Committee of the Whole - 26 Jan 2016 - Agenda

Published January 26, 2016

Word Count 22385 words

Reading Time 106 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: January 26, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 26 Jan 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session -n/a

***Recess *** - n/a

Delegations

(a)

Louise Moody, North Frontenac Community Services

3 - 18

(b)

Deb McAuslan, re: Basic Income Guarantee

19 - 37

(c)

Dave McGraff and Ron Darling, Habitat for Humanity

(d)

Fran Willes, re: Harrowsmith Rezoning and Hartington Subdivision

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Investment Policy

38 - 47

(b)

Lindays Mills, Planner, re: Housekeeping Amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law

48 - 56

(c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Commemts on County of Frontenac Official Plan

57 - 74

(d)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Closing of Road Allowance, Concessions V and VI, Part of Lot 19, Ritchie

75 - 79

(e)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer,re: Process Map for Subdivision/Condominium Development

80 - 86

Reports for Information

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

Information Items

(a)

Community Letter, re: Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, Portland District Proposed Subdivision Development

87 - 97

Page 2 of 106

(b)

Ruth Gultekin, 4023 Boyce Rd, re: Hartington Revised Plan of Subdivision - Recommendations to County Council

(c)

Mara Shaw, Executive Director, Loving Spoonful, re: Submission of Good Food, A Community Consultation and Plan

99 102

(d)

Doug Reycroft, MEPCO, Board Chair, re: OMERS Plan Benefits

103

(e)

John Bolognone, City Clerk, City of Kingston, re: Basic Income Guarantee (carried forward from January 12 agenda)

104 106

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

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

Page 3 of 106

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

Page 4 of 106

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

Page 5 of 106

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Programs for Children 0 to 6

Page 6 of 106

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

Page 7 of 106

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES We have weekly playgroups in:

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

Page 8 of 106

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Playgroups include:

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

We also offer School readiness programs Page 9 of 106

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

Page 10 of 106

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

Page 11 of 106

NORTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY SERVICES Programs for Youth

Page 12 of 106

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

Page 13 of 106

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

Page 14 of 106

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

Page 15 of 106

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

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

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

Page 16 of 106

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

Page 17 of 106

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

Page 18 of 106

Page 19 of 106

Presentation by Deb McAuslan to South Frontenac Council Jan 2016 Supporters: Joan Cameron, Duncan Sinclair, Nona Mariotti and Nancy Uchimaru

What’s the problem? Costs of poverty What is Basic Income Guarantee (BIG)? What has been done? Why is Basic Income better than welfare? Moving Forward Page 20 of 106

4.8 million Canadians live in poverty ~ 20% of children > 4 million are struggling to find affordable

housing (CHRA) ~ 9,000 used food banks each month of 2014 Page 21 of 106

Rising gap between rich and poor

Family Services Food Bank use high Homeless Qualifying for social assistance Page 22 of 106

health care costs

Breeds alienation and crime $30+ billion annually Costs for average homeless person =

$100,000/year Page 23 of 106

Earnings of many farmers dwindling More jobs contract or part time – no benefits Services eroding with

population

Transportation to services Page 24 of 106

Provide an income sufficient for life’s basic

needs Unconditional Encourages work Affordable Page 25 of 106

Old age pension Child Tax Benefit Medicare Mincome experiment in Dauphin Page 26 of 106

Social Assistance Ontario Disability Food banks Charities Page 27 of 106

Utrecht, Netherlands Finland Liberal party Alberta mayors PEI Kingston City Council Food Banks Canada CMA, CPHA, OMHAA Page 28 of 106

Simpler to apply and administer No stigma, no hassle Compensates people for unpaid work Incentives to seek paid labour

poverty rates

Proven to

healthcare costs

Page 29 of 106

Proven to

BIG - First big step to eliminating poverty Encourage national government

Page 30 of 106

Page 31 of 106

A Town Without Poverty? Canada’s only experiment in guaranteed income finally gets reckoning by VIVIAN BELIK

PHOTO: DAVE RON

WHITEHORSE, YK—Try to imagine a town where the government paid each of the residents a living income, regardless of who they were and what they did, and a Soviet hamlet in the early 1980s may come to mind. But this experiment happened much closer to home. For a four-year period in the ’70s, the poorest families in Dauphin, Manitoba, were granted a guaranteed minimum income by the federal and provincial governments. Thirty-five years later all that remains of the experiment are 2,000 boxes of documents that have gathered dust in the Canadian archives building in Winnipeg. Until now little has been known about what unfolded over those four years in the small rural town, since the government locked away the data that had been collected and prevented it from being analyzed. But after a five year struggle, Evelyn Forget, a professor of health sciences at the University of Manitoba, secured access to those boxes in 2009. Until the data is computerized, any systematic analysis is impossible. Undeterred, Forget has begun to piece together the story by using the census, health records, and the testimony of the program’s participants. What is now emerging reveals that the program could have counted many successes. Beginning in 1974, Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals and Manitoba’s first elected New Democratic Party government gave money to every person and family in Dauphin who fell below the poverty line. Under the program—called “Mincome”—about 1,000 families received monthly cheques. Unlike welfare, which only certain individuals qualified for, the guaranteed minimum income project was open to everyone. It was the first—and to this day, only—time that Canada has ever experimented with such an open-door social assistance program. In today’s conservative political climate, with constant government and media rhetoric about the inefficiency and wastefulness of the welfare state, the Mincome project sounds like nothing short of a fairy tale.

Page 32 of 106

For four years Dauphin was a place where anyone living below the poverty line could receive monthly cheques to boost their income, no questions asked. Single mothers could afford to put their kids through school and lowincome families weren’t scrambling to pay the rent each month. For Amy Richardson, it meant she could afford to buy her children books for school. Richardson joined the program in 1977, just after her husband had gone on disability leave from his job. At the time, she was struggling to raise her three youngest children on $1.50 haircuts she gave in her living room beauty parlour. The $1,200 per year she received in monthly increments was a welcome supplement, in a time when the poverty line was $2,100 a year. “The extra money meant that I was also able to give my kids something I wouldn’t ordinarily be able to, like taking them to a show or some small luxury like that,” said Richardson, now 84, who spoke to The Dominion by phone from Dauphin. As part of the experiment, an army of researchers were sent to Dauphin to interview the Mincome families. Residents in nearby rural towns who didn’t receive Mincome were also surveyed so their statistics could be compared against those from Dauphin. But after the government cut the program in 1978, they simply warehoused the data and never bothered to analyze it. “When the government introduced the program they really thought it would be a pilot project and that by the end of the decade they would roll this out and everybody would participate,” said Forget. “They thought it would become a universal program. But of course, the idea eventually just died off.” During the Mincome program, the federal and provincial governments collectively spent $17 million, though it was initially supposed to have cost only a few million. Meant to last several more years, the program came to a quick halt in 1978 when an economic recession hit Canada. The recession had caused prices to increase 10 per cent each year, so payouts to families under Mincome had increased accordingly. Trudeau’s Liberals, already on the defensive for an overhaul of Canada’s employment insurance system, killed the program and withheld any additional money to analyze the data that had been amassed.

Page 33 of 106

“It’s hugely unfortunate and typical of the strange ways in which government works that the data was never analyzed,” says Ron Hikel who coordinated the Mincome program. Hikel now works in the United States to promote universal healthcare reform. “Government officials opposed [to Mincome] didn’t want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn’t work,” says Hikel, who remains a strong proponent of guaranteed income programs. “And the people who were in favour of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn’t favourable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.” But Forget has culled some useful info from Manitoba labour data. Her research confirms numerous positive consequences of the program. Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work. It turns out they did. Only two segments of Dauphin’s labour force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren’t under as much pressure to support their families. The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. “People didn’t have to take the first job that came along,” says Hikel. “They could wait for something better that suited them.” For some, it meant the opportunity to land a job to help them get by. When Doreen and Hugh Henderson arrived in Dauphin in 1970 with their two young children they were broke. Doreen suggested moving from Vancouver to her hometown because she thought her husband would have an easier time finding work there. But when they arrived, things weren’t any better.

Page 34 of 106

“My husband didn’t have a very good job and I couldn’t find work,” she told The Dominion by phone from Dauphin. It wasn’t until 1978, after receiving Mincome payments for two years, that her husband finally landed janitorial work at the local school, a job he kept for 28 years. “I don’t know how we would have lived without [Mincome],” said Doreen.“I don’t know if we would have stayed in Dauphin.” Although the Mincome experiment was intended to provide a body of information to study labour market trends, Forget discovered that Mincome had a significant effect on people’s well being. Two years ago, the professor started studying the health records of Dauphin residents to assess the impacts of the program. In the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent. Fewer people went to the hospital with work-related injuries and there were fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. There were also far fewer mental health visits. It’s not hard to see why, says Forget. “When you walk around a hospital, it’s pretty clear that a lot of the time what we’re treating are the consequences of poverty,” she says. Give people financial independence and control over their lives and these accidents and illnesses tend to dissipate, says Forget. In today’s terms, an 8.5 per cent decrease in hospital visits across Canada would save the government $4 billion annually, by her calculations. And $4 billion is the amount that the federal government is currently trying to save by slashing social programming and arts funding. Having analyzed the health data, Forget is now working on a cost-benefit analysis to see what a guaranteed income program might save the federal government if it were implemented today. She’s already worked with a Senate committee investigating a guaranteed income program for all lowincome Canadians. The Canadian government’s sudden interest in guaranteed income programs doesn’t surprise Forget. Every 10 or 15 years there seems to be a renewed interest in getting Guaranteed Income (GI) programs off the ground, according to

Page 35 of 106

Saskatchewan social work professor James Mulvale. He’s researched and written extensively about guaranteed income programs and is also part the Canadian chapter of the Basic Income Earth Network, a worldwide organization that advocates for guaranteed income. GI programs exist in countries like Brazil, Mexico, France and even the state of Alaska. Although people may not recognize it, subtle forms of guaranteed income already exist in Canada, says Mulvale, pointing to the child benefit tax, guaranteed income for seniors and the modest GST/HST rebate program for low-income earners. However, a wider-reaching guaranteed income program would go a long way in decreasing poverty, he says. Mulvale is in favour of a “demo-grant” model of GI that would give automatic cash transfers to everybody in Canada. This kind of plan would also provide the option of taxing higher-income earners at the end of the year so poorer people receive benefits. A model such as this has a higher chance of broad support because it goes out to everybody, according to Mulvale. GI can also be administered as a negative income tax to the poor, meaning they’d receive an amount of money back directly in proportion to what they make each year. “GI by itself wouldn’t eliminate poverty but it would go a heck of a long way to decrease the extent of poverty in this country,” says Mulvale. Conservative senator Hugh Segal has been the biggest supporter of this kind of GI, claiming it would eliminate the social assistance programs now administered by the provinces and territories. Rather than having a separate office to administer child tax benefits, welfare, unemployment insurance and income supplement for seniors, they could all be rolled into one GI scheme. It would also mean that anybody could apply for support. Many people fall through the cracks under the current welfare system, says Forget. Not everybody can access welfare and those who can are penalized for going to school or for working a job since the money they receive from welfare is then clawed back. If a guaranteed income program can target more people and is more efficient than other social assistance programs, then why doesn’t Canada

Page 36 of 106

have such a program in place already? Perhaps the biggest barrier is the prevalence of negative stereotypes about poor people. “There’s very strong feelings out there that we shouldn’t give people money for nothing,” Mulvale says. Guaranteed income proponents aren’t holding their breaths that they’ll see such a program here anytime soon, but they are hopeful that one day Canada will consider the merits of guaranteed income. The cost would be “not nearly as prohibitive to do as people imagine it is,” says Forget. “A guaranteed minimum income program is a superior way of delivering social assistance. The only thing is that it’s of course politically difficult to implement.” Vivian Belik is a freelance journalist based in the frozen northlands of Whitehorse, Yukon. She was, however, raised in Manitoba where she has spotted many of the provinces small-town statues including the giant beaver in Dauphin. http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

Page 37 of 106 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2011

2012

2013

2014

Food Bank Use SFCS 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2013

2014

2015

Families seen for assistance related to poverty at SFCS 2015 Household income limits to qualify for help 1 Person 2 Persons 3 People 4+ People

Less than $29,000/year Less than $35,500/year Less than $40,00/year Less than $48,000/year

The Average Income for those seeking help at SFCS is $15,000/year (2014) *South Frontenac Community Services statistics supplied by David Townsend, Exec Dir SFCS

Page 38 of 106

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

January 21st, 2016

Agenda Date:

January 26th, 2016

SUBJECT: Investment Policy RECOMMENDATION: That Council review that attached draft Investment Policy and provide direction. BACKGROUND: Under Section 418 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, a municipality may invest in prescribed securities, in accordance with the prescribed rules, money that it does not require immediately. Ontario Regulation 438/97 outlines eligible investments and further under section (7), a municipality shall, if it has not already done so, adopt a statement of the municipality’s investment policies and goals. In preparing the investment policies and goals, the council shall consider: • the municipality’s risk tolerance and preservation of its capital • the municipality’s need for a diversified portfolio of investments; and • obtain legal and financial advice with the respect to proposed investments The Township currently has an investment policy which was passed under bylaw 1998-0010. It refers to sections of the 1997 Municipal Act as well as Ontario Regulations that are no longer applicable or have been renumbered. Further, it specifies an approved list of investments which does not reflect the options now available to a municipality under Regulation 438/97. The following revisions have been made to the Investment Policy:

Current legislation: The policy has been updated to reflect the current Municipal Act and Regulation references.
Policy Objectives: The objectives or goals of the policy have been elaborated as well as ranked in priority. • • •

security of principal including diversification of maturity in order to minimize risk of loss. Invested funds must meet the cash flow needs of the municipality and easily convertible to cash as required. Maximize rate of return within acceptable risk while respecting legal constraints and other policy objectives

Constraints: • •

•

Investments must be in accordance to Regulation 438/97 A detailed cash flow forecast for up to a year shall be maintained to determine short-term liquidity needs as well as a long-term forecast incorporating anticipated operating and capital requirements to determine long-term liquidity requirements. Available funds will be managed between bank accounts (including LAS High Interest Savings Account), short term investments with institutions as per the regulation (including LAS One Investment Program) and long-term investments with the LAS One Investment Program.

