Council - 04 Dec 2018 - Agenda — North Frontenac News Media

Published December 4, 2018

Word Count 62069 words

Reading Time 292 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: December 4, 2018 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2018/Council - 04 Dec 2018 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 211

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TIME: 7:00 PM, DATE: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 PLACE: Council Chambers. 1.

Call to Order

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, - Council’s Declaration of Office for the 2018-2022 term

Council Group Photo and Individual Council Member Photos

Comments from Mayor and Councillors

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Approval of Agenda

Resolution

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess - n/a

Public Meeting

Resolution

Z-18/17 - Plan 50, Block R, Part 1 & 2 Plan 13R-21830 Loughborough (Morgan)

7 - 12

Z-18/18 - Concession 3, Part Lot 17, R 13R-9478 Part 1, Storrington (Wills & Boone)

13 - 20

Resolution

Delegations

Bill Babcock, Deputy Fire Chief, RE: upcomming retirement

Approval of Minutes

November 6, 2018 Council Meeting

Business Arising from the Minutes

Notice of Motion - Three Way Stop at Latimer and Round Lake Roads

Notice of Motion Hartington Community Association

Notice of Motion - Hartington Well Testing

21 - 28

31 - 38

Page 2 of 211

Reports Requiring Action

Recreation Committee Structure - Facilitated Session

Recreation Program Registration and Facility Booking Software

Rezoning of Concession 5, Part of Lot 7, Loughborough (See Bylaw 2018-68)

Rezoning of Concession 4, Part of Lot 17, Portland (See By-law 2018-69)

43 - 44

Rezoning of Concession 7, Part of Lots 27 and 28 - Bedford (See By-law 2018-74)

45 - 49

Rezoning of Concession 9, Part of Lost 27 and 28, Bedford (See Bylaw 2018-75)

Rezoning of Concession 5, Part Lot 28, Bedford (See By-law 201876)

Private Lane Upgrading Assistance

Speed Reduction on various roads (See By-law 2018-70)

Budget Schedule Confirmation

January 2019 Council and Committee of the Whole Meetings

Deputy Mayor Appointments

57 - 59

County Council Appointment

60 - 61

Clerk Appointment (See By-law 2018-71)

Appointment of Deputy Division Registrar (See By-law 2018-72)

Committee Meeting Minutes

Police Services Board Meeting held October 4, 2018

64 - 65

Bedford District Recreation meeting held August 30, 2018

66 - 70

By-laws

By-law 2018-68 - Rezone Concession 5, Part Lot 7, Loughborough

71 - 72

By-law 2018-69 - Rezone Concession 4, Part Lot 17, Portland

73 - 75

39 - 40

52 - 53

Page 3 of 211

By-law 2018-70 - Reduce speed limits on various roads

76 - 77

By-law 2018-71 - Appoint a CAO/Deputy Clerk and a Clerk and Division Registrar

By-law 2018-72 - Appoint a Deputy Division Registrar

By-law 2018-73 - Rezone Plan 50, Block R Pt Lot B - Loughborough

80 - 82

By-law 2018-74 - Rezone Concession 7, Part Lot 27 and 28, Bedford

83 - 84

By-law 2018-75 - Rezone Concession 9, Part Lots 27 and 28, Bedford

85 - 86

By-law 2018-76 - Rezone Concession 5, Part Lot 28, Bedford

87 - 88

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

89 105

Recreation Guide Function and Naming

106

Information Items

Randy Hillier, MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, re: Local Conservation Authorities

107 111

Paul Lehman, General Manager, MVCA and Sommer CasgrainRobertson, General Manager RVCA, re: Response to Randy Hillier letter regarding Conservation Authorities

112 115

Rachel Mather, Public Health Dietitian, KFLA Public Health, re: 2018 Cost of Healthy Eating

116 129

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, re: Decision on Johnston Point ESA Permit

130 135

OMB Decision on Hartington Subdivision

136 198

Dudley Shannon, Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, re: Welcome to New Council

199

Consultation - Increasing Housing Supply in Ontario

200

Settlement of Williams Treaties Land Claim

201 210

Notice of Motions

Page 4 of 211

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2018-77

Adjournment

211

Page 5 of 211

DECLARATION OF OFFICE (Section 232 of the Municipal Act, 2001) I, ___________________ having been elected or appointed to the office (name of person)

of _____________ for the municipality of Township of South Frontenac (name of office)

(name of municipality)

do solemnly promise and declare that: I will truly, faithfully and impartially exercise this office to the best of my knowledge and ability. I have not received and will not receive any payment or reward, or promise thereof, for the exercise of this office in a biased, corrupt or in any other improper manner. I will disclose any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second And I make this solemn promise and declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as made under oath. Declared before me ) at the Township of South Frontenac…) ……………………………………….) ……………………………………….) On …………. ……………..……….) 2018. )

Signature of Declarant

Commissioner for Taking Affidavits

Page 6 of 211

PUBLIC MEETING - INTRODUCTION The purpose of this public meeting is to hear comments on several Zoning By-Law Amendment applications. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to South Frontenac Township before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. If you wish to be notified of the decision of Council in respect to any of the applications, you must submit a written request to the Clerk or sign the attendance list provided at today’s meeting. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Anyone may appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by filing with the Clerk within 20 days of the notice of decision. An appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal may be filed with the Clerk of the Township not later than 20 days after the day that the notice of decision was given. The notice of appeal must set out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the required fee.

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 7 of 211

Public Meeting Report – Zoning By-law Amendment Report Date: November 29, 2018 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/17 Morgan 4562 Bedford Road, Sydenham Part 1 & 2, Plan 13R21830, Part of Lot B, Block R, Registered Plan No. 50, Geographic Township of Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac Purpose of Application: To establish a new minimum lot frontage and area for a new residential lot and retained lot created by consent application S-62-17-L. Date of Public Meeting: December 4, 2018

Recommendation Subject to receiving comments from the public, it is recommended that By-law 2018-73 to rezone lands described as Part 1 & 2, Plan 13R21830, Pt Lot B, Block R, Registered Plan No. 50, District of Loughborough to recognize the surveyed frontage and lot area of a new residential lot and retained lot to be created by consent application S62-17-L (creation of 2 new residential lots), be passed. Proposal An application has been submitted to recognize the reduced lot size and road frontage of a new residential lot and a retained lot. The rezoning is to reflect the surveyed lot frontage and area for the 2 lots. Both the new lot and the retained lot will be used for residential purposes. The survey of the subject lands is Attachment #1 to this report. The severed lot (Part 1) has 57.5 metres of frontage and is 1.0 acre in size. The retained lot (Part 2 on 13R-21830) has 55.74 metres of frontage and has an area of 0.8 Acres. The lot frontage and area reflect the lot sizes proposed to be created by consent application S-62-17-L. Background The subject property was rezoned in May of this year by By-law 2018-28. By-law 28-2018 rezoned the lands from Residential Waterfront (RW) to a Special Urban Residential First Density Zone (UR119) to recognize a reduced lot size and road frontage for a new residential lot and retained parcel as a condition of consent file S-62-17-L. The UR1-19 zone established a minimum frontage of 64m and a lot area of 1 acre. The rezoning was submitted and approved before the before the survey was completed for the consent. The survey was submitted for review by planning staff in mid-October. The survey shows that the severed lot would have a minimum frontage of 57.5m and 1.0 acres. The retained lot has a frontage of 55.7m and 0.8 acres. These frontages and the lot area for the retained lot are less than the 64m of frontage and minimum lot area of 1.0 acre established by By-law 2018-28. As Planning staff cannot stamp a certificate for the creation of a lot that does not comply with the Zoning By-law, the applicant was advised they needed to submit a new zoning by-law amendment to establish new minimum frontage and lot area to reflect surveyed frontage and area. The applicant is requesting the Zoning By-law Amendment application fee be refunded as Mr. Morgan payed to rezone the subject property earlier this year (May of 2018) to fulfill the condition of consent. Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS promotes efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate economic growth. The Provincial Policy Statement 2014 supports land use patterns and densities within settlement areas which efficiently use land and resources and are appropriate for the available infrastructure. As 1

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 8 of 211

the lands are located within Sydenham and municipal water is available, the creation of an undersized lot is permitted. A condition of the severance application is that the severed and retained lots connect to municipal water and the existing well on the property shall be abandoned and sealed in accordance with Ministry of Environment standards. Frontenac County Official Plan The County Official Plan (s.3.2) encourages efficient development patterns and road connections in Settlement areas to optimize public services and make the most efficient use of land and resources. This application assists in the creation of an infill residential lot within the settlement area of Sydenham that can be serviced with municipal water. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003 & Comprehensive Zoning By-law, 2003 The subject property is designated “Settlement Area” in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. The Official Plan directs growth into Settlement areas. The standard minimum lot size specified in the Plan for new lot creation is 2 acres. However, the Plan supports the creation of smaller lots in Sydenham where the lots are serviced by municipal water. Where there is justification in the Official Plan, a zoning by-law amendment may be permitted to recognize reduced lot sizes for the severed and retained lands and to recognize reduced road frontage. The lands front on Bedford Road and has waterfrontage on a remnant waterbody formed by the manmade berm for the rail line (now the Cataraqui Trail). The proposed zoning by-law amendment establishes that the 30m waterbody setback continues to apply to both the new and retained lots. The existing house & garage) will be removed from the lot in order to facilitate the consent. A road widening was taken from the lot to facilitate the improvements recently completed to Bedford Road. Agency Analysis and Comments KFL&A Public Health and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority had no objections to the consent application that is creating these new residential lot. Public Comments At the time of writing, no formal comments have been received from the public on this new zoning bylaw amendment application. This zoning by-law amendment application replaces the minimum lot area and frontage in the UR1-19 zoning that was put in place through By-law 2018-28 to recognize the actual frontage and lot area surveyed for the new residential lot and the retained parcel. This rezoning is considered a technical application to update the zone provisions put in place by By-law 2018-28, previously approved by South Frontenac Council. Summary This rezoning is consistent and conforms to the South Frontenac Official Plan, County Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The standard practice of Township Council is to hold the public meeting for a rezoning to receive comments from the public and then consider passage of the by-law at a subsequent meeting of Council. In this instance, as a public meeting was previously held to rezone the subject property, as well as the technical nature of this zoning by-law amendment application, staff recommend Council consider passing the by-law at the December 4th, subject to receiving comments from the public. Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac 2

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 9 of 211

Attachments: Attachment #1 - Z-18-17 Morgan Survey Attachment #2 - Z-18-17 Morgan Map Attachment #3 - Z-18-17 Morgan Aerial Photo

OXzmwax OX

\3w/x

BVXSL 0‘; YOL B‘ BYOQXLY5‘BEQXZLEEED BYVHA M9’ 20 01 yonagrpoxonap Q603&.G‘b}S$jC LOJ‘0JJ‘2\5\Sjb .10 MAZEXB OVA.20 RUA EB OXALEVN C. conmx oxmsovxmvwc Q I I :5 0

BECEXAED ‘Wm DEBOZXLED

DOV Q 9016? mL1a.’-,25'6‘76W/

wum Vn?ms ss‘ sous

‘*0

EXOBIQVYZ. QYLXLLLVTWD ZQBBELOBZ “AC5

aowenea

BED

\l'

BEBEEZEXALV mm xms um wvm xsmxzuswsmos mm vwm mmz mmzxovxmy msovxmvwc kwv vs \

_:~.3’§

6:;

zxcvwmsn

‘2.CNI‘E=\°-Q00 Jowenea

BYVIXA m5—- W335

X EEGQXBELVAYZBTW/x L0 BE DEBQZXLED NADEXSLEE YVIXAD LXLYEZ‘ICE.’

‘0

—soxs— 5

22:3 (42:28) \I

-A

E f
I—

an to

V. 1/

OBZEBRED BEEEBEMCE BOUALZ \0\5b.‘2a
DEEXNEDEEO“ QIUZ. oazmsM mowa.nzxw: b\5EC.'2.E sown. BOZXLXOVWIXG hubs) zmsmcm‘

mm sow. xa‘ wmsz kczuz) (sown) cooxsmvwwa. L0 xsmsvrmcmsvcx um am BOUAL KB

sxe\o

mks) 01. mam‘

‘ADEUAXVXC‘:

EVZLUAC:

W9°'>

cooxsmvw ma czmvm: m mmwamme. BE. mm 8.0 ms Bonvmwmz mmmmon mva bww

BE-EZLVBYXZEcomma

ammvxez ‘mm mm mm‘ umswm mom “QTLXBYE mam‘ um. mvmwv no mm oazmsmmomzmsou mvmmam. .51.. L0 .33..‘ mm sows. as Km. man. rovxcunnm kczxsz? Ksoxom wmsas EOE BEVBXMQ C.0Wb‘?5'2.0\AZ’V BBL‘!ROM 0!. 8&5. \0,. ‘IBBYXED L0 BEVBXMQ2 OM bY‘W\ \‘3E-%6’S*t’

QYOQXUKXZE N12

DXZLVVXQEZVYSE QXSODJAY) WXD CVVXBE. QOMKEBLEB 1.0 GB“) Bk KRYLXBYLXVSQ Bk LYLE COYKBXMED ZCNYE XLNCLOEOX1.0'83B5.B08$.’ DXZLVMQEZ‘Wm QOOBDXVNLE2 29.0 NA OVXUAY2. BYVVX VBE Wt “ELBEZ ‘Wm CNVX‘BE QOVXAEBLEB L0 EEEL BL DXMDXXACS BX 0"30"t%

ZBBIELOXS. ‘2. C113LXEXQV LE1 \ GEE LXEL LYNL3 3’ Lpqz znmsh msq mew onus cousc; mrq sgu cccoxquucs -*‘N.‘W‘ W6 ZEXELELZVCR} W5 ZRBLELOBZ VOL 9”‘! We VWXD LXLYEZVOL W“! W‘ EECRWLXOMZWGWS “‘“‘Q5~‘o SW”

YE(tE\AD’‘azm.‘2. bwvxmn

mm L0 m2nu.mm.m.

-D— QSUOQSZ

bgcrugeq ‘a.|‘\‘.L.l\6§?ounweu; Eonuq “gunmen; ‘2.8‘W“X°‘~~¥Q X4-0” B°‘~~‘‘2.V‘°5-53'2.¥°‘WX0‘~~-‘X V-0” BNX5-055‘ B°‘~~-

. ZXB ‘2.‘2.\B

BB BB

“‘ ‘°’

§‘x:2f;::::“ ‘=‘°”

V339 USO

mm“

‘~“‘Y3" sow

znmsa

..o.u~gm. (Loam) gocy: gm. \5°°\° boas

“,6

om.mamsm2.vx

E0b¥.W'2.

IL’ \5°~~“‘¢N QW~~“‘°~~“‘0’Y"2.’ 0’Y’?.’ ‘\‘|‘~~W‘6'3 V’ 1~!‘~~“‘~~“3'3’ EN” V33-%8‘S‘t

combmsq

“,6

W“,

W“ ox

QHXLLL. YVVXD'2..’.\5 I.F..)~.0\5'2. YVXC.

D‘iLY.‘.‘-Vmm? SS‘ ‘SON

LWWW Y\°‘°D°~U‘U‘Yq’ 0 Y ‘2. ,

mwezz

E5<X~-0 boss

_ _ V

YLOBXGVYZ. QRXLLR YWVXD ZRBAELOBZ me.‘ gum-.u;o rouq 2,.m..nsI\o.Lz

mmm’pob]qUzcpgu)ccom vmsmz comes. bB0‘\EC.L W3’ soxs—s3~t mvxczxou‘ ovmnsxo ms-$33 bums o\ mm.B‘ me B‘ B1: 20 Les (era asvasee Lomuzvqb o\ ron?ppouon?p wt km 3 ‘.s%«t—*.s2v.3 e3«t—e’ae

Page 10 of 211

Property proposed to be rezoned Urban Residential - First Density(UR1-19) to reflect the surveyed frontage and area of the severed and retained lots created by consent application S-62-17-L

Inset Map: MORGAN Z-18-17 4562 BEDFORD RD Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,

Legend Morgan Property Parcel Fabric Provincially Significant Wetlands

Parcels to be Rezoned

O DF BE

Waterbody

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Scale 1:1,400 0

5 10

Meters

UTM Projection NAD 83

Page 11 of 211

Sydenham Lake

Attachment 3 - Aerial Photo of 4562 Bedford Road

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels

0.2

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.

0.11

0.2 Kilometers

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

Notes

Page 12 of 211

1: 4,514

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 13 of 211

Public Meeting Report – Zoning Bylaw Amendment Report Date: November 29, 2018 Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/18 Wills & Boone 3967 Greenfield Road Concession 3 Part Lot 17, RP 13R9478; Part 1, Loughborough Lake, District of Storrington, South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU-55) Date of Public Meeting: December 4, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that South Frontenac Council receive comments from the public and pending comments received direct staff to prepare a bylaw to rezone the subject lands from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU-55) to permit the conversion of a garage into a residential second unit.

Proposal The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU-55) to permit a second residential unit to be constructed in an accessory building. The subject property is 12 acres in size with 755 feet frontage on Loughborough Lake and is developed with an existing single detached residence. The applicants propose to convert an existing 22ft x 33 ft garage into living space by adding a kitchen, bedroom and living room. The second residential unit is proposed accommodation for Ms. Boone’s elderly parents. Under the Planning Act, a public meeting is required to be held to receive comments from citizens on the proposed rezoning. With the information presented, planning staff are recommending that Council receive comments but defer passing a bylaw until a later Council meeting to allow staff to incorporate comments received.

Background Proposal for a Residential Second Unit The applicants, Jeff Wills and Kathryn Boone are applying to convert an existing garage on the property into a permanent second residential unit on their 12 acre property locate at the end of Greenfield Road on Loughborough Lake. Ms. Boone’s parents recently sold their house and are looking to downsize but would rather live in their own home than move into a retirement residence. The applicants considered seeking permission to construct a temporary garden suite on the property but would rather have a permanent structure that could be utilized in the immediate term as a second residential unit on the property for as long as Ms. Boone’s parents need it – and then have the opportunity to convert it back to a garage and keep it on the property rather than remove the structure. The garage is situated in close proximity to the existing single detached dwelling located on the property and is tied into the main house for water and electricity. The garage is also connected into the existing septic system. Access to the garage is from the same driveway as the existing single detached dwelling. In 2016, the Province updated the Planning Act to require municipalities to allow second units in designations or zones that permit detached, semi-detached or row houses, as well as in accessory structures provided there is not already a second unit in the primary dwelling. It required municipalities to establish policies in both its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit second units as-of-right in areas where there are not servicing limitations, natural hazards, on private roads or atcapacity lakes. While many municipalities (e.g. Tay Valley, City of Kingston, Leeds and Thousand Island), South Frontenac has not yet undertaken such an update. Until the Township updates its planning documents, applicants have to submit a site-specific rezoning application to be permit secondary units. The subject property is not subject to flooding, can adequately service the second unit and is located on a Township maintained road. 1

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 14 of 211

Second units are self-contained residential units with a private kitchen, bathroom facilities and sleeping areas within dwellings or within structures ancillary (e.g. a garage) to a dwelling. Locating a second unit in a garage on a property on a rural property where it can be adequately serviced with private water and septic is consistent with the direction established by the Planning Act. Permitting a second unit on a rural property that is accessed with a year-round Township maintained road, outside of the 30m setback from Loughborough Lake, that shares water, hydro and septic services with the existing dwelling and is accessed with the same driveway as the existing single detached dwelling on the property would be consistent with the direction established for municipalities in the Planning Act. Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS promotes efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate economic growth. Section 1: Building Strong Healthy Communities includes accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential uses including second units, affordable housing and housing for older persons. The second unit is proposed to provide housing for the parents of the current owners. County of Frontenac Official Plan, 2016 The County of Frontenac Official Plan is a framework for guiding development in the County through the management and protection of the natural environment and by providing direction and influence on growth patterns. It is focused on the six themes of economic sustainability, growth management, community building, housing and social services, heritage and culture, and environmental sustainability. Section 5.6.2. of the County of Frontenac Official Plan directs Township Official Plans to permit second units in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if no building or structure ancillary to the house contains a second residential unit; and further, to allow the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse if the house contains a single residential unit. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003 The subject property is designated as Rural in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. Policies of the Rural designation speak to permitting development that is consistent with maintaining the Township’s rural, natural heritage, and cultural landscape. Section 5.7 of the Official Plan permits limited non-agricultural residential development to provide a variety of living accommodation for residents in the Township. The presence of a second unit on the property allows the owner the opportunity to have a variety of living accommodation to provide housing for themselves in a way that meets the needs of the applicants to provide affordable and accessible housing for their elderly parents. The septic system on the property has been designed to accommodate both the current single detached dwelling on the property and the second residential unit in the converted garage. The placement of the second unit in proximity to the existing single detached dwelling eliminates the concern may exist to create pressure for a future severance. Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw, 2003 The property is zoned Rural (RU) in the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw. The intent of the RU zone is to permit uses that are compatible with the rural landscape on larger lots. The converted garage is modest in size, being approximately 726 square feet. It complies with the lot coverage standards of the RU zone for accessory structures.

Agency Analysis and Comments Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority – No concerns with the proposal as it is outside its regulated area and as such, did not provide formal comments. 2

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 15 of 211

KFL&A Public Health – Public Health has already issued a septic permit that confirms the current septic system is sized to receive flows from the proposed second residential unit.

Public Comments At the time of writing, no formal comments have been received from the public. The intent of the public meeting is to receive comments from the public. Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Attachments: Attachment #1 – Letter from Jeff Wills/Kathryn Boone Attachment #2 – Map of 3967 Greenfield Road Attachment #3 – Aerial of 3967 Greenfield Road Attachment #4 – Draft Zoning By-law Amendment

Rezone from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) Inset Map: L GREENFIE

BOONE / WILLS Z-18-18

D RO AD

3967 GREENFIELD RD

Legend

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,

Boone/Wills Property Provincially Significant Wetlands

Loughborough Lake

Waterbody

Parcel to be Rezoned from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU-55)

Parcel Fabric

UTM Projection NAD 83

Page 16 of 211

Scale 1:2,017

80 Meters

Attachment 3 - Aerial Photo of 3967 Greenfield Road

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels

0.4

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.

0.18

0.4 Kilometers

Notes

Page 17 of 211

1: 7,018

Page 18 of 211

Township of South Frontenac By-Law Number 2018 -__ Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Rural Exception Zone, RU-55 (3967 Greenfield Road Concession 3 Part Lot 17, RP 13R9478; Part 1, Loughborough Lake, District of Storrington): Wills & Boone WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows: 1.

THAT Schedule “C”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) Rural Exception Zone (RU-55) for the lands shown on Schedule “1”.

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new section RU-55 (Concession 3 Part Lot 17, RP 13R9478; Part 1, Loughborough Lake, District of Storrington), to read as follows: RU-55 (Concession 3 Part Lot 17, RP 13R9478; Part 1, Loughborough Lake, District of Storrington, South Frontenac – Wills & Boone) Notwithstanding any provision of this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Special Rural Commercial (RU-55) shall be permitted a second residential unit in an accessory structure. For the purpose of this subsection a second residential unit shall mean an accessory building which contains one or more habitable rooms designed and occupied as an independent dwelling in which living, kitchen and bathroom facilities are provided and which is located on the same lot as a single detached dwelling. The second dwelling unit or second dwelling shall share the driveway entrance to the lot with the principal dwelling. The second residential unit shall share a septic system with the principal dwelling.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this __th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this __th day of December, 2018.

Page 19 of 211 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 20 of 211 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-62

Passed this ___ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 21 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers

Meeting # 23 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, Brad Barbeau, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Claire Dodds, Director of Public Services, Mark Segsworth, Director of Public Services, Angela Maddocks, Deputy Clerk. 1.

Call to Order

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-23-01 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT the Council meeting of November 6, 2018 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

b) A moment of silence was observed to remember the lives lost during both World Wars. There are Remembrance Day ceremonies organized throughout the township on Sunday, November 11, 2018. 2.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations.

Presentation to Outgoing Council Members

Mayor Vandewal presented certificates of appreciation and engraved pens to Councillors Barbeau, McDougall and Schjerning. Each outgoing Council members was recognized for their service to the South Frontenac community. Councillor Barbeau indicated that it had been an honour to serve on Council and he enjoyed his time representing Portland District. Councillor Schjerning noted that it has been his privilege to serve on Council and to represent the best interest of residents in Loughborough District. Councillor McDougall commented on his tremendous respect for staff and the role of a Council Member. He commended Mayor Vandewal and the late Mayor Gary Davison on the impact of their roles at County Council. He thanked the CAO for the tremendous advice he has received from him over the years.

Approval of Agenda

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-23-02 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT the agenda be approved as presented.

Page 22 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 Carried 5.

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

*** Recess*** - n/a

Delegations - n/a

Public Meeting

The process for requesting notification of the decision of Council in respect to any of the applications and the process for appealing decisions was explained to those attending the public meeting portion. Resolution No. 2018-23-03 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT a public meeting be held to discuss planning matters related to: • Z-18/12 - Rezoning Conc 5 Part Lot 7, Loughborough - 2496 Rutledge Rd • Z-18/13 - Rezoning Conc 4 Part Lot 17, Portland - 4183 Camden Portland Boundary Rd • Z-18/14 - Rezoning Conc 7 Pt Lots 27 & 28, Bedford - 688 Dewitt Lane • Z-18/15 - Rezoning Conc 9 Pt Lots 27 & 28, Bedford - 108 Sellers Lane Carried

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18/12 - Concession 5, Part Lot 7, Loughborough

Van Luven Claire Dodds reviewed the background on this application that will rezone lot addition lands and one new lot to Limited Service Residential Waterfront in Concession 5, Part of Lot 7, Loughborough District. The application was reviewed for consistency and conformity to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. There were mp objections received from the KFL&A Public Health and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to the severances at the time of provisional consent. John Simpson, 1080 Carslake Lane, who benefits from a lot addition noted the increased lot size and buffering. He indicated his appreciation to the Committee of Adjustment and the Director of Development Services for help in this process. There were no comments from Council.

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18/13 - Concession 4, Part of Lot 17, Portland Sindall & Cross Claire Dodds reviewed the purpose of this application to rezone from Rural to Rural Site Specific to permit a second residential unit in an accessory building and from Rural to Rural Commercial Site Specific to permit a craft brewery and accessory uses on lands proposed to be severed. The consistency and conformity of this application against the Provincial Policy Statement, the County of Frontenac Official Plan, the Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By-law were all presented. Councillor McDougall spoke to progress in the City of Kingston for secondary suites providing gradual and improved housing and felt this was great progress in our community. Councillor Sutherland questioned the permitted uses under these zones and if the uses were exhaustive. Ms. Dodds confirmed that she will meet with the

Page 2 of 8

Page 23 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 applicant to scope the permitted uses to those compatible with surrounding residential uses and this will be presented to Council for consideration before passing the by-law. Mayor Vandewal questioned the sequence of severances and rezoning and if the process had been switched would the severance have been permitted. Ms. Dodds noted that the severances could have happened independently and that normally the main dwelling would have been established first. There were no comments from the public. d)

Zoning By-law Amendment - Z-18/14 - Concession 7, Part Lots 27 & 28, Bedford -Tucker Ms. Dodds reviewed the application that would rezone from Residential Limited Service Waterfront to a Site Specific Residential Limited Service Waterfront zone. The rezoning is to limit the permitted uses on the property to parking and a dock so that the land may only be used as mainland access for the properties located on Mica Island. The application is considered to be consistent and conform with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Township Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority recommends site plan control to address sediment and erosion controls, planting plan, and that all materials from construction be disposed of 30 metres or more from the normal high water mark. Councillor Barbeau asked if anything is in place to restrict the installation of hydro or well water to permit car washing on site. Ms. Dodds indicated that the zoning does not deal with this nor is it the intent of the applicant to use for anything other than parking and docking. Councillor Sutherland questioned the trail identified in the conceptual site plan and is it a walking trail. Claire Dodds confirmed that it is a pedestrian trail, there is no width included but this could be established. It is not meant for motorized vehicles. Councillor McDougall asked if there is a boat launch near this property and it is believed that there is one close to Cedar Haven but accessed from Tay Valley Township. There were no comments from the public.

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18/15 - Concession 9 , Part of Lots 27 & 28, Bedford - Phillips The purpose of this application is to rezone the subject lands from Rural to Limited Service Residential Waterfront to fulfill a condition of consent for the creation of a new waterfront residential lot. Claire Dodds discussed the merits of the rezoning based consistency and conforming with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objections but recommends the applicant enter into a site plan for this development. There were no comments from Council or the public.

Zoning By-law Amendment - Z-18/16 - Concession 5, Part Lot 28, Bedford - St. Arnaud & Walker Ms. Dodds explained that the rezoning of the subject lands from Rural to

Page 3 of 8

Page 24 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 Limited Service Residential Waterfront is for two new water access residential lots fronting on Bob’s Lake. Legal deeded parking will be provided for the new water access lots where current parking is deeded. She reviewed the application on consistency and conformity to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning by-law . The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority recommends that the unevaluated wetlands are retained in their natural state and the KFL& A Public Health will require additional suitable granular soil prior to site development and the construction of a sewage system. Mayor Vandewal felt these were big lots for water access and questioned the requirement for rezoning if built on later. Claire Dodds outlined that the rezoning would permit the applicants to build on the lots once the severance is finalized. There were no comments from the public. Resolution No. 2018-23-04 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT an opportunity having been provided, the public meeting be closed. Carried 9.

Approval of Minutes

Council Meeting of October 2, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-23-05 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT the minutes of the October 2, 2018 Council meeting be approved. Carried

Committee of the Whole Meeting of October 9, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-23-06 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT the minutes of the October 9, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes - n/a

Reports Requiring Action

Ontario East Regional Agility Competition Noise and Camping Exemptions Resolution No. 2018-23-07 Moved by Deputy Mayor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland THAT Council authorize the Recreation Supervisor and CAO to enter into an agreement with the Ontario East Regional Agility Competition organizers for a 2019 event; AND that Council exempt the Ontario East Regional Agility Competition taking place from Thursday, May 30th to Sunday, June 2nd, 2019 at Centennial Park from the Township’s noise bylaw as requested;

Page 4 of 8

Page 25 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 AND FURTHER that Council provide a one-time exemption to permit camping in Centennial Park for the sole purpose of use for the competitor’s trailers during the Ontario East Regional Agility Competition as requested. Carried b)

Road Closing and Transfer Inquiry - Concession 1, Pt Lot 18 and 19 Storrington (Kot Estate) Resolution No. 2018-23-08 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded Deputy Mayor Revill THAT Council direct staff to commence the process for the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance that transects the property located at 4352 Holmes Road in Inverary subject to the applicant covering the costs to advertise and pay legal fees for the transfer. Carried

Committee Meeting Minutes

Verona & District Health Services Committee meeting held October 1, 2018

Police Services Board meeting held June 21, 2018. Councillor Sutherland asked about access to the statistical reports. The CAO noted that they are available in the agenda for Police Services on CivicWeb.

Public Services Committee meeting held September 13, 2018 Councillor Sutherland questioned the status of the petition for speed reduction on Clearwater Road and when there would be a response to this request. The Director of Public Services anticipates this matter coming forward to Council on December 4.

Storrington District Recreation meeting held September 24, 2018

Loughborough District Recreation meeting held September 24, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-23-09 Moved by Deputy Mayor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings: • Verona and District Health Services Committee meeting held October 1, 2018 • Police Services Board meeting held June 21, 2018 • Public Services Committee meeting held September 13, 2018 • Storrington District Recreation Committee meeting held September 24, 2018 • Loughborough District Recreation Committee meeting held September 24, 2018 Carried

By-laws - n/a

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

Building Department Report - 3rd Quarter Report

Page 5 of 8

Page 26 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 Councillor Sutherland questioned the tracking of “closed” building permits and whether this remains a problem within the Building Department. c)

2018 Municipal Election Review Councillor Sutherland expressed concerns about potential fraud based on the win/loss in Loughborough District of 4 votes. He noted that there were Voter Notification letters sent out where individuals have not lived at the property and the potential for the PIN’s to be voted. He noted that there was not access for candidates after the polls closed to determine who voted and this made it difficult to challenge the results. Wayne Orr noted that Internet and Telephone voting was a decision of Council and the method was confirmed by by-law. He confirmed that the candidates module was shut down at 7:00 pm however candidates can request a list of who voted from the Clerks Office. The issue with Voter Notification Letters sent to people who no longer reside at a property is an issue with the Voters List and not internet voting. He explained the data cleansing undertaken by the election staff however there is no door to door enumeration to confirm who lives where, this is why there was Voter Lookup promoted in advance as well as the Voter Help Centre. The same opportunities for potential fraud have existed in the past four elections. The concerns will be noted for the 2022 election. Councillor Barr supported the internet and telephone voting method as an easier way to vote although the voter turnout was still relatively low for the 2018 election. Councillor Schjerning asked if the electronic voting systems is an advantage for seasonal residents. The CAO explained that the data does not define a seasonal resident and this is challenging to determine. Mayor Vandewal felt that Councillor acclamations in two of the districts may have some impact on the lower voter turnout.

Capital Budget Reallocation

Year to date financials to September 30

Robert Charest, Cataraqui Trail Committee Member Report - October 2018 Mr. Charest was commended for his quarterly reporting. Councillor Sutherland felt it was worth sending the October report to the CRCA specifically to make them aware of the need for signage for washroom facilities along the trail. It was presumed that Mr. Charest has already shared this report with the CRCA.

Information Items

Michael Tibollo, Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services, re: Fire Regulations. The CAO reported that the OFMEM has recently met with area Fire Chief’s and it is anticipated that they will be reintroducing the regulations with a more flexible time line.

