and does not allow and what types of signs were exempted. Mark went through the exemptions in the by-law which stated that small real estate signs as well as Conservation Authority signs were allowed, while

Page 174 of 225 sug;

INFORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

signs on utility poles and trees and Commercial signs within the road allowance were prohibited.

Some areas identified with signage problems were Road 38, Yarker Road.

Desert Lake Rd and the intersection of Sydenham and Rutledge Road

After reviewing the draft by-law and picture examples, the Committee suggested deferring the issue until the new Council was up and running.

Attached to this report is the latest version of this draft By-Law. Staff have not done anything more with this initiative. It is our intention to refocus our attention after the 2016 Budget Process.

ATTACHMNETS: .

Draft Sign By-Law

Examples of Signs

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

Page 175 of 225

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC SIGN BY-LAW NUMBER 2014-XX Draft 1 -March 4,2014

BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE AND GOVERN THE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS OR OTHER ADVERTISING DEVICES UPON OR ADJACENT TO COUNFT ROADS.

WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, S.59 provides that a municipality

m=T.y=_PT?2iibit °^ regujate t,he.pla.cin.g.?r erectin9of any si9n- notice or advertising device

within 400 metres of any limit of a highway.

AND WHEREAS Section 8 (1) of the Act, as amended, further provides that Section 8 shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on municipalities, a) To enable them to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate; and b) To enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues. ANDWHEREAS Section 11 (3) of the Act, as amended, authorises the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac to pass by-laws respecting matters within the “Highway” sphere of jurisdiction;

AND^ WHEREAS Section 27 (1) of the Act, as amended, authorises the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac to pass by-laws in respect of the highways under its

jurisdiction;

AND WHEREAS Section 391(1) of the Act, as amended, provides that without limiting Sections 9, 10 and 11, those Sections authorise the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac to impose fees or charges on person, for a) Services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;

b) Costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf

of any other municipality or any local board; and c) The use of its property including property under its control.

AND WHEREAS Section 446 of the Act provides that a municipality may recover the

costs of bringing a property into compliance with a by-law and that such recovery may be from the person directed or required to do it by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as property taxes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Council of the Township of South Frontenac that:

DEFINITIONS

1.1 In this By-Law:

a) “Manager” means the Manager of Public Works of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac appointed to administer and manage the provisions of this By-law and includes his authorized subordinates and assistants;

b) “Road Allowance” includes all lands and structures contained within the outer

limits of the allowance including grassed areas, ditches, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other structures and includes a “Highway” as defined under the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) which is under the jurisdiction of the Township;

c) “Township” means the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac; d) “Owner” means any person described on the Sign, or whose name or address or telephone number appears on the Sign, or who installed the Sign, or who is in lawful control of the Sign, or who benefits from the message on Page 1 of 7

Page 176 of 225

the Sign, and for the purposes of this By-law there may be more than one Owner of a Sign.

e) “Person” includes, but is not limited to, an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association or corporation.

f) “Sign” shall include the Sign structure and shall mean any Sign or device having thereon letters, symbols, characters, illustrations or an/combination thereof which identifies or advertises any person, place, business, enterprise, organization project, product, service otherwise promote the sale of objects or identify objects for sale in such a way as to be visible from a highway under the jurisdiction of the Township.

PROHIBITED SIGNS

2.1 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect, install, post, display, maintain or keep a Sign within the Road Allowance with

the exception of those Signs specifically stated as exempt in this By-law. All exempt Signs must comply with Section 2.3 and Section 6 of this By-law. 2.2 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect, install, post, display or maintain a Sign within a four hundred (400) metre setback distance measured from the center of the paved surface of the County road to the Sign’s edge face closest to the road that does not comply with Section 6 of this By-law.

2.3 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect, install, post, display, maintain or keep any of the following Signs within the Road Allowance:

a) A Sign that may obstruct the flow of water in a drain, ditch or watercourse.

b) A Sign that impacts the function of the road by: i. Creating a safety hazard;

ii. Impeding or obstructing maintenance or construction operations; iii. Impeding access to or obstructing a fire hydrant; iv. Impeding or obstructing the passage of pedestrians where they are reasonably expected to walk;

v. Impairing or obstructing the visibility of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or a railway crossing; or

vi. Obscuring or detracting from the visibility or effectiveness of an official Sign or a traffic control signal;

c) A sign that resembles an official sign or a traffic control sign or device in colour, shape, wording, content or location;

d) A Sign affixed to a tree, utility pole, bridge structure or, painted or pasted on a rock surface.

e) A Sign which does not comply with the provisions of the Building Code, Electrical Safety Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Construction Safety Act, or any other applicable governmental regulation. f) A Sign that contains or is accompanied with a device that creates noise or

that resembles to an official light which is not used for its purpose of controlling the traffic or for the safety of workers under any Act. (ex: flashing beacon light attached or accompanying sign not used for .traffic control). g) A Sign that is illuminated without the approval of the Manager.

Page 2 of 7

Page 177 of 225

h) A Sign that is obsolete and advertises an event that is over, a business or

^TLPr^?.?at-l£Lno_lon9er conducted’ or an activity, product, service or

facility that is not in season or is no longer provided.

i) A Sign which interferes with maintenance and the safe passage of vehicular or pedestrian traffic not in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and Township of South Frontenac By-laws as amended

j) A Sign which does not comply with the provisions of this By-law. 3. EXEMPTIONS

3.1 Signs promoting the following shall be permitted to be placed within the Road

Allowance but must comply with Section 2.3 and Section 6 of this By-law.

a) Signs erected or approved by the Crown or any municipal authority for the regulation, safety or guidance of traffic or to provide public information.

b) Recognized service clubs and community groups i. No additional advertising, sponsorship advertising or business identification will be allowed on these Signs.

ii. The number of recognized service clubs, community group Signs and Signs of similar nature shall be limited in built-up areas and placed on the same structure.

c) Decorative Municipal Identification Display i. A decorative municipal identification display shall be permitted within the

Road Allowance but their location shall be subject to the approval of the Director. Size, location and Sign construction will be determined on a site specific basis.

d) Local municipality commerce and tourism not bearing any advertising or specific business identification

e) Neighborhood Community Watch Signs

i. The number of Neighborhood Community Watch Signs and Signs of similar nature shall be limited in built-up areas to one per direction. f) Event Signs

i. An event Sign is a Sign that advertises or provides directions to a community-sponsored event including, but not limited to, a parade, procession, ceremony, dance, car show, farmer’s market, festival,

carnival, fair and special event endorsed or sponsored by a municipality. ii. An event sign that is obsolete and advertises an event or activity that is over will not be permitted. An event sign can only be installed for a reasonable period of time prior of the event and must be removed once the event is over.

g) Signs erected for the purpose of identifying a sport and leisure trail such as snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and cross country skiing.

h) Signs erected for the purpose of traffic calming such as speed radar signs or other types of signs used as a traffic calming device.

