Committee of the Whole - 25 Apr 2017 - Agenda

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: April 25, 2017 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2017/Committee of the Whole - 25 Apr 2017 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, April 25, 2017 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess - n/a

Delegations - n/a

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services, re: Requirements for the Establishment of a Heritage Committee

3-4

(b)

Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services, re: Littering Weekly Newspapers Options

5-6

(c)

Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services, re: Update MDS I & II Provisions of Zoning By-law

7-8

(d)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Review of Proposed New Road Name “Robinson Road”.

9 - 12

(e)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Jody Campbell Site Plan Agreement

13 - 29

(f)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Development Services Committee

30 - 32

(g)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Private Gun Club Regulations

33 - 34

Reports for Information-n/a

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

Page 2 of 47

(a)

Mary Royer, re: Outdoor Furnaces

35

(b)

David Townsend, Executive Director, SFCS, re: Parking restrictions on Stagecoach Road

36

(c)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority - Groundwater Vulnerability Forum Summary

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

37 - 47

Page 3 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

AGENDA DATE: April 23, 2017 SUBJECT: Requirements of the Establishment of a Heritage Committee RECOMMENDATION That the Committee provide direction on desired course of action regarding the establishment of a Heritage Committee.

BACKGROUND Staff were asked to provide Committee of the Whole with a summary of the legislative requirements for the establishment of a Heritage Committee and the process through which such a committee could be created. Council currently supports the heritage of the Township in a number of ways. The Portland District and Area Heritage Society was established as a Committee of Council in 2008 and tasked with the responsibility to manage the South Frontenac Museum located at 5595 Road 38, Hartington in 2012. The Bedford District Historical Society is a long established group who operate the Research Centre located at 1381 Westport Rd. The former Township of Portland established a Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) in 1988 to advise and assist Council on matters under the Heritage Act, specifically the evaluation of properties of architectural and/or historical value or interest being considered for designation. (Note LACACs were the precursor to current Heritage Committees under the Heritage Act). It appears that there were five (5) properties designated “heritage properties” by the former Township of Portland. ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990 The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 is the provincial statue giving directions to local municipalities on matters related to properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Section 27(1) of the Act prescribes that “the Clerk of a municipality shall keep a register of properties situated in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or interest.” It states further in Section 27(1.1) that “the register…shall list all properties situated in the municipality that have been designated by the Municipality or the Minister.” The information presented would include the legal description of the property, names and address of the owner and a statement explaining the cultural interest or value and description of the heritage attributes. The Act goes further and provides that municipalities may include “other properties of interest or value that have not been designated” in the register. Specific to the question of a Heritage Committee, Section 28(1) of the Act states that “a Council of a municipality may, by by-law establish a municipal heritage committee to advise and assist the Council on matters relating to Part IV (conservation of properties of cultural heritage value or interest) and Part V (identification of a potential Heritage Conservation District) and such other matters as Council may specify in the by-law.” The Act goes further to prescribe the general governance of a Heritage Committee, including that it shall be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by by-law. Under Part IV of the Act, once a Heritage Committee is established, Council is required to consult with it: • • • •

during the designation process for individual properties and for districts; on applications to alter designated properties; on applications to demolish or remove; on applications to repeal designation by-law;

Under Part V of the Act, once a municipal heritage committee is established, Council is required to consult with it before passing a by-law to define one or more areas as an area to be examined for future designation as a heritage conservation district.

Page 4 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DISCUSSION The Ontario Heritage Act does require a municipality to maintain a register of properties which have been designated as having cultural heritage value or interests. The Township of South Frontenac inherited the designated properties from the former Township of Portland and has maintained the records for those properties. The Act also suggests that such a register not be limited to designated properties but may also include other properties which have interest and value. The legislation is very clear that it is at Council’s discretion whether they wish to establish a Heritage Committee to advise and assist Council in executing its responsibilities under the Heritage Act, as well as other matters related to heritage that Council deems appropriate. Beyond maintaining and expanding the municipal heritage property register, a Heritage Committee could assist Council in the research, education, promotion and celebration of the heritage of the community. Programs such as new interpretive plaques of heritage locations and features, additional historical walking tours, future Doors Open events, coordination of local and regional heritage interests etc… could be tasked to a Heritage Committee. In this regard a Heritage Committee could be helpful in telling the story of the heritage of the community. It is commonly held that promotion of a community’s heritage contributes to a sense of place and distinctiveness, enhances the overall attraction of a community as a place to live and visit and is a positive influence on the local economy. OPTIONS: #1 Maintain Status Quo: There would be no budgetary impact or increase demands on staff/Council by maintaining the status quo. However this option does not provide any additional resources to assist Council in its promotion of the heritage of the community. #2 Expand Mandate of Existing Committee(s): This option would take advantage of established relationships with Council. It would require specific negotiations with the existing committees to deem their interest in an expanded mandate. This option would provide Council with additional resources to help promote the heritage of the community. By utilizing an existing Committee(s) such as the Portland District and Area Heritage Society or the Bedford Historical Society, Council would be able to consolidate its heritage actions under existing committees. However, such an expanded role may be too much for an existing committee to take on and may result in mandate conflicts. It is also possible that existing committee members many not have the complete skill set and knowledge necessary to fulfill the expanded mandate. #3 Create New Heritage Committee: This option would provide Council with a new Committee focused on responsibilities under the Heritage Act and promotion of community heritage. It would provide Council with additional resources to enhance its promotion of the heritage of the community. A new committee would provide Council with the opportunity to select members with the required skills and knowledge. Such a Committee could be tasked with coordinating with other groups currently promoting heritage in the Committee.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS If Council decides to have a Heritage Committee there would be a need for a modest operating budget to cover costs associated with memberships to various umbrella organizations, education/conferences, materials and supplies and implementation of an annual approved work plan. There would also be a need for a modest amount of staff time associated with supporting the Committee’s activities. An annual budget of $2,000 should be an initial estimate for deliberation purposes.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Prepared by: Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services

Page 5 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Littering & Weekly Newspapers/Flyers RECOMMENDATION That staff monitor the situation and work with weekly newspaper/flyer distributors to reduce occurrence of littering.

BACKGROUND Staff were asked to look into concerns related to littering associated with the delivery of weekly newspapers/flyers. As part of the investigation into this matter By-law Enforcement staff were interviewed, discussions with Distribution Managers at Metroland were held (one of the companies distributing weekly newspapers/flyers in the community) and a review of the South Frontenac Waste Management By-law 2005-98 was carried out. Discussion: Springtime tends to expose litter and waste which has accumulated during the winter months. That is why the annual Pitch-in-Canada week is held in late spring. One source of litter can be newspapers and flyers which were not picked up. Based on discussions with By-law Enforcement, the distribution of weekly newspaper/flyers is considered a legal practice under the right to advertise. Bylaw Enforcement staff was aware of two littering complaints related to weekly newspaper/flyers received over the past few years. Upon interviewing the Regional Director of Distribution and the local Distribution Manager for Metroland it was discovered that the Company has established a proactive code of conduct designed to minimize associated littering concerns. Their weekly newspaper/flyers are distributed to rural residents in two ways: •

•

Direct delivery to rural properties which have frontage on public roads and have an individual mailbox. The individual distributers (contracted by Metroland) also have the option for placing the product in see-through green bags and dropping the newspaper/flyers off at the end of the driveway instead of placing the product in the mailbox; or, Group delivery to company owned newspaper boxes where the rural properties are serviced by a Canada Post community mail box (typically in subdivisions, hamlets or where private lanes meet municipal roads).

In order to minimize the potential for their product becoming litter, Metroland has a Cottage Reduction Program whereby the number of papers placed in the newspaper boxes on “cottage” routes are reduced in the fall and increased again in the spring. On a weekly basis, the individual distributers are instructed to pick up uncollected papers from the newspaper boxes and recycle them in blue boxes provided by the Company. Drivers are also encouraged to pick up any waste around the newspaper box, regardless of where it originated from. As well, if there is a littering problem and the Company is contacted, their policy is to send an individual out to clean up the mess. If an individual no longer wishes to receive the newspaper/flyers in their mailbox or at the end of their driveway, or if they will be away from home for a period of time, they can call the local Our strength is our community.

Page 6 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Metroland Distribution office at (613) 546-8885 ext. 212 and have their address removed. It is worth noting that the Frontenac News weekly newspaper has a different distribution system and uses Canada Post to deliver their product “as mail” to individual mail boxes and Canada Post community mail boxes. Copies of the newspaper can also be picked up a various community retail stores. The Township of South Frontenac By-law 2005-98 represents the Municipality’s waste management regulations. Part VII, Clause 40 states that “No person shall throw, place or deposit waste, refuse, debris, or Garbage on private property or Municipal Property, on any roadway within the boundaries of the Municipality or on any property owned or operated by any local board thereof without the authority of the owner or occupant of such property.” If there is a littering problem which requires enforcement, By-law 2005-98 would provide the Council and staff with the authority to address the matter. The ultimate goal of Council and staff is to seek compliance with the established regulations. Prior to taking enforcement action, it is recommended that staff work with those responsible for the littering to change their practices and bring their actions in compliance with the regulations. This would require staff to monitor the situation and ensure follow-through on commitments made by the business.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial or staffing implications associated with this report beyond normal day to day service delivery.

ATTACHMENTS None.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Prepared by: Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services

Our strength is our community.