Page 39 of 106

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT 4) Authority: • •

Investment decisions will be jointly made by the CAO and Treasurer Investment transactions will require two signing authorities corresponding to the existing banking signing authorities. Further, at a minimum, transactions will require the signature of Treasurer or CAO.

Reporting: The treasurer is responsible to provide an annual investment report to Council, at a minimum, meeting the requirement of O.Reg 438/97. One Investment Program/ High Interest Savings Account Sections of the draft policy introduce the LAS One Investment Program and LAS High Interest Savings Account. The One Investment Program is not a company or financial institution. It is a comingled investment offering provided to the municipal sector that is recognized in the Municipal Act under O.Reg. 438/97. Local Authority Services Limited (LAS) and the CHUMS Financing Corporation (CHUMS), subsidiary companies of Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ontario (MFOA) respectively, have jointly operated the program for the Ontario Municipal Sector since 1993. The One Program offers the only mechanism for Ontario municipalities to directly access certain investment types allowed under the eligible Investment regulation. It offers competitive investment options that are safe, credible and diversified for their core investors (i.e municipalities) with a mind toward minimized investor risk. All investment portfolios are managed by professional portfolio managers. Through the Program, investors have access to various investment vehicles. The current portfolios are as follows:

As of September 30, 2015, the program has more than 100 municipal and public sector investors with over $700 million invested in the program. The diagram below provides a summary of returns.

Page 40 of 106

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Fees for the Program range from 0.19% on the Money Market to 0.6% on the Equity Portfolio. They are paid out of earned income and cover the cost of LAS, the portfolio manager services and program partners to deliver the service. All returns are presented net of fees. In using the Program, various advantages are presented: • the Township investments would be pooled with other municipal or other public sector funds to obtain higher returns as authorized under eligible investment regulation • expertise and consultation services is provided in supporting investment decisions • ensures compliance to the eligible investment regulation as all funds within the program must meet the requirements The policy is structured to have long term investment be directed to the One Investment Program whereas short-term investments provide the option to use the Program but also the option to go to market to ensure competitiveness. Another area that was added to the policy was the option to put funds into the LAS High interest Savings Account. This program is something new as of 2015 with LAS and provides the same flexibility of a bank account with access to funds next day but provides an interest rate based on pooled funds. Although our current bank interest rate is higher than what is offered through this program, language was included to have this option as once funds are invested and our average bank balance is lowered, it is anticipated that at some point, we may no longer be offered the same rate. The policy has been reviewed by Corporate Services and recommended to be presented to the Committee of the Whole. The policy supports the strategic plan in various areas: • Under the guiding principle of taking a long-term perspective to proactively plan for future infrastructure and services. Proper cash flow and the ability to invest for the long-term will provide opportunity to better support future funding needs in infrastructure and services. • Under its strategic priorities to continually to improve how the Township conducts its business which includes enhancing practices that help ensure financial responsibility including prudent planning and decision-making.

Page 41 of 106

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Attachment: By-law 1998-0010 Draft Investment Policy Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Page 42 of 106

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

BY-LAW 1998 10 BEING A BY- LAW TO ESTABLISH AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICIES AND GOALS FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Ontario Regulation 74/97 in accordance with section 167 of the Municipal Act, Chapter M.45, as amended by Bill 86, a municipality is required to adopt a statement of the municipality’s investment policies and goals before investing in a security prescribed under the said Regulation; AND WHEREAS section 167(2) of the Municipal Act states that “if a municipality has money that it does not require immediately, it may, subject to the prescribed rules, invest the money in prescribed securitiesn; AND WHEREAS Ontario Regulation 74/97 made under the Municipal Act prescribes the securities that a municipality may invest in; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac deems it wise and prudent to invest funds not immediately required by the municipality; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac hereby establishes and adopts the “Statement of Investment Policies and Goals”, Appendix “A”, attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.

That the investment of surplus township funds (revenue, reserve and trust funds) shall be limited to the financial instruments of those on the “Approved List”, Appendix ‘33’’ attached. The principal amount, the term and rate of return of each investment shall be negotiated and approved by the Township Treasurer. Intefind investments shall be made at an interest rate of prime minus 1-114% and will be evidenced by a signed promissory note.

TIEAT this by-law shall come into force and e k t on the passing thereof.

READ A FIRST AND SECOND TlME AND SIGNED THlS DAY OF.

4Mc ……………………………………………………….. 1

998

READ A THIRD TIME AND SIGNED THlS

3"” …………………. DAY OF……………………. g&cfi ………………………………….. 998

4of%……

……………..rWAdmin………. trato

Page 43 of 106

BY-LAW 1998

APPENDIX “A” STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLlClES AND GOALS In accordance wtth Ontark, Regutdons 74197 made under the MunlclpalAct (In force March 22"d.. 1997)

Policy Application

This policy will govern the investment of surplus cash, reserve and reserve fbnds and sinking hnds of the Corporation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 74/97 and 77/97 made under the Municipal Act (in force March 22*., 1997). Investment Goal

The goal of this policy is to invest all available hnds of the Corporation in a prudent manner so as to maximize the rate of return while minimizing the degree of risk and ensuring an adequate level of Liquidity. Eligible Investments All investments by the municipality will be subject to Section 167 of the Municipal Act and Ontario Regulation 74/97 and 77/97 made under the Municipal Act.

Page 44 of 106

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 1998

APPENDIX “B” APPROVED LIST O F INVESTMENTS 1.

Schedule “A9’, Chartered Banks (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Royal Bank of Canada Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia The Toronto-Dominion Bank

Government of Canada

Provincial Governments

Ontario Municipalities and School Boards

Other funds of the Township of South Frontenac (Revenue Funds, Reserve Funds and Trust Funds).

Page 45 of 106

Investment Policy

Policy Statement The Township of South Frontenac shall invest funds, not immediately required, to ensure the safety of principal and to maintain adequate liquidity to meet expected cash requirements while maximizing the rate of return and subject to complying with Ontario’s Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements Regulation. The Township has authority to invest funds under Section 418 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended.

Purpose This Policy provides guidance for the management of the Township’s investment funds including restrictions and limitations, risk tolerance and investment objectives.

Application This Policy applies to all investments made on behalf of the Township, including operating funds, reserve funds, capital funds and trust funds.

Policy Requirements Objectives The investment objectives for the Township, ranked in priority, are as follows: a) Security of Principal The primary objective of the Township’s Investment Policy is to ensure the security of principal. To minimize the risk of loss, investments shall be subject to a minimum credit ratings and shall be diversified by maturity, type of investment and issuer, as follows: Investment Ratings: Investments shall only be made in eligible securities with a minimum credit rating as outlined in the Ontario Regulation 438/97, Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements, as amended. Term to Maturity of Investments: Investing activities should be reviewed on a regular basis as actual, revised and forecasted operating and capital plans are completed. Maturity dates should be staggered so that investment cash inflows occur throughout the year.

b) Liquidity Requirements

Page 46 of 106

Liquidity is measured by the ease with which securities can be converted to cash to meet forecast spending. It is recognized that the various investments that are eligible under Ontario’s Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements Regulation, possess different features and thus market prices will vary depending on market conditions as well as the particular features of the type of investment. To ensure adequate liquidity, the Township’s investments shall be diversified by holding securities of various terms to maturity and by various types of investments and issuers and to the extent possible, the term of such investments shall match the forecasted requirements for such funds to meet expenditures. c) Rate of Return The Township’s funds shall be invested to maximize the rate of return within acceptable risk levels while respecting the security of principal, legal constraints and the adequate liquidity needs of each investment portfolio. Under normal circumstances, longer-term investments offer higher yields than shorter-term investments. The composition of each portfolio, including its term to maturity and type of investments, shall be adjusted within the guidelines of this Policy to take advantage of market opportunities. Such changes shall be made with the periodic interest rate outlook and target portfolio structure approved by the Township Treasurer.

Constraints The Township’s investments are subject to the following regulatory and term constraints: a) Regulatory Constraints In accordance with Ontario’s Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements Regulation (Municipal Act, 2001,O. Reg 438/97 – as amended), the Township is not authorized to invest in securities other than those listed in the Regulation. b) Term of Investments A detailed cash flow forecast for up to one year shall be maintained to determine short-term liquidity requirements. This forecast shall allow the Township to maximize the return on surplus funds invested and minimize borrowing temporarily for operational purposes. Further, a long-term forecast will be maintained factoring forecasted operating and capital requirements in order to determine long-term liquidity requirements. c) Direction of Investments Available funds will be managed between bank accounts (including LAS High Interest Savings Account), short term investments with institutions as per regulation (including the LAS One Investment Program) and long-term investments with the LAS One Investment Program.

Responsibilities

Page 47 of 106

a) Authority The Township Treasurer and CAO are jointly responsible for the prudent investment of the Township’s portfolio, its strategy and to ensure that all investments are made in accordance with this Policy and any legislated requirements. Any transaction related to investments requires two signing authorities corresponding to the existing signing authorities for the Township’s banking. Further, any transactions ,at a minimum, must be approved by the Treasurer or CAO. The Township Treasurer shall review the periodic interest rate outlook and both the Treasurer and CAO will jointly approve the proposed term structure and composition for the portfolios. Investments shall be made with judgement and care. All reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the management of Township’s investment portfolio is in accordance with this policy. The degree of care, diligence, skill, and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise in the administration of their own affairs must be exercised and in doing so shall attempt to maximize the investment earnings of the portfolio within the parameters of the objectives established within this policy.

b) Reporting The Treasurer or designate has a specific responsibility to prepare and provide an annual investment report to Council. O. Reg. 438/97, s.8 (1). This report shall contain the following information: • a statement about the performance of the portfolio of investments of the municipality during the period covered by the report • a description of the estimated proportion of the total investments of a municipality that are invested in its own long-term and short-term securities to the total investment of the municipality and a description of the change, if any, in the estimated proportion since the previous year’s report • a statement by the treasurer as to whether or not, in his or her opinion, all investments were made in accordance with the investments policies and goals adopted by the municipality

Monitoring/Contraventions Failure to comply with this Policy may result in the Township holding investments which are not eligible investments as prescribed by provincial regulation.

Legislative and Administrative Authorities Section 418 of the Municipal Act, 2 S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended Ontario Regulation 438/97, Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements, as amended

Page 48 of 106

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 26, 2016 Date of Report: January 18, 2016 Subject: Township-Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee consider amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to correct a number of minor errors/omissions both in the mapping and in the text of the document. In order to properly make these changes an amending by-law must be passed dealing with every proposed correction (informally termed a “housekeeping bylaw”).

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee housekeeping amendments to the Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law - proposed by the Planning Department. The report includes map schedules. Background The Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Township, has been in full force and effect since 2005 and was prepared to implement the policies of the Official Plan as required by the Planning Act. Using the By-law since 2005, staff periodically become aware of minor errors/omissions in the by-law that need to be corrected and a housekeeping by-law is necessary to correct them. At this time a number of mapping errors have been noticed and clarity in the wording is needed on two sections of the text. Discussion The following is a list of the proposed ten amendments that would help to correct the bylaw along with an explanation and rationale for the changes. It should be emphasized that the changes to the zone maps are mostly technical in nature and simply reflect errors during map preparation. Some of the amendments were already recently presented to the Committee of the Whole. Text Changes There has been concern expressed by Planning over interpretation of the following sections: 1.

Section 5.10.2 Existing Buildings Within 30 Metres (98.4 ft.) of a Waterbody or Watercourse does not permit buildings to be reconstructed. The definition reads as follows: “Where a building has been erected prior to the date of passing of this By-law on an existing lot and said building has less than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, then said building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. In addition, no living space shall be added below grade to any existing building or structure.”