Inverary Youth Activities - Thanks for financial support

Invitation to attend the County of Frontenac Inaugural Council Meeting on December 19, 2018

Page 6 of 8

Page 27 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 d)

WTC - Battersea Tower Agreement

Notice of Motions

Mayor Vandewal removed himself as Chair. Deputy Mayor Revill asked if there were any notice of motions. Mayor Vandewal served a notice of motion for a by-law to create a three way stop at Latimer Road and Round Lake Road and that the by-law be presented at the December 4 meeting. Mayor Vandewal then resumed the role of Chair.

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

Councillor McDougall reported that the kiosk has been removed from the corner of the Revell Ford lot and relocated at the trail head at the corner of Road 38 and Bellrock Road. He commended the Public Works staff on doing a fabulous job in relocating this structure.

Councillor Sleeth commended the Director of Public Services on coordinating the bale wrap demonstration at the Household Hazardous Waste site last Friday. It was very informative and well attended by a good cross section of potential users.

Councillor Sleeth asked about getting the fallen tree removed from the Sand Hill Cemetery prior to the Remembrance Day ceremony.

Councillor Schjerning noted an item to be fixed with respect to the new street signs in Harrowsmith and Sydenham, specifically on Alton Road.

Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items) - n/a

Closed Session - n/a

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2018-67 Resolution No. 2018-23-10 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT By-law 2018-67, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given first and second reading this 6 day of November 2018. Carried Resolution No. 2018-23-11 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT By-law 2018-67, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given third reading, signed and sealed this 6 day of November 2018. Carried

Adjournment

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-23-12

Page 7 of 8

Page 28 of 211 Minutes of Council November, 6, 2018 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT the Council meeting of November 6, 2018 be adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 8 of 8

Page 29 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – By-law for Three Way Stop RECOMMENDATION That Council support the notice of motion and direct staff to bring forward a bylaw to create a three way stop at the intersection of Latimer Road and Round Lake Road.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting of November 6, 2018, Mayor Vandewal served a notice of motion that Council direct staff to bring forward a by-law to amend By-law 2000-01(as amended) that will impose a three way stop at the intersection of Latimer Road and Round Lake Road in Inverary. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on. The By-law would be presented at the December 18, 2018 Council meeting if the notice of motion is supported by Council.

ATTACHMENTS n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 30 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

December 4, 2018

SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Hartington Community Association

RECOMMENDATION: Resolution 2017-23-11 THAT on a without prejudice or precedent basis the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac cover the cost of the two most recent invoices from Mr. Wilf Ruland and the Final invoice from Mr Harold Chard to the Hartington Community Association. BACKGROUND: The Hartington Community Association (HCA) is a citizen lead organization formed primarily to advocate for the community and oppose the Hartington Subdivision proposal. The notice of motion was served following a delegation to Council by the HCA in June, 2017. The motion was properly moved by Councillor Schjerning and seconded by Councillor Sleeth at the July 11, 2017 meeting and subsequently deferred “until the legal proceedings are finalized at the OMB”. The OMB decision on the Hartington Subdivision was received November 15, 2018 and is included for information on the December 4 Agenda. In summary the HCA was unsuccessful in their appeal. The OMB approved the 13 unit Subdivision to move forward, adopted the draft plan conditions and approved the zoning. In conversation with the Township solicitor he has made it clear that it is not good practise for Council to cover costs when they have been successful in litigation matters. In July 2017 Council received specific advice from the solicitor in Closed Session on this matter. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The sum of the three invoices taken from the HCA’s delegation notes equals $28,792.40. No specific budget exists for this expense. The Township’s direct costs for this appeal were $99,597 ATTACHMENTS:

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr

Our strength is our community.

Page 31 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:

December 4, 2018

SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Hartington Well Testing

RECOMMENDATION: Resolution 2017-23-13 THAT the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac cover the cost associated with testing the well water quality for residences within 300 m of the former gas station in Hartington; and, THAT Testing shall be performed two (2) times per year; and, THAT testing shall be done on a voluntary basis. BACKGROUND: The Hartington Community Association (HCA) is a citizen lead organization formed to advocate for the community and oppose the Hartington Subdivision proposal. The notice of motion was served following a delegation to Council by the HCA in June, 2017. The motion was properly moved by Councillor Schjerning and seconded by Councillor Sleeth at the July 11, 2017 meeting and subsequently deferred “until the legal proceedings are finalized at the OMB”. The OMB decision on the Hartington Subdivision was received November 15, 2018 and is included for information on the December 4 Agenda. In part, paragraph 184 from the Analysis and Findings section from the OMB states: “In regard to the gas station property, the evidence before the Tribunal is that drinking water wells on properties adjacent to the development site were recently tested and no PHC’s were detected. As the directional flow of groundwater from the contamination site is down-gradient and in the opposite direction, the potential of impact to the subdivision is considered negligible”…. In conversation with the Township solicitor, based on the evidence before the tribunal, testing is not warranted. In July 2017 Council received specific advice from the solicitor in Closed Session on this matter. The Director of Public Works reports that staff have just coordinated the latest round of sampling, including the additional wells recommended in the memo (see attached). The reports from the consultant have not been received but verbally it has been suggested to install another well behind the Princess Anne building to conclusively define the extent of the migration. This is supported by the MOE and will be included in the 2019 Operating Budget. In a meeting with MOE staff held on Nov 28, the MOE’s Hydrogeologist said: “this is a contaminated site, but work has been done work to assess the migration off site and there have not been any adverse impacts”. The MOE also wants to reiterate that this is how they manage any contaminated site

Our strength is our community.

Page 32 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT Staff wish to point out that under the Domestic Well section of the memo: “To date, contaminants of concern have not been detected in domestic wells” FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The initial projected cost of this testing based on the estimates from the HCA and the frequency stated in the motion would be $17,400 per year. Based on recent experience, staff believe that this estimate is well below market costs. Staff estimate the cost to be closer to $45 – 50,000. No specific budget exists for this expense. ATTACHMENTS: MOE MEMO Dated April 10, 2018 Map of sampling locations

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr

Our strength is our community.

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique

P.O. Box 22032 Kingston, Ontario K7M 8S5 613/549-4000 or 1-800/267-0974 Fax: 613/548-6908

C.P. 22032 Kingston (Ontario) K7M 8S5 613/549-4000 ou 1-800/267-0974 Fax: 613/548-6908

MEMORANDUM To:

S. Dick Senior Environmental Officer Kingston District Office Eastern Region

From:

K. Stephenson Hydrogeologist Water Resources Unit , Technical Support Section Eastern Region

RE:

5598 Highway 38 Hartington, Ontario

Page 33 of 211

April 10, 2018

Purpose I have reviewed the following reports: 

report entitled “Investigation and Verification Groundwater Sampling – 5598 Highway 38, Hartington, Ontario” completed by SOS Consultants and dated January 2, 2018; and,



report entitled “Supply Well Sampling – Hartington, Ontario” also completed by SOS and dated December 18, 2017.

I reviewed these reports to determine the current state of groundwater contamination at 5598 Highway 38 (the “site”) and to determine the potential for off-site groundwater contamination to impact domestic water supply wells in the area. Background The site formerly operated as a convenience store and gas station. It is understood that two gasoline pumps were located adjacent to Highway 38 on the west side of the site. In January 2015, two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) were removed from the site (one 8,327 litre tank and one 13,248 litre tank). It is understood that approximately 500 litres of gasoline was removed from the two tanks. Significant hydrocarbon odour and staining were noted at the time of UST removal. Contamination has been found to extend away from the former UST locations in all directions. It is understood that contamination was found in fractured bedrock layers from approximately 3 metres below ground surface (“mbgs”) to approximately 3.65 mbgs. Excavation and off-site disposal (250 tonnes) of contaminated soil and bedrock was undertaken in 2015. Based on investigation work conducted to date, there is remaining contamination in soil and fractured bedrock around the north, east and west extents of the excavation and in the northern end of the site adjacent to Holleford Road. A site monitoring well network has

Page 34 of 211 -2-

been established to determine impacts to groundwater and nearby domestic wells have been sampled on multiple occasions. The site is considered to be a “contaminated site”. SOS has recommended that the monitoring at site monitoring wells should be undertaken until the site is fully remediated. Contaminants of Concern The former land use was a petroleum hydrocarbon dispensing facility. Based on the former land use the contaminants of concern are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs F1-F4). Cleanup Criteria The cleanup criteria are derived from the “Soils, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” (MOE, 2011). The site is a “shallow soil property” (less than two metres of overburden), thus classifying the site as “environmentally sensitive”. The area is privately serviced for water supply and the applicable cleanup criteria are provided in Table 6 of the above referenced document (shallow soils in a potable condition). Ontario Drinking Water Standards are also applicable to results from domestic supply wells. Geology Available geological mapping shows the following conditions in the area of the site: 

Bedrock exposed or with less than one metre of drift cover; and,



Gull River Formation fractured limestone.

SOS has reported that boreholes encountered a shallow layer of soil across the site ranging in thickness between 0.46 meters and 0.90 metres underlain by shale that transitioned to fractured limestone bedrock between 1.2 and 1.8 mbgs. Hydrogeology SOS has indicated the following general conceptual model for groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the site: 

shallow groundwater flow has been generally to the east (northeast, east, southeast) prior to 2017, changing to westerly groundwater flow direction in 2017 (SOS indicates that this change may be related to higher levels of precipitation / water levels in 2017); and,



contaminant transport in the shallow fractured bedrock in the direction of shallow groundwater flow with vertical migration limited by “competent” (relatively less fractured) bedrock.

As indicated above, the site is located in an area of shallow fractured bedrock (thin soils) such that contaminant attenuation is limited prior to entering the shallow fractured bedrock aquifer.

Page 35 of 211 -3-

Based on a review of domestic well records in proximity to the site, water supply wells typically do not use the shallow aquifer for supply but rather deeper aquifer units in bedrock. In a shallow fractured bedrock setting, water quality in these deeper aquifer units can be influenced by shallow / surface contamination. The on-site monitoring well network shows exceedances of the applicable cleanup criteria at the western property boundary (monitoring well MW-2). Additional off-site wells were installed in 2016 (monitoring wells MW-8, MW-9 and MW-10) in order to delineate impacts and to improve the understanding of groundwater flow direction. These wells were installed during a severe drought in 2016 and water was not found during drilling. The shallow fractured bedrock zone would be expected to be particularly vulnerable to drought conditions. Given the difficult conditions brought about by the drought (the shallow groundwater zone was apparently dry at the time) these wells were constructed differently than the seven on-site wells. Monitoring wells 8, 9 and 10 have casing set to a depth of approximately 4.5 metres (cased through the shallow fractured bedrock zone where contamination was encountered at the site) and have screens set in the deeper, less fractured bedrock. In comparison, monitoring wells 1 through 7 have casing set to a depth of approximately 2.5 metres. Based on the way that wells 8, 9 and 10 have been constructed, I suspect that they are not well hydraulically connected to the shallower groundwater flow system that is monitored by wells 1 through 7. Given their construction characteristics, these wells do not appear useful for determination of groundwater flow direction in the larger area surrounding the site. Contaminants of concern have not been detected in these wells which provides information that the slightly deeper bedrock is not impacted (the zone from 4.5 to approximately 9 mbgs) however, impacts in the shallow bedrock aquifer cannot be properly monitored at these wells. It is noted that the borehole log for monitoring well MW-9 (BH-9) indicated hydrocarbon odours in the zone from approximately 1.83 mbgs to 3.20 mbgs. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells should be installed at / near the locations of monitoring wells 8, 9 and 10 to provide information on overall groundwater flow conditions and to delineate shallow impacts. Wells should be constructed similar to onsite monitoring wells provided that shallow groundwater is encountered at these locations. In order to improve the conceptual model, hydraulic conductivity should be measured at a representative number of monitoring wells (3-4 wells). This work is not onerous (“slug” tests) and will allow groundwater velocity to be estimated. Remediation It is understood that remediation work conducted in 2015 consisted of excavation and off-site disposal of 250 tonnes of contaminated soil and rock.

Page 36 of 211 -4-

Soil and Groundwater Impacts Based on investigation work conducted to date, there is remaining contamination in soil and fractured bedrock around the north, east and west extents of the excavation and in the northern end of the site adjacent to Holleford Road. Based on exceedances of applicable groundwater standards at the property boundary (MW2), there is a potential for off-site impacts to groundwater quality. Additional monitoring wells should be installed to delineate off-site groundwater impacts as discussed above. Given the potential for off-site impacts, further remediation should be completed to address areas with remaining contamination. Ongoing groundwater monitoring should be undertaken until remediation at the site has been completed. Domestic Water Supply Wells The area surrounding the site is privately serviced for water supply and sewage. There is the potential for impacts to nearby water wells given that there are exceedances of applicable standards at the property boundary (discussed above) and given the sensitive setting in the area (shallow fractured bedrock). Ongoing domestic water well monitoring has been undertaken to determine the presence of any impacts. Six to eight domestic wells in proximity to the site have been monitored on four occasions. To date, contaminants of concern have not been detected in domestic wells. Ongoing Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting Groundwater monitoring at the site monitoring well network should continue on a semiannual basis (water levels and quality). Monitoring of domestic wells should also continue. Given that recent groundwater flow direction has been determined to be westerly, domestic wells located west of Highway 38 should be sampled. If the well owner is agreeable, sampling for contaminants of concern should be undertaken at the following locations: 5597 Highway 38, 5595 Highway 38, 3984 Boyce Road, 3986 Boyce Road, 3992 Boyce Road and 3991 Boyce Road. Based on these results and the results additional delineation work, the need for additional domestic well sampling can be determined. An annual report should be submitted to the ministry detailing the results of monitoring. The report should include interpretation of results. The report should identify any offsite impact to a domestic water supply and should indicate the need for changes to the monitoring program. The ministry should be notified immediately of the detection of any contaminant of concern in a domestic supply well. SOS has indicated that monitoring well MW7 needs repair. This well should be repaired.

Page 37 of 211 -5-

Conclusions and Recommendations Additional monitoring wells should be installed to delineate off-site groundwater impacts as discussed above. Given the potential for off-site impacts, further remediation should be completed to address areas with remaining contamination. Ongoing groundwater monitoring should be undertaken until remediation at the site has been completed (as described above). In order to improve the conceptual model, hydraulic conductivity should be measured at a representative number of monitoring wells. This work is not onerous (“slug” tests) and will allow groundwater velocity to be estimated. Monitoring well MW7 should be repaired. Groundwater monitoring and reporting should be completed as discussed in the previous section.

K. Stephenson, M.Sc., P.Eng KMS/dv ec:

P. Taylor G. Faaren R. Sacilotto

File GW 03-06 FR SF 5598 Hwy 38 KMS/IDS #4676-AVHSKM

Saw”

Page 38 of 211

Page 39 of 211

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT: Recreation Committee Structure/Facilitated session RECOMMENDATION THAT Council authorize the engagement of an external facilitator, in advance of the 2019 budget approval process, to guide a session that helps revamp the Recreation Committee structure and process AND that Council delay Recreation Committee appointments until results of the facilitated session are presented to Council.

BACKGROUND Recreation in the Township of South Frontenac has undergone many changes over the past years and the Township needs to look at ways to reflect the changes while focusing on meeting the Committees purpose as outlined in the Terms of Reference. There is a sense that committee members, staff and the Community are frustrated with the current Committee structure and process. As a Community we have different pressures, changing demographics and rec & leisure needs that may have not existed in the past. As per discussions that occurred at the June 4, 2018 South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting regarding the evolution of the committee. The committee requested that Supervisor of Recreation research the cost to have a facilitator assist with the process of the structure and role of the committee. It was agreed that a facilitated session would help revamp the Recreation Committee structure and fine tune the process that the Township employs for supporting Recreation and Leisure Services in South Frontenac. Some of the comments that arose during the discussion and would be part of the facilitated session include:       

things that used to be done by volunteers but are now being done by township staff the different needs of each district and how do we manage the expectations from the public for recreation and cultural programs. there is a need to find a model that will support funding recreation in the township the recreation survey conducted in 2016 needs to be reviewed as part of this process. Are we meeting the purposes of the SFRC terms of reference? revamp the structures and process before we review the Recreation Mater Plan and update the 5 year recreation plan review the 2016 Recreation and Leisure Public Survey report/results

In September the following motion was passed by the committee. Resolution No. SFRC-2018-09/17-03 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Linda Bates

Our strength is our community.

Page 40 of 211

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

THAT the South Frontenac Recreation Committee seek the approval of Council to engage with a facilitator to have a guided session that helps revamp the Recreation Committee structure and process, AND THAT we delay Recreation Committee appointments until results of the facilitated session are presented to Council.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS A budget of up to $5,000 will be included in the 2019.

Prepared by:

Submitted/approved by:

Tim Laprade

Mark Segsworth

Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Director of Public Services

Our strength is our community.

Page 41 of 211

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT: Recreation Program Registration and Facility Booking Software RECOMMENDATION THAT Council provide advance budget approval to purchase a $6,000 Registration and Facility Booking Software Program, with annual operating costs of $8,650 which will allow staff sufficient time to have the system operational for the 2019 summer programs.

BACKGROUND The Township provides the Public with an online program registration option in order to maximize participation and improve efficiencies. For the past three years the Township has been offering Summer Program registration via an online system supported by PathFive Vantage software. We were recently informed that the company that purchased PathFive Vantage would be discontinuing this product line. In order to meet the 2019 Summer registration commencing May 1st, the Township will need to enter into an agreement with a service provider as of January 2019. The Township’s Treasurer and the Supervisor of Recreation have in accordance with the procurement bylaw received quotes and product demonstrations from other Program Registration and Facility Booking Software providers. Staff recommend that the Township proceed with ActiveNet as the new service provider.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS A onetime Capital budget of $6000 and an annual Operating budget of $8650 will be included in the 2019 Budget.

Prepared by:

Submitted/approved by:

Tim Laprade

Mark Segsworth

Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Director of Public Services

Our strength is our community.

Page 42 of 211

Report to Council Planning Department Report Date: November 23, 2018

Council Agenda Date:

December 4, 2018

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/12 Van Luven (Agent: Laframboise) Part of Lot 7, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Loughborough, South Frontenac, municipally known as a portion of 2496 Rutledge Road Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) as a condition of multiple consent applications Date of Public Meeting: November 6, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law rezoning Part of Lot 7, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Loughborough, South Frontenac, municipally known as a portion of 2496 Rutledge Road be passed.

Proposal An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 2003-75 to rezone portions of the subject property owned by the Van Luvens from Rural (RU) to Residential Limited Service - Waterfront (RLSW) in order to fulfill conditions of 7 lot addition consent applications and the creation of one new waterfront lot that have been processed by the Township over the past year.

Background The subject property has frontage on Rutledge Road and Sydenham Lake and is approximately 70 acres in area. The subject property is currently developed with a dwelling and multiple accessory buildings near to Rutledge Road, with the remainder mostly naturally vegetated. The subject property includes Sheila Lane, Sally Lane, Boon Lane, Carslake Lane, Fred Lane and Sparrow Ridge Lane - all private roads which serve as access to more than 20 waterfront cottage properties. The initial rezoning application that was submitted proposed to rezone portions of the Van Luven property from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential - Waterfront (RWLS) to fulfill the rezoning condition of seven lot addition consents (S-37-18-L, S-40-18-L, S-48-18-L, S-52-18-L, S-53-18-L, and S-54-18-L, S78-18-L) and one new waterfront lot (S-81-18-L). The retained lands owned by Sally and Gordon Van Luven will continue to be zoned Rural (RU).

Public Meeting A public meeting was held under the Planning Act on November 6, 2018. provided from Council or members of the public.

No comments were

Summary A comprehensive report reviewing this zoning by-law amendment against the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, the County of Frontenac Official Plan and the South Frontenac Official Plan was provided to Council in advance of the November 6, 2018 public meeting. As this rezoning is consistent and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, the County of Frontenac Official Plan and the South Frontenac Official Plan and Zoning By-law, it is recommended Council approve this application by passing the attached by-law.

Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac

Page 43 of 211

Report to Council Planning Department Report Date: November 23, 2018

Council Agenda Date:

December 4, 2018

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/13 Sindall & Cross 4183 & 4153 Camden Portland Boundary Road Part of Lot 17, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Portland, South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU-54) and from Rural (RU) to Rural Commercial Site Specific (RC-15) as a condition of consent application S-80-18-P Date of Public Meeting: November 6, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law rezoning Part of Lot 17, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Portland, South Frontenac, municipally known as a portion of 4183 Camden Portland Boundary Road be passed.

Proposal The proposal is to rezone a portion of the property from Rural (RU) to Rural Site Specific Zone (RU54) to permit a second residential unit to be permitted in an accessory building. This application also proposes to rezone a 5.05 acre portion of the property as a condition of an application (S-80-18-P) to sever a rural commercial lot from the property. The applicants propose a site specific Rural Commercial zone (RC-15) to permit a craft brewery on the 5.05 acre lot.

Background Proposal for a Residential Second Unit This rezoning application proposes to permit a second residential unit in an accessory building on a 31 acre rural lot located at 4153 Camden Portland Boundary Road. At present, the owners Brenda Cross & Craig Sindall have constructed a garage with a residential unit above as their primary residence. It is their long term plans to build a single detached dwelling on the same residential property in the future and then use the residential unit above the garage as a second dwelling unit on the property. Second units are self-contained residential units with a private kitchen, bathroom facilities and sleeping areas within dwellings or within structures ancillary (e.g. a garage) to a dwelling. Locating a second unit in a garage on a property on a rural property where it can be adequately serviced with private water and septic is consistent with the direction established by the Planning Act. Craft Brewery The applicants received provisional consent (application S-80-18-P) to create a 5.05 acres rural commercial lot from the property at 4183 Camden Portland Boundary Road. The severed parcel contains an existing derelict dwelling and a refurbished barn. The purpose of this severance is to establish a craft brewery within the refurbished barn. A demolition permit has been received from the Building Department to demolish the derelict dwelling on the lot. The applicant intends to establish a small batch craft brewery in the barn on the property. The applicant has been improving the 900 square foot barn over the last few years. The applicant proposes to locate the brewing equipment on the main floor and locate a tasting area in the upper floor of the barn. The brewery will be licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission and will operate as a tied house. As such, there will be a simple menu of food served on-site. The lot area is large enough to accommodate parking. The applicant’s intent is to create a destination brewery and will retail beer and merchandise from the property.

Public Meeting A public meeting was held under the Planning Act on November 6, 2018. No public comments were received on the proposed rezoning. The KFL&A Health Unit had no objections to this application. 1

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 44 of 211

During the public meeting Council members raised questions regarding the range of permitted uses that would be allowed on the rural commercial property. The by-law permits the craft brewery use, along with a range of compatible uses including an eating establishment, butcher shop, retail store, garden centre, craft and merchandising service shop. It also proposes a new definition for the by-law defining a craft brewery and the permitted ancillary uses (e.g. tasting room, food service and tours). Due to the size and rural nature of the property, the by-law also permits agricultural crops used in the production of beer may also be permitted to be grown on the property. Council also raised some questions about the proposed second residential unit. Once the single detached dwelling is constructed on the property at 4153 Camden Portland Boundary Road, the existing residential unit that has been constructed above the garage on the property will become the second unit. Both the house and second residential unit will share the same access and the same septic system. The septic system installed on the property has been sized to accommodate flows from both the proposed single detached dwelling and the residential unit above the garage. The proposed by-law has been provided to the applicants for review and comment prior to the December 4th meeting of Council. The applicants are agreeable to the provisions of both the proposed rural and rural commercial site specific zones established by the attached by-law.

Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac

Page 45 of 211

Report to Council Planning Department Report Date: November 23, 2018

Council Agenda Date:

December 4, 2018

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/14 Tucker (Agent: Fotenn/Laidlaw) 688 Dewitt Lane Part of Lots 27 & 28, Concession 7, Parts 1-4, 13R11231, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Rezone from Residential Limited Service Waterfront (RLSW) to a Site Specific Residential Limited Service Waterfront zone (RLSW-121) as a condition of approval for an application for consent (S-76-18-B) Date of Public Meeting: November 6, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law rezoning Part Lots 27 & 28, Concession 7, Parts 1-4, 13R11231, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac be passed.

Proposal An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 2003-75 to rezone a portion of the subject property as a condition of consent application S-76-18-B. The proposal is to rezone a portion of the property from Residential Limited Service Waterfront (RLSW) to a Site Specific Residential Limited Service Waterfront zone (RLSW-121) as a condition of approval for an application for consent (S-76-18-B). The proposal is to limit the permitted uses on the property to parking and a dock so that the land may only be used as mainland access for the properties located on Mica Island.

Background An application for consent (S-76-18-B) has been given provisional consent by the South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment subject to several conditions, including rezoning the property to limit the permitted uses to parking and a dock so that the land may only be used as a permanent mainland access for the properties on Mica Island in Bob’s Lake. The proposal is to sever 1.2 acres of land from an existing 9.6 acre parcel of land to create one new lot for parking and docking facilities. The lot to be created has approximately 52 metres of frontage along Dewitt Lane and fronts onto Bob’s Lake and Michael’s Creek Marsh which is a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). The intent of the application is to bring an existing non-conforming water access situation into conformity with the policies of the Official Plan by establishing a regularized access regime for the existing properties located on Mica Island. The parking area proposed will be large enough to accommodate four vehicles and will be approximately 10 metres by 12 metres; the area will be setback 30 metres from the high water mark and 5 metres from the neighbouring lane. The applicants have submitted a Zoning Bylaw Amendment application to restrict the uses on the severed lands to parking for the exclusive use of the owners that is setback a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark of Bob’s Lake and docking facilities. The applicants have also proposed conditions to be included in the site plan agreement to limit disturbance on the property and a restrictive covenant. The parking area proposed will be large enough to accommodate four vehicles and will be approximately 10 metres by 12 metres. A further condition of consent S-76-18-B is that the severed lot shall be subject to site plan control. As such the applicants will be required to enter into a site plan agreement with the Township of South Frontenac.

Public Meeting A public meeting was held under the Planning Act on November 6, 2018. No public comments were received on this application. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has no objection to the subject application provided the Township put the property require the owner to enter into site plan control for the severed parcel.

Report to Council Planning Department

Page 46 of 211

Council members raised questions regarding restricting the ability to service the lot with hydro and a well, the width of the access to the water, the location of the closest public water access. It was noted that the closest public water access was provided from a public dock located in Tay Valley. Following the public meeting, staff discussed Council’s questions with the Planning Consultant acting for the application. The consultant confirmed applicant does not have any plans to install a well or water supply to service the lot. It is proposed the only uses that would be permitted is the location of the parking or docking area on the lot. The applicant would like the option to install hydro to the lot for the simple purpose of installing a security light on the lot. It is noted that the installation of hydro is seldom regulated through zoning. As a condition of consent, the applicant is required to enter into a site plan agreement with the Township. It is recommended that the site plan agreement speak to limiting the installation of a water service to the lot. Council asked a question about the width of the access that would be permitted to the waterfront. The applicant would like the width of the path to the waterfront to be wide enough to service pedestrian and equipment access. It is recommended that any shore line access be limited in width of approximately 3 metres. The location of the shoreline access shall be approved by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and the Township through the site plan review process and shall be included on the approved site plan.

Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac

Page 47 of 211

CON

FUDEAUVALLEY TION AUTHORITY

3889 Radeauvalley DHVE,Po. Box 599, Manotlck,ON KAM1A5 tel é‘I3—692-3571 J ‘l-800267-35011I fax 613-692-0831 | www.rvca.ca

October 25, 2018 18-SFR-ZBA (Bedford)

Township of South Frontenac Box 37 Perth, Ontario K7H 3E2 Attention:

Claire Dodds

Subject:

ZA-18/14 at 688 Dewitt Lane (AKA 726 Dewitt Lane), TUCKER, TREVOR Part Lots 27 & 28, Concession 7; Former Township of Bedford, Now the Township of South Frontenac; Roll Number: 10290100503169000000

—

Dear Ms. Dodds,

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has reviewed the subject application within the context of:

Section 2.1 Natural Heritage and 3.1 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act; The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (“Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses” regulation 174/06 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act); The Tay River Bobs Lake Catchment Report; The Rideau Lakes Basin Carrying Capacities and Proposed Shoreland Development Policies

The Proposal

The RVCA understands this application to be in ?ll?llment of a condition of severance (File No. S-76-18-B) which requires that the subject property successfully obtain a zoning by-law amendment to restrict the permitted uses so that the site may be used exclusively as an access area for properties located on Mica Island. The requested amendment would see the zoning changed from Limited Service Residential Waterfront Zone (RLSW) to a site speci?c designation within the RLSW zone that limits uses exclusively to parking and a dock. —

The Property

The subject property is located on Bob’s Lake which has a regulated ?ood level of 163.07 metres above sea level (geodetic). A portion of the property is occupied by the Michaels Creek Marsh which is a Provincially Signi?cant Wetland (PSW). As a result, the entire property is within the 120 metre adjacent lands from the PSW. The site is heavily vegetated. A hydro easement was observed on the site during the site visit.

Page 1 of 3

Page 48 of 211

Review Comments and Recommendations

Michael ‘s Creek Marsh During the site visit for the severance application, Michael’s Creek Marsh was observed. As a PSW, this wetland is regulated by the RVCA. Therefore, any development within the feature, or interference within adjacent lands (120 metres) requires the prior written approval of the RVCA. Wetlands provide a variety of bene?ts. These bene?ts include: attenuation of ?ood water; serving as a groundwater recharge/discharge area and providing a more stable source of water during low water conditions; ?ltering our drinking water; and providing habitat to many species of plants and animals (often including ?sh).

Babs Lake Catchment Report

—

East Basin

The water quality report for East Basin is “fair” according to the Bobs Lake Catchment Report. This rating has been assigned due to phosphorus concentrations which exceed the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) and instances of reduced oxygen concentration throughout much of the water column in the late summer which may stress ?sh population. Care should be taken to avoid further nutrient enrichment which can fuel the growth of algae and deplete oxygen levels. This can be employed through best management practices such as maintenance of a vegetative buffer and sediment and erosion controls being implemented during site disturbance. Rideau Lakes Study Based on an application of the Rideau Lakes Study, an appropriate setback based on soil type, depth of soil, topography and vegetation cover would be 30 metres from the normal high water mark from Bob’s Lake. It is our understanding, based on the planning rationale submitted for the severance application (related File No. S-76—18—B), that the proposed parking lot will maintain a 30 metre setback from the normal high water mark. This is supported by the Rideau Lakes Study and the RVCA.

Recommendations Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of the planner that the inclusion of best management practices at the site plan control stage will assist with protecting water quality of Bob’s Lake and the natural feature of Michael’s Creek Marsh in satisfaction of Section 2.1 of the PPS. These types of measures are described below, but generally include ensuring that appropriate sediment controls are installed and maintained during construction, directing surface runoff to appropriate catchment features, such as in?ltration trenches, directing stormwater away from the watercourse or the use of soak away pits, and maintaining current shoreline vegetation. Should the Township implement site plan control as a result of this development application, the RVCA would recommend the following conditions be included: —

Sediment and erosion controls between the construction area and Bob’s Lake/Michael’s Creek Marsh are to be installed prior to initiation of the work, to remain in place until the site has been allowed to regenerate and vegetation has been re—establishedto the satisfaction of the Township or Chief Building Official.

Page 2 of 3

Page 49 of 211

—

A_llmaterials from construction (such as excess soil) will be disposed of 30 metres or more from the normal highwater of Bob’s Lake and the Michael’s Creek Marsh at a proper disposal site.

A planting plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the site plan control agreement. This will be to the satisfaction of the Township and could be as simple as indicating the existing vegetation and its maintenance while also indicating the opportunity to make improvements on a best efforts basis. The recommended vegetation buffer for this application is 30 metres, allowing for a 3 metre wide access path to the shoreline. The following statement should be included in the site plan control agreement.

“Should any work be undertaken along the shoreline ofBob ‘s Lake, or within Michael ’s Creek Marsh, or within the 120 metre adjacent lands fromMichael ’s Creek Marsh, permits would be required by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority in accordance with Ontario Regulation 174/06 ( “Development, with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses ”), Interference "

Conclusions In conclusion, The RVCA has no objection to the subject application. The RVCA would like the review comments and recommendations included and acknowledgedin future site plan control agreements on the subject property.

Please provide a copy of the amending by—lawto our office for our review and for our records. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (613) 267-5353 x 131 should you have any questions. Please advise us on the Committee’s decision respecting this application or any changes in the status of the application.

Yours truly,

/@«‘é§/’/%’4<— Phil Mosher Planner, RVCA cc cc cc cc

—

Douglas Terry (dtegy@rideau.net) Joanne McGurn (Joanne.McGurn(a)k?aph.ca) Angus Laidlaw (angyis.laidlaw@canada.ca) Mike Keene (keene@fotenn.com)

Page 3 of 3

Page 50 of 211

Report to Council Planning Department Report Date: November 23, 2018

Council Agenda Date:

December 4, 2018

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/15 Phillips (Agent: ZanderPlan Inc.) 108 Sellers Lane Part of Lots 27 & 28, Concession 9, Part of Part 1, 13R13997, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Residential Limited Service Waterfront (RLSW) as a condition of consent application S-47-17-B Date of Public Meeting: November 6, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law rezoning Part of Lots 27 & 28, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac be passed.

Proposal An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 2003-75 to rezone a portion of the subject property as a condition of consent application S-47-17-B. The proposal is to rezone a portion of the property from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) as a condition of approval for the creation of a new +/-2.8 acre waterfront residential lot with 100 metres of frontage on Green Lake and 77 metres of frontage on Sellers Lane.

Background The subject land consists of 110 +/- acres with frontage on Burridge Road, Sellers Lane and Green Lake. The lot is currently developed with a seasonal dwelling and a detached accessory building. The proposal is for the creation of a 2.8 acre waterfront residential lot with 100 metres of frontage on Green Lake and 77 metres of frontage on Sellers Lane. This new lot will encompass both of the existing structures on the property. The proposed severed lot is proposed to gain access directly from Sellers Lane. The subject land is currently zoned Rural. In the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to grant provisional consent, a condition (condition #6) was attached that the severed lot had to be rezoned to Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (RLSW) as it was a waterfront lot accessed by a private lane.