Page 7 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Update MDS I & II Provisions of Zoning By-law RECOMMENDATION That the Committee of Whole direct staff to proceed with an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 to update Section 5.35, Agriculture – Minimum Distance Separation and Appendix 1, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

BACKGROUND At the March 28, 2017 Committee of Whole, staff presented a report outlining the amended guidelines for Minimum Distance Separations established by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Of particular interest was the clarification of the use of MDS I and II in relation to the development of existing vacant lots. Staff recommended that the Zoning By-law provisions related to MDS I & II be updated to recognize the need for special planning permission to permit the development of vacant lots. Upon further review it is recommended that the Council require such situations to make application to and go before the Committee of Adjustment to permit development of vacant lots where MDS cannot be met. This would allow a formal review of the situation and the establishment of conditions under which development of the vacant lot could proceed (i.e. agreement registered on title related to closeness to barn, rights to farm, noise, odor etc…). It is also recognized that the existing Appendix 1, Minimum Distance Separation Formulae should be updated to reflect the current OMFRA guidelines. Accordingly, it is recommended that Section 5.35 (a) and (b), Agriculture – Minimum Distance Separation of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 be deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: “5.35 a) Notwithstanding any other yard or setback provisions of this By-Law to the contrary, no residential, institutional, commercial, industrial or recreational use, located on a separate lot, outside of the boundaries of a “Settlement Area” and permitted in the Zone in which the lot is situated, shall be erected or altered unless it complies with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) calculated using the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, “MDS Implementation Guidelines”, as amended (Appendix 1). Notwithstanding the aforementioned, existing vacant lots which cannot be developed as a result of MDS I may be developed subject to the approval of the Committee of Adjustment. Within “Settlement Area” boundaries, MDS 1 will not be applied to proposed new development except where Council determines that special circumstances warrant such application. b) Notwithstanding any other yard or setback provisions of this By-Law to the contrary, no livestock facility, shall be erected or expanded unless in compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) calculated using the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, “MDS Implementation Guidelines”, as amended (Appendix 1). Notwithstanding the aforementioned, existing livestock facilities which cannot be expanded

Our strength is our community.

Page 8 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES as a result of MDS II may be expanded subject to the approval of the Committee of Adjustment. c) Where a new or expanded livestock facility is proposed adjacent to a vacant non-farm residential parcel of land containing a lot area of 2 hectares (4.9 acres) or less, the minimum separation distance shall be calculated from the nearest part of the new or expanded agricultural use to the boundary of the vacant lot. d) Where a new or expanded livestock operation is proposed adjacent to a vacant non-farm residential parcel of land containing a lot area greater than 2 hectares (4.9 acres), the minimum separation distance shall provide for a minimum building area on the vacant lot of 1 hectare (2.5 acres).” This change would retain the existing provision of Section 5.35 (c) but have it renumbered as Section 5.35 (e). Appendix 1 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS I and MDSII) of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-75 represents the now out of date MDS Guidelines prepared by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). It is recommended that Appendix 1 be replaced with the most recent OMAFRA document “The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document, Publication 853”. To implement these recommended changes, a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is necessary. This would require public notice and a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS The costs associated with providing notice of the proposed change and hosting the public meeting would be the only costs associated with this recommendation. There would be no increase demand on staff above and beyond the normal day to day service delivery.

ATTACHMENTS None Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services

Our strength is our community.

Page 9 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017

REPORT DATE: April 19, 2017

SUBJECT: Review of Proposed New Road Name ‘Robinson Road’.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee receive for information the Planning Report dated April 19, 2017, and consider passage of a by-law at Council naming a new public road in the Village of Harrowsmith “Robinson Road”.

BACKGROUND As part of the project to re-configure the intersection of Road 38, Colebrooke Road, Wilton Road and Ottawa Street in the Village of Harrowsmith, a new public road is being constructed approximately 150 metres to the west of this present intersection. The Public Works Department has proposed to name this new road “Robinson Road” in honour of former long-serving Councillor for Portland District, Bill Robinson. Attachment #1 shows the location of the new road in the village and Attachment #2 is a rendering of the new road alignment. As shown, the road would connect Wilton Road on the south with Colebrooke Road on the north. If the Committee is in agreement to go forward with this naming, a process must be followed including the holding of a public meeting as prescribed in Schedule “3” of Township By-law # 2016-73 - Procedures for Notice. Attachment #3 is a copy of Schedule “3” which specifies the process to name a public road. The Planning Department reviewed the proposed name against Schedule “A” of By-law 2004-28 which lists all names of roads and lanes in the Township. It was also reviewed against the By-law 2015-60 which lists the pre-approved names for new roads and lanes in the Township and it was vetted by the Fire Department. In the opinion of Planning, the name is acceptable in that it does not conflict with any other road name or lane name that might cause confusion or delay for emergency response. It should be noted that the new road would be bounded by the K&P Trail on the northeast and by the side yards of two residential lots on the southwest (see Attachment #1). Thus, it does not appear possible that any new lots would ever have frontage on, or be accessed by, the new road and emergency responders would only be called to deal with situations along the road itself.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Costs to advertise in the newspaper and to place the road name signage.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – shows the location of the new road. Attachment #2 - is a depiction of the new road. Attachment #3 - is Schedule “3” of the Procedures for Notice By-law.

Approved by: Forbes Symon attachments BillRobinsonWayReportToCofW

Submitted/Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

&

Page 10 of 47

Attachment #1

‘Y%V

i

N

W’

E

s

[?i

f

[1

a

Location of New Road

.!' .0

1

0 25 50

100

i Meters 150 200

J

Page 11 of 47

Page 12 of 47

ATTACHMENT #3 Schedule “3” to By-Iaw 2016-73

Procedures for Notice - Naming Highways r

r

Before passing a By-Iaw to name a highway, private lane, private mad, changing the name of a highway or adding additional names to the adopted Iist of acceptable names. The municipality shall give notice of its intention to pass the by-law. Content of Notice

• Explanation of proposed name including Iocation and mapping

• Date/Time/Plaoe of public meeting for consideration of by-law

• Written comments and/or verbal comments wil be oonsidered at a public meeting where By-law is to be considered

@ *

Address where to respond with mmments prior to the public meeting Contad information for the Administration Offlce Clerk or Deputy Clerk’s Name/Title

Manner of Notice

“1. The full noti> shall be published at Ieast four weeks in advance of the meeting on Township website. 2. Athesummary of the Notice shall be published in the weekly banner advertising directing readers to the website four weeks in advance of the meeting. A subsequent notice shall be published one week in advance of the meeting. 3. Posted on site for at Ieast four weeks in the most public place or in the immediate neighbourhood. 4- Where changi n g the name of a road or l a ne, noti c e to al l ratepayers fronti n g the mad or lane by prepaid mail, mailed four weeks in advance of the meeting. s. Notice to abutting municipality/upper tier municipality if applicable. 6. Ifwithel onlriuymber of properti e s affeaed by the name change i s greater than 25, noti c e be in the form of advertisement in the Iocal newspaper, having general circulation in the Municipality

Page 13 of 47

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017

REPORT DATE: April 20, 2017

SUBJECT: Site Plan Agreement for Commercial Development: Campbell

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning report dated April 20, 2017 for information regarding a draft site plan agreement for the proposed commercial/residential development in Part of Lot 19, Concession II, District of Storrington.

BACKGROUND: Committee members are aware that an application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law to rezone a 5.52 acre lot to permit construction of a mixed-use building. Commercial uses are proposed on the main floor and four residential units on the second floor. Attachment #1 is a map showing the location of the subject lot within the hamlet of Inverary and Attachment #2 depicts the proposed building and rough floor plan for the upper and lower floors. On April 4, 2017 Council passed By-law 2017-17 to rezone the subject land to Special Urban Commercial Zone (UC-27) to permit the new use. However, the special zone included a holding (h) symbol to prevent construction on the land until a site plan agreement was entered into between the owner and the Township and registered on the title of the property. Accordingly, a preliminary site plan has now been submitted by the owner and a draft site plan agreement has been prepared by the Planning Department. The Committee will recall also that, at the public meeting on March 21, 2017, two neighbours of the subject property raised concerns over the potential effect that the new use would have on their wells. Thus, the holding provision also required that the owner conduct a draw-down test on neighbouring wells to the Township’s satisfaction. Accordingly, the owner conducted this testing on all neighbouring wells within 500 feet of his well. The subject well was pumped at a rate of five gallons per minute for a sustained period of six hours while the adjacent wells were observed for the draw-down effect. The results indicate that there were no appreciable effects. Attachment #3 is comprised of a map showing the 500 foot radius from the subject well within which the other wells were tested; a copy of the subject land well record; the results of the tests; and a report from Public Health Ontario indicating that their bacteriological analysis of the well’s water shows no significant evidence of bacterial contamination. It should be emphasized that the applicant was diligent by attempting to include both wells on the south side of Davidson Road in the testing even though they are located beyond the 500 foot radius. However, only one of the propertyowners agreed to have his well tested. It is also noted that, at the previous Council meeting, comments had not been received from KFL&A Public Health on the re-zoning application. Their comments have now been received and they have no objection or any special requirements for the proposed development. Their letter dated March 30, 2017 is attached as Attachment #4. Regarding the site plan, its purpose is to demonstrate how the proposed development will ‘fit’ on the property including all buildings and structures, parking and loading spaces, stormwater flows, septic and well locations and landscaping - as specified in the Township’s Site Plan Guidelines. The

Page 14 of 47 preliminary site plan and site plan agreement referred to above are attached hereto as Attachment #5 for the Committee’s review. The site plan submission is not at a readable scale at this point and Planning is still waiting on submission of a full-sized plan. However, based on the present submission, Planning will still require the following to be shown on the site plan:

the fire route (unobstructed) landscaping septic tile bed location.

It is expected that the development proposal will come to Council soon when bylaws may be passed to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into the site plan agreement and to lift the holding (h) symbol from the zoning to allow development to proceed.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Staff time will be required for further review of the site plan and the agreement.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – shows the location of the subject land. Attachment #2 - is a depiction of the proposed building. Attachment #3 - is copies of testing results. Attachment #4 - is a copy of KFL&A Public Health comments. Attachment #5 - is a preliminary site plan and site plan agreement. Reviewed/approved by: Forbes Symon JodyCampbellSitePlanReportToCofW2017

Submitted/prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 15 of 47

!

Attachment #1 N

l

l

(-

E

l

/

l

/ /

s l i

/

/

(

(V? i

./7?

LL

1

,=” r,"

Sl 1

P

L

Lake

I

T

’ KEm ROAD

l

l

-J"?

r-

/

i

(< l

‘y

l

W?

J /‘N’,: V

,?? l

i

I

l

I

k

r5’?*

l

l W

i

l

l

l

l

s

t

I I

l

1

l l

€i

I

l

l

l

i i l it

i I

i

l i

i

!

l

t

1

l’

J

i

i i i

I

/

r

l

{

{ l

l

/

i

l

I

/

/

l

%,-

W

l N

l

/

l

l

t

/

1 i.