Page 49 of 106 This wording allows any building within the 30 metre setback to be renovated, strengthened and made more structurally sound but it does not permit it to be taken down and reconstructed. This section is meant to implement the intent of the Official Plan which is: i) that all new construction should be well setback from any waterbody with a minimum setback of 30 metres, ii) that existing buildings within the 30 metre setback, once removed, should be set back further so that, some day, all buildings will be well set back from waterbodies to ensure protection of our lakes into the future, iii) that existing buildings within the setback may stay as legal non-complying structures but they lose this legal status when they are removed. The Township has always interpreted that, when the walls of the building are removed, the building is considered to be gone and it cannot be reconstructed at its present location without a minor variance. However, this interpretation should be ‘built-in’ to section 5.10.2 so that the meaning is more clear. It should also be noted that the Building Department has not agreed with this interpretation – they believe that renovations may include building from the foundation up on the same footprint. Thus, a new sentence should be inserted to say that reconstruction is prohibited. Also, an explanation of reconstruction should be included so that the section reads as follows: (changes in bold type) “Where a building has been erected prior to the date of passing of this By-law on an existing lot and said building has less than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, then said building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement of the gross floor area or increase in height. Reconstruction of the building is prohibited. In addition, no living space shall be added below grade to any existing building or structure. For the purposes of interpreting section 5.10.2, once the walls of an existing structure within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is deemed to be vacant and the structure may not be reconstructed within the 30 metre setback.” 2.

Section

5.11

of the by-law REPLACEMENT

BUILDINGS

STRUCTURES, should be removed completely. This section reads as follows: “5.11

REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES

A building or structure, including a legal non-conforming and/or legal non-complying building or structure, may be replaced with a new building or structure in the case of partial or complete destruction caused by fire, lightning, explosion, tempest, flood or act of God, or demolition permit required by the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac or other authority for safety, health or sanitation requirements,

providing such building or structure is

Page 50 of 106 serviced by a potable water supply and sewage disposal system approved by the appropriate responsible authority.

A building

permit will only be issued, in the absence of zoning relief, provided no enlargement of the footprint or increase in gross floor area is proposed and provided the permit is applied for within 12 months of the partial or complete demolition/destruction. The replacement building shall be located on and not increase the footprint or gross floor area of the non-conforming building.

The applicant shall

provide proof to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that there will be no increase in the size of the building footprint or gross floor area and that the replacement building will be located within the same footprint as the non-conforming/non-complying building. Where applicable, floodproofing and avoidance of erosion hazards should be considered.” This section is intended to permit any building within the 30 metre setback to be reconstructed if it is destroyed by fire or storm or if it is dilapidated to the point where the Township orders it to be removed. This section is a measure of fairness to permit property-owners to rebuild after destruction that is beyond their control. However, it has been the subject of some controversy because many propertyowners will argue that they should be allowed to reconstruct because their structure has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe and unusable. However, this state of dis-repair is often the result of neglect where the building has been neglected – perhaps moss has grown on the roof for example and water has been allowed to enter into the walls. It is proposed that section 5.11 be removed completely and deal with each proposed reconstruction through the minor variance process.

Definition of Mobile Home: The definition of Mobile Home presently reads as follows: “MOBILE HOME shall mean any dwelling that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured in accordance with the Ontario Building Code Act and CSA standards for mobile homes to provide accommodation for one or more persons, but does not include a modular home or travel trailer as defined herein.” The Chief Building Official has advised that the definition should be changed to delete the reference to the ‘Ontario Building Code Act’ since it does not apply to mobile homes.

Definition of Top-of-Bank: The definition of Top-of-Bank presently reads as follows:

Page 51 of 106 “TOP OF BANK (Slope) shall mean a point which is the beginning of a significant change in the land surface, then from which the land surface slopes downward (at a grade of 30% or more) towards an abandoned or existing waterbody or watercourse. When two (2) or more slopes are located together, the slope that is highest and farthest away from the watercourse shall be the slope considered for the top of bank and must be at least a 30% grade at a point at the highwater mark.” This definition should be amended to specify that, when there are 2 or more slopes separated by plateaus leading away from the shore of a waterbody, then it is only the first slope that is considered for the top-of-bank calculation. The definition should read: “TOP OF BANK (Slope) shall mean a point which is the beginning of a significant change in the land surface, then from which the land surface slopes downward (at a grade of 30% or more) towards an abandoned or existing waterbody or watercourse. When there are two (2) or more slopes located together separated by plateaus, the slope that is the closest to the water is considered for the topof-bank calculation.” 5.

The waterfront lots in the Badour Farm subdivision in Bedford District slope steeply down from the road to the highwater mark of Bob’s Lake. The homes here are constructed as close to the water’s edge as the setback rules will allow. Planning has received many requests to locate detached garages in the front yards of these lots. As the Committee may be aware, the zoning by-law does not permit accessory structures in the front yard. The reason for this restriction is to ensure that unsightly buildings or sheds are not located in plain view and dominate the streetscape. The waterfront lots in Badour Farm cannot accommodate structures behind the houses because the minimum water setback will not permit it. However, Planning undertook a land use survey here and noted that, the land slopes down to the water from the road and often is heavily treed. Also, the lots themselves are very deep and the homes here on average are 150 metres from the road. For these reasons no garage or other accessory building located in the front yard would be exposed to view from the street. Thus, there should be no reason to require accessory structures to be placed only in the back yard. It is proposed to include a special provision in the zoning for these lots to permit accessory buildings in the front yard.

The definition of Building Height presently reads as follows: “Building Height shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade and the highest point of the building or structure but does not include chimneys antennas or other similar objects.” The by-law should specify that the height of buildings should be measured from the average established grade. This change has been requested by the Chief Building Official.

The provisions of section 21 – Urban Industrial Zone should be changed. As The Committee is aware, some controversy resulted from the realization that the Urban Industrial zone permitted a motor vehicle repair garage (which may include an

Page 52 of 106 auto body shop) and that it allowed structures to be as high as 50 feet. These two provisions seem incompatible with development in the hamlets considering that residential uses occur in proximity. Note also that the Official Plan does not contemplate auto body shops in the hamlet so this use should not have been in the UI zone in the first place. Subsections 21.2 and 21.3 should be changed to specify that an auto body repair shop is not permitted and to reduce the maximum permitted building height from 15 metres (50 ft.) to 11 metres (36.1 ft.).

Loughborough Mapping Changes 8. Schedule “B” the zoning map for Loughborough District has three errors that should be corrected. These are: i)

Part of Lot 7, Concession V. A residential lot at Sydenham Lake accessed by Sheila Lane, is erroneously zoned Recreational Resort Commercial (RRC). This zone should be changed to Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW).

ii)

Part of Lots 20 & 21, Concession VII. The zoning for a large 150 acre parcel of land at the end of Walsh Road is not properly shown on the Map schedule. This is the Greek Orthodox Church Camp which was rezoned approximately ten years ago to permit a retreat camp with an assembly hall, dormitories and recreation facilities. It should be properly zoned Community Facility (CF-3) to permit this use.

iii)

Part of Lot 10, Concession XII. The Scouts Canada Otter Lake Camp located at the end of Salmon Lake Road beside Frontenac Park is zoned Rural (RU). Planning had discussions with the owners of this land in the past and the proper zoning for the land was discussed. This property should be zoned Community Facility (CF) to recognize its long standing use as a scout camp.

Attachment #1 shows the locations of these three properties. Storrington Mapping Change 9. Schedule “C” the zoning map for Storrington District has an error that should be corrected as follows: i)

Part Lot 20, Concession X; A large rural lot at Dog Lake, accessed by Osborne Lane and Christel Lane, is incorrectly zoned as partially Rural (RU) and partially Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (RLSW). Recently three severances were approved on this land which necessitates the proper delineation of these zones. The zoning boundaries of the RLSW zones should now properly conform to the lot lines of the new waterfront lots that were created.

Attachment #2 shows the location of this property. Bedford Mapping Change 10. Schedule “D” the zoning map for Bedford District has an error that should be corrected as follows: i)

Part Lots 25 & 26, Concession X; A flag-shaped lot at Wolfe Lake, accessed by Lee Road, is technically incorrectly zoned as Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (RLSW) to recognize that it is accessed by a private lane. However, because the long finger of land (or handle of the flag) extends all the way south (approximately 861 metres) to Lee Road,

Page 53 of 106 the lot technically has frontage on a public road and, thus, should be zoned Waterfront Residential (RW) and not RLSW. Attachment #3 shows the location of this property. CONCLUSION The Planning Department expects to advertise these changes and bring them forward to a public meeting with Council within the next month. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 18, 2016, regarding corrections to minor errors/omissions to the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw for information. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills attachment

HouskeepingReportToCofW2016

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 54 of 106

Attachment #1

FRONTENAC PARK

-) ,d}’ }

]

ffi

‘c:l

/7 ] ffi

1 Il I l1

0 345690 ?

Page 55 of 106

Attachment #2

!.,’

Cranesnest Lake

? I

i i /

FTI

RESIDENTIAL - ZONE TO RLSW

9 4

c?;'

(

U l

0,;

I .1

Dog Lake

Thl ,?

l

l W

rr?i

{

4 Dog Lake

f'1

=s.,4

Q m

Cranberry Lake

m l

o ‘A /l

=’!

0 112.5225 ?

450

/ /

675

:/'

! /

AhcAhtht ‘J

dreen Lake

Page 56 of 106

Wolfe Lake

()

su4yt4

p5a

Lot ,0

-n

0, ‘-0

“i

1171>a” “‘Nl

211

STONERIDGE LANI %-

?"<‘v<

/ /

/5,zl

/ /

Wolfe Lake

/‘1 [ l

Judy Pond

[

/ k.

Page 57 of 106

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 26, 2016 Date of Report: January 21, 2016 Subject: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Modifications to County of Frontenac Official Plan: Township of South Frontenac Comments

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning report dated January 21, 2016, consider the concerns raised in the report regarding the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s modifications to the County of Frontenac Official Plan and appeal two of the modifications to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee concerns about 33 modifications from the MMA&H to the County of Frontenac Official and implications to the Township. Background The County of Frontenac Official Plan was adopted by County Council on October 29, 2014. The Plan still requires final approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing before it comes into force and effect. The ministry has now given its final approval to the Plan but subject to thirty-three modifications. The full list of modifications is attached hereto as Attachment #1. Discussion In reviewing the modifications there are two items that are of concern from a Planning perspective. These concerns are:

Section 3.1: Growth projections for Frontenac County. This section is meant to give a projection and a forecast for growth for the next twenty-five years. The County Plan explains that because of its proximity to the employment opportunities in the City of Kingston, South Frontenac Township is projected to handle 70 percent of the growth in the County. The ministry is adding a new phrase following this to say that the remaining 30 percent of the growth shall be allocated accordingly: Frontenac Islands (7%), Central Frontenac (16%) and South Frontenac (7%). Obviously, there is a typographical error here where South Frontenac is allocated an extra 7% of growth and North Frontenac is omitted mistakenly. This should be amended to properly allocate the projected growth to North Frontenac. However, a more major concern is that, through their wording, the province is dictating that the growth SHALL be allocated according to these percentages. Previously, these figures were simply intended to be a forecast for growth on which decisions could be based – not to presume to require that the growth will happen this way. This seems to be a very unnecessary change from the intent of this section. Growth should be market-driven and not dictated.

Page 58 of 106 2. Section 4.2.1.6 – Private Services. A whole new policy is to be inserted regarding private servicing. The wording shown highlighted on the attachment. This wording has huge implications for development in all hamlets in the County. It seems to say that development on individual on-site private wells and individual on-site septic systems in settlement areas is not permitted (except for minor infilling and rounding out. Thus, on one hand the province is directing development to the settlement areas but, on the other hand, they’re not allowing us to do it since no settlement area in the County has these full services. Planning has expressed these concerns to the Planning Department at the County. The County has responded that they are aware of these concerns also but they do not think any appeals are warranted. Attachment #2 is a copy of the correspondence. CONCLUSION The Planning Department considers this wording to be very troubling and to be an unnecessary obstacle to future development in South Frontenac (and in the rest of the County). The imposition of these two provincial modifications should be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. It would be expected that, through mediation with the ministry, these matters could be resolved and no actual Board hearing would be necessary. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 21, 2016, regarding provincial modifications to the County of Frontenac Official Plan and direct staff to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board the two provincial modifications described in the report. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills attachment

CountyOPCommentsFromMMAReportToCofW

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 59 of 106

ATTACHMENT #1

Ministere des

fVlinistry of Municipal Affairs And Housing

Affaires municipales et du Logement

f>ontario

Municipal Services Office Bureau des services aux municipalites Eastern Region

R6gion de I’Est

8 Estate Lane Rockwood House

8 chemin Estate Maison Rockwood

Kingston ON K7M9A8 Kingston ON K7M9A8 Phone: (613)545-2100 Telephone: (613)545-2100 Fax: (613) 548-6822 T61ecopieur: (613) 548-6822 Toll Free: 1-800-267-9438 Sans frais: 1-800-267-9438

Januany 11, 2016 Mr. Joe Gallivan

Manager of Sustainability Planning County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road

Glenbernie, ON, KOH ISO

Subject: Notice of Decision County of Frontenac Offlcial Plan MMAH File No.: 10-OP-147822

Dear Mr. Gallivan,

Please find enclosed a notice of the Decision given on January 6, 2015, under subsection

1 7(34) and (35) of the Planninq Act with respect to the Official Plan for Frontenac County. The purpose of this Ietter is to provide you with important information which is outlined in the attachpd “Notice of Decision”.