Public Meeting A public meeting was held under the Planning Act on November 6, 2018. provided from Council or members of the public.

No comments were

Both KFL&A Public Health and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority provided comment that they have no objections to this rezoning.

Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac

Page 51 of 211

Report to Council Planning Department Report Date: November 23, 2018

Council Agenda Date:

December 4, 2018

Application No: Owner: Location of Property:

Z-18/16 St. Arnaud & Walker Part of Lot 28, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) as a condition of consent applications S-70-18-B & S-71-18-B Date of Public Meeting: November 6, 2018

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law rezoning Part of Lot 28, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Bedford, South Frontenac be passed.

Proposal An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 2003-75 to rezone a portion of the subject property as a condition of consent applications S-70-18-B & S-71-18-B The proposal is to rezone a portion of the property from Rural (RU) to Residential Limited Service Waterfront as a condition of consent to create two new vacant water access lots (S-70-18-B & S-7118-B). The northerly new lot will have approximately 230 metres of frontage along Bob’s Lake and is approximately 14 acres in area. The southerly new lot will have approximately 131 metres of frontage along Bob’s Lake and is approximately 8 acres in area.

Background The South Frontenac Committee of Adjustment recently granted provisional consent for two new water access lots from an existing property at Part Lot 28, Concession 5, District of Bedford, commonly referred to as St. Arnaud Acres. The existing lot has frontage on Bob’s Lake and is approximately 144 acres in area. The subject property is located on a large peninsula that projects into Bob’s Lake. The subject property is currently developed with a cottage with the remainder of the property being heavily vegetated with unevaluated wetlands and a watercourse. The applicant is proposing to sever approximately 24 acres from the existing 144 acre lot in order to create two new lots. Legal deeded parking will be provided for the new water access lots at the location where the current parking is deeded; sufficient area exists to accommodate the additional vehicles. The retained lands will consist of 120 acres in area with approximately 260 metres of frontage along Bob’s Lake. The retained lands will contain the seasonal dwelling located on the property. No further development is proposed for the retained lands.

Public Meeting A public meeting was held under the Planning Act on November 6, 2018. provided from Council or members of the public.

No comments were

Submitted/approved by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac

Page 52 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

December 4, 2018

SUBJECT:

Private Lane Upgrading Assistance

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve payments totalling $78,109.28 in the amounts listed below for the 2018 Private Lane Upgrading Assistance Program for the following lanes: Lane Old 13 Island Lake Lane Ashman Lane Bauder Lane Bluewater Cottagers Lns Brooks Lane Buck Point Lane Buckley Lane Cedar Ridges Lane Cliff Lane Cotman Lane East Shore Lane Frye Lane Garter Lake Lane Hambly Lane Hardwood Lane Hiawatha Lane Hipwell Lane Mason Lane Melody Lodge Lane Meredith Lane Old Fourteen Island Lake Lane Old Mine Lane Otter Point Lane Rock Quarry Lane Silver Rock Lane Sunset Shores Lanes Younge Lane

Subsidy (50%) 1740.68 1484.64 1406.85 3320.17 1130.00 5403.81 5621.75 5146.79 423.75 847.50 12430.00 4039.75 898.13 2043.87 797.63 1050.90 2768.50 2079.49 11280.39 1731.89 2811.15 1257.13 1266.11 1041.98 3490.55 2595.87 78109.28

BACKGROUND: The Private Lane Upgrading Assistance Program’s overarching objective is to improve access for emergency vehicles. The Program has proven to be popular again this year with a total of 27 lane groups submitting invoices for subsidy of completed work.

Our strength is our community.

Page 53 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: The amount of subsidy is limited to a maximum of 50% of eligible expenditures for private lane upgrades. The following is a listing in alphabetical order and their proposed subsidy:

Lane Old 13 Island Lake Lane Ashman Lane Bauder Lane Bluewater Cottagers Ln Brooks Lane Buck Point Lane Buckley Lane Cedar Ridges Lane Cliff Lane Cotman Lane East Shore Lane Frye Lane Garter Lake Lane Hambly Lane Hardwood Lane Hiawatha Lane Hipwell Lane Mason Lane Melody Lodge Lane Meredith Lane Old Fourteen Island Lake Ln Old Mine Lane Otter Point Lane Rock Quarry Lane Silver Rock Lane Sunset Shores Lane Younge Lane

Previous Applications

Total Exp. 3836.35 2969.28 2813.70 6640.34 2260.00 10807.62

Eligible Exp. 3481.35 2969.28 2813.70 6640.34 2260.00 10807.62

Subsidy (50%) 1740.68 1484.64 1406.85 3320.17 1130.00 5403.81

11243.50 10293.58 847.50 1695.00 24860.00 8079.50 1796.25 4087.73 1852.80 2101.80 5537.00 4158.98 22560.77 3463.78 5622.30 2514.25 2532.22 2083.95 10701.10 5191.73

11243.50 10293.58 847.50 1695.00 24860.00 8079.50 1796.25 4087.73 1595.25 2101.80 5537.00 4158.98 22560.77 3463.78 5622.30 2514.25 2532.22 2083.95 6981.10 5191.73

5621.75 5146.79 2014+2016+2017 423.75 847.50 2017 12430.00 4039.75 2012-2017 898.13 5043.88 2016, 2017 797.63 2017 1050.90 2768.50 2079.49 2015-2017 11280.39 1731.89 2017 2811.15 2013-2017 1257.13 2012/13 2016/17 1266.11 1041.98 3490.55 2013-2017 2595.87 78109.28

2012-2017

2013-2017

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The approved budget of $100,000 again this year has made it possible for all lanes to receive the 50% subsidy, regardless of how many times they have applied before. It should be noted that ineligible expenditures are generally maintenance items like normal gravel resurfacing and brushing. Submitted/approved by: Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Director of Public Services Our strength is our community.

Page 54 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

December 4th, 2018

SUBJECT:

Proposed reduced speed zones

RECOMMENDATION: That By-law 2018-70, being a by-law to amend By-law 2000-01 as amended, to regulate traffic, parking and stopping on Township Highways and Bridges, be approved. BACKGROUND: Request for reduced speed limits are received on an ad-hoc basis and reviewed on a seasonal basis. Various segments of road have been compiled that fit the criteria for speed analysis. Under the Highway Traffic Act the current speed limit is 50 km/h by default in built up areas and 80 km/h elsewhere. These road segments were reviewed incorporating the council endorsed TAC Automated Speed Limit Guidelines analysis tool. The result of this analysis was the recommendation for a speed limit reduction to 60 km/h for Wellington Street and Perth Road, and Arthur Road which is 50 km/h. Clearwater Road which was recently reduced to 50 km/h, has received a request through petition for a further reduction to 40 km/h. This list of roads has been reviewed by both the OPP and the Public Services Committee. Both are generally supportive of the recommendations. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Sufficient funds exist within the 2018 Operating budget for the purchase of the required Regulation Signage. Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday, CET Area Supervisor

Our strength is our community.

Page 55 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

December 4th, 2018

SUBJECT:

2019 Budget Cycle

RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the 2019 budget cycle as presented. BACKGROUND: Typically, a budget cycle is presented to Council in order to begin the process by September. As this year was an election year, the budget schedule was brought forward in September to receive feedback pre-election. No changes were recommended. The following schedule is proposed for the 2019 budget. Meeting Date Dec 4 Dec 11

Activity Confirmation of Budget Schedule Set budget direction / Long Term Financial Plan Update Non PW Capital Presentation PW Capital Presentation Table full Budget Document Delegations on Budget Document (Advertised in advance) Operating Budget (SATURDAY) Budget revisions based on Council direction Budget Debate and Approval? Budget Debate and Approval – if needed

Dec 18 Jan 8 Jan 15 Jan 22 Jan 26 Feb 12 Feb 19 Mar 5

ATTACHMENTS None Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito

Our strength is our community.

Page 56 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT:

January 2019 Council & Committee of the Whole Meetings

RECOMMENDATION That Council suspend the rules of the Procedural By-law 2017-76 and schedule the January 2019 Council meetings for January 8 and 22 and the Committee of the Whole meeting for January 15, 2019. And that a Bus Tour of township facilities and projects be scheduled for spring of 2019.

BACKGROUND Section 1 (e) of the Procedural By-law stipulates that Council shall meet at 7:00 pm on the first and third Tuesday in each month from January to December inclusive with the exception of the months of July and August. Given that January 1, 2019 is the first Tuesday night of the month and will be New Years’ Day, the municipal offices will be closed. Staff recommend that for January the schedule be advanced one week with the first Council meeting in January being held January 8, 2019 and then to follow the alternating pattern with Committee of the Whole on January 15, 2019 and Council again on January 22, 2019. The February meetings will follow the regular scheduling as outlined in By-law 2017-76. During Council Orientation sessions there were discussions about coordinating a bus tour on January 12, 2019. Given that there was no consensus or definitive direction, it is recommended that we reschedule a bus tour in the spring when weather will be most likely be more predictable.

ATTACHMENTS n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 57 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT:

Deputy Mayor Appointments

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the proposed Deputy Mayor Appointment Process as the binding method for appointment of deputy Mayors for South Frontenac Council for the four year term 2018-2022, And that having adopted a process for determining Deputy Mayors that the following individuals be appointed as Deputy Mayor for the period as indicated: 2018-2019

2019-2020

2020-2021

2021-2022

BACKGROUND The Deputy Mayor acts on behalf of the Mayor in his absence, with the exception of sitting at County Council. As compensation the Deputy Mayor receives an increase in honorarium. Historically the Deputy Mayor has rotated on an annual basis and has been assigned to the District Councillor with the most votes in the District. This will not work this time as there were two districts with acclamations. Council will have to decide on how to move forward. Options to consider include: Appoint a single Deputy Mayor for four years Appoint rotating Deputy Mayors:  Based on vote count  Based on agreement between District Councillors  By Council vote  Randomly  Or some combination of the above A Proposed Appointment Process is attached for Council’s consideration. The process will need to be approved by Council in advance of the appointment

2018 Election Results BEDFORD DISTRICT Pat Barr Alan Revill

Acclaimed Acclaimed

PORTLAND DISTRICT Ray Leonard Doug Morey

1156 579

LOUGHBOROUGH DISTRICT Our strength is our community.

Page 58 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT Randy Ruttan Ross Sutherland

1079 1647

STORRINGTON DISTRICT Norm Roberts Acclaimed Ron Sleeth Acclaimed

ATTACHMENTS Proposed Appointment Process Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 59 of 211

PROPOSED Deputy Mayor Appointment Process

Term: The Deputy Mayor shall serve a single 12 month term, per four year term of Council During the four year term of Council each Deputy Mayor shall represent a different District of the Township. Appointment: Where District Councillors were elected by vote; the Councillor with the highest number of votes in the most recent municipal election shall serve a 12 month term as Deputy Mayor. Where District Councillors were acclaimed to office; the selection of Deputy Mayor between the two Councillors shall be determined by mutual agreement between the two Councillors. In the absence of an agreement between the parties; then the selection of Deputy Mayor shall be by vote of Council, with each member of Council present at the time of the vote, allowed to choose only one candidate. Rotation: The order of rotation of Deputy Mayor shall be determined by mutual agreement between the four selected Councillors. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the Deputy Mayor with the longest current consecutive number of years on Council shall be first, followed by the next and so on. Where Deputy Mayors have no current years serving on Council or the same number of years serving on Council, they shall take rotation in alphabetical order by surname.

ADOPTED BY SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL

, 2018

Page 60 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT:

County Council Appointee

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the County Council Appointment Process as the binding method for appointment of a South Frontenac Councillor to County Council for the four year term 2018-2022. And that having adopted a process for determining a County Councillor appointment, that Councillor___________________ be appointed to Frontenac County Council for the term 2018 -2022.

BACKGROUND In 2009 the composition of Frontenac County Council changed from 4 members to 8 members. Under the Municipal Act the Head of Council of each of the lower tier municipalities is automatically appointed to County Council. The County’s decision to expand to 8 members requires that each lower tier municipality appoint a second member of Council for the entire four year term. The selection of the County appointee has to be by open voting. Voting by secret ballot for this role is prohibited under section 244 of the Municipal Act. During orientation Council members have been made aware that this item would be on the Agenda for the first meeting of the new Council. A proposed process is attached. This is based on the process used in 2014. Prior to proceeding with discussions on potential appointees a binding process must be agreed upon by Council.

ATTACHMENTS County Council Process

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 61 of 211

COUNTY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT PROCESS (adopted for the 2014-2018 term of Council)

The Mayor will call on Council for nominations to fill the position. The nominees must be members of council.
All nomination motions must have a mover and seconder to be placed on the table for consideration by Council. The nominee cannot be the mover or seconder for his/her nomination. The Mayor will call for a motion to close nominations.
Before Council votes on the nominations, each nominee will be allowed five minutes to address Council as to why he or she should receive Council’s support to fill the County Council position.
Council will vote on each nomination individually in an open manner in the order in which they were nominated. A nomination motion must receive a majority of support of Council (five votes in support) to move on in the process. The Clerk will record the votes. A nominee may vote for himself or herself.
If at any time only one nominee receives the majority support of Council, the nominee will be the person appointed to fill the County Council position.
If after the first round, no one receives a majority vote from Council, a second round of voting will occur. If the lack of majority continues, all names will be placed in a ‘hat’ and the name drawn by the Chief Administrative Officer will be the individual appointed to fill the position.
If two or more nominees receive majority support of Council, the process will repeat itself for as long as each round results in at least one of the nominees being eliminated because he or she did not receive the support of Council.
If all of the nominees remaining at any point in the process receive the support of council, their names will be placed in a hat. The Chief Administrative Officer will draw one name from the hat and the name so drawn will be the individual appointed to fill the position on County Council.

Page 62 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT:

Appointment - Clerk

RECOMMENDATION That Council pass Bylaw 2018-71 to appoint Angela Maddocks as Clerk and Wayne Orr as Chief Administrative Officer and Deputy Clerk, both effective December 5, 2018

BACKGROUND In October 2017 Council began the implementation of a restructuring that seen the Appointment of Angela Maddocks as Deputy Clerk. During the time since the appointment Angela has attended Clerk I and II training with the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers. She has also had full training on election operations and assumed a much broader role in the recent municipal elections. Over the course of the year and in combination with orientation she has assumed the majority of the role. Working with the Director of Development Services Angela is assuming the Clerk portion of the Planning function. The hiring of the new Executive Assistant will now allow this to be fully implemented. The final step of this process as originally outlined to Council in 2017 is to appoint Angela to the role of Clerk and appoint the CAO as Deputy Clerk. The appointment of the CAO as Deputy Clerk will allow back up coverage and the opportunity for Council to meet independently with the CAO if they wish or the need arises. The separation of the Clerk role will also be of assistance when Council turns its mind to the recruitment of a new CAO. Council is now asked to pass the Bylaw to confirm the appointments.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Funds exist in the 2018 budget to for additional staffing were incorporated into the 2018 budget and will be annualized in the 2019 budget.

ATTACHMENTS 

Bylaw 2018-71

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 63 of 211

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: December 4, 2018 SUBJECT:

Deputy Division Registrar

RECOMMENDATION That Council pass By-law 2018-72 being a by-law to appoint a Deputy Division Registrar.

BACKGROUND Under the direction of the Registrar General’s Office, the Clerk of the Township is appointed Division Registrar for the Municipality and plays a fundamental role in the collection and maintenance of provincial vital statistics. The Division Registrar is responsible for issuing burial permits and the registration of deaths under the Vital Statistics Act. The Act provides for the appointment of one or more Deputy Division Registrars to act for him/her and any such Deputy, has all the powers and duties of the Division Registrar who appointed the Deputy. It is deemed necessary to have a Deputy Division Registrar to carry out the duties under the Vital Statistics Act in the absence of the Clerk.

ATTACHMENTS See By-law 2018-72 Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 64 of 211

Police Services Board Meeting October4, 2018

Time: 9:00 AM Location: Council Chambers 1.

Call to Order

MayorVandewal called the meeting to order at 9:00 a. m. 2.

Attendance

a) Staff Sergeant Sharron Brown, Mayor Ron Vandewal, Stephen Bach, David Herrington.

Staff: Wayne Orr, CAO, Angela Maddocks, Deputy Clerk. 3.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations.

Approval of Agenda

Motion

Resolution No. 2018-PSB-10/04-01

Moved by David Herrington Seconded by Stephen Bach

THAT the agenda be approved as presented. Carried

Approval of Minutes

June 21, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-PSB-10/04-02

Moved by Stephen Bach

Seconded by David Herrington

THAT the minutes ofthe June21, 2018 meeting be approved. Carried

Presentations/Delegations - n/a

Correspondence

Marc Bedard, Superintendent Commander, Municipal Policing Bureau re: 2019 Municipal PolicingAnnual Billing Statement Package

Marc Bedard, Superintendent Commander, Municipal Policing Bureau, re: Update on Annual Billing Statement

OAPSBZone 2 Meeting - November 30, 2018

It was noted that Belleville has an independent police force. Staff Sergeant Brown is planning on attending. 8.

Financial

Page 65 of 211 Minutes of Council

October, 4, 2018 a)

Budget items for 2019 that need to be considered.

Staff Sergeant Brown noted that the SALT committee is applying for another grant but may be approaching the township forfunding as well. 9.

Detachment Commanders Report

Staff Sergeant Brown provided an update on successes with the Street Crime

until specific to a May 17 event of breaking and entering of cottages.

Staffhave received training with respect to the October 17 datefor legalized cannabis.

MayorVandewal asked about the 2017 to 2018 comparative numbers for motor vehicle accidents. These numbers will be included in the November reports.

Committee Reports - n/a

Other Business

Community Safety and Well Being

StaffSergeant Brown acknowledged the challenge to meet the timeline by January 2019. There are templates available for use. This should be

spearheaded by the municipality but with partnerships of local services based

on local risk. Shesuggested that South Frontenac needsto create an advisory group to identifywho needs to be at the table to develop the framework. The advisory group should include Family and Children Services, Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation and Addictions and Mental Health.

Priorities can be determined from each agency, identify issues such as high crime, housing etc and then create performance standards from there.

Wayne On- noted the challenge that South Frontenac has to accomplish this as a rural township. David Herrington and Staff Sergeant Brown will review the framework and this

will be further discussed at the November meeting. 12.

Public Discussion - n/a

Date & Time of Next Meeting

November 15, 2018 at 7:00 pm Annual Public and Regular Meeting

In Camera-n/a

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a. m.

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

‘1uau1umo_fpv snap 8u;19au11x9N 75>

‘9

‘1;

sseugsngJuno

‘g

uuq; eouepuenvuo go u?gs0; maqg)

98121015 [(191003 [1eopo1s;Hpunpgod .103Jemopueg) 12 swoox S.I[121S1IAAOp suo asn 01 Hv?noqow uqof pue eoziog 914130 mew11101;Axgnbug ssnosgq ISS9U[SI"lq MQN

(;su1aJ,;198pnqmeu Auv

W g:p,95fy’ :K‘e(Tfp—"“eue;3 [“*~~-rvvDo”‘»"*’i’«‘ J

(;00'00g1$

F’

90,05 3, (0

was/(1921SP amps m?png g,Bugusddnq sgmqm

[[211 Xom.xag

‘\fV1’W _ s1;sgA [ooqos 1o_;uop,e1.xodsum1snq qp’W" 2‘ s1e1;o1 epgsmo.10} pueggqsem pueq .

“

—

(gepuea, 03 mo 08 01S’€/SAeouenua dnogpunq L?M 2,. ngagx~,.g,»l’m.uz coouzznus

‘H,

loop xg :{1peJodu191o1euop S.I[Bd9.I

zmaqsptug

2:.

2912 Sfiupped 30 1u9u1e3m[u9

,1; L ;,.96, W, gyaw 1ueu1d;nbepuno18/{tadmsu snnns(p91a%‘pnq 19/xo) dU.I’8.I 1 .,73% Mg/Ow Joop epgspun sde1s1uo1; uo;191du1oo— All (,

:.l9M0pIl3[f)

‘su1911198png 6103 Buguleouoosuogssnosgq

‘z

ssaugs?g AA‘ 9N 9)[‘8J,–QOIIIZPUQDB

Indoor;

21oz"q1o£

V G N 21 9

NOLLVHHOERI

.I9p.IO OJ, gI.I[199LII

lsn?nv V

l.OI}I.LSICI

CRIO:ICIEIEI

Page 66 of 211

\v+/,»a-rYp~‘;.£;{":‘F 006:0/[£L,‘,0(;;¢

/" lug’

9’

J /77V//rwlt/M/N‘ 3’a f7 I

1789I‘i7L8 3X9.>_{

0.1.1 HO}! OIIBIIIO‘AEIHJCIOD Z# UH

99OZ’17L€ (819) J9mS991.I:>lJ9IC)

NOSLXGIHOHEINVI‘ ‘V

Page 67 of 211

“776‘/I 21:’/Moo/vi/"‘1‘3 L{-1 .LJ~/;’/u!g6.(.[g Jro ‘9/|/(,4/f/377 5977610 e[_ /L/ygM5y35 ‘(qygw UNV/fsayg sru/LC /9‘./LmJ9‘; ur oi ywguw d/vf’/ /vino}./:2(9 sq _ ‘5”°5"5’&’ /—/917“ WJ 6415/5 J6/7/(7/V1]?/H0676

(

gm:

Haw 9/*“WU.j Cf,‘/V Hggyg

(

L5”.’7(7116 3?/OW ct/V 15019‘yvqw Owl‘ 3<7j -9J/11-UmC1‘/t,gw/v?a)3g?»ay-9K”/Y‘/M3,/J 5171+/lg _ "

K’:’l,Mou,l

B/“-70?.”/(7/5

3/3/aw

9,9

(( _L3.90y,9 st/://107

m(;‘}_ 50/]L$LfI¢0}/‘#3163/uo)L;~(6.

5W.Z[/J5’9d’7é’&/01

5/vru55n75:g

9,41/,«y37//0)

553,/wswg

my/U

,£

‘<9//U.J3"1’g/“FIN 5’/“’7»C MU 75/i>7,i/Iw (7,»/ <79 ‘,1,l(/()}4(D ON

557.1.77/11/10!5/0 11/nay‘//f7; If

W4!cal .21? b/jag/001

37/uI:1_,7.7w77¢/J‘

k/W/#7

¢5,,»;v;,,

V761‘/001., may

‘I

/V‘->”0«F/6/71/0! S/5’”! A.‘/egg:/3.75

:7:’_70rn //:/1593;”? /veml/2'7./ma V9165/J/H 5107 d¢>/K6’//71y I//I//’/?y ‘y/75/7‘/7:93}/1./dfvi/_ALy fw/‘70b’7 ‘

H5/‘15‘/g1~‘f7’d ?/"*7./I9/"’7‘~°7

7775/7‘!algmwa

mt/379

jgpwg

o0.‘L

:;/M/LL

8/07 (05 .Z5)7-_9}7?/ /VW—iP’.7¢3/-73$’

gyayaglg

_[7Iyj§)d

éswlal Page 68 of 211

“5“‘-”“V7$’5f//‘7

0/6/9/a/Vb’H UNIV 5/v3uIon1

(SW-9”’ N-’ 5°91:/3H Va_L/W1‘/J

(

xuaoyf/gym

av¢o.9J9,yg;2+,~1,;3y

5N3“;

J/V,(.,J

‘$7#’\r/5’J+;w :/0 :9/"’7_77J };’9—J ‘.7J»’l~~1!;«r’) _L~~f/ )-/9 07 I

90’

«J ‘70"000§

g/at}/I/_[J1/I

_/;w1yJ

V-

6 7»-,9/V‘

gvvof/5

//.b’<7m_3/b’<‘/ 577%/M

‘Hy/O Wvg

‘7~~1y/~~/ NI1/W -177{1,t( ugnaog?gj?

’L iorvoy ‘5/or

yej

y/3//4.416! J99‘/L’ ‘7_/0/V (3/at “ao‘wf/ {V1771_I,§f/75f/jwb/-3

_L/V/‘J5

’5h~{?‘[5/‘’’°

)’/9.719”)

{OV’fi’f"y"$

(>12/7?/7

J”£~7‘7d’75’ '

$790”?

sw?LI .I3~.>ahg (“gm-,1,

-my.9

03-545

Jgaahgig?g 3099,97

<3~7‘aac"‘C’fI

V17/vr/wy(;/y//5/¢~V+/m Jay

asrvlt//av

6!W0dr"‘m

., 77VHI{6,wWJ.3 —.~-

’/"’V"9i‘/

51/5’/’

W2’ N°L/1L/y’o/5/vVy/

79¢?!/95

(5—l5’7’°—£ 547/61??? 1/0;’ «In/1/16

’’’’l5

mg.

7‘/?i,’/Ir!gW,L,

,()/3/5/:7 K/gcglt/,1 ao.._»ad’§./jak/#’.44?/OJ Jglb/W «>9 0L51’f"" acvvm/,/A/5’d(f7I<!:v+/H 2 ”7"”~"-1014"” ”

‘I/0&0?

‘ya/VH2/._I?5’ezamx/J

117/ 9.79/5

1%44:16

A4/E/u.yo,;\u51.Lcug,«og

–

1:79

$1/If/J3” -. ,,,fM/50+};/,9 ,9

5,4927! Page 69 of 211

9””

//‘9 ”°€1/"”’U

3'37

,‘

K.‘(/l7’[jy9]’/(A7 9v/Q}/oggy

’Wc’°1~.’,3

,‘é’“77 ‘W51’

W°0Vf’r"l.?3\M 5’ ‘7‘7§//V!

(:7‘7H/919

Nai/V3“/~}yho§.d{Lj ‘°_)

+/ 3M’/\3>/

W°’~9‘«‘ ‘7V”‘V°¢6/7‘!

yvvvv

t/<7_y

‘am

A‘:/L «J.

‘0g_H;/7g‘,

yygvyj

9+“

‘syoux/35

aysw

o,/.

92/us

db’°yd9'9

35*»

woov y/ul_[__.;Igq/

389%/M

wooy

?/5I;7>!i>”/ 9'7’/.1 E/o 1°79

gig

L“,

1../«aw;/(rug

7?‘/1”’ 9W°0>! 3/a7‘n(-la/5 5?/4/[ D10 om_L}/o ;l,.«a~. L75/IVA 50’/“5IuI<>73y 5/91.[.Iwmog/V‘;/L-(7/;}/7525, dyydgg 5'2‘-//a (.79V3’°.L5,{./3/7:7; 75a9l3,C,J5_l,L/ W,M_b,(,J s 5.7 N/sag '

»(~4’3’”~17$

z‘/9:’ /"$’.>7.[/“15./7 am»

5’9I>"’/372:’<//6’

2:/0

J/“3“~’.-75¢/3

,rg,u uj,

SM05f/EH smodwrm

/vi

we/373 ..

£/

Page 70 of 211

Page 71 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-68 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Limited Services Residential - Waterfront (RLSW), Part Lot 7, Concession 5, District of Loughborough: VanLuven. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows:

This by-law shall apply to the severed parcels of seven lot addition consent applications S-37-18-L, S-40-18-L, S-48-18-L, S-52-18-L, S-5318-L, S-54-18-L, S-78-18-L and one new waterfront lot created by application S81-18-L. All lands are located in Part Lot 7, Concession 5, District of Loughborough.

THAT Schedule “B”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) to Residential Limited Service Waterfront (RLSW) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1”.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 72 of 211 Schedule 1

This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-68 Passed this 4th day of December, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 73 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-69 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Rural Commercial Exception Zone, RC-15 (4183 Camden Portland Boundary Road, the severed lands – S-80-18-P) and from Rural (RU) to Rural Exception Zone RU-54 (4153 Camden Portland Boundary Road, the retained lands – S-80-18-P): Sindall & Cross

WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows: 1.

THAT Schedule “A”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) to Rural Commercial Exception Zone (RC-15) (severed lands – S-80-18-P) and from Rural (RU) to Rural Exception Zone (RU-54) (retained lands – S-8018-P) for the lands shown on Schedule “1”.

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new definition in Section 3: “CRAFT BREWERY” means a small scale brewery/cidery/distillery dedicated to producing craft beverages for sale to establishments and/or liquor stores within a local distribution area. Ancillary permitted uses shall include tasting of beverages brewed on-site, a licenced patio, brewery tours, merchandise sales and retail sale of beverages brewed on-site for off-site consumption.

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new section RC-15 (Part Lot 17, Concession 4, Portland District – severed parcel S-80-18-L), to read as follows: RC-15 (4183 Camden Portland Boundary Road, Part Lot 17, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Portland – Sindall & Cross) Notwithstanding any provision of this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Special Rural Commercial (RC-15) shall be used only in accordance with the following: Permitted Uses  a craft brewery,  an eating establishment,  a butcher shop and retail meat establishment,  a retail store,  a nursery or garden centre,  a craft shop,  a merchandising service shop,

Page 74 of 211  

one dwelling or dwelling unit as an accessory use for the owner or operator of a principal use, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.19, and accessory buildings or uses to the above uses, including the growing of agricultural crops that can be used for the production of beverages associated with a craft brewery.

Parking shall be established in accordance with the provisions of 5.30.1. All other provisions of this by-law shall apply. 4.

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new section RU-54 (Part Lot 17, Concession 4, Portland District – retained parcel S-80-18-L), to read as follows: RU-54 (4153 Camden Portland Boundary Road, Part Lot 17, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Portland – Sindall & Cross) Notwithstanding any provision of this by-law to the contrary, the lands zoned Special Rural Commercial (RU-54) shall be permitted a second residential unit in an accessory structure. For the purpose of this subsection a second residential unit shall mean an accessory building which contains one or more habitable rooms designed and occupied as an independent dwelling in which living, kitchen and bathroom facilities are provided and which is located on the same lot as a single detached dwelling. The second dwelling unit or second dwelling shall share the driveway entrance to the lot with the principal dwelling. The second residential unit shall share a septic system with the principal dwelling.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 75 of 211 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-69

Passed this 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 76 of 211

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-70 A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2000-01, BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE USE OF TRAFFIC, PARKING AND STOPPING ON HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, TO REGULATE SPEEDS AS OUTLINED IN SCHEDULE “A”. WHEREAS By-law 2000-01 regulates the use of traffic, parking and stopping on highways and bridges under the jurisdiction of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ch. 45, as amended and the Municipal Act, 2001, Ch. 25, as amended; and WHEREAS Council wishes to amend By-law 2000-01 as amended, for the purposes of regulating speed on various roads. NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That the attached Schedule “A-46” is hereby added to By-law 2000-01 as amended.

That the Schedule “A-43” of By-Law 2017-44 be amended

This by-law shall come into force and take effect upon the posting of the appropriate speed limit signs.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4 day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4 day of December 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4 day of December, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 77 of 211

SCHEDULE “A-46” (By-law 2018-70) Maximum Rate of speed 40 kilometers (25 miles) per hour. Highway Clearwater Road

From Intersection with Bedford Road

To Easterly 400m To Botting Road

Maximum Rate of speed 50 kilometers (30 miles) per hour. Highway Arthur Road

From Intersection with Latimer Road

To Northerly 800m To End

Maximum Rate of speed 60 kilometers (35 miles) per hour. Highway Wellington Street

From 350m West of Milburn Road

To Easterly 2000m To End

Perth Road

500m North of Latimer Road

Northerly 850m To Greenfield Road

Page 78 of 211

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-71 A BY-LAW TO APPOINT A CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/DEPUTY CLERK AND A CLERK AND DIVISION REGISTRAR WHEREAS Section 228 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that Councils shall appoint a Clerk whose duty it is to record, without note or comment, all resolution, decisions and other proceedings of Council; if required by any member present at a vote, to record the name and voter of every member voting on any matter in question; to keep the originals or copies of all by-laws and of all minutes of the proceedings of the council; to perform the other duties required under this or under any other Act; and to perform such other duties as assigned by the municipality; AND WHEREAS Section 228 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may appoint deputy clerks who have all the powers and duties of the clerk under this and any other Act; NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT Angela Maddocks is hereby appointed as Clerk and Division Registrar for the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac effective December 5, 2018.
THAT Wayne Orr is hereby appointed as Chief Administrative Officer/Deputy Clerk for the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac effective December 5, 2018.
This By-law shall come into force and take effect on December 5, 2018. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal Mayor

Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer

Page 79 of 211

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-72 BEING A BY-LAW TO APPOINT A DEPUTY DIVISION REGISTRAR WHEREAS under Section 38(1) of the Vital Statistics Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter V.4, as amended, the Clerk of every municipality is by virtue of the office Division Registrar of the Registration Division Form by the municipality; and WHEREAS the Division Registrar may with the approval of the Registrar General, appoint one or more Deputy Division Registrars to act for him/her and any such Deputy while so acting, has all the powers and duties of the Division Registrar who appointed the Deputy; and WHEREAS it is deemed useful and expedient to appoint a Deputy Division Registrar to carry out the duties required under the Vital Statistics in the absence of the Clerk; NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

Emily Caird is appointed as Deputy Division Registrar for the Township of South Frontenac subject to the approval of the Registrar General.
That By-law 2006-100 be rescinded.
This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passage. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4 th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4 th day of D e c e m b e r , 2 0 1 8 .

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 80 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-73 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to delete the existing Urban Residential-First Density (UR1-19) zone and replace it with a new Urban Residential-First Density (UR1-19) zone that establishes a new minimum frontage and lot area for the lands known as Part 1 & 2, Plan 13R21830, Pt Lot B, Block R, Registered Plan No. 50, District of Loughborough: Morgan

THAT By-law 2018-28 is hereby be repealed and replaced with By-law 2018-73.

THAT Schedule “F”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by zoning those lands shown as Schedule “1” as Urban Residential – First Density (UR1-19).