/

l

/’

/ /

Lou’ghborough k %

l

’l l

%/

s

S

(

rl S

l

I

ffl

l

r

r

s %/

t

n

r

/

l?/ r

I

I )

/

r

z

/

i

ii

t

t

i

l

l

l

I{

Laie

l

/' ?

r

l

/

(

i

t

)

l

i

l

l I

l i

l

l !

I

l l i

/

I

l

l

t l

l

i

i

Ii

l'

/

/

l

l

l

i

lr-

J'

l

i

l

l

l {

/ t

l

l

l

I

r f( l l

(’.1

.J

l

U l:

.)

.I? (o ‘(

l

<)’-’l

L

s ,?????:(’.: /

r’ I t i s

k

S

‘! (

k

)

‘,.

‘?-?

! /

,,’

t

%/

%

%

r

/‘r uLi7 !i

%

[

’l

S

J

l

‘y

t

‘,../ ‘J f i

/

/

Collins Lake

r

’l%l

I

l’!

i’i I

aLl 1

rfl r[) fl

? 1

’l

I

LIH

l l l

(

r

/

l

j

i

//

i

U

/

/

I

l l l

s 1

I

l {

l l

I

/

/

/ tm II

l! l i

/ l

[

l

/

170340 680 1,020 l l

i

/ /

I

%

)

1i

{

l

l l

l t

i

s

I

l

sl

l

l

Page 16 of 47

Page 17 of 47

i RECEIVED MAR 0 1 2017

l l I

TOWNSHIP OF

i

SOUTH FRONTENAC PLANNiNG DEpA.RTME)’=lT

0

I

i

l /??

uWJ

/’, 9all’l vaIn

blnJ

klrehaii

l/ ,X

/‘ii ……..-Iwa

V

T

r’g’

7’,J

uq

M

i

ealhM61n

{)tM’hl

h

r

“ipV tlvln9

m ?J

‘!

}7

r? !?

i

1

V-

Page 18 of 47

F?FT’:FIVEr) rKt:ut:lVt:Ll MAR 0 1 2017 10wNSHlP OF SOUTH FROl’.lTENil,C PLANNING [?)EPARTMENT

.la7-

u

I

v

:

l

I

ll

M

t i

t

!

J

ll

il

i

1 ‘J i

I

l

l

l

I

lI

l—–.J l?

,,–r-r?‘1??

i

i Ii

—‘vr

-a+‘A

I

W/-

Sla!q &talrx

i

nfll?

a?

.?H#-

‘HW-

l(1#-

Msdwmul mm

N(li

/?lh

€

?

/‘ih

m

m?

dh

…….-%i

?

Page 19 of 47

am

Meauremmnts recorded in ;.(,’ .?. lj ?Metrlc

Well Tag No. (Place Sticker and/or Print Below)

Tag#:A191607

[]rmperial

M a il ’ g A d d h s s ( S } ‘? e } N u ?”" b e r / N a m e ) ’l’!

E-mail Address

i p.

m-

of

?’

:. l Last N?ame?/Organiza}ion ;,,?a’.‘P)“q’j?’l’;-?” Laa)i.. L-.

..’,‘J ’ f ?‘1 '

Regulation 903 0ntario Water Resources Act Page

’ Owqer’s Informati6n ' rsName

Well Recor?d Page 20 of 47

Municipali(y

[] Well Cons}ructed by Well Owner

?osialC.ode?’ ]TeleplioneNo.(iric.areacode)

Prcvince

l:-.-li-11

’l-,:,>t-:Q:? -l

ILocation

Addiiss of Well Loca}ion (S}r6.et Number/Name)

Township ?’:.;?i’:,’,::S’:!,Qsr:>i:,’,:,,?y(;5;Z5

Couay/Dis}ric(/Municipali}y l

Ci(y/Town/Villaga

‘?-c.=l;’.;?:“iJ’E.f::.‘i"i’i::’:J:"==?i}il

Lo}

Concession

Province

Pos}al Code

Ontariri

CoordinatesiZoiie Eas}ing eoor?aaies?72’oiie?i-Umsiing-’ —? -’ -’l-Nonhing-’ -’- –?-’–1-Mu’ Northing

• i n?crpa!r”!aiia;agti6!o!?-Num66r’

?IADI Bl 11 i l,gal ‘;,’,.<a,IE,11 ,2:!5)l1’l41lq.l Lll l’,’.)i.l )l l?:,l-‘I 101!.1(?:, l

l

Nil.ii?isjjy oj.the Environment d’ClirMa}e Change

Oiitario

C)$her

Oveburdeii and Bedrock materials/Qbandonment Sea}ing Record (see instruchoris on rhe back of tlvs form) t-

Gereral Colour l Mos(’)Common Ma}erial i

O(her Materials

l

Gerieral Descrip(ioii

i From i To

.(??. .ljl.??=??ffl’:’: ‘.’. ?J..

L.; -I- li l

l——-

• • ?.-. ?- – ? .–.- ?– — .- . - - -. —l

l- ‘i t’(liA ,’ a:IE:::?Xi-,) t->€:;

), (:y, { ’ l .1 (-:Fl i

Depth Se} at (mifl)

VolumePlaced IIA(tertestofwellyield,waterwas:

a Type or Sealant Used

From i To

aMateiial and Type)

l.;.) ,;,, i

‘ma/rt’l

5:a: ?: :’.‘A’#-’ i-V-‘i ‘;=.f l ’ 7=.’>-?-<J

l

-i-?

{:’

[vaClear and sand free % Otl’ier, specrfy

l’;l pu’mprng ‘aisconj;uea,-’;ive ‘;easo;:-I

:i’

Pump in}ake se} a.} (mlfl)

il

Pumpiiig rate (l/min / GPM}

,

WelrUsq

?-

[]Diamond [lPublic ‘?€’?Comm?eicial []Noiused —’=’-,A’A’i i

I– s

nllunicioal (’lDewaleiiria Durak’onofpump’nq [:]Rolary (Conventional)nlpitino € Jel3ing (71Dome=itk. [2)?Domesilc [] Municipal €noiary (Reverse) 0 Driping [].iBoring a Di(J5ing :(J5inl

€ Lives}ock

[] Tes} Hole

8::=:::=il????:“o’::: [? Moniioring

€lrrigalion 0 Cooliii0 & Air Conaikioiiing

[5,Air percuffision [i O}hiier. .ppecrfy,

.1'3 F,, ,‘a7 ? l

[] Olher, spac?fy ,??,?,?,?

If flowing give ra}e (lAnrn / GPM)

o ,5 2”,,’ Con’eirgetin,Record-.9!asing Diameler l (Galvanized,

(cmAnj i 5oncrele, Plaslic, Sl0el)

(crn/in)

l J

Dal"h(n’/m lpwatersupply ll?tRecommena’ecl?5;mpdmpti;(m7fij[]Replacemen} Well

From

l?-,

(,’%: I

1

l.–.-.?–

+,1 l.’.> ‘.2-::‘I i.!l …-.-I-=.{

3 3 , ;%, a ‘:‘k

%%.al.i

’l

Wa}er Level

(mlft)

:;;: art . .(;

2

ai LAi. -’ r15. ‘:,:r ‘.i )

2

:: -7

3

::,<l.s .1(%,-,

3

E’.’ ir:fi ’ a’-}

4

s’:t-l ,’,1’%-vl/

4

t

T-‘10 ' 15 :*‘c’r . ??7

5

.-N Sal,-aii

10

‘.)‘a l

-.-l i l

15

li’!-

15

B:5i 2-

20

l ,-(’, 3’ . =,

20

?.:hj’i i :5-

25

l-ffi:-.=-i

-F€ecommenaea pump rate

25

-0) j. }i(i +

,+).i,,’) l

30

[] Recliarge Well 11 ?(llm?‘o?i,-, ‘iBpoy)

30

40 C%

[iDewa(erlng Well

i:-.q.: 1 s = -=ll a :’:::il:::’,;,s"oa Moniloring Hole

:if

;, i Q) '

l’o

ll’resl Hole .-.., l ‘),

!11 -.

€ Alteration (Conslruclion)

€Atruidoned.

(.r:‘Ml Well production. (l/mhi / /GPM)

1.:31-y? (’?:;.<5’l’jy?4lS? Disiniecjed?

40

50

50

60

160

[‘i’ Yes l??..l NO

€2"tf.=.?-a’:‘1 l

Slot No.

Deplli (rn/ft) l Walr’r Qualily

From l To ..—-.—-4——-

0 Abaiidoned. other, specrfy

lr

Cl

Please provide a map below following ins!niclions on lhe back. />s

l r ‘?

?’ ! i’sl

?’-?? ?’-??-’-i 113 0ther, specify

Wathibetailq

Holcctq,meto?

?Wa!er’fou’n3?’;’(‘D’e?:n’?dofV9a:er:’[]Fresh [;]‘On?}es?}ed7 DMAhkrnlfl)To’ .’?l D!ameler ?i ? Ftom

aa’:aa:l !, “:l *}:; ‘4.i?ia.H. aa’l?a?:-aa’:?++a?s-i> ‘.;”% Y.Q i’E.:. ’l?.l,

J.2,? ? : ?" l ?

‘!) (rnlft)i ]Gas (3(Mliei,specr(y? ? ?? =- - -

VlJater foiind at DepthlKind ail-l

l-4

l

,

i 10 (m/ff) (71Gas? t???lCMher?,specify?,???

?Wa(er ‘fo???unda’?}‘Depml’Krnd?ofV9a}er: [? Fresh lp.] Unles}ed (m/ft) Q Gas i [J oiheri’: specify

il

N

Wsll-ContiJctoraimiWellTechntcranmformdtion ‘a?

Business Name of Well Con-(rac-€4r

it

i

il

????‘I,,-, a?clor’s?Licerr-e No.

i

ja-‘a’iX?2si.?ll’a’ y ‘%i’z %4":" ‘-?’

Bus;ess-A?ddress .s-A?ddress(S!?e-e( (Si?e-e( Number/Name) NumbQ’/Narr

l?c2’l ‘3;jl;3{:?1 Province

Commenls:

l?:=’)l'4????’ ?i.?,:l.’?t;7’.,:,?4w?4.?-+i I:???

l

o

l.{ ' i..i

lnsu((icioii} Supply

" ls@ree!’ - - – [] Abandoned Poor

a

l

Level

ecovery’

l —– – — ?