You will receive final confirmation of the status of the decision on the Official Plan Amendment following the 20 day appeal period.

Should you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact me at 613-545-2121, or Damien.Schaefer@ontario.ca.

Yours truly,

;a’?w2, Damien Schaefer, Planner Municipal Services Office 7 Kingston

Page 60 of 106

DECISION With respect to the County of Frontenac Official Plan Subsection 17(34) of the Planning Act

l hereby approve the County of Frontenac Official Plan as adopted by Council of the County of Frontenac by By-law No. 2C)1 4-0047, subject to the following modifications:

(

Ministry Names Throughout the Official Plan are hereby modified by:

1 a.

Deleting “Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)” and replacing it with “Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)”.

1 ‘I ’l

b. Deleting “Ministry of the Environment (MOE)” and replacing it with “Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)”.

Deleting “Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)” and replacing it with “Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)”;

‘I

Section 1.2 - How to Read the Plan is hereby modified by: a.

ii,l

Adding the following new paragraph at the end of the section: “In the future, the County may undertake an enhanced regional role concerning matters which cross municipal boundaries and are considered to be of a County wide andlor Provincial interest. This may include conducting County wide studies on cross-jurisdictional issues and enhanced policy direction on matters such as, but not limited to, mineral aggregate resources, source protection planning

! l

{

and economic development”

Section 2.tl - Agriculture is hereby modified by: a.

Deleting the word ‘!ands” from policy 2 and replacing it with the word “areas”.

b. Deleting in the first sentence of policy 3 the words “provided they are located in the farm building complex and primarily serve the surrounding rural and agriculture community.”

Inserting the following new second sentence in policy 3: ‘For these types of uses Iocated in Prime Agricultural Areas

designated jn the Township Official Plans, the Agriculture Permitted Uses section of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), shall apply.” il

Page 1 of 13

1 l

Page 61 of 106

d. Inserting the following new sentence at the end of policy 4:

“4: The MDS formulae shall apply in both the rural and prime agricultural Iand use designations in the Township Official Plans, outside of settlement areas”.

e. Inserting the following new policy s:

as: The Townships shall designate Prime Agricultural Areas in their respective Official Plans in accordance with the Provincial Policy

Statement (PPS)”.

“6: The Townships shall permit agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses in Prime Agricultural Areas in their respective Official Plans in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) “. g. Inserting the following new policy 7:

f. Inserting the following new policy 6:

1 1

“7: The Townships may only permit Iot creation and lot adjustments in Prime Agricultural Areas in their respective Official Plans in accordance with the Pmvincial Policy Statement (PPS)”.

h. Inserting the following new policy 8:

}

“8: The Townships may only permit non-agricultural uses in Prime Agricultural Areas in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)”.

li il

1 .1

“9: The Townships may only permit extraction in Prime Agricultural Areas in their respective Official Plans in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)”.

i. Insert the following new policy 9: :l

il ?l

Section 2.1.2 Mining and Mineral Aggregate Resources is hereby modified b7:

a. Inserting the words “and aggregate resources” to the end of the first

sentence.

b. Inserting into the second sentence the words “and mineral aggregate” after the word “Mineral”.

c. Deleting from the second sentence the word “mining” d. Inserting into the third sentence the words “and mineral aggregate” after the word “mineral”.

Page 2 of 13

Page 62 of 106

s. Section 2.1.2.2 Mineral Aggregates is hereby modified by: a.

Inserting the following new sentence at the end of policy 1 : “These resources shall be mapped on Township Official Plan Schedules.”

b. Inserting a new policy 2 which states: “2. Recognizing that mineral aggregate resources cross municipal boundaries, the County will undertake a mineral aggregate resources study, in consultation with the Ministty of Natural Resources and Forestry to identify unconstrained aggregate resources that are a high priority for protection. The findings of this study shall be implemented through Official Plan Amendment. In the interim, the County and the Townships shall use the Township Official Plans and Appendix ID and 1E to identify aggregate resources.” And renumber subsequent sections accordingly.

i C.

Deleting in the first sentence of the current policy 3 the words “and known significant deposits of mineral aggregate resources”.

i? it

d. lnseiting the following sentences at the end of the current policy 3: l’The Townships shall map the locations of all existing licensed minera] aggregate operations on their official plan land use schedules and zoning by-laws. Existing mineral aggregate operations shall be permitted to continue without the need for an official plan amendment, rezoning or development permit under the Planning Act.”

Inserting the following new policy s: ?5. Within or adjacent to known deposits of mineral aggregate resources, development and activities which may preclude or hinder

Resource use would not be feasible; or

The proposed land use or development serves a greater Iongterm public interest; and Issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed

The County or the Townships may require the completion of a study by a qualified professional to demonstrate that the proposed use is consistent with the above policies for development proposals. For the purposes of the above policy, adjacent Iands shall be those

Page 3 of 13

the establishment of new operations or access to the resources may only be permitted if:

Page 63 of 106

Iands contiguous to Iands on the surface of known deposits of mineral aggregate resources where it is likely that development would constrain future access to the resources. The extent of the

adjacent Iands shall be identified in Township Official Plan and may be recommended by the Province.” 6. Section 3 - Growth Management is hereby modified by: a.

Deleting in the second sentence “sets out expected” and replacing it with .1

“allocates”. 7.

Section 3.I Growth Projections for Frontenac County is hereby modified by:

Deleting in the second sentence of policy (a) the words “projected to handle” and replacing it with “alk>cated”.

Inserting the following new policy (b):

11 ?l

(

“(b) The remaining growth shall be allocated accordingly: Frontenac Islands (7%), Central Frontenac (16%) and South Frontenac (7%)”. il

And renumber subsequent sections accordingly.

,/ I, Deleting from the current policy (b) the words “or provide incentive” and d.

replacing them with “and may impact the ability”. Inserting the following new second sentence into policy (d): ‘Demonstration of limited rural residential development in Township Official Plans may include such measures as limits to the number of lots granted through consent and plans of subdivision.” e.

Inserting the following new policy (f):

‘7f) Sefflement areas are identified in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 as villages and hamlets where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses. It is recognized that some of the historical settlement areas identified on Schedule “A’ of this Plan may

result, the Count; will undertake a settksment area study fo examine

not meet this definition and are better described as a crossroad. As a and rationalize settlement areas identified on Schedule !Q’ in order to

determine where growth shall be focused over the long term planning horizon”. il

Inserting the following new Section 3.1 .1:

“3.1.1 - Employment

In order fo meet the long term needs of the County by providing a

mix and range of employment opportunities, the County shall explore ways to enhance the local employment base in strategic

Page 4 of 13

Page 64 of 106

Iocations such as settlement areas and along major transportation routes.”

g. lnsertingthefollowingnewSection3.1.2: “3.1.2 - Housing Supply

lIThe land and residential unit supply in the Iower-tier official

plans shall reflect the growth allocations set out in this section and be consistent with the regional marketing housing

requirements of Section 1.4.1 of the PPS.” 8. Section 3.2.2.2 Settlement Area Boundary Expansions is hereby modified by:

il 11

a. Inserting the following new paragraph after: policy e.: “It is not anticipated that any of the settlement areas in the Frontenacs will require expansion in the Iife of this plan. /f a settlement area expansion is being considered, in addition to the aforementioned criteria, the settlement area expansion policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), shall also apply.” l

Section 3.3.I Introduction is hereby modified by:

a. Deleting the first dash in its entirety"Waterfront Areas as described in Section 3. 3. 3. 4"

c. Inserting the following new paragraph at the end of the section:

b. Deleting in the last paragraph the words “rural lands shall permit uses such as:” and replacing it with “on rural lands, permitted uses are:”

“Development shall proceed in accordance with the policies of Section 4.2 - Servicing, Section 6 - Heritage & Culture and Section 7 -

Environmental Sustainability and Section 4.2 - Servicing.” 1

Section 3.3.3 Policies is hereby modified by: .1

a. Deleting the first paragraph of this section. li

Section 3.3.3.4.1 Special Policies - Waterfront Areas - Introduction is hereby

modified by:

a. Deleting the word “generally"Trom the last sentence of this section.

Section 4 - Community Building is hereby modified by:

a. lnseiting the following at the.end of the introductory section:

Page s of 13

’l

Page 65 of 106

‘finfrastructiire, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers

’l

impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs. Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are:

financially viable over their Iife cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and available to meet current and projected needs.

Public service facilities should be co-located in community hubs, where appropriate, to promote cost-effectiveness and facilitate service integration, access fo transit and active transportation.”

il 1

lj il

li l

Section 4.1.I Roads is hereby modified by: a) Inserting the following new policy section “4.1.1.6 Private Roads

The County is undertaking a private roads study in 2015. The results of this work will assist the County and its lower-tiers in developing a measurable and enforceable mechanism aimed at creating reasonable and safe development of private roads.”

Section 4.2.1.4.5 Long Range Planning for Municipal Setvices is hereby modified by:

jl il

a) Deleting from the title the words “Water Supply Protection” and replacing it with ‘Services Planning". b) Deleting in the first sentence of the third paragraph the words “water systems” and replacing them with “services”. c) Deleting in the third bullet the words “water systems” and replacing them with 1

“serVices”.

d) Deleting in the last bullet the words “water systems” and replacing them with “sefVi(:es”.

e) Inserting the following new sixth bullet and corresponding sub-bullets " a Partial services shall only be permitted in the following circumstances:

where they are necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services in existing

Page 6 of 13

Page 66 of 106

development; or

within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development on partial services provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts."

f) lnsertingthefollowingnewpolicy4.2.1.6-PrivateServices: “4.2.1.6 - Private Services

Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, these setvices may only be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development.

Negative Impacts shall be defined for the purposes of this section and Section 4.2. 1.5 as degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive groundwater features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development. Negative impacts should be assessed through environmental studies including hydrogeological or water quality impact assessments, in accordance with provincial

il 11

standards.”

’l 11

Section 4.3.4 - Waste Management - Policies is hereby modified by: Inserting the following new statement at the end of this section:

?l il

“Waste management systems shall be located and designed in accordance with provincial legislation and standards.”

Section 5.1.I Municipal Housing Strategy - Introduction is hereby modified b7:

Deleting the second sentence in this section and replacing it with the .1

following two sentences:

“The Municipal Housing Strategy & the Housing and Homelessness

Plan work together. The Municipal Housing Strategy has been updated to align with the 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan

developed in 2013.”

Page 7 of 13

Page 67 of 106

Section 5.2.2 Affordable Housing - Policies is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the first sentence of the second paragraph the words “housing targets for affordable housing” and replacing it with “an affordable housing target of 35%”.
Section 5.6.2 Secondary Suites - Policies is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the first sentence “may include policies to allow, where appropriate” and replacing it with “shall permit”.
Section 6 - Heritage and Culture is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the first sentence of the second paragraph “will encourage their conservation” and replacing it with “shall identify and conserve those resources’i
Section 6.1 - Heritage and Culture - General Policies is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the first paragraph “enhance whenever practical” and replacing it with a’whenever practical, enhanced,”

1 i

b. Deleting in the second paragraph “are encouraged to” and replacing it

it i

with “shall”.

c. Inserting at the end of the last sentence in the second paragraph “to ensure their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act”.

?l ij

d. Inserting the following new section after the fourth paragraph:

.1 :l

‘The County and the Townships shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources."

Section 6.2 - Archaeological Resources is hereby modified by: 11

‘i .1 l

a. Inserting into the second sentence after “significant archaeological resources” 15ncluding significant marine archaeological resources". b. Deleting in the second paragraph the word “requirements” and replacing it with “screening criteria”.

Section 7.tl Introduction is hereby modified by: a. Inserting the following as a new paragraph following the last paragraph: il

“Nothing in Section 7 is intended to limit the ability of the agricultural uses to continue”.

’l il

l (

(

Page 8 or 13

Page 68 of 106

Section 7.l.4.’l - Wetlands Introduction - Policies is hereby modified by: a.