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the existing UR1-19 zone on the property described as Part 1 & 2, Plan 13R21830, Pt Lot B, Block R, Registered Plan No. 50, District of Loughborough: Morgan and replacing it with a new UR1-19 zone to establish a new minimum frontage and lot area: UR1-19 (Part 1 & 2, Plan 13R21830, Pt Lot B, Block R, Registered Plan No. 50, District of Loughborough: Morgan) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14.3.1.or any other provision of this By-law to the contrary, on the lands zoned Special Urban Residential-First Density (UR1-19), the following provisions apply: ZONE REGULATIONS For Single Detached Dwelling  Lot Area (Minimum) …………………………………3237m2(0.8 ac)  Lot Frontage (Minimum) ………………………..55 metres (180 ft) For any Building or Structure  Setback from Highwater Mark or Floodline of a Waterbody (Minimum)……………………………………………….…30 metres All other provisions of this by-law shall apply.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34.

Page 81 of 211

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 82 of 211 Schedule 1

This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-73

Passed this 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 83 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-74 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential - Waterfront Exception Zone (RLSW-121), Part Lot 27 & 28, Concession 7, Parts 1-4, 13R11231, District of Bedford: Tucker (Laidlaw) WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows: 1.

THAT Schedule “D”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential - Waterfront Exception Zone 121 (RLSW-121) (severed lands) for those lands shown on Schedule “1”.

THAT Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new section RW-42 (Part Lot 16, Concession 7, Storrington District), to read as follows: RLSW-121 - Part Lot 27 & 28, Concession 7, Parts 1-4, 13R11231, Bedford District: Tucker (Laidlaw) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8, or any other provision of this By-law to the contrary, on lands zoned RLSW-121, the permitted uses shall be limited to:  Uses shall be limited to a private car parking and a boat dock for properties located on Mica Island.  The parking area shall be located a minimum of 30 metres from the highwater mark.  Shoreline access shall be limited to a 3m wide access path. All other provisions of this by-law shall apply.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 84 of 211 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-74

Passed this 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 85 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-75 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential - Waterfront (RLSW), Part Lots 27 & 28, Concession 9, Part of Part 1, 13R13997, District of Bedford: Phillips WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows: 1.

THAT Schedule “D”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1”.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 86 of 211 Schedule 1

This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-75 Passed this 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 87 of 211 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-76 Being a by-law to amend By-Law Number 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW), Part Lot 28, Concession 5, District of Bedford: St. Arnaud & Walker WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 as amended, the Council of a Municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures thereon; AND WHEREAS By-law 2003-75 being the Zoning By-law regulates the use of land and the erection, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of South Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council make an informed decision; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac by its Council, hereby enacts as follows: 1.

THAT Schedule “D”, to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1”.

THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4th day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4th day of December, 2018.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 88 of 211 Schedule 1

This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2018-76 Passed this 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 MAYOR________________________________________________ CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR_________________________________

Page 89 of 211

Payment Listing For the period of November 7th, 2018 to December 4th, 2018

Accounts Payable Payment Listing: For the period of November 7th, 2018 to December 4th, 2018

1,143,457.30

Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #18-23

Pay date November 7th, 2018

85,757.06

For the period of October 21st, 2018 to November 3rd, 2018 Pay Period #18-24

Pay date November 21st, 2018

83,488.22

For the period of November 4th, 2018 to November 17th, 2018

Council Honorarium:

Pay date November 30th, 2018

10,808.82

For the period of November 1st, 2018 to November 30th, 2018 Total Payments

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending December 4th, 2018 in the amount of

1,323,511.40

Submitted by: Mark Foster - Accounting Clerk Approved by: Stephanie Kuca - Deputy-Treasurer

1,323,511.40

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

Ranges: Cheque Date:

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

10:15:34 AM

From: 2018-11-07

To: 2018-12-04

Page:

Page 90 of 211

Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC

10 GG 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000010323

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

68407

THE FRONTENAC NEWS Ad-18/11/01

68543 68573

THE FRONTENAC NEWS Ad-18/11/15 Ad-18/11/22

Total EFT000000010323 EFT000000010410 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010410

Total Gen

Amount $661.44 $661.44 $574.28 $661.44 $1,235.72

$1,897.16

1000 Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Total 069895 EFT000000010308

2018-12-04

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/12-37

Total 069877 069895

Description Grass Cutting

BROOKS, SHELLEY TREE REMOVAL Removal of Tree

2018-11-20

$62.53 $62.53 $508.80 $508.80

CULLIGAN 7860TH 2121149 91724TH

Total EFT000000010308 EFT000000010327 2018-11-20

Water Water Cooler Rental Water

3156

HUGHES CONSTRUCTION AND Grass Cutting

18/10-OFFICE 18/10-OFFICE

R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint.

1163

SPECIALIZED ONSITE SERVICES Purge Wells+Water+Soil Samples

219091

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Locked Box in Council Chambers

Total EFT000000010327 EFT000000010349 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010349 EFT000000010357 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010357 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010363 EFT000000010399 2018-12-04

$28.02 $10.12 $57.52 $95.66 $48.63 $48.63 $1,526.40 $358.51 $1,884.91 $5,298.91 $5,298.91 $13.22 $13.22

CULLIGAN 14366TH

Total EFT000000010399 EFT000000010414 2018-12-04 231228

Water HAVEN HOME ENTERPRISE INC HRV Motor

Total EFT000000010414

Total

$64.02 $64.02 $959.09 $959.09

$8,935.77

1100 Counc Cheque 069873

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 18/11/13-31

Total 069873 069878

2018-11-20

Vendor

ORMSBEE’S MERCANTILE Council Orientation Food

Total 069917 EFT000000010362

Amount $149.73 $149.73

TROPHY HOUSE 4950

Total 069878 069917

Description

2018-12-04

Name Tags+Name Plates

18/11/23

VERONA LIONS CLUB Hall Rental-Orientation

3518 4928 5007

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Treats+Cream Drinks for Council Orientation Foam Plates

8255

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Council Orientation

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010362 EFT000000010438 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010438

Total Counc

$150.60 $150.60 $125.00 $125.00 $21.75 $17.45 $3.45 $42.65 $189.13 $189.13

$657.11

1250 Clk Cheque EFT000000010309

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Description

154058 154066 154060 154059

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Fees-Closed Session Legal Fees: Culvert Drainage Legal Fees:Jusidiction of road Legal Fees: Closed Meeting

1323 8403 9862.

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Water Cream Coffee+Sugar+Milk+Cream+Tea

Total EFT000000010309 EFT000000010362 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010362

Vendor

Amount $127.20 $233.79 $154.67 $127.20 $642.86 $1.99 $5.98 $47.33 $55.30

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

EFT000000010368

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2018-11-20 45013

VERSUS BUSINESS FORMS & LABELS Window Envelopes

7101

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Coffee+Milk+Cream

Total EFT000000010368 EFT000000010438 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010438

Total Clk

Page:

Page 91 of 211 $371.93 $371.93 $63.41 $63.41

$1,133.50

1275 Fin Cheque 069876 Total 069876 EFT000000010307

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

8100577578

SHRED-IT INTERNATIONAL ULC Shredding Services

54434

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC Fortin Consulting

154304 154227

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Fees:Recovery- OMB Fees Legal Fee:Road Close/Tax Sale

PS-345375

DIAMOND SOFTWARE INC VCH and eSend Implementation

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010307 EFT000000010309 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010309 EFT000000010313 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010313

Total Fin

Amount $72.27 $72.27 $895.49 $895.49 $580.62 $50.88 $631.50 $7,438.66 $7,438.66

$9,037.92

1300 Elec Cheque 069904 Total 069904 069910 Total 069910 069911 Total 069911 069922 Total 069922 069923 Total 069923 069926 Total 069926 EFT000000010309

Date 2018-12-04

2018-12-04

Inv #

MOREY, DOUG 2018 REFUND OF NOM

Description 2018 Refund of Nom

ROBERTS, NORM 2018 REFUND OF NOM 2018 Refund of Nom SLEETH, RON 2018 REFUND OF NOM

2018 Refund of Nom

SOAFT, FARRAH 2018 REFUND OF NOM 2018 Refund of Nom ROSS SUTHERLAND 2018 REFUND OF NOM 2018 Refund of Nom BARR, PAT 2018 REFUND OF NOM

2018-11-20 154062 154063

Total EFT000000010309 EFT000000010330 2018-11-20

Vendor

2018 Refund of Nom

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Fees-Telephone Voting Legal Fees- Sign Policy

INTELIVOTE SYSTEMS INC. SFRN-20181108-F Election-Final Invoice

Total EFT000000010330

Amount $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $178.08 $508.80 $686.88 $12,108.17 $12,108.17

Total Elec

$13,395.05

Total GG

$35,056.51

20 PP&P 2100 Fire Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Total 069882 069900 Total 069900 069902 Total 069902 EFT000000010293

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/12-36 18/10/12-35

Total 069877 069882

Vendor

2018-11-20

Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

18-5-838

WENTWORTH LANDSCAPES Grass Cutting

4033

KINGSTON FIRE AND RESCUE Q4 Dispatching Fees

11576

LOYALIST TOWNSHIP Fire Training Centre Rental

A1337160 A1342206 A1340155

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. 18/10-Pest Control 18/10 Pest Control 18/10 Pest Control

1097233

DALTCO ELECTRIC & SUPPLY 2X 6V Batteries+4X Exit Lamps

439532

FIRE SERVICE MANAGEMENT Wash+Repair

43568

INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES Connected 2nd Fax Line

2018-12-04

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010293 EFT000000010311 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010311 EFT000000010320 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010320 EFT000000010329 2018-11-20

$22.51 $31.52 $54.03 $27.60 $27.60 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $814.08 $814.08 $46.45 $39.40 $48.61 $134.46 $41.29 $41.29 $259.75 $259.75 $142.46

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000010329 EFT000000010333 2018-11-20

Page:

Page 92 of 211 $142.46

KS23720 KS23858 KS23825

KENWORTH ONTARIO - KINGSTON Seat Control Valves Wheel Seal Leaking Safety+Service+Broken Springs

18/10/17-21

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning

59506622 59499395

LINDE CANADA LIMITED 15687 Oxygen Oxygen

18/11/07

MARK R. HALLADAY EMERGENCY 82X CPR+AED Training

DA0006749610

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA CANADA INC Tire

18/10-PRFH 18/10-PRFH

R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint.

2490189

RIGNEY BUILDING SUPPLIES Ceiling Tiles

45017

TRIM-LINE OF SOUTH EAST Helmet #s 567+843

86621 86621 86621 86743

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Telephone Jack Splitter Telephone Jack Splitter Telephone Jack Splitter Power Bar

17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

Total EFT000000010333 EFT000000010335 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010335 EFT000000010336 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010336 EFT000000010339 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010339 EFT000000010341 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010341 EFT000000010349 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010349 EFT000000010350 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010350 EFT000000010361 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010361 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010363 EFT000000010365 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010365 EFT000000010374 2018-11-20

$126.94 $154.37 $770.42 $1,051.73 $60.00 $60.00 $392.20 $413.05 $805.25 $4,792.90 $4,792.90 $629.05 $629.05 $219.80 $39.30 $259.10 $223.87 $223.87 $20.35 $20.35 $6.10 $6.10 $6.10 $12.71 $31.01 $274.75 $427.39 $274.75 $976.89

WILLIAMS, KATHY 18/10/30

Total EFT000000010374 EFT000000010381 2018-12-04

18/07-18/10 Cleaning

28692

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Holding Tank Pumped

10031581-0 10032157-0

AJ STONE COMPANY LIMITED Strainer+2X Adapter/Swivel 10X Boots

1-247628

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 18/11 Site Rental

8766 8765

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING Install Tool box Shelving for Backseat

Total EFT000000010381 EFT000000010383 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010383 EFT000000010387 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010387 EFT000000010403 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010403 EFT000000010405 2018-12-04

$630.00 $630.00 $244.22 $244.22 $1,307.60 $1,575.94 $2,883.54 $295.38 $295.38 $1,221.12 $4,884.48 $6,105.60

DRAPER DOORS 13316

Total EFT000000010405 EFT000000010406 2018-12-04

Repair Frame+Weather Stripping

01112018-19

ENVIRONMENTALL CONTRACTING SERV Type 1 Transite Removal

439621 439617 439685

FIRE SERVICE MANAGEMENT Wash+Repair Wash+Repair Wash+Repair

IN153241

FIRE MARSHAL’S PUBLIC FIRE 5X Fire+Life Safety+Exam Prep

29665

IMPACT BATTERY & POWERSPORT Batteries

18395 18394

IMPACT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS Check GFI Outlets Check thermostat+ Pole lights

KS23921 KS23913 KP60181

KENWORTH ONTARIO - KINGSTON Safety+Service+Tire Safety+Service 2X Coolant

Total EFT000000010406 EFT000000010407 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010407 EFT000000010408 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010408 EFT000000010416 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010416 EFT000000010417 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010417 EFT000000010421 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010421 EFT000000010423 2018-12-04

$218.27 $218.27 $864.96 $864.96 $272.27 $525.69 $480.29 $1,278.25 $554.14 $554.14 $85.66 $85.66 $146.32 $185.57 $331.89 $1,651.85 $528.62 $19.03 $2,199.50

LEONARD FUELS 1057-950989 1057-953917 1057-954903 1057-954747 1057-956554 1057-956450

63.84l @1.1407 77.57L @1.0611 77.57L @1.0611 77.57L @1.0611 29.48L @1.1407 78.37L @1.1407

$72.80 $82.17 $54.55 $101.75 $33.61 $89.37

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 1057-898994 1057-958091 1060-878569 2706-888974 4896-895668

Total EFT000000010423 EFT000000010427 2018-12-04

632.2L @ .974 Misc. 469.9L @.973 517.3L @.974 61.3l @.984

D00344

PAT ROGERS TOWING SERVICE Tow-Burnt Hills Rd to Keeley

22159470 22050263 22179910

SUPERIOR PROPANE INC. 874.7L @.51 Tank Rental 385.5L @.51

86794

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Cleaning Supplies

17-005-11 17-005-11 17-005-11

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

896-902181

UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP Washer Fluid

Total EFT000000010427 EFT000000010434 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010434 EFT000000010439 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010439 EFT000000010441 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010441 EFT000000010442 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010442

Total Fire

Page:

Page 93 of 211 $626.60 $1.93 $465.26 $512.72 $61.37 $2,102.13 $534.24 $534.24 $474.09 $148.54 $220.21 $842.84 $85.65 $85.65 $152.64 $356.16 $152.64 $661.44 $27.60 $27.60

$39,169.13

2110 Cvc# Cheque EFT000000010354

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

Amount

SIGNS PLUS 3097

9X Civic Blades

Total EFT000000010354

Total Cvc#

$82.43 $82.43

$82.43

2605 Build Cheque EFT000000010347

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 107279

Vendor

Description

PRINTFUSION INC. Business Cards T.B.

Total EFT000000010347

Total Build

Amount $29.51 $29.51

$29.51

2620 Anml Ctl Cheque EFT000000010378

Date 2018-11-30

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-AC-2018-NOVEMBER ANIMAL CONTROL 18/11

Total EFT000000010378

Total Anml Ctl

Amount $3,256.19 $3,256.19

$3,256.19

2625 Lvstck Cheque 069918 Total 069918 069921

Date 2018-12-04

2018-12-04

Inv #

Vendor

VOITH MICHAEL 18/09/03-LIVESTOCK

Description 18/09/03-Voith

HORNBEEK, VERNA 18/09/01-LIVESTOCK 18/09/01-Hornbeek

Amount $742.00 $742.00

Total 069921

$1,380.00 $1,380.00

Total Lvstck

$2,122.00

2640 Bylaw enf Cheque EFT000000010378

Date 2018-11-30

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-P-2018-NOVEMBER PARKING BYLAW 18/11 SF-P-2018-NOVEMBER PARKING BYLAW 18/11

Total EFT000000010378

Amount $457.92 $634.98 $1,092.90

Total Bylaw enf

$1,092.90

Total PP&P

$45,752.16

30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000010294

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 AL4894-1118 C14258-1118

Vendor

Description

ALLIANCE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS Cameras-No Picture Answering Service

Total EFT000000010294

Total PW OH

Amount $172.99 $220.53 $393.52

$393.52

3005 RdAdmOH Cheque EFT000000010322

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 12107

Vendor

Description

FOREFRONT ENGINEERING INC. Engineering Services

Amount $1,417.26

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000010322 EFT000000010387 2018-12-04

Page:

Page 94 of 211 $1,417.26

1-247628 Total EFT000000010387 EFT000000010391 2018-12-04

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 18/11 Site Rental

$295.38 $295.38

CANADIAN TIRE 137549

Christmas Tree+ Topper

Total EFT000000010391

Total RdAdmOH

$335.79 $335.79

$2,048.43

3010 Cheque 069865

Total 069865 069869 Total 069869 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

179492 178835 179233 179540

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Coffee Maker Filter Masks Lumber Extension Cord

709571468

LAFARGE CANADA INC Gabion Stone

2018-11-20

Total 069879 069903 Total 069903 069905

Total 069905 069909 Total 069909 069912

Total 069912 069913

2018-11-20

Flagging Small Ex.-Well Line Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging 18/10 Garbage

1235-2

VERONA CARPET SALES Supply+Install Flooring-Final

150935

MEGA-LAB MANUFACTURING CO LTD Lubitol

159 159 159 159 159 159 159

MR. AUTO AUTOMOTIVE Emissions Test Emissions Test Emissions Test Emissions Test Emissions Test Emissions Test Emissions Test

528677

REVELL FORD LINCOLN Repair

1385331 1389755 1389754 1385332

SNC-LAVALIN GEM ONTARIO INC. Footings Inspection Testing Testing Testing

2018-12-04

2018-11-20

Flagging

2756-HB 2756

1718782 ONTARIO LTD Draw #2-HB Draw #2

A1328630

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. Pest Control

27335

BLACK DOG TIRE & LUBRICANTS Tire Change

1716-008

BRICAZA CORPORATION Progress Payment #8

Total EFT000000010292 EFT000000010293 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010293 EFT000000010297 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010297 EFT000000010299 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010299 EFT000000010303 2018-11-20

$229.21 $229.21 $488.96 $398.44 $488.96 $488.96 $438.59 $438.59 $488.96 $488.96 $201.48 $127.20 $4,049.10 $7,374.74 $7,374.74 $609.54 $609.54 $203.52 $203.52 $203.52 $203.52 $203.52 $203.52 $203.52 $1,424.64 $1,050.67 $1,050.67 $287.47 $244.22 $376.51 $1,991.95 $2,900.15 $438.59 $438.59 $302.74 $2,724.62 $3,027.36 $69.72 $69.72 $292.66 $292.66 $333,520.63 $333,520.63

CINTAS 884199421 884199421 884199422 884199422 884201355 884201355 884201354 884201354 884203287 884203287 884203288 884203288

Total EFT000000010303 EFT000000010305 2018-11-20 140782 Total EFT000000010305

$57.99 $7.11 $108.86 $22.38 $196.34

SNIDER, PERCY 18/09/13-41

Total 069913 EFT000000010292

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/25-34 18/11/12-43 18/10/30-14 18/11/01-16 18/11/02-17 18/10/26-12 18/10/31-15 18/10/29-13 18/10/29-49 18/10-45

Total 069877 069879

Description

Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies COCO PROPERTIES CORP Gravel

$13.77 $157.08 $7.98 $45.81 $7.98 $27.64 $13.77 $138.49 $13.77 $110.61 $7.98 $33.24 $578.12 $1,014.34 $1,014.34

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

EFT000000010311

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2018-11-20 1099240 1099551

DALTCO ELECTRIC & SUPPLY LED Wallpack Ballast

1015341

E. S. HUBBELL & SONS LIMITED 3X Culverts+ 2X Couplers

Total EFT000000010311 EFT000000010319 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010319 EFT000000010321 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010321 EFT000000010324 2018-11-20

Cleaning

320952

GANANOQUE CHEVROLET BUICK GMC Hood+Headlamp Shield+Deflector

N032459 M985933 N032458 N019848

GRAND & TOY LIMITED 2X Binders+Pens 3X Chair Mats 2X Chair Mats Filing Cabinet

7032

G WILLIAMS PAVING LTD Asphalt Road Repairs

18367

IMPACT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS Replace 3 Outdoor lights

9306216271 9306184415 9306216596

KENT AUTOMOTIVE 43 Series Fittings Sleeving+Cleaner+Cable Ties Screws+Nuts+Washers

18/10/29-23 18/10/27-22

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning Supplies Cleaning

59508206

LINDE CANADA LIMITED 15687 Gases

Total EFT000000010324 EFT000000010325 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010325 EFT000000010326 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010326 EFT000000010328 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010328 EFT000000010332 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010332 EFT000000010335 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010335 EFT000000010336 2018-11-20

MCNICHOLS CONSTRUCTION LTD 18/10/26-BELLROCK Tri Axle Rental 18/11/02-DAYOS Cat Ex.+Hoe Ram+Tri Axle+Dump

Total EFT000000010340 EFT000000010343 2018-11-20 5181361

ONTARIO HOSE SPECIALTIES LIMITED Repair Pressure Washer

11446

PERFECT SOLUTIONS Safety Gloves+Glasses

Total EFT000000010343 EFT000000010344 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010344 EFT000000010345 2018-11-20

Page 95 of 211 $300.84 $65.18 $366.02 $20,585.15 $20,585.15 $312.00 $312.00 $2,104.18 $2,104.18 $74.71 $250.49 $168.40 $882.27 $1,375.87 $8,725.92 $8,725.92 $816.83 $816.83 $500.07 $446.60 $211.86 $1,158.53 $23.28 $300.00 $323.28 $266.27 $266.27 $172.99 $56,548.03 $56,721.02 $873.79 $873.79 $759.78 $759.78

PETRIE FORD 261228

Total EFT000000010345 EFT000000010346 2018-11-20

Oil

$88.98 $88.98

Impact Air Wrench+Rags

$424.32 $424.32

PRINCESS AUTO 947534

Total EFT000000010346 EFT000000010348 2018-11-20 377

PRO-TECH TRAINING SERVICES INC. 4X Wheeled Loader Training

18/10-G,B,P 18/10-G,B,P 18/10-G,B,P 18/10-G,B,P

R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint.

380482

SURGENOR TRUCK CENTRE Camshaft+Intake Rocker

S-0055967 S-0057104 S-0057002

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel Gravel Gravel

6083-516204 6083-516979 6083-516979

TOWN AND COUNTRY AUTO SUPPLY Absorbent Oil+Filters Oil+Filters

7796 3373 2285

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Coffee+Cream Coffee+Tissue+Cream Coffee+Whitener

86739 86640 86530 86914

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE AA Batteries 2X Paint+Glue Paint Tray Paint+Primer

17-038-3

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Progress Draw #3

Total EFT000000010348 EFT000000010349 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010349 EFT000000010358 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010358 EFT000000010359 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010359 EFT000000010360 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010360 EFT000000010362 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010362 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010363 EFT000000010365 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010365 EFT000000010366 2018-11-20

FISH, DOROTHY 5987

Total EFT000000010336 EFT000000010340 2018-11-20

Page:

UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP

$814.08 $814.08 $109.90 $109.90 $27.39 $27.39 $274.58 $3,445.39 $3,445.39 $5,772.54 $441.02 $457.65 $6,671.21 $205.40 $43.37 $43.37 $292.14 $13.98 $46.60 $32.55 $93.13 $17.29 $96.13 $7.09 $37.63 $158.14 $20,352.00 $20,352.00

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 173-211138

Total EFT000000010366 EFT000000010369 2018-11-20

WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CANADA 7150-0000240180 Construction. Demo

Total EFT000000010369 EFT000000010372 2018-11-20 127792

WHITE’S WEARPARTS LTD Lower+Upper Wing Arm

23278237

WURTH CANADA LIMITED Plow Blade Bolts+Supplies

69090716

AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC. Oxygen

27822 27822 27773 27772 27772 27772 27776 27774

BLACK DOG TIRE & LUBRICANTS Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change Tire Change

1716-001-HB 1716-002-HB 1716-003-HB 1716-004-HB 1716-005-HB 1716-006-HB 1716-007-HB 1716-008-HB

BRICAZA CORPORATION Progress Payment #1-HB Progress Payment #2-HB Progress Payment #3-HB Progress Payment #4-HB Progress Payment #5-HB Progress Payment #6-HB Progress Payment #7-HB Progress Payment #8-HB

92575

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE EQUIPMENT Potentiometer

Total EFT000000010372 EFT000000010375 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010375 EFT000000010382 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010382 EFT000000010388 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010388 EFT000000010390 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010390 EFT000000010392 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010392 EFT000000010397 2018-12-04

3X Terminal Junction

CRAINS’ CONSTRUCTION LTD. 15646-HOLDBACK SALMON LAKE RD CULVERT HB

Total EFT000000010397 EFT000000010398 2018-12-04 W 704 Total EFT000000010398 EFT000000010402 2018-12-04

CROSSIRON TRUCK & EQUIPMENT Loose Filter Cap

Page:

Page 96 of 211 $22.07 $22.07 $198.64 $198.64 $1,464.30 $1,464.30 $421.53 $421.53 $31.55 $31.55 $56.99 $28.49 $113.97 $97.69 $73.27 $36.63 $109.90 $48.78 $565.72 $4,782.72 $3,967.52 $24,250.01 $15,462.06 $37,048.14 $41,890.34 $24,851.53 $37,057.85 $189,310.17 $279.84 $279.84 $10,176.00 $10,176.00 $194.62 $194.62

DIG’N DIRT LTD. 1003

Total EFT000000010402 EFT000000010403 2018-12-04

Culvert Maintenance

8768 8783

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING Remove TailLight+Add New plate 6X Eliminator Plates

822

DPH SERVICE STATION MAINTENANCE New Belt- CLR Pump

Total EFT000000010403 EFT000000010404 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010404 EFT000000010409 2018-12-04

$3,536.57 $3,536.57 $327.67 $260.76 $588.43 $150.60 $150.60

FISH, DOROTHY 5990

Total EFT000000010409 EFT000000010411 2018-12-04

Cleaning

321914

GANANOQUE CHEVROLET BUICK GMC Deflector Pkg

51569

GIN-COR INDUSTRIES INC Supply+ Install Onspots

19918

GREER GALLOWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Engineering Services

INV108327230

HD SUPPLY CANADA, INC 17X Toggler Bolt

12769 12769

JODY CAMPBELL’S SEPTIC SERVICE Portable Toilet Rental Portable Toilet Rental

9306223368 9306223367 9306273781

KENT AUTOMOTIVE 43 Series Fittings 43 Series Fittings Plow Bolts

146-159494

KROWN RUST CONTROL Rust Spray

Total EFT000000010411 EFT000000010412 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010412 EFT000000010413 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010413 EFT000000010415 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010415 EFT000000010418 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010418 EFT000000010420 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010420 EFT000000010422 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010422 EFT000000010423 2018-12-04

$312.00 $312.00 $98.63 $98.63 $3,256.32 $3,256.32 $1,839.32 $1,839.32 $35.81 $35.81 $122.11 $122.11 $244.22 $212.69 $167.90 $108.79 $489.38 $223.87 $223.87

LEONARD FUELS 0363-948667 1056-957678 1056-955839 1058-948941 1058-949675 1058-950982 1058-952871 1058-952915 1058-953943

Lubes Lubes 81.97L @1.0257 82.25L @1.1053 107.91L @1.1319 99.39L @1.1319 88.66L @1.0611 109.01L @1.06 78.24L @1.0611

$1,054.68 $1,001.70 $83.89 $90.85 $122.09 $112.45 $93.93 $115.49 $82.89

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 1058-955291 1058-955662

Total EFT000000010423 EFT000000010424 2018-12-04

87.40L @1.0257 95.01L @1.0257

59470055

LINDE CANADA LIMITED 15687 Oxygen

DA0006809543

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA CANADA INC 8X Tires

139965 140018 140020

PAT’S RADIATOR SERVICE LTD. Solenoid Motor+Controller Gear+Shaft+Spinner Poly Caster Bearing

Total EFT000000010424 EFT000000010426 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010426 EFT000000010428 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010428 EFT000000010429 2018-12-04

Page:

Page 97 of 211 $89.45 $97.23 $2,944.65 $64.46 $64.46 $5,032.40 $5,032.40 $475.85 $644.59 $95.42 $1,215.86

PETRIE FORD 261814 261815 261816 261817

Total EFT000000010429 EFT000000010436 2018-12-04

B/U Lamp+Alarm+ Pigtail Air filter+ Asy Filters Filters+ Wiper Blades

347169T 438539

TALLMAN TRUCK CENTRE LIMITED Horn Oil Pan

6083-519095 6083-519095 6083-519095

TOWN AND COUNTRY AUTO SUPPLY 8X Sealed Beams Oil Oil

5228 5228

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Water Water

87410 87518 87509 87699 87698 87723

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 3X Quick Links Quick Link+Shovel Hose+Nozzle Paint+ Supplies Electrical Tape Supplies for new Shelf T.L.