StalusofWell

I

Inside l OpenHoleORMafe.iial l Wall ;d-, Fjbreglp;s, Thickness

(’ ?;, nl:ll

Finffil water level end of pumping (mfl)i

€ lnduslrial

‘( +

l (miri) l (mlfl) l (mrn) l Q5F

a% ( (’,,’)

Metliod ofCor)6trueiior) " [3Cable Tooi’

l

i

c.?l l

-d

l

-.) I

.. :l

l,’-‘i%:“iials?g’?.’:‘S..?Q.>.l% Ll’l’:31:o.? ‘Q:.’;.r.>i

Y

11?.1

Page 21 of 47

Phone (613) 546-6164 Fax (613) 54(>-7444

? !c) -awwaa ‘Q. ‘gi h W JACK KNOX WELL DRILLING LTD. BOX 33

GLENBURNIE, ONTAFIIO KOHISO

April 10, 2017

Pump testinq of Well q A1?91607, Lot 19 Con 2 5guth Frpntenac.

Monitoring of neighbouring wells specified by the township. Well pumped at s GPM for 6 hours. Nameor i static l lHour l 2Hour i 3Hour i 4Hour ‘, 5Hour l 6Hour Civic i Ievel in

Address i beginning Pumping

23 6

11:11

?’ ?‘Well }Qll 419 160'7

jody’s shop

27.1

27.5 l 27.7 l 31 l 27.9 ’ 27.8 l 27.7

;:i”,:.J ?=1 a" ’ l 282 i “?a ’ 2"2 l ' Hardware j 29.4 Store

29.6

l

29.7

29.8

l

29.6

30

29.7

,.’;::ol299t2tu u212? “".o"j” 29.4 3844 i 29.2 i 29.4 l 29.5 i 29.5 i 29.4 l 29.2 j 29.3

Perth Rd

3858

Pmm!’.Rd

298 1 299 l 30

302

301 l

30:1 :a ‘= .1.. =. .: ?l =.

.1 .’-.

*Please note all wells that were being monitored were still accessible and in use by owners.

]!- /.(“7-) Ron Knox

30,2

Put?!ic

-Hea,1th

Oriiari-6

San34 publique

PARTNtRS FI:IR HtALTH

Public Health Laborator37 - Kingston 181 Barrie St

Ontario

Page 22 of 47

Kingston, ON K7L 3K2

PAllTtNAIRES P(IIIR kA SANTt

Bacteriological Analysis of Drinking Water for Private Citizen, Single Household Only Analyse bact6riologique de l’eau potable - Particul}ers, M6nages unifamiliaux seulement Locai(6nofVM*tei’S6uicel’? ::’ Submitter’s Name and Mailing Addresa / ?

Nom et adrease postale de I’auteur dela’demande d’analyse

Emplacement de Ia s6urca.d’eau.

:“i’!’.’:l’Jl’.lml), t.ffif:ilaa;irr.e.‘ir;::S’iforn,’ N(’-m klF. {M{l’ll!tG —” - ‘JODYCAMPBELL ' Sii;::;et tidati:i+;s ] r’.r!reSlQ’l: iiiurticipalffl

‘S(r’tfll21ddrPi!SSa'7A’lri'3!:’;nu-Tl,f’:;ip4,,.,,,,,’; :,i-l’

BATTERSEA,ON KOHIHO

STORRINGTON, SOuTH FRONTENAC ON .

4865LOWERROUNDLAKERD .”

ca, r:orice.hxiyi / 011 Iiii, ( (Jl{-.:‘SFil011 t:yn rqa ayr I s’;. ‘Cu .’ g 11 + 192=

eoti+‘ity./Ccr.+,44iNOT’F’ROVIDED. ’ .’ ..” .. Hq*‘fi t.tiiit q I j+ du t.+l+ieJly f tt cC+tlL! 2241 Specimen details / D6tails sur l'6chantillon:

BarcOde ‘[’ C6de’ A’, t)arjesf’i .0091’Q6432’. ‘. i’ " : l:’::’:.:’l’ll:’l ‘..:.1 ‘al.;..: ‘.,’.’,.’ ,’.,.,’,’ ,’. ‘, , Purification system used (e.g. UV, filtration, etc.)? / NO / %@q l

Data/Tlme / Date/heure pr41hvomonP: 2017-04-10 14:00:00 Authorlzed byex. (PoslUon) / Autorls6 par (Posltlon) Phone Collocted @ ) @ t61.: 61 3 du 561 625g Systbme d'6puration utilis! (p. rayons UV, filtrat}on, etc.)?

Datefflme Recelved t Date/heure Regu le’: 2017-04-10 15:43:00 Dr. Vanessa Gray Allen (Chief, Medkal Microbiology) l 8pecimen Note / Note sur I'4chantillon:

This specimen was received in good condition unless otherwise stated./A moins d’avis contraire, l'6chantillon 6tait en bonne condition au moment de Ia r6ception.

Test results / R6sultats d’analyse: Total Coliform per 100 mL / Coliformes totaux par 100 mL 0 E. coli per/par 100 mL '

o.

Interretation/Interr6tation: " '

NO SGNIFCANT EVIDENCE OF BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION (Total Coliform :5,5, E. coli’= 0) / ' ’ AUCUNE PREUVE DE CONTAMINATION BACTtRIENNE SIGNIFICATIVE (Coliformes totaux S5, E. coli=0)

"

The presence of coliforrns may be indicative of’a contaminated water supply. Given the vulnerability of . . ' well water to external influences, it is important to test water frequently. / La pr6sence de coliforrnes peut

6tre r6v&latrice d’une source d’eau pollu6e. L’eiu des puitsjtant susceptible d’eitred&grad4e par des ' facteurs externes, il est important d.e Ia faire analyser fr6quemment. ,

• DateofAnalysls’/Datedel’analyse: 2017-0410:l’ .. DateRead’/‘Analyseeffsctu6e’lffii'70l'7-0411 ‘, .- ' Please Note / Prieire de noter ce qui suit : , These results relate orily to the sample tested. / Le r6sultat obtenu se rapporte seulement h cet 6diantillon d’eau analys6. Note : This wajer sample was only tested for the presence of both Total Coliforms and E. coli (180/IEC 17025 accredlted tests) baderial indicators of contamination by Membrane Filtra}ion. The sample was not tested for other mntaminants, including diemiml mntaminanb, and therefore may be unsafe to drink even when there ls no signifimnt evidence of baderial contamination. / Remarque: Cet 6diantillon d’eau n’a 6t6 analys6 que pour d6oler (par un Iaboratolre accr6d+t6 conform6ment h la norrne 180/IEC 17025) la pr6sence des coliformes totaux et des bad6ries collibaallalres, indiaateurs de mntaminatlon par filtration sur membrane. L'6chantillon

n’a pas 6t6 tsst6 pour d’autres mntaminants, y compris Ies contaminants chimiques et, par ons(iquent, I’eau peut @im impropre & la consommation mame Iorsqu’il n’y a aucune preuve slgnifimtive de mntaminatlon bact6rienne. ’ lf the reported client Inforrnation does not match the information you supplied on the fomi please contad the PHO Customer Servlce Centre. Telephone: 1-8T7-6044587 or 418-235-8558 or E-mail: customerservicewntre@oahpp.m. For operating hours see our website www.publidrealthontario.ca/labs. / Si les inforrnations sur Ie client indlquMes ne corrasponcmnt pas aux infomiations que vous avez foumies sur Ie formulaire, veuillez mmmuniquer avec la Service h Ia cliant&le de SPO par t616 ’ phone au 1-877-604-4587 ou 416-235J8558, ou par mumel au customerservicemntre@oahpp.ca. Pour connae Ies heures d’ouverture, veuillez consulter notre si}eWe5www.publiqheal{homario.abs. ,

End of report / Fin du rapport “A// time values am EST IEDT/Toutes les heums sont exprimdes ell HNE ou ell HAE. Prlnt..Date / Date..d’lmpresslon”: 2017-04-11 Date Repor’bscl/?Date du rapport’: 2017-04-11 18:37:44

Page 1 of 1

LIMS Report#: ,!:( 0?ntario LIM5 wepon W: 24931933 Z4!d;jlV,}.j (yr’ X?SingleSampleOPHL??WATPRIVATE.rpt %

rJ-Jl sJ1 l A(JJL I

uJ 0 1 ul lal

r%l? l-l?1 l ?lJ?l%w l ll?p’lL- i t t

uxstwwwr rvci

Page 23 of 47

ATTACHMENT #4 IKFJ,&A

r

PuMicHealth<A

Envirorimental Health Department 221 Portsmouth Avenue

I(ingston, Ontario K7M IVS (613) 54(;l-1232 1 -800-267-7875

Fax: (613) 549-7738

REOUB8T8-FOR CO-MM,NT8 To

www.:kfia ublichealth-cg

L-i /1 cl ? -( H i //S a T?nsh’shp g> oF Sou:4-tt F’m’l’mqc,,

%+8a ezr:qry,s@ .Lm. too 5y.deriAatr)/v0’ihriO KOH-,;2g05

Application # Type of Application or Proposal

Z-t+foE

A Zoning (:l Lot adition Ci Easement cl Mmoxa Vaf’iance 0 Seyerance

cl Site plan ci Subdivision

Applicant Name

-w,,( cmPit,l (Lot, Concessioh, Street, District/ ard)

LocatiOti

L (’( C Z , ?sElo ‘ie? % ., S’rbrrsq=,,% S?

‘f?’ (‘1’;;ers4

Q CIf7 0f I(ingston (Pittsburgh, Kingston)

Agency OT Plann!ng Dept- l O Central Frontenac (Hinchinbrooke, oso, Kennebec, Olden) ci Frontenac Islands (Wolfe Kaland, Howe Island) oN? F’rontenac (sarrie, N. canonto, s. Canonto, Millcri Clarendon, Palmerston) ti/‘iouth Oufh :F’ontenac (Portland, Bedfordi LouHhborough, Storrington) Cl LO37auSt {Amhe.rst Islaud, Viuage of Bath, Ern6stown) n Greater Napanee (Ri?ond, N.&S. Frederidcs+biir7, Adolphustown) cl Addington Highlands (Kaladar, w@esma, Efflnghami Denbig%, Abingeri Ashby) (no objefflons ot other)

Comment8

Inspector

KFL&A Piablic Health has no objection to the

Z c>o s n ’l:,

2?4b…

aasasyvasyxdss**a***

CPHI(C), Pubfic Health Date

?Aotrrr-r ?g O , 2zl ‘?.