Page 3 of 7

Page 178 of 225

i) Signs erected in accordance with the local municipality’s requirements concerning applications for amendments to its Official Plan or Zoning Bylaws, minor variances and land severances.

j) Election Signs

i. An election Sign which means a Sign advertising any person or political party participating in an election for public office or a Sign advertising a position on a plebiscite or municipal question.

ii. Election Signs may be placed within the Road Allowance or on private property without approval of the Manager in accordance with the

requirements of the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Election Regulations.

iii. Election Signs may not be installed on any existing Signs or post. k) Information Signs

i. An information Sign is a Sign that is permanent in nature and provides useful information for motorists and emergency services. Civic Addressing and personal identification Signs will be considered as Information type Signs.

ii. Personal Identification Signs shall be allowed provided the Sign is not more than 0.20 square meters (2.25 sq.ft) and placed in a manner that will not restrict the visibility of the travelling public. I) Real Estate or For Sale Sign

i. A real estate or for sale Sign will be permitted as long as the Sign is located as near as practicable to the Road Allowance property line, that the Sign is exclusively for the property or item currently being listed for sale, that the Sign is removed as soon as practicable upon the sale of the property, item or the expiry of the listing.

ii. A real estate or for sale Sign shall be allowed provided the Sign is

modest in size and not more than 0.55 square meters (6.0 sq.ft) and placed in a manner that will not restrict the visibility of the travelling public. 4. PERMITS

4.1 All exempt Signs under Section 3 of this By-Law, except for Signs types of

Subsection 3.1 g) to I), may be located and erected in accordance with this Bylaw without a permit. For Sign types of Subsection 3.1 a) to f), a permit must be obtained and issued by the Manager.

4.2 To obtain a Permit, the Applicant, shall file an application in writing by completing the prescribed application form available from the office of the

Manager (Application for Public Works Permit / Demande de permis de travaux publics), or from the Township of South Frontenac website

www.southfrontenac.net and shall supply any other information relating to the application as required by the Manager.

4.3 Every applicant shall furnish sufficient information with each application for a permit to enable the Manager to determine whether or not the proposed work will conform with this By-law or any other applicable law.

4.4 No fees will be required for the approval of such permit.

Page 4 of 7

Page 179 of 225

4.5 Afterjhe issuance of a permit under this By-law, notice of any material change to a plan, specification, document or other information on the basis of which the permit was issued, must be given in writing, to the Manager together with the

.d^Tl^ °LSU?.?.han9e’such chan9e is not be made without the Manager’s

written authorization.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

5'1 ^ILS.ii9^s ^d related materials are to be supplied by the person seeking to install the Sign and installed by that person at their sole cost.

5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, the Manager may enter into

an encroachment agreement on behalf of the Township with a person that allows a Sign to remain within a road allowance or to be constructed within a Road allowance.

5.3 The encroachment agreement shall be in a form that is satisfactory to the Manager and the Township Solicitor when the encroachment agreement expires, the Person shall remove the permanent Sign at its own cost, upon written notice that the Township requires the land for road widening or other municipal or public purposes or sooner for any other reason at the townships sole discretion.

CONTENTS OF SIGNS

6.1 The message, logos, graphics displayed on any Sign must not promote violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or contempt against any identifiable group.

6.2 The message, logos, graphics displayed on any Sign must not be disrespectful and contain profanity or obscenity.

6.3 The message, logos, graphics displayed on any Sign must not promote unlawful activity. 7. CONDITION OF SIGNS

7.1 All Signs which are permitted by this By-law shall at all times, be maintained Sign in a state of good repair. The condition of any Sign located within the

Township and its need for repair or replacement shall be determined by the Manager. When such need is determined the Owner of the Sign or the Owner of the property upon which the Sign is located shall be advised in accordance with this By-law. 8. EXISTING SIGNS

8.1 All Signs lawfully or unlawfully installed shall comply with this By-law at the date of passing of this By-law. 8.2

Signs existing at the date of passing of this By-law may continue to exist as non-conforming subject to meeting the requirements of Sections 8.18.4.

8.3

A non-conforming Sign may lose this designation if: (1) The sign is relocated or replaced.

(2) The structure or size of the sign is altered in any way except toward compliance with this By-law. This does not refer to change of copy or to normal maintenance.

Page 5 of 7

Page 180 of 225

8-4 ^n_y.=..perso? WJ"1?. maintains a non-conforming Sign is subject to all requirements of this By-law regarding safety, maintenance and repair.

8.5

If the Sign suffers more than fifty (50) percent damage or deterioration, based on an appraisal, the Owner shall bring the Sign into conformity with

this By-law or the Sign shall be removed.

ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

9.1 This by-law shall be administered and enforced by the Manager. 9.2 The Manager may enter upon any land at any reasonable time to inspect all

Signs for the purpose of determining or effecting compliance with this By-law.

9.3 If after^ an inspection, the Manager is of the opinion that a Sign has been erected in contravention of any of the provisions of this By-law or of other

conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this By-law, or that a Sign has not been maintained in accordance with this By-law or has been found abandoned, the^ Manager may issue an Order requiring the Owner to remedy such contraventions as may be outlined in the Order.

9.4 An Order issued under Subsection 9.3 shall contain:

a) The municipal address and/or the legal description of the property on which the non- complying Sign was erected;

b) A description of the By-law and/or permit provisions that have not been complied with;

c) A statement that the Sign must be brought into compliance with the provisions of this By-law and/or the conditions of the permit issued for the Sign or to remove the Sign within the time specified; and

d) A statement that if the Order is not complied with, the Sign may be removed and disposed of by the Municipality at the expense of the owner.

9.5 An Order issued under Subsection 9.3 shall be served personally on the property owner or by prepaid registered mail to the last known address of the property owner as shown on the municipal tax roll.

9.6 Any costs incurred by the Township under this Section may be recovered in like manner and with the same priority as municipal taxes. 9.7 Any Sign erected contrary to any provision of this By-law, or on property owned by the Township or property managed by a public utility or local board without the consent of the Township, public utility or local board, may be removed and disposed of by the Township without prior notice at the expense of the Owner of the sign or property.

9.8 No person shall obstruct the Manager while he/she is carrying out his/her duties under this By-law.

9.9 Every person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine as provided for under the Provincial Offences Act.

Page 6 of 7

Page 181 of 225

INDEMNIFICATION

10.1 Signs in compliance with this By-law are permitted subject to the condition that

the Sign Owner shall indemnify the Township and each of its officers, agents, servants and workmen from all causes of action, loss, costs or damages arising

from the execution, non execution or imperfect execution of any work authorized by this By-law whether with or without negligence on the part of the Sign Owner or the officers, agents, servants or workmen of the Sign Owner.

