Published January 27, 2015

Word Count 26127 words

Reading Time 123 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: January 27, 2015 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2015/Committee of the Whole - 27 Jan 2015 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, January 27, 2015 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session- nil

***Recess *** - n/a

Delegations

(a)

Conceptual Design for a Replacement Fire Station

(b)

Riggs Engineering - “The Point” Shoreline Rehabilitation

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Public Works Initiatives

103 111

(b)

Lindsay MIlls, Planner, re: Discussion on Renaming Lady Bush Lane, Part Lot 1, Concession IV, Bedford District

112 115

(c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, Possible Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 8, Concession XII, Bedford District - Amey

116 121

(d)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Application for an Official Plan Amendment to Expand a Quarry in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI, Portland District, Jackson’s Earth Stones Ltd.

122 138

(e)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Volunteer Firefighter Honorarium

139

(f)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Recreation Committee Compensation

140

(g)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Chain of Office

141 142

Reports for Information

(a)

Rick Chesebrough, Fire Chief, re: 4th Quarter Report for 2014

143

(b)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Public Information Center for the Road 38 Corridor Study in Verona

144

(c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Shoreline Restoration

145

3 - 78 79 102

Page 2 of 165

and Enhancement - The Point 8

Rise & Report

(a)

County Council

(b)

Arena Board

(c)

Police Services Board

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

Johnston Point Development - Delegation Notes from January 13, 2015 COW Meeting

New Business

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

146 165

Page 3 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Conceptual Design for a Replacement Fire Station

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 4 of 165

AW D E

A R C H I T E C T

1458 KING STREET B E T H A N Y O N TA R I O L 0 A 1 A 0 7 0 5 2 7 7 9 4 9 0

September 30, 2014 Mr. Wayne Orr, C.A.O. Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street South Sydneham, Ontario K0H 2T0 re: Township of South Frontenac - Conceptual Design for Replacement Fire Station

Conceptual Design for a Replacement Fire Station Dear Wayne, We are pleased to submit the final report for the Conceptual Design for the proposed replacement a fire station for the Township of South Frontenac. The following represents the result of our discussions with stakeholders and our own experience in planning and construction of fire and rescue facilities. We appreciate all the input and assistance from the team of stakeholders and look forward to presenting our report to Council.

Sincerely,

Ron Awde BES BARCH OAA AAA MAIBC MRAIC RA/re

Page 5 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Covering Letter

AWDE September 30, 2014

Executive Summary

Scope of Study

Process

Stakeholder Input

Major Elements

Area Requirements

Plan Options • Option A - Back In Concept • Option B - Drive Through Concept

9 10

Siting Options • Existing Site Characteristics - Perth Road Crescent • Option A - Perth Road Crescent Site • Site Characteristics - ‘Greenfields’ Site • Option B - ‘Greenfields’ Site

11 12 13 14

Materials & Systems Options

Cost Analysis Assumptions

Cost Estimate Tables • Option A-1 • Option A-2 • Option B

25 26 27

Sources

Page 6 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report has been prepared to illustrate options for a new fire station to replace the existing fire and rescue station on Perth Road Crescent. As a result of reviewing current and projected equipment needs in the context of current performance and safety standards for planning fire and rescue facilities, a building of approximately 7,900 square feet will be required to replace the existing facility. Based on functional needs, it would appear that the existing site cannot support all the current requirements of the proposed station, either for the building or for the necessary site services such as parking. Likewise, this site does not support future expansion without acquisition of adjacent property in the future. This site also effectively precludes a drive through design; which is considered to be the optimal standard for personnel safety and reduction of risk to vehicles and other equipment. In order to accommodate the building, parking and servicing area for the proposed station at the Perth Road Crescent location, the existing site area of .37 acres (plus easement) would need to be expanded by a minimum of approximately .5 to .7 acres, including a taper off zone to accommodate the difference in grade elevations. The design for a new ‘greenfields’ site is based on a single depth vehicle drive-through and the assumption that it will be located on a site that permits exiting to a major road. The total desired minimum site area required would be approximately 3 plus acres. The building and site development costs of using the existing site versus a new site are generally comparable, although without having a geotechnical report for the sites, it is, of course, impossible to anticipate any premiums required for excavation, rock removals, pilings or sub-surface drainage. For purposes of this study, a very approximate figure for additional engineered fill has been used to provide an order of magnitude cost estimate, but the amount required could be considerably greater depending on composition of soil at the lower elevation. Using a baseline as-built construction cost from our most recently completed Fire and EMS building project for Hiawatha First Nation near Peterborough, Ontario from 2014 and extrapolating for quantities and site specific conditions, high level cost estimates were prepared for a building on the existing expanded site and for a new ‘greenfields’ site. Based on the schematic elevations and proposed building materials and including site servicing for production, storage and treatment of potable and vehicle use, the costs of construction are estimated as follows:

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 7 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Perth Road Crescent - Option A-1 (7,900 s.f.)

Basic Option
Enhanced Option

$2.17 million $2.48-$2.66 million

$ per Square Foot $274 $313-$336

• Perth Road Crescent - Option A-2 (7,900 s.f.)

Basic Option
Enhanced Option

$2.24 million $2.56-$2.75 million

$284 $324-$348

• ‘Greenfields’ Site - Option B (7,900 s.f.)

Basic Option
Enhanced Option

$2.13 million $2.46 - $2.65 million

$270 $311-$335

It should be noted that the variance in the enhanced building options reflects the range from upgrading the quality of materials and systems to fully enhanced options that include renewable power, ground source geothermal heating and various other amenities. These figures include a market adjustment and escalation factor of 8% to 2016 and a 4% design contingency. By comparison, the as-built construction cost of the Hiawatha First Nation Fire & EMS building completed in 2014 which was used as a baseline for this study was $296 per square foot (excluding any design contingencies, escalation and market adjustment factors).

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 8 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of the study includes development of schematic design options for a new fire station to replace the existing Perth Road Crescent Station either on the existing site or on a new ‘greenfields’ site. Construction cost estimates would be developed for each of the two sites for both a ‘basic’ quality building and for ‘enhanced’ quality construction and systems. Soil testing, topographical surveys and suggestions for potential sites was not part of the study scope.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 9 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

PROCESS The consultants initially met with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Fire Chief to have an initial discussion regarding the functional requirements for the new station. This included determining the immediate and potential future primary fore and rescue equipment needs and considering the future composition and size of the volunteer fire fighting forces. Types of work space and storage were also discussed and quantities of materials and items to be stored were determined. Prior to the initial meeting, the consultants had reviewed the study1 prepared for the municipality in 2013 by Emergency Management and Training Inc. This report enumerated myriad issues with the existing Perth Road Crescent Station which the consultants also observed on a tour of the site and building. There can certainly be no question that the existing building is so totally inadequate for the purpose and is of such minimal quality of construction that it would be impossible to renovate or adapt in order to extend the life. The existing site and context was also reviewed with an eye to potential configuration of a replacement building. The consultants met with firefighters and presented some of the general points of the initial discussions. Everyone was encouraged to ask any questions or to make suggestions with respect to achieving an optimally functional building. Each of these questions and comments was recorded and we believe that the options address every one of the concerns raised. Based on the information from the stakeholders a space program was prepared and basic options developed. These options included a drive through and a back in option in order to reflect the realities of the existing site and to properly identify the maximum site area required for a new location. The draft study findings were reviewed by staff and the Fire Chief and modifications were made as suggested to the schematic layouts and program. The final study was submitted for stakeholder review and presentation on September 30, 2014.

‘Fire Hall and Equipment Study’, by Emergency Management and Training Inc., Barrie, Ontario, September 2013.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 10 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

STAKEHOLDER INPUT In discussions with firefighters, the following points were raised:

Location • It was suggested that the station should be moved out of the hamlet because of difficulties with exiting and access to the site. • There was a general consensus that the existing site should be eliminated from consideration; it was noted by the consultants that illustrating the proposed building on the site would clearly demonstrate any shortcomings of the Perth Road Crescent location.

Design Concept • A drive through design is preferred by firefighters for safety and to reduce the risk of damage to equipment. • It was noted that vehicles should never have to back into the site off a street or road. • It was stated that consideration be given to a stacked bay, back in design option because of safety and functional concerns.

Space & Functional Requirements • There must be adequate circulation space around the vehicles with adequate area allowed for other equipment that needs to be stored and used in the vehicle bays. • Adequate area must be provided for cleaning hoses, trucks and equipment. • Space should also be provided for Association storage relating to fundraising and community events. • Space also needs to be provided for fire prevention materials. • A dryer for hoses is preferred versus a drying tower. A tower would be desirable for training in an enhanced building design option. • An electric pressure wash system is preferred. • Emergency power is essential. • An outdoor terrace area that can be used for training and meetings would be desirable in an enhanced option. • Adequate windows should be provided in the doors for safety viewing and additional lighting. • A drying rack for wet suits should be provided. • Adequate exterior lighting should be provided. • The apron of the vehicle bays should be heated to keep ice and snow from freezing the doors shut. • Illuminated signage at the road should be provided.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 11 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

STAKEHOLDER INPUT (cont’d.) General Design Requirements Stakeholders noted other items to be considered in the planning and design: • The concrete finish in vehicle bays should be easy to maintain and keep looking clean. • Incoming hydro services should be underground. • A durable exterior finish surface is preferred; stone or concrete masonry on the lower 4 to 6 feet. • The design should fit in with the environment and project a professional image to the community. • The vehicle bays should be designed for 34 foot long vehicles. • Washrooms should be immediately accessible from the vehicle bays.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 12 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MAJOR ELEMENTS The following is a listing of the major elements to be accommodated in a new fire station:

Fire Fighting & Rescue • Vehicle Bays

Pumper
Tanker
Rescue
Command Trailer
Boat

1 1 1 1 1

• Equipment Storage - Apparatus Bay • Gear Storage (25 spaces) • Workshop & Compressor • Staff Workstation/Dispatch • Training & Meeting (30 seats) • Kitchenette • Laundry & Extra Garment Storage • Turnout Gear Lockers

• Women’s Washroom

Toilet
Sink
Lockers
Shower

1-2 2 20 (half lockers) 1

• Men’s Washroom

Toilet
Urinal
Sinks
Lockers
Shower

1 1 2 20 (half lockers) 1

• Janitorial/Housekeeping Storage • Building Services

Mechanical
Electrical/I.T. & Communications

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 13 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

AREA REQUIREMENTS Element N.S.F.

Total N.S.F.

1 1 1 1 1

900 900 900 540 540

10 60 200 120 150 100 100 620 120 120 190

250 60 200 120 150 200 100 620 120 120 190

150

Fire Fighting & Rescue • Equipment Bays

Pumper
Rescue
Tanker
Command Trailer
Boat • Turnout Gear Lockers • Decontamination & Utility • Equipment & Storage • Secure Storage • Workroom & Compressor • Offices & Filing • General Storage • Training Room (for 30) • Kitchenette • Laundry/Clean Gear • Washroom - male
1 toilet
1 urinal
2 sinks
lockers (20 half)
shower • Washroom - female
2 toilets
2 sinks
lockers (8 half)
shower

2 1 1 1 1

Sub-Total

5,910

Building Services • Mechanical • Electrical/Server • Janitorial Sub-Total Total Net Area

1 1 1

200+/80 60

200 80 60 340 6,250

Gross Up Factor 1.264 Total Gross Area

AWDE September 30, 2014

7,900 s.f.

Page 14 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

PLAN OPTIONS Option A - Back In Concept While a drive through option is preferred by the firefighters for reasons of personnel safety and minimizing risk to equipment and vehicles, it is apparent that the configuration of the existing Perth Road Crescent site would not permit this approach without acquisition of a considerable amount of adjacent property. Therefore, two concepts for a back in building design were prepared for consideration to see if there would be an optimal solution that would maximize the potential of the existing site.

Option A-1 - In this option, the 7,900 square foot building is organized with the support areas and parking located to the rear of the proposed building.

Option A-2 plan is also 7,900 square feet and is similar to the plan for a drive through concept. In each of the options, washrooms and support areas are a proximal as possible; it should be noted that because they are under negative air pressure and in order to maintain washrooms at the most comfortable temperature in winter conditions, they do not open directly into the apparatus bays. As well, plans permit access to support areas without having to come through the apparatus bays.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 15 of 165

Page 16 of 165

Page 17 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

PLAN OPTIONS Option B - Drive Through Concept This option is based on the concept of a single depth bay drive through (similar to Option A-2), which does not require moving one piece of equipment to allow another to leave the station. (There is effectively no difference in total area or perimeter envelope between a stacked bay or single vehicle bay; the only premium for the latter may be need for greater site width as well as additional parking, apron area and 4 additional garage doors. This concept would only be practically possible on a new ‘greenfields’ site where there would be the area to permit vehicle turning and an apron at both the front and rear of the station. It would be essentially the same plan as Option A-2 on the Perth Road Crescent site, but with doors on the rear wall area. Support areas are organized to permit access to the meeting room and washrooms without having to access the apparatus bays. The option also reflects a more centralized approach for firefighters entry to the apparatus bays from the parking area should the site be deeper. If the selected site were shallower with parking at the end of the building, then the Option A-2 plan with drive through capability would be more appropriate.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 18 of 165

Page 19 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SITING OPTIONS Existing Site Characteristics - Perth Road Crescent The following points briefly summarize the characteristics of the existing site: Soils The soils in the Perth Road Crescent area are described as Monteagle sandy loam overlying rock. Topography The topography is described as generally flat although some drop to the east or rear of the site was noted which would require the addition of engineered fill or provision of retaining walls. Streets The Perth Road Crescent has recently been improved and paved, but remains relatively narrow where vehicles are parked on the side. Services The building is served by a well for potable water and a holding tank for septic waste.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 20 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SITING OPTIONS Option A - Perth Road Crescent Site As illustrated by the following schematic plans, the proposed new station would not fit onto the existing site and still permit adequate space in front of the station for vehicles, side yard setbacks, future expansion or parking. The options included in this study assume that additional land to the east of the site could be made available, however, it should be noted that there may be covenants, wetland protection issues or other restrictions that may prevent the expansion of the site into the parkland area. These would need to be examined in greater detail in order to verify the feasibility of expanding and modifying the site.

Option A-1 illustrates the most compact building configuration. As can be seen by the placement relative to the existing site, there is no potential for future vehicle bay expansion without additional land. It would appear that approximately .5 acres of land would need to be added and a minimum of 8,800 cubic yards of engineered fill provided to allow a parking area for 25 vehicles behind the station as well as for storm water management, septic tanks and a taper zone of at least 15 feet to the lower elevation of the park, in lieu of retaining walls.

Option A-2 illustrates the more linear concept with fire and rescue vehicles exiting onto the easement toward the north. This approach would require the addition of .7 acres of property including a taper off zone at the perimeter of the flat service area. In this case, it is estimated that 11,980 cubic yards+/- of engineered fill would be required for the parking and site services.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 21 of 165

Page 22 of 165

Page 23 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SITING OPTIONS Site Characteristics - ‘Greenfields’ Site The following would be desirable characteristics for a new site: Soils Sandy, native, non-organic loam to a depth of 4’-0” to 5’-0” over bedrock or compact, well drained clay would be ideal. Topography A slope of 1% to 2% from the road to the centre of the site and from the centre to the other boundaries would be the most economical for construction and servicing. Streets Direct access to at least a main road is essential. Services Since there is no Municipal water or sewer system, drilling wells will be necessary. Sufficient land will be needed to ensure adequate distance from the vehicle pads, parking and the septic field. For long term operating cost reasons, a septic tank and weeping bed is generally considered a better option than a holding tank. A separate tank should be provided for the run off from the vehicle bays with a settling pond or storm scepter.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 24 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SITING OPTIONS Option B - ‘Greenfields’ Site As the plans illustrate, a site of approximately 3 acres would be desirable to accommodate the proposed new station and site services with capacity for future expansion. Assuming that it may be on a main road with restrictions on access, a suitable apron and driveway zone have been indicated. We have assumed the minimum dimension for frontage with parking and septic, etc., at the rear of the building, but a shallower site with additional frontage would also work with a plan similar to Option A-2 if necessary. The deeper site would, however, likely provide the most efficient design for paved area required for vehicle entry and parking areas. At this time, it is not possible to anticipate what restrictions there might be on the numbers or widths of entry and exit onto municipal or county roads. Location of cross roads and surrounding uses usually dictate number and size of exit/entry points. Therefore, several options have been developed to illustrate approaches to access and exiting.