Pa’sonal information on this form is collected under the authority oFthe Health Protection and Promotion Aot s.o. 1983, C. 10 afid will be used f’gr the adtnttii&ta60n 05 Public Health progmms. Any questions about the collection of th’is infon’nation should be directed to the Dtrector, Ennronmental Health, KFIAA Publio Health, 221 Pomimouth Aveiuc, Kingston, Ontmio K7M lV5, 6U-549-1232 ext, 243, 1-800-267-7875

Ni ’l Divisions %lf)‘F" 1 Environmental % ADMIN?STRAT?ONS T20RM8 % F’ART 8 % Minor Vafflances % Request ror Commerits blank. doc

Page 24 of 47

ATTACHMENT #5 THIS SITE PLAN AGREEMENT MADE THIS DAY OF MAY, 2017. BETWEEN:

18095005 0NTARIO LIMITED hereinafter called the “Owner” OF THE FIRST PART

• and -

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

hereinafter called the “Municipa}ity” OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of certain lands described in Schedule ?A", attached hereto, located in the Township of South Frontenac (the “Owner’s Land”); '

AND WHEREAS the Municipality is authorized to enter into this agreement and register it against the title to the Lands pursuant to seetion 41 of the Planning Act and section 6.17 of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan; AND WHEREAS the Municipality has passed by-law No. 2003-25 to designate all of the Township of South Frontenac as a ?Site Plan Control Area?; NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree each with the other as follows:

In this Agreement:

a) “Owner"includesamortgageeinpossession,atenantinpossessionpursuantto a leasehold interest, and encumbancer in possession and may mean more than one Owner specified’m the Certificate of o-wnership.

1. The Owner covenants that the Owner is the Owner in fee simple of the Owner’ s land.

2. The obligations imposed by this Agreement affect the land described in Schedule “A” hereto and any restrictive covenants expressed herein run with the land and bind successors in title to the said property as well as the successors and assigns of the Owner.

3. Theencumbranceragreestosatisfyalltheobligationsimposedpursuanttothis document if it should enter into possession of the said land.

4. The following schedules are attached to and form part of this agreement and no new building, structure or other facility shall be erected, altered or placed on the said land except in accordance with the attached schedules which consist of: A.

Legal Description of Lands

B.

Site Plan

C.

Specification of Commercial/Industrial Entrance

Page 25 of 47

s. The Owner shall perform all the work and provide all the materials necessary for the constmction of a new facility and the fencing, aisles and manoeuvring areas, entrance improvements and plantings as specified on the Site Plan, Schedule ?B” to this Agreement.

6. In addition to the existing warehousing building and industrial/dwelling building and sewage system mantle area as shown on Schedule ?B", the Owner shall

construct a 5,000 fl.2 footprint, two storey mixed use commercial/residential building including access, manoeuvring and parking areas located as shown on Schedule ?B? and shall improve access to the Owner’s Land by upgrading the entrance to the minimum Township standard specified on Schedule “C.

7. Site development shall include access aisles and manoeuvring and parking areas as shown. The fire route is also shown which is to remain unobstructed and it

should be noted that there is no additional requirement for on-site water storage for fire protection.

8. The access onto Perth Road is to be constmcted to Township specifications as shown on Schedule ?C” including the requirement that it be paved with asphalt. The required access aisles and manoeuvring areas shown on Schedule ?B? are also to be paved with asphalt.

’ The existing stands of trees and vegetation shown on Schedule “B? along the south and west portion of the Owner’s Land shall be maintained to provide a partial visual buffer to the residential uses to the south and west.

10. The Owner shall prevent damage being caused to existing public highways, other public works or municipal property in the course of development of the lands.

11. The Owner shall undertake a traffic impact assessment to determine any requirements for upgrades to the Township public road (Perth Road) and the Owner shall make financial contributions to the Municipality, and to the municipality’s satisfaction, towards any required public road improvements.

12. Intheeventofasaleoftheimprovedlands,thenewOwnerwillassumefulland complete responsibility for the continuing obligations under this Agreement. The enforcement of this Agreement is the responsibility of the Municipality.

13. TheAgreementshallberegisteredagainstthetitleoftheLandsandthe Municipality shall be entitled to enforce its provisions against the Owner and any and all subsequent owners of the Lands.

14. IntheeventthattheOwnerfailstoinstallormaintainthefacilitiescoveredbythis Agreement, then, upon the Chief Building Official or designate, giving seven days written notice by pre-paid registered mail to the Owners, the municipality, through it’s employees, agents or contractors, may, without further notice, enter upon the lands and proceed to supply all materials and to do all the necessary inspections and works in connection with the facilities including the repair or reconstruction of faulty work and the replacement of materials which are not in accordance with plans or specifications and to charge the cost thereof, together with the cost of engineering and any other expenses incurred by the municipality, against the Owner. Such entry and work shall not be deemed as acceptance or assumption of said facilities nor an assumption by the Municipality of any liability. It is expressly agreed that the Owners or any person in possession shall not question the cost incurred by the Municipality for Iabour, materials or any other costs incidental to do the said work and this provision shall be deemed to operate as an effective estoppel in judicial proceedings if such costs are

challenged or placed in question. The Owners agree to permit the Chief Building Official, or agent, to enter onto the Lands at any time to inspect the work. The Municipality may perform any of the required services and collect the cost for the enforcement of this Agreement against the said Lands from any security received.

Page 26 of 47

15. TheOwnercovenantsandagreesthatthelandsandpremisesmoreparticularly described in Schedule ?A” annexed hereto may only be used for those purposes specified in Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 and site-specific By-law #2017-17.

WITNESS the corporate seals of the respective corporate parties hereto affixed under the hands of their respective signing officers, duly authorized, in that behalf.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) In the presence of

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Mayor

Clerk

Page 27 of 47

SCHEDULE “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS

Part of Lot 19, Concession II, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac: Municipally Known as 3810 Perth Road, Inverary.

/7

‘%

(5

Page 28 of 47

o

N

i

/

SCHEDULE ?B" -C’ 11) ‘.-

SITE PLAN

o, ffi ? e-.1?

X

%“I-i . ii(

?

?f

X,

?

k81

S, ?O J

,,, 7{-’.=;,,,,,,,7 ‘?yi.n’:I l o< ? T) l ‘o?1

/soa’g , ‘:; X,

S, ?V>

}4 1, @ ?4 ,t

86

%=‘u! aJ

X,

z

-?,; %

,’,

),

X, €

‘soi 0%‘A?a

‘iv

.,Y %o ’llt S

R ’t

’s

?9 IY

i

?9>?

X /s,,ll

.9 o ;l

X, ?9 :5’< his

?11

..Sm

t ;l

a

“)

!6= ,,p,,

S

X/,

‘-=.1”%

X/,

b

kli)

‘z %5 iq

J

?J

i

X,

s ?J

4s+

‘9

3

o

?e 8

r,

s

7

e,

2)” r

aA

‘/,‘X d, .ti’

7 )a,

‘Ml ‘i

. .IG

.. e

?e o

X,

.3

‘)’

11

t “%-

ii? @

K?’,

0

11

r

S,

e% ‘%

,S, j,?%J,

7?

r.,j

OB

it o

Qs R0

)(,o

+,

it ‘)

11

(l

X,.1

-4

I

?9 {f

I”’=1

il

L,,;

X ),,

),

lIt

B-

?".>

X ‘,(

t..i

s X

.i.-:3/ x

l

o ’l

S,

!II

l

x,.1

l

tF

l

t F

l

W.

l

‘} i,3 .e X/, 9i i

::’):’:i

/-S,

o!n sO’:I m-.,lfi

q

!I

)X.?tl ‘? g

J

Ql

ki)

11() %I-

6??"’s?

S,

l

Ii?B’

X /s,

x

?%

/,

X/, lj 9

s

l

’e a G

X/

..i ..S

l

X /,! %A l

f

X/

%

S,

l

‘J

o

l

l

S,

+,

a

7 ’t

l

• s:l+?.

x

3iX

X,

E, ?J>

X/ -

‘IN

X e%

?o? R0y4]N?’ 7

H

?‘I ‘?6 ar*-?, ffl aa ‘o

X ?,

X,

??y

::2-l

% l-l

94 1

S,

?J e

IH ,( .;*’

X,

-+-

S,

.

a

‘S

Q

‘]-

P

=0

In

4

X/

S o ?9 o

k:.:?‘i

%

X/

9

S 0 ?9 i

ra?.

?e,

11%

l

l

tf,, ?Vg

’ % g “,

5,-

m@

)!3’

X/,

owi

U-

x

,T, !!,l

%J

‘-’€.j

, ?e,

4s,

x, 5u-:

l

,%

X,

=jS74

:mf

% “’

al

4-}.

?‘a / ‘aa’.(

??D

X 61

%

ssll>

%

l

:,

e e

47

1, li

z

X /sy ’ )J x

‘z

X/

S,

8, ?e 9

5’

?ai’aa’

€

{..i

Cjll(l

9,

;0)’ M:l. l%J .:i4

.-41,s2J?

l’

I’ ,?a?’s

?S’.’. f?’ J’ ??‘I’

‘2 4

0)?

h

?.>

l?I

‘ri ‘-

1. .1

?Dh’,6.24,40..Eao

?IZ ’ -

.V.al

(f) o

0

S

z

‘[:)

l’l

-<

%4

€ o z o

(..i

0

; (Tl

Cy

(?) ?

%l

‘%tl

‘ffi

Sl

‘1:)

q-;?5 s:??T

:6g

0

:<

(:5

0

S l–

(a CG

0

‘O S

6

CX? o (O 01 o (Jl

e5 tr

o

C/-)

A

-lk

4

‘-i ‘,)

z e ]

‘T(’?N

@rgp

@:>!Q g

,@);

r§p6

h

%ll -’ -.i -4.1.

,’ (’; (-i ,(q’,6 “’-m’ o :? ;g”.fi t,)co@ (0 ‘-ll? N ‘, Bo ;!. Gao’

Sho A ?-IC)A h?i

‘Qr’sQ :;5 o

(C)S * (i o

C( l; s i

CX) A CJ

O’i 0’I 0’l

t3:h’.