VALIDITY

1.1 If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision, or any part of a provision, of this By-law to be invalid, or to be of no force and effect, it is the

intention of Council in enacting this By-law that each and every provision of this

bylaw authorized by law be applied and enforced in accordance with its terms to the extent possible according to law. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE

12.1 This By-Law shall come into effect on the passing thereof. 13. SHORT TITLE

13.1 This By-law may be cited as the “Sign By-Law” ENACTED AND PASSED in open Council this

day of

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk

Page 7 of 7

Page 182 of 225

Page 183 of 225

Page 184 of 225 ^SIH?^

INFORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COW: June 1 8,2015 AGENDA DATE:

June 23, 2015

SUBJECT:

Project Updates RECOMMENDATION: For Information

BACKGROUND:

To provide Council with an update on various projects approved in the 2015 Capital Budget. Listed below are a selection of projects with their status: Transportation

Dates

Various Resurfacing

Completion early July

(Canoe Lake Rd, First Lake Rd Green Bay Rd, Snider Rd Desert Lake Rd, Keeley Rd, Railton Rd, Hinchinbrooke Rd Colebrook Rd, Quinn Rd E, Keeley Rd

Kingsmere Rd, Daley Rd, Railton Rd Wurzl Rd, Sumac Rd, Charlie Green Rd McFadden Rd, Wellington, Ida Hill Rd) Various Resurfacing

Completion early Sept

(Mary Moore Rd, Sills Bay Rd Freeman Rd, Clear Water Rd

Morrison Rd, Greenfield East Davidson Rd, Holmes Rd

Ernie, Washburn Rd) Bob’s Lake Road Surfacing

Completion early July

Yarker Rd

Completion end of July

Portland-Camden Bdry Rd

Completion early Sept

Washburn Rd

Completion early Sept

Steele Rd

Start in August

Perth Rd/Rutledge Rd Microsurfacing

July

Page 185 of 225 SB@S

INFORMATION REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Facilities

Bedford Patrol Yard SF Museum Entrance Centennial Park

Completion end of June Completion mid-August July 1 st

Building Condition Assessments

Fall

Villages Bellrock

Tender in July

Verona Corridor Harrowsmith Intersection

Summer/Fall

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None at this time

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

Public Consultation in Sept

Page 186 of 225

Monday June 15,2015

To the attention of the Mayor and Council,

My name is Lynne (“Allison”) Gibson, and I have lived on Heska Crescent in Inverary for

five years.

The area in which I live is a beautiful rural setting; however, it has become increasingly plagued by signs. They are nailed into hydro poles, planted in the ground and bolted into trees.

I understandfte advertising value ofsignage to both large and small industry, as my

husband and I are self-employed; however, often these signs are hazards that block a driver’s view of pedestrians, cyclists and approaching traffic.

Aside from the obvious, imposed dangers, these signs are causing premature damage to the poles and trees that they are affixed to. They also add to the litter and debris often found alongside of our rural roads and highways.

I implore the Council, on behalf of myself, my neighbors who wish to remain anonymous, and the natural inhabitants of the land, to please address the rampant proliferation of signs on our rural thoroughfares.

This has been a lingering Public Service topic for years, and it would be prudent and proactive to address this issue before there is a sudden, irrevocable impact on either nature or the welfare of the people who live in this community. If I can personally be of any assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kindest regards, Lynne (“Allison”) Gibson allisongibson@live.ca 613-353-6780

Ministry of Transportation

Transports

Office of the Minister

Bureau du ministre

Ferguson Block, 31d Floor

Edifice Ferguson, 3e etage

Page 187 of 225

Minist6re des

77 Wellesley St. West Toronto, Ontario M7A 1Z8 416-327-9200

www. Ontario -ca/transportatio n

77, rue Wellesley ouest

Toronto (Ontario)

M .“f

iB3a^^‘ws

M7A 1Z8 416-327-9200

;..(:….;

www. Ontario. ca/transports

June 10, 2015

M2015-2414

His Worship Ron Vandewal Mayor Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street PO Box 100

Sydenham ON KOH 2TO Dear Mayor Vandewal:

tt is my pleasure to take this opportunity to share news affecting off-road vehicle (ORV) use in Ontario.

recognize that a number of Ontarians enjoy the use of their ORVs as well as the

economic and tourism benefits and increased mobility associated with on-road use of

ORVs- As such, I am committed to a collaborative approach in our development of policy. This collaborative approach included successful in-person consultations in

January 2015, with the participation of 30 different stakeholder groups representing enforcement, municipalities, public health, ORV industry members, agricultural groups and trail organizations.

Following that consultation, my ministry continued their engagement efforts by posting proposals to both the government’s Regulatory and Environmental Registries for 45

days in order to seek additional feedback from the public. The period for public

feedback ended on April 13, 2015, and we received almost 1,800 submissions. I am pleased to announce, as a result of these efforts. that existing on-road access rules for “single-rider” ATVs will be extended to additional ORV types which meet

specified voluntary off-highway industry standards. These changes will take effect on July 1, 2015, and will allow two-up all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), side-by-side ATVs and utility terrain vehicles (U-TVs) on permitted provincial highways and municipal roads

where bylaws permit their use.

Notably, there are no changes to the ORV municipal bylaw authority provided in the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). However, municipalities are encouraged to review existing bylaws to ensure they apply to these new ORV types. Additionally, these new ORV

^PT^^Uri;^?°^/!a/f^ r^l^u^?*u^^:?^^?-nf’^l^tj?-ns.-th, .^notc^

to “single-rider” ATVs (e.g.; seat belt requirements, helmets and minimum age for passengers, etc.). While existing Highway Traffic Act offences will immediately apply, the focus of the next three months will be to educate the public about Ontario’s road rules for these new ORV types and their additional safety requirements.

..,2

-2-

I assure you that my ministry recognizes the importance of a vibrant, sustainable and

safe power sports sector in Ontario, and we support providing Ontarians with options to safely explore our vast province. To this end, I have asked ministry staff to continue to engage stakeholders and community partners in discussions, including the topic of extending on-road access to additional types of ORVs such as UTVs, to ensure Ontario

remains amongst the top jurisdictions in road safety. I thank you for your support and input on this initiative. My ministry looks forward to continue working with our municipal partners, as well as with enforcement, ORV and trail organizations, and interested road safety partners in communicating these changes during the public education period. Sincerely,

M^ Steven Del Duca Minister

Page 188 of 225

Page 189 of 225 Wayne Orr

Subject:

FW: Questions regarding Draft New Official Plan with Changes presented at the June

Council Meeting

Lh-l!o-ILO-w^g-,?m^from.,cour?c.illo.r sutherland has been forwarded to Lindsay Mills for written response to all of Council on July 7

Wayne Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer

From: Ross Sutherland [mailto:7846elbe@gmail.com] Sent: June-14-15 5:13 PM

To: Wayne Orr

Subject: Questions regarding Draft New Official Plan with Changes presented at the June 2 Council Meeting

HiW^yne, sorry it has taken so long to get these Official Plan questions written out, my apologies to Lindsay also. Ross.