Option B-1 illustrates a combined entry/exit of about 100 feet width. Option B-2 illustrates a separated entry and exit for the vehicles in order to minimize potential for crossover vehicle traffic. Option B-3 illustrates an exit pad the width of the vehicle bays. If permitted by the Municipality with the eliminated crossover lane, the site depth could be reduced by about 39+/- feet which could yield some savings in site development and paving. In all options, parking is indicated at the upper rear of the building to permit ease of future expansion without having to relocate parking areas.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 25 of 165

Page 26 of 165

Page 27 of 165

Page 28 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options It is our understanding that the performance expectation for this building is a 50 year life cycle for major elements. This has been used as the basis for both the basic and enhanced building options. It is important to note for the reader that changes to the Ontario Building Code which come into effect January 1, 2015 mean that even ‘basic’ buildings must now perform much better with respect to energy use and building envelope. This will mean that even ‘basic’ quality buildings will now be more costly than ever over the last 5 years. As well, we would note that all fire stations must be built as post disaster occupancy structures which has also narrowed the gap in the range of quality for basic versus enhanced building construction. We would also note that in determining parameters of ‘basic’ building performance, we have accounted for building material durability, for example, even where pre-finished metal siding is costed, we have selected a gauge that would stand up to expected wear with a protective guard to help prevent the type of impact damage seen in typical industrial metal clad buildings. In developing the costing model for ‘enhanced’ quality building options, the upgrades for materials and systems, finishes and amenities, etc., are not being proposed without foundation or merit. In each case, the enhancements proposed contribute to building functionality, operational efficiency, building longevity and volunteer satisfaction. The following section provides some qualitative background on the materials and systems selected for costing as summarized in the Cost Analysis Assumptions: Wall Construction There are several approaches that can be considered, including: • Balloon framing - wood or structural steel stud • Load bearing masonry • Insulated concrete forms In Ontario, we have found that generally the most economical solution is still a standard wood stud wall frame with cavity insulation, clad on interior and exterior with a variety of finishes. The equivalent can be done in structural steel framing, although there is no actual cost or performance advantage. After the selection is made on the basis of market pricing and labour conditions.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 29 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS (cont’d.) Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options Wall Construction (cont’d.) With load bearing masonry, it must be remembered that the structure must be insulated to a certain standard, so either the interior face or exterior face or both will need to be insulated and clad. Generally, in fact, load bearing masonry has not been as common over recent years because of the cost and availability of labour in some markets as well as the length of erection time for a reinforced wall of 20 feet in height. Similarly, even an insulated concrete farm building does not actually achieve the best performance for insulated structures and the amount of reinforcing required for post disaster occupancy structures reduces the performance unless clad with another layer of insulation as well. Therefore, the insulated wood stud balloon framing was selected for the basic option assuming something more akin to a pre-engineered building and insulated steel stud was selected as the most economical ‘enhanced’ building option because of its higher thermal resistance. Exterior Cladding For the ‘basic’ building, we have assumed a very good quality 18 gauge, pre-finished corrugated steel siding from 8” above finished grade to the underside of the eaves and soffits. This would be heavier gauge that the low grade industrial preengineered building since resistance to minor denting would be beneficial and should provide an extended life expectancy. As well, there would be a bumper guard provided wherever there might be the possibility of vehicle contact with the building. This can be upgraded by adding a masonry unit/split face stone base of 3’-0” to 5’-0” in height in order to eliminate the zone where most dents occur for extended life expectancy. Above this, an additional upgrade could include pre-finished wood siding which is now being recognized as a renewable, durable, low maintenance surface that resists and conceals damage and actually has better finish wear resistance than steel siding with a 30 to 35 year life expectancy for finish and at least 50 years for the siding if properly maintained. The highest quality upgrade would be face brick above the stone base which has proven to be a material with a lifetime of 50 to 100 years requiring minimal maintenance. Soffits On basic buildings, overhangs would be minimized, relying on detailing of the transition from roof to vertical surface to deal with shedding of water and snow. Soffits and overhanging eaves are always recommended as a way of minimizing leaks from the roof into the wall cavity. For the enhanced options, we would use a 2’6” overhang. AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 30 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS (cont’d.) Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options Insulation The basic building would have fibreglass or mineral wool batt insulation. This ostensibly provides the required R value, but in fact the nature of batt insulation always results in gaps, sagging and compression over time, resulting in decreasing thermal performance. For the enhanced building, spay foam insulation dramatically improves the R value and air and moisture permeability resistance of the building envelope. This performance can be further improved by adding a layer of 1” rigid insulation to the exterior. Sheathing For basic buildings, composite board would be used for the wall skin with plywood used on walls for an enhanced building for structural rigidity and resistance to deterioration from moisture, but for both basic and enhanced buildings, plywood would be needed for roof sheathing for structural purposes in a conventional framed design. In both cases, the sheathing should last at least 50 years. Roofing Based on the 50 year life cycle requirement, a steel roof has been used for costing of both the basic and enhanced building options. The enhanced option would be based on an 18 gauge standing seam metal roof which would have a life expectancy of 50 years. Windows Vinyl windows have been selected for the basic option; these can be upgraded to vinyl clad wood, aluminum clad wood or fibreglass for enhanced options. Each of these has a payback in durability and/or energy efficiency. In our experience, clad windows have a life expectancy of at least 40 years, although they may be still subject to colour fade and need re-finishing after 25 years. Fibreglass windows also have a 40+/- year lifespan, but have a cost premium over clad windows. Overhead Doors Doors are subject to many wear factors that influence their performance and life span. It is rare to find doors still in optimal condition after 50 years, but up to 40 years is possible. A good standard quality insulated roll up door with a 20 year life span has been used for the basic building option. For the enhanced option, a reinforced heavier gauge door and operators would be used. The payback is in durability and reduced maintenance; better quality doors can last for up to 20 to 30 years longer. AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 31 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS (cont’d.) Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options Exterior Personnel Doors For exterior doors, insulated hollow metal doors would be used in basic building options. For enhanced building construction, heavier gauge doors would be provided with glazing lites for more view and illumination. Steel doors generally have a 50 year life span if properly maintained. Interior Doors In basic quality buildings, hollow core wood and hollow steel doors with painted finishes are used. For an enhanced building, we have assumed plastic laminate faced doors in all dry areas and insulated hollow metal doors with Acrovyn or stainless guard panels would be used for greater durability and ease of cleaning and maintenance in wet and service areas. Interior Partitions While painted gypsum board would generally be used for all dry areas in both basic and enhanced building designs, in the latter, they could be upgraded for durability, sound and greater thermal transmission resistance. Wall Finishes Since using a water resistant or waterproof finish system on gypsum board is as economical as ceramic faced block and actually more time efficient in the construction process, upgraded finishes would include ceramic/porcelain tile and prefinished metal cladding with crash rails where impact might occur. Hardware & Specialties Generally, for both basic and enhanced fire station buildings, a very high quality hardware should be used. Given the relatively few doors in a fire station project, the savings would be negligible against the advantages of durability and reduced maintenance. A good quality stainless hardware series with a life expectancy of 50 years has been selected for costing. This would also include provision of key pad locks on all doors for both basic and enhanced design options.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 32 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS (cont’d.) Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options Floor Finishes In the basic building option, a standard quality vinyl tile has been assumed on all ‘dry’ areas, epoxy flooring on the washroom and wet utility areas and sealed concrete floors in the apparatus bays. Maintained properly, these materials should last 40 to 50 years. For greater longevity, durability and ease of cleaning, we would recommend a linoleum floor with top shield coating in all dry areas, epoxy floor in all utility, washroom and apparatus bay areas with a flash coved base throughout have been used as the basis for costing. Fitments & Millwork In both basic and enhanced design options, plastic laminate finished high density particle board has been used for cabinet faces and interiors for costing purposes. In the enhanced options, however, a solid surface counter and backsplashes will result in a more durable and long lasting surface. Compared to a 15 to 20 year life expectancy for plastic laminate solid surface finishes can last 40 years or more, since scratches and marks can usually be buffed out. Plumbing In order to ensure the most conservative and comprehensive costing for basic and enhanced options a well, holding tanks and a complete water treatment system have been assumed. In most projects, given the potential demand, a storage tank for domestic water has been required where a well is the source. Likewise, softening and filtration is almost always necessary. As well, a 26,000 gallon water storage tank and a 3,300 gallon domestic water supply have been included for all options in order to provide water for tanker trucks. These tanks can be recharged with groundwater or in the case of the apparatus water storage tank, with water harvesting from the roof surface. In both options, low flow fixtures are assumed. The range in plumbing fixture quality is very great, although the impact on total cost relatively small. For the basic option, we would presume the use of floor mounted fixtures, ceramic glazed sinks, good standard quality taps and fitments, PVC utility sinks, etc. For fixtures that would meet the long life cycle requirements, we would recommend wall hung toilets, custom stainless steel utility sinks, integrated ceramic sinks or solid surface material sinks in the washrooms and premium quality faucets (automatic faucets are not recommended because of temperature control restrictions, however, for infection control, automatic flush may be considered for urinals and toilets). AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 33 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

MATERIALS & SYSTEMS OPTIONS (cont’d.) Comparing Basic & Enhanced Options Heating In the basic design, heating would be provided by overhead propane fired forced air or radiant pipe systems in the apparatus bays with forced air for the support areas. For the enhanced design, in floor radiant heating would be used in the apparatus bays and utility areas with a supplementary air system to provide pressurization and ventilation in the administrative and meeting room areas. The value in the radiant heating system is the ability to create a heat sink with the concrete floor slab and to put the heat below the vehicles in order to speed up removal of snow, ice and salts and to use convection to advantage to heat the space. Both systems should have an operating life expectancy of 40 years with proper maintenance. Ventilation & Cooling In the basic option, natural ventilation would be activated with CO detection in the apparatus bays. In the enhanced options, the exhaust extraction from the apparatus bays would be augmented by a ducted system that can be attached to each vehicle by magnetic connection. In both options, cooling would only be provided in the training room and office areas with split units or a cooling unit on the forced air furnace. A further upgrade would be the use of geothermal heating and cooling systems; however, the building would not benefit particularly from the free cooling and it may therefore may not have an optimal return on investment. It has been considered as an add on in the enhanced option, however. Controls The best way to optimize efficiency of systems is with controls on lighting and heating. This must be balanced with functionality; for instance, for safety purposes, lights in work areas should not be on occupancy sensors if there are obstacles or situations where lights may go our because motion is not detected. We have assumed some enhancements for building information systems and management that permits monitoring of energy use and refinement of systems operation remotely. Renewable Energy The basic and enhanced designs would both be provided with the capacity for incorporating renewable energy systems; the most practical being the ability to add solar panels on the roof surface or to add panels that permit direct transfer of heat into the radiant heating system, for the most efficient transfer of solar power energy. AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 34 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS In order to develop comparative costing for the options on each site, we have used the as-built costs for a recently constructed station near Peterborough, Ontario. This project was completed in 2013/14 and was bid by 9 firms from central and eastern Ontario. There are some constant components to the cost estimates for all options; although since a number of items are based on percentages of construction costs, there can be a considerable range for each option.

General Expenses Fixed general expenses for all options would include site trailer and temporary services, but the following would vary based on the siting of the project and total costs: • Bonding & Insurance • Supervision • Office Administration • Expenses • Cash Allowances

Site Development Many of these costs will be very dependent on the siting and the availability of services. The existing Perth Road Crescent site would require a minimum of 8,800 to 12,000 cubic yards of engineered fill (based on a very approximate initial assessment) that will likely not be required for a ‘greenfields’ site. With respect to the costs for fill, several recent projects were reviewed and a figure of $13 per tonne was used. This may be lower or higher depending on the availability to civil contractors of acceptable clean fill and aggregates. Likewise, the septic system for Perth Road Crescent may only be a holding tank, which, while it has operating implications, is somewhat less costly than a weeping bed. Other site dependent development costs would include: • Site Clearing & Silt Fencing • Stripping Soil • Sub-Base Granulars • Excavation & Back Fill • Landscaping & Paving Constant costs for each option include: • Fire Tank • Potable Water Tank Note that costs for wells have not been included. AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 35 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS (cont’d.) It is important to note that site related costs can have a significant impact on project costs; blasting, water tables, topography, water availability, etc., can result in premiums where the site may not have yet been selected and surveyed. At this stage, it is only possible to note as many potential items for site costs and to provide an order of magnitude estimate using the actual costs of the base as-built project. As soon as a site has been selected, it should be surveyed in detail in order to refine any cost assumptions before a project budget is finalized. Allowances for unanticipated items and site conditions to be carried in the contract are normally about 2% to 3%. It is also recommended that Owners carry 2%+/- outside the contract to cover other unanticipated costs, usually associated with primary servicing and post contract Owner requested changes.

Market Adjustment & Inflation A factor has been included to reflect that the ‘as-built’ costs are based on the lowest stipulated sum. For the Hiawatha First Nation EMS project used as the base, the median bid amount was 4% higher than the lowest price submitted, indicating where most bidders felt the price should be for the project. In addition, projecting forward from 2013 to 2015/16, an escalation factor of about 2% per year would reflect a longer term average rate of increase. It should be noted however, that in some years, spikes in energy costs and base materials or movement of the Canadian dollar against international currencies can have a huge impact on pricing at the time of tender.

Pre-Design Contingency This usually ranges from 3% to 5% depending on the potential ‘unknowns’ in program. With an increased amount for allowances included in the base construction estimates, 4% has been assumed.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 36 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS (cont’d.) The following is a summary of the basis for costing the basic and enhanced building options: Element

Basic Option

Enhanced Option

Site Development Sidewalks & Curbs

Minimal; precast & asphalt

Full concrete curbs & sidewalks

Paving

Vehicle apron only

Vehicle apron(s) & parking

Foundations

Frost depth footings, foundation and slab on grade

Walls

Wood framing

Steel framing

Insulation Walls

R30 rigid

R40 cellular sprayed & rigid

Cladding

18 Ga factory painted steel panels - Accent Stone or Concrete

Pre-finished wood siding
Masonry

Insulation Roof

R40 batt

R48 Batt

Roofing

Steel roof - 20 Ga

Steel - standing seam - 18 Ga

Interior Walls

Interior steel sheet liners to

Ceramic tile to 7’-0” a.f.f. 8’-0” a.f.f. & gypsum board painted - At wet areas or
Ceramic faced block

Interior Doors

Steel/Wood painted in hollow metal frames

Plastic laminate solid core wood & Steel with guards

Exterior Doors

Insulated steel - painted

Apparatus Doors

Basic quality 1” insulated solid

Better quality 2” insulated panel with lites

Non-Apparatus Bay Flooring

Vinyl tile & epoxy

Sheet linoleum/ceramic tile/ epoxy

Apparatus Bay Flooring

Sealed concrete

Epoxy coating

Ceilings

Gypsum board - painted

Gypsum board with acoustic tile below in meeting room & office areas

Millwork

Melamine Utility grade

Plastic laminate on plywood & Solid surface counters

Architectural

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 37 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS (cont’d.) Element

Basic Option

Enhanced Option

Heating Apparatus Bay

Gas fired overhead heaters

In slab radiant heating
Geothermal and fuel primary system

Heating

Other areas

Gas fired furnace

Radiant heating

CO detector & exhaust fans provided Office & meeting room

split units Basic fixtures

CO detection & exhaust fans provided Office & meeting room geothermal Enhanced quality fixtures

Fixtures & Systems

Basic fixtures & systems

Upgraded fixtures & systems

Emergency Power

Partial building

Full building on emergency power

Controls

Basic controls

Enhanced systems controls

Mechanical

Exhaust Cooling Plumbing

Electrical

Other Enhancements Amenities

Exterior terrace Office furnishings

Fire Suppression

Sprinkler system

Heat Source

Geothermal

Exhaust Extraction

Ducted exhaust extraction

Renewable Power

Solar panels

High Efficiency Lighting

LED lighting

Emergency Power

Extended generator operation (7 day)