1,Ii

i” .

€-l}.i

?’:I-:

l%-

(.i

()?’= (‘2A,….

0

0 ‘b O :b (’)

‘N

C5

S

s,’ s:%,o?: < s ‘: ’ ? ‘; ? o i: %":o:o q. l o: ?F ? o o; :5 iI’ “:o ?” ? :, E== z’ E>, ’ :, E> :- ‘? ?%,

Page 29 of 47

SCHEDULE ?C?

TOWNSHIP STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ENTRANCE r

ro

i??

.g t’) c%l

:=0

X€

Z

o

R

J:a.

Woi. -o Q)

x

’e?a

[

O

o

) Oj S

Z

j .J

e

Q:I'2

I ’t O) m

?C) " , (!)’ (?’ c?’

4

il

.,’;iail.

v’-

‘O

l

l

LJ j

o

l l

M

Io () (0

(/)

h

.lx:: (J

-t>

Y,

a: JE!

CLO

M

0

lJacr%

<J

.-l?1 (5o

kc

M-,3 4!)

€>

m

9a6 ‘-J Q) () ? a, 0 :C 0 () ns rs

?l

a: L o lu

li

141 10

(U gy:C () ,JC ?C 4) O

e-a-i > Cl

Llll

rv l’ (/)!.ffi Jl!; lz i’y

.u E - E

lj 2

rr v

‘) D> 5?? =g

{5M 7 -5 9g,TCe

t?

11 uz

(0

’tl

c E > H>@5

g)ig:;

:ii!El

0

.,”-

:400

el- C71?JC crhJC: -"‘2 D .- ? (J o !‘iao:a nDa5 (>o

W

2

a

11

lin (j}. lr-

()a Wo Z oc

= m? “‘Fs a=36i

:C”, a o

0 :a Q." a" 0 o-

;

:)

H

L

tp

O

O)

.. (r1 ? %

’ o0 (1) s-,.% -?

CC):

Lij 0

,E

o o 11’)

L

l(}

.J’Ta ,o ‘6’

% S (p J ‘4’o .

0

L

(/) O

(7) (7)IQ

4/)C)9?

<

C/)

.Li?5’

Z

O O

l

8 a:

la:i

i’ aC at:

‘O ‘6 . C 9)t7} a> 14/ ()- -

s %r, >

‘r[ 1,

E r

‘0 aa’aa8 ?‘z >o.

3€ ( o

l

0 as 4.n?

a>

C: -

I uJ

l

o

h

C:E

(Q

l

20 o S

l

W

a O

(5 Q u

:d s CL o

L

H

€Jt LJ

l ffl E

C)

11 0e:

a)

Cl) C) ci

W

0

J

4 d

ljl €

a)

2

CO

tl'7’;

0

0

W’N

a.

a)(D

-+N -tMR

tl)

La

91-u

0

(‘In

ni 0 Th

o n

f Q Q y ’ €%l (?;1. ,

11

x (D 6

I’Q n

rrs’ l/)’

t’)

a0

0:

0

01%; CS 0 6

+i -l

1

7,?e!i.240

h

T

ada:l l +99aft

l

11

B

}

tlll} 1%

l

a)

J

l’

‘:uTh

l :+‘l

11

iiii?j i:iV:l i::i}il i;::j:il iyii’. Xi:::l

Y-

l

(0

0 n

!&

r

-l

X

01Q

0

In

+-

f

A9Zl$

Xiiiiil :iiiiil i:-:-:-l

iXiii.i’ :, , ,.‘a’; ‘,. i: t. 1,

-I

l

‘p,Hl30 ,.)—’

l

6

10

(Q

lI-

o

r ada?

II

11110

-‘Iai ,)Ic@

[3 l 11

l:2sf?

0

o0

115 0

;11

ffi’l

0’

I-

Cl

sn (-4

0

-tt 10’

l’)

@-;

N

0

qi

W

W

0

10

O

C'4

a: l.)

I

k

0;

og-‘a C)V)

l I

%

I

?

o

()Iek:

X,

-+i

==!l -l

to

)-.

i

c4

(Ci

0

l

Q%

)%

IQ

J

]

6A+‘9t

ffi{ LgO?,.t C)::

a:

o

.- /’.

Cl.t’i

4q

Th

s -l ," l it L

0

l

)

Ii

j-

?a .;i*‘iaiiaiia;i:

r

.1

i:"-?-i

i(’ a::.‘J ‘=I

al

tiii:i:9

=:-:-= :i:a ‘: :’ . :i::’-i,- lll ‘:ilii:i=ii

(7i.:l- -

ff n

:-":‘Ia::l

j,?i.ili

r

0

fO C)?

@,i:i:ii,l

/’

“l

r

o d) n

tt

-l

Page 30 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Development Services Committee RECOMMENDATION That Council confirm its intention to establish a Development Services Committee and provide the names of the three (3) Councillors to be appointed so that a bylaw can be prepared for the May 2 meeting.

BACKGROUND The current Council has been operating with both a Public Services Committee (PSC) and a Corporate Services Committee (CSC). As identified through the organizational review discussions and after the Manager of Development Services was in place, Council acknowledged that the opportunity to establish a Development Services Committee would be considered. The Corporate Services Committee has been addressing a number of issues more appropriately aligned and resourced with a Development Services Committee. On April 14, the CSC endorsed a recommendation to have Council establish a Development Services Committee (DSC) with a similar mandate to the PSC and CSC. The CSC and PSC operate on the following basis: •

• • •

The Public Works and Corporate Services Committees will only meet with staff and will provide perspective on topics arising from the list of services and committees that fall into each grouping. All Public and Corporate delegations will be to COW. Both Committee Membership and Committee Structure is to be reviewed biannually. Recommendations from the sub committees outlined may go to either COW or Council depending on the complexity of the issue.

The attached graphic depicts Council’s committee structure and the functions that are addressed in each committee. Once established, agenda items currently on the CSC would be reassigned to the DSC. The staff lead for the three committees would be as follows; • • •

PSC – Public Works Manager CSC – Treasurer DSC – Mangers of Development Services

The CAO would attend all three meetings to provide linkages and continuity to the Council Agenda. The current Council appointees on the existing committees are: • •

PSC - Ron Sleeth, Mark Schjerning, John McDougall CSC- Al Revill, Ross Sutherland, Brad Barbeau

The Mayor is ex-officio on all Committees and according to the Procedural Bylaw counts in quorum and has the same rights and privileges of other members (i.e. voting rights). Our strength is our community.

Page 31 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS No incremental costs.

ATTACHMENTS Council and Committee graphic Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 32 of 47

South Frontenac Council, Committees and Functions

County Council

Police Services

Frontenac Arena

Conservation & Trails

Comm. Of Adjustment

Council

Committee of the Whole Strategic Planning and Budgeting

South Frontenac Recreation

Public Services

Corporate Services

Development Services

Four District Committees

Road & Bridge Construction & Maintenance

Asset Management

Official Plan

HR Services Recreation

Verona Community Association Verona Medical Center Portland District Historical Society Community Caring Battersea Pumpkin Festival SF Rides

April 19, 2017

Waste Management

IT Services

Traffic Management

Treasury Services

Winter Control

Legal & Insurance

Facilities Water Plant Fire Services Emergency Planning

Office Services Council Support Cemeteries

Sub Divisions Zoning Building Inspection By Law Enforcement Economic Development

Page 33 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Shooting Range – Buck Bay Road RECOMMENDATION Staff seek direction from Council on how they wish to respond to this matter.

BACKGROUND On December 12, 2016 Mr Adam Rayner appeared before Council to express concern about an abutting neighbour who operates a shooting range that is approved by the Chief Firearms Officer for Ontario. A number of attachments were provided by Mr Rayner at the time. Upon a quick search of old minutes, this range has been discussed and appears to have been endorsed by previous Council’s as far back as 1994 and as recent as 2007. In the more recent past Township staff have provided written confirmation that no bylaws exist that prohibit the shooting range’s operation, in support of the range’s application. Prior to Mr Rayner purchasing the property, the range and the property Mr Rayner lives on where owned by relatives who shared in the use of the shooting range. Mr Rayner is concerned with the proximity of the range to his property and the safety of his family and property. He does not feel that the range is fully in compliance with the Firearms Act and Regulation however he has been informed by the Chief Firearms Office that their approval is not subject to appeal. The range is not a commercial use and thus is not regulated by the Township’s Zoning Bylaw. Council directed staff to obtain further information from the Chief Firearms Officer about setbacks from property lines etc. and report back. Mr Rayner has remained interested in the issue and inquired several times on the status of this follow up. Staff have reviewed the Firearms Act, Regulations as well as spoken with the office of the Chief Firearms Officer on this particular range and have been advised that: • • •

Representatives of the Chief Firearms Officer were on site prior to granting approval to assess the operation Representatives attend the site before any renewal (every other year) As a result of complaints by Mr Rayner over the years, representatives have been onsite again to review the range

The Regulations are written is such a manner as to provide for public safety. If the range meets this assessment i.e. bullets stay on site and citizens do not wander into the space, as well as other criteria then approval is granted. There are no specific requirements for setbacks from property lines, nor fencing requirements. There are requirements for target design to avoid ricocheting bullets and behind the targets to ensure stray bullets do not travel off site. The Chief Firearms Office uses the 1999 Canadian Firearms Center - Ranges Design and Construction Guidelines The municipality can choose to pass a bylaw to prohibit the operation of shooting ranges or conditions for the operation of shooting ranges. One of the conditions of the regulations is that the range operator has to provide evidence of Our strength is our community.

Page 34 of 47

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

compliance with zoning bylaws. If Council chooses to enact a prohibition on shooting ranges, then the Shooting Range Approval would be re-evaluated by the Chief Firearms Officer.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS No incremental costs.