173-213134 896-901013

UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP Chain+Load Binder 2XLED Light Kit+2X Car Scent

Total EFT000000010436 EFT000000010437 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010437 EFT000000010438 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010438 EFT000000010439 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010439 EFT000000010442 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010442

Total

$236.82 $121.25 $160.01 $274.25 $792.33 $59.32 $2,734.74 $2,794.06 $135.23 $39.03 $19.51 $193.77 $17.47 $17.46 $34.93 $17.37 $25.42 $69.18 $138.26 $11.16 $152.31 $413.70 $553.45 $226.38 $779.83

$711,484.00

3201 Villg Beau Cheque 069865 Total 069865 EFT000000010295

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

178859

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Drywall Trowel

5745

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE Hardware-Misc

2496076

RIGNEY BUILDING SUPPLIES 3XColumn Bases+10X Rebar Chair

86578 86516 86509 86617

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Sledge Hammer+2X Rakes 4X Strapping Rods+Lumber+Wire Cement Mixer

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010295 EFT000000010350 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010350 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010363

Total Villg Beau

Amount $16.27 $16.27 $16.98 $16.98 $335.30 $335.30 $100.71 $4.84 $185.92 $508.80 $800.27

$1,168.82

3210 Brushing Cheque EFT000000010386

Date

Inv #

2018-12-04 24223115

Vendor

Description

BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALS Engine Oil+Chain Oil

Total EFT000000010386

Total Brushing

Amount $91.11 $91.11

$91.11

3215 Drainage Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Total 069920 EFT000000010291

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/26-11 18/10/29-10

Total 069877 069920

Vendor

2018-12-04

Flagging Flagging

18/11/27

GROENWAY FARMS INC 10 Bales of Straw

28631

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Flagging

7026

G WILLIAMS PAVING LTD Driveway End Repair

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010291 EFT000000010326 2018-11-20

$413.40 $237.10 $650.50 $60.00 $60.00 $352.60 $352.60 $2,493.12

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000010326 EFT000000010359 2018-11-20

Page:

Page 98 of 211 $2,493.12

S-0057105

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

86616

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Foam Sealant

Total EFT000000010359 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010363

Total Drainage

$913.29 $913.29 $27.44 $27.44

$4,496.95

3310 Hardtop Patching Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

2018-12-04

Patching Patching Patching Patching Patching Patching

$934.16 $934.16 $817.39 $934.16 $934.16 $934.16 $5,488.19

Patching Patching Patching Patching Patching Patching

$1,277.60 $233.54 $700.62 $700.62 $992.55 $934.16 $4,839.09

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/30-36 18/11/06-37 18/11/08-38 18/11/09-39 18/11/12-40 18/11/13-41

Total 069913 EFT000000010291

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/24-18 18/10/26-19 18/10/29-20 18/11/01-21 18/11/02-27 18/11/07-29

Total 069877 069913

Description

2018-11-20 28632 28766

Total EFT000000010291 EFT000000010364 2018-11-20

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Patching Patching

$4,589.38 $3,246.14 $7,835.52

TW PATCHING 332815 332816

Total EFT000000010364 EFT000000010373 2018-11-20

Patching Patching

3820 3862

WILLIAMS HOT MIX LTD 42.32 MT Hot Mix 34.25 MT Hot Mix

28842

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Hot Patching

Total EFT000000010373 EFT000000010381 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010381 EFT000000010440 2018-12-04

$3,419.14 $1,282.18 $4,701.32 $4,177.30 $3,380.72 $7,558.02 $2,406.62 $2,406.62

TW PATCHING 332817

Total EFT000000010440 EFT000000010446 2018-12-04 3876

Patching WILLIAMS HOT MIX LTD 21.73 MT Hot Patch

Total EFT000000010446

Total Hardtop Patching

$587.15 $587.15 $2,092.38 $2,092.38

$35,508.29

3315 Sweeping Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/31-50

Sweeper

Total 069877

Total Sweeping

$228.96 $228.96

$228.96

3320 should maint Cheque EFT000000010359

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

Amount

Total EFT000000010359

$344.73 $344.73

Total should maint

$344.73

S-0057202

3405 Washout Cheque EFT000000010359

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

S-0057104

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

S-0057201

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

Total EFT000000010359 EFT000000010435 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010435

Total Washout

Amount $116.32 $116.32 $299.79 $299.79

$416.11

3425 Gradng & Grvl resurf Cheque 069913

Date

Inv #

2018-12-04

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/30-30

Patching

Total 069913

Total Gradng & Grvl resurf

$190.80 $190.80

$190.80

3505 Snw Plwng Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2018-11-20 28044 28044 28044

CHAMPION INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT Calibration of Salt Spreader Calibration of Salt Spreader Calibration of Salt Spreader

11237 11237 11237 11237 11237 11237

R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES Install Radio-Contractor Plows Install Radio-Contractor Plows Install Radio-Contractor Plows Install Radio-Contractor Plows Install Radio-Contractor Plows Install Radio-Contractor Plows

EFT000000010302

Total EFT000000010302 EFT000000010352 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010352

Total Snw Plwng

Page:

Page 99 of 211 $254.40 $254.40 $254.40 $763.20 $203.29 $203.29 $203.29 $203.29 $203.29 $203.29 $1,219.74

$1,982.94

3515 Stock Snd&Slt Cheque EFT000000010331

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

5300387206 5300393887 5300394239

K+S WINDSOR SALT LTD Winter Salt Winter Salt Winter Salt

5300398158

K+S WINDSOR SALT LTD Winter Salt

Total EFT000000010331 EFT000000010419 2018-12-04

Amount $7,308.45 $6,325.87 $18,751.48 $32,385.80

Total EFT000000010419

$7,353.86 $7,353.86

Total Stock Snd&Slt

$39,739.66

3615 Street signs Cheque EFT000000010298

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

359643 359397 359428

BMR MANUFACTURING INC. Canpar Box Canpar Box Sign Hardware

9306184414

KENT AUTOMOTIVE Screws+Washers+Bolts

Total EFT000000010298 EFT000000010332 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010332 EFT000000010354 2018-11-20

Amount $142.61 $401.31 $601.61 $1,145.53 $313.54 $313.54

SIGNS PLUS 3096

Total EFT000000010354 EFT000000010367 2018-11-20 101013514

Lane Sign VERONA HARDWARE LIMITED Screws

Total EFT000000010367

Total Street signs

$27.41 $27.41 $24.41 $24.41

$1,510.89

3620 Reg signs Cheque EFT000000010298

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

359821

BMR MANUFACTURING INC. Speed Limit+ No Parking Signs

9306216595

KENT AUTOMOTIVE Screws

Total EFT000000010298 EFT000000010332 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010332

Total Reg signs

Amount $1,330.95 $1,330.95 $55.80 $55.80

$1,386.75

3625 RR cross mnt Cheque EFT000000010301

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 11105740

Vendor

Description

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 18/10 Flasher Contract

Amount

Total EFT000000010301

$744.00 $744.00

Total RR cross mnt

$744.00

3630 Gd ps/rl mnt Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/11/09-23

Flagging

Total 069877

Total Gd ps/rl mnt

$148.96 $148.96

$148.96

3635 Trffc cnts Cheque 069892

Date

Inv #

2018-12-04

Vendor

Amount

A-1 LOCKSMITHS 85960

Total 069892 EFT000000010425

Description

2018-12-04 K83847

18X Padlocks MAGNACHARGE BATTERY CORP 6V Battery

Total EFT000000010425

Total Trffc cnts

$511.53 $511.53 $416.71 $416.71

$928.24

3638 Locates Cheque EFT000000010431

Date 2018-12-04

Inv #

Vendor R.W. ELECTRIC

Description

Amount

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 35680

18/10 Locates

Total EFT000000010431

Total Locates

Page:

Page 100 of 211 $203.52 $203.52

$203.52

3650 Street Lights Cheque EFT000000010353

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

Amount

R.W. ELECTRIC

Total EFT000000010353

$210.64 $210.64

Total Street Lights

$210.64

35675

18/10 Streetlight Repair

3800 Crssng Guards Cheque EFT000000010306

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

83561

COMMISSIONAIRES SECURITY SOLUTIONS Crossing Guards

83806 84036

COMMISSIONAIRES SECURITY SOLUTIONS Crossing Guards Crossing Guards

Total EFT000000010306 EFT000000010395 2018-12-04

Amount $1,022.31 $1,022.31

Total EFT000000010395

$1,022.31 $1,135.91 $2,158.22

Total Crssng Guards

$3,180.53

Total Trans

$806,407.85

40 Env 4110 Water Treat Cheque EFT000000010296

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

7631-18/10

BELL CANADA-WATER TOWER PHONE LINE 18/10- Telephone

154314 154474

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Fees Legal Fees

Total EFT000000010296 EFT000000010400 2018-12-04

Amount $84.71 $84.71

Total EFT000000010400

$16,387.31 $10,983.97 $27,371.28

Total Water Treat

$27,455.99

5005 SW & Fac OH Cheque EFT000000010310

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

BUSKIIN4581

D2 WIRELESS - TELUS AUTHORIZED DEALER Samsung Galaxy A5

505667

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Splitting Maul

Total EFT000000010310 EFT000000010363 2018-11-20

Amount $36.02 $36.02

Total EFT000000010363

$55.96 $55.96

Total SW & Fac OH

$91.98

5105 Garb coll Cheque 069871

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 22292

Total 069871 069877

Total 069877 069891

Total 069891 EFT000000010376

2018-11-20

2018-11-30

Vendor

Description

MADDOCKS ENGINEERING 3X Kamper TyDee Bin

Amount $5,003.68 $5,003.68

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/18-18 18/10/16-17 18/10/24-07 18/10/25-09 18/10/30-46 18/11/01-47

Garbage Truck Rental Garbage Clean up (Extra) Garbage Clean Up- Extra Garbage Truck Rental Garbage Pick Up-Extra Garbage Truck Rental

$2,404.08 $101.76 $101.76 $2,365.92 $101.76 $2,213.28 $7,288.56

SNIDER, PERCY 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/11-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/11-FUEL

18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/11 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/11 Fuel Adj

$11,649.51 $9,616.14 $206.48 $170.44 $21,642.57

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S COLLECTION 18/11 COLLECTION 18/11 COLLECTION18/11-FUEL COLLECTION 18/11- Fuel Adj.

Total EFT000000010376

Total Garb coll

$11,900.29 $210.94 $12,111.23

$46,046.04

5110 Gab disp Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10-44 18/10/29-50 18/11/01-48 18/10/12-16 18/10/16-11 18/10/25-01 18/10/23-08

Total 069877 EFT000000010293

Vendor

18/10 Bin Rental Portland Dump/Waste Portland Dump/Dozer Portland Dump/Dozer Portland Dump/Waste Portland Dump/Waste Portland Dump/Dozer ABELL PEST CONTROL INC.

$152.64 $356.16 $1,628.16 $488.45 $534.24 $890.40 $895.49 $4,945.54

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT A1382872

Total EFT000000010293 EFT000000010305 2018-11-20 154336 Total EFT000000010305 EFT000000010314 2018-11-20

Pest Control COCO PROPERTIES CORP Gravel

Total EFT000000010314 EFT000000010317 2018-11-20 92765 92492

812358

ENVIRO-GUARD PLUS INC. 18/10 Pest Control 18/09 Pest Control

WHALEY, GEORGE 18/10- Landfill Maintenance

WHALEY, GEORGE 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL

Total EFT000000010380 EFT000000010417 2018-12-04 18397 Total EFT000000010417 EFT000000010445 2018-12-04

Payment Cert. #1

WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CANADA 7150-0000240180 Dump+Exchange

Total EFT000000010369 EFT000000010371 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010371 EFT000000010380 2018-11-30

Page 101 of 211 $106.40 $106.40 $278.43 $278.43

DIG’N DIRT LTD. 977

Total EFT000000010317 EFT000000010369 2018-11-20

Page:

IMPACT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS New Cord for Generator

WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CANADA 647-0000024797 59.31MT ICI+Cons. Waste+ Bulk 647-0000024760 96.13MTICI+Cons.+Resi Waste

Total EFT000000010445

Total Gab disp

$3,335.90 $3,335.90 $42.74 $42.74 $85.48 $2,367.85 $2,367.85 $8,079.74 $8,079.74 $1,935.80 $1,935.80 $417.66 $417.66 $5,663.46 $9,460.06 $15,123.52

$36,676.32

5205 Recyc Coll Cheque 069891

Total 069891 EFT000000010376

Date 2018-11-30

2018-11-30

Inv #

Vendor

SNIDER, PERCY 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/11-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/11-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/11-FUEL

Description 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL 18/11 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/11 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/11 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/11 Fuel Adj

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S COLLECTION 18/11 COLLECTION 18/11 COLLECTION18/11-FUEL COLLECTION 18/11- Fuel Adj.

Total EFT000000010376

Total Recyc Coll

Amount $12,566.92 $10,958.23 $11,697.08 $222.75 $194.23 $207.33 $35,846.54 $10,236.80 $181.44 $10,418.24

$46,264.78

5210 Rec Disp/Prc Cheque 069877

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/10/31-49

Total 069877 EFT000000010304

Description

2018-11-20

Portland Recycle CITY OF KINGSTON Q3 Solid Waste Services Q3 Solid Waste Services Q3 Solid Waste Services Q3 Solid Waste Services

$534.24 $534.24

Total EFT000000010304

-$42,942.00 $46,250.20 $2,301.54 $4,764.25 $10,373.99

Total Rec Disp/Prc

$10,908.23

3311 3311 3311 3311

5305 HHW Cheque EFT000000010389

Date

Inv #

2018-12-04 20180259

Vendor

Description

BRENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 18/10- HHW Services

Total EFT000000010389

Amount $5,894.54 $5,894.54

Total HHW

$5,894.54

Total Env

$173,337.88

70 Cem 7000 Health Cheque 069870

Total 069870 069882

Total 069882 EFT000000010312

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

2546 2546 2546

LEEDER MONUMENTS Corner Posts Corner Posts Corner Posts

18-5-838 18-5-838 18-5-838

WENTWORTH LANDSCAPES Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

2137 2137 2137

D G YOUNGE CONCRETE BURIAL VAULTS 18/10 Cemetery Services 18/10 Cemetery Services 18/10 Cemetery Services

2018-11-20

Amount $132.29 $269.66 $66.14 $468.09 $54.16 $101.93 $12.93 $169.02 $1,119.36 $559.68 $117.02

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 2137

Total EFT000000010312 EFT000000010316 2018-11-20 8755

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING Remove Cross Bar on Flag Pole

3165 3164 3154 3161

HUGHES CONSTRUCTION AND Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

Total EFT000000010316 EFT000000010327 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010327 EFT000000010365 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010365 EFT000000010377 2018-11-30

18/10 Cemetery Services

D G YOUNGE CONCRETE BURIAL VAULTS SERVICES 18/11 SERVICES 18/11

Total EFT000000010377 EFT000000010441 2018-12-04 17-005-11 17-005-11

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

Total EFT000000010441

Page:

Page 102 of 211 $1,577.28 $3,373.34 $366.34 $366.34 $507.89 $457.47 $88.25 $194.51 $1,248.12 $641.09 $2,564.35 $3,205.44 $875.14 $875.14 $356.16 $1,424.64 $1,780.80

Total Health

$11,486.29

Total Cem

$11,486.29

80 Rec 8000 Rec Cheque 069865

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 175531

Total 069865 069877

Total 069877 069880 Total 069880 069881 Total 069881 069882

2018-11-20

Total 069897 069898 Total 069898 069906 Total 069906 069916 Total 069916 EFT000000010291

2018-12-04

$220.63 $67.54 $36.02 $243.14 $567.33

WEBSTER, LOIS 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC

18/08/30-BEDFORD REC

$31.84 $31.84

WEBSTER, RICHARD 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC

Total EFT000000010315 EFT000000010318 2018-11-20

WENTWORTH LANDSCAPES Grass Cutting

GOWER, TERRA 18/11/26-LOUGH REC

PARFITT, HELEN 18/11/26-LOUGH REC 18/11/26-Lough Rec

2678

VERONA FOODLAND Water

28349 28348

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Septic Tank Pumped Septic Tank Pumped

BROWN, DONNA 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC DILLABOUGH, LEE 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC ERLICHMAN, WOLFE 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC 18/08/30-BEDFORD REC

Total EFT000000010318 EFT000000010327 2018-11-20 3160 3156 3158 3159 3157 3163 3162 Total EFT000000010327 EFT000000010334 2018-11-20

HUGHES CONSTRUCTION AND Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

$31.84 $31.84 $16.98 $16.98 $31.84 $31.84 $31.84 $31.84 $31.84 $31.84 $23.00 $23.00 $228.96 $228.96 $457.92 $31.84 $31.84 $58.53 $58.53 $31.84 $31.84 $192.71 $48.63 $178.30 $181.91 $160.29 $266.55 $225.13 $1,253.52

KOT, JOHN 18/10/24

Total EFT000000010334 EFT000000010338 2018-11-20

Refurbish Chairs+Chair Tray

$634.44 $634.44

18/11-Monitoring+Rental 18/11-Monitoring+Rental

$28.49 $28.49 $56.98

LONDRY ALARMS 195505 195505

Total EFT000000010338

18/11/26-Lough Rec

HOLLAND, TRACY 18/11/26-LOUGH REC 18/11/26-Lough Rec

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010300 EFT000000010315 2018-11-20

$73.22 $73.22

Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010291 EFT000000010300 2018-11-20

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Sidewall Air Grills

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY

2018-11-20

2018-12-04

Description

18/10/22-41 18/10/22-40 18/10/22-39 18/10/13-38

18-5-838 Total 069882 069897

Vendor

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

EFT000000010349

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2018-11-20

R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint. 18/09+18/10 General Maint.

18/10-LIB 18/10-LIB 18/10-G,B,P 18/10-G,B,P Total EFT000000010349 EFT000000010355 2018-11-20

Cleaning

S-0057002

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1 17-005-9R1

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting

101007028

VERONA HARDWARE LIMITED Latex Gloves

Total EFT000000010359 EFT000000010365 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010365 EFT000000010367 2018-11-20

LEONARD, ELIZABETH 18/11 MAINTENANCE 18/11 MAINTENANCE

Total EFT000000010379 EFT000000010381 2018-12-04 28734

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Grass Cutting

5802

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE 8X Softener Salt+2X Ext. Cord

Total EFT000000010381 EFT000000010384 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010384 EFT000000010391 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010391 EFT000000010401 2018-12-04

Christmas Lights

2324 2233

DEDICATED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Repair Concrete Mats 2X Bollard Covers

4470

SIMMONS PLUMBING & PUMP SERV. Drain Blockage-Washroom

S-0057203

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Washed Stonedust

87291 87291 87291

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 2X Ice Melt 2X Ice Melt 2X Ice Melt

17-005-11 17-005-11 17-005-11 17-005-11 17-005-11 18-012-1

UBCON CONSTRUCTION LTD Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Grass Cutting Roof work

Total EFT000000010401 EFT000000010432 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010432 EFT000000010435 2018-12-04 Total EFT000000010435 EFT000000010439 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010439 EFT000000010441 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010443 EFT000000010444 2018-12-04

Page 103 of 211 $1,251.65 $220.31 $366.34 $27.40 $1,865.70 $700.00 $700.00 $1,188.21 $1,188.21 $343.44 $1,969.06 $549.50 $2,198.02 $641.09 $5,701.11 $12.20 $12.20 $142.50 $142.50 $31.63 $31.63 $77.23 $77.23

CANADIAN TIRE 137464

Total EFT000000010441 EFT000000010443 2018-12-04

SLEETH, SARAH 18/10/26-39

Total EFT000000010355 EFT000000010359 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010367 EFT000000010379 2018-11-30

Page:

VANDEWAL, SARAH 18/11/26-LOUGH REC 18/11/26-Lough Rec WASH, PAUL 18/11/26-LOUGH REC

18/11/26-Lough Rec

Total EFT000000010444

Total Rec

$152.61 $152.61 $1,778.84 $353.11 $2,131.95 $394.83 $394.83 $2,119.65 $2,119.65 $18.30 $18.30 $18.29 $54.89 $190.80 $1,093.92 $305.28 $1,221.12 $356.16 $4,615.15 $7,782.43 $65.00 $65.00 $31.84 $31.84

$25,816.58

8020 Swim Cheque EFT000000010362

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 1910 9859 3047. 3149.

Vendor

Description

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Snacks Apples Snacks Snacks

Total EFT000000010362

Total Swim

Amount $9.95 $24.65 $19.98 $3.98 $58.56

$58.56

8025 Day Cmps Cheque EFT000000010362

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 4272 517 9923

Vendor

Description

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Snacks Snacks Snacks

Total EFT000000010362

Total Day Cmps

Amount $44.65 $67.20 $21.79 $133.64

$133.64

8030 Cda Day Cheque EFT000000010362

Date 2018-11-20

Inv #

Vendor

Description

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND

Amount

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 4930 3700

Ice Freezies+Water

Total EFT000000010362

Total Cda Day

Page:

Page 104 of 211 $13.96 $221.80 $235.76

$235.76

8205 Pumpkinfest Cheque 069868 Total 069868 069874 Total 069874 EFT000000010356

Date 2018-11-20

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010356 EFT000000010447 2018-12-04

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FREEMAN, HEATHER 2018 PUMPKIN FEST Program Supplies POTTERTON, DARLENE 2018 PUMPKIN FEST Program Supplies SNIDER, MONICA 2018 PUMPKIN FEST Clown Services WOOD, ALVIN 2018 PUMPKIN FEST

Amount $140.27 $140.27 $110.63 $110.63 $160.00 $160.00

Total EFT000000010447

$218.02 $218.02

Total Pumpkinfest

$628.92

Supplies

8210 VCA Cheque 069894

Date

Inv #

2018-12-04

Vendor

Total 069896 069916

Total 069916 EFT000000010384

Amount

BATES, DON 2018094

Total 069894 069896

Description

2018-12-04

Winter Oil for Train

2018089

CASEMENT, JOYCE Christmas Day Dinner

9101-VCA 7861-VCA

VERONA FOODLAND Remembrance Day Gift Card Remembrance Day Luncheon

5773-VCA

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE Twist Ties

2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010384 EFT000000010385 2018-12-04

$12.72 $12.72 $300.00 $300.00 $25.00 $58.90 $83.90 $1.93 $1.93

BATES, LINDA 2018091 2018091

Total EFT000000010385 EFT000000010394 2018-12-04 2018096 Total EFT000000010394 EFT000000010396 2018-12-04

Soup for R.Day Poppy Thank You Cards COLEMAN, DONALD Meeting+ 2X GC for Councillors

$270.16 $60.00 $330.16 $130.74 $130.74

CONWAY, WAYNE 2018095

Storage Bags for Wreaths

Total EFT000000010396

Total VCA

$152.49 $152.49

$1,011.94

8215 VCA-xms4kds Cheque 069890

Date

Inv #

2018-11-21 2018090

Vendor

Description

VAN CAMP, NICOLE Christmas For Kids Gifts

Total 069890

Total VCA-xms4kds

Amount $11,150.00 $11,150.00

$11,150.00

8220 VMC Cheque 069866

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20

Vendor

Description

CASEMENT, JOYCE VMC Meeting-Catering

Amount

Total 069866

$85.00 $85.00

Total VMC

$85.00

18/10/-18-16

8240 Comm Caring Cheque 069899 Total 069899 069901 Total 069901 069907 Total 069907 069908 Total 069908 069915 Total 069915 EFT000000010433

Date 2018-12-04

2018-12-04

Inv #

Vendor

Description

HOME BASE HOUSING 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation LOUGHBOROUGH DISTRICT 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation PARHAM FIREMAN’S ASSOCIATION 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation PORTLAND FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation SOUTH FRONTENAC FOOD BANK 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation SOUTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY 18/11 PCC DONATION 18/11 PCC Donation

Amount $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Total EFT000000010433

$2,000.00 $2,000.00

Total Comm Caring

$8,000.00

System:

2018-11-29

User ID:

mfoster

10:15:34 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total Rec

Page:

Page 105 of 211 $47,120.40

90 Plan 9000 Plan Cheque EFT000000010329

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 43583

Vendor

Description

INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES Reset Mailbox 2224

Total EFT000000010329

Amount $86.50 $86.50

Total Plan

$86.50

Total Plan

$86.50

99 9999 Cheque 069872

Date

Inv #

2018-11-20 1876

Total 069872 069885 Total 069885 069886 Total 069886 069889 Total 069889 EFT000000010323

2018-11-20

Description

MINISTER OF FINANCE-publications ontario Ad- Ontario Gazette-17-28

KNAPP, AMANDA 2018 TAX REFUND Tax Refund MARSHALL, RHONDA 2018 TAX REFUND Tax Refund

2018-11-20 CRADJ5277-1

LAND CONSERVANCY FOR KFL&A Tax Refund

68407

THE FRONTENAC NEWS 4X Tax Sale Ad

2774

ONTARIO TAX SALES INC Tax Sale

626511 626510 626506 626505 626507 626508 626509 626512 626757 626758 626759

ROSEN ENERGY GROUP F 685.5L CLR @1.0670 F 486.0L MKD @.9340 B 778.8L CLR @1.0670 B 130.0L MKD @.9340 B 1246.3L GAS@.9490 P 500.8L MKD @.9340 P 469.4L CLR @1.0670 F 1580.3L GAS @.9490 F 520.0L MKD @.9590 F 684.5L CLR @1.0920 F 1600.6L GAS @.9190

626900 626899 626898 626896 626897 626893 626894 627047 627312 627313 627310 627309 627308

ROSEN ENERGY GROUP B 359.3L MKD @.9211 B 502.0L CLR @1.0535 B 333.1L GAS @.8890 P 410.0L CLR@1.0535 P 154.0L MKD@ .9211 F 1700.0L GAS@.8890 F 1360.1L CLR @1.0535 SUN 2175.6L CLR @1.0536 B 600.4 L GAS@.8565 B 1300.0L CLR @1.0120 F 324.8L MKD@.8790 F 2250.00L @1.0123 F 1524.6L GAS @.8565

2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010323 EFT000000010342 2018-11-20 Total EFT000000010342 EFT000000010351 2018-11-20

Total EFT000000010351 EFT000000010430 2018-12-04

Total EFT000000010430

Vendor

Amount $169.50 $169.50 $381.46 $381.46 $385.00 $385.00 $82.42 $82.42 $885.20 $885.20 $762.75 $762.75 $744.31 $461.91 $845.61 $123.56 $1,203.56 $475.98 $509.66 $1,526.10 $507.47 $760.63 $1,496.83 $8,655.62 $336.77 $538.17 $301.34 $439.53 $144.35 $1,537.90 $1,458.09 $2,332.55 $523.29 $1,338.75 $290.52 $2,317.70 $1,328.80 $12,887.76

Total

$24,209.71

Total

$24,209.71

Total

$1,143,457.30

Page 106 of 211

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Agenda Date: December 4, 2018 Subject: Recreation Guide Function and Naming

RECOMMENDATION: For information BACKGROUND: The Township of South Frontenac publishes an annual guide to Township and Community Programs. The publication titled ‘Recreation & Activity Guide’ has changed over the years and in the past was titled ‘Recreation Guide’. Traditionally this print publication provided the Public with information on recreation programs and events. This annual publication continues to evolve to become a great community resource that includes information on programs, events, services, area maps, businesses and more. In continuing to develop this publication as a resource that reflects our diversity, growth, uniqueness, demographics of population and region staff feel that name should change to be more inclusive. Beginning in 2019, the publication and content will change to ‘Community Services & Activity Guide’ in order to reflect the expanding content.

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth Director of Public Services

Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Our strength is our community.

Page 107 of 211

From: “Hillier-co, Randy” randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org To: “‘info@randyhillier.com’” info@randyhillier.com Subject: Letter to Minister MoECP re: local Conservation Authorities Dear Council; Attached you will find a letter from me to Minister Rod Phillips (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) expressing my significant concerns with ongoing difficulties with our local Conservation Authorities. I would appreciate your support in promoting these reforms by way of a supporting motion passed by your Council. The specific reform is to repeal the authority to enter into contractual services with municipalities outside of their statutory mandate. It is my desire to have the Minister reduce the Conservation Authorities’ evergrowing jurisdiction back to their core responsibilities and statutory obligations, such as maintaining water levels, dams, and other assets, as well as managing development adjacent to shorelines, provincially significant wetlands, and flood plains. Over the last few years they have expanded the scope of their interests to include “insignificant” and “unevaluated” wetlands, septic systems, storm water plans, and other unrelated municipal planning matters, to the detriment of their core responsibilities and taxpayers. I am asking that both this letter and the attached letter be brought before council as a matter of business for debate and discussion. I would be happy to appear at your request and our mutual convenience as a delegate to council to discuss this matter in person. I am hoping to have, by way of municipal resolution, your support for this effort. Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Randy Hillier MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston Perth 613-267-8239 Queen’s Park 416-325-2244 info@randyhillier.com

Page 108 of 211

Hon. Rod Phillips Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks 11th Floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street St. West Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 November 9, 2018 Dear Minister; I am writing you today regarding growing concerns I have with the activities of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA). Unfortunately, I have to question the viability retaining these Conservation Authorities in their current form. I believe it is prudent and indeed in the best interest of our taxpayers and the environment that the following section of the Conservation Authority Act be repealed. As part of our mandate and ongoing initiative to find efficiencies and reduction of red tape, a general principle is applicable: Government entities ought to be constructed and empowered to serve the taxpayer. Many government agencies and departments have remodeled themselves to serve other government agencies and entities; if a government department or agency only serves another government agency or or department it has no utility and ought to be disbanded. Memorandum of understanding with municipalities (3) An authority may enter into a memorandum of understanding with a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction in respect of programs and services that the authority will provide on behalf of the municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1).

…/2

Page 109 of 211

Over the last number of years, I have come to learn of the many shortcomings of Conservation Authorities in my electoral district including significant delays in service, false technical advice, and misinterpretations of statutory authority. These significant failings are both unacceptable and compounded by the fact that CA’s have expanded their mandate beyond their statutory obligations, with many Memorandums of Understanding with municipalities, and have increased their focus on expanding consulting services while neglecting their core responsibilities. In addition to these shortcomings, I continue to receive many complaints to my office about dams in disrepair, mismanagement of water levels, and failure to maintain other MVCA assets. As a recent example, when concerns about much needed repairs to the K&P Trail were brought to my attention, my staff was advised by the MVCA that there was no money to do the necessary repairs because the budget had been spent litigating a claim against the MVCA. If the MVCA is unable to maintain or repair basic assets, which are a statutory responsibility, they should cease to acquire them. Although all Conservation Authorities have a legislated responsibility to oversee development in flood plains and in proximity to provincially significant wetlands, recently the Conservation authorities expanded their authority to include the management of “insignificant wetlands”, which has created an unnecessary duplication to the planning process for development in their jurisdiction. The imposition of classifications such as “unevaluated wetlands” leave developers in a lurch and engineers and planners scratching their heads. Again, as many CA’s fail to meet its statutory requirements they are expanding their scope of services and broadening their jurisdiction. The contradictions with the Conservation Authorities are clear; they fail to meet their obligations: dam repairs, access road maintenance and culvert replacements, and water control are put aside while they seek out new jurisdictions and operate a professional consulting firm to our municipalities. In Lanark County both the RCVA & MVCA have an MOU with the upper tier municipality and a number of lower tier municipalities. It is in this capacity as a professional consulting firm providing technical review services that these Conservations Authorities demonstrate both a conflict in interest and a degree of incompetence that borders on negligence. …/3

Page 110 of 211

Some recent examples that I have been involved with and made aware of include:

A three lot severance in which the CA in its review capacity referenced wrong standards, recommended septic system conditions that exceeded both the building code requirements and pre-empted the Health Units approval process
A subdivision stormwater plan that was approved and all the work completed at great cost, only to find that it was later rejected and determined non-compliant by the same CA that issued the approval
A seniors subdivision that was held up for over three years with multiple requests for additional Hydro geological surveys and assessments that were neither lawfully required nor relevant to the project and that eventually were determined not to be required after the significant expense to complete. In each of these cases, the conservation authority added thousands of dollars in costs and in some hundreds of thousands of dollars, while also lengthening the approval process by many years. This was all undertaken while the CA never actually engaged in any meaningful assessment or engineering activities, rather they were strictly reviewing another professional engineer’s work. It is important to note that I have never received a complaint of this nature from Beckwith Township, which is the one lower tier municipality in Lanark that opted out of the Conservation Authority MOU. Beckwith Township does however use a private professional engineering firm to provide technical reviews. The examples of the CA’s failings are compounded by the conflict of interest between their stated purpose of both conservation and development of and on our natural resources, coupled with a conflated and indeed distorted as being both an “authority and a review agency” The responsibilities of the CA’s are articulated under the Conservation Authority Act Purpose 0.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 1.

…/4

Page 111 of 211

I believe it would be wise to implement in specific language within the governing statutes of government agencies that their mandate is to service the taxpayer, not other levels of government. I look forward to an opportunity to discuss a review of the Conservation Authority Act as well as the mandate of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities in order to ensure the public is getting value for the dollar. Sincerely,

Randy Hillier Copies: Municipal councils in the RVCA/MVCA’s jurisdiction

Page 112 of 211

November 26, 2018 To:

Municipal Councils in the MVCA and RVCA Watersheds

Re:

Letter from MPP Hillier to the Minister of MECP Regarding Conservation Authorities Delivering Services for Municipal Partners Under MOUs

Dear Members of Council, We were recently advised that Mr. Randy Hillier, MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston sent a letter to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the Mississippi Valley and Rideau Valley Conservation Authorities. His letter requests that the Conservation Authorities Act be amended to prevent conservation authorities from entering into memorandums of understanding with their municipal partners to provide programs and services on their behalf. We also understand that Mr. Hillier shared this letter with local municipalities seeking motions of support from council. In his letter to Minister Phillips, Mr. Hillier makes several assertions which we would be pleased to respond to, however, we wanted to ensure that municipal Councils were aware of the conservation authority services to which he refers and the value they provide. Therefore, we have prepared the following information for your consideration which we hope you find helpful. We are also available to answer questions and we would welcome an opportunity to appear before council should you have any concerns. The Conservation Authorities Act All conservation authorities are governed by the Conservation Authorities Act which was recently updated in December 2017 following a three-year review. This review of the Act was undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and included multiple consultation sessions with the public and key stakeholders, including municipalities and the development industry, as well as multiple postings on the Environmental Registry. Under the Act, the purpose of a conservation authority is to deliver programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources within a watershed. Conservation authorities do this by: • Fulfilling responsibilities delegated to them by the Province; • Delivering programs and services on behalf of municipalities; and • Providing other such programs and services that further their mandate. Below we expand on delegated responsibilities and municipal services that pertain to planning and development as these are the services discussed in Mr. Hillier’s letter.

Page 113 of 211

Protecting People, Property and the Environment Conservation authorities are involved in planning and development to: • Protect people and property from natural hazards (flooding, erosion); and • Protect natural features (watercourses, shorelines, wetlands) from loss or degradation. Conservation authorities achieve these objectives through provincially delegated responsibilities as well as services they provide on behalf of municipalities. Provincially Delegated Responsibilities Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, conservation authorities are responsible for regulating development in or around floodplains, steep slopes, unstable soils, wetlands, shorelines and waterways. Development in these areas requires a permit from the conservation authority because the area is environmentally sensitive or prone to natural hazards like flooding and erosion. Requiring approval under the conservation authority’s Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation ensures that development is protected from natural hazards and natural features are not negatively affected by development. Since conservation authorities regulate development in areas affected by natural hazards, the Province also made them responsible for commenting on planning files with respect to natural hazards. Under the Planning Act, municipalities must circulate official plans, comprehensive zoning bylaws and site-specific planning applications to conservation authorities who then provide comments on behalf of the province relating to Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (natural hazards). As directed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, conservation authorities provide comments with respect to flooding, riverine erosion and unstable slopes, soils and bedrock. Services Delivered on Behalf of Municipalities Since land use decisions play a critical role in the long-term health and sustainability of watershed resources, most conservation authorities provide other services to local municipalities whereby the natural resources of the watershed are conserved, restored, developed and managed as directed by the Conservation Authorities Act. When reviewing planning files, most conservation authorities offer to share their broader watershed knowledge and expertise with municipalities by providing advice on matters relating to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (natural heritage and water). The conservation authorities’ role in this capacity is strictly advisory and involves providing advice to municipalities related to natural heritage (wetlands, woodlands and valley lands), hydrogeology (potable water and surface and groundwater quality and quantity), stormwater management (flood and erosion control and water quality with respect to aquatic health) and in some cases, sewage systems. The MVCA and RVCA have MOUs with the City of Ottawa (since the 1990s), Lanark County (since 2009) and the County of Leeds and Grenville (since 1999) to provide advice to municipalities on these matters when reviewing planning applications. Page 2 of 4

Page 114 of 211 Some conservation authorities also offer to administer Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code on behalf of municipalities to ensure sewage disposal systems function properly to prevent untreated effluent from contaminating surface and groundwater resources which can negatively impact human health, property and the environment. The conservation authorities’ role in this capacity is regulatory and involves reviewing and issuing permits for construction, enlargement and/or alteration of sewage disposal systems. The MVCA and RVCA have MOUs with the City of Ottawa (since 1995) and Tay Valley Township (since 2004) to provide this service. Some conservation authorities also provide septic re-inspection services to ensure existing sewage disposal systems continue to function properly, especially around lakes. This involves inspecting the system and providing property owners with recommendations or requirements to improve, repair or replace the system. The MVCA and RVCA have MOUs (some since 2005) with Tay Valley Township, Township of Rideau Lakes, Municipality of North Frontenac, Municipality of Central Frontenac and the Municipality of Drummond / North Elmsley to provide this service. The Value of Providing Services for Municipalities Providing services for municipalities is an important way in which conservation authorities fulfill their mandate of conserving, restoring, developing and managing natural resources within their watershed. Enabling municipalities to leverage the expertise of their local conservation authority and have them deliver services on their behalf through MOUs also provides value to municipalities and applicants. • Through MOUs, municipalities can ask conservation authorities to deliver services they do not have the capacity or expertise to provide, or services they feel the conservation authority is better suited to deliver. This allows municipalities to make use of specialized staff, knowledge and skill sets within their conservation authority which is cost-effective. If conservation authorities can no longer provide services to municipalities, those responsibilities will default back to municipalities. • Conservation authorities have local watershed knowledge and expertise that should be applied to planning and development applications because it provides a broader watershed perspective and a consistent approach to protecting natural resources across the watershed. Commenting on Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement and providing septic approval and reinspection programs are practical and effective ways of incorporating this knowledge and perspective. • Being involved early in the planning process also allows conservation authorities to make applicants and municipalities aware of any regulatory requirements that may be encountered later on in the process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act or Part 8 of the Building Code. This allows for the coordination of applications and the early identification of any constraints to avoid unnecessary delays or costs and any duplication of effort. • It should also be noted that providing additional services to municipalities with respect to planning and development does not take significant resources away from other conservation authority priorities as fees are collected from applicants to cover or offset the cost of these services. Page 3 of 4

Page 115 of 211 We hope that the information we have provided is of use and that it shows the value and need for conservation authorities to be able to enter into MOUs with municipal partners to deliver services on their behalf. Across Ontario, municipalities should be empowered to work with their local conservation authority in any way that best conserves, restores, develops or manages natural resources, including having conservation authorities deliver services for them. This gives municipal Councils options and flexibility to make decisions locally about how best to deliver programs and services to their residents. Having conservation authorities deliver certain programs for municipalities can lead to cost-efficiencies, streamlined delivery and better service for applicants and the environment. For over 50 years, municipalities in the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds have been doing just that. We appreciate your consideration of the information we have provided and we remain available to answer questions or attend council meetings as you wish. Sincerely,

Paul Lehman General Manager, MVCA

Sommer Casgrain-Robertson General Manager, RVCA

CC: The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Rod Phillips, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks The Honourable John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Mr. Randy Hiller, MPP Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston

Page 4 of 4

Page 116 of 211

Dear Mr. Wayne Orr and Ms. Angela Maddocks, It would be greatly appreciated if this email and contents could be shared with the Mayor and Councillors of South Frontenac. KFL&A Public Health is pleased to share the results of the 2018 Nutritious Food Basket Survey. Please see The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington 2018 full report and infographic attachments. Information on the Cost of Eating Healthy in KFL&A is available on the KFL&A Public Health website, including an animated motion infographic. It is our hope that you will find the information useful in your work. If you have any questions, or comments, or require print copies of the resources, please contact me. Kind regards, Rachael Mather, RD, MSc Public Health Dietitian Phone: 613-549-1232, ext. 1630 Toll-Free: 1-800-267-7875 Fax: 613-549-7896 rachael.mather@kflaph.ca KFL&A Public Health 221 Portsmouth Avenue Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5 www.kflaph.ca

The Cost of Eating Healthy

20 18

Page 117 of 211

Imagine having to choose between buying food and paying your utilities bill.