AWDE September 30, 2014

Page 38 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COSTING ESTIMATES - OPTION A-1 This is the lower cost option for the Perth Road Crescent site because of the lesser amount of additional site area to be developed. Net of escalation and design contingencies, the estimated construction cost for the basic quality option is estimated to be in the range of $252 per square foot, which would be about 16% lower than the comparable figure for the Hiawatha First Nation project used as the basis for developing cost estimates.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Landscaping

Topsoil, Sod, Seeding, Mulch Culverts, Rip Rap, Quarry Stone Plantings Exterior Terrace/Patio Subtotal

Paving

Sidewalks & Curbs

3.00

3.01 3.02 3.03 3.03.1

4.00

4.01

Excavation, Backfill, Paving, Site Services

Site Clearing and Demolition Strip Topsoil Sub-base Granulars Base Granulars Excavation and Backfill - Building Excavation & Backfill - Services Excavation & Backfill - Storm Ceptor Excavation & Backfill - Fire Tank Fire Tank - 115,000L Excavation & Backfil - Potable Water Tank Potable Water Tank - 15,000L Septic System (Option A - Holding Tank) Subtotal

2.00

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12

General Expenses

Site Trailer, Fencing, Temporary Services Bonding & Insurance Supervision Office Administration Closeout Documents Expenses Cash Allowances (eg Hidden Conditions) Subtotal

1.00

16,230

32,000

12,000 8,000 12,000

249,000

3,000 10,000 51,000 42,000 4,500 6,000 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 20,000

205,000

30,000 30,000 40,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 40,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

8,000.00

12,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00

15,000.00 15,000.00 110,000.00 42,000.00 6,500.00 7,500.00 20,000.00 21,000.00 41,000.00 8,500.00 22,000.00 15,000.00

34,000.00

323,500.00

254,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00 38,000.00 48,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

7900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction Option A-1 Perth Road Crescent Site

18,000.00

12,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00

15,000.00 15,000.00 110,000.00 42,000.00 6,500.00 7,500 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 15,000

30,000.00 42,500.00 50,000.00 38,500.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

34,000.00

323,500.00

264,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

12,500.00

Upgrade Add

Page 39 of 165

Rough Carpentry

Rough framing - Materials Rough framing - Labour Trusses Subtotal

Finish Carpentry

Millwork Exterior Entrances Exterior Signage Subtotal

7.00

7.01 7.02 7.03

8.00

8.01 8.02 8.03

Structural Steel

Structural Steel Subtotal

6.01

5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04

6.00

Concrete (including Reinforcing)

Footings & Piers Walls Floor Slab Light Standards & Misc. Subtotal

5.00

Fine Grade & Asphalt Subtotal

4.02

20,000

13,000 5,000 2,000

175,000

80,000 70,000 25,000

45,000

95,000

25,000 40,000 25,000 5,000

76,230

60,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

10,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00

90,000.00 76,000.00 37,500.00

45,000.00

39,000.00 55,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00

17,000.00

203,500.00

45,000.00

134,000.00

38,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00

7900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction Option A-1 Perth Road Crescent Site

20,000 7,500 4,000

34,500.00 19,000.00 37,500.00

172,000.00

39,000.00 55,000.00 35,000.00 7,500.00

60,000.00

31,500.00

91,000.00

172,000.00

136,500.00

78,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 40 of 165

Thermal & Moisture Protection

Insulation - Below Grade Insulation Above Grade Increase R-value by Add’l 25% Caulking Metal Siding, Soffits & Eavestroughing Wood Siding Cultured Stone - Add Masonry Veneer above cultured stone - Add Basic Roofing - 20 ga Steel Steel Roofing -18 ga Steel Subtotal

Doors, Windows & Glazing

Doors & Hardware Key Pad Access Hardware Enhanced Security Windows Solar Glazing Overhead Doors & Controls (4) Misc. Glazing Subtotal

9.00

9.01 9.02 9.02.1 9.03 9.04 9.04.1 9.04.2 9.04.3 9.05 9.05.1

10.00

10.01 10.01.1 10.01.2 10.02 10.02.1 10.03 10.04

47,500.00

30,000

18,000.00 40,000.00 3,000.00

22,000 45,000 3,000

90,000

16,000.00 2,500.00

20,000

145,000

6,000.00 63,200.00

5,000 10,000 30,000

79,500.00

198,300.00

Basic Quality Section Total

31,600.00 50,000.00

7900 SF

20,000 50,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction Option A-1 Perth Road Crescent Site

24,000 2,500 5,000 28,000 5,000 45,000 4,500

52,000.00

31,600.00 62,000.00 7,200.00 8,000.00 13,000.00 45,000.00 9,500.00 13,000.00

114,000.00

241,300.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 41 of 165

Finishes & Fixtures

Drywall Acoustic Tile & Bulkheads Vinyl Tile/Sealed Concrete Flooring Epoxy Flooring Aparatus Bay + Utility Areas Common Area Floors - Sheet Floor Upgrade Selected Floors - Ceramic - Add Painting Ceramic Tile on walls Washroom Accessories Personal Lockers Metal Wall Panels - Apparatus Bay Subtotal

Mechanical

Plumbing - underground Plumbing Equipment - Above Ground Sprinkler System HVAC -Ducting HVAC - Equipment Building Automation System & Controls Geo-Thermal Insulation Ducted Exhaust Extraction - Add Misc. Subtotal

11.00

11.01 11.02 11.03 11.03.1 11.03.2 11.03.3 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08

12.00

12.01 12.02 12.02.1 12.03 12.04 12.04.1 12.04.2 12.05 12.06 12.07 25,000.00 45,000.00 2,500.00 6,500.00 7,800.00

30,000 40,000 2,000 8,000 6,000

186,000

30,000.00 55,000.00

40,000 60,000

122,500

27,000.00 5,000.00 8,000.00 2,500.00 7,500.00

20,000 10,000 10,000 2,500 7,500

171,800.00

141,500.00

Basic Quality Section Total

52,000.00 9,500.00 30,000.00

7900 SF

40,000 10,000 22,500

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction Option A-1 Perth Road Crescent Site

8,500

9,500

22,500 50,000 5,000

50,000 65,000

18,000.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 24,000.00 40,000.00 10,000.00 2,500.00

52,000.00 16,500.00

210,500.00

185,500.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

15,000.00

40,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 42 of 165

Equipment

Air Compressor Flagpoles Bunker Gear Racks (25) Office Furniture IT/Communications Subtotal

15.00

15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05

Estimated Construction Cost

Pre-Design Contingency

Market Adjustment and Inflation to 2016

Total

Water Treatment System

Water System Water System Controls Water Treatment System Insulation Subtotal

14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04

13.01 13.01.1 13.02 13.02.1 13.03 13.03.1 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.06.1

14.00

Electrical

Panels & Wiring Solar System Rough-in Fire Alarm System Fixtures & Equipment LED Lighting Exterior Service Lines Exterior Fixtures & Equipment Generator Extended Generator Operation (7 days) Subtotal

13.00

6,000.00 8,000.00 60,000.00

6,000 10,000 60,000

1,744,030.00

40,800

12,000 10,000

12,000 6,800

82,500

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

4.0%

10,000.00

2,500.00 10,000.00

27,000.00 35,000.00 18,000.00 2,500.00

39,000.00

42,000

180,000

62,000.00

50,000

2,167,984

77,428.00

154,856.00

1,935,700.00

22,500.00

82,500.00

190,600.00

Basic Quality Section Total

15,600.00

7900 SF

12,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction Option A-1 Perth Road Crescent Site

3.5%

10,000

12,000 6,800 15,000

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

6,000 10,000 70,000

49,000.00

62,000.00

15,600.00

2,476,081

77,724.50

177,656.00

2,220,700.00

43,800.00

82,500.00

212,600.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

194,500.00

12,000

10,000.00

20,000.00

35,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 43 of 165

Page 44 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COSTING ESTIMATES - OPTION A-2 The main increase in the estimated costs for this option is the result of a larger site area required for a more linear building concept Generally though, quantities and costs would be equivalent to Option A-1; there is virtually no difference in the building elements or systems between the two designs. Excluding contingencies, escalation and market adjustment factors, the estimated construction cost for the basic building would be approximately $255 per square foot, or about 3% higher than Option A-1, reflecting the removal of costs for site development. The estimates for enhanced building options range from $287 to $314 per square foot for an option that includes all the upgrades to amenities, materials and systems.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Landscaping

Topsoil, Sod, Seeding, Mulch Culverts, Rip Rap, Quarry Stone Plantings Exterior Terrace/Patio Subtotal

Paving

Sidewalks & Curbs

3.00

3.01 3.02 3.03 3.03.1

4.00

4.01

Excavation, Backfill, Paving, Site Services

2.00

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12

General Expenses

Site Trailer, Fencing, Temporary Services Bonding & Insurance Supervision Office Administration Closeout Documents Expenses Cash Allowances (eg Hidden Conditions) Subtotal

1.00

16,230

32,000

12,000 8,000 12,000

249,000

3,000 10,000 51,000 42,000 4,500 6,000 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 20,000

205,000

30,000 30,000 40,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 40,000

HFN 2103/14 5900 SF

8,000.00

12,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00

15,000.00 15,000.00 165,000.00 50,000.00 6,500.00 7,500.00 20,000.00 21,000.00 41,000.00 8,500.00 22,000.00 15,000.00

34,000.00

386,500.00

254,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00 38,000.00 48,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

7900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option A-2 Perth Road Crescent Site

18,000.00

12,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00

15,000.00 15,000.00 165,000.00 50,000.00 6,500.00 7,500 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 15,000

30,000.00 42,500.00 50,000.00 38,500.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

34,000.00

386,500.00

264,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

12,500.00

Upgrade Add

Page 45 of 165

Rough Carpentry

Rough framing - Materials Rough framing - Labour Trusses Subtotal

Finish Carpentry

Millwork Exterior Entrances Exterior Signage Subtotal

7.00

7.01 7.02 7.03

8.00

8.01 8.02 8.03

Structural Steel

Structural Steel Subtotal

6.01

5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04

6.00

Concrete (including Reinforcing)

Footings & Piers Walls Floor Slab Light Standards & Misc. Subtotal

5.00

Fine Grade & Asphalt Subtotal

4.02

20,000

13,000 5,000 2,000

175,000

80,000 70,000 25,000

45,000

95,000

25,000 40,000 25,000 5,000

76,230

60,000

HFN 2103/14 5900 SF

10,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00

90,000.00 76,000.00 37,500.00

45,000.00

39,000.00 55,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00

17,000.00

203,500.00

45,000.00

134,000.00

38,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00

7900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option A-2 Perth Road Crescent Site

20,000 7,500 4,000

34,500.00 19,000.00 37,500.00

172,000.00

39,000.00 55,000.00 35,000.00 7,500.00

60,000.00

31,500.00

91,000.00

172,000.00

136,500.00

78,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 46 of 165

Thermal & Moisture Protection

Doors, Windows & Glazing

Doors & Hardware Key Pad Access Hardware Enhanced Security Windows Solar Glazing Overhead Doors & Controls (4) Misc. Glazing Subtotal

9.00

9.01 9.02 9.02.1 9.03 9.04 9.04.1 9.04.2 9.04.3 9.05 9.05.1

10.00

10.01 10.01.1 10.01.2 10.02 10.02.1 10.03 10.04

47,500.00

30,000

18,000.00 40,000.00 3,000.00

22,000 45,000 3,000

90,000

16,000.00 2,500.00

20,000

145,000

6,000.00 63,200.00

5,000 10,000 30,000

79,500.00

198,300.00

Basic Quality Section Total

31,600.00 50,000.00

7900 SF

20,000 50,000

HFN 2103/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option A-2 Perth Road Crescent Site

24,000 2,500 5,000 28,000 5,000 45,000 4,500

52,000.00

31,600.00 62,000.00 7,200.00 8,000.00 13,000.00 45,000.00 9,500.00 13,000.00

114,000.00

241,300.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 47 of 165

Finishes & Fixtures

Drywall Acoustic Tile & Bulkheads Vinyl Tile/Sealed Concrete Flooring Epoxy Flooring Aparatus Bay + Utility areas Common Area Floors - Sheet Floor Upgrade Selected Floors - Ceramic - Add Painting Ceramic Tile on walls Washroom Accessories Personal Lockers Metal Wall Panels - Apparatus Bay Subtotal

Mechanical

11.00

11.01 11.02 11.03 11.03.1 11.03.2 11.03.3 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08

12.00

12.01 12.02 12.02.1 12.03 12.04 12.04.1 12.04.2 12.05 12.06 12.07 25,000.00 45,000.00 2,500.00 6,500.00 7,800.00

30,000 40,000 2,000 8,000 6,000

186,000

30,000.00 55,000.00

40,000 60,000

122,500

27,000.00 5,000.00 8,000.00 2,500.00 7,500.00

20,000 10,000 10,000 2,500 7,500

171,800.00

141,500.00

Basic Quality Section Total

52,000.00 9,500.00 30,000.00

7900 SF

40,000 10,000 22,500

HFN 2103/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option A-2 Perth Road Crescent Site

8,500

9,500

22,500 50,000 5,000

50,000 65,000

18,000.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 24,000.00 40,000.00 10,000.00 2,500.00

52,000.00 16,500.00

210,500.00

185,500.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

15,000.00

40,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 48 of 165

Equipment

Air Compressor Flagpoles Bunker Gear Racks (25) Office Furniture IT/Communications Subtotal

15.00

15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05

Estimated Construction Cost

Pre-Design Contingency

Market Adjustment and Inflation to 2016

Total

Water Treatment System

Water System Water System Controls Water Treatment System Insulation Subtotal

14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04

13.01 13.01.1 13.02 13.02.1 13.03 13.03.1 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.06.1

14.00

Electrical

Panels & Wiring Solar System Rough-in Fire Alarm System Fixtures & Equipment LED Lighting Exterior Service Lines Exterior Fixtures & Equipment Generator Extended Generator Operation (7 days) Subtotal

13.00

6,000.00 8,000.00 60,000.00

6,000 10,000 60,000

1,744,030.00

40,800

12,000 10,000

12,000 6,800

82,500

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

4.0%

10,000.00

2,500.00 10,000.00

27,000.00 35,000.00 18,000.00 2,500.00

39,000.00

42,000

180,000

62,000.00

50,000

2,238,544

79,948.00

159,896.00

1,998,700.00

22,500.00

82,500.00

190,600.00

Basic Quality Section Total

15,600.00

7900 SF

12,000

HFN 2103/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option A-2 Perth Road Crescent Site

4.0%

10,000

12,000 6,800 15,000

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

6,000 10,000 70,000

49,000.00

62,000.00

15,600.00

2,557,744

91,348.00

182,696.00

2,283,700.00

43,800.00

82,500.00

212,600.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

194,500.00

12,000

10,000.00

20,000.00

35,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 49 of 165

Page 50 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

COSTING ESTIMATES - OPTION B The major differences in estimated cost for this option include the assumption that a ‘greenfields’ site would not require significant engineered soils. It should be noted though, that premiums for the drive through approach include doubling the amount for apparatus bay doors and increasing the amount of paved area in the enhanced option. The doors are partly offset by a decrease in steel or ceramic wall finishes, but this is offset by a premium for the steel required for lintels. Overall, however, the construction costs for the basic building option would potentially be in the area of $240 per square foot with the enhanced building option at about $277 to $302 per square foot with all amenities and upgrades, excluding contingencies, escalation and market factors.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Landscaping

Topsoil, Sod, Seeding, Mulch Culverts, Rip Rap, Quarry Stone Plantings Exterior Terrace/Patio Subtotal

Paving

Sidewalks & Curbs

3.00

3.01 3.02 3.03 3.03.1

4.00

4.01

Excavation, Backfill, Paving, Site Services

2.00

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12

General Expenses

Site Trailer, Fencing, Temporary Services Bonding & Insurance Supervision Office Administration Closeout Documents Expenses Cash Allowances (eg Hidden Conditions) Subtotal

1.00

16,230

32,000

12,000 8,000 12,000

249,000

3,000 10,000 51,000 42,000 4,500 6,000 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 20,000

205,000

30,000 30,000 40,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 40,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option B - Greenfields Site

8,000.00

12,000.00 8,000.00 12,000.00

5,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 6,500.00 7,500.00 20,000.00 21,000.00 41,000.00 8,500.00 22,000.00 20,000.00