ATTACHMENTS None

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 35 of 47 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca on behalf of marysroyer@yahoo.ca April-17-17 4:24 PM Website Administrator Outdoor Furnaces

Counsellors of South Frontenac I beseech you to make some bylaws for outdoor furnaces that people can live with, including me. I would not be in this health dilemma now if bylaws had been in place. Wood smoke is toxic, simple as that.It is air pollution and contains carcinogenic substances that I have been exposed to for more than two months outside and inside my home. This is only a few meters from my home. The smoke NEVER,NEVER goes up in the air. It rises about a meter then drops, staying in the lower atmosphere because of temperate inversion. This traps toxic pollutants at ground level. I have experienced many symptoms of smoke inhalation. Presently I have a lung infection. This says nothing of the stress factor from living next to a smoke stack, nor the fact my whole life style has changed. I can no longer put clothes out on a line. Although the people with the furnace do, as all the smoke comes my way. I worked many years to have a home. It was my joy and safe haven. Now is it almost uninhabitable inside and out. I can no longer out in my yard, raking gardening etc. In all honesty, I could call the fire department at least three or four times a week due to smoke inside the home. I feel this is a little unfair to the fire department. I often wear a mask in my home if the smoke is really strong. So what is wrong with this picture? Is it your duty as counsellors to make bylaws to protect residents? I am frustrated and appalled nothing has been done yet. ————————————Origin: http://www.southfrontenac.net/en/index.asp ————————————This email was sent to you by mary royermarysroyer@yahoo.ca through http://www.southfrontenac.net/.

1

Page 36 of 47

April 10, 2017 Township of South Frontenac P. O. Box 100

Sydenham, On KOH 2TO

Dear Township Councillors; On behalf of the clients, volunteers and visitors to Southern Frontenac Community Services at the Grace Centre, I am writing to ask for a review of the no parking restrictions on the east side ofStagecoach Road across from the Grace Centre.

We fully understand and respect the need for our farming neighbours to have easy access to their laneways but are also fully cognizant that when major events are held at the Grace Centre that there are occasions where additional opportunities to safely park are necessary. It is unsafe for many seniors to

park on the blind hill in front of or near the Ambulance Station, nor is it safe to park on the part of Stagecoach Road where there are pedestrian sidewalks. We are seeking a reduction in the no parking zone on the east side of Stagecoach Road where there is ample opportunity to safely park on the shoulder and have safe access to the Grace Centre. We would encourage a no parking area of no less than 20’from the edge of the neighbour’s laneway leading to his farm and see every reason for safety and ease of access for seniors by reducing the no parking area further to the south as is currently posted. Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated. T^ankyou.

David Townsend Executive Director

‘Dlrtil i . -. il. ‘U. laC . i1. ;’l !:’.;! Kingstoi i .;i>ii-e 193P

. i-.‘it;i;.’”;;. !i iher12’>1’iOW4HROOm

Page 37 of 47

Groundwater Vulnerability Forum Summary Date: Time: Location:

March 27th, 2017 1:30 – 4:00 pm Outdoor Center at the Little Cataraqui Conservation Area

Contents Attendance ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Presentations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Groundwater Protection Priorities ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Facilitated Discussion Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Well Inspection and Education ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Further Research ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Ontario Well Regulation and Standards …………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Septic System Inspections ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 D-series Guidelines ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Next Steps ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Appendix 1: Summary of Regional Groundwater Recommendations and Priority Ranking

1

Page 38 of 47

Attendance Forty-nine people, including presenters and organizers, were present at the forum representing the following groups:           

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Cataraqui Source Protection Authority Cataraqui Source Protection Committee Citizens City of Brockville City of Kingston City of Ottawa Dillon Consulting Limited Kingston, Frontenac and Lennon & Addington Public Health L&A Stewardship Council / Friends of Napanee Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit

          

Loyalist Township Memorial University Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Public Health Ontario Queen’s University Rideau Valley Conservation Authority South Nation Conservation Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Environmental Committee Trent Conservation Coalition

Purpose The intent of the Groundwater Vulnerability Forum was to bring researchers, municipal advisors, and decision-makers together to discuss groundwater protection in highly vulnerable areas. The session highlighted: (1) Municipal and regional groundwater studies in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area that identify areas of groundwater vulnerability, (2) Ongoing research at Queen’s University in shallow bedrock aquifers, (3) Bacteriological research findings by Public Health Ontario with Queen’s University, (4) Groundwater management in Ontario lead by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, (5) The Cataraqui Region Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Guideline, and (6) Considerations for protection measures.

Presentations Forum presentations outlined the vulnerability, research, and current management of groundwater in Ontario. Key messages and actions from the presentations are outlined below. (1) Our Vulnerable Groundwater - Katrina Furlanetto, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority At least six independent municipal or regional studies conducted between 1990-2011 throughout the Cataraqui Source Protection Area concluded that groundwater is highly vulnerable to contamination and / or requires increased protection from sources of contamination due to the thin to absent soils, fractured bedrock, karst features, and relatively high water table. An increased level of protection is recommended in areas of high groundwater vulnerability. 2

Page 39 of 47

(2) Groundwater Vulnerability Research in Shallow Bedrock Aquifers - Stephanie Wright, Queen’s University Research includes characterizing groundwater flow and transport in monitoring wells constructed in three distinct field settings located at the Kenny Field Station, Tay River and Kingsford, as well as exploring the attenuation of seasonal isotopic signals (Oxygen and Hydrogen) to determine the effective use of these elements as indicators for specific groundwater settings Preliminary conclusions indicate wells are responding to precipitation events at depth and there is significant attenuation of the isotope tracers. Further work will include collecting and analyzing additional samples, and numerical modelling to simulate flow in fractured bedrock settings. (3) Bacterial Contamination Hotspots - Kamila Pagoda and Sophie Felleiter, Public Health Ontario with Queen’s University There are three regions of increased relative risk of E. coli contamination (hotspots) in southern Ontario private wells: (1) Kingston/Belleville, (2) Grey/Bruce region, and (3) Niagara/Hamilton. Sources of E. coli include livestock and septic systems. In the Kingston / Belleville area, the majority of E. coli is from human sources. It was found that E. coli does not greatly discriminate the overall microbial community; therefore, an alternative indicator to E.coli for tracking fecal contamination in wells may be warranted. Bacteriodes is a candidate due to specific markers that discriminate variation in the microbial community at the Family taxonomic level. (4) Groundwater Management in Ontario - Peter Taylor and Greg Faaren, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) Ontario Regulation 903 (Wells Regulation) and the related section of the Ontario Water Resources Act are under review. Additionally, internal review of the land use compatibility guidelines in underway. D-series protocols (1990s) are being reviewed and consolidated into 2 documents: (1) land use compatibility (D-1,2,4,6) and (2) water and wastewater servicing (D-5). Updates include the current planning framework and source water protection requirements. To date the Ministry has initiated the internal review of the land use compatibility guidelines. No specific timeline has been determined for review and completion of the above documents. (5) Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Guideline - Holly Evans, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) To support the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan CRCA staff identified feasible risk management measures to consider including in development approvals. A guideline for karst and aquifer vulnerability was also produced to assess the inherent vulnerability of groundwater at the property scale in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area

3

Page 40 of 47

The guideline has two parts: (1) the main guideline that moves through a flowchart decision matrix and (2) a supporting document that provides supplementary information. Both are available on the cleanwatercataraqui.ca website.

Groundwater Protection Priorities Groundwater protection recommendations from municipal and regional groundwater studies in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area were reviewed by CRCA staff, consolidated and organized into five major themes: (1) Data and monitoring (2) Development (3) Education (4) Incentives (5) Well and Septic To determine priorities for groundwater management in areas of high groundwater vulnerability, participants at the forum were asked to rank action recommendations on posters around the room within these five major themes using red and blue dot stickers. All the posted recommendations are listed in Appendix 1. At registration, all participants received 8 dots, 4 red (high priority / act now) and 4 blue (low priority / remove from consideration) numbered 1-3 with the fourth left blank, as well as comment cards. Placing a red-1 on a recommendation indicated the highest priority for discussion, while placing a blue-1 indicated the least priority for further action. Out of the 49 participants, 94 dots (24%), and 5 comment cards were recorded. The majority of dots were high priority, inferring additional groundwater management action is required. Well and septic system actions were ranked the highest, followed by development, education, incentives, and data and monitoring (Figure 1). 25

Number of Dots

High Priority

Low Priority

20 15 10 5 0 Data and Monitoring

Development

Education

Incentives

Well and Septic System

Recommendation Theme

Figure 1: Summary of priority dots placed on each regional recommendation theme

4

Page 41 of 47

Out of 30 total recommendations, three received the highest priority for further action:

1. Update D-series procedures to account specifically for sensitive groundwater areas.
2. Create a Groundwater Protection Plan for rural residents including education on water usage, well maintenance and inspections, operation of water well supply systems, water quality testing, treatment, transport pathways, and contaminant reduction. Through the comment cards, it was suggested that a Well Aware-type program be revitalized to improve education and outreach of well information.
3. Provide financial incentives to un-serviced areas to reduce the risk to groundwater quality from transport pathways (i.e. sub-standard or abandoned wells, old fuel storages and septic systems). Within each recommendation theme, multiple action statements were ranked. The following figures show the results from participant feedback. Under development recommendations, updating the D-series procedures to account for areas of sensitive groundwater received the highest priority (Figure 2).

Number of Dots

15

High Priority

Low Priority

10 5 0 Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Action 5

Action 6

Development Recommendation Action 1: Identify and protect future municipal residential drinking water supplied Action 2: Identify groundwater quantity and quality constrains areas through regional characterizations Action 3: Require the installation of a treatment system for bacteria on private water supplies Action 4: Update D-series procedures to account specifically for sensitive groundwater areas Action 5: Impose lot size restrictions based on site-specific groundwater sensitivity Action 6: Adopt Ministry of Transportation Corridor Control Policy or setbacks guidelines to minimize road salt impacts on wells

Figure 2: Priority ranking for proposed development recommendations

5

Page 42 of 47

For well and septic system recommendations, identifying and properly decommissioning unused wells had the highest management priority followed by enhancing well construction standards in sensitive areas (Figure 3). Figure 3: Priority ranking for proposed well and septic system recommendations

Number of Dots

8

High Priority

Low Priority

6 4 2 0 Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Action 5

Action 6

Action 7

Action 8

Action 9

Well and Septic System Recommendation Action 1: Enhance well construction standards in sensitive groundwater areas Action 2: Develop site-specific septic sewage disposal standards Action 3: Increase required pilot testing prior to new sewage treatment system technology approval Action 4: Establish variable well and sewage system minimum separations reflective of groundwater sensitivity Action 5: Submit bacteriological and chemical water sample results with water well record Action 6: Prohibit chipped, blasted, and dug wells in Plans of Subdivision Action 7: Properly decommission (plug) unused wells Action 8: Require mandatory inspections of wells and sewage disposal systems at time of property transaction Action 9: Enhance Regulation 903 compliance in vulnerable areas

Additional comments were provided for Action 8. As the age of well and septic systems vary, inspections at the time of property transactions were suggested only for highly sensitive areas. Alternatively, well inspections were suggested at the time of construction (similar to sewage systems), as well integrity was viewed as more important compared to sewage compliance. Out of the seven data and monitoring recommendations, four were ranked as low management priority (Figure 4). However, it should be noted that actions about furthering research and groundwater data management in areas of vulnerability, such as establishing a centralized georeferenced groundwater data portal, were viewed as important areas for further exploration.