Ten percent of households in Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) area live with food insecurity.1 This means that 1 in 10 households in the KFL&A area do not know if there will be enough food next week or next month. Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for a family of four.

The cost to buy healthy food for a family of four in the KFL&A area for a month.

Kingston Napanee

874

What does it mean to live with food insecurity?

I cannot afford to buy healthy foods. I am not able to find food that fits with my cultural identity.

I have very little money left to buy food after paying rent.

I skip meals so that there is enough food for my children.

Cost of healthy food per month

874

$ 867 1598

1888 2619

Ontario Works

6156 6887

Full Time Minimum Wage Earner

Median Ontario Income

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for a single female parent with two children on Ontario Works.

12% of households in KFL&A are female lone parent families.2

Kingston Napanee

Cost of healthy food per month

660

$ 1206

1500

Ontario Works

Households on fixed or low incomes are often forced to use their food budget to pay for other expenses.*

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for one person on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program.

What can you do?

Kingston Cost of healthy food per month

Napanee

Learn more about the impact of food insecurity on health.

Advocate for solutions that will ensure secure and healthy food for all.

Share this information with your peers, colleagues and partner agencies.

Ontario Works

• The Cost of Eating Healthy in KFL&A, 2018 full report • PROOF- Food insecurity policy research: proof.utoronto.ca • Dietitians of Canada- Household Food Insecurity: dietitians.ca/foodinsecurity • Food Charter for KFL&A: foodpolicykfla.ca/kfla-food-charter

Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0463-01 Household food insecurity, by age group and food insecurity status. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. 2.Statistics Canada. Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Unit, [Health region, December 2017], Ontario and Ontario [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001; Ottawa. 2017 Nov 29 [cited 2017 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

kflaph.ca 2018-11-13

238

Resources:

Such as heat and hydro, child care, transportation, clothing, eye and dental care and personal care items, etc.

294

$ 276

532

Ontario Disability Support Program For more information, contact KFL&A Public Health at 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON K7M 1V5, by phone at 613-549-1232, or 1-800-267-7875, ext. 1180 or online at kflaph.ca.

20 18

Page 118 of 211

KFL&A Public Health Report

The Cost of Eating Healthy Imagine having to choose between buying food and paying your utilities bill.

kflaph.ca 2018-11-13

Page 119 of 211

Food is a basic human right. Everyone deserves the right to adequate, healthy, safe, affordable, and culturally appropriate food. People who live with food insecurity cannot afford to buy the food they want and need for good health.1

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 120 of 211

Ten percent of households in the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) area live with food insecurity.2 This equals one in 10 households in the KFL&A area.

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 121 of 211

Food insecure households are likely to: • compromise their food quality and or quantity, • reduce their food intake, and • experience disrupted eating patterns.

Food insecurity negatively affects health.1 • Children who are hungry are more likely to develop depression and asthma later in life. • Adults who are food insecure have poorer physical and mental health, and are more likely to have chronic conditions such as depression, diabetes,

Income is the strongest predictor of food insecurity among individuals and families in Canada.3

and heart disease. • Food insecure adults with chronic conditions have more difficulty managing their conditions.

Food insecurity is highest among:1 • Indigenous Peoples and black Canadians, • low income households on fixed incomes, • single mothers, and • people who rent their home.

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 4 The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston,2015 Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 122 of 211

Households on fixed or low incomes are often forced to compromise healthy eating to pay for other expenses.

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for a family of four. Kingston Napanee

Cost of healthy food per month

874

$ 867 $1598

Ontario Works

Full Time Minimum Wage Earner

1888 $2619

6156 $6887

Median Ontario Income

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for a single female parent with two children on Ontario Works.

12% of households in KFL&A are female lone parent families.4

Kingston Napanee Cost of healthy food per month

1206

1500

Remaining monthly funds after rent

660

Ontario Works

represents funds available for food and basic expenses, such as:

hydro

ild care

h eat

ortat

clot ng hi

eye are c

ar e

sonal C

Kingston

Cost of healthy food per month

Napanee

ntal c

nsp

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for one person on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program.

294

See Nutritious Food Basket Scenarios on page 6, adapted from the Ministry of Health Promotion Nutritious Food Basket Guidance Document (2010). 5

238

Ontario Works

276

532

Ontario Disability Support Program

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 123 of 211

2018: Nutritious Food Basket Scenarios Ontario Works

Monthly Income in Ontario

Minimum Wage Median Ontario Income Earner n

Ontario Works

*ODSPp

**OAS/GIS

Family of Four

Single Parent

One Person

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

(full-time/full year)

(after tax)

Family of Four

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Income from Employment

$2,427.00

$7,967.00

Basic Allowanceb

$486.00

$354.00

$337.00

$662.00

Maximum Shelter Allowanceb

$744.00

$686.00

$384.00

$489.00

**OAS/GIS

$1,470.00

***Ontario GAINS

$83.00

****Ontario BIPe Canada Child Tax Benefitf

$1,130.00

$1,087.00

$71.00

$23.00

$31.00

$36.00

$151.00

$122.00

$66.00

$69.00

$105.00

$1,694.00

GST/HST creditg Ontario Trillium Benefit

Working Income Tax Benefiti

$13.00

Employment Insurance paidj

$-40.00

Canada Pension Plan paid

$1,130.00

$-125.00

$-106.00

$-360.00

$3,603.00

$7,871.00

$2,363.00

$810.00

$1,251.00

(3 Bdr.)

(2 Bdr.)

(Bachelor)

(1 Bdr.) o

(1 Bdr.)

$1,715.00

$1,157.00

$730.00

$975.00

Total Income

$389.00

$2,582.00

Monthly Expenses in Kingston and Area Average Monthly Rent

(may or may not include heat/hydro)

$874.00

$660.00

$294.00

$214.00

$2,589.00

$1,817.00

$1,024.00

$1,269.00

$1,189.00

*****Remaining Monthly Funds

$-7.00

$1,014.00

$5,282.00

$546.00

$-214.00

$-18.00

$505.00

Percentage of income required for rent

66%

48%

22%

49%

90%

78%

58%

Percentage of income required to purchase healthy food

34%

24%

11%

28%

36%

24%

13%

(3 Bdr.)

(2 Bdr.)

(Bachelor)

(1 Bdr.) o

(1 Bdr.)

(may or may not include heat/hydro)q

$984.00

$863.00

$572.00

$719.00

Foodm

$874.00

$660.00

$294.00

$214.00

Total Monthly Expenses

$1,858.00

$1,523.00

$866.00

$1,013.00

$933.00

*****Remaining Monthly Funds

$724.00

$1,745.00

$6,013.00

$840.00

$-56.00

$238.00

$761.00

Percentage of income required for rent

38%

27%

13%

37%

71%

57%

42%

Percentage of income required to purchase healthy food

34%

24%

11%

28%

36%

24%

13%

Foodm Total Monthly Expenses

Monthly Expenses in Greater Napanee Average Monthly Rent

ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program ** OAS/GIF = Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement *** Ontario GAINS = Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System **** Ontario BIP = Basic Income Payment Table (Basic Income Pilot: Information Booket, page 16) ***** Funds Remaining (for other basic needs e.g., telephone, transportation, child care, household and personal care items, clothing, school supplies etc.)

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 124 of 211

2018: Nutritious Food Basket Scenarios Ontario Works

Ontario Basic Income Pilot

Ontario Works

Ontario Basic Income Pilot

Responses to food insecurity Income responses are needed

Monthly Income in Ontario

Family of Four

One Person

to address food insecurity.5

Scenario 1

Scenario 8

Scenario 5

Scenario 9

Food charity and community food

Income from Employment Basic Allowanceb

$486.00

Maximum Shelter Allowanceb

$744.00

$337.00

$384.00 $2,002.00

$1416.00

****Ontario BIPe Canada Child Tax Benefit

typically government policies that improve income security at a systemic level through income

$1,130.00

$1,110.00

GST/HST creditg

$71.00

$23.00

$36.00

Ontario Trillium Benefith

$151.00

$66.00

which is the root cause of food insecurity. Income responses are

**OAS/GISc ***Ontario GAINSd

programs cannot solve poverty,

Working Income Tax Benefiti

transfers, employment policies, pensions, tax exemptions, or credits, and social assistance programs.6

Employment Insurance paidj Canada Pension Plan paidk Total Income

$2,582.00

$3,334.00

$810.00

$1,518.00

Basic income guarantee

Monthly Expenses in Kingston and Area (3 Bdr.)

(3 Bdr.)

(Bachelor)

(may or may not include heat/hydro)l

$1,715.00

$730.00

The Ontario Government’s Ontario

Food

$874.00

$294.00

Basic Income Pilot began in April

$2,589.00

$1,024.00

The Ontario Basic Income

*****Remaining Monthly Funds

$-7.00

$745.00

$-214.00

$494.00

Percentage of income required for rent

66%

51%

90%

48%

Percentage of income required to purchase healthy food

34%

26%

36%

19%

Average Monthly Rent m

Total Monthly Expenses

the Nutritious Food Basket data collection. The Ontario Basic Income Pilot, also known as basic income guarantee, aims to give people adequate incomes so

Monthly Expenses in Greater Napanee Average Monthly Rent

(may or may not include heat/hydro)q

(3 Bdr.)

(Bachelor)

that they can afford basic needs

$984.00

$572.00

and live with dignity.5 Individuals

$874.00

$294.00

Total Monthly Expenses

$1,858.00

$866.00

*****Remaining Monthly Funds

$724.00

$1,476.00

$-56.00

$652.00

Percentage of income required for rent

38%

30%

71%

38%

Percentage of income required to purchase healthy food

34%

26%

36%

19%

Food

Pilot was underway at the time of

and families who participated in the Ontario Basic Income Pilot had more money left after paying for rent and food compared to individuals and families receiving Ontario Works.

ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program ** OAS/GIF = Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement *** Ontario GAINS = Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System **** Ontario BIP = Basic Income Payment Table (Basic Income Pilot: Information Booket, page 16) ***** Funds Remaining (for other basic needs e.g., telephone, transportation, child care, household and personal care items, clothing, school supplies etc.)

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 125 of 211

How do we determine the cost of healthy eating in our community? We use the Nutritious Food Basket (NFB)7 survey tool to measure the cost of eating healthy in the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) area every year. The NFB survey includes 67 food items that reflect a healthy eating pattern from Canada’s Food Guide.8

What items are not included in the Nutritious Food Basket?

Yogurt

•

Processed convenience foods

•

Popular snack foods

Beans

Pasta

Milk

Rice Legumes

Cereal

• Special dietary foods •

Infant foods

•

Religious or cultural foods

• Soap, shampoo, toilet paper, and other personal care items

KFL&A Public Health surveyed seven grocery stores in

The survey also

May using guidelines from the Ministry of Health and

does not include

Long-Term Care. The lowest available price is recorded

costs associated

for each food item. The prices from all the stores are

with eating out at

then averaged. An extra five percent is added to the total

restaurants and

food cost to account for additional food items such as

extra costs for

spices, seasonings, condiments, baking supplies, soups,

inviting company

coffee, and tea.

to share a meal.

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 126 of 211

What else should you know about the Nutritious Food Basket? •

It assumes that most people have the necessary time, food skills, and equipment to create meals from low-cost food staples and ingredients.

•

It assumes that the consumer has access to quality food stores and the means of transportation to comparison shop.

What can you do?

Learn more about

Advocate for solutions

Share this information

the impact of food

that will ensure secure

with your peers,

insecurity on health.

and healthy food for all.

colleagues and partner agencies.

Resources •

PROOF- Food insecurity policy research: nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.ca

•

Dietitians of Canada- Household Food Insecurity: www.dietitians.ca/foodinsecurity

•

Food Charter for Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington: http://foodpolicykfla.ca/kfla-food-charter/

•

Ministry of Ontario- Income security: A roadmap for change: https://www.ontario.ca/ page/income-security-roadmap-change

•

Employment and Social Development Canada- Opportunity for all: Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy: canada.ca/publicentre-ESDC

For more information, contact KFL&A Public Health at 221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON K7M 1V5, by phone at 613-549-1232, ext. 1180 or 1-800-267-7875, or online at kflaph.ca

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 127 of 211

Weekly Food Costs in the KFL&A Area1 Group

Age (years)

Boy

2 to 3

$26.27

Boy

4 to 8

$33.82

Write down the gender

Girl

2 to 3

$25.78

and age of each person

Girl

4 to 8

$32.85

Step 1

in the household.

Step 2

Food costs per week

Male

9 to 13

$44.84

Male

14 to 18

$64.38

Male

19 to 30

$62.75

Male

31 to 50

$56.65

Male

51 to 70

$54.44

Male

over 70

$53.86

Use the Nutritious Food

Female

9 to 13

$38.46

Female

14 to 18

$46.19

Basket Costs from the

Female

19 to 30

$48.70

Weekly Food Costs in the

Female

31 to 50

$48.02

KFL&A Area table and

Female

51 to 70

$41.94

Female

over 70

$41.11

Pregnancy

18 and younger

$51.77

Pregnancy

19 to 30

$52.56

write down the weekly costs for each person.

Step 3

Add the weekly food costs

Pregnancy

31 to 50

$51.24

Breastfeeding

18 and younger

$53.68

Breastfeeding

19 to 30

$55.95

Breastfeeding

31 to 50

$54.63

together for the subtotal.

Adjustments 1 person, multiply by 1.20 2 people, multiply by 1.10

Step 4

3 people, multiply by 1.05

Use the Adjustments

4 people, make no change

table for group size. It

5 to 6 people, multiply by 0.95

costs a little more per

7 or more people, multiply by 0.90

person to feed a small group and a little less to feed a large group.

Calculating weekly and monthly Nutritious Food Basket costs Gender

Age

Cost ($)

Step 5

To find out the monthly food costs, multiply your total by 4.33.

Subtotal Adjustment x ____=

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Total $

per week

x 4.33 $

per month

Nutritious Food Basket Data Results 2018 for KFL&A Public Health - Includes Family size adjustment factors.

Calculating the Weekly Cost of a Nutritious Food Basket in the KFL&A Area

Page 128 of 211 The Cost of Eating Healthy Infographic 20 18

The Cost of Eating Healthy Imagine having to choose between buying food and paying your utilities bill.

The cost to buy healthy food for a family of four in the KFL&A area for a month.

Kingston Napanee

874

What does it mean to live with food insecurity?

I cannot afford to buy healthy foods. I am not able to find food that fits with my cultural identity.

I have very little money left to buy food after paying rent.

I skip meals so that there is enough food for my children.

Cost of healthy food per month

874

$ 867 $1598

1888 $2619

Ontario Works

6156 $6887

Full Time Minimum Wage Earner

Median Ontario Income

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for a single female parent with two children on Ontario Works.

12% of households in KFL&A are female lone parent families.2

Kingston Napanee

Cost of healthy food per month

660

$ 1206

1500

Ontario Works

Households on fixed or low incomes are often forced to use their food budget to pay for other expenses.*

Amount of money left after the monthly rent* has been paid for one person on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program.

What can you do?

Kingston Cost of healthy food per month

Napanee

Learn more about the impact of food insecurity on health.

Advocate for solutions that will ensure secure and healthy food for all.

Share this information with your peers, colleagues and partner agencies.

238

Ontario Works

Resources:

Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0463-01 Household food insecurity, by age group and food insecurity status. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. 2.Statistics Canada. Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Unit, [Health region, December 2017], Ontario and Ontario [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001; Ottawa. 2017 Nov 29 [cited 2017 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Such as heat and hydro, child care, transportation, clothing, eye and dental care and personal care items, etc.

kflaph.ca 2018-11-13

294

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

276

532

Page 129 of 211

References:

Tarasuk, V, Mitchell, A, Dachner, N. Household food insecurity in Canada, 2014 [document on the internet]; 2016 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: http://proof.utoronto.ca
Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0463-01 Household food insecurity, by age group and food insecurity status. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 17].
Alberta Health Services. The affordability of healthy eating in Alberta 2015 [document on the internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/nutrition/if-nfs-affordability-of-healthy-eating.pdf
Statistics Canada. Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Unit, [Health region, December 2017], Ontario and Ontario [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001; Ottawa. 2017 Nov 29 [cited 2017 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E
Ontario Society of Nutrition Professionals in Public Health. Position statement on responses to food insecurity. 2015 Nov [cited 2018 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.osnpph.on.ca/upload/membership/document/2016-02/position-statement-2015-final.pdf
Dietitians of Canada. Addressing Household Food Insecurity in Canada: Position statement and recommendations. 2016 May [ cited 2018 Oct 18]. Available from: http://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/HFI-Position-Statement-and-Recommendations-DCFINA.aspx.
Ministry of Health Promotion. Nutritious Food Basket Guidance Document; 2010 May [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/ repository/mon/24006/302017.pdf
Health Canada. Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide; 2007 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/foodnutrition/canada-food-guide/get-your-copy.html

Scenario References (Page 6 and 7): Scenario 1: 2 adults (male and female ages 31 to 50), 2 children (girl age 8, boy age 14); Ontario Works (OW). Scenario 2: 2 adults (male and female ages 31 to 50), 2 children (girl age 8, boy age 14); income is based on one minimum wage earner, 40hr/wk, $11.00/hr (minimum wage in May 2015). Scenario 3: 2 adults (male and female ages 31 to 50), 2 children (girl age 8, boy age 14).NOTE: Income from employment is based on median after-tax incometwo-parent families with children, two earners (CANSIM Table 202-0605); however, EI and CPP contributions are calculated using median total income-twoparent families with children, two earners (CANSIM Table 202-0411). Assumption of a dual income family with a split of 65% / 35% between partners. Scenario 4: 1 adult (female age 31 to 50), 2 children (girl age 8, boy age 14); Ontario Works Scenario 5: 1 adult (male age 31 to 50); Ontario Works. Scenario 6: 1 adult (male age 31 to 50); Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Scenario 7: 1 adult (female age 70+); income based on Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement (OAS/GIS) Scenario 8: 2 adults (male and female ages 31 to 50), 2 children (girl age 8, boy age 14); moving from Ontario Works to Ontario Basic Income Pilot. Scenario 9: 1 adult (male age 31 to 50); moving from Ontario Works to Ontario Basic Income Pilot. a. Due to the Northern Ontario Energy Credit portion of the Ontario Trillium Benefit (OTB), this worksheet is applicable for Ontario excluding the districts of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Manitoulin, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury (including the City of Greater Sudbury), Thunder Bay, and Timiskaming. b. Basic and maximum shelter allowance. OW rates effective October 2017 and Ontario Disability Support Payment (ODSP) rates effective September 2017. Source: Social Assistance, Pension and Tax Credit Rates April to June 2018,https://www.odph.ca/upload/membership/document/2018-07/social-assistancepension-tax-credit-rates-april-june2018.pdf Ministry of Community and Social Services. (accessed July 11, 2018). c. Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement (OAS/GIS) rates. Source: Social Assistance, Pension and Tax Credit Rates April to June 2018. https://www.odph.ca/upload/membership/document/2018-07/social-assistance-pension-tax-credit-rates-april-june2018.pdf (accessed July 11, 2018). d. Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS) rates. Source: Social Assistance, Pension and Tax Credit Rates April to June 2018, Ministry of Community and Social Services. https://www.odph.ca/upload/membership/document/2018-07/social-assistance-pension-tax-credit-rates-april-june2018.pdf (accessed July 11, 2018). e. Basic Income Payment Table - page 16 https://www.odph.ca/upload/membership/document/2018-07/basic-income-payment-table.pdf (accessed July 10, 2018). f.

Canada Child Benefit (CCB) includes Basic monthly amount, National Child Benefit Supplement monthly amount, and Ontario Child Benefit monthly amount. Effective July 2017 to June 2018. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cfbc-eng.html (accessed July 10, 2018).

g. Based on net annual income. GST/HST is issued on a quarterly basis, but calculated on a monthly basis. Figures derived from GST/HST and related provincial programs calculator. Effective July 2017 to June 2018. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cfbc-eng.html (accessed July 10, 2018). h. Ontario Trillium Benefit (OTB) includes Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, and Ontario Sales Tax Credit. Based on average apartment rental rates for Ontario (see k) and net annual income. Benefit is issued on a monthly basis. Figures derived from Ontario Trillium Benefit and related provincial programs calculator. Effective July 2017 to June 2018. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cfbc-eng.html (accessed July 10, 2018). i.

Working Income Tax Benefit Calculation Sheet. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/wtb/cdn_clc_fm_17-eng.html base (accessed July 10, 2018).

Employment Insurance premium rates and maximums. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/clcltng/ei/cnt-chrt-pf-eng.html (accessed July 10, 2018).

k. Canadian Pension Plan. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/clcltng/cpp-rpc/cnt-chrt-pf-eng.html (accessed July 10, 2018). l.

Rental Market Report: Ontario Highlights. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Fall 2017, Kingston CMA includes Kingston, Loyalist Township, South Frontenac, Frontenac Islands. http://skyviewrealty.com/CMHCb/2017/Ontario2017.pdf (accessed October 17, 2018)

m. Nutritious Food Basket Data Results 2018 for KFL&A Public Health - Includes Family size adjustment factors. n. Minimum wage. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/minwage.php (accessed July 10, 2018). o. Statistics Canada. Market income, government transfers, total income, income tax and after-tax income, by economic family type, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas (CMAs). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110019001 (accessed July 10, 2018). p. Housing for Scenario 6 was changed from a Bachelor apartment in 2010 to 1-bedroom in 2011. This change reflects a more accurate housing need for persons with a disability. This change will need to be recognized when attempting to compare year over year results. q. Rental Market Report: Ontario Highlights. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Fall 2017, Greater Napanee Town; http://skyviewrealty.com/ CMHCb/2017/Ontario2017.pdf (accessed October 17, 2018).

The Cost of Eating Healthy in Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, 2018

Page 130 of 211

Title: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species - ESA s.17(2)(c) EBR Registry Number: 013-1130 Ministry: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Date Information Notice loaded to the Registry: November 14, 2018 This notice was republished on November 14, 2018 to give notice of the decision. Keyword(s): Fish and Wildlife | Land use planning This notice is for your information. The Environmental Bill of Rights does not require this notice to be placed on the Environmental Registry, however, section 6 of the Act does allow the Environmental Registry to be used to share information about the environment with the public. Rationale for Exemption to Public Comment: This proposal is exempted by Ontario Regulation 681/94 under the Environmental Bill of Rights as a classified proposal for an instrument, because the species for which the permit is sought are animals. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is voluntarily posting this notice to advise the public of the proposal and to invite the public to submit written comments on this proposal to the contact person identified in this notice. Description: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. has submitted a proposal in relation to an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) with respect to Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) and Blanding’s Turtle for the purpose of developing 15 condominium lots in part of Lots 23 and 24 Concessions 6 and 7 in the Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac. Purpose of the Notice: The purpose of this notice is to ensure that the public is made aware of, and given an opportunity to comment on, the overall benefit permit proposal. The proposed permit would be issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA. Decision: The current proponent is 1324789 Ontario Inc. On October 28, 2018 an overall benefit permit was issued to 1324789 Ontario Inc., under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 with respect to Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis population) and Blanding’s Turtle in order to construct 15 condominium lots in part of Lots 23 and 24 Concessions 6 and 7 in the Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac, Ontario. Reasonable alternatives to the proposal were considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species such as: o Not proceeding with the new development; o Reducing the number of lots to be developed; and o Using alternate methods, equipment, designs, etc. to carry out the proposed activity

Page 131 of 211

such as not paving the roadway to reduce attractiveness for the species, increasing setbacks to avoid important habitat features, etc. The best alternative, which was adopted, includes using alternate methods, equipment, and design to avoid or reduce impact to the species and habitat where possible (such as setting the homes back from the shoreline by at least 30 metres) as well as providing a benefit to the species. The permit requires 1324789 Ontario Inc. to undertake a number of measures to minimize adverse effects on individual members of Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle, including: o Limiting specific development activities (example vegetation clearing, driveway clearing and construction, etc.) to avoid active and sensitive periods for both species, and in particular for Gray Ratsnake, restricting blasting to avoid the hibernation period for the species; o Minimizing the amount of habitat destruction such as retaining, where feasible, living trees measuring 4” in diameter at breast height and restricting the width of paths to the water and parking areas; o Marking any habitat to be retained during and after construction to reduce the likelihood of impacting habitat and harming individuals of both species; o Instituting speed limits and posting impact avoidance signage on the access road to reduce mortality and harm to both species; o Installing exclusion fencing in blind spots to keep both species off the road; o Maintaining and monitoring an existing ecopassage under the road until the permit expires; o Limiting or restricting road maintenance activities (example roadside vegetation clearing, herbicide use, grading, etc.) to reduce impacts to both species; o Ensuring the access road remains unpaved to reduce attractiveness to basking snakes for thermoregulation; o Undertaking awareness training for employees to ensure awareness of both species’ presence and habitat to be retained, as well as what actions to take if either species is encountered; o Establishing a Condominium Environmental Committee to support protection and recovery of Gray Ratsnake, Blanding’s Turtle and other species at risk including the development of a landowner stewardship manual; o Conducting and reporting on spring surveys for both species, including observations of possible road mortality across Johnston Point to provide information on where the species may be present and to determine possible seasonal movements; o Retaining a qualified professional to carry out conditions of the permit; and o Communicating mortality events and reviewing mitigation efforts to increase protection as necessary. The permit requires 1324789 Ontario Inc. to undertake a combination of actions for species’ recovery to achieve an overall benefit to the species, within a reasonable time, including: Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) o Constructing and monitoring two (2) nest boxes to contribute to habitat enhancement, harm reduction and increased reproductive success for Gray Ratsnake; o Erecting warning signs along roads in the known habitat area to increase awareness of the species and alert drivers of snake presence to help reduce road mortality; and o Providing educational initiatives to increase awareness and promote the protection and recovery of the species.

Page 132 of 211

Blanding’s Turtle o Improving basking habitat opportunities by anchoring and maintaining two (2) basking logs within a wetland and erecting warning signs to prevent boaters from disturbing the species; and o Dedicating approximately half of an island which is .31 hectares in size as turtle refuge by providing suitable substrate to support nesting habitat and increase reproductive success and ensuring development is prohibited and human activities are restricted by installing fencing. Due to the scoped design of the project as well as the multiple actions to minimize adverse effects, few, and potentially no Gray Ratsnake or Blanding’s Turtle are expected to be impacted. Making nests available to Gray Ratsnake at a nearby location so the species is less likely to cross the road and placing warning signs along public roads will reduce road mortality, a key threat, and provide an overall benefit to the species by increasing its reproductive success. Performing educational initiatives to increase awareness of the species will help address one of the government-supported actions identified in Ontario’s Government Response Statement for Gray Ratsnake related to increasing public awareness of Gray Ratsnake and encouraging more positive behavior by Ontarians toward the species. Providing basking and nesting features for Blanding’s Turtle, where habitat variety is currently fairly low (e.g., water is open, minimal substrate available for nesting on the island) an overall benefit will be achieved by increasing basking and nesting opportunities for the species. A government response statement has been published under subsection 11(8) of the Endangered Species Act with respect to Gray Ratsnake; this statement can be accessed through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Species at Risk website: https://www.ontario.ca/page/gray-ratsnake-government-response-statement The government response statement for Gray Ratsnake was considered in the development of the permit, and the permit conditions align with actions in the government response statement: o Action 1. (High) Research and implement methods for reducing significant threats, including road mortality and human persecution, and evaluate their effectiveness; o Action 2. (High) Refine and promote best management practices for landowners and land managers to protect and recover the Gray Ratsnake; o Action 8. Evaluate existing communications and outreach approaches and develop new strategies that will have a positive impact on people’s behaviour; o Action 9. Deliver effective communications and outreach to key stakeholders, including landowners, cottage associations and schools within the range of Gray Ratsnake; o Government-led action of encouraging the submission of Gray Ratsnake data to the Ministry’s central repository; and o Government-led action of supporting partners in undertaking activities to protect and recover Gray Ratsnake, including support provided through permits (including conditions). To date, a government response statement has not yet been published under subsection 11(8) of the Endangered Species Act with respect to Blanding’s Turtle. Other Information: The proposed works has the potential to adversely affect Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) and Blanding’s Turtle and their habitat. The proposed permit conditions would provide benefits that exceed the adverse effects on Gray Ratsnake

Page 133 of 211

(Frontenac Axis Population) and Blanding’s Turtle. Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) and Blanding’s Turtle are listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, in Ontario Regulation 230/08 of the ESA, as threatened. Subsection 9(1) of the ESA provides for the protection of endangered, threatened (and extirpated) species on the SARO List. Specific habitat of Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) has been prescribed by O. Reg. 242/08. General habitat protection under subsection 10(1) of the ESA applies to Blanding’s Turtle. The ESA allows some activities to proceed under a clause 17(2)(c) permit with specific conditions if: avoidance and reasonable alternatives have been considered; adverse effects will be minimized; and an overall benefit will be achieved for the species in Ontario. Providing an overall benefit to a protected species under the ESA involves undertaking actions to improve circumstances for the species in Ontario. Overall benefit is more than “no net loss” or an exchange of “like for like”. Overall benefit is grounded in the protection and recovery of the species at risk and must include more than mitigation measures or “replacing” what is lost. The Minister may issue a permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA that authorizes a person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 10 of the ESA if the Minister is of the opinion that: (i) an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through the conditions of the permit; (ii) reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not negatively affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted; and, (iii) reasonable steps to minimize negative effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit. Reasonable alternatives are being considered, including ones that would not adversely affect the species, and may include: o Not proceeding with the new development; o Reducing the number of lots to be developed; and o Using alternate methods, equipment, designs, etc. to carry out the proposed activity. Potential approaches to minimize adverse effects on individual members of Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) may include: o Minimizing the amount of habitat damage and destruction; o Marking any habitat to be retained during and after construction to reduce the likelihood of impacting habitat and harming individual Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population); o Instituting speed limits and posting impact avoidance signage on the access road to reduce mortality and harm; o Undertaking awareness training for employees so that they are aware of the species presence and habitat to be retained, as well as what actions to take if a Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) is encountered; and o Developing a Condominium Environmental Committee to support species at risk including the development of a landowner stewardship manual.

Page 134 of 211

Potential approaches to minimize adverse effects on individual members of Blanding’s Turtle may include: o Minimizing the amount of habitat damage and destruction; o Avoid undertaking activities that may impact the species during sensitive times of year (e.g. hibernation); o Installing permanent exclusion fencing and an ecopassage on the access road to discourage road crossing as well as instituting speed limits and posting impact avoidance signage to reduce mortality and harm; o Undertaking awareness training for employees so that they are aware of the species presence and habitat to be retained, as well as what actions to take if a Blanding’s Turtle is encountered; and o Developing a Condominium Environmental Committee to support species at risk including the development of a landowner stewardship manual. Potential approaches to achieve an overall benefit for Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) may include: o Building and monitoring nest boxes to contribute to habitat enhancement for Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population) in the Frontenac Arch; o Erecting warning signs to help reduce road mortality; and o Providing educational and protection initiatives to increase awareness and promote the protection and recovery of the species. Potential approaches to achieve an overall benefit for Blanding’s Turtle may include: o Improving existing habitat by creating new habitat features such as basking logs and nesting substrate. Please note that the posting of this proposal on the Environmental Registry does not imply that a permit will be approved; a permit may only be issued where the legal requirements set out in clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA have been satisfied. The following web-links provide additional information. MNRF’s Species at Risk website https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk Endangered Species Act, 2007 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06 Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230

List,

Ontario

Regulation

230/08

General regulations and species-specific habitat regulations under the ESA, Ontario Regulation 242/08 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080242 Other Public Consultation Opportunities: Public consultation on the proposal for this Endangered Species Act permit was provided for 30 days from November 9, 2017 to December 11, 2017 (Environmental Registry # 013-1130). Forty-six comments were received in response to this Environmental Registry notice. All but two comments were opposed to the development proposal. Comments expressed concern for additional species at risk

Page 135 of 211

potentially being present on site, that overall benefit actions proposed were inadequate and that there would be potential impacts to adjacent lands. All comments were reviewed and carefully considered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in development of conditions within the permit. Overall benefit was determined to be sufficient considering the extensive avoidance measures and the range of efforts to minimize adverse effects on species at risk and their habitat.