32,000.00

256,500.00

254,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00 38,000.00 48,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

7900 SF

18,000.00

12,000.00 8,000.00 12,000.00

5,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 6,500.00 7,500 20,000 21,000 41,000 8,500 22,000 20,000

30,000.00 42,500.00 50,000.00 38,500.00 5,000.00 38,000.00 60,000.00

32,000.00

256,500.00

264,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

12,500.00

Upgrade Add

Page 51 of 165

Rough Carpentry

Rough framing - Materials Rough framing - Labour Trusses Subtotal

Finish Carpentry

Millwork Exterior Entrances Exterior Signage Subtotal

7.00

7.01 7.02 7.03

8.00

8.01 8.02 8.03

Structural Steel

Structural Steel Subtotal

6.01

5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04

6.00

Concrete (including Reinforcing)

Footings & Piers Walls Floor Slab Light Standards & Misc. Subtotal

5.00

Fine Grade & Asphalt Subtotal

4.02

20,000

13,000 5,000 2,000

175,000

80,000 70,000 25,000

45,000

95,000

25,000 40,000 25,000 5,000

76,230

60,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option B - Greenfields Site

10,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00

90,000.00 76,000.00 37,500.00

60,000.00

39,000.00 50,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00

17,000.00

203,500.00

60,000.00

129,000.00

38,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

30,000.00

7900 SF

20,000 7,500 4,000

34,500.00 19,000.00 37,500.00

192,000.00

39,000.00 50,000.00 35,000.00 7,500.00

85,000.00

31,500.00

91,000.00

192,000.00

131,500.00

103,000.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 52 of 165

Thermal & Moisture Protection

Doors, Windows & Glazing

Doors & Hardware Key Pad Access Hardware Enhanced Security Windows Solar Glazing Overhead Doors & Controls (4) Misc. Glazing Subtotal

9.00

9.01 9.02 9.02.1 9.03 9.04 9.04.1 9.04.2 9.04.3 9.05 9.05.1

10.00

10.01 10.01.1 10.01.2 10.02 10.02.1 10.03 10.04

47,500.00

30,000

18,000.00 75,000.00 3,000.00

22,000 45,000 3,000

90,000

16,000.00 2,500.00

20,000

145,000

6,000.00 63,200.00

5,000 10,000 30,000

114,500.00

198,300.00

Basic Quality Section Total

31,600.00 50,000.00

7900 SF

20,000 50,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option B - Greenfields Site

24,000 2,500 5,000 28,000 5,000 90,000 4,500

52,000.00

31,600.00 62,000.00 7,200.00 8,000.00 13,000.00 45,000.00 9,500.00 13,000.00

159,000.00

241,300.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

Upgrade Add

Page 53 of 165

Finishes & Fixtures

Mechanical

11.00

11.01 11.02 11.03 11.03.1 11.03.2 11.03.3 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08

12.00

12.01 12.02 12.02.1 12.03 12.04 12.04.1 12.04.2 12.05 12.06 12.07 25,000.00 38,000.00 2,500.00 6,500.00 7,800.00

30,000 40,000 2,000 8,000 6,000

186,000

30,000.00 55,000.00

40,000 60,000

122,500

27,000.00 5,000.00 8,000.00 2,500.00 4,000.00

20,000 10,000 10,000 2,500 7,500

164,800.00

138,000.00

Basic Quality Section Total

52,000.00 9,500.00 30,000.00

7900 SF

40,000 10,000 22,500

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option B - Greenfields Site

8,500

9,500

22,500 48,000 5,000

50,000 65,000

18,000.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 24,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 2,500.00

52,000.00 16,500.00

208,500.00

160,500.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

15,000.00

40,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 54 of 165

Equipment

Air Compressor Flagpoles Bunker Gear Racks (25) Office Furniture IT/Communications Subtotal

15.00

15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05

Estimated Construction Cost

Pre-Design Contingency

Market Adjustment and Inflation to 2016

Total

Water Treatment System

Water System Water System Controls Water Treatment System Insulation Subtotal

14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04

13.01 13.01.1 13.02 13.02.1 13.03 13.03.1 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.06.1

14.00

Electrical

Panels & Wiring Solar System Rough-in Fire Alarm System Fixtures & Equipment LED Lighting Exterior Service Lines Exterior Fixtures & Equipment Generator Extended Generator Operation (7 days) Subtotal

13.00

6,000.00 8,000.00 60,000.00

6,000 10,000 60,000

1,744,030.00

40,800

12,000 10,000

12,000 6,800

82,500

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

4.0%

10,000.00

2,500.00 10,000.00

27,000.00 35,000.00 18,000.00 2,500.00

39,000.00

42,000

180,000

62,000.00

50,000

2,129,344

76,048.00

152,096.00

1,901,200.00

22,500.00

82,500.00

190,600.00

Basic Quality Section Total

15,600.00

7900 SF

12,000

HFN 2013/14 5900 SF

Estimated Cost of Construction - Option B - Greenfields Site

4.0%

10,000

12,000 6,800 15,000

27,000 35,000 18,000 2,500

6,000 10,000 70,000

49,000.00

62,000.00

15,600.00

2,474,864

88,388.00

176,776.00

2,209,700.00

43,800.00

82,500.00

212,600.00

Enhanced Quality 7900 SF Section Total

194,500.00

12,000

10,000.00

20,000.00

35,000.00

Upgrade Add

Page 55 of 165

Page 56 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC DESIGN REPORT

SOURCES Zoning Maps, Schedule B - Loughborough - South Frontenac. Zoning Maps, Schedule F - Hamlets within Loughborough District. ‘Soil Map of Frontenac County’, Soil Research Institute, Research Branch Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1965. Plan of Survey of Part Lot 18, Concession 9, Township of Loughborough, Smith & Smith, Ontario Land Surveyors, 1963. ‘Engineering Design Guidelines for the City of Calgary Fire Stations’, City of Calgary Infrastructure and Information Services, 2011. ‘Fire Station Whole Building Design Guide’, Eric G. Mion, Lewis & Zimmerman Associates Ltd. UFC 4-730-10 - Fire Stations, U.S. Department of Defence. ‘Fire Hall and Equipment Study’, by Emergency Management and Training Inc., Barrie, Ontario, September 2013.

AWDE September 30, 2014

Township of South Frontenac Proposed New Fire Station Perth Road Region

Page 57 of 165

Study Parameters 

Development of schematic design options to replace existing Perth Road Crescent facility.  

Option A – Redevelopment on existing site Option B – New facility on ‘greenfield’ site



Prepare space needs program based on equipment needs and recognized current standards for planning



Prepare Cost estimates for each option Page 58 of 165

Study Process  

Reviewed Fire Hall & Equipment Study (2013) & Background Information Initial Meeting   



Stakeholder Brainstorm Session 

   

Management, staff and fire service volunteers

Space Needs Study Develop Schematic Site & Floor Plan Options Plan Adjustment & Cost Estimates Final Report & Presentation Reviewed Fire Halls Study

Page 59 of 165



Review project parameters Review Strategy and Approach Tour Existing Facilities & Site

Review of Existing Facilities 

Visited the existing Perth Road Crescent Site facility to review:   

  

Emergency response procedures Equipment Handling (order of vehicle dispatch, maintenance, etc) Storage conditions Building services General condition of buildings (expansion or redevelopment potential) General site conditions and servicing

Page 60 of 165

Findings 

Existing facility space is totally inadequate for proper safety and operations



Existing building has deteriorated and requires significant repair; there is no potential for renovation or expansion of existing.



Existing .37 acre site is very constricted; sloping grades and wetlands will challenge the development



Street access is restricted and necessitates maneuvering around parked vehicles on narrow road

Page 61 of 165

Stakeholder Brainstorm Session 

What we heard from Management, Staff and Fire Service Volunteers        

Existing location poor, should be moved out of existing location in hamlet. Drive through bays are preferred for safety and protection of equipment Site should be large enough so that vehicles do not have to back in from street or road. Adequate circulation space is needed around vehicles Adequate area needed for cleaning equipment, hoses, etc. Adequate storage space is essential Hose dryers preferred over tower Adequate interior and exterior lighting is essential

Page 62 of 165

Other Stakeholder Design Priorities    



Durable and easily maintainable exterior and finishes essential Heated aprons at vehicle entrances for safety Services should be underground The building should project a professional image for Fire Services and fit in with the environment Outdoor area for training/meetings would be desirable

Page 63 of 165

Space Needs Study 

Based on current industry and North American standards



A building of approximately 7,900 square feet will be required to replace the existing 3500 SF facility to house:       

  

Page 64 of 165



1 Pumper 1 Tanker 1 Rescue 1 Command Trailer 1 Boat Gear storage Workshop/compressor Dispatch/workstation Office Training & Meeting Room 30 seats Support areas

Summary of Space Needs Element Vehicles  Supplies & Equipment  Support  Administration  Building Services 

Proposed sf

1600 400 600 80 120

3900 730 1000 200 300

2800 sf

6250 sf

3500 sf

7900 sf

Page 65 of 165

Sub-total NSF Gross Up Factor 1.246 Total Building Gross

Existing sf

Siting – Option A 

Additional land would be needed to accommodate building, parking and septic systems



The existing site would require significant engineered fill.



Even the enlarged site would not permit a drive-through bay design.

Page 66 of 165

Site Plan - Option A1

Page 67 of 165

Floor Plan - Option A1

Page 68 of 165

Site Plan - Option A2

Page 69 of 165

Floor Plan - Option A2

Page 70 of 165

Exterior Elevation

Page 71 of 165

Site Plan – Option B Minimum site area of at least 3 acres is required; 5 acres preferred to allow for future expansion, optimal siting of building and storm water management.

Page 72 of 165

Floor Plan- Option B

Page 73 of 165

Project Cost Estimates  



Costs projected to 2016 Canadian dollars Actual costs for 6,000sf Fire station (2014) used as basis for cost estimates. Estimates developed for ‘Basic’ and ‘Enhanced’ Construction for each option Estimates include:    

 

Building, Civil & site servicing, Furnishing & equipment and Overhead costs

Page 74 of 165

Costs for extensive removal and replacement of fill are not included Contingency of 12% included for escalation & items which may not be anticipated until a final site is selected & detailed designs are completed

Basis for costing Hiawatha First Nation Emergency Services Building – 6,000 sq.ft Completed Summer 2014

Port Carling Fire Station – 6,500 sq.ft Completed Summer 2010

Page 75 of 165

Township of Muskoka Lakes

Project Cost Estimates – Option A1 Enhanced

Construction

$1.936

$ 2.221

Escalation & Market Adjustment 8%

$ .155

$ .178

Pre-Design Contingency 4.0%

$ .077

$ .088

Total

$2.168

$ 2.487

Page 76 of 165

Basic

Project Cost Estimates – Option A2 Enhanced

Construction

$ 1.999

$ 2.284

Escalation & Market Adjustment 8%

$ .160

$ .183

Pre-Design Contingency 4.0%

$ .080

$ .091

Total

$ 2.239

$ 2.558

Page 77 of 165

Basic

Project Cost Estimates – Option B Enhanced

Construction

$ 1.901

$ 2.210

Escalation & Market Adjustment 8%

$ .152

$ .177

Pre-Design Contingency 4.0%

$ .076

$ .088

Total

$ 2.129

$ 2.475

Page 78 of 165

Basic

Page 79 of 165

January 21, 2015 Mr. Tim Laprade Arena and Recreation Supervisor Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham,ON K0H 2T0 Dear Mr. Laprade,

Re:

Sydenham “The Point” Shoreline Rehabilitation.

This letter is provided in response to your request for supporting information for your council discussions pertaining to potential shoreline rehabilitation works at The Point on Sydenham Lake in the Town of Sydenham. We have reviewed the site with municipal staff, and have provided a preliminary concept for your consideration. This letter provides some additional discussion relating to the proposed concept and its implementation. The proposed shoreline concept and relevant site photos are included as attachments to the end of this letter.

Site Conditions and Historic Perspective

Site History The age of the existing shoreline structures (timber walls/cribs) is not certain, but they have been in place for many years. It is understood that the municipality has replenished the sand beach material at the point on occasion in the past but other maintenance is not obvious through preliminary site investigations. Presently there is evidence of shoreline erosion and undermining of the existing shoreline structures as discussed further below. Public Safety Risk The undermining and exposed crib as well as the potential to develop relatively deep holes where the undermining occurs (See Photos 2 and 3) will become trip and fall hazards and ultimately, the Municipality may need to fence some of these specific areas off from Public use. In addition to the loss of fill from within the crib structure and the resulting pubic hazard, there is at least one location on the shorewall where localized loss of timber crib members has exposed large spikes which protrude from the wall (Photo 3).

1240 COMMISSIONERS ROAD WEST, SUITE 205, LONDON, ONTARIO N6K 1C7 TEL : (519) 657-1040 FAX : (519) 657-8631 WWW . RIGGSENGINEERING . COM

Page 80 of 165 z Page 2

January 21, 2015

While public use could continue, temporary fencing of localized unsafe areas is a visual aspect that is unappealing. Maintenance of the fencing in a safe and functional condition is also an issue.

Project Rationale

Justification Typically the “unravelling” of coastal structures progresses at an accelerating rate once a weak spot is developed. As noted, there are a couple of locations where there is some undermining of the existing timber wall, and damage here will likely develop on an accelerated basis over the next few years. The overall loss of land may take some time depending on the intensity of future storm (wave) events. If the shoreline is left unrepaired the following issues may become relevant: x public safety issues identified in Section 1 above, x potential loss of functional areas of the site if hazard areas are fenced (note some of the present safety issues are located near the swimming area) x potential loss of functional areas of the site due to continued loss of sand which can no longer be replaced due to permitting issues, and x potential loss of the “existing” land mass Because the minimization of impacts to aquatic habitat is a primary consideration in permitting of shoreline rehabilitation projects, proposed works generally cannot reclaim shoreline which has been previously lost. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is no significant loss of shoreline before rehabilitation works are undertaken. Project Benefits Rehabilitation of the shoreline with a rock revetment structure should provide some enhanced habitat potential along the shoreline as the rock provides shelter areas for a variety of aquatic life. The shoreline repair will also provide stabilized beach areas for public use. The replacement of sand beach materials with pebble beach materials is not typically a desirable change, but is a reality of regulatory approval conditions. Successful Concept Applications The rock revetment concept is a common and economical approach to shoreline protection for shores with shallow nearshore areas exposed to a wide range of wave conditions. The rock protection materials are locally available, and sized to suit the local conditions. Furthermore, it is a flexible structure in that settlement of the revetment over time does not necessarily result in failure, and maintenance can be relatively simple. There are numerous examples of rock revetments locally and throughout Ontario. Cobble and pebble beaches are also relatively common where sand is not abundant nor naturally supplied to the site, and where wave exposure would remove unprotected sand deposits. There are a number of local examples of natural cobble beaches along the Kingston area shoreline. A local example of a constructed cobble beach is at Lake Ontario Park in Kingston. Because the waves at The Point in Sydenham are significantly smaller than those on the exposed Kingston shoreline, smaller beach materials (pebbles) would be used instead of cobbles in this project to improve the public appeal. 1 240 C O M M I S S I O N E R S R O A D W E S T , S U I T E 20 5, L O N D O N , O N T A R I O N 6 K 1C 7 TEL : (519) 657-1040 FAX : (519) 657-8631 WWW . RIGGSENGINEERING . COM

Page 81 of 165 z Page 3

January 21, 2015

Schedule Considerations

Timeline The construction work will be subject to approvals which stipulate regulatory in-water work windows. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority has advised Municipal representatives that the in-water work cannot begin until mid-September. Work could therefore occur in the late fall and early winter, which would take advantage of lower water levels and may be more cost advantageous due to improved contactor availability at this time of year. Design and permitting applications should be completed by early summer to accommodate this timeline. Contract documents could be finalized while permitting reviews are completed. Service Disruptions During Work There would be some construction traffic and perhaps loss of some parking for equipment/material staging, as well as disruption to any planned events on the point property during the construction work. The timeline of the work with construction in the late fall would be expected to minimise the potential for disruption.