6

Page 43 of 47

Number of Dots

6 High Priority

Low Priority

Action 6

Action 7

4 2 0 Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Action 5

Data and Monitoring Recommendations Action 1: Establish a centralized georeferenced groundwater data portal Action 2: Conduct research on karst limestone and fractured bedrock Action 3: Improve soil data in wellhead protection areas Action 4: Explore the relationship between surface water and groundwater Action 5: Increase regional groundwater monitoring Action 6: Fill data gaps for basic aquifer characterization Action 7: Prioritize water quality testing per bedrock unit / predominant land use

Figure 4: Priority ranking for proposed well and septic system recommendations

Number of Dots

Groundwater education was identified as high priority for areas of high vulnerability, specifically regarding the creation of groundwater protection plans for rural residents (Figure 5). A template document including information on water usage, well maintenance, well inspections, operation, water quality testing and treatment was suggested for improved outreach, with the addition of revitalizing a Well Aware program to include a broader audience. Further, it was noted that well and septic workshops can reach a greater number of people per hours of effort. 15 High Priority

Low Priority

10 5 0 Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Education Recommendations Action 1: Create Groundwater Protection Plans for rural residents (water use, well maintenance, well inspections, operation of water well supply system, water quality testing, treatment, transport pathways and reduction of potential contaminants) Action 2: Establish a centralized education resource portal for groundwater protection Action 3: Provide Ministry-lead municipal staff and Councillor groundwater management sessions Action 4: Revitalize a Well Aware-Type Program

Figure 5: Priority ranking for proposed education recommendations Incentive programs received a high priority management ranking for actions such as increasing well testing in areas of concern and un-serviced areas, as well as upgrading older wells (Figure 6). Further discussion is required to identify funding sources and delivery agents.

7

Page 44 of 47

Number of Dots

10 High Priority

Low Priority

5

0 Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Incentive Recommendations Action 1: Provide financial incentives to un-serviced areas to reduce the risk to groundwater quality from transport pathways Action 2: Prioritize incentives for upgrading wells constructed prior to 1974 Action 3: Subsidize water quality treatment systems in high-risk areas Action 4: Fund residential well water testing in gap areas / areas of concern

Figure 6: Priority ranking for proposed incentive recommendations

Facilitated Discussion Summary Based on results from the prioritization exercise described above, a discussion was held for further insight on the group’s perspective regarding the high priority ranked recommendations. The discussion focussed on five main topics: (1) well inspections and education, (2) further research, (3) Ontario well regulation and standards, (4) septic system inspections, and (5) D-series guidelines.

Well Inspection and Education A geoscientist at the City of Ottawa noted that inspections are of greater importance compared to well and septic standards, as compliance is often not checked. This includes inspections conducted by well drillers. At the moment, there are no regular well construction compliance inspections across the Province. Participants discussed the possibility a well compliance program similar to that of North Grenville (i.e. inspections at various stages of well construction). As a potential solution, the group proposed education measures for well drillers to provide information on what to look for when drilling a well. It was mentioned that a program such as Well Aware, no longer in operation due to funding, may be a good solution for both homeowner and driller education. It was suggested that local organizations, municipalities, and health units should consider partnerships to include this type of education program in their work plans, as funding for this type of initiative is currently outside the scope of the source protection program. A Rideau Valley Conservation Authority geoscientist noted that partnering with other groups to host well seminar workshops can be accomplished at affordable rates. The challenge is often attendance; however, it was suggested that this type of event is encouraged over individual homeowner door-to-door outreach based on cost efficiency and outreach numbers. This type of workshop should be considered for developing a groundwater management template for residents. Public Health Ontario is developing a pilot project to commence summer 2017, pending grant approvals, to work with a First Nations community to enhance current Western scientific knowledge on groundwater with traditional knowledge. In addition, it was noted there is a possibility of creating of a smartphone application to host the

8

Page 45 of 47

information on wells and groundwater education, as well as provide encouragement for well testing, timelines, and additional resources.

Further Research Public Health Ontario is interested to investigate whether suspected water quality impacts correlate to scientific observations and is looking for partnerships A representative from the Lennox and Addington Stewardship Council and the Friends of Napanee raised the question of organizations releasing holdings to the public and providing all rights and materials to a host association for education and outreach. There may be an opportunity for partnering with the Friends of Napanee and Stewardship Council for an educational workshop if data is available and consolidated.

Ontario Well Regulation and Standards Regulation 903 amendments were discussed with Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change staff. Minimal progress has been made on the document due to scheduling conflicts. However, it was noted discussions on the amendments have been ongoing for quite awhile. To provide additional comments for consideration, an online public comment period and targeted stakeholder engagement groups are planned for later in 2017. MOECC staff noted dug wells will remain required for specific geological areas where deeper drilled wells provide unpotable water (e.g. high concentrations of salt and sulphur). Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change staff noted that more research is needed to determine if fundamental changes are needed for the for the Regulation 903 amendments (e.g. well and septic system separation distances, well casing lengths).

Septic System Inspections The representative from the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Environment Committee inquired about leaking septic systems and re-inspections not being mandated across the Province. A local health unit septic system inspector commented that the Clean Water Act does not have the authority to address this requirement. Rather, municipalities should take responsibility through attaining Council cooperation and agreement to establish programs.

D-series Guidelines Throughout the discussion, there were several comments about the timeline for review of the D-series guidelines, especially D-5-4 (Individual On-site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment) and D-5-5 (Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment). Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change staff suggested correspondence with local Members of Provincial Parliament and municipal councils members to emphasize the importance of these changes could help to realize a quicker update.

Next Steps Forum participants are encouraged to continue the groundwater protection dialogue by contacting fellow forum participants and identifying ways that each organization can contribute. Based on input received during the forum the following is a list of actions toward improved groundwater protection in the Cataraqui Source Protection, and in some cases, the Province of Ontario.

9

Page 46 of 47

(1) Meet with Public Health Ontario to explore potential project partnership and data sharing collaboration (2) Explore the possibility of hosting a well and septic workshop with Lennox and Addington Stewardship Council and Friends of Napanee (3) Develop a model letter to the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Members of Provincial Parliament, etc. for stakeholders to submit regarding prioritization of the D-series protocols and Regulation 903 amendments (4) Develop a discussion paper including Groundwater Vulnerability Forum outcomes, a literature review of supportive groundwater research in vulnerable areas, consultation with staff from other highly vulnerable areas in Ontario (i.e. Niagara and Bruce Peninsula) to collaborate on management priorities, research initiatives, and best practices for improved groundwater management Where applicable and appropriate outcomes from the above actions will be circulated and made available on the cleanwatercataraqui.ca website. Thank you for your interest in attending the Groundwater Vulnerability Forum. If you are interested to participate in the development of any of the work listed above or should you have any questions, please send an email to Holly Evans at hevans@crca.ca. We look forward to working with you on this important topic.

10

Page 47 of 47 Appendix 1: Summary of Regional Groundwater Recommendations and Priority Ranking Red1

Blue2

Identify and protect future municipal residential drinking water supplies (e.g. land purchase, official plans, zoning)

0

1

Identify groundwater quantity and quality constraint areas through regional characterizations (testing and analysis)

1

0

Require the installation of a treatment system for bacteria on private water supplies

0

0

Update D-series procedures to account specifically for sensitive groundwater areas

13

2

Impose lot size restrictions based on site-specific groundwater sensitivity

4

1

Adopt Ministry of Transportation Corridor Control Policy for setback guidelines to minimize road salt impacts on wells

0

1

Well and Septic System Recommendations Enhance well construction standards in sensitive groundwater areas (provincial or municipal by-laws) Develop site-specific septic sewage disposal standards

5

0

0

1

Increase required pilot testing prior to new sewage treatment system technology approval Establish variable well and sewage system minimum separations reflective of groundwater sensitivity Submit bacteriological and chemical water sample results with water well record

0

0

1

0

2

0

Prohibit chipped, blasted and dug well in Plans of Subdivision

0

0

Properly decommission (plug) unused wells Require mandatory inspections of wells and sewage disposal systems at time of property transaction Enhance Regulation 903 compliance in vulnerable areas

6

0

5

1

4

2

Establish a centralized georeferenced groundwater data portal

5

0

Conduct research on karst limestone and fractured bedrock

1

0

Improve soil data in WHPAs (make-up, depth etc.)

3

0

Explore the relationship between surface water and groundwater

0

3

Increase regional groundwater monitoring

0

1

Fill data gaps for basic aquifer characterization

0

2

Prioritize water quality testing per bedrock unit / predominant land use

0

0

Create Groundwater Protection Plan for rural residents (water use, well maintenance, well inspections, operation of water well supply system, water quality testing, treatment, transport pathways and reduce threat of potential contaminants.

12

0

Establish a centralized education resource portal for groundwater protection

0

1

Provide Ministry-lead municipal staff and Councillor groundwater management sessions

0

3

Revitalize a Well Aware-Type Program

2

0

9

0

2

0

Subsidize water quality treatment systems in high-risk areas

0

0

Fund residential well water testing in gap areas / areas of concern

2

0

Development Recommendations

Data and Monitoring Recommendations

Education Recommendations

Incentive Recommendations Provide financial incentives to unserviced areas to reduce the risk to groundwater quality from transport pathways (i.e. sub-standard or abandoned wells, old fuel storages and septic systems) Prioritize incentives for upgrading wells constructed prior to 1974

1 2

The red dots were intended to indicate recommendations that should be acted on before others The blue dots were intended to indicate recommendations that don’t require further consideration

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.