Page 136 of 211

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE:

November 15, 2018

CASE NO(S).:

PL160168

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Purpose: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipality File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name:

1278804 Ontario Inc. Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the County of Frontenac to make a decision To permit the development of a 13 lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac road Part Of Lot 7, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Portland Township of South Frontenac 10T-2013/002 PL160168 PL160168 1278804 Ontario Inc. v. Frontenac (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject:

Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Purpose: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipality File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.:

1278804 Ontario Inc. Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 Neglect of the Township of South Frontenac to make a decision Rural (RU) Site Specific Residential (to be determined) To permit the development of a 13 lot subdivision Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Portland Township of South Frontenac Z-15/02 PL160168 PL160177

Heard:

Page 137 of 211 PL160168

May 8 to 19, 2017 in Syndenham, Ontario

APPEARANCES: Parties

Counsel

1278804 Ontario Inc.

A. K. Cohen and P. Osterhout

County of Frontenac

W. Fairbrother and S. Foster

Township of South Frontenac

A. E. Fleming and R. Gencarelli

Harrington Community Association

R. D. Lindgren, B. Grochalova and M. Pormea (Student)

DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL [1]

1278804 Ontario Inc. (the “Proponent”) has appealed from the failure of the

County of Frontenac (the “County”) to make a decision in respect to a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (the “Draft Plan”), and from the failure of the Township of South Frontenac (the “Township”) to enact an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 (the “ZBA”) for the lands described as Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 in the Geographic Township of Portland, now in the Township of South Frontenac (the “subject lands/property/site”). [2]

This hearing was convened and conducted by the Ontario Municipal Board (the

“Board”). However, on April 3, 2018, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 (“LPATA”) was proclaimed, which provides that the Board will be continued as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). Because this Decision is issued after the proclamation of LPATA, it is issued by the Tribunal. [3]

The subject lands comprise 44.45 hectares (“ha”) and are located partially within

the Hartington “Settlement Area” designation and partly within the Rural (RU) designation of the Township Official Plan (the “TOP), and are currently zoned Rural “RU” Zone by the Township Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 (the “ZBL”). The Rural (RU)

Page 138 of 211 PL160168

Zone permits a range of uses including agricultural and related uses, single detached dwellings, and other uses which are compatible with the rural area. A plan of subdivision is permitted in both designations. [4]

The proposed subdivision comprises the northern most 11.82 ha of the subject

property, with a narrow portion extending southward for stormwater management. The Draft Plan would divide the subdivision lands into 13 lots for single detached residential dwellings that will front onto a cul-de-sac road. The proposed lots will range in size from 0.8 to 0.92 ha and each will have road frontage of 46 metres (“m”). Each dwelling will be serviced by an individual private well and septic system. A single road will traverse the middle of the property on the north-south axis, providing access to the proposed lots. A right-of-way will continue south along the same trajectory as the road for stormwater management purposes. The proposed subdivision is located within the hamlet of Hartington. The site is currently vacant. [5]

The proposed ZBA would rezone the (northern) portion of the property which falls

entirely within the Hartington Settlement Area from Rural (RU) to Site Specific Residential (R) Zone. The site-specific zoning reduces the minimum required road frontage from 76 m to 46 m. The remainder of the property will remain undeveloped and in the Rural (RU) Zone. [6]

The County is the approval authority for plans of subdivision. The Township is

the approval authority for the ZBA, and acts as a commenting agency, providing a recommendation to the County in respect to plans of subdivision. Subsequent to the filing of these appeals County Council approved the Draft Plan with conditions. [7]

On consent, abutting farm property owner Steven Leonard was granted

Participant status.

Page 139 of 211 PL160168

Witness List [8]

For the Proponent: Michael Keene:

Land Use Planner - Fotenn Consultants Inc.

Doug Prinsen:

Engineer - Forefront Engineering Inc.

Paul Johnston:

Engineer, Hydrogeologist – ASC Environmental Inc.

For the County: Joseph Gallivan:

County Director of Planning & Economic Development

John Pyke:

Environmental Geoscientist, Hydrogeologist – Malroz Engineering Inc.

Christine McClure: Water Resources Manager - Quinte Conservation Authority (“QCA”) For the Township: Brian Goodreid:

Land Use Planner

For the Hartington Residents Association: Mark Dorfman:

Land Use Planner

Wilf Ruland:

Hydrogeologist and Geoscientist.

Harold Chard:

Engineer - XCG Consulting Limited.

Page 140 of 211 PL160168

Michelle Foxton, Linda Stewart, Angela Livie, Gary Hasler, Susanna Oliveira, Wade Leonard: Local Residents Steven Leonard:

Participant

Site Context [9]

The hamlet of Hartington is approximately 20 kilometers north of the City of

Kingston. The subject property fronts onto Boyce Road west of the Boyce RoadHighway 38 intersection at the north and Petworth Road west of the Petworth RoadHighway 38 intersection to the south. [10]

Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, community facility and

agricultural. A municipal drainage ditch, the Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain System (the “PVMD”), traverses the property east to west at about the midpoint of the parcel. The PVMD serves an upstream drainage area which takes in the majority of the northerly portion of the property and the Hartington Settlement Area. The KingstonPembroke Trail (the “K&P Trail”) borders the entire eastern boundary of the property. The K&P Trail is a former rail line converted to recreational trail extending approximately 46 kilometers from downtown Kingston to White Lake in the Township of Central Frontenac. A small wooded area is located on the central west side of the property. There is a farm property located across Boyce Road to the north, and a livestock operation on adjacent lands to the west (the “Leonard Property”). Chronology of the Proposal [11]

The development proposal was first introduced by the Proponent at an informal

pre-consultation meeting with the Township on November 13, 2012. On December 15, 2012, a concept plan of subdivision showing 50 lots was circulated to the County, along with a request for formal pre-consultation.

6 [12]

Page 141 of 211 PL160168

The Draft Plan application, accompanied by the reports/studies listed below, was

submitted to the County on November 15, 2013 and deemed complete on November 28, 2013: •

Planning Cover Letter (November 8, 2013) prepared by Forefront Engineering (November 8, 2013);

•

Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment prepared by Archaeoworks Inc. (September 16, 2013);

•

Environment Impact Study (“EIS”) prepared by Ecological Services (August 27, 2013);

•

Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by Forefront Engineering (October 2013); and,

•

Hydrogeological Study, Servicing Options and Terrain Analysis prepared by ASC Environmental (October 31, 2013).

[13]

The original Draft Plan application proposed 49 residential lots for single

detached dwellings, the majority of which would front onto a new north-south municipal road extending from Boyce Road to Petworth Road; a stormwater management block; and, two open space blocks. [14]

A revision to the Draft Plan in March 2014 reduced the number of residential lots

to 47. The reduction of two residential lots facilitated an expansion of the PVMD, increased the parkland area, and improved the hydrogeological assessment. [15]

The ZBA application was filed with the Township in June 2015. The Draft Plan

and proposed ZBA were presented by the Proponent’s planning consultant at a public meeting held on July 7, 2015. During this meeting, members of the public and Township Council voiced considerable concern/opposition to the proposal. The express concerns primarily related to water quantity and quality, drainage and flooding, the

Page 142 of 211 PL160168

effect of the proposal on agriculture and nearby farming operations, lot frontages and aesthetics. Another point of contention was that the proposed Draft Plan extended beyond the boundary of the Settlement Area. [16]

In response to these concerns, the Proponent reduced the scale of the

development from 47 to 13 lots, all within the hamlet designation. The revised Draft Plan proposes to divide the northern-most 11.82 ha of the subject lands into 13 residential lots fronting onto a north-south cul-de-sac road extending from Boyce Road and terminating at the end of proposed Lots 6 and 7. This iteration of the proposal retained the original park and stormwater management blocks from the previous 47-lot plan. The revised Draft Plan was presented to Township Council on August 4, 2015. [17]

At about this same time, a group of concerned local residents retained McIntosh

Perry Consulting Engineers to conduct a peer review of the Hydrogeology Study and associated communications that had been circulated between the Proponent’s hydrogeologist, the County’s peer reviewer, the QCA and the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addition Health Unit (the “Health Unit”). [18]

A subsequent modification to the proposal (September 2015) removed all the

non-residential blocks, thereby, restricting the Draft Plan to the 13 residential lots (the “development site”) located within the Hartington Settlement Area, plus the linear storm water block connecting the development to the PVMD. Cash-in-lieu would now be provided in place of the previously planned parkland blocks. [19]

In October 2015, a Planning Brief prepared by Mr. Keene, a formal copy of the

Revised Draft Plan and a summary of the addendum studies/reports listed below were provided to the County and the Township: •

Hydrogeology Addendum prepared by ASC Environmental (dated October 2, 2015) which indicated that the water quantity and quality and interference levels of the site were suitable for the proposed 13-lot subdivision;

8 •

Page 143 of 211 PL160168

Addendum to the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by Forefront Engineering Inc. (dated August 10, 2015) which detailed stormwater management measures for the Revised Proposal; and,

•

Traffic Impact Review prepared by AECOM (dated September 2, 2015) which concluded that the additional traffic generated by the Revised Draft Plan represents less than 10% of the total traffic along Highway 38. This report concluded that with such low volumes of new traffic, no impact to the existing traffic operations is expected.

[20]

A November 18, 2015 report prepared by the Township planner containing a list

of recommended conditions of Draft Approval was provided at a Committee of the Whole meeting on November 24, 2015. This report recommended that the proposed conditions be reviewed and forwarded to the County Council as the Township’s recommended Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. However, prior to the December 1, 2015 Council meeting the Proponent was informed by Township staff that Council would not be asked to make a recommendation to the County at this time because there were outstanding matters yet to be addressed. The primary concern was the potential risk of mitigation of hydrocarbons from a nearby closed gas station. Reportedly, the Township had asked its consultant to look into the impacts of this property on nearby development. [21]

The Township Planner provided a further planning report at the January 19, 2016

Council meeting which contained slightly revised conditions, but continuing to recommend Draft Plan Approval and the forwarding of the proposed conditions to the County. However, citing that new information regarding ground water and soil contamination on a nearby property had come to its attention, Council declined to discuss the application at this meeting. [22]

The new information came in the form of a January 18, 2016 letter from

Specialized Onsite Services Inc. (“SOS”). SOS was contracted by the Township in early 2015 to assess potential contamination at a former gas station property in the

Page 144 of 211 PL160168

hamlet. The content of this letter generally repeated the information contained in a letter provided to the Township in September 2015, including that, the ground water flow from the site was to the northeast and south (away from the proposed development); the ground water flow velocity rate is slow; and, the risk of groundwater contamination to sites in excess of 500 m from the contamination site is relatively low. This letter also recommends that the Township establish a clean perimeter of wells and monitor these wells until the site is remediated. It is further understood that mitigation measures and monitoring by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) is ongoing. [23]

For context purposes, the former gas station property is situated at the southeast

corner of Highway 38 and Holleford Road, and is now owned by the Township. This property is currently vacant, but prior to being purchased by the Township in about 2010 maintained a two-storey building which operated as a convenience store and gas bar. The property is bounded by a commercial property to the south, the Township Fire Hall to the east, Highway 38 to the west and Holleford Road to the north. Leaked fuel from the underground supply tanks buried to the south of the former building was identified as the source of localized ground contamination. The Proponent’s lands are located at a distance of approximately 300 m, and separated from the Township’s property by the K&P Trail, Highway 38 and other commercial and residential properties, including another gas station. [24]

At a meeting on March 1, 2016, Township Council set aside the recommendation

of its planner, and instead passed the following resolution: That Council defer this matter and instruct the township to engage an independent environmental consulting firm to review the reports that have been submitted to date and make a determination on the water quality and quality in the proposed development and surroundings areas and make recommendations as to any testing or monitoring that should be conducted.

[25]

On August 24, 2016, County Council endorsed the approval of the Hartington

subdivision development and adopted Conditions of Draft Pan Approval.

Page 145 of 211 PL160168

PLANNING EVIDENCE The Proponent: [26]

Mr. Keene was retained by the Proponent in August 2014, and has been actively

engaged in all aspects of the application and planning approvals process since that time. [27]

Mr. Keene submits that the development proposal as demonstrated by the Draft

Plan, and the proposed ZBA are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”); conform to the policies of the County Official Plan (“COP”) and the TOP; meet the criteria enumerated in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act (the “Act”); represent good land use planning; and is in the public interest. In his opinion the level of study undertaken to date is sufficient for the granting of Draft Plan Approval with conditions, and for the adoption of the required ZBA. [28]

Mr. Keene reported that as a result of the concern that the original plan of

subdivision was located partially within the Settlement Area and partly within the rural area, on his recommendation the Proponent agreed to reduce the subdivision to 13 residential lots, all of which are to be located within the existing hamlet boundary. Any future development of the excluded lands will trigger further consultation with County and Township Council and staff, authority agencies, and the public. [29]

In regard to the issue of the Settlement Area boundary raised by Mr. Goodreid

and adopted by Mr. Dorfman, Mr. Keene first identified that the lot fabric shown on the TOP and ZBL Schedules are different from the lot fabric which actually exists in the area. Secondly, the subject lands are uniformly zoned ‘Rural’, meaning there is no distinction between lands inside and outside of the Settlement Area. More significantly, the Settlement Area boundary is intended to be flexible. In that respect, contrary to the position being taken by Mr. Goodreid a comprehensive review is not necessary because the Settlement Area boundary is not being expanded. That being said, by his calculation the southern boundary of the Hartington Settlement Area is at a distance of

Page 146 of 211 PL160168

416 m from Boyce Road; the southern-most limit of the residential component of the proposal (Lot 7) is 392 m from Boyce Road. [30]

Mr. Keene agrees that the stormwater management block extends outside the

Settlement Area boundary. This, he said, is permitted under both the TOP and the ZBL; non-residential components of the subdivision are not required to be located within the Settlement Area boundary. Moreover, the proposed stormwater management works will be conveyed to the Township for the purpose of providing a public service, that being, directing stormwater runoff to the PVMD. The PVMD is located on the Proponent’s lands but not included in the proposed subdivision. The TOP (s. 6.7) and the Township’s ZBL (s. 5.17.2) establish that, with the exception of the ‘Agricultural’ designation and the ‘Environmental Protection Area/Wetland Zone’, stormwater management works are permitted in any designation and zoning category in the Township. The location being proposed for the stormwater works is not designated Agricultural and is not in an Environmental Protection Area/Wetland Zone. [31]

Likewise, the proposed road cul-de-sac (Block 14) will be conveyed to the

Township as a public street. It is not necessary to either zone a public street, or to regulate a public street through the ZBL (s. 5.17.2): Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of any land as…, a public street.

[32]

Turning to the planning merits of the proposal, Mr. Keene views the proposal as

a unique opportunity for intensification within an established settlement area. The PPS, the COP and the TOP promote development/intensification and encourage efficient use of land and infrastructure in designated settlement areas. The TOP designates settlement areas and determines their boundaries. The lands proposed to be subdivided are within the Hartington Settlement Area and are currently vacant. [33]

The proposal provides for a better and more efficient use of vacant lands utilizing

existing infrastructure and local servicing availability. At the same time, the development proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that future growth on the

Page 147 of 211 PL160168

adjacent lands, including the southern portion of the Proponent’s lands, will not be impeded. Equally important, the proposal introduces a compatible form of housing that will support and contribute to the vitality and continued success of the established Hartington community. [34]

Residential development in settlement areas must meet the minimum lot area

requirement (0.8 ha) and otherwise be compatible with the existing land uses. With the exception of the Village of Sydenham which has a municipal water supply, all servicing in the Township is by private water supply and sewage treatment systems; private communal systems are prohibited. The proposed subdivision provides large lots that meet the minimum size requirement of the TOP and are of sufficient size to accommodate a private well and septic system (including a back-up tile bed), as well as allow for a variety of individual building designs and accessory uses such as a swimming pool. [35]

The proposal will add to the supply, range and mix of housing opportunities

available in the Township. The type of residential development being proposed is desirable and appropriate to meet the needs of the Township and the scale, built-form, and lot fabric of the proposed subdivision is compatible with existing development and the prevailing character of the local rural community. The subdivision offers high quality lots and attractive homes to meet the needs of people looking to live in the rural area, while at the same time, is conveniently located to services being provided to and by the Hartington community. [36]

The planned development is well situated to take advantage of existing municipal

infrastructure and is sustainable at existing servicing levels for police, fire, and emergency medical services, garbage collection and public works/road maintenance. The subdivision properties are in proximity and easily accessible to first responders via existing municipal roads and the subdivision pathway connection to the K&P Trail will allow passage of emergency service vehicles. There are a number of schools located in proximity to the subdivision and Highway 38 is a primary route for school buses.

13 [37]

Page 148 of 211 PL160168

The proposed new road connecting the lots in the subdivision to Boyce Road and

the concrete sidewalk extending from Boyce Road to the southern extent of Lot 7 will be constructed to municipal standards at the expense of the developer, and subsequently conveyed to the Township. The subdivision is located near, and is easily accessed from, Highway 38, a major north-south road providing access between Kingston/Highway 401 and Highway 7. The Traffic Study and modeling indicates that the traffic generated by the subdivision can be aptly accommodated on existing municipal roads, with no improvements to the municipal road network being required. [38]

From an environmental and terrain perspective, the Draft Plan does not situate

dwellings on lands impacted by flooding or erosion hazards, and the abutting lands are not affected by natural hazards. The subject lands are generally flat with few trees and were formerly used as cropland. The topography of the lands will generally be maintained and efforts will be made to preserve existing trees. Reforestation will take place where appropriate. [39]

The EIS identified there are no natural heritage features of significance on the

subject lands. The proposed subdivision will not preclude or hinder either the expansion or continued use of mineral mining, mineral aggregate or petroleum operations. The Archaeological Report identified that no archaeological resources were found on the property and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has provided clearance of architectural interest in the property. [40]

The proposed development will not displace or otherwise interfere with any

existing agricultural or agricultural-related uses in the Township. In regard to the Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”) related concern of an abutting farm operator, Mr. (Steven) Leonard, Mr. Keene pointed out that the proposed subdivision will not have any bearing on his ability to expand his livestock operation. Firstly, MDS 1 does not apply to lands within a Settlement Area. Secondly, lands outside the Settlement Area are required to meet the MDS 2 requirement, in which case the distance is measured from the Settlement Area boundary. Moreover, there are already at least four homes closer to his livestock facility than any of the homes proposed by the Draft Plan. In

Page 149 of 211 PL160168

regard to the concern about possible nuisance complaints, Mr. Keene confirmed the subdivision agreement will include a cautionary clause notifying prospective purchasers of the subdivision homes of potential exposure to farm-related odours and agricultural activities. [41]

Mr. Keene asserts Mr. Dorfman’s characterization of Hartington as a crossroads

community similar to Spaffordton, Railton and Wilmer is fundamentally flawed. Distinct from those communities, Hartington has a range and variety of residential densities and a mix of land uses including commercial establishments, community facilities, a museum, and public open space. The three villages referred to by Mr. Dorfman are much smaller and comprised of only a handful of residential lots, and possibly one or two non-residential uses. In any event, Settlement Area designations are established in the TOP and regardless of ‘character’, new development is both encouraged and permitted in this designation. [42]

In reply to Mr. Dorfman’s arguments about reduced density and estate lots, Mr.

Keene pointed out that it is standard for rural lots on private water and sewer servicing to have an area of at least 0.8 ha. The COP and the TOP establishes 0.8 ha as the minimum lot area requirement for privately serviced properties. Mr. Keene said the implication by Mr. Dorfman that lot creation within the Settlement Area will inevitably be inconsistent with the existing lot fabric leads to an absurd situation whereby, although new development is to be directed to Settlement Areas, new development is not permitted in the Settlement Area because it is not consistent with the existing character. [43]

In response to concerns about the potential contamination of local wells by the

former gas station property, Mr. Keene confirmed the wells on the development site have been re-tested for hydrocarbons and were deemed clean. Moreover, the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval require that all subdivision wells be further assessed for water quality and quantity by a qualified hydrogeologist. Each subdivision well will be evaluated for nitrate and nitrite concentrations and neighbouring wells will be monitored during the test pumping. The Subdivision Agreement will require that prefiltration and disinfection is included in the drinking water systems in order to maintain a

Page 150 of 211 PL160168

bacterial-free water supply. If elevated chloride or sodium levels are detected, the Proponent is required to report these findings to the Medical Officer of Health. [44]

Mr. Keene also pointed out that an application for a privately serviced plan of

subdivision is required to meet the MOECC Guidelines and approval authority standards, and must be accompanied by preliminary stormwater management/drainage plan prepared by a qualified expert. The studies that have been completed by the Proponent’s expert exceed the MOECC requirements and protocols and was extensively scrutinized and subsequently approved by two peer reviewers, and cleared for Draft Approval by the QCA. [45]

A Preliminary Stormwater Management Report was prepared and has been

updated to reflect the 13-lot Draft Plan. This report provides recommendations for quantity and quality control of stormwater run-off, namely a linear stormwater management facility extending south towards the PVMD. Detailed stormwater management and grading plans will be prepared as part of the Final Stormwater Management Report (the “Final Report”). The Final Report with accompanying detailed engineering drawings addressing grading, drainage and stormwater management to the satisfaction of the Township and the QCA is required as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval. [46]

Mr. Keene reported that a geotechnical analysis was recently completed which

confirms the area is not karst. He pointed out that if this area were karst, this analysis would have identified key factors that would have triggered further consideration by all of the experts retained by the Proponent. As the investigative work did not uncover ‘warning signs’, a Geotechnical Study was not undertaken. It is common for geotechnical studies to be required as part of the Final Plan of Subdivision Approval, particularly where a road is proposed. In a case where a Geotechnical Study is deemed necessary, it is appropriate to require it as a Condition of Final Approval. [47]

In Mr. Keene’s opinion the issues and concerns identified through the technical

circulations period following review of the application by the relevant County and

Page 151 of 211 PL160168

Township departments, public authorities and peer review agencies, and the concerns identified by members of the community group and Township Council have been sufficiently addressed for the granting of Draft Plan Approval. [48]

In this case, the level of study undertaken to date well exceeds the level of detail

required for Draft Plan Approval, and the applied Conditions of Draft Plan Approval go beyond what is typically deemed acceptable and/or necessary. In particular, the current proposal has undergone substantial study and peer review to evaluate the potential environmental and health and safety impacts of the planned development. Through this work it has been demonstrated that with proper mitigation measures there will be no remarkable adverse impact to adjacent property owners or the greater Hartington community. Of particular significance, the hydrogeological work completed to date demonstrates the proposed development is not expected to compromise the supply or quality of local drinking water. [49]

Lastly, Mr. Keene emphasized that Draft Plan Approval simply means the merits

of the proposal have been evaluated against such criteria as conformity with the official plan(s); compatibility with adjacent land uses; the suitability of the lands for the proposed purpose, including the size and shape of lots; and the adequacy of vehicular access, water supply, sewage disposal and stormwater management. The proposal must be consistent with the PPS. When it is determined that the proposal satisfies this criterion, Draft Plan Approval can be given. As it is in this case, Draft Plan approval is typically conditional and essentially amounts to a commitment to go ahead with the proposed subdivision, once, and only if, all the conditions of Draft Plan Approval have been satisfied. When all conditions have been fulfilled, Final Approval is given and the plan of subdivision is registered in the provincial land titles system. Once the lots have been registered the transfers can take place and the lots can be developed. The County: [50]

Mr. Gallivan is the County’s Director of Planning and was the primary author of

the COP. The COP was developed through extensive consultation with citizens,

Page 152 of 211 PL160168

Township Councils and staff, Conservation Authorities and Provincial Ministries. The COP was adopted by County Council on October 15, 2014, and subsequently approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on January 11, 2016. [51]

It is his professional opinion that the development application is consistent with

the policy objectives of the PPS, in conformity with the COP and the TOP, and satisfies the criteria established in s. 51(24) of the Act. Subject to satisfying the prescribed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the proposed subdivision represents good planning and is in the public interest. [52]

Mr. Gallivan pointed out that the COP is not a prescriptive document, nor is it

meant “to interfere with those planning matters which are considered to be the responsibility of the local municipalities”. Rather, the COP establishes a vision and sets out general direction for planning and development in the County. Essentially, the COP’s intent is to “set the context for planning in the County as a whole and provide regional direction on planning issues” (s. 1.2). The local official plans complement the COP by providing detailed strategies, policies and land use designations for planning and development at the local level. [53]

For context purposes: the County is comprised of four lower-tier municipalities

(the Townships of South, Central and North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands) and has one of the lowest populations of all counties in Eastern Ontario. The County’s population (26,600) is spread out over a large geographic area (4,000 square kilometers), which accounts for the low population density. [54]

Mr. Gallivan advised that the current demographic trend in the County is that the

number of retirees and seasonal residents is increasing, while younger people continue to move away to larger urban centres. Mr. Gallivan conveyed to the Tribunal that the County is looking to attract more new permanent residents, in particular, younger residents. In this respect, the TOP establishes Settlement Area policies which envision new residential development in its villages and hamlets as an opportunity for community rejuvenation. It is his view that the population increase expected to result from the

Page 153 of 211 PL160168

proposed subdivision, by his estimation between 25 and 40 residents, is a welcome opportunity for community rejuvenation. [55]

The PPS promotes efficient land use patterns which sustain the financial well-

being of the Province and municipalities over the long term (s. 1.1.1). Settlement Areas are to be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration are to be promoted (s. 1.1.3.1). New development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built-up area and allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities (s. 1.1.3.6). The development proposal is consistent with these policy objectives. [56]

The COP leaves the designation of settlement areas, including the determination

of their boundaries to the lower-tier municipalities. The TOP establishes the intent for a majority of the new development growth to be directed to existing settlement areas where it can be supported by appropriate servicing (s. 5.6). Hartington has been established as a settlement area since the TOP was approved in 2003. The lands that are proposed to be developed as a residential subdivision are located entirely within the boundary of the Hartington Settlement Area. [57]

The PPS, the COP and the TOP encourage development patterns and road

connections to optimize public services and make efficient use of land and resources. The proposed residential subdivision is situated immediately adjacent to existing village development and relatively close to the intersection of Boyce Road and Highway 38, which is generally considered to be the centre of the hamlet. [58]

Mr. Gallivan advised that as part of the review process the technical studies

related to water quality and quantity, stormwater management, and the traffic impact report were extensively reviewed by County staff, and where specialized expertise was required, peer reviewers were retained. In this case, the County retained a hydrogeologist/geoscientist (John Pyke) to peer-review these studies and related reports, and to make recommendations.

19 [59]

Page 154 of 211 PL160168

The proposed subdivision will be serviced by individual private wells and septic

systems. The County’s hydrogeological peer reviewer advises that the lands are suitable for private servicing. The Health Unit has confirmed that all 13 of the proposed development lots are of adequate form and dimension to accommodate private servicing at required separation distances, including the Class 4 leaching bed system prescribed by the Ontario Building Code (the “OBC”). [60]

To accord with the recommendation of the County’s hydrogeological consultant,

as an added measure of protection, a tertiary treatment system will be installed on each residential lot in the subdivision. By way of explanation, the waste exiting a tertiary treatment system is reduced to about 1/10 the strength of what the regular Class 4 system would release. In keeping with this, as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval the Subdivision Agreement will contain a provision requiring that each lot owner be provided with an information package outlining the nature, operation and maintenance requirements of this type of sewage system. [61]

In response to concerns raised by the Harrington Community Association

(“HCA”), the County directed Mr. Pyke to meet with MOECC officials and to undertake an independent review of the hydrogeological studies completed on behalf of the Township for the former gas station lands. Mr. Pyke recommended additional precautionary measures which have been accepted by the Proponent and are incorporated into the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Included in these conditions is a requirement for additional water testing and hydrogeological assessment of each well in the subdivision for water quality and quantity. [62]

In respect of the issue of the settlement boundary, Mr. Gallivan pointed out that

the TOP explicitly establishes that boundaries are intended to be flexible (s. 9.0): It is intended that the boundaries of any kind of land use designation shown on Schedule ‘A’ be considered as approximate only, except where bounded by such features as existing roads, railways, rivers or other natural features … It will not be necessary to make amendments to the Official Plan for minor variations in the approximate boundaries provided that the intent of the Plan is preserved.

20 [63]

Page 155 of 211 PL160168

Mr. Gallivan rebuffs Mr. Dorfman’s characterization of Hartington as a

“crossroads community”, and his statement that Hartington is “clearly a rural community without a mix of land uses for the purpose of interpreting the PPS 2014”. The PPS defines settlement areas as “built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses”, and “lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long-term planning horizon”. Mr. Gallivan pointed out that unlike the other “crossroads” communities referenced by Mr. Dorfman, Hartington has a variety of development types and community servicing including a gas station/convenience store, a public library and museum, a car wash, a commuter parking lot and a fire station. Moreover, Hartington is a designated settlement area. [64]

Mr. Gallivan also rejects Mr. Dorfman’s notion that “Hartington is not intended as

a primary population growth settlement area” in the Township. Both the COP and the TOP direct new growth to settlement areas. Hartington is a designated settlement area. The Hartington community is established along Highway 38, one of the major north/south transportation spines in the County. Highway 38 provides direct access to the City of Kingston and is a primary transportation corridor between Kingston/Highway 401 to Highway 7. Hartington is within a comfortable commute of City-related service facilities, amenities and employment opportunities. From this, it can logically be anticipated that new residential development will occur in Hartington. Parenthetically, both the County and the Township support the principle that new residential subdivision development occurring in a designated settlement area is preferable to this type of development taking place in the rural designation. The Township: [65]

Mr. Goodreid was retained by the Township to provide land use planning

evidence at this hearing after the planning analysis and recommendations of the Township planner was rejected by Council. [66]

In the course of the hearing, the Proponent and the County agreed to a number

of the additions/revisions to the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval

Page 156 of 211 PL160168

recommended by Mr. Goodreid. As a result of these concessions, Mr. Goodreid’s only remaining issue is the matter of the delineation of the Hartington Settlement Area boundary. By his calculation Lots 6 and 7 and Part of Lot 8 (residential lots), Block 14 (cul-de-sac road) and Block 15 (stormwater management facility) are outside of the Hartington Settlement Area boundary. Mr. Goodreid maintains the southern boundary is determined by measurement from Boyce Road. [67]

It is his position that the Draft Plan is not permitted to extend beyond the

Settlement Area boundary. In that regard, the PPS establishes that an expansion of a settlement area may only occur at the time of a comprehensive review. The COP establishes that Settlement Area Boundary Expansions are to be determined by the local official plan and shall require an amendment to the official plan. There has not been a comprehensive review undertaken that would allow an expansion to the Settlement of Hartington, nor has an amendment to the TOP been approved. [68]

Mr. Goodreid submits that while the principle of residential subdivision

development is established within the Settlement Area designation, this form of development is not supported outside the Settlement Area boundary. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated why the subdivision and linear stormwater management facility cannot be contained within the Settlement Area boundary. The scope of the Settlement Area boundary expansion that would be required in this case is not a minor variation. In his opinion, there is no justification for extending the boundary to accommodate this development. [69]

Mr. Goodreid takes the position that the Hartington Settlement Area boundary as

represented on Schedule A of the TOP should be delineated on the Draft Plan and form the southerly limit of development. In his opinion, only the stormwater management outlet to the PVMD should be allowed to be located outside the Settlement boundary. This would require that the number of residential lots be reduced.

Page 157 of 211 PL160168

The HCA: [70]

Mr. Dorfman was retained by the HCA in June 2016. In his opinion, the

development proposal is not good planning, it is not in the public interest, and it should not be approved. [71]

Mr. Dorfman described Hartington as a predominantly rural residential

municipality with hardly any commercial lands and uses. The Hartington community was established in the 1850s and has not experienced significant residential growth since that time. By his count there are 118 people currently residing in two farm-related and 43 non-farm related dwellings within the Hartington Settlement Area. According to Mr. Dorfman it is this slow growth rate that establishes the continuing character of the community. The scale of development being proposed will change that character. In his opinion, the proposed development will prejudice the existing character of the community and is not beneficial in maintaining its traditional sense of place. [72]

The subject lands have been used for agricultural purposes for the past 150

years. The land use pattern in Hartington is based on the historic road configuration. The proposal creates a new street with thirteen dwellings that do not relate to a significant majority of the existing dwelling stock. The proposed subdivision would be the first ever significant residential change and the first new public roadway in this community since the mid 1800s. The scale of development being proposed will change the character of the Settlement Area by creating a new public street with dwellings that do not relate to a significant majority of the existing dwelling stock. In his opinion, if the proposed subdivision is approved and built the Hartington Settlement Area will no longer be defined as a traditional “crossroads community”. [73]

The PPS promotes intensification in designated settlement areas. In this case,

rather than to increase the residential density of the Hartington Settlement Area, the proposal will result in a reduction in total density, contrary to the provincial interest. The existing net density of non-farm residential properties in the Hartington Settlement Area is 2.82 units per ha (“uph”). The net density of the proposed 13 residential lots is

Page 158 of 211 PL160168

1.24 uph. The existing development, together with the proposed development, will result in a net density of 2.17 uph. [74]

Mr. Dorfman maintains that growth throughout the County is intended to be quite

slow over the 25 year planning period. While admittedly it has not been explicitly set out, he maintains the majority of the planned growth in the Township is expected to occur in the villages of Sydenham, Harrowsmith and Verona. He interprets from this that Hartington is not intended as a primary population growth settlement area. [75]

The COP allocates 70% (3,500 persons) of the total estimated population growth

in the County to the year 2034 (5,000 persons) to the Township. This equates to an average of 140 persons per year. Based on a rate of 2.61 people per unit, the 13 new homes proposed to be created by the Draft Plan will increase the Hartington Settlement Area population by a total of 34 persons (29%), which he contends amounts to significant community growth. [76]

The COP sets out the planning framework for mixed-use and residential

development in existing settlement areas. These policies speak to efficient development patterns and road connections, and encourage mixed use development in settlement areas. The proposal does not meet these policies. The proposed subdivision is designed with large lots on a single public road that is 425 m in length, which in his opinion, is not an efficient pattern of development. [77]

The Residential Policies of the TOP establishes development criteria for single

detached dwellings (s. 5.6.1.) The relevant criterion in this case is; 1) private water supply and sanitary sewage disposal systems serviced in accordance with Section 6.1 of the TOP; 2) a minimum lot area of 0.8 ha; and, 3) development should be compatible with existing and proposed land uses. [78]

Mr. Dorfman contends the first criterion is not met because according to Messrs.