Cost of Project

The project construction costs have been estimated to be on the order of $100,000; this estimate is based on the concept development to date and will be updated as the design is finalized and quantities are refined based on site survey and any detail refinements. As previously noted, the proposed rock revetment structure is a relatively economical structure given the relatively simple construction approach and locally available materials. This simple construction generally provides maximum opportunity for local contractor participation which should provide a more competitive bid, although it is important that a contractor with in-water work expertise is selected. Given that the project is relatively small in terms of municipal shoreline rehabilitation projects there is expected to be little opportunity for savings through in-house contribution to the work. Initial demolition work or final landscaping restoration (which may not be possible until the spring) could be considered outside the contract if there is adequate control of the transition of site responsibility. A phased approach to the construction could also be considered to spread the capital costs into future years, but the duplication of mobilization costs and site restoration costs for a relatively small project could result in a relatively significant increase in the overall project costs (30% +/-) due to this duplication. Potential savings in the design are expected to be limited. Given that the objectives of the project are to protect the shoreline and provide access for swimming, the only project components that could be considered to be unnecessary are the three slab-stone seating features. This stone is not likely available locally and therefore would be more expensive; however, these features are expected to be only on the order of 10% +/- of the overall project costs. 1 240 C O M M I S S I O N E R S R O A D W E S T , S U I T E 20 5, L O N D O N , O N T A R I O N 6 K 1C 7 TEL : (519) 657-1040 FAX : (519) 657-8631 WWW . RIGGSENGINEERING . COM

Page 82 of 165 z Page 4

January 21, 2015

Design and Contract Administration

Riggs Engineering is a qualified Coastal and Marine Engineering design firm with significant experience in shoreline protection work on the Great Lakes and throughout Ontario. Typical local project coastal and marine project experience of their staff includes: x Lake Ontario Park revitalization - shoreline design and construction administration x An Gorta Mor Park - shoreline rehabilitation x Lasalle Causeway - wharf repairs x Battery Park (Block D) - shoreline rehabilitation x Gananoque Marina - Marina expansion Riggs Engineering provides full design services for marine and coastal structures including supporting field investigations, design, permitting and contract administration. It is anticipated that the project would be delivered through a Design -Tender approach rather than Request for Proposal (RFP) approach given that the construction work is not significantly specialized and there are no significant savings expected through an RFP style of project administration.

Other Organization/Agency Involvement

Permitting of the work is expected to require review/input by the following agencies: x x

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) - permitting work within Hazard Lands considering impacts on flooding, erosion, public safety and land stewardship. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) - reviewing impacts to fisheries and endangered species under the fisheries act. Formal permitting may be required for large projects while smaller projects may often proceed under a Letter of Advice, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) - permitting under the Public Lands Act to authorize occupancy of the Crown lake bed area with shore protection works where applicable, and providing guidance on construction timing for fisheries protection and species at risk.

The municipality should consider any potential for local soil contamination at the site which may be relevant to demolition works. Furthermore, the municipality should consider their internal public process for this type of project. It is anticipated that the shoreline rehabilitation would be a pre-approved project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment according to the following objective: “Replace traditional materials in an existing watercourse or in slope stability works with material of equal or better properties at substantially the same location and for the same purpose”.

1 240 C O M M I S S I O N E R S R O A D W E S T , S U I T E 20 5, L O N D O N , O N T A R I O N 6 K 1C 7 TEL : (519) 657-1040 FAX : (519) 657-8631 WWW . RIGGSENGINEERING . COM

Page 83 of 165 z Page 5

January 21, 2015

Closure

The proposed shoreline concept presented herein has been developed in response to a desire to maintain the present public use function of The Point shoreline and park area while rehabilitating the existing shoreline stabilization structures and maintaining public swimming access on the east and west sides of the point to accommodate present programming needs. The concept has been developed with due consideration of project budget limitations and permitting requirements. I trust this information is sufficient for your present needs. Should you require any further clarification or details, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly,

Stu Seabrook, P.Eng. Senior Hydrotechnical Engineer Riggs Engineering Ltd. Office: 613 767 4578 Cell: 613 484 5362

Enclosures x Site Photos x Concept Plan and Profiles

1 240 C O M M I S S I O N E R S R O A D W E S T , S U I T E 20 5, L O N D O N , O N T A R I O N 6 K 1C 7 TEL : (519) 657-1040 FAX : (519) 657-8631 WWW . RIGGSENGINEERING . COM

Photo 1: Loss of fill from crib at southeast beach area

SYDENHAM - THE POINT : SITE PHOTOS

Page 84 of 165

Photo 2: Undermining of crib along southeast wall of point

Page 85 of 165

Photo 3: Missing lower crib timber and exposed spikes on north wall

Page 86 of 165

Page 87 of 165

Photo 4: Southeast Shoreline

Page 88 of 165

Photo 5: East Shoreline

Photo 6: Northwest Shoreline

Page 89 of 165

Photo 7: Looking Northeast onto The Point

Page 90 of 165

Page 91 of 165

Page 92 of 165

Sydenham – The Point Shoreline Rehabilitation January 27, 2015

Page 93 of 165

Site Conditions •Site history uncertain ‐ aging timber crib structures •Site maintenance ‐ history of sand replenishment due to ongoing erosion, but no evidence of structure maintenance •Public safety risk ‐ Some undermining and deterioration of crib is ongoing

Page 94 of 165

Site Conditions

Undermining

Erosion

Erosion and Undermining

Page 95 of 165

Crib Members Missing

Project Justification • If shoreline is left unrepaired the following issues may become relevant: – public safety issues identified in Section 1 above, – potentiall lloss off ffunctionall areas off the h site if hazard areas are fenced potential loss of functional areas of the site due to beach erosion (sand can no longer be replaced due to permitting issues) – potential loss of the “existing” land mass

• Project benefits include – Increased stability of coarser beach material – Habitat p potential of revetment Page 96 of 165

Page 97 of 165

Page 98 of 165

Examples

Page 99 of 165

Schedule

Page 100 of 165

Cost Considerations • Concept costing estimated at $100,000 +/‐ • Concept is an economical approach • In‐house contribution opportunities limited (demolition? Site restoration/landscaping?) and site responsibility transition is an issue • Phased approach will require duplication of mobilization bili ti and d restoration t ti activities ti iti ((may add dd 30% +/‐) • Potential savings: g – Slab stone seating (10% +/‐) – Encase existing crib (approval issue) Page 101 of 165

Permitting

Page 102 of 165

• C CRCA C ‐ Requires equ es app application cat o for o permit pe t (co (considers s de s hazard lands, public safety and land stewardship issues) • DFO – fisheries authorization review not expected due to maintenance of footprint and volume l b l HWL; below HWL may commentt on species i att risk • MNR – Permitting under Public Lands Act and Species at Risk considerations. • Municipality – input to internal process

Page 103 of 165

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: January 19, 2015 AGENDA DATE:

January 27, 2015

SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION: That staff and the C.O.W. prioritize the list of Public Works Initiatives. BACKGROUND: Council has decided to review Public Works issues through the C.O.W., on the fourth Tuesday of each month. It is in order to identify the many initiatives that Public Works staff, and the former Public Services Committee, have been dealing with. The intention is to work with the C.O.W. to prioritize these. ANALYSIS: Identified below is a list of ongoing initiative that staff have compiled. They have been generally grouped by services the Public Works Department delivers: Public Works Initiatives

Partially Maintained Roads
Winter Control Plan
Departmental Emergency Plan/Emergency Procedures
Operational Procedures for Public Works activities
Council endorsed service levels
Road Classifications
Public and Private Lane Standards
Sign By-law
Signage Standards
Development Guidelines
Ongoing Roadside network assessment
Commuter Parking Lots
Traffic & Parking review in Sydenham
Decommissioning of Piccadilly Patrol Yard
Transition to WDS weighing of refuse
Street Light Conversion
Waste Collection RFP
Establish Vertical Asset Condition System
Emergency Management Plan
Infrastructure Master Plans (water expansion) (maybe Transportation MP)
Legislative Review
Frontenac County 150th Anniversary

Page 104 of 165

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT It is suggested that the C.O.W. review these with staff and prioritize. It is understood that extending winter maintenance on partially maintained roads will be one of the top priorities. Included as an attachment to this report are all the proposed 2015 Capital Projects (over $8 million total) that are intending to be completed this year. In addition, it needs to be emphasized that the demands of delivering the day to day services require a significant amount of attention. ATTACHMENT: 2015 PW Capital Projects

Submitted/approved by: Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

Page03/02/2015 105 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2015 CAPITAL BUDGET

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Page03/02/2015 106 of 165

2015 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Carried over from 2012 

GILMOUR POINT-SHORELINE REPAIR CONSULTATION

$ 5,000



POINT-SHORELINE REPAIR CONSULTATION

$ 5,000 $ 10,000

Total Carried over from 2013 

BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT

$ 94,000



ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

$ 59,000



ENERGY AUDIT

$ 32,500



ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD (TRAINING)

$ 15,000



RECREATION BUILDINGS-RE-KEYING

$ 8,000



OLD SCHOOL-BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

$ 7,000



RENOVATIONS – HARTINGTON LUNCHROOM

$ 40,000 Total

$ 255,500

2015 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Carried over from 2014 

OPP BUILDING-GARAGE FLOOR DRAINS

$ 20,000



VERONA MEDICAL-WELL PRESSURE SYSTEM

$ 4,400



HARTINGTON DEMOLITION

$ 50,000



BEDFORD SAND/SALT STORAGE FACILITY & GARAGE EXPANSION

$ 400,000

CENTENNIAL PARK-CONCRETE PAD & GAZEBO ROOF FOR STAGE/PAVILLION

$ 56,000



POINT PARK-FOOTBALL FIELD UPGRADE

$ 100,000



STREETLIGHTS – LED CONVERSION

$ 260,000



Total

$ 890,400

Page03/02/2015 107 of 165

2015 FACILITY MANAGEMENT NEW PROJECTS               

 

Harris Park Ramp Replacement The Point - Shoreline Restoration & Enhancement The Point - Well Decommissioning The Point - Raft Replacement Centennial Park - Hydro & Anniversary Infrastructure Bowes (Wilmer) & Centennial - Playground Equipment Museum -Accessible Ramp & Washroom Renovation Old School - Window Replacement Gilmour Point - Hydro Installation Facility Signage Sydenham Building – Well Decommissioning Bedford Garage – Reshingle Sand Dome Hartington Garage – Well Decommissioning Hartington Garage – Reshingle Sand Dome Hartington Garage  External Fire Escape Staircase Keeley Office Renovations Keeley Garage  Conversion of paint booth to service bay Total

$ 20,000 $ 100,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 76,900 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 5,000 $ 100,000 $ 5,000 $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 581,900

EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT

Page03/02/2015 108 of 165

2015 EQUIPMENT TANDEM DUMP TRUCK 

$230,000

REPLACE F-23

2 BACKHOES 

$240,000

REPLACES BT-91 & FT-93

HALF TON TRUCK 

$ 35,000

REPLACE F-35

PORTABLE HOISTS 

$ 50,000

KEELEY ROAD NEW

COMPUTROL FUEL SYSTEM 

BEDFORD GARAGE

$ 20,000

NEW

WATER TANK 

$ 20,000

REPLACE TANK FROM B-13

MOWER 

$ 20,000

REPLACES 2 OLD, CUTTING KEELEY & OPP

COMPRESSOR



$ 20,000

REPLACE OLD ONE FROM KEELEY FOR SIGNS

TRAILER

$ 10,000

NEW FOR SIGNS AND EQUIPMENT

Total

$638,000

SOLID WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Page03/02/2015 109 of 165

2015 SOLID WASTE – ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NEW PROJECTS 

BRADSHAW WDS MOE REQUIREMENTS

6,000



GREEN BAY WDS MOE REQUIREMENTS

6,000



PORTLAND WASTE DISPOSAL SITE  PARTIAL CAPPING, PHASE 2

$ 250,000

Total

$262,000

TRANSPORTATION

Page03/02/2015 110 of 165

2015 LINEAR ASSET CONSTRUCTION CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2014 

2014 MASSASSAUGA ROAD CULVERT

$144,000



2014 SALMON AND OTTER LAKE CULVERTS

$75,000



2014 ROCK LAKE BRIDGE

$15,000



2014 RUTLEDGE ROAD

$100,000



2014 PERTH ROAD

$146,000

Total

$480,000

2015 CAPITAL ROADS PROJECTS

t .r

Partially Maintained Roads Entire Length Approx.

»-

Road Name

Location that is Partially Maintained

Winter Maintained?

Width

Gravel Resurfaced?

Graded?

Cloride

Applied?

of Perm.

of

Residence Seasonal

nADT

Winter Maintained But No Summer- Entire Road ^'

I-

Bradford Rd East (Gravel)

N/A

Yes

14.18ft

Meeks Rd

N/A

Yes

10-14 ft

JReynoldsRd

N/A

Yes

10.14ft

Once/yr

“Bellrock Pepper st (West)

N/A

Yes

12-14 ft

No »

No ‘Vinter Maintenance- Entire Road ^

From Latimer to end- 450 m Total

10-12ft

Yes

Once/yr

From Norway to end- 2.9km Total

10-14 ft

Yes

From North Shore to end- 8.0km Total

10-14 ft

Yes

From Westport Rd to gate- 1.5 km Total From Bumdge Rd to Lee Rd- 3.1km Total

10-14 ft

Yes

10-14 ft

Yes

iSleeth Rd “Split Rail Lane

From Ernie Rd to end- 180m Total

10-12 ft

Yes

From Opinicon Rd in 1 km

10-14 ft

Yes

Tobin Rd

From Devil Lk Rd to end-1 km

10-U ft

Yes

Once (w/dozer)

Yes

Corkey Rd -Draper Lk Rd Fishing Lk Rd Fitzgerald Rd

McNeil Rd

0 0

Partial Winter Maintenance- Section of Road 4

i 12 Cons. (Back end) -Breese Rd (Back end) IBurridge Lk Rd (Back end) ;Clear Lk Rd (Back end)

, Darling Rd

Last 700m

14-16 ft

Last 300m

13-16 ft

Last 400m- From Space Lane in

10-12 ft

Yes

Last 2.7km- 700 m in from Rd 10 to end

12-16 ft

Yes

Once/yr Yes (w/dozer) Yes (w/dozer)

North of Farm- 600m

10-14 ft

Gully Rd (Freeman Rd)

Boundary Rd to culdesac (Freeman Rd)

10-14 ft

Yes

|Hanna Rd ;Hinchinbrooke Rd N(HighFalls)

Last 180m

10-14 ft

Yes

Last 1.7 km

12-14 ft

Once/yr

Twice/ yr

.James Wilson Rd

Middle 2.0 km (1.0km off CanoeLake)

12-16 ft

Yes

.Kingsford Lake Dam Rd

Beyond Parking Lot- Last 250m

14-16 ft

Yes

Lake Rd

Last 100m

10.14ft

Yes

Little Long Lk Rd

Middle 1.1km (150m off Charlie Green) 400m of the above 1 . 1 km(850m off CG Rd)

10-14 ft

Yes (700m)

10-14 ft

j Long Swamp Rd

From Bellrock Rd South 2.0 km

12-14 ft

Yes

;Massassauga Rd (Back end) Wassassauga Ln. (Boyscouts)

12-14 ft

Yes

Yes(w/dozer)

244

143

New Rd

1 km in from Rd 8 to Green Bay Rd

10-14 ft

Yes

.Steele Rd

Last 200m

10-14 ft

Yes

Steve Babcock Rd

Last 150m

10-14 ft

Once/yr

Yes

Timmerman Rd (Back end)

Last 700m

10-14 ft

Yes

0 3

262

Page 111 of 165

Page 112 of 165

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Date of Report January 21, 2015 Subject: Discussion on Renaming Lady Bush Lane, Part Lot 1, Concession IV, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receives the Planning report dated January 21, 2015 for information related to the possible re-naming and re-posting of a road sign for Lady Bush Lane.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a proposal to rename a private lane currently named Lady Bush Lane.

Background Approximately five years ago a request was received to give a name to an existing private lane off of Bedford Road. The lane provides access to waterfront lots at North Otter Lake. Council granted the request. The lane was named ‘Lady Bush Lane’ and a sign was posted at its entrance at Bedford Road displaying the name. Attachment #1 shows the location of the lane and the lots that it provides access to. Since that time the sign has been stolen or removed at least five different times. Each time the sign needed to be replaced at the expense of the Township.