Deleting in the first sentence of the third bullet “identify” and replacing it with aadesignate on a land use schedule".

b. Adding to the first sentence of bullet three after the words “wetlands and” the word “significant”. Adding to the second sentence of the fifth bullet after “in or adjacent to them, and” the following"a wetland evaluation prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and submitted to MNRF for approval and/or an"

d. Inserting a new bullet 6 which states: ‘Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within lands adjacent to provincially significant wetlands or significant coastal wetlands unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative

impacts on their features or their functions. Adjacent Iands shall include lands contiguous to the wetland or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative impact on the wetland. The extent of the adjacent Iands shall be defined in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective". Inserting a new bullet 7 which states:

“Development and site alteration in or adjacent to coastal wetlands (other than significant coastal wetlands) shall not be permitted unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it

’l

has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on their features or their functions. Adjacent lands shall include lands

Section 7.1.4.2 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) Introduction is hereby modified by: a.

Inserting into the second bullet the words ‘1n or adjacent to them” after the words “shall be permitted”

Inserting the following new second sentence to the second bullet:

“Adjacent lands shall include lands contiguous to the ANSI or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative Page 9 of 13

l l

contiguous to the wetland or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative impact on the wetland. The extent of the adjacent lands shall be defined in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective”.

Page 69 of 106

impact on the ANSI. The extent of the adjacent lands shall be defined in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective."

Section 7.“l .4.3 - Significant Wildlife Habitat - Policies is hereby modified by: a.

Inserting the following new third sentence to the second bullet:

“Adjacent lands shall include Iands contiguous to the habitat or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative impact on the habitat. The extent of the adjacent lands shall be defined

in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective.” 26. Section 7.1.4.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species - Policies is hereby modified by:

it :l

iit, ?j

Deleting in the second bullet of the first sentence, the word “significant”.

Deleting in its entirety the third bullet and replacing it with:

1 11

“Information regarding occurrences of endangered and threatened species will be obtained from provincial databases and used, in confidence, for development application screening purposes. The Municipality recognizes that information regarding the locations of endangered and threatened species and their habitat is incomplete.” il

Inserting the following new third sentence to the fourth bullet:

“Adjacent lands shall inc]ude lands contiguous to the habitat of endangered and threatened species or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative impact on the habitat. The extent of the adjacent Iands shall be defined in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective.”

1 11

?l l

d. Deleting in the fiffh bullet the words “as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources”. e.

Inserting the following new second sentence in the fifth bullet: :l

Page 10 of 13

“MNRF can be contacted for technical advice.”

Page 70 of 106

Section 7.1.4.6 - Significant Woodlands - Policies is hereby modified by: a. Inserting the following new third bullet:

" Township Official Plans within Ecoregion bE shall identify and protect significant woodlands. These are to be identified using criteria established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resoiyrces and Forestry.” b. Inserting the following new second sentence to the current third bullet: li

’l

“Adjacent lands shall include lands contiguous to the significant woodland or areas where it is likely that development or site alteration will have a negative impact on the woodland. The extent of the adjacent lands shall be defined in the Township Official Plans, based on approaches recommended by the Province or based on Township approaches which achieve the same objective”-

Section - 7.1.4.12 - Stewardship Planning - Introduction is hereby modified by:

a. Delete in their entirety the second and third sentences in the first

paragraph.

’l

Section 7.2.1 - Source Protection Plans is hereby modified by: a. Deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with

the following three sentences:

“The Source Water Protection Plans were developed for each major watershed in the Frontenacs. The Quinte Source Protection Plan and

Decisions made under the Planning Act shall conform to the

significant threat po?icies and have regard for other policies.”

the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plans took effect January 1, 2015 and the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan took effect April 1, 11

b. Deleting within the third sentence of the first paragraph the words “include relevant Source Protection Plan policies and standards in their” and l

replace it with “amend theif.

c. Inserting the following new second bullet into the policies section: aProhibit the establishment of new waste disposal sites or wastewater treatment plants in the Sydenham intake protection zones 1 and 2 (As identified in the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan).”

’l

l l

I i

And renumbering accordingly.

.1 i ?I

d. Inserting the following new third bullet into the policies section:

Page 11 of 13

Page 71 of 106

“Where the County is the approval authorit5r, require the submission of a notice from the Risk Management Official under Section 59 of the Clean Water Act with a// planning applications or proposed land use changes in the Sydenham intake protection zones 1 and 2 (As identified in the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan).” And renumbering accordingly.

Delete the current second bullet and replace it with the following: “Ensure that groundwater and surface water quality and quantity will not be negatively impacted by development in vulnerable areas for the protection of drinking water, including highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas (As identified in the Cataraqui Source Protection Plan).”

Section 7.3.2 Natural Hazard Policies is hereby modified by:

11 ‘I

Inserting the following introductory statement to this section:

“The County and the Townships shall consider the potential impacts of climate change that may increase the risk associated with natural l

hazards”.

b. Inserting the following at the end of the last bullet in Section 7.3.2. 1

“such as unstable soils (sensitive marine clays [leda?, organic soils) or unstable bedrock (karst topography)”. C.

Inserting the following new section: “7.3.2. 6 Hazardous Forest Types For Wildland Fire

Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of lands that are unsafe for development due to the presence of hazardous forest types for wildland fire.

il il

Development may however be permitted in lands with hazardous forest types for wildland fire where the risk is mitigated in accordance with wildland fire assessment and mitigation

standards.”

Section 8.7 - Planning Applications - Consultation and Complete Application Requirements is hereby modified by: ?l 1 ?l

Inserting into the list of studies that may be required “Geotechnical Karst Study”.

’l

Page 12 of 13

Page 72 of 106 l

Appendix “IA” - Natural Heritage System is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the legend “Provincial Significance” and replacing it with “Provincially Significant Wetland’
Appendix “2” - Designated ‘At Capacity’ Lake Trout Lakes and “Not at Capa;city” Lake Trout Lakes is hereby modified by: a. Deleting in the first bullet “Hungry Lake”.

Dated at Toronto, this

J-?

, 2016.

(?<? ? " o a? '

Elizabeth Harding ADM - MSD

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Page 13 of ‘13

ATTACHMENT #2

Page 73 of 106

Lindsay Mills Joe Gallivan JGallivan@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA January-20-16 4:34 PM Lindsay Mills

From: Sent: To:

Wayne Orr’, Iakevalley@kos.net; Kelly Pender RE: County Official Plan-No Appeals by County Council

Cc:

Subject:

Hi, Lindsay,

Thanks for your questions. Here are my comments:

1 ) Error in growth allocation - as l noted in my previous email today, l consider this to be a technical exercise that can be fixed through an amendment. I will be keeping you up to date on the MMAH discussions and response which should happen in the next couple of days.

Specific growth allocation by Township-l agree that the word “allocate” is unnecessary in the context of Frontenac County. That has been the County’s position since the beginning of putting the plan together. You may remember that MMAH originally wanted to allocate by settlement area which makes no sense for any part of the County, and because there is no hamlet that has full services. The reason I am not recommending appeal is because these numbers are not fixed. We will be updating these during every s year O.P. review so the growth numbers will change based on recent past development history.
lnfilling’ for Private Services development - in the meetings l had with MMAH, their planning staff told me that the definition of infill could be determined by each Township - my response was why even include this (even though it is a specific PPS policy) because it could raise questions and be confusing, and the County’s formal response to the MMAH draft decision was to delete this section. Although the MMAH approval still has leff this policy in place, l could not see it to be stumbling block for establishing our own planning policies for settlement areas. Also, the fact that the County will be doing a study on the viability of communal services for settlement areas (planning, Iegal, financial, technical), we may end up changing this policy section to promote communal services.
Marine Archaeology - the requirement to do such a study would be determined as part of the pre-consultation phase. With the exception of Frontenac Islands - which has a lot of shipwrecks around Garden Island (you can see them clearly on FrontenacMaps with the 2014 imagery)-l cannot see this requirement being applied on most of the waterbodies in the County. If there was something valuable from the First Nations l would expect the Algonquins to advise us. Unless there is some large wharf or pier being constructed l would be surprised if there was a need to do this work. Please check this Iink from the Ministry of Culture: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/archaeology/archaeology unde?.shtmi

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Joe

Joe Gallivan MCIP RPP 1

Page 74 of 106 Director of Planning and Economic Development County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON KOH IS0

phone 613.548.9400 extension 350 fax 613.548.8460

email igallivan@frontenaccounty.ca From: Lindsay Mills [mailto:Imills@southfrontenac.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:44 PM To: Joe Gallivan JGallivan@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA

Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Ron & Nancy Vandewal Iakevalley@kos.net Subject: RE: County Official Plan-No Appeals by County Council joe;

l have no doubt that MMAH’s comments on section 3.1 is just a typographical error. The problem is that it leaves zero growth for North Frontenac. Also policy a) already allocates 70% growth to South Frontenac so the new policy b) adds another 7% on to that.

There are 3 other things that l wonder about:

It scares me that MMAH is saying that growth ? allocated according to the above figures whereas before, they were just growth projections.

Their comments on subsection 4.2.1.6 seem to say that development on individual on-site private wells and onsite private septic systems is not permitted in settlement areas (except for infilling and rounding out of existing development). This would be a major concern since we are supposed to be directing development to hamlets. 3. Subsection 6.2 -Requires a marine archaeological study? I’m still not sure about this one. Would we require a study for any development near the water? Would it just be a literature review? I’m just not sure what it means. What do you think about the above? Lindsay

Page 75 of 106

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

Planning Department

Agenda Date: January 26, 2016 Date of Report: January 20, 2016 Subject: Closing of Road Allowance in, Part of Lot 19, Between Concessions V and VI, Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac: Ritchie

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated January 20, 2016 and consider the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance in the District of Loughborough.

Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide the background information necessary to enable the Committee to provide direction to staff regarding the closing of an untravelled Township road.

Background & Discussion: Property owners Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie, at 4819 North Shore Crescent have requested to know whether Council would agree to the closure and sale of a portion of unopened road allowance that runs east and west between Perth Road and North Shore Crescent. The property owners would like to buy the portion of road allowance to add to their property abutting to the north. Council may recall that this matter originally came to the Committee of the Whole on November 10, 2015 where Dr. Ryan, the property owner on the south, requested to buy the land. The Committee agreed in principle to selling the land and to divide it equally between the owners on the north and the south. However, the owner Dr. Ryan has now asked that it be sold to the north property owner. Attachment #1 is a copy of the letter from Dr. Ryan stating that he now wishes that the Ritchie’s take the whole portion. Attachment #2 shows the location of Ryan’s property. Attachment #3 shows the Ritchie property and the portion of unopened road allowance requested to be closed. The subject portion of road allowance is approximately 52 metres (170 ft.) long and is 0.24 of an acre in size. As seen on the attachment, the road allowance has already been closed east and west of the subject portion so it is highly unlikely that this portion would ever be required by the Township for use as a public road. In addition, Rutledge Road and North Shore Road now exist forming an east/west connection through this area making this former alignment redundant. The air photo (Attachment #4) shows that the Ritchie property on the north already has been using the road allowance and has buildings located on the road allowance. Also, the Ritchie property is small at only 0.75 acres in size. The addition of 0.24 acres of land, with his buildings already located on it, would appear to be very beneficial to them.

Direction Requested: Staff are seeking direction as to whether Council has any objections to the closure and transfer of this unused portion of road allowance. Council policy related to the sale of closed Township roads would result in a total price of approximately $2,800.00. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

Attachments RoadClosureReportRitchie

Dec. (39 2B15 %:5?PM Pl 76 of 106 Page

FPX NO. :16313512923

AITACHMENT #1 EDWARD P. RYAN, M.I)., p.c. 7 Hi<yii <:;iai< couriax’

nrlNTJNGTON, NEW YORK 1 ?743

Tr!T,: 63’(-423-6Z6 liA.Xi 6;‘jl-351-2923

NETTROIOGX::AL .ST?]RC;F:RY

p,- 9 rmr

‘f;==-d? f <a 6?c J? <L?t. 4t'6 y.o ]Lm4

C=(

hx4,p aa?,‘i w?ay 9w A? rm< 13??”?’ 4 ’ h-il , 3hbe?, ‘?y J2 tri? ?i . 5A .M"?;A?-4’-’,’ J?.b.aa7 A,? ? s i.? ys,?..

‘?,r:isld:-?x! ‘;’,-!=-@J’<[]?.i.

,)v? “:: Q ?ri ?xa-.,q,

fAA?,,.-z -“ro? -b7. t=-*-ci

-h. & A”-/A J2. A-ri’v?- Lt-e. y?.J fyvu- ?=:i

Q-<,,,??6i, L Ae? t-y,.’tH .,t y-s, ,,9L Jtrr.? Jt.y. ]*-tJ-.[ ? .nz,,>giA-=-d -

.x”= —4

:‘i-,y ,i4=,-, w,l>

Page 77 of 106 ‘S/!> !1

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

o? !j.

Sy? B

ATTACHMENT #2

??‘a I

W’

l J

L’ 4

t t

’l

Lacey L,ake

l l

4 t

l i

€

oTh

,4/

‘J

RU.l?(!:oyc

i,!I Tughborough #

g 1

1 l r

y ?

l?j P

7 y

l l

t l I

L o u g h b o r o u g?- L a k e /.