Questions regarding Draft New Official Plan with Changes presented at the June 2 Council Meeting 2.2_Why was the defimtion of mutual cooperation deleted? How large is a “small” sub-division outlined in the definition of rural character?

3.0 Where is that definition Designated Vulnerable water? Is it in the Source Water protection Act?

T?^l?llte<^ ^ervlce ^es,l^el?tl,a^ definition on public roads. Is fhis a common category in Rural OPs? In light offhe discussions around liability and the process we have engaged in to decrease the number of partially

maintained public roads, could we exclude future limited service residential development on public roads?

4il-sec^d.paliagraph a?d (a^iv^- c;ould ^ye also mclude Lake Capacity and Recreational Capacity assessments as possible tools since they are starting to be used by the Conservation Authorities?

4-8-vi-Is there an appendix of areas within Sydenham that will not require use of the water system? 1

Page 190 of 225

418«vli:,whyls.thCTeaprohibitionon communal water or waste disposal services? I understand that communities in Ontario allow various types of small communal systems.

many

^+1^ ^l^^^t?^! ^T^^T?!T lanes mdevelo^ents outside ofwaterfront areas? ^is wrong with keeping the condominium road designation for newj"pnvatefane;‘‘‘deve’l^men"ts ^ater front? 5-2Ewiromnmtally sensitive area is 90 meters fe)m au townshiP lakes, why not also permanent streams and

rivers in fhe township?

5’_2*2.There lsa rcference to,a scoped environmental impact study on unevaluated wetlands? What is this and

how does it differ from an EIA?

^ISACTe adaferencebetween an Environmental Impact study and an Environmental Impact Assessment?

They seem to be used interchangeably.

?^1b^ ^:^mit this. ^ lakfshore assessment when Lake Capacity and Recreational Capacity assessments are also possible accepted tools?

5.2.7.b spelling ‘ore’ should be ‘or’

^!^^atAw^lbe th.T im?act °fusmS a s?)PedEA’or more limited initial assessment done by Ae

Conservation Authority, rather than requiring a fall EIS? Do you think this would be wmkabfe9

^-‘Il^-5°^idel]ingifaat 1?le.R?de,au Lakes s^dy is n?w 20years old and has been updated by Hutchinson

Environmental Services, might it be better to reference the updated study in an OP tihat is to last until 20277

5.2.8. For at-capacity lakes would it be possible to require a recent Lake Capacity Assessment, or better vet recent Recreational Capacity Sssessment study be on record for larger developments to be consider^ 2

Page 191 of 225

5.3.4 Will these limitations_now exist with the new areas of significant mineral potential identified by the

pro^nfe?.HOWdo-theyaffet:t current.P"P"ty owner, and their ability to develop Aeirland7can we do anything about the new provincial designations?

5:51,similar concem to new mlneral resources, for the new aggregate sites what is the impact on landowners

within the zone of influence? Do we have to notify them ofAe change in their circum7tmce? 5.6.Ui.a. Why remove this possibility? Same for 5.6.1.ii.c

5.7 Does this mean we allow limited service residential on mral lands on public roads?

5-7-4-iL How is this development policy for rural areas different fi-om settlement areas? Other than saying that

^=h;p^co-ge"tlCTlmtd^pmmtltse-stoau(w ^ - ^e o^ev.op^;^^ subdivisions in rural areas, same lot size, etc? Does this contradict the idea of keeping a separate rural

character outside of settlement areas?

5'717J!?is discussion of condominium lanes refers only to new lane development on lakes, not extensions

etc? What is the problem with this use of the condominium concept?

5.7.7.1. Could we limit new Limited Service Residential to private or condominium lanes? And then limit these lanes to water access? Does 5.7.7.d do this, as long as we leave off the condominium clause?

5lZ’-7’c’u.\111111suse CLf?condominium road m new developments might be beneficial, can we distinguish it from

other applications of the condominium concept?

6.10. Is it a concern in areas of very high water sensitivity that accumulated developments may result, over time, in limited water quantity and quality even if individual developments can pass a Hydrogeology study? How can we account for this potential problem in the official plan?

Page 192 of 225

Petition to South Frontenac County Council A^l^~^P<^L^fc =50=^

[print name or names) of

–^F>

EYsJW^^ (address)

ask that the South Frontenac County Council NOT support the application of SunEdison to construct the

two solar farms as proposed for Location 3 [3833 Stagecoach Rd) and Location 4 [3206 Railton Rd). Our concerns include: [optional] ^ L^E^ SS^\V^ ‘> ts

^^ts

-\S3

\ ^-4^3^

iA<^-S

V-i&A a

.<i

:> r- ^.U^^U^-^Q i |P^^J V 1^^

~~^

<^> ’t-

<r^tf^T^^\Kj^-( y<^ <->5A4S>^J^^^^^S

‘V=>t_A^

^~5^^3^^v^ ^^j^ «-.-^je<?l^)ti^^Vd^ “^s^^J

1^\

^^V’^Y^S.o i-

^/Q~£^SVT^-< <>S-5^gr?^^[\c. ] ^KTT^^^tc^> -<-ATS ^i^P^

4’.-’

T>^ -K :so \

“=5

^”

gnatures)

Please sign and return to one of the mailboxes listed,

-11 ^\

[date)

<^ fic-r

Ts^^

Page 193 of 225

Township of South Frontenac PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 100

Sydenham, ON KOH 2TO

June 15, 2015

ATTENTION: PLANNING DEPARTMENT

In consideration of the change in the Zoning Amendment by Larcon Farms: Z-15/02/ Part Lot7,Concession IV; Portland District:

I Ron Denesuik, of 4303 Ottawa St. Harrowsmith, a neighboring property owner would be opposed to the rezoning of the 2.6 acres of land onto an existing urban industrial lot that is 3 acres in size.

Unfortunatety / t cannot attend this meeting on June 16, 2015, so am forwarding my Objection in this matter through this letter.

I would like for my objection to be quite clear, that in addition to having a pleasant residential, park and school area/ the addition of more industrial zoning (for purposes that are UNCLEAR} would be

detrimental to both our community and real estate values of existing and new homes in this area.

We have experience for years the effects of the bright lights of the security lights from the Storage Facility that shine into our bedroom, and subsequently have to keep black out curtains up in order to sleep, so additional Kghts in the area would again be detrimental.

do wish to be notified of the decision of the South Frontenac Township Council and any related Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

Yourc Sincerely/ ./-?