Analysis It is important to properly identify the location of all properties in the Township for emergency response purposes. As part of this, it is Township policy that, when a lane gives access to only three or less properties, they should be identified at the entrance at the public road with a sign reading 98a, 98d and 98c (for example) but once there are at least four properties accessed by a private lane, the lane should be named and each lot should have its own address on the newlynamed lane. Thus, the name ‘Lady Bush Lane’ was assigned to this lane. In 2014 one of the properties on the lane was eliminated ie., one of the lots, which was vacant, was added to abutting lots – half to one lot and half to the other so that there is now one less lot being accessed by Lady Bush Lane. To illustrate this, Attachment #2 shows the lot configuration pre- 2014 and Attachment #3 shows the present lot configuration.

Conclusion At this time the road sign needs to be replaced at the lane entrance at the public road. If it is to be replaced with a name of a lane, a new name should be assigned since the present name sign is often stolen. However, since the lane now only accesses three lots there appears to be no requirement to give a name to the lane and the lots could simply be identified as 7000a, 7000b and 7000c Perth Road. In the opinion of the Planning Department either scenario would be acceptable to properly identify the lots.

Agency Comments The Fire Chief agrees that either scenario is acceptable for 911 emergency responses. This report is for the Committee’s information and consideration. attachments LadyBushLaneReport

Page 113 of 165

Attachment #1 Lady Bush Lane NO CA

KE LA

Birch Lake

Arkon Lake

LA NE

Mitchell Creek

WATER WAY

INN LA

Desert Lake

T ER ES

KE LA

Arab Lake

MASON LANE

North Otter Lake Holleford Lake

Rothwell Lake

SA LM ON

LA KE

Doe Lake

Doe Lake Pearkes Lake

BL AK SL EE

LA N

Subject Lots

South Otter Lake

SARGEN TS LANE Hill Lake

Deline Lake

LANE BUSCH

Gould Lake

Rush Lake

Blue Lake

BE DF

Darling Lake

Knowlton Lake

Little Devil Lake

Legend Glassy Lake McGuinns Lake

0.5

Waterbody 1

2 Cronk Lake Kilometers

D o u b l o o n L a k eM i c a L a k e

Wetland

Page 114 of 165

Attachment #2 Lady Bush Lane Pre-2014 Lot Configuration

µ North Otter Lake

DY LA BU SH BE DF

NE LA

Legend Waterbody 0

0.1

0.2

0.4 Kilometers

Wetland

Page 115 of 165

Attachment #3 Lady Bush Lane Current Lot Configuration

µ North Otter Lake

DY LA BU SH BE DF

NE LA

Legend Waterbody 0

0.1

0.2

0.4 Kilometers

Wetland

Page 116 of 165

PLANNING REPORT Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Date of Report January 22, 2015 Subject: Possible Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 8, Concession XII, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac: Amey Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee considers a request for the purchase of a 100 acre of land owned by the Township.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a proposal to purchase land from the Township and to explain the process for sale of property.

Background Doug Amey, a Township resident, has brought forward a request to purchase a vacant 100 acre property owned by the Township. The property abuts land that is already owned by Mr. Amey that is also 100 acres in size. Attachment #1 shows the location of the Township-owned land and the abutting land owned by Mr. Amey. Attachment #2 is a letter from Mr. Amey’s lawyer requesting Council’s consideration of the sale. Council and staff have been dealing with this matter since last May – the issue being that Mr. Amey’s land is essentially land-locked and is accessible only through an unopened road allowance from Canoe Lake Road – a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometres. The abutting Township-owned land is also land locked and is accessible only by way of this road allowance. Attachment #3 shows Mr. Amey’s land, the Township land and the unopened road allowance. The attachment shows two problems with the present use of the unopened road allowances to access Mr. Amey’s land as follows:

The road allowance is aligned through a wetland and a waterbody making access physically very difficult.
A number of farm buildings and uses associated with the abutting land appear to be located on the road allowance near Canoe Lake Road causing difficulty for passage through the road allowance. Attachment #4 shows the encroaching uses in more detail.

Analysis If Council wishes to sell surplus property, there is a requirement to pass a by-law declaring the property to be surplus and to give notice to the public of the proposed sale. An appraisal of the fair market value of the property is also required. The latter provision can be waived at Council’s discretion if the land does not have direct access to a highway and is being sold to the owner of land abutting that land – which applies in this case. Attachment #5 explains the procedure for notice of sale of municipal lands for reference. Staff are not clear as to how the Township-owned property came into the Township’s ownership, although it may have been related to unpaid taxes. This report is for the Committee’s consideration to provide direction to staff. attachments Amey2015ReportToCofW

Page 117 of 165

LEE R

OA D

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #1 Butterill Lake

W ES TP OR

Wolfe Lake

RL PLA

E AN

CAN

LAK E

Fermoy Lake

Township Owned Land Rock Lake Little Wolfe Lake

Canoe Lake

Amey Owned Land Ya n k e e L a k e

Folsom Lake

Camerons Lake

RO ME CA

Paddys Lake

DE VI L

LA KE

E AN NL

0.25

0.5

1 Kilometers

Devil Lake

613-546-14C

uaftu/zyi4 i. 1:54

PAGE 01

^RD RA

ATTACHMENT #2

Page 118 of 165

GORDON Y. fMcDlARMDO, B.Com, (Bons.), JJ&. BARRISTER A SOtICITOR ASSOCIATE; JUB

A. MILLARB* SAKS3STER A SOUCrTOK

TJBLEFHONE- 613^4^274 FAX-613-346-14%

3 RtDEAU STREET. P.O. BOX 1010 KINGSTON, ONTARIO K7L4X8

NKWEMATL: gmcdiflnnid@ridcanstrttt1aw.cfl jmillard®rtdcaustreetfaw.c<

Heat Estate: na1wtatB®Tfdesan»tncflaw«ca

May 1,2014

ViaFax:613^3W-6657

Township ofSotrtfa Fronteaac Planning Departtoettt 4432 George Sttteet PO Box 100

Sydesnham, Ontario KOH2TO ATTENTION: MS ANNB LEVAC

U, G ASSISTANT AJ^NlNi DearMsLevac;

Re: WestiMfLot 14 Concession 9 J)istri istrict of Bedford* South Frontcnac Township

As you know, I am fce solicitor fpr Douglas J. Amey Jr. oflaverary. He advises me fhat be had aiecent discussion wltii you about l^e possibility of his acqwrmg flrom&e Towxistoip thfi West Half of Lot 14 C<y&c®ssi<m9, District of^edfbrd (PIN 36245-0033). That parcel of land is directly norfh of a property that Mr. Amey alrea< y owns in the West Half of Lot 13 Concession 9.

It is our uAderstandmg that in oid^r for a conveyance of the land to take place, fhe Township

must to deem &e land to be “suq^ and then tfae To^iship must conq>ly wiA the rules and regulations for selling surplus toda.

I am writing to you to formally request that you beg^tt title process that could ultiaately lead to a sale of this property to Mr. Amey.

I would be most appreciative ifyo in tihds regard, and if you woukt advise m’ to commen.ce fhis process .

wozdd keep me informed of the steps that are being taloen. if there is any other mfbtmation that you yequire in order

Page 119 of 165

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #3

CAN

LAK E

µ Encroaching Land Uses

Unopened Road Allowance

Canoe Lake

Township Owned Land

Amey Owned Land

Ya n k e e L a k e

Folsom Lake

Legend Waterbody 0

0.125 0.25

0.5 Kilometers

Wetland

Page 120 of 165

Proposed Property Purchase Attachment #4 CANOE LAKE ROAD

µ Encroaching Land Uses

Unopened Road Allowance

0.025

0.05

0.1 Kilometers

AHaJiM^Tf^\£^ SCHEDULE ter TO 1BY-LAW NO. 2002-92

Procedures for Notice - Sale of Mnnlrin.I ^i.^t

^t^ili^JI^^^^i!^Jlf^^^^^^^^J!?i?^-al^,pas?,aby71aw, establishing procedures, including (he giving of notice to’the public,; govTg Ac salcof land. 26ty3Xc) Before selling any land, every municipality and local boari shaU give notice to the

public of the proposed sale. Content of Notice . .

Explanation of municipal land sale, including location and mapping Section of Act, including requirements

Date/Time/Place of public meeting for consideration of By-law Written comments and/or verbal comments will be considered at the public meeting where Bylaw is to be enacted

Address where to respond with comments prior to the public meeting Contact information at Admimstration Office

Cleric-Adnunishator’s NameyTide

Manner of Notice

. Published once at least two weeks in advance of the meeting in the local newspapers) hBving circulation in the Municipality.

Posted on site for at least one month m the mostprominent place in the immediate neighbourtiood of the proposed sale.

AdministradoD Office

^ *-,

^ ^

Page 121 of 165

Page 122 of 165

Planning Report Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Date of Report: January 19, 2015 Applicant: Jackson’s Earth Stones Ltd.

Planning Department File No. OPA - 21

Subject: Application for an Official Plan Amendment to Expand a Quarry in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI, Portland District, Township of South Frontenac Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receives this Planning Report, dated January 19, 2015, for information.

Purpose of the Report: This report is being brought forward for the Committee’s information relating to an application for an Official Plan amendment to expand a quarry. It is expected that the matter will come before Council within the next month for a decision and the Committee/Council should be made aware of the nature of the application before-hand.

Background In March 2014, an application was submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan as it applies to a property on Petworth Road east of the hamlet of Petworth. The application would permit the extension of an existing quarry operation on the land which involves quarrying of building stone from a portion of the land. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject property and Attachment #2 illustrates the existing quarry and the areas to be expanded For the Committee’s information, as part of the process to expand the quarry, the owner has also applied to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) under the Aggregate Resources Act for a licence to expand. In the case of this property, the application is to operate as a Category 8 (Class ‘B’ Quarry Licence, above the water table). The area of the existing extraction is designated on the Official Plan map as “Mineral Aggregate”. It should be noted that there are numerous areas throughout the Township that are identified with this designation and they are placed on the map at the direction of the Ministry of Natural Resources where they have identified a natural resource that is worthy of being protected. This resource may be extracted as a quarry or a pit where stone or aggregate material is used for road maintenance and construction or quarry stone for various uses in the construction industry. In the case of the subject land there is quarry stone which is a non-renewable, fixed location resource extracted intermittently when there is a need to supply a particular contract or to compile a stock of material which is shipped to another site for storage, display and ultimate sale. Stone from this quarry can be seen in many buildings in the Kingston area. Attachment #3 is a set of photos showing examples of local applications of this extracted stone.

Official Plan Application Process It should be noted that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMA&H) is the authority for final approval of any Official Plan amendment. For these types of applications the ministry has requested that Township Council not give any readings to the by-law that would amend the Official Plan but that the public meeting be held and all comments and the minutes of the meeting be forwarded to them. Accordingly, a public meeting was held on March 18, 2014 and the application and all comments were sent to the ministry for their preliminary review. By letter dated November 27, 2014, the ministry has now advised the Township that they support the amendment. Attachment #4 is a copy of the ministry’s letter.

Page 123 of 165 At this point an amending by-law must be brought to Council for first, second and third readings then it is forwarded to the ministry again for their final approval. The amending by-law will be brought to Council within the next month.

Aggregate Resources Act Application Process As noted above, the process to extend the quarry operation also requires an application to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). This application is for a licence in accordance with the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards for a Category ‘B’ (Class B Quarry Licence above the water table). The application to the MNRF (with all the above supporting documents) was submitted in September of 2013 and it is presently still under review by that ministry. The licence itself would specify, the annual amount of material that is allowed to be extracted (a maximum of 20,000 tonnes) and would prohibit blasting, crushing, screening and finishing of the product on-site. It would also place conditions for dust mitigation, noise mitigation and would include contingencies to deal with spills and fuel storage. A site plan would be registered on the title of the land to identify the locations of all extraction limits, access areas, haul routes and all measures to mitigate adverse effects on neighbouring lands including berming, plantings, setbacks and other buffering measures. Note that the land is required to be rehabilitated ie., graded and replanted, as the extraction moves outwards towards the limits of the extraction areas.

Other Notes for Council All of the conditions and limits imposed by the ARA licence as noted above would also be included in the Township’s zoning by-law which already zones the original extraction area in a Pit ‘B’ zone. This zone limits extraction to 20,000 tonnes annually and specifies no blasting drilling etc. The zoning by-law would be amended to apply to the proposed expanded area to implement the Official Plan amendment. MNRF will not issue their licence until Council has approved the zoning by law amendment. At this stage, both the Official Plan amendment application and the ARA licence application are being processed. Under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s ‘One Window Review”, the OP application was be circulated to the MNRF for comments so that one application cannot be approved without the other application being approved. As part of the ARA licence application surrounding property-owners were consulted who, in turn, provided comments to the MNRF on the proposed licence in late 2013. The Planning Department also comments leading up to the public meeting on March 18, 2014 which was advertised. At the meeting a number of the area residents voiced their concerns over the proposed expansion. Many were under the mistaken assumption that the amendment would allow the operator to extract more material per year, however in fact, the annual permitted tonnage would remain at under 20,000 tonnes. One resident abutting the subject land to the south expressed concerns about the effect on their well and there was a concern about safety at the entrance. Minutes of the public meeting are attached as Attachment #5. In response to the concerns of residents the owner of the quarry brought forward a revised site plan that would mitigate many of their objections. Attachment #6 is a copy of the site plan showing expanded berming and increased setbacks. Also attached is a list of the initiatives that would help address the concerns. It should be noted that all correspondence was forwarded to MMA&H and MNRF for their review. Both ministries support the quarry expansion. This report is submitted for the Committee’s information. As noted above, a by-law will be brought to Council for first, second and third readings next month. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments JacksonOPAmendmentInformationReportToCofW

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 124 of 165

Attachment #1 Jackson Quarry Napanee River

Hardwood Creek

Pondlily Lake

KERR ROAD

Napanee Lake

PETWORTH ROAD

RIVER ROAD

Subject Lots

Napanee River

NORTH WHITTY ROAD

BRADFORD ROAD WEST

MD CA / EN R PO D AN TL U BO ND

YR AR

COLEB ROOKE ROAD

Legend Waterbody

0.25

0.5

1 Kilometers

Wetland

Page 125 of 165

Attachment #2 Jackson Quarry PETWORTH ROAD

Residential Property

Area to be Expanded

Existing Quarry

Area to be Expanded

µ Legend 0

0.025 0.05

0.1 Kilometers

Wetland

Page 126 of 165

Page 127 of 165

Page 128 of 165

Page 129 of 165

e«t^

A WIinistry of

rv-

Minlstere des

^Ontario

IVlunicipal Affairs Affaires munlcipales And Housing

et du Logement

^I^Si?!?81s?s[vtees office ?^au desB®rvices aux municipalit6s Eastern Region

8 Estate Lane Rockwood House

Region de I’Est

8 chemin Estate

Maison Rockwood

Kingston ON K7M9A8 Kingston QN K7M9A8 Phone: (613)545-2100 T6l6phone: (613)545-2100 Fax:_ (613) 548-6822 T6l6Gopieur; (613) 548^822

Toll Free: 1-800-267-9438 SansfraiS: 1-800-267-9438 November 27,2014 Lindsay Mills, Planning Coordinator Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100

4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO

Re; Draft Official Plan amendment 21 for the Township of South Frontenac IVIMAH File No: 10-OP-149740

Dear Mr. Mills;

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to pre-consutt on the proposed draft Official Plan amendment for the Township of South Frontenac.

The purpose of this Official Plan amerrctmertt is to redesignate an area of land from “Rural” to “Mineral Aggregate” to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry. The expansion is also subject to an application under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The lands subject to the proposed amendment are located on Part Lot 17, Concession VI, in Portland district, in the Township of South Frontenac. The draft Official Plan amendment was circulated through the Province’s One-Window Protocol

to our partner ministries and was reviewed under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014. Further to this review, our comments are as follows: Mineral Aggregate Resources

There are no mine hazard (AMIS) sites within one Kilometer of the subject property. Gull River Formation limestone near Kingston is described in Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 5730 - Carbonate Building Stone Resources of the Lake Simcoe - Kingston Area,

Southeastern Ontario, Limestone from the Petworth Quarry is known for its durability, favourable colour, bed thickness and exposure; therefore it is hiQhly suitable for the production of dimension stone. Stone from this quarry can be seen in many buildings In the Kingston area. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is responsible for issuance of Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) licenses and has no objections to the application related to this Official Plan amendment; however a license cannot be issued until the municipal zoning is in place to allow extraction to occur.