A /i

g /. j /

? Jl?

Page 78 of 106

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC ATTACHMENT #3

‘(/

N /-

W*E i,

‘rA SV; n Mffi/

“I ii . -

,i.a+/-’–

f /, l ‘{ j …, {,’. a (X= ’ al -,, =-’ X }i’i, sa ’ ‘, i I ‘-= ‘. .at , :iai S ), i ! S 1 I. -.,,.. … .’ ..’=,’. ‘y

; X-aaX / ‘i ' ii s } i’a ,a,, i..li ) ;i’il S v, al,, // ,i / , ] l ..ta %.r . ' S I,-’ S 0 laaa

’lX ’ ,, “: ‘]’ i’- . .”} ,. .- ‘XX . . .‘I.’. ‘.” l , , , ,1.. , , , , , ,. , S,S . 1, ,. / a€aati a’:.. ‘a;’ X 1. i +*./ ..-….-

-o -’%, X,( <s, } ., ’l

’l

XX 1.l a’a,,,,,,,,,,-,-…ii++.+,,,,–,, ‘SS ‘}

“l

-.-=

S " ‘% .,.-’-’-o–’ a, aii …….. X ‘i’ a% l …—’ % i .-’- a. S … . . S “’ ‘, a’ -,-’ ,.-/ . 1 ,-…–” <-

’ .-/’=’ –=’ a’”’ “7-;TCHIEPROPERTY PortiontobeClosed -a’—”-’:’-" ’ -’—= :—/-’ l

i .

i !

…—S, -l,,, …….-, –a-" %

l —a’ . ' .,,,,, ’ .. –a’a’aa’a’a’‘a’

‘S s

‘S

…-

,,!’ -#o+e .

..J" 4#. 9-

.7a" )’

,,4

.[‘aa

.l’ :l . as=.-+= .+……i,.

, / , [‘i l

a’* l i - -

,, /’%,

Loughborough i l Lake Lake ;Loughborough I

Page 79 of 106

ff,

/2,()"-? -a O>‘i

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

F’J

:Cf3?

(O? s&?-r {s= 7tk

ATTACHMENT #4

& %fw

% }

I l

1 ‘S

}

p-1

)

‘%

( 1

w-#

kl (

}

9 %

1 .1 .1

(

r'6

% 1

‘?’?

’l

Buildings on Road Allowance

“/;?/ mr 7/..

/-ff7. /./

3 C[

Fence

:’(

‘J

s mi

m m mm

‘Sl 1

1 1

Page 80 of 106

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT

PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

January 21, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

January 26, 2106

SUBJECT: Process Map for Development by Subdivision or Condominium RECOMMENDATIONS: OPEN. BACKGROUND: Staff committed to bring forward to this meeting details on the development process. The 2015 Strategic Plan established the goal of encouraging and fostering responsible growth through an effective policy framework, planning processes and managing demand for services. The Township is under significant growth pressure from subdivisions and plans of condominium and as such staff have been working to capture the development process in a visual form that outlines the timeline and functional responsibility. With the assistance of an external consultant and in conjunction with County Staff the attached process map has been developed as a guide through the development process. While it appears complicated it does serve to clarify the steps, who is responsible for what step and how long a developer can expect the step to take. By following it through an observer can see where a development is at any stage and what steps are still to take place. County staff attended a session with Township staff to assist in confirming the roles and expectations. County staff have taken the time to provide written feedback on the process map and Township staff work together with the County to finalize the document. ATTACHMENT: •

Process Map

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 81 of 106

MEMO

Date:

January 21, 2016

To:

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac

From:

Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

CC:

Lindsay Mills, Planner Township of South Frontenac

Re:

Request for Comments – Process Map for Subdivision/Condominium Process

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to participate in your Subdivision/Condominium process mapping exercise. The County shares your interest in improving this process for the good of citizens and developers. This is an important issue that needs to be open and transparent for all parties. With our participation in this process and our comments provided below, it is our hope that Township and County planning staff will be able to present a consistent and unified front to developers and citizens and that our decisions represent the best possible standards of good planning. Our comments are submitted with two provisos:

The County is also undertaking a review of our process as part of our continuous improvement/Lean program. We will review our preliminary findings shortly with you and expect that our process improvements will dovetail with your processes.

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, Ontario, Canada K0H 1S0 t. 613.548.9400 f. 613.548.8460 www.frontenaccounty.ca

Page 82 of 106 As well, we are working with other Counties in Eastern Ontario to review current practices and identify industry best practice. 2. As you are aware, recent changes to the Planning Act (Bill 73) require municipalities to appoint a planning committee with at a minimum, one public member. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for our two municipalities that will inevitably change the process outlined. Our comments are as follows:

General: It is our opinion that with the County Official Plan now approved by MMAH, it is critical for a developer to be advised at the initial stages that the subdivision proposal must be consistent with both the Township and County Official Plans. As well, the process needs to make clear that the County of Frontenac is the approval authority for plans of subdivisions and condominiums. County Council (and perhaps at some point a Planning Committee) are bound by the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statements and the recently approved County Official Plan to provide the decision body with an opinion that represents good planning and take into account both regional and Provincial interests. Towards that end, it is critical that the County is involved early and throughout the process. This will ensure that consistent messaging is being sent to citizens, developers and our Councils. Recommendation: That a County staff member be involved any preconsultation meetings with any developer proposing to bring forward a subdivision or related planning application in order to ensure that clear, timely and consistent messaging is being sent to the developer regarding such things as timelines and background reports. For clarity, this involves any meetings held prior to the formal pre-consultation meeting with all agencies at the table.
Township Development Team: We agree and support the role of a Township Development team. We have seen this work well in other jurisdictions. We would respectfully suggest that depending upon the nature and type of applications being reviewed by the team that other interest groups, such as Conservation Authorities, Health Unit, and the County be invited to participate early in the process. Again, with the view towards ensuring the clear, timely and consistent messaging is being sent to the developer. In our opinion, it is imperative that the developer is provided clear advice as early as possible in the process in order to ensure the highest quality application is received. Recommendation: That South Frontenac consider adding membership to include other comment agencies to Township Development Team, on as required basis, in order to ensure that all interests are conveyed to the developer as early as possible in the planning process.

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, Ontario, Canada K0H 1S0 t. 613.548.9400 f. 613.548.8460 www.frontenaccounty.ca

Page 83 of 106 3. County Role: We agree and support that it should be clear to all reading the Township process map that County is the approval authority for applications. Having said that, the map refers to an “approval process”. In the interest of clarity, it should reflect that Township comments/decisions are referred to the County for consideration, rather than “approval”. (i.e., bottom of page 2 of process map – County of Frontenac “commences the approval process”) Recommendation: That the process map make clear that the County of Frontenac is the decision making body for plans of subdivision and plans of condominium and that the process engaged in by the County is a “consideration” process, not an “approval” process. 4. Peer Review: The process map does not address the issue of peer review. We would suggest that our customers are not well served by the current system as we do not present a united front in this regard. Multiple peer reviews are both costly and time consuming and we should make best efforts to streamline this process. Recommendation: That the Township and the County work together to develop a peer review protocol that ensures a timely, consistent and impartial peer review process. 5. Timing: We fully recognize that often plans of subdivision/condominium applications are accompanied by parallel Township planning applications, however, with developers having the ability to appeal non-decisions there should be a mechanism for the County to make a decision in the absence of a decision/recommendation by the Township. This will help protect the financial interests of the other three Townships. Recommendation: That the process map recognize that in the absence of a decision/recommendation from the Township that the County will consider applications in a timely manner. Finally, with the upcoming changes to the Planning Act, approval of the County Official Plan, and both the Township and the County undergoing a review to improve our subdivision/condominium processes, we would recommend that we commit to further review within the next four to six months to finalize and integrate our processes. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. We remain available to provide clarification or attend further meetings at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted.

Joe Gallivan Kelly Pender.

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, Ontario, Canada K0H 1S0 t. 613.548.9400 f. 613.548.8460 www.frontenaccounty.ca

Subdivision / Condominium Development Process Map

(Final Version 2015-1230) page 1 of 3

Page 84 of 106

Subdivision / Condominium Development Process Map

(Final Version 2015-1230) page 2 of 3

Page 85 of 106

Subdivision / Condominium Development Process Map

(Final Version 2015-1230) page 3 of 3

Page 86 of 106

Page 87 of 106

January'17,20'16 By E-mail Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO

Attention: MayorVandewal Councillors Lind3ay Mills, Planner Wayne Orr, Clerk Dear Mayor, Councillors, Mr. Mills and Mr. Orr:

Re: Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, Portland Dist ict, Township of South Frontenac ProposEd Subdivision Development

Dear Mayor and Councillors:

We are writing with respect to ltem # 8d on Council’s January 19, 2016 Agenda. Under this item appears a letter ftom ASC Environmental to Lindsay Mills, Planner, dated December 3, 2015, concerning the proposed Hartington subdivision matter. We confirm we were not provided with a copy of this correspondence until the posting ofthe Agenda to the Township’s website on Thursday, January 14, 2016, over a month following the date of the said ASC letter. We are dismayed at the lateness ofthe disclosure ofthis letter, which has prevented the community from being given a fuir and reasonable oppodunity to seek further input from our consultant, Mclntosh Perry, or to make further verbal representations to council regarding the contents of the said letter, with which the community adamantly disagrees. Therefore, prior to Council making a decision regarding Mr. Mills’ Planning Report concerning this mafter, the community wishes to make the following written submissions:

l. NITRATES - Mclntosh Perry’s November 23, 2015, report at point # 6 provides

detailed reasons as to why it is not reasonable in the circumstances to discount the 4.21 mg/L nitrate-nitrate concentration reading as an outlier and why this “conservative, detected and reported concentration” should be used in determining site capacity ASC was invited by Mclntosh Perry to explain why the subject reading was an outlier and to date has failed to do so, instead attempting to invoke an alternate section of MOECC Procedural Guideline D-5-4.

Page 88 of 106 2

A copy of Section 5.1 of Procedure D-5-4, “Technical Guideline for lndividual on-site Sewage Systems: Water Quality lmpact Risk Assessment”, to which ASC refers is aftached hereto as “Appendix 1”. This section states that Approval Authorities should only consider support for individual on-site sewage systems where the proponent and/or the consultant has satisfied items a). b). c) and d). VMth respect to item c) ASC states “elevated background nitrate levels can be discounted if they are as a result of past agricultural operations” and they suggest that

“seasonal crop spraying of nitrogen rich fertilizers and herbicides related to extensive agricultural activity over a number of years” on the subject property is a contributing factor to the observed nitrate levels. The community strongly disagrees with ASC’S explanation of the wording of subsection c). As is evident from the attached reproduction ofthe said wording, subsection c) actually states the Ministry will not normally support development in areas where background nitrate-nitrogen concentrations exceed 1omg/L and where said concentrations are between 0 and ‘10 mq/L, thev mav also decide not to suDDort develoDment if the proponent’s consultant cannot provide a reasonable exDlanation for the existinq levels of nitrate concentration in the qroundwater. The guideline does not state that background nitrate levels can be discounted, but rather that the proponent can argue said levels will decline after development, if the proponent demonstrates said levels are a result of historical agricultural practices on the site.