1^ f^

..*

rff

[..*-tu^»^^

Ron K. Denesuik

Page 194 of 225

South Frontenac - Sydenham Water Distribution Model Report

^ M

July 2013

p0;

LJ,

Jth2S Kingston

Page 195 of 225

Table of Contents Page Number 1 Introduction

2 Review of Existing Infrastructure 3.1 Design Demands

3 4 4

3.2 Historical Demands 3.3 Un-metered Water

4 5

3.4 Maximum Day Demands 3.5 Projected Demands 3.6 Storage Requirements

5 6 6

4 Modeling Assumptions

8 8 8

3 Estimated Future Drinking Water Requirements

4.1 Normal System Operation 4.2 Pipes 4.3 Demands 5.1 Model Validation

9 11 11

5.2 2012 Scenario 5.3 2020 Scenario 6 Conclusions

11 11 13

6.1 Operation and Model Summary

13 13

5 Modeling Results

6.2 Available Capacity 6.3 Model Development

Appendix A Figure Al - Water Distribution System Pipe Size (mm) Figure A2 - 2012 Hydrant Static Pressure (psi) Figure A3 - 2013 Rated Fire Hydrants (LPS) Figure A4 - Model Existing Average Day Minimum Pressure (psi Figure A5 - Model Existing Average Day Maximum Pressure (psi Chart Al - Model Existing Average Day - Storage % Full Chart A2 - Model Existing Average Day - Pump Flow (LPS) Figure A6 - Model Existing Maximum Day Minimum Pressure (psi Figure A7 - Model Existing Maximum Day Maximum Pressure (psi Figure AS - Model Existing Maximum Day Available Fire Flow (LPS) Chart A3 - Model Existing Maximum Day - Storage % Full Chart A4 - Model Existing Maximum Day - Pump Flow (LPS) Figure A9 - Model 2020 Average Day Minimum Pressure (psi Figure A10 - Model 2020 Average Day Maximum Pressure (psi) Chart A5 - Model 2020 Average Day - Storage % Full Chart A6 - Model 2020 Average Day - Pump Flow (LPS) Figure All - Model 2020 Maximum Day Minimum Pressure (psi Figure A12 - Model 2020 Maximum Day Maximum Pressure (psi Figure A13 - Model 2020 Maximum Day Available Fire Flow (LPS) Chart A7 - Model 2020 Maximum Day - Storage % Full Chart A8 - Model 2020 Maximum Day - Pump Flow (LPS)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 31

Page 196 of 225

Introduction

The Township of South Frontenac has requested engineering services from Utilities Kingston to develop a hydraulic model of the Sydenham Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution System. A hydraulic model is a theoretical demonstration of the water distribution system where various scenarios can be examined to understand/ optimize, test, build/ correct or refine the operation of the distribution system. The intent of this exercise is to create a balanced model with current demands that can be used to

predict the impact of a fully connected service area and explore opportunities to expand the current service area. Critical points to be evaluated include system pressure, water treatment plant capacity and available fire flow.

Page 197 of 225

2 Review of Existing Infrastructure The Sydenham water distribution system was commissioned in 2006 and is comprised of: . .

1 Water treatment plant 1 Elevated storage tower

41 Valves

42 Fire hydrants with leads & valves

339m 150 PVC watermain

5486m 200 PVC watermain

1333m 250 PVCwatermain

The water treatment plant was originally designed to produce 1296 m3/day. Due to water quality issues/ the water treatment plant was retrofit in 2010, the results were better quality water and less required system flushing (less non-revenue water usage) however it also resulted in a lower plant capacity. ,th

On April 101”/ 2013 Utilities Kingston staff performed a flow test on the water treatment plant to estimate the new capacity of the plant. The plant was pushed to produce a maximum flow rate of 1008 3

m/day for a short duration. If the plant were to run at maximum output for an extended period, Utilities Kingston Operations recommend reducing the expected functional maximum flow rate to 900 3

m/day to accommodate backwashing of the granular activated carbon (GAC) filters.

The elevated storage tower can hold 1019m of water. It normally operates at elevations between 191.23m and 189.93m. The tank provides equalization, emergency and fire storage for the distribution

system. Under normal operation/ the water level in the tank provides the primary control for the high lift pumps at the water treatment plant.

Page 198 of 225

3 Estimated Future Drinking Water Requirements 3.1 Design Demands Demands for the water system have been calculated by Totten Sims Hubicki (TSH) through the Community ofSydenham Water Treatment System Pre-Design Report.1 The results of the analysis are outlined in the table. Table 3.1

Design Period

Equivalent Population

Community Water Demand Average Day Maximum Day 3

Maximum Hour

(m7day)

m/hour

1058

Existing

940

423

2010

1039

468

1169

2020

1147

516

1290

The TSH pre-design demands are based on 450 L7(cap*day) and assume all existing potential customers are connected to the distribution system. The next table illustrates historical demand data. Flat account

refer to potential customers that are within the planned service area that have not connected to the distribution system yet. 3.2 Historical Demands Table 3.2 Year

Average

Historical Water Demand Number of Number of

Mete red

Residential

Consumption

Mete red Accounts

3 m7day)

Number of

Residential Flat Accounts

Commercial Metered Accounts

Commercial Flat Accounts

2007

137

2008

110

114

2009

116

108

2010

118

106

2011

124

2012

128

Historical plant flows reflect operational/maintenance flushing changes and less non-revenue water resulting from the water treatment plant retrofit.

1 Totten Sims Hubicki, “Township Of South Frontenac, Community of Sydenham Water Treatment System PreDesign Report, September 2002 4

Page 199 of 225

Table 3.3

Historical Plant Flows Year

Average Day

Average Consumption

Un-metered

(m7day)

(m3/day)

268

199

2008

157

2009

186

2007

2010

167

2011

142

2012

131

n 2012,168 of 271 (62%) potential accounts were reported to be connected to the water distribution system through the Township of South Frontenac billing summary. The 2002 TSH Pre-Design Report for the water system estimates the equivalent population to be 940 people within the service area and predicts a 1% growth rate. The equivalent population for 2012 would be 1039 people with 644 users at 62% of the population connected to the system. Table 3.4

Per Capita Demands

(m3/day)

2012 Serviced

Per Capita Usage

Population

L/(cap*day)

Metered Usage

644

ISO

WTP Production

131

644

203

3.3 Un-metered Water

The system has seen a steady decline over the past 4 years in the volume of un-metered water.

Significant volumes of water have been used for system flushing to improve water quality and age in the past but the improvements made to the water treatment plant in 2010 improved the water quality and increased the duration the water can be in the system. Given the age of the system and the operational changes that have occurred since commissioning, the unmetered water volume is expected to plateau. ^

3.4 Maximum Day Demands Maximum day demands have been 3 to 4 times higher than average day and reached 6.2 times in 2011. Plant flows indicate the days these flow have occurred have been irregular and can be attributed to

operational maintenance and therefore can be considered outliers. MOE Design Guidelines for peaking factors for systems serving between 1000 and 2000 people recommend max day factor of 2.5 and will be used for all demand projections.