A review of MNRF’s best available infonnation indicates that the subject lands are located within Page 1 of 4

Page 130 of 165

^. * r

^b^;r.?fl!iJ^^LTi^^?f!?JTS[l f,’^yld.^J?Ltlfle;£^POII-e”.-t .‘I?!08168 t!1at_!fle subj.ec.t. site

contains fimestone bedrock of a high quality that is suitable for heritage restoration and other

building stone applications such as landscaping. Access to additiQnal resource from the expansion area is needed to supply stone with particular texture and colour variations -for the

heritage restoration industry. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires that as much

^^^a^r^?^JS^rS^I^ILbi?.^T?-a^aL2?!i^51?ATJ?-!I\alr^ wntainsmany,lirnestorIeh0ritage_bLIi!din9s and heritage restoration activities, the proposed quarry evpansion seems appropriate to serve this market.

Lr?tf<S^a^?i?^!Lt^T;^^aAn^Athf«^^:?’?lr???i^ ^?.!^t-le?abi!itat?D? i?.required .al?d the site plans submitted with the ARA application meet the provincial standards in this regard. In addition, the subject site is Identified as containing Class 6 soils and therefore would not be

considered prime agricultural land. MNRF fs saWed that the potential environmental impacts

have been adequately addressed by the applieatton. The proponent is continuing to resolve any outstanding objections regarding social impacts.

The PPS requires that mineral aggregate operations be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued u?e. MNRF’s recointnended adjacent lands for considering land use compatibility are 300 metres for a pit and 500 metres for a quarry (1997 Non-Renewabte Resources Training Manual). The determination of appropriate setbacks should be based on appropriate technical Studies and information. The Township’s Planning Report concludes that the application can be supported based on

additional mitigation measures identified in Attachment’s that would render the use compatible

with the surrounding land uses. Item 8 in AUachmertt #6 states that the Offictal Plan amendment will contain a clause that will allow residential uses within 150 metres of the Extension Quarry operation (over-ricting the current requirement in the zoning bylaw). An appropriate area of influence based on technical studies is not identified. MNRF is concerned that the proposal to remove the consideration of an atea of influence will further constrain the site from normal

operation or potential further expansion in the future by allowing additional residential development immediately adjacent to the quany. It is recommended that the Official Plan amendment and zoning bylaw contain provisions to require the assessment of land use Gompatibilily to determine appropriate setbacks for sensitive

uses rather than removing the current area of Influence altogether, It is also recommended that the Township update the area of influence to the distances recommended in the 1997 NonRenewable Resources Training Manual to ensure aggregate operations are adequately protected. Water Quality and Quantity

Please note that Section 28(1 1) of the Conservation Authorities Act states that Authority approval is not required for activities approved under the Aggregate Resources Act However, Quinte Conservation (QC) staff recommend that the proposed expansion of the Quarry should be supported by a groundwater level monitoririQ program to ensure tilat the floor of the Quarry remains at least two (2) metres above the water table. This recommendation is provided in view of some uncertainty associated with Mvater table elevation on the northern portion of the site. Such a monitoring program is recommended as containing adequate, contingency in the event

that the quarry excavation does not remain the minimum two (2) metres above the water table. If further information is required regarding the above comment, please contact Mark Boone, P. Geo., Hydrogeologist at 613-968-3434 x 120.

Staff of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) advise that a water table

investigatiGn was conducted to verify that the existing quarry and the proposed expansion are

being developed to operate two metres above the water table, and that N^

conducted by WESA. was done using an appropriate method and that the obtained value is reasonable.

Paa^20f4

Page 131 of 165

Page 132 of 165

The determined value also agrees (and is generally conservative) in comparison to water levels as reported in the wate1’ we!H InformatiQn System (WWIS). Staff nole that the data in the

WWIS is of questionable quality; however, this comparison provides an additional line of evidence.

Ifl^^ilif^n.t-rl9^r^p!e??nted bywESA are not scientifically justified and indicate an inappropriate level of precision.

Although the proposed activity results in the removal of bedrock and overlying material that provides some protection to groundwater. staff conclude that the risk to groundwater with regard tojhe proposed activity is very unlikely. This Conclusion has been obtained based on the

following: no risk exists with regards to groundwater quantity; no historical issues/complaints

from the existing operation; the depth to water bearing features/fractures in the area is at much

greater depth than the potentiometric surface. This observation is characteristie of sparsely

fractured rock and was confirmed through observations in the WWIS and from information

provided regarding by WESA; and the rural setting of the site, the distance to and the limited number of homes in the area.

The establishment of basedne water quality data and a groundwater monitoring program should be considered as a precautionary and due diligent approach at the site. Significant Natural Heritage Features and Areas and Speciesat Risk

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) ha$ evaluated the site and worked with the proponent as p^rt of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) license application and is satisfied that appropriate studios have been done to confirm the presence of significant natural heritage features and areas on and adjacW to the site. Potential for impacts to Significant Wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Woodlands, Valteylands, and Wildlife Habitat have been evaluated and thes& features have not been found to be present on the subject lands. Habitat of Endangered and Tlnreatened Species was also evaluated and was found not to be

present on the subject lands, or the potential for impacts to species were not found to be a

concern by MNRF. As a result, MNRF does not have any concerns regarding endangered and threatened species at this time. However, the proponent should note that additional species at

risk may be listed and it remains the proponent’s responsibility to ensure that species at risk are not impacted. The folfowing information is provided to help the proponent ensure consistency

with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007. Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected under the ESA. SectiQn9(1) of the ESA prohibits a person from killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or

extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list

Due to the species that are potentially present within the general area of this site the following recommendations should help prevent adverse inipacts: Turtles and Snakes

Workers must be vigilant and check work areas for the presence of turtles and snakes. If wildlife are encountered, work must be temporarily suspencted until the animal is out of harm’s way. Qirds

Workers must be vigilant and check work areas for the presence of breeding birds and nests containing eggs and/or young. Fact sheets for the identification of species at risk birds should be Page 3 of 4

Page 133 of 165 provided to the on-site workers before the project begins. If breeding birds and/or nests are

encountered, works should not continue in thei tpcsiion of the nesi until after July 1st (or as soon as it has been determined that the young have left the nest). Please note that the breeding bird season in the subject area extends from May 1 to June 30. Therefore, works should commence after June 30 wherever possible. It is recommended that landowners and on-site workers familiartee themselves with Information found at the following link: MNRF Species at Risk website: httD://www.ontario*ca/sDeciesatrisk.

If an impact to a Species at Risk or its. habitat cannot be avoided, a person(s) may apply for an authorization under the ESA. However, if an authorization is not Issued by MNRF, the person(s) must comply with the ESA by modifying proposed acUvUies to avoid impacts to Species at Risk and habitat protected under the ESA. During on-site activities, shoukt.any species at risk be discovereci, MNRF should be contacted

immediately and operations should be modified to avoid any negative impacts to species at risk or their habitat until further discussions with MNRF can occur regarding opportunities for mitigation. If any species at risk are found, the Peterborough District MNRF office should be

contacted at (705) 755-2001. Pictures of the species at risk and coordinates for the location where it Was observed should be provided to MNRF. At this time, based on the information provided at the draft stage, the Ministry supports the proposed amendment to redesignate the subiect lands from “Rutal” to “Mineral Aggregate”,

subject to the comments above add provided the recommendation for the establishment of baseline water quality data and a ground water monitoring program, as well as the recommendation regarding areas of influence. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (613)5452112 or by email at andrea.gummo@ontario,ca. Yours tryly, r

Andrea Gurmu), Planner

Municipal Sen/ices Office " Kingston ec. Liz Spang, ^ANRF - by email Jan Qrpana, MOECC - by ennait Debbie Laidlaw, MNDM - by email Tim Trustham, QC - by email

Page 4 of 4

Minutes of Council March. 18. 2014

AthJl men{< s~

Page 134 of 165

Time: 7:00 PM

Location: Council Chambers

Meeting #10 Present: Mayor Gary Davteon. Pat Barr, John McDougall, Allan McPhail, Cam Nalsh, Bill Robinson. Del Stowe, Ron Vandewal. Larry York

Staff: Wayne Orr. Chief AdministraUve Officer. Undsay Mills, Planner, Loutee Fragnito, Treasurer, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant. Call to Order

Resolution No. 2014-10-1

Moved by Councillor Barr

c) Review of Applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in Part of Lot 17, Concession VI. Portland District

Lindsay Mills explained that these amendments would redesignate and rezone an area of land from “rural” to “mineral aggregate”. The property owner wishes to expand a stone quarry that has been In operation on a portion of the land since the early 1970’s. The atone material is small blocks of

naturally weathered limestone that can be removed from the ground by hand or by limited mechanical means. The zoning by-law would also be amended to permit the owner to quarry the material but would prohibit drilling, blasting and processing of the material.

He referred to his report staling that because the material Is removed in such a

passive method, the Inqsmpatible uses normally associated with a quarry operation such as blasting, drilling and processing of the material on the site are not necessary. Mr. Mills noted that (here were several concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners. These concerns Included incompatibility to the surrounding area, and noise.

Councillor Robinson expressed concern about the level to which quarry cgn operate an its effect on the water table. Ltndsay Mills confirmed that the quany activity ts 2 metres above the water table.

Deputy Mayor Vandewal noted that this has been before Council for

Stomngton District and there haven’t been any complaints received. He didn’t see this use as being obtruslve.

Councillor Nalsh stated that Jackson’s Earth Stones run a clean operation within the guidelines.

Lindsay Mills noted that the Public Works Manager noted that there are too t

many pits and quarries where his department has not had a chance to review

the Impact on road and entrances due to higher volumes of heavy vehicles. Councillor Stowe asked If the concerns expressed from the Public Works Department were due to wear and tear on township roads.

MarkSegsworth stated that it would be helfpul to review all the pits and quarries ahead of time to determine the impact on senrices.

Jim Jack, 4837 Petworth Road noted that his property abuts Phase I of the

Page 8 of ^0

Page 135 of 165 »

Minutes of Council

March, 18, 2014

quarry and his house tejsurrounded by the quarry, He questioned the

differenoe between the “subiect land”‘and the “land to be quarried”. He

I?-clue^to.?-cl??1fi<?ation.?f the removal of sto"s as ft te not benign or quiet. The pneumatic chisel used to separate the rock makes tots of noise. He was concerned about the level of activity in the the future and he felt this size of

expansion was daunting. He recognized that the level of activity Is based on supply and demand and he felt this level of work will Increase In the quarry. He thanked the owner for the documentation supplied and the replies he has received from him that addressed his concerns.

Lindsay Mills explained that the subject land is the total area of the land whereas the land to be quarried is just the area within the subject land. Amarjit Sandhu, consultant for the owner, noted that Phase II is on the eastern

side and extraction will be dependent on the topography and the quarry activity will be limited in some areas and will be maintained at the two metres above the water table.

Mr. Jack indicated that he was still opposed to the application as his property is still within a direct line of the quarry. Cralg Hilton, 4852 Petworth Road, stated that the majority of the work will be done within proximity to residential homes. He noted that he has had conversations with the owner and consultant and commends them however he

stated that 20,000 tonnes annually is an extremely significant increase and will change the scope of the operation. He noted that there Isn’t an adequate

turning area Into the quarry and Increased trucking would affect the road bed. He felt there should be consideration given to the fact that there has been lots of new residential development In this area,

Councillor Stowe asked about the Ministry of Natural Resources guidelines and If the municipality has any input on the classifications, Amaijtt Sandhu explained that the ministry establishes a “Class B” quarry operation as less than 20.000 tonnes or less and he was not familiar with any licence that is Issued for teas. He noted that his client would only produce what

the market dictates and that It is very volatile. The average annual quarry operation has been less than 1,000 tonnes and flat bed trucks have been used for transporting the stone, about 20 trucks per year.

Deputy Mayor Vandewal asked if the current operatton is approved under Class B and Mr. Sandhu explained that It would be a new licence but merged into one.

Lynda Trommelen who owns the farm to the south of the applicants property felt that the process has been open but she was concerned that the diagram she received showed the entire block on the south end and she noted that this includes a natural waterflow that is critical for this area. She indicated that she

has four wells on her property and any change due to the quarry operation would affect the natural drainage and water quantity. She commented that Mr. Jackson has been a good neighbour but she was concerned about future owners of the quarry and how they might conduct the quarry business. Amarjit Sandhu acknowledged the confusion of neighbouring property owners given the fact that there is a difference in the mapping being used by the township and those of the consultant. He noted that Quinte Conservation

Authority has reviewed the subject parcel and the area of concern Is not intended to be quarried due to environmental concerns and that there isn’t any stone in-this area. *

Rachael Tryon-Smith, 4864 Petworth Road, reviewed her correpondence that

Page 9 of ©(

Page 136 of 165 f

Minutes of Council

March, 18,2014

had not been received In Ume to be included In the agenda package. She noted that with three young children she and her husband are concerned about

the affect on water quality. She Indicated that she does not have any probtem with Mr. Jackson and the current operation however she was concerned that

the next owner may not have any regard to protecting the water vlens. She felt that increased activity with the quarry operation will impact real estate values and their home Is their investment. When her tot was severed It was made

clear that any construction had to be outside of the area of influence of the quarry however the reverse does not hold true. If the quarry is expanded, U would encroach on her existing dwelling and it would then be within the area of influence and she questioned the fairness of this. Lindsay Mills confimred that the Official Plan ts written to prohibit the creation of a new lot near the area of influence of a quarry however It does not read the other way.

Rachael Smlth-Tryon referred to her parents submission (Don and Margaret

Smith, 4826 Petworth Road) whose property ts east and west of the quarry and the expansion will impact any further development. She noted that In March

1993, the former Township of Portland had zoned this property that limited aggregate crushing to one week per year though she recognized that the current license and zoning Is mpra permissive they have not been

disadvantaged by the existing oepratton. Mr. and Mrs. Smith noted that they are also concerned about increased traffic, noise, prevention of future severances, impact on quality and quantity of water, property value and that the new license will Increase the quarry operations five times what the existing license permits.

Deputy Mayor Vandewal referred to the MDS (minimum distance separation) that is caclulated both ways and he was surprised that the area of influence does not work that way as well. Rachael Tryon-Smlth stated that the exisltng operation is okay but the

proposed expansion will negatively impact the surrounding residential properties. She asked what was being done to protect the homeowners. Amarj’it Sandhu clarified that there were two processes involved in the

expansion of the quarry. The township Is dealing with the Planning Act

requirements and the township received three letters of concern. The Ministry of Natural Resources deals with the Aggregate Resources Act and there were 6 letters of concerned received by the ministry. These letters had not been sent to the Planning Department. Councillor Stowe asked If the quarry owner wished to sever a lot could he apply for an Official Plan Amendment, He also asked If the 350 metres is in

place to protect the quarry operation. Mr. Mills explained that the “area of influence” is to protect the resource. Mayor Davlson asked if the owner could change hte application to move back to the edge of the quarry line to provide a buffer and not expand to the north part. Ltndsay Mills explained that the township is dealing with the application as

submitted noting that the north part of the property has valuable material for the quarry operation.

Deputy Mayor Vandewal noted that if the quarry was sold to another operator,

they would have to continue on with me exlsitlng operation and regulations so

the application Is not to Increase the tonnage, the present owner could extract up to 20,000 tonnes per year right now.

PBggelOof90

Page 137 of 165 Minutes of Council

March. 18. 2014

t t

Resolution No, 2014-10-3

Moved by Councillor Bar

Seconded by Councillor McPhatl

THAT Council receh/es the report dated March 4,2014 from the Planning

Department and Its attachments and that all comments and discussion from the public meeting b6 forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their review. Carried

Resolution Resolution No. 2014-10-4

Moved by Councillor McPhall Seconded by Councillor Bdrr THAT an opportunity having been provided that the public meeting be closed. Carried

Page 138, Dn"e of 165 Shed

ATTACHMENT #6 y

9 w

Barn

House <*

rj ‘-’

concrete

^^^^^^^

w a tt

» t*

9 w

.»

from property line at rear of

-&‘1’

Garage

^ /

«.