ASC’s December 3,2015, correspondence provides no evidence to demonstrate their claim that the background nitrate levels are the result of historical agricultural practices on the site or that they will decline after development. ln fact, the community has witnessed soybean grown on the subject property for several years with hay having been grown prior to that. Pursuant to the lnternational Plant Nutrition lnstitute article attached hereto as ‘Appendix 2”, soybeans “actually deplete, rather than increase, soil nitrate levels”, minimizing the effects on groundwater. As a result the community remains extremely concerned that the elevated levels of nitrates in the water on the subject site are not attenuating and may be due to factors such as lower than predicted levels of groundwater, reducing the site’s capacity to dilute nitrates. This is especially so in light ofthe numerous accounts of water quantity issues expressed by community members on many prior occasions. lt is important to note that even using ASC’S own calculations, they have acknowledged that the nitrate concentration on the 11 82 hectares, which are the subject matter of the current proposal is still 9 mg/L, barely under the 10 mg/L threshold set out in section 5.1c) of the aftached MOE D-5-4 Guideline. ln this regard, the community is also concerned that subparagraph d) of MOE D-5-4 Guideline has been ignored. Paragraphs a) to d) of section 5.1 are to be read together. The “and” at the end of paragraph c) means it must be satisfied in conjunction with paragraph d). Section 5.1 states Approval Authorities should only consider support for development applications involving individual on-site sewage systems where the proponent and/or the consultant has, as per paragraph d), “demonstrated that the area

Page 89 of 106 3

is not obviouslv hydroqeoloqicallv sensitive (for example, karstic areas, areas of fractured bedrock exposed at surface. areas of thin soil cover. or areas of hiqhly permeable soils)”. (emphasis added) The community is having a hard time reconciling the numerous comments that appear in both ASC’S reports and Malroz’s reviews, which confirm the subject site to be sensitive, with Mr. Mills’ suggestion that all issues have been resolved, in light of paragraph 5.1d) of D-5-4. This is especially troubling in light of the elevated background levels of nitrates acknowledged in ASC’S December 3, 20'15, correspondence. “The propedy has been identified as a moderate to hqhly vulnerable aquifer due to the variable nature of the underlying fractured limestone bedrock aquifer.” (ASC Hydrogeology Report dated October 31, 2013, page 6) “We concur with Mclntosh Peny that based on the sife sersitivity and water quality a higher level of investqafion is required.” (Malrcz lefier to Peter Young dated September 24, 2015, page 5)

HYDROCARBONS - Mclntosh Perry’s November 23, 2015, report states that analysis of the site’s groundwater for petroleum related parameters is required to confirm suitability for potable purposes. Mclntosh Perry made this assertion despite being provided with Specialized Onsite Services lnc. report dated September 28, 2015, and as such being aware of the comments therein regarding groundwater flow, as well as the identification of contaminants in a well at the westerly perimeter ofthe subject site, adjacent to Hwy 38. Failure to conduct the testing required as stated by Mclntosh Perry would be unreasonable in the circumstances.
HYDRO FRACTURING - ASC has failed to respond to numerous detailed requests

by both Mclntosh Perry and Malroz regarding whether hydro fracturing was used on the subject site. To date the community’s position that hydro fracturing was used on the subject site has not been refuted. lt appears unreasonable to proceed with this proposalwithout requiring the proponent to respond to both Malroz’s and Mclntosh Perry’s inquiries in this regard.

WELL BY WELL HYDROGEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS - Mr. Mills report to Council dated January 13, 2016, attached to the January 19, 2016 Council Agenda, fails to include a well by well hydrogeological analysis in the proposed draft plan conditions. While Mr. Mills report does state at proposed draft plan condition # 16 that all conditions outlined in Quinte Conservation Authority’s June 2, 2015 letter to the County of Frontenac be addressed, this correspondence from Quinte, which is attached hereto as “Appendix 3”, does not contain any conditions. Rather it states:

‘As discussed the testing completed on the site has demonstrated variable hydrogeological conditions. To address this variability the p@pa!eE[i!9!su!1aIt has Droposed that a hydrogeological assessment be completed on each

Page 90 of 106 4

individual lot by a qualified hydrogeologist to ensure that a suitable water supply is available. Based on this recommendation our office would advise that the Municipality obtain assurance of what each individual hvdrooeological assessment would be comprised of how such an assessment would address adverse conditions. Potential adverse conditions could include but not necessarily limited to: no water supply available, a wellthat intercepts water of unacceptable quality such as salt, or unacceptable well interference with a neighbouring well." (emphasis added - Quinte letter dated June 2, 2015, page 1) The community believes it is essential the proponent provide the assurances advised by Quinte, which to date have not yet been provided or apparently required. It is also important to note that Mclntosh Perry’s concerns regarding the interval of testing required pursuant to MOECC Procedural Guideline D-5-5 also has not been addressed, nor have their concerns regarding the use of two separate aquifers in the capacity results for test well TW02.

5, HEALTH UNIT - Mr. Mills report to Council dated January.l3, 2015, attached to the January 19, 2016 Council Agenda, refers at draft plan condition # 13, to KFL&A Public Health’s December 12,2014 c.orespondence and the recommendations contained therein. As the proponent did not revise his application untilfollowing the public meeting in July of 2015, KFL&A Public Health’s recommendations pertain to the original proposal. Due to the proponent’s revisions to the original proposal, as well as the proponent’s revised staggered well locations detailed in ASC’S March 23, 2015 letter to the proponent in response to Malroz’s peer review, the community believes KFL&A Public Health should be requested to provide an updated report after reviewing the said revisions.

FURTHER LACK OF DISCLOSURE - Mr. Mills said report references an August 10, 2015 Preliminary Stormwater Management Report on page 3 and an ASC letter dated October 7, 2015, updating their October 31, 2013, Hydrogeological report. We have not been provided with copies of these documents despite requests to both the County and the Township requesting all materials available concerning this matter. We further confirm the County website, to which the community has been directed for the disclosure of documents, has not been updated since September 2015 and does not contain these documents.
COMMUNITY cONCERNS - Since first being made aware of the proponent’s intentions for the subject property, the community has expressed numerous concerns. These concerns have included a genuine concern for the drainage, or lack thereof, on the subject site. Based on the bits and pieces of information the community has been able to gather at various meetings, as it has not been provided with the abovereferenced August ‘10, 2015 Preliminary Stormwater Management Report or revised Subdivision Application, it appears that instead of responding to these concerns the proponent has reduced the Stormwater Management measures he plans to implement. This is extremely concerning to the community. As previously emphasized, the

Page 91 of 106 5

community is concerned with the drainage issues experienced on other properties the proponent has developed. Residents on Petworth Road currently residing in a home built by the proponent attended the public meeting in July 2015 and explained the level of water they experienced in their yard even after significant efforts to miligate same. Attached hereto as “Appendix 4’ is a further photograph of a property recently built by the proponent on Hwy 38 north of Boyce Road, which demonstrates similar drainage issues. The use of the Pleasant Valley Drain is objectionable to the community, yet no steps have been taken to address the community’s concerns. The same is true of the community’s concems for the traffic situation on Hwy 38, the adequacy of municipal services such as waste disposal, the adequacy of school sites, whether the proposed subdivision is in the public interest, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots, the aesthetics of the development etc. All concerns raised are valid, significant and to which regard shall be had pursuant to section 50.1(24) of the Planning Acf, yet none have been adequately addressed in Mr. Mills’ report, which fails to explain how any of the public input affected his recommendation concerning this matter. ln light of the frequency of references to the proponent’s reports and the absence of reference to the community’s concerns, there appears to be an apprehension of bias concerning this matter.

We again reiterate the contents of our August 24, 2015, correspondence and the content of the reports submitted by Mclntosh Perry, which assert that the subject property cannot reasonably support more than 7-8 lots. ln light of the continued concerns expressed therein and set out above, it appears to be patently unreasonable for the municipality to approve this proposal as amended. Yours truly,

Wade Leonard

cc:

Charlie Labarge

Foxton

Joe Gallivan, Frontenac County Planner Ministry ofthe Environment (Kyle Stephenson, District Engineer)

Page 92 of 106

APPENDIX 1

5.0 GROUNDWATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN NON-DESIGNATED AREAS 5.1 General Evaluation The groundwater impact assessment will address the ability of the lands, identified by and restricted to the development proposal document, to treat sewage effluent to meet acceptable limits. This assessment1, and the assessment described in the “Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment”, should be completed and submitted together as one document. Approval Authorities (i.e. the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and/or designate) should only consider support for development applications involving individual on-site sewage systems where the proponent and/or the consultant has: a)

in conjunction with the municipality, defended the use of private services to the satisfaction of the MOEE Regional Director in accordance with the Provincial Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements, particularly, the Policy Statement and Implementation Guideline B7, Planning for Sewage and Water Services, and the Policy Statements and Implementation Guidelines B8 through B11, Growth and Settlement;

demonstrated to the local Health Unit (or to the MOEE, in those areas where MOEE administers the Part VIII Program) that the site complies with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 358 and related policies and guidelines;

determined the representative existing background nitrate-nitrogen levels in the receiving groundwater. This determination will involve the collection of groundwater samples from various locations on and adjacent to the development site. The consultant must provide a clear rationale for the number of times the site is sampled, the period of time over which the sampling has been undertaken (capturing seasonal variations), and the manner in which this information is used in the assessment. The consultant must discuss the existing background nitrate-nitrogen concentrations relative to nitrate sources, and the susceptibility of groundwater to contamination. The Ministry will normally not support development in areas

1 Please note that this hydrogeologic study is not the assessment described in the MOEE “Manual of Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for On-Site Sewage Systems.” That assessment determines the hydraulic capability of the soil to disperse effluent from a leaching bed on a continuous basis, and does not take into account the potential for contamination of the groundwater. However, it is recommended that this impact prediction not be conducted in isolation from the requirements of this and other related guidelines.

Page 93 of 106

where background nitrate-nitrogen concentrations exceed 10 mg/L. Where nitrate concentrations between 0 and 10 mg/L are found, the MOEE may also decide not to support development if the proponent’s consultant cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the existing levels of nitrate concentration in the groundwater. However, if it can be demonstrated that existing levels of nitrates are the result of historical agricultural practices on the site (for example farming, feed lot, etc.), the proponent may be able to argue that the nitrate levels will decline after development, and; d)

demonstrated that the area is not obviously hydrogeologically sensitive (for example, karstic areas, areas of fractured bedrock exposed at surface, areas of thin soil cover, or areas of highly permeable soils).

It is not the intent of MOEE to promote the development of areas with high infiltration rates (for example, sandy overburden deposits). Due to lack of effective effluent treatment, proposed development on individual on-site systems should not be approved in soils which have high infiltration rates.

APPENDIX 2

Plant Nutrition

TODAY

Better Crops, Better Environment…through Science

Page 94 of 106 From Scienti c Staff of the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 550 Norcross, Georgia 30092-2844 USA Phone: 770-447-0335 Fax: 770-448-0439 E-mail: info@ipni.net Website: www.ipni.net

Winter 2011, No. 4

THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE NITROGEN CREDIT FOR SOYBEANS “Take a N credit for corn following soybean.” This statement, or something like it, is common to most N recommendations for corn. The idea is that after a soybean crop, corn doesn’t need as much fertilizer N. The common perception is that because soybean is a legume, it adds to the overall N supply in the soil. Let’s take a closer look at what is going on with this credit. The credit itself amounts to a reduction in fertilizer N ranging somewhere between 20 and 60 lb N/A, depending on the recommendation system. It can even be more in some cases. Some universities recommend a flat rate reduction, while others vary the credit based on soybean yield. Still others use a combination of the two. Common to all of them is that the credit is based on a comparison to a continuous corn system, which typically takes more N to grow a corn crop to the same yield level. So does corn following soybean use less N or should we really think of it as the continuous corn crop needing more N? It all depends on which one is used as the basis of comparison. A continuous corn crop has more residue that is higher in C. Soil N can be immobilized for a time by soil microorganisms as they utilize the C in this residue, reducing the N available in the soil. Adding the additional 20 to 60 lb N/A makes up for the immobilized N and may also speed the organic matter mineralization process. Contrary to common perception, levels of nitrate in the soil are often lower after a soybean crop than they are after a corn crop. Soybeans get their N either from the nitrate already present in the soil or from the N fixed by the bacteria present in the nodules. The more nitrate present in the soil, the less comes from the nodules. Consequently, soybeans actually deplete, rather than increase, soil nitrate levels. So where does the “extra” N come from following a soybean crop? It is currently thought that exudates from soybean roots, as well as the roots themselves, increase a pool of organic N that is easily mineralizable. In the Midwest and Northern Corn Belt, this N becomes available early enough in the season that it reduces the fertilizer N needed, leading to the credit. However, in the warmer, more humid southeast U.S., this N can be mineralized too early in the season, resulting in no credit. In fact, many states in the southeast U.S. do not have a soybean credit. The soybean credit therefore appears to have more to do with the soybean root system than with the above-ground stem, leaf, and pod residue left after harvest. Consequently, a late season disaster like hail damage wouldn’t be expected to reduce the N credit much if the crop was near maturity when it happened. In fact, it likely increases the credit since the high N soybean seed is left in the field and will quickly mineralize once contact with the soil occurs. The magnitude of this credit will be influenced by the duration of warm soil temperatures and the amount of precipitation received afterward in the fall and subsequently in the spring. The N credit is more than a number. Although it is a simple part of recommendations, it actually reflects a complex set of reactions in soils. Having a better understanding of the science behind the credit can help advisers make adjustments under changing conditions. –TSM– For more information, contact Dr. T. Scott Murrell, Northcentral Director, IPNI, 1851 Secretariat Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47906. Phone: (765) 413-3343. E-mail: smurrell@ipni.net. Abbreviations: N = nitrogen, C= carbon.

Note: Plant Nutrition TODAY articles are available online at the IPNI website: www.ipni.net/pnt

Page 95 of 106

VIA EMAIL June 2, 2015 Peter Young Community Planner County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 Dear Mr. Young: Re:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision File 10T-2013/002 (Terry Grant Construction) Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 Geographic Township of Portland, Municipality of South Frontenac Applicant: 1278804 Ontario Inc.