Page 200 of 225

3.5 Projected Demands It is expected that the remaining customers will connect to the distribution system and fit the same consumer profile as existing customers. Historical demand data indicates that the design of 450 L/(capday) is significantly higher than observed demands. Future demands will be estimated using 250 L/(capday) and will include alt un-metered water. Future customers may be found to not fit the same consumer profile as existing customers/ it is recommended that design demand rates be reviewed and adjusted for the new consumer profile. Table 3.5 Year

Projected Demands Serviced Population Average Demand 3

Maximum Day Demand

(m7day»

3 m7day) (2.5 x Average Day)

2012

644

161

403

2020

1147

287

718

3.6 Storage Requirements Storage requirements for distribution systems where the water treatment plant is capable of only satisfying maximum day can be calculated by using the following formula: Treated Water Storage Requirement = A + B + C Where:

A= Fire Storage

B = Equalization Storage (25% of maximum day demand) C = Emergency Storage (25% of A + B) MOE Design Guidelines for fire flow requirements for distribution systems with an equivalent population between 1000 and 1500 people can be assumed to be 79 L/sec for a 2 hour duration where more detailed requirements are unavailable. Table 3.6

Storage Requirements (2020) Fire 3

Equalization 3

Emergency 3

Total 3

Existing 3

569

180

188

937

1019

Utilities Kingston operating staff flow rated 12 fire hydrants in the spring of 2013 to update existing flow rating records. The results ranged from 97 LPS to 260 LPS. As expected, the lowest flows were found at the highest elevations (Rutledge Road, East). All results are greater than 79L7sec and are within acceptable limits.

Page 201 of 225

Figure 3.1 - 2013 Available Fire Flows

.1 i

-^ 153

t p. *

.s. ^ <1 ^

-s

»* t

db .T *.

<**KU4

Page 202 of 225

z- Modeling Assumptions

4.1 Normal System Operation The high lift pumps at the treatment plant are controlled by the water level in the elevated storage tank. Under average day demands, when the tower reaches the low water level/1 of the 3 high lift pumps are

cycled on for 60 minutes and then off for 30 minutes. The cycle is repeated, rotating through each pump until the high water level is reached in the tower. This control operation permits the tank filling period to be extended and allows the treatment filters to produce water at a slower, more constant flow rate. Under higher demands a second high lift pump may operate in parallel to maintain the tower level.

To simplify the high lift pump model control strategy/ average day demands are met with an equivalent pump that can produce flows equal to the observed average flow rate of the cycling pumps. This pump fills the elevated tower with an equivalent flow rate and cycle time. 4.2 Pipes All pipes have been installed since 2006 and with the exception of the water treatment plant intake, all pipe material is PVC. A conservative Hazen-Williams C factor of 120 has been applied to all pipes based on modeling within the City of Kingston.

Model Junction elevation data has been extracted from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), see Figure 4.1 - Ministry of the Environment Digital Elevation Model. The data is accurate to 1m and is typically used by the water industry for hydraulic

modeling of distribution systems. Elevation data for tanks and pumps came from as-built drawings of the facilities.

Page 203 of 225

Figure 4.1 - Ministry of the Environment Digital Elevation Model r

^ ^

«1

/’

4.3 Demands

Demands are divided into consumer demands and flat rate demands. Consumer demands represent metered water used by residential and commercial users. A diurnal curve is applied to the demands to represent morning and evening peaks with low demands at night. The diurnal curve has been

developed by observing sanitary flows within the City of Kingston. Flat rate demands represent unmetered demands that include unaccounted for water as well as operation and maintenance water. Flat rate demands are constant and are much smaller than consumer demands.

Page 204 of 225 t

Chart 4.1

Daily Demand Pattern 1.6 1.4 1.2 1

“. 0.8 a> ro u i/i 0.6

0.4 ^.

0.2 1

0 0

Hours

Detailed customer account location information was not available at the time the model was created.

All demands were spread equally throughout the distribution system. 17 nodes within the model have been selected as “demand nodes”. Thiessen Polygons were created around each demand node to create 17 demand areas. A demand rate per hectare was applied to each area to represent consumer and flat rate demands.

Page 205 of 225

5 Modeling Results 5.1 Model Validation

2012 SCADA trending data was compared with model output for pump flows and elevated tank levels. The modeled low flow pump closely mimics duration and average flow rate observed to fill the elevated tank. The modeled tank fill and drain times also follow actual system behavior. Ministry of the Environment Design Guidelines for Drinking-Water Systems recommends normal operating pressures range between 50 to 70 psi and not less than 40 psi or more than 100 psi. Utilities Kingston performs annual maintenance on fire hydrants within the Sydenham water distribution. As

part of this process static pressure records are made. Observed static hydrant pressures range from 36 to 86 psi and average to be 66 psi. Only pressures along the east end of Rutledge Rd and the south end

of Stage Coach Rd drop below 50 psi and this is due to the higher elevations in these areas. The highest pressures observed were found at the lowest elevations within the distribution system and peaked just over 85 psi.

Upon completion of model validation/ additional model output can be evaluated such as conditions for maximum day. Pressure values at model junctions were compared to actual records and were assessed to be within tolerable limits.

5.2 2012 Scenario

Model pressures under maximum day demands elevate in some areas due to more water being pumped into the system. Maximum model velocity is 0.12 m/sec and falls well under recommend maximum velocities of 2.0 m/sec. Model results for the maximum relative headloss are 0.10 m/lOOOm. Distribution systems typically are designed to stay under 2.5 m/lOOOm headloss. Under average day demands water level in the elevated tower calls for the high lift pumps to operate

every 1.5 days for approximately 10 hours. The elevated tank responds with a nice fill and drain pattern that repeats every 1.5 days. Consecutive maximum day demands (2.5 x average day demands) require the pumps to operate every 24 hours for 16 hours. Operating a second high lift pump is not required. The elevated tank maintains a good fill and drain pattern. Available fire flow is modeled under maximum day demands. The modeling software calculates the maximum flow available at every fire hydrant location while maintaining a minimum system pressure of

UOkPa (20 psi). Model results were similar to the 2013 flow rating results with the lowest values along Rutledge Road east. The results were found to be adequate. These directly related favorable comparisons between the actual observed data/ and the simulated modeling results give us a high degree of confidence in the model validity. 5.3 2020 Scenario

The 2020 scenario predicts how the system will respond to having all potential customers connected to the distribution system. Demands were spread equally throughout the distribution system and no 11

Page 206 of 225

additional infrastructure has been added to the model. Demands were calculated using TSH Preliminary Design predicted population numbers for the water system multiplied by 250 L/(cap*day)/ a demand as established earlier that better represents the current customer demand profile.