^ I

1 ^

9

‘»

-*«

I.”.’. p

),~.,

« tit

^ / ^-* “s.i\ ^.)OM’

«

1.’

*)S

-^\

Q^J

^oc

v^ EIWQRTH ROAD ,^,..^«/.^OF^“l<. K. F=ARM LANE^. L’lp.rr? J^ Garage-^
30 n~ ; ^.’ y

‘?. v

.t-

_/.

^ ^
.s.

‘.-1

VI3’

f. I

\ ^

^. f

^‘n.

rj7-j

.-,nS

“if

, .^

:‘r^-

ShedD

Relocate berm to

“1

c e

v 1’f

.^’

^’°»’

fSf- j

<yw&’ (^ 106.74 \

relocated

,Ji

/.^

-I

-1

d \

.-I

‘0’

^<)>1 ^ v

-r

-U Co

Jackson’s Earth Stones Ltd.

<^ ^^^

fr-

Extend Berm

CONTRACTS

A-D

^ Pr

s:’

»T

r-:

N r

->'

QUARRY ACCESS ROAD WITH GATE

(D (D 0° 0

^/^&'

S ’ °i 3rio

T.n/

./^

‘^ .t?.

‘<^b

^ V

-n

/.^

‘J

;

f. ^ -1 \

^’

'

r’, z

1~\

Q c

SCALE 1:2,500 IUDB47MUDCAUVIEWENWO T»iRFnEN»UHCEO MdlOCTON NOftm MELO.tIWG

INTERIM PHASED BERM

(at east-west section)

3/aRIDEAUVIEW ^^ P,E.R1E1ER.PHASED BERM (final alignment) NATURAL STONE PRODUCTS

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNTS OF FRONTENAC

North Field (Phase 1)

se^^sstone ^ s^s^^uawon °Quarry Extension Enhanced Mitigation

-n n

/ f?s^

<. -

Licence #2405

trees on western berm

Existing

./I

)’

a rt

^ .i

berm to achieve

‘-’.^-’

.
f.

EXISTING BERM

height of ±2.5m along entire length & plant

aSupplement

L,-,_

rY^–’

Bonn to be

^3Kvt^^ ^ -w^ ^ 1^ <b

.?“7W^ ^

^ It

cuNw uie to conHnue

OU5G

.yI j

<.;

T-

f .^

/¥]

r-"~

*“A d-'

1*’l

<-? \

}

i^ vj .)'

,’t ^

existing trees/ hedgerow

^ <.

A \ “J

‘J.T ^

ioconHnua

L-‘J

A’

; ^^^^

p.J

nt 4

EX15TING BERM

grtcuNuf u-

30m

setback

.-0; (;

,.u-

r B t”

3 n.

^ Locate berm to retain

;”
‘J

f”

u.(fl

House ^

House

‘I

.-^

^P: -eJK

d ^

s s».

^tf

house .*s» »

Increase excavation setback to 30m

House

£)

L–J

-t

^. B »

p,ad r ^

.‘a 9

SEQUENCE OF EXTRACTION

Page 139 of 165

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

January 21, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

January 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Volunteer Firefighter Honorarium RECOMMENDATION: That Council increase the base firefighter honorarium for calls and training from $30 to $35 effective January 1, 2015. And that this rate be adjusted on regular basis at the same increment as negotiated for the Township’s bargaining unit commencing January 1, 2016. BACKGROUND: Firefighters are paid quarterly and receive an honorarium of $30 for each call they respond to and each training night they attend. This base rate is for the first 3 hours. This rate has NOT changed since 2008. Firefighters are compensated at an hourly rate for each extra hour beyond the 3 hour base. The rate was set at $10.30 per hour effective January 1, 2008. This rate was tied to the increases negotiated for the bargaining unit and applied to non-union staff and members of Council and is now at $11.86 per hour. Had the base honorarium of $30 also been tied to the rates negotiated for the bargaining unit, the base rate would have increased to $34.89 effective January 1, 2015. The following background facts are based on the five year average (2010-2014): 445 4686 783 3304 1449 2147 $300,883

Number of calls per year Number of call outs where the base honorarium is paid Number of extra call hours Number of training sessions paid Number of extra training hours paid -including instructor prep. Number of other hours paid Gross firefighter payroll

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of adopting the recommendations in the 2015 budget is estimated at $40,575. This is based on the five year average for the number of callouts, training hours and paid time. The proposed budget developed by staff, set to be presented to Council on Saturday February 7 includes an allowance for this change.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 140 of 165

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

January 21, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

January 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Recreation Committee Compensation RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: Volunteers serve an import role in giving South Frontenac a greater sense of community. Council appoints citizens to serve on both local and South Frontenac Recreation Committees. At the prompting of Councillor Roberts, Council has asked for background information on the level of compensation given to recreation committee members. In 2008 the rate of $25 per meeting was set by Council (increased for the previous $15). The base rate is not meant as compensation for time but to cover expenses associated with attending local meetings including mileage. In 2011, Council agreed to provide mileage reimbursement for members attending South Frontenac Recreation Committee meetings to recognize that they are traveling out of their own district at the request of Council. Had the base honorarium of $25 been adjusted through the years at the same level as the rates negotiated for the bargaining unit, non-union staff and Council, the base rate would have increased to $29.07 effective January 1, 2015. The incremental impact on the recreation budget of adjusting the rate to $29 effective January 1, 2105 is estimated at $1,000.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 141 of 165

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

January 19, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

January 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Chain of Office RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: Council directed the CAO to obtain information on the cost of purchasing a chain of office. A chain of office is ceremonial in nature and is used to convey the authority of Council and the Mayor. The firm that supplies the Township lapel pins was contacted and they have prepared an estimate. The estimate includes the following: • A suspended municipal medallion with our coat of arms or logo • A velvet collar and medallion pouch • The Provincial and Federal coat of arms • 4 – custom or provincial emblems • Name bars for engraving • A carrying case Estimate: $2,399 plus tax Any custom work is at $250 per attachment. If the four former Township logos were incorporated this would be an additional $1000. The choice of base metal has a significant impact on the cost. Options include gold, silver and pewter. All in a base budget estimate would be $5,000. This could be funded from either taxation or reserves. With detailed input a firm quote could be obtained.

ATTACHMENTS: Typical chain of office layout

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 142 of 165

i Typical Chain of Office Layout

rjf

^ <i

and Standard c^tta^iment6 ^

J~^ ^ Canadian Coat: of c^lrm6 Nt;. 1 -

C/V<‘ame B, w6 ( maximum of 24

k- -^-

^^ (^^^ mw^ipal or provinci

“^

000

“-^ .*

Y cJhe 6u6pended mecLdlion:

.^>

teatur 6 your armonal de6iyi or

loffo.

^. (Jke cProvmcicd Coat of c^rm6

^ “< Standard or custom attackment6 .d

Chain ofOSBce is available

“^

^ -rf

in Gold, Silver or Pewter.

Velvet Colour Choices *-

-I

->’

*
T.

Please note that the colours shown are only approximations. Our printer can not exactly duplicate the actual colours of our materials.

9'1

. .>; W3

Colour swatches available upon request.

^(^.iiditom laijoutd au<.7.ilab1e on reque6t.

Page 143 of 165

STAFF REPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: January 22, 2015 January 27, 2015

AGENDA DATE:

SUBJECT: 4th Quarter Report for 2014 RECOMMENDATION: For Information only SUMMARY: The following report details Year to Date emergency responses and training hours for 2011, 2012 and 2013 as well activities for the fourth quarter of 2014. Emergency Responses:

Medical Fires False Alarms Burning MVC Water Rescue Mutual Aid Other TOTAL Monthly Average

2011

2012

2013

4th Quarter 2014

2014

137 45 60 46 62 4 5 83 442 37

131 86 57 12 62 4 5 94 451 38

143 41 58 18 62 2 5 101 430 36

33 8 12 2 27 0 1 29 112 37

139 31 47 17 56 0 6 125 421 35

Note: The ‘Other’ category is power lines down, gas leaks, spills, smoke in a house, CO present, etc. Training Hours: 2011

2012

2013

4th Quarter 2014

2014

12440

12400

11500

2068

11934

Mandatory Inspections: 4th Quarter 2014 Social Housing Inspections

Submitted/approved by: Rick Chesebrough Fire Chief

Number 0 0

Completed 0 0

Page 144 of 165

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: January 22, 2015 AGENDA DATE:

January 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Public Information Centre for the Road 38 Corridor Study in Verona. RECOMMENDATION: For Information only BACKGROUND: In 2014 staff engaged Stantec Engineering to undertake a corridor study of Road 38 in Verona. Items including on-street parking, traffic counts, lane widths, and pedestrian facilities were reviewed. An initial Public Information Centre was held on April 7th, 2014. As a result staff was asked to take further counts to incorporate peak traffic volumes during the tourist season. Stantec Engineering has completed their evaluation of the traffic counts and alternatives. A Public Information Centre is to be held to share the information. February 19, 2015 7:00 to 9:00pm. The Verona Lions Hall, 4504 Verona Sand Road,

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared By:

Mark Segsworth P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday C.E.T. Area Supervisor

Page 145 of 165

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

January 20th, 2015

Agenda Date:

January 27th, 2015

SUBJECT: Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement – The point RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only. A recommendation from the South Frontenac Recreation Committee is pending once the new Committee is in place. BACKGROUND: The ‘Point’ on Sydenham Lake is actively used for a variety of activities by the community and visitors to the area. It has even been referred to as a ‘jewel’ of South Frontenac. The shores of the Point provide a gathering place for a great deal of people that enjoy participating in outdoor recreation and leisure activities. The area provides public access to the waters of Sydenham Lake for activities such as boating, fishing, swimming and paddling. The area is used to hosting events such as Canada Day, Triathlon and more. This is also the location for a very popular summer swim and day camp program offered by the Township. Over the past several years the shores of the Point have started to deteriorate. Due to the sensitive nature and regulations protecting the shoreline only minimal work has been undertaken. This being the removal of some old wood cribs (top layer only), near the grass away from the shoreline. This work was completed from a safety perspective (trip hazard) and not as part of any remediation efforts. Recognizing the public importance of the Point, the South Frontenac Recreation Committee has identified this as an area in much need of restoration and enhancement. The Chair of the South Frontenac Recreation Committee requested that a consultant be hired to investigate the extent of the deterioration and provide a report and concept plans on what could be done to the restore and enhance the Point. The firm of Riggs Engineering Ltd. was retained to do this work. In the fall of 2014 the concept plans were provided to the Township and Chair of the South Frontenac Recreation Committee. On November 17, 2014 the South Frontenac Recreation Committee met as part of their regularly occurring meetings to review and discuss the concept plans. At that meeting the Committee agreed to hand off further discussions with Riggs Engineering Ltd to the South Frontenac Arena/Recreation Supervisor supported by the Manager of Public Works. Further direction was given by the Townships CAO for the Arena/Recreation Supervisor to work with the Consultant in producing an information report to Council. The report and presentation will assist in providing information to help form a decision once the formal recommendation is made by the South Frontenac Recreation Committee. The Committee hopes to meet on February 9th, 2015. As per the draft Capital Budget presented to Council at the January 13th, 2015 meeting, $100,000.00 was incorporated for this project with funding coming from parkland reserve. Attachment: Report from Riggs Engineering Ltd – see delegation portion of agenda. Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr

Prepared by: Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Page 146 of 165

Johnston Point Development – Delegation Notes Overall Development Plan · ·

14 proposed lots, strategically developed in conjunction with three prior lots created by consent Environmental Respect o Lots completely encompass wetland pockets. o Lots are large averaging over 5 acres in size with many lots being much larger. o Lots exceed both water and road frontage requirements save and except lots located at the end of the cul-de-sac where it is normal for road frontage to be reduced. o Setbacks proposed all exceed typical standards (i.e. houses will range from 35-50 m. setbacks, septic systems are set even further back and generally are located so they slope away from the lake. o Condominium approach allows for an extra layer of regulation, policed by the Condo Corporation and the residents themselves.

Additional Supporting Information to be read in conjunction with the Township’s Planning Memorandum, Agenda Date January 13, 2015 Page 2 – “A portion of the lane to access the units runs through private land which is not part of the subject land. The existing lane on the subject property extends to these private lands and legal access must be obtained through these lands to access units 1, 2 and 3 beyond” · ·

The existing lots were created by the same owner. Two of the lots remain in that original ownership while one lot has been sold. As the approach taken at Johnston Point is not uncommon, the traditional method of a “Joint Use Agreement” has already been put in place. Any subsequent owners of the existing lots will have to sign the agreement prior to sale of the existing lots. This method also ensures that future owners are made aware of the broader development plan as it is proposed. The method used has also been reviewed and endorsed by the Township’s solicitor on more than one occasion.

Page 2 – “A portion of unopened road allowance must be closed to facilitate the creation of units 12 and 13”. Page 3 says – “The closing of the road allowance is a significant component of the development and the concept was proposed to Council on September 2, 2014. Council appeared generally favourable to the closure of the road allowance.” ·

Without out the road closing, the development as proposed would have to have slight changes to the proposed configuration. Essentially lot 12 would be independent of the development likely having frontage on the North Shore Road. The development would otherwise offer the same number of lots with minimal reconfiguration being necessary. We believe closing the Road Allowance makes sense as it is in close proximity to the existing road and would serve no purpose to be opened as it does not provide any benefit to the Residents’ of the township i.e. by providing access to water. The Road allowance divides the wetland, while our proposed lot fabric ensures the wetland pockets are either entirely included or entirely separated from the lots. 1

Page 147 of 165

Closing the Road Allowance is consistent with decisions to date - SF Councils have made.

Page 2/3 – “Five test wells were drilled and pumping tests were conducted as components of the Hydrogeological Study. The report concludes that sufficient well water yields were observed and that bacteriological analyses meet the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (some treatment is required however). ·

It is most important to note that a third party hydrogeologist reviewed the findings of our consultant and came to the conclusion that the water (both Quantity and Quality) was satisfactory for the proposed development to occur. The treatment that the Township Planner refers to is discussed in the report is to deal with operational parameters - hardness. It is very common that rural residents have water softeners to treat hardness.

Page 4: Comments Regarding Agency Comments as it relates to the CRCA appear to be based on the CRCA letter of August 8, 2014. CRCA letters have been provided with this presentation. · · ·

Since the initial comments were received, Ecological Services replied with a response dated September 3, 2014 (attached). CRCA then responded back on November 12, 2014 to the Consultant’s September 3, 2014 response which acknowledged all other agency updates as well (attached). It should be noted that CRCA is in support of the development moving toward Draft Approval. Their November 12th letter includes conditions for Draft Plan Approval (Letter has been attached for Council’s benefit).

Process and Council’s Timing on Decision ·

· ·

· · ·

The Planning Act outlines the process in which the Township and County process plans of subdivision and plans of Condominium. This includes information related to public and agency commenting processes as well as timelines in which Council’s are to make a decision. In the case of Subdivisions and Condominiums the County is the approval authority but they work closely with the Township on all aspects of the approval process. It is the County’s practice not to request a Public Meeting until agency comments are generally supportive of the development. At that time, the County requests the Township to hold a Public Meeting on their behalf. Information has widely been available on this project since early September, 2014 Attempts have been made to address comments of this Council along with the Public. While we respect and support Council’s desire to improve Public Notification Procedures much time has passed and the information, comments and questions received to date have not required modification to the proposed plan. We respectfully request that Council request staff to provide draft conditions for approval and to advance a decision on our application in a timely fashion.

Page 148 of 165

Page 149 of 165

Page 150 of 165

Page 151 of 165

Page 152 of 165

Page 153 of 165

Page 154 of 165

Page 155 of 165

Page 156 of 165

Page 157 of 165

Page 158 of 165

Page 159 of 165

Page 160 of 165

Page 161 of 165

Page 162 of 165

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

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

Sept. 3, 2014

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

Page 163 of 165

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

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

Page 164 of 165

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

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services .

Page 165 of 165

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.