Further to our last correspondence (dated April 30, 2015), staff of the Conservation Authority have reviewed additional information regarding the hydrogeological assessment of the above referenced property (prepared by ASC Environmental, dated May 20, 2015). This correspondence was prepared in response to hydrogeological comments provided by Quinte Conservation in a memo dated May 6, 2015. Following review of the May 20, 2015 correspondence, telephone conversations were held between the undersigned and both Paul Johnston of ASC Environmental and John Pyke of Malroz (peer review agent for the municipality). As discussed the testing completed on the site has demonstrated variable hydrogeological conditions. To address this variability the proponent’s consultant has proposed that a hydrogeological assessment be completed on each individual lot by a qualified hydrogeologist to ensure that a suitable water supply is available. Based on this recommendation our office would advise that the Municipality obtain assurance of what each individual hydrogeological assessment would be comprised of how such an assessment would address adverse conditions. Potential adverse conditions could include but not necessarily limited to: no water supply available, a well that intercepts water of unacceptable quality such as salt, or unacceptable well interference with a neighbouring well. In reference to site variability and given that some test wells on the property intercepted water of unacceptable quality (salt water) we are concerned that the use of such wells could result in the contamination of a neighbouring well of good quality. Therefore we do not recommend the use of wells with quality that does not meet the requirements of Ministry of the Environment Guidelines D-5-5 (August, 1996). Any well that does not

Page 1 of 2

Page 96 of 106

meet this requirement must be suitably decommissioned in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903. We would recommend that the above be reviewed with your peer review consultant and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely,

Mark Boone, P.Geo Hydrogeologist /mb c.

ASC Environmental

Page 2 of 2

Page 97 of 106

APPENDIX 4

Page 98 of 106 From: Ruth Gültekin [mailto:ruth.gultekin@hotmail.com] Sent: January-18-16 2:21 PM To: councillorrevill@gmail.com; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; elbe@web.ca; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; robinsonw@bell.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com Cc: Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; pyoung@frontenaccounty.ca; jgallivan@frontenaccounty.ca; UMUT GULTEKIN umutgultekin@hotmail.com Subject: Township of Frontenac/Hartington Revised Plan of Subdivision Recommendation to County Council

Councillors, yet again, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed plan of subdivision within the Township of South Frontenac in Frontenac County. I just have just recently learned that Council will be deciding on what recommendation to forward to Frontenac County on the subject of the proposed Hartington subdivision tomorrow, January 19, 2016. It is my understanding that the Township Council will be making its decision based on the Planning Report prepared by the Township Planner, Lindsay Mills . In this regard, I am concerned that Mr. Mills has not considered all of the information presented to him, but simply the information provided by Mr. Grant’s retained consultants, Fotenn and ASC Environmental, as well as the Township’s consultant Malroz. Councillors, frequently I have expressed very grave concerns about this proposed plan of subdivision. For the record, I have expressed concerns regarding the density of the plan of subdivision. More particularly, I am concerned about the proposed reduction of the lot frontages to 45 metres and the associated implications of having private sewage systems in such close proximity to one another as well as adjacent water wells. I have expressed concerns regarding the vulnerability of the aquifer and its ability to support an addition 13 households within such a limited area. Admittedly, the hydrogeology of the area proposed for the residential subdivision is very sensitive and both ASC and Malroz Engineering acknowledge that there is interference between internal wells, some of significant proportions, as well as off-site wells. I have also expressed concerns regarding the nitrate concentrations detected in groundwater tested on the site. ASC stated that they “believe” the nitrate concentration of 4.21 mg/L in TW10 to be an outlier and therefore is not representative at of the background concentrations at the property. However, ASC still provides no justification for their belief. ASC goes on to say that they have utilized the full 45 hectare property in their nitrate dilution calculation because it is currently vacant, but this is not a valid assumption either. McIntosh Perry suggests using the spatial area for the 13 northernmost lots (1 to 6 and 41 to 47; 10.72 ha) and the 4.21 mg/L detected nitrate-nitrite concentration in the assessment. On that basis, McIntosh Perry calculates a lot density of 7-8 lots (7.7) for this portion based on nitrate dilution. Given all of the information presented to you, it is evident that the highly sensitive aquifer is unable to support 13 additional households, without negatively affecting the water quality and quantity of the neighbouring residents. Based on the existing concentrations of nitrate in groundwater in the area of the proposed subdivision, the additional nutrient loading from 13 additional private sanitary waste streams will most certainly degrade the existing quality of water. Based on the water yields of 1 ½ GPM to 10 GPM with the average around 3 to 4 GPM, it is evident that many if not most of the water wells will be unable to sustain a household without some level of hydro-fracturing. Consequently, I am urging Council to examine all of the information presented to them, not simply the recommendations of Mr. Mills. I am confident that if you take the time to objectively examine all of the information presented to you, you will agreed that Mr. Grant’s proposal, in its present form, is not feasible given the density of the homes, the sensitivity of the aquifer and the concentration of nitrate found in the groundwater. As always, warmest regards, Ruth L. Gultekin, B.Sc., EP 4023 Boyce Road Hartington, ON K0H 1W0 (613) 372-5689

Page 99 of 106

L 8 0

PO Box 1321 Kingston Main Kingston, ON K7L5C6

S mo

info@|ovingspoonfu|.org (613) 507—8848

November 2, 2015

Dear United Way of KFL&A staff and members of the community, Re: Submission

of Good Food, A Community Consultation

and Plan

Loving Spoonful is pleased to submit this, the first regional community consultation on food security across KFL&A, Good F ood A CommunityConsultation and Plan, for your use. This project was led by a Steering Committee of informed community partners headed by Loving Spoonful; the consultations and reporting were led by consultant Janice Link. The project was funded by the Community Investment Fund of the United Way of KFL&A and the City of Kingston. All of the project partners are grateful to the funders. without whom this important report would not be possible.

Please find attached two documents:

The report Good Food, Community Consultation and Plan, Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington
An infographicpresenting some of the major ?ndings of this process. The authors felt this infographic would increase the readership of the major findings and the recognition of the report. The authors wished to present this report and infographic with some context for the reader. 0 309 people participated in this consultation process. The report summarizes the ?ndings from the focus groups, individual interviews and surveys. Minutes from the focus groups and interviews and all of the completed surveys are on ?le at Loving Spoonful and will be made available to future researchers while protecting the privacy of the individuals who participated. 0 A caveat about percentages ofrespondents surveyed (e.g., pp. 19-20). The participants in this consultation came from across the food security spectrum. Those in food—insecuresituations made up the bulk of those involved, but participants also included those providing emergency food service, researchers in food security, dieticians, elected officials, and many citizens who are interested in or concerned about food security (see Appendix 1). In some cases, such as surveys from South Frontenac, the participants were primarily those currently using the South Frontenac Community Services Corporation Food Bank. As such, the percentages reported of people who are food insecure, or who took specific actions to address food security are not statistically representative. Rather they are indicative of the range of issues faced by a broad spectrum of individuals across the region. 0 Input from organizations and individuals across Kingston and Frontenac County was good. The consultant faced numerous challenges engaging groups in Lennox & Addington despite many efforts. However, the consultant did report that the responses heard across Frontenac County and Lennox and Addington were very similar, so believes that a good regional picture has been captured.

Page 100 of 106

L 8 S I

PO Box 1321 Kingston Main Kingston, ON K7L5C6

info@lovingspoonful.org (613) 507-8848

After completing the report, it was requested that we identify that Kingston does have a farmers market that makes prices affordable for low—incomeearners. The Community Harvest Market has been keeping prices low by both providing vouchers and by growing its own produce to sell at low prices. It has been in operation in North Kingston for seven years.

F inally, it was the original intent of this project to produce an action plan to address food insecurity based on the input gleaned from participants in this consultation process. As we heard from people across the board, however, it became clear that developing an action plan will require an additional, more collaborative step: a group of key people who are informed about food security must examine the barriers identi?ed in this report and work with those who are able to make large—scalechanges to identify how to address them. We recommend that a group of people be brought together who can develop this plan within the next year to 18 months. Key people to engage to develop the plan should include some active food providers (directors of meal programs or food providing agencies), some people who are experiencing or have experienced food insecurity, representatives from the Food Policy Council for KFL&A and representatives who can in?uence change on a municipal or provincial level.

Again, I wish to express my gratitude to be able to undeitake this important first step in increasing local food security. Thank you to the United Way of KF L&A, the City of Kingston, consultant Janice Link, and the Steering Committee for this project.

Sincerely,

”

Mara Shaw Executive Director Loving Spoonful

n a l d P o d o n F a d n o i t a Goo t ul

Page 101 of 106

s u n o C y t i n u Comm

Produced by Loving Spoonful with funding from the Community Investment Fund of the City of Kingston and United Way of KFL&A

Food security exists “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”* 4 million Canadians, including 1.6 million children are food insecure. That’s 13% of Canadian households.**

In Kingston: Over 20,000 people live in poverty (below the Low-Income Measure) making healthy food inaccessible.*** Almost 1 in 6

It costs a family of 4 $846 per month to buy the healthy food they need in KFL&A.****

Food security is a priority to: Kingston City Council The United Way of KFL&A The Community Foundation of Kingston & Area Kingston Food Providers Food Policy Council for KFL&A

Ac Discess tan or ce

es Attitud a m ig t &S ge wled o n K ills & sk

Many local non-profits

But there are many barriers to kingston residents accessing it… *Source: The Conference Board of Canada’s report, Enough for All: Household Food Security in Canada, 2013 **Source: PROOF Report, Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2013 ***Source: City of Kingston Report on Poverty, 2013 ****Source: KFL&A The Cost of Eating Healthy, 2014

r ty Pove

Transportation

r ical o Phys ealth al h Ment

Page 102 of 106

Barriers to food security:

Skills: “When my parents separated, my mother didn’t know how to plan for a week of food. It’s complicated!” There is a need for Home Economics.

Poverty: 81% of people who can’t buy the food they want say price is a barrier. “Purchasing fresh fruit, vegetables and meat is rarely possible when on a fixed or low income.”

Transportation: “It can take most of a day to take the bus to the other side of town to get groceries. It’s exhausting.”

Physical/Mental Health: “Hunger is painful; loneliness is more painful.” Several clients experience many health issues and when you are living on the edge you need the best health care and nutrition.

Recommendations:

Stigma: People are very vocal about shaming people on OW and ODSP. “Us” and “them” mentality. Housing: Bulk food is cheaper, but with no storage, food is easily spoiled and wasted. Housing is not affordable.

Convene knowledgeable representatives and people with direct experience of food insecurity to develop appropriate responses to the issues identified.
Explore ways to increase awareness and advocate for improving financial assistance for people living in poverty.
Evaluate options to reduce barriers to transportation to food outlets.
Develop a Food Literacy Plan that addresses food skills for basic, affordable, healthy cooking.
Research options to provide food vouchers and gift cards to increase the dignity associated with food relief programs and improve peoples’ food literacy skills.
Research and evaluate programs that offer subsidies or property tax credits to local businesses and food retailers that could improve access and affordability of fresh fruit, vegetables and meat.
Examine the viability of a Good Food Centre as an inclusive approach to food programs within KFL&A.

Page 103 of 106

January 11, 2016 Heads of Council: A sustainable OMERS Plan benefits all OMERS employer sponsors and plan members, and is an important factor in retirement security and in attracting and retaining an effective workforce. Market volatility, changing plan assumptions and developments in the broader pension environment are converging to pose continuing challenges to OMERS Plan sustainability and funding. OMERS municipal employers have been strong advocates of moving away from the historical approach of simply increasing contribution rates to manage sustainability challenges, because of the need to balance increasing OMERS expenditures with other financial pressures in the delivery of core municipal services. Our strongest assets are the AMO appointed representatives on each of the OMERS Administration Corporation (OAC) and Sponsors Corporation (SC) Boards. It is essential that these four representatives have the strategic and technical tools, legal and actuarial research and advice to advance municipal interests. Municipal sector contributions to MEPCO make this possible. Plan design decisions at the SC Board are the products of negotiations and compromise and in order for municipal employers to have the greatest impact in these discussions, other plan sponsors need to clearly understand municipal constraints and perspectives. MEPCO’s work and advice were important to the adoption of the OMERS Funding Management Strategy (FMS), an improvement on the initial plan design strategy. New complex challenges regarding the impacts of the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) and CPP expansion on the OMERS Plan are on the horizon. The FMS describes what will happen to benefits and contributions when the OMERS Plan moves through periods of funding deficit or surplus. The strategy offers employers and employees more predictability, sets out a cap on contribution rates and provides for a reserve fund. The 2014 MEPCO Annual Report, available at www.mepco.ca provides more FMS information, as well as an update on recent MEPCO activities. Every OMERS municipal employer benefits from MEPCO’s work. We are asking you to renew your support for MEPCO so that the Centre can continue to do its work in representing the municipal governments of Ontario on pension matters. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to Bruce McLeod, MEPCO Coordinator, 416-971-9856 ext. 350. Yours truly,

MEPCO Board Chair Cc:

CAOs, DSSABs

200 University Ave. Suite 801 Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6

www.mepco.ca mepco@mepco.ca

Tel 416. 971.9856 Fax 416. 971.6191

Toll Free in Ontario 877.426.6527

Page 104 of 106

Page 105 of 106

Page 106 of 106

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.