Model pressures with 2020 maximum day demands are similar to current maximum day pressures and all are within tolerable limits. In the model maximum model velocity in the pipes is 0.35 m/sec and the

maximum relative headloss is 0.63 m/lOOOm. All model results are still within acceptable limits. Under 2020 average day demands, the pumps and storage respond in a similar manner to the current

maximum day demands. However it was observed that 2 or more consecutive 2020 maximum day demands strain the water treatment plant. The modeled low flow pump runs steady and a second

pump is called by the elevated storage tower 2 times daily. The elevated storage tank operates within a lower range but still maintains emergency and fire protection volumes.

The consecutive 2020 maximum day demand scenario is the only scenario that impacts the clearwell at the water treatment plant. The dearwell is the treated water storage that the high lift pumps draw from. There is modeled flow control into the clearwell set at 900 m3/day to represent the bottleneck observed in the treatment process that, as discussed earlier represents a conservative limit derived from

field tests. The results show the clearwell levels drop to 30% full as demands near plant capacity. Model results for clearwell levels are lower than desirable but as customer demands increase/ the

operation of the water treatment plant will need to change to provide more flow for higher average demands. The model will need to be updated to reflect water treatment plant changes as they occure. Model results for 2020 available fire flow, maximum day demands are similar to current maximum day results. There are no issues beyond lower flow rates along the east end of Rutledge Road.

Page 207 of 225

6 Conclusions

6.1 Operation and Model Summary The Sydenham water distribution system contains some unique operating challenges because of its size and customer density. Water quality and age are additional challenges due to current low demands. These challenges have been incorporated into the hydraulic water model to produce an accurate simulation of how the water distribution system will respond to various scenarios. The model results for average and maximum day demands for current and 2020 scenarios are within tolerable limits for pressure/ flow, velocity, headloss and storage. The fire flow scenarios found the system to have adequate available fire flow for alt scenarios using Ministry of the Environment Guidelines.

6.2 Available capacity 3

Results of the 2013 flow test on the water treatment plant (900 mVday) are approximately 30% less 3 than the Certificate of Approval (1296 m/day). The system impact of the loss in plant capacity is offset by the use of observed demand rate of 250 L7(capday) instead of the original TSH design of 450 L/(capday). The 2020 maximum day demand scenario begins to come close to plant capacity. It will be important to monitor the actual customer demand rates in the future to validate capacity available at

the plant. Additional growth in customer demand beyond the existing service area should only proceed with caution until further capacity can be achieved at the water treatment plant. The distribution system reaches the limits for available fire flow and high and low pressure in 2020. New

development along Rutledge Road or Stage Coach Road will face the additional challenges that may include the need for pressure relief in lower elevation areas as well as the need for water booster stations at higher elevation areas.

6.3 Model Development Available information for the model development was generally pretty good. Utilities Kingston Operations staff as well as access to SCADA data were good sources to describe the normal operation of the water treatment plant and distribution system. Fire hydrant static pressure and flow rating records are good tools to balance the hydraulic water model. Billing summaries provided by the Township of South Frontenac provided a comprehensive view of system demands. Further model development could be achieved by the use of geographic billing data. The location of every meter would need to be attached to each account. This would allow more accurate demand

allocation throughout the system. Revised water treatment plant capacity is a concern for future growth and development of the system.

> ha v (D

3 &h-’ x .

h-^

Page 208 of 225

Page 209 of 225

Water Distribution System Pipe Size (mm) ^

^s>

5 ;>a UJ z z

,A.

s ^ aS^

.<;

S’. .<s &

C3.

|S»

g co

150

CP.

s I-

^ -»

K Q! zl

RUTLED aAD^

0 0

“-<

.> w. -\

5 5.

.aE^UUHUIF

POINT ROAO^

‘-\

// C3.

^ ^

3 ro

200 lt^5=-

Q ui> f4

6 5

s. :£

0 ^=^ ^ h? OT

Legend Watermain SIZE 150

ft^BEU. CAI^BEU-ROAD

200 250

Figure Al

Page 210 of 225

312 Hydrant StaticPressure (psi)

(^s>

u z

. a Hi z z

<tf (S

,^. .<s s

3^ ^sl s^’

//
C9.

3> 60

-§

-<ft

,t -I

Ul -i

5°.

^01.

‘£.

m c

-I

21-.

?e rr-

(y.

RUTLEDGE D

nc Q

m .^

Legend

Q 2,

‘-<

z I

g e. x\

FH Static Pressure Static

. 0 u

31-40

f-^ s t-

36-30

41-60

61-80 81-90

N^BEUL CAN^BEU-ROAO

91 -100

101 - 989

Figure A2

Page 211 of 225

2013 Rated Fire Hydrants (LPS)

ols

^53

i3 m ^ 2

-»

s ^

.-^

<-?

// <0:

^ ^ s &

m z :c

? m. -1 3 f”

‘»

p^-^

s f.

r” “-1

‘c.

C^E RUTLEDGE R^AD

K. ^ a

s Q

w. a> -<

“4

‘5

%p R

rf” w. -i 3 m

Ill

g K

Q s a <

a: X Q <

Legend

0 ly

FH Rated Flow

.< Iw

RATED_FLOW

Qh-M

97-31 32.63

^BELL CAI^BELLROAD

64-95 .

96-999

Figure A3

Page 212 of 225

Model Existing Average Day Minimum Pressure (psi) 695

^iS>,

.0$ ^

.9’ a

^ .

LU z

&^21

Q LU z z

.05 05

aS^ ^ 71.26

71.26

^ .<s s

// <fl F<

^ ^

82.63

? 01. ~\

^ r

s Q

§!

. ‘-i

m i~

62.73

^ 81 2176 95

5420

48,51

^-^

. 11

:D^E

Cfl ^

RUTLED

m z ;c

t*-il

<ai

.63

0 0

4851 0

4851

4709

-i

at a z

54.20

^ 75.52

cS a a

Legend

44.25

0.52

Junction MIN PRESS

0 Less than 30 84.15

.15 G% tw

37.15

M^BELL CAI^BEU-ROAD \

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure A4

Page 213 of 225

Model Existing Average Day Maximum Pressure (psi) 3857

.0^ ^

s>, d^o

0 HI 2

2.B3

Q IU z z

.67

/. <b

iS^ ^ 72-87 72.87

^ 25

^ ^ s

^ ,®s

7d0

SQW^Q^ =J

5 0

<3.

en. -<

84.25 ^

88.5

u>. 3

‘£.

m c

r” i-” w. -3

‘c.

64.35

(y.

2 3:

c”

55825013

RUTLEDQE D 82 s7856

s m

5013

48 71

a a z

55.80

;s 77.14 £

0 2

Legend 14

§i45-83

Junction

a 3:

MAX_PRESS

0 Less than 30

65.76

.71 h? w

38.71

BELL ROAD

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure AS

Flow (L/s) 0

F*-’

Percentage (%) 1 c.’

4a. <r»

^ d

» 0

0 ‘* CL

1 (D

.?. ^

.X-

X; ri

r~* ff.T

!-1-

(Q -<

a. a> «

tw’

^s <. s 0 1 w 2,0) ^(Q .^.

^ V6 -1 oi (D

(6 M

-:>

»>

0 fl»

‘<

co ..*.

0 -1 ai

c .Jsv

ifrr

.? p .& ^ … d

u-o v sff -n Q

-n d’

s ^ rsj

3^ Q

s ^

Page 214 of 225

~ x U)

Page 215 of 225

Model Existing Maximum Day Minimum Pressure

692 ip, dS

0$ ^

^ LU z

^a LLJ z z

/. 0»

71.23

^’

vs 7123

.03 03

.2.61

f. &

»s

5.2.1 p

.i-

ROAD

s 0

<v.

82.60

86.8

i”

.03

w. -i

62.71

^ RUTLED

y>. -I

^ ^ L<?

m ‘-(

54184849

,81 1&76 82

0-0

a a z <( 75.50

4848

4849

4707

54.19

ca a

0 s

-fc

Legend 44.24

0.50

£ 3:

Junction MIN PRESS

0 Less than 30 64.13

.15 tco

37.15

,1U(?BEUCM^BEU-ROAO l_

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Page 216 of 225

Model Existing Maximum Day Maximum Pressure

S 53

.0$ ^

^ .

LU z

.80

Q LU z z

65.64 B4

.<:

^ 72.84-

72.84

.22

? 49 % ^POl^RQAD

^ ,%s

z Q

<3:

84.22

^ ^

t0. -
7? m

88.4

0 ^

m c

64.32

s ri~ w. 3

.64

55.79 5010

-D

D 82 7a78 53

/<^

f>~-^

~ei-

^ RUTLED

in -i

5010

4868

-I

a a 3;

55.76

5177.11 t£

0 5

Legend 45.82

.11 DC 3:

Junction MAX .PRESS

0 Less than 30 85.73

.71 h= co

38.71 0

.M^BELL CAIU(PBEU-ROAD

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Page 217 of 225

Model Existing Maximum Day Available Fire Flow (LPS)

^^ ‘84

S7.87

7034

80 91.62

62 .94

104.6

.35 ..

11849

19&

^‘4 181.84 1.189.42

:05

172.1

156.97

1.9 179.

182.19

3.77

19464

166.70

1S488

18492

9259 .

188.59

142.00 < »

.^. .

j^9.51

207.02

Legend

J91.41

364.37

Junction AVAIL_FLOW

125.05

Less than 31

31-63 63-95

Greater than 95

Figure A8

How (L/$)

Percentage (%) s.

‘V <_

‘<h

SO. *<

^ (D

:? m

s£ X

x *. (/>

VI t-t-

r-*-, »

(Q ^” fl) s

xrt

.K°-

a; M .<

M ^

fl)

a. fit ‘<

-I i

c \

^rffr

a» *<

-0

.-*.

Q -1 c fl)

3 .o -n s <-i

.^.

^ ..^

-n c

J’

c»

^ fc

=1 ^

Page 218 of 225

Page 219 of 225

Model 2020 Average Day
Minimum Pressure (psi)
891
3
3: 17

49 60

71.22

91 .

B 71

78.33 V’

5.49

407 82.60

.75|75.49 62.70

549

1.23

897^88^8 ^402 81 1^76 91

^ 1

6270

*» .?

54.18 75.49

Legend

r8.91 .49

44.24

Junction MIN PRESS

0 Less than 30 B4.12

37.14

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure A9

Page 220 of 225

Model 2020 Average Day Maximum Pressure (psi) 54 *

:80 .65 65 2 *

.23 7285

72.85

79.99

7001 72

.54 84.22

64 856482

.85

7.13

38|77.12 88.4

91 33 .

570

6432

.a 7854

64.33

557950.11 .

5011 .

5011

4869

55.79 77.11

Legend

r8.54

45.83

Junction MAX PRESS

0 Less than 30

66.74

.71

38.71

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure A10

How (Us) ^IT

Percentage (%)

‘. t-

‘V it”

<’

0 CL (D

£ <D

N3 0 M 0

N) 0 N) 0

is”

(p -^ fl» 11

Ifl

I-

%-lf

‘<, (6 -1 ai (Q (D

a. M *<

M *NI

uv -~"-

a: B> *<

0 to

0 B» *<

0 ~? tU (Q Q c (D

“D -n Q

J3 s; <s

= ~n c

c»

a?Q

in /

Page 221 of 225

ar d

Page 222 of 225

Model 2020 Maximum Day Minimum Pressure (psi) 585 8

.13 I-

82.97

ri!98 r43 1.57 9 70.17

70.17

6733 70

77.33

4.47

3-04

81.55

T^ Q”»

-».

.72 74.46 85.8 56

F446

61.68

020

98 8867

‘.^

87^4

^-^

82.98_goi^7588

6168 0-

.M^»

53.16 74.45

Legend

5.87 43.23

.45

Junction MIN PRESS

0 Less than 30 83.07

.15

36.14

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure All

Page 223 of 225

Model 2020 Maximum Day Maximum Pressure (psi) 735

.61 8. .46 46

.06 »

64 a

71.64

7895

‘9 .

33 83.01

5.97

450

9011.88^

.43 844381

63.14

1.64

^590

^-^

.17 75.91 87.2

6308

287731

54.59 .

48 GO

a .

4890

48 BO

4748

54.54 75.89

Legend

7.31 44.59

.89

Junction MAX PRESS

0 Less than 30

64.52

.48

37.48 0

30-40

40-60

60-80

80-90

90-100

Greater than 100

Figure A12

Page 224 of 225

Model 2020 Maximum Day Available Fire Flow (LPS)

108-99

127.71

16551 50

8012

69 7.15 .18 106.87.

.33

211 122,17

88 .

163.63

pl-^

^35^ 195.77 1.208.53

-et 188.

194.2

164*78

196.01

7.14

20679

182.10

19803 19652

E0835 11128 .

10990

8050

789®

202.72 147.28 * <^

^ »

217.88

.56

Legend 93.01

369.02

Junction AVAIL_FLOW

122.75

Less than 31

31-63

63-95

Greater than 95

Figure A13

How (Us)

Percentage (%)

0 frr.^

s ~^

-t-*.

“^.

.^r.

.i.

2 Q CL

<D /

(S3 0 N3 0

N3 0 N) 0

V’-

UJ 1-»

-I i

/ ^

a. to “<

w^. VI-L

1^'>

a. u «

3 1

‘^wy

&) »<

Q) .T / 1 f ^

-._./

(Q

~0 n -J

s Q a. (D

^-.

*-.L

p s: d

-n c “»..

-’ *^

,1 “T–

c»

s ^

^ M

‘/-

Page 225 of 225

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.