Ruland and Chard it has not demonstrated that the required water, sewage and stormwater servicing is sufficient to protect the health and safety of present and future

Page 159 of 211 PL160168

residents. In his view, this uncertainty is sufficient cause to not approve the proposal. The second criterion is a minimum requirement and is met. In terms of the third criterion, detail has not been provided about how the compatibility test is satisfied. In this regard, the requirement for a minimum 0.8 ha residential lot will decrease the total net density in the Settlement Area. Furthermore, requiring lots that are larger in area than existing lots changes the character of the established Settlement Area. It is his contention that from a land use planning perspective, creating “estate lots” in a historic settlement area is dysfunctional. HYRDROGEOLOGY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE EVIDENCE The Proponent: [79]

Mr. Prinsen was retained by the Proponent in October 2012. He has expertise

and considerable experience in the design and engineering of civil and municipal infrastructure, including stormwater management works. [80]

A Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (the “Preliminary Report”)

prepared on the basis of a 47-lot plan of subdivision recommended a wet pond stormwater management facility for the lots proposed to be created north of the PVMD. An Addendum to the Preliminary Report (the “Addendum”) was prepared for the current 13-lot proposal. The Addendum recommends an interim 20 m linear stormwater management block (Block 15) as an extension of a proposed roadway. This scheme provides an option for the future provision of a permanent stormwater management facility in the location identified in the Preliminary Report. County and Township public works and planning staff were supportive of this scheme because it did not preclude future development of the adjacent lands. [81]

The proposed stormwater management block will accommodate a linear wet

pond facility and permit access to the PVMD for maintenance purposes. A supplementary preliminary sketch has now been prepared which demonstrates a wet pond facility concept that provides for 600 square metres (“sq m”) of permanent pool

Page 160 of 211 PL160168

storage and 700 sq m of extended detention and quality storage. These volumes exceed the storage capability of the north stormwater management facility originally proposed for the 47-lot concept. In that case, the facility was designed for 20 lots north of the PVMD which comprise an area twice as large as the 13-lot lot proposal. [82]

The Preliminary Report and Addendum include existing and preliminary

proposed grading information (detailed grading is not required at the draft plan stage). The existing grade of the development area ranges from 1 to 4 m above the grade at the PVMD; the proposed lots will be graded higher yet. The proposed lots and drainage will include flatter surfaces, swales, and ditch grades that will promote infiltration. Ditches and swales will generally be built up. The wet pond facility will be located above the high groundwater level and will be constructed with a clay lining. This facility will require the approval of the QCA, the Township and the MOECC. [83]

Mr. Prinsen said that although details about the stormwater management works

in the linear block have not been provided in the Addendum, the Proponent owns approximately 8 ha of vacant land between the development area and the PVMD which provides ample room for an appropriate facility. [84]

In response to concerns raised by Mr. Chard a revised Preliminary Report has

been advanced which provides additional information on the stormwater management facility and proposed grading, and includes a plan/profile of the proposed roadway and drainage system. This report demonstrates that site and ditch excavation and grading will generally be minor and above bedrock elevation. Some bedrock excavation is expected to be required for the stormwater management facility. The revised modelling and development design, inclusive of grading, drainage and stormwater management works, continues to demonstrate that stormwater management can be fully addressed. [85]

In regard to the concern that the runoff volume may increase and have negative

downstream impacts, Mr. Prinsen pointed out that no such concerns have been identified by Township staff or the QCA. Although delay peak flow analysis is not a specific requirement, the 100-year calculation and hydrograph in the original and

Page 161 of 211 PL160168

advanced modelling demonstrate that both pre-development and post development flows have negligible times of concentration. As required by the QCA and the MOECC post development flows will be limited to pre-development levels, and therefore, the proposed development will not exacerbate the need for maintenance or repair of the PVMD. [86]

Currently, there is drainage flow from the subject lands to the channel on the

adjacent property to the west (the Leonard property). It has been indicated that the property owner may not allow that to continue. Mr. Prinsen advised that if the use of that drain outlet (Outlet 2) cannot be satisfactorily resolved, drainage along the west side of the subject property can readily be redirected to the PVMD via an existing ditch extending northerly from the PVMD. [87]

Mr. Prinsen maintains the level of drainage and stormwater management study

undertaken to date goes beyond what is required for Draft Plan Approval. The Preliminary Report and Addendum addresses all issues and concerns that were raised throughout the technical circulation period following review of the application by the relevant County and Township departments, the QCA, public authorities and the peer review agencies. [88]

Furthermore, as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval a final Stormwater

Management Report with detailed engineering drawings addressing grading, drainage, and stormwater management will be required prior to final approval of the subdivision. This report will require the approval of the QCA and the Township, and will subject to review by the MOECC for Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”). [89]

Mr. Johnston was retained in 2012 to complete a Hydrogeological Study (the

“Study”) and terrain analysis for the subject lands. The specific purpose of this Study was to assess the hydrogeological suitability of the subject lands for a 49-lot rural residential development with individual wells and septic systems.

27 [90]

Page 162 of 211 PL160168

Mr. Johnston confirmed that investigative work far in excess of the MOECC D-5-

4 and D-5-5 Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) minimum requirements has been carried to support the hydrogeological site characterization and impact assessment of the proposed subdivision and the neighbouring lands. [91]

Essentially, the pumping tests, pre- and post- neighbouring well water surveys,

predictive interference/impact assessment analysis, and seasonal groundwater monitoring data demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will not adversely impact the quantity or quality of the drinking water supply of residents in the vicinity of the development area. In his opinion, the Study findings satisfy the MOECC protocols and support Draft Plan Approval. [92]

The investigative work completed to date demonstrates that there is sufficient

aquifer supply available to meet the daily domestic peak demand water needs of the subdivision, and that the quality and quantity of the drinking water supply of residents in the vicinity of the development area will not be adversely impacted by the proposal. [93]

The neighbouring properties and the subdivision lands primarily share the

limestone Gull River bedrock water supply aquifer. The subdivision is located in a recharge area where precipitation enters the subsurface and migrates downward into the regional limestone Gull River formation and the lower water bearing Precambrian formation. Based on pumping test results radial interference on existing neighbours is not significant (less than 1.0 m following two hours of peak demand pumping at distances greater than 100 m from the development area). For the most part, recharge through precipitation at the development area will be utilized by the subdivision properties. The limestone Gull River formation in the Hartington hamlet has been identified as moderately to highly sensitive to surficial impacts (reference: Eastern Cataraqui Regional Groundwater Study). The field work demonstrates there is ample water supply from the on-site recharge to sustain the proposed subdivision. [94]

Utilizing a filtration factor of 0.5 (50%) to assess recharge, there would 23 million

litres of groundwater recharge into the 11.85 ha development area, or almost three

Page 163 of 211 PL160168

times what the subdivision would require on an annual basis. This does not even take into account the approximately 1,000 litres per day per residence that would flow through the tertiary septic systems of the new homes back into the aquifer, which would account for approximately 4.75 million litres of additional water recharging back into the supply aquifer on an annual basis. [95]

Interference monitoring results measured during pumping tests, compared to

design peak demand periods, at pumping rates of 15 litres per minute is a clear indicator that the subdivision will not adversely impact the long-term water supply of the existing neighbouring properties. To further protect and ensure the long term viability of the water supply of the subdivision and neighbouring wells, each lot in the subdivision will be investigated by a qualified hydrogeologist to confirm hydrogeological characteristics for future development. This additional measure establishes a higher level of testing and reporting protocols than is required by the Guidelines. [96]

The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority reported drought conditions during

the summer of 2016. Well water level monitoring at the development site from June to August 2016 was undertaken in three of the subdivision test wells (TW01, TW02 and TW03). Monitoring results identified an average of 0.5 m to 2.0 m change in water levels; 93% to 99% of the well water supply was still available in these wells. The 2 m change in water level occurred in the well located closest to an existing neighbouring property (TW01). These results indicate that ample water supply is available in each subdivision well to support the proposed development. [97]

Information has not been provided about the three wells in the vicinity of the

development site that reportedly went dry during the 2016 drought period. These occurrences may be attributable to the well being shallow and/or poorly constructed wells, and/or the inability of the affected well to sufficiently interact with well bearing fractures. Regardless of what may have caused these wells to go dry, water supply is not anticipated to be an issue for the subdivision wells and the subdivision is not expected to be of considerable influence on neighbouring wells.

29 [98]

Page 164 of 211 PL160168

The pre- and post- neighbouring well water sampling program identified similar

water quality before and following the pumping tests. Hydrogen sulphide (sulfur) concentrations were identified in the water chemistry; two neighbouring wells had a slight increase in sodium levels, 11 of the residential wells showed sodium levels similar to pre-pumping levels, and sodium concentrations were decreased in six wells following the pumping tests. Treatment for locally common aesthetic and health related parameters may be required for some subdivision wells, in which case, treatment technologies are readily available. [99]

The pumping tests and groundwater chemistry results for nitrate indicate the

bacteriological quality of the well water meets the MOECC D-5-5 Guideline and the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (“ODWQS”) criteria for private drinking wells. As the proposed development area is down gradient from other properties in the vicinity of the development area it can reasonably be concluded that the development lands do impact the water quality of neighbouring properties. [100] The Health Unit’s review of the development site confirmed that each of the proposed 13 lots is suitable to support a Class 4 raised leaching bed system as prescribed by the OBC. The nitrate assessment analysis data supports development of thirteen residential lots using OBC appropriate raised-bed septic systems. To eliminate any potential for nitrate impact to the groundwater supply from the proposed subdivision, the County’s peer reviewer recommended that tertiary treatment (prefiltration and disinfection) be considered to supplement the Class 4 septic system. This recommendation has been adopted as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval. [101] Some Hartington residents reported having experiencing well contamination in the past. In 2010, bacterial contamination was identified in wells located along Highway 38 southeast of the development lands. The MOECC has identified that the source of this contamination was a neighbouring well that was exposed to poor farming management practices, including the storage of manure adjacent to a well. This farm has since been decommissioned and adjacent water sources have been restored to a

Page 165 of 211 PL160168

standard suitable for domestic consumption. Subsequent testing and analysis found no E. coli bacteria present in the groundwater of the subdivision wells. [102] Mr. Johnston pointed out that there is no evidence to date that the drinking water aquifer has been adversely impacted by the former gas bar property. That property is approximately 300 m east and down slope from the development site. The directional flow of water from that property is to the south and east, away from the subject lands. In order to assess whether the subdivision was at risk of impact from the development site, groundwater sampling and analyses of three subdivision test wells, and groundwater modelling to assess whether there was potential to “pull” the contaminant was undertaken in 2016. The wells selected for this testing (TW01, TW02, and TW09) were chosen because they are located nearest to the site. [103] Water samples were tested for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (“PHC”) (F1-F4) analyses. Results of the chemical analyses for parameters of concern were below laboratory detection limits, indicating that PHC contamination has not migrated to the development area. Groundwater sampling results from on-site wells did not identify PHC contaminants of concern, confirming the groundwater quality within the subdivision has not been adversely impacted by the former gas station property. [104] The modelling exercise to assess the potential “pull” of groundwater incorporated the effects of instantaneous pumping of 43 wells in the hamlet and the development area. The results of the modelling demonstrated that while land owners immediately down gradient and adjacent to the former PHC spill area may be subject to potential contamination, the proposed subdivision is not at risk. The MOECC continues to monitor this site. [105] Mr. Johnston disagrees with the notion there are no barriers to prevent surface contamination from reaching the depths of most wells in the aquifer. There is no evidence of karst, vertical fractures, or a highly permeable bedrock environment to suggest that pathways in the bedrock have not been identified at the subject property.

Page 166 of 211 PL160168

There was no bedrock karst features found during the initial test pit investigation (December 2012), and additional bore hole drilling to a depth of 8 m in March/April 2017 did not present evidence of karstification. [106] Fine grained soils were noted in the test pits extending to a maximum depth of 1.2 m in the development area. The test pit work and the borehole drilling investigative work results identified minor horizontal bedding planes in the bedrock core that were less than 1 millimetre thick in the upper 1 to 2 m of the limestone bedrock, after which excellent quality limestone bedrock was encountered to depths approaching 8 to 9 m. This indicates the upper portion of the limestone bedrock is sporadically fractured, and then of good quality at depths approaching 30 m in the limestone bedrock aquifer, indicating that vertical groundwater recharge is not instantaneous at the development area. Several site reconnaissance visits in and around Hartington have been conducted and no evidence of grikes, sinkholes or karst springs have been observed in either the development area or other areas of the hamlet. [107] In regard to reported observations about groundwater pooling, Mr. Johnston confirmed that ponded water has been observed at the subject property during winter conditions when the ground is frozen (limiting infiltration) and during significant precipitation events. A site visit during a recent major precipitation event (April 2017) did not indicate wide spread ponding on the property. However, there was water flow observed through a shallow swale towards the south-west property boundary, where ponding in a concentration area was noted. [108] The surrounding landscape to the west, east and south of the development area slopes very gently downward to the south and southwest. On this basis alone it is logically difficult to perceive and understand how ponded water that does not make its way to shallow, gradually-graded ditches would have the ability to discharge down gradient before infiltrating into the subsurface. This is further evidenced by the artesian (flowing) wells that were observed along Boyce Road less than 300 m from the subject property. Mr. Johnston contends that if surface water is carried away as rapidly as has been claimed, this phenomenon would not be observed.

Page 167 of 211 PL160168

[109] In response to the postulations of an unidentified well, referred to by Mr. Ruland as the “mystery well”, Mr. Johnston explained that eight on-site test wells were initially advanced by Davey Well Drilling in late December 2012 and early spring 2013. These wells were drilled into the Paleozoic limestone and Precambrian basement granite bedrock and constructed to MOECC Regulation 903 Standards. A ninth well was drilled in the northern portion of the property in February 2013. The related well record was reported to the MOECC by Davey Well Drilling as not finished. According to the Proponent, this well was subjected to high pressure water hydrofracturing in early March 2013. The hydrofracturing was undertaken in the Precambrian formulation at a well depth of 30 to 40 m. According to Davey Well Drilling, this hydrofracturing was conducted by a third party that is no longer in business, and there are no hydrofracturing records to support the depth at which hydrofracturing was conducted. Davey Well Drilling indicated the hydrofracturing process did not improve well water supply. [110] Mr. Johnston testified he was not aware that hydrofracturing had been conducted on this well at the time he was conducting the Study; he was notified of this by the Proponent in the fall of 2014. This hydrofracturing took place before any of the well pumping tests associated with the Study were planned or scheduled. This well was not accessed or used in the Study pumping tests, monitoring and/or sampling program or the subsequent follow-up supplementary work (2013-2016). There were already more wells on the development lands than required to satisfy the Guidelines, and furthermore, groundwater chemistry quality results have not indicated impairment to the limestone or Precambrian aquifers(s) due to hydrofracturing activity. [111] Mr. Johnston reiterated that each subdivision lot will be subjected to a hydrogeological assessment completed by a qualified person before a building permit is issued. In his opinion these efforts go well beyond the minimum requirements of Procedure D-5-5 (Technical Guideline for Private Wells), and provides an increased degree of assurance that the subdivision as proposed is sustainable in the long term.

Page 168 of 211 PL160168

The County: [112] Mr. Pyke peer reviews plans of subdivision and provides relevant advice to the County. The Peer Review process involves a review of the technical reports provided to support the application and is intended to identify any deficiencies in the technical reports. These reports are evaluated in the context of regulatory standards, guidelines and standard scientific practices, including the following: •

O. Reg. 169/03, Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards;

•

Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Developments, MOEECC, April 1995;

•

Procedure D-5-4 Technical Guidelines for individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Assessment, MOECC, April 1996;

•

Procedures D-5-5 Technical Guidelines for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment, MOECC, March 1995; and,

•

Water Supply Wells – Requirements and Best Management Practices, MOECC, Revised April 2015.

[113] Mr. Pyke agrees that the investigative work completed by the Proponent to date exceeds what is outlined in the MOECC D-5-4 and D-5-5 guidelines, and in his opinion, is more than sufficient to support Draft Plan Approval. On the basis of his thorough peer review, he recommended that the Draft Plan be approved subject to the adoption of recommended provisions set out in his letters dated April 15, 2015 and August 9, 2016. While acknowledging these provisions go beyond the requirements of the Guidelines, Mr. Pyke maintains the application of enhanced precautionary measures is in the public interest. These provisions will also allow the qualified person(s) conducting the additional future assessments to adaptively manage variability that may be encountered.

Page 169 of 211 PL160168

[114] The quality analyses indicate that the water at the proposed subdivision is suitable for potable purposes. Initial bacterial testing for total coliforms showed that three of 11 wells, two on the development site and one on the lands owned by the Proponent to the south, exceeded the MOECC guidelines of less than 6 counts per 100 millilitres. Mr. Pyke explained that the presence of total coliform in newly drilled wells is not uncommon. [115] A number of off-site wells on lands not owned by the Proponent also were observed to have exceedances of the total Coliform Guideline. The presence of coliform is commonly an issue for older wells where the well seal has been breached or the well has not been properly maintained. In the circumstance, it could be that the E. coli source is localized to individual wells rather than aquifer-related. Subsequent testing results from 11 wells across the development lands and nine off-site wells for E. coli did not identify exceedances of the Guideline or the ODWQS. In line with best practices, filtration and UV treatment of the subdivision drinking water systems is required as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval. [116] Mr. Pyke pointed out that no evidence has been adduced to date to support either the inference that “the aquifer is unable to support existing development”, or that the statement that “water levels fluctuated 10 to 15 m (or more) daily”. Conversely, the water levels data collected through the investigation at the development site demonstrated consistent water levels, including throughout the 2016 drought. This data also indicated that more than 20 m of aquifer thickness was available, and no significant change in the water levels of the subdivision wells occurred during this period. [117] Mr. Pyke maintains the statement that an assessment of the interference from potential future wells to existing wells has only been assessed through a computer model, is not correct. The Proponent’s hydrogeological expert reported monitoring groundwater levels in adjacent onsite test wells and offsite observation wells (neighbouring domestic wells) during pump testing. The draw of water from the 13 subdivision wells was observed though it did not have a significant influence on the water levels at the development site. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision is down

Page 170 of 211 PL160168

gradient or cross gradient from the majority of adjacent well users, and as such, the proposed development is not anticipated to cause significant change in the water levels in the aquifer or impact existing users. As a precautionary measure additional future monitoring of interference through pump testing and the monitoring of groundwater levels is established in the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. [118] Mr. Pyke also does not agree that “there are no barriers to prevent surface water contamination from reaching the depths of most wells in the aquifer”. Based on the near horizontal bedding of the bedrock and the existence of soil cover, and in consideration of the observations from the additional borehole drilling at the site (March/April 2017), which did not produce evidence of significant karst, there is no basis or support for this statement. The proposed layouts of the lots in combination with the staggered well orientation and the placement of the well and septic system on opposite sides of the dwelling provides additional precautionary measures. [119] In regard to the former gas station property, ongoing monitoring of the groundwater plume indicates that the PHC plume has been delineated in the shallow groundwater. Testing of drinking wells (from deeper into the aquifer) on nearby and adjacent properties have not identified detections of PHC. The development site is hydraulically cross or up gradient of the former gas station, meaning the directional flow of water from the former gas bar property is in the opposite direction of the subdivision lands. Accordingly, the potential for impacts to the subdivision lands from the contamination site are negligible. The MOECC is continuing to monitor the site. [120] Ms. McClure is the Water Resources Manager at the QCA. She has expertise in stormwater management, surface water hydrogeology and hydraulics, and has completed several hundred stormwater management reviews for QCA and the Lower Trent Conservation Authority. Her first involvement in this proposal was in July 2013 at which time she participated in an on-site pre-consultation meeting involving Mr. Prinsen and QCA planning and regulations staff. She subsequently completed a preliminary review of the Stormwater Management Report and associated drawings.

Page 171 of 211 PL160168

[121] The QCA Water Resources Department reviewed the Draft Plan application to determine whether sufficient engineering support had been provided to demonstrate; a) that the stormwater management block is large enough to achieve quality and quantity controls; b) that the level of quality and quantity controls that are appropriate for the lands; and c), whether the lands can drain to the stormwater management block. [122] In Ms. McClure’s opinion, the Draft Plan and proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval adequately address stormwater management requirements for the subject property and the lands in the vicinity of the subject property. The Proponent proposes to utilize an enhanced ditch to provide stormwater quantity and quality control. As per the MOECC 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (“SMPDM”), lot level and conveyance controls such as enhanced grass swales are “only suitable for small drainage areas (less than 2 ha)”. In this case, the proposed development area exceeds the 2 ha limit; however, the drainage area to the enhanced ditch has not been quantified. The SMPDM provides water quality storage requirements for other stormwater treatment technologies that are suitable for larger contributing drainage areas, such as a wet pond which had been suggested in the earlier proposals. [123] Ms. McClure indicated that although calculations have not yet been provided to show that there is sufficient area to accommodate the quality and quantity controls, she is confident there is plenty of storage availability in the stormwater block. Alternatively, the Proponent owns sufficient other lands that could be used to provide stormwater management control. [124] Ms. McClure confirmed the Proponent will be required to address all outstanding matters in the Final Stormwater Management Report, which is required to include detailed drawings addressing grading, drainage and stormwater management. This report will be subject to review and approval by the Township and the QCA prior to final approval of the plan of subdivision. As well, all legal matters associated with tying the stormwater management from the development into the PVMD system must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Township. In the interim, the QCA will continue to

Page 172 of 211 PL160168

review the application for compliance with its Stormwater Management Guidelines until satisfied that these requirements have been met. The HCA [125] Mr. Ruland was approached by the HCA in March 2016 to complete an independent review of information which had been provided in respect of the proposed development. He has expertise in water resource and contamination issues. [126] Mr. Ruland maintains the question that needs to be answered is whether an almost 30% increase in the number of homes, wells and septic systems in Hartington is sustainable and can be accommodated without causing unacceptable impacts on the local aquifer and the domestic wells it supplies. In his view, without an understanding of the existing big picture any attempt to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development risks missing the mark. [127] The available hydrogeological information and accounts by local residents indicate the Hartington aquifer is seasonally stressed and being used at or beyond its summer/fall sustainable limits. Currently, the aquifer is not able to provide a safe, potable and adequate supply of drinking water to many residents of the hamlet, particularly during the summer months. In his opinion, the current development proposal is not sustainable, and if allowed to proceed, will have unacceptable impacts. [128] Mr. Ruland contends the prepared hydrogeology reports have not provided a coherent conceptual model for the existing conditions in the groundwater flow. The Hartington aquifer is situated in the fractured limestone bedrock and is highly vulnerable. Directions of lateral groundwater movement are influenced by topography, by local discharge points such as springs, and by significant withdrawals of groundwater (from wells), and not enough is known about the local groundwater flow. In this case, there does not appear to be any barriers that would prevent surface contamination from reaching the depths of the wells in the aquifer.

Page 173 of 211 PL160168

[129] The Hartington aquifer is showing unmistakable signs of stress, including reduced amounts of water availability to individual wells and deteriorating groundwater quality. The accounts of local residents demonstrate that the aquifer is reaching its limit on a regular basis during the summer dry periods. During summer/fall droughts the water table can drop by 5 to 10 m or more over early spring levels. There have been reports of water levels having dropped hard and wells going dry during these dry periods. There were several reports of local wells having gone dry during an unusually bad drought in the summer of 2016. [130] Hartington is situated on an upland bounded on three sides by considerable lower-lying lands. The elevation differential between the uplands (where the development lands are situated) and the low lands area is between 20 and 25 m. It follows from this that groundwater movement will have a downward component from the ground surface into the underlying aquifer. Basically, rain falls onto the upland area, seeps into the ground, and flows downward into the aquifer as it moves outward towards the margins of the upland. The ramification of this is that contaminants can travel downward from the ground surface to the aquifer and cause impairment of the well water supply. [131] Currently, groundwater flow directions from the development lands are radially outward from the northern and central portions of the property, and southward from the south lands. Groundwater flow directions can change if groundwater usage patterns change. The introduction of a cluster of new domestic wells can induce groundwater to move towards the wells, regardless of the existing direction of ground water movement. If the number of wells increases by 30% there will be a significant change in groundwater flow. [132] The undeveloped farms lands surrounding the hamlet, including the area proposed to be developed, play an important role in the recharging of the local groundwater flow system. By his calculation, the development area is currently recharging approximately 18.4 million litres of groundwater into the Hartington aquifer annually; water that is sorely needed in the hamlet during summer and early-fall dry

Page 174 of 211 PL160168

periods. The amount of groundwater recharge coming from the property will be significantly reduced if the proposed development proceeds; half of the volume currently being supplied will be lost. [133] The other major limitation on the quantity of groundwater in this aquifer is its relatively lower porosity, which severely impairs the ability of the aquifer to absorb infiltrating precipitation. This can be seen after heavy rainfalls or during wet seasons (late fall and spring) during which time there is often extensive ponding of water on the ground surface. A significant amount of this ponded water eventually finds its way to surface ditches which carry the water to the margins of the uplands. The result is that more than the usual amount of precipitation is being lost to surface runoff in the Hartington area. Lateral losses of groundwater from the aquifer due to groundwater discharge in seeps and springs at the margins of the upland result in further depletion of groundwater from the aquifer. The lateral losses of groundwater are facilitated by flow through higher-permeability karst channels where these are present. [134] Mr. Ruland contends the prepared impact assessment documents should have indicated that mildly karstic hydraulic conductivities were present in the aquifer. The process of progressive limestone bedrock dissolution over time can lead to characteristic features such as grikes, sinkholes and springs (karst) forming at the ground surface and in the subsurface. The presence of karstic dissolution makes the bedrock hydrogeology more complex and less predictable. The hydraulic calculated aquifer conductivities from the pump test results strongly indicate that karstic dissolution of the fractured limestone bedrock aquifer is occurring in the Hartington area. His concern is that consideration has not been given to vertical fractures and the resulting impact to groundwater movement. [135] Mr. Ruland maintains the aquifer is showing troubling signs of surface contamination in Hartington and the surrounding area. This aquifer comprises a complex and variable water flow system, which is highly permeable and strongly interconnected in some areas, and much less so in other areas. He said it appears there are enough vertical fractures to convey at least some surface groundwater deep

Page 175 of 211 PL160168

into the bedrock flow system, meaning, potential pathways are present which allow the downward movement of contaminants. These pathways combined with the thin soils make the aquifer vulnerable to contamination. In that regard, there is plenty of evidence of the vulnerability of the Hartington aquifer, including the water quality data. Coliform bacteria were found at some point in the testing done on seven of the 11 installed wells on the development lands, and found to be present in the water quality testing done on five of nine neighbouring wells. The presence of bacteria in brand new wells is strong evidence of the vulnerability of the aquifer. [136] The presence of nitrate in local groundwater is further evidence of contamination entering the aquifer from the ground surface. Nitrate was found to be present in tests done on 9 of 11 wells installed by the Proponent. Every additional well will increase the draw on the aquifer and the rate of downward groundwater movement. This means that surface contaminants will be drawn downward into the aquifer even more quickly. Similarly, every new septic system increases the loading of nitrate into the shallow groundwater, which is then drawn downward into the deeper parts of the aquifer that are tapped by domestic wells. [137] It is Mr. Ruland’s opinion that the general requirements defined in s. 4.0 and 5.1 of MOECC Procedure D-5-4 have not been met. Nitrate samples from properties adjacent to the development property have not been collected; seasonal variations in nitrate levels have not been captured; the susceptibility of groundwater to contamination has not been examined; and a reasonable explanation has not been provided for existing nitrate concentrations of 0-10 milligrams per litre as required by s. 5.1 c of Procedure D-5-4. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the area is not obviously hydro-geologically sensitive, as required by s. 5.1d). In his view, the County should have required a more appropriate and precautionary process for assessing potential nitrate loading to this sensitive aquifer. [138] Mr. Ruland reported having discovered what he referred to as “the mystery well” on the development property. He purports that the presence of this well was not disclosed to the HCA or the public and either the Proponent or his hydrogeologist

Page 176 of 211 PL160168

consultant must fully explain why it was not. Although he does not know for sure, he suspects the presence of this well also was not disclosed to the County or the Township. [139] By accounts of local residents, this well and possibly others on the development site were subjected to hydraulic fracturing. This is a process in which overpressures of many thousands of pounds per square inch are used with the goal of breaking the bedrock around a well and/or forcing open existing fractures to increase the flow of groundwater into the well. This procedure can affect both the quantity and quality of other wells in the vicinity. [140] The effects of hydraulic fracturing can be either positive or negative and are generally permanent. Of significant concern is the possibility that the hydraulically fractured open borehole of this well may be acting as a conduit, allowing contaminated groundwater to move vertically through the groundwater flow system. Whether or not any wells on the development lands have been fracked is obviously a key piece of information for the professionals who have reviewed this matter; the County, the Township, the QCA and the HCA. In this case, there is no way of knowing the true extent to which the fracking of this well improved the hydraulic and water quality characteristics of the aquifer in the area surrounding the well. [141] The impact assessment also failed to mention or assess the potential impacts of a working farm next door to the proposed subdivision. This farm has a livestock operation with approval for up to 101 pigs. Six of the proposed subdivision lots back onto this farm. A second farm operation across Boyce Road from the development site has cattle. [142] Mr. Ruland stated that his “gravest” concern is the presence of an area of ongoing PHC contamination caused by the leakage of fuel tanks from the former gas station property. The spill site is approximately 300 m from the development site, well within the 500 m perimeter of concern around the development property set out in MOECC Procedure D-5-5.

Page 177 of 211 PL160168

[143] Mr. Ruland declared that as a professional Geoscientist his duty to public health and safety is paramount. By way of a July 28, 2016 memorandum he informed his clients that the remediation of the spill site is not complete; the groundwater plume spill site is not delineated; and the proposed development could cause residential wells to become contaminated. On this same date, he submitted a memorandum to the Township recommending that all residents’ wells within the 300 m of the contaminant site be tested. He said the Township has declined to act on that recommendation and very little progress has been made in terms of clearing up or reducing the concerns listed in his memorandum. In his view, it is a serious mistake for the Township to not be conducting precautionary testing to a distance of 300 m of the spill site. He also provided this information to the MOECC, but no action has been taken. [144] Mr. Ruland conceded that no contaminants were detected in a recent round of sampling of water from several residential wells in the immediate area of the spill site completed by the Township, which he concurs, is good news. Notwithstanding that it would appear the ground contamination plume from the spill site is on a flow path that currently misses the residential wells tested by the Township, Mr. Ruland purports that very significant groundwater contamination is on the move in Hartington, and no one knows where it is going. [145] In that regard, the best-case scenario is that the benzene plume has somehow missed all residential wells in the Hartington community in its downgradient migration through the ground water flow system. However, it is quite possible that a 30% increase in the number of local wells will change the groundwater flow directions and could induce flow from the containment site toward the proposed subdivision, possibly causing one or more currently clean wells to become contaminated. [146] In summary, it is Mr. Ruland’s professional opinion that that the proposed subdivision should not be approved. The Hartington aquifer is a highly vulnerable and seasonally stressed aquifer with marginal to poor quality groundwater, and every new well and septic system will worsen the situation. In his view, the undelineated PHC

Page 178 of 211 PL160168

contamination plume emanating from the centre of the hamlet makes for a situation in which development such as is being proposed should not be considered. [147] In cross-examination, Mr. Ruland confirmed he has not visited the site or undertaken any testing of the site, and he did not attempt to contact the Hydrogeological consultant (MP) originally retained by the HCA seeking information about any technical analysis/studies that may had been completed. He conceded there is no evidence of any contamination in drinking water supply wells, or to support his statement that groundwater contamination “was on the move” in the hamlet. Although he agreed that facts are more beneficial to the Tribunal and typically “should be preferred over speculation”, he purports to be speaking from, and/or relying on his professional experience. He also confirmed he did not apprise the Medical Officer of Health of his concerns. [148] Mr. Chard was retained by the HCA in late November 2016 to conduct an independent review of the stormwater management components of the proposed subdivision with a view to the identification of the potential impacts on lands within the vicinity of the subject lands. He attended the required meeting of the experts and conducted a site visit. [149] In Mr. Chard’s opinion the main issue, downstream impact, has not been addressed. In his estimation the Preliminary Report significantly underestimated site runoff volumes and runoff rates. As a consequence, the technical analysis has not demonstrated that the proposed stormwater measures for either the initial 47-lot proposal or the revised 13-lot proposal will adequately control site runoff released to the PVMD. [150] In his opinion, the analysis also has not given adequate consideration to the capacity and condition of the PVMD. Mr. Chard indicated that achieving satisfactory surface drainage throughout the site is essential for the performance of the private sewage-disposal systems proposed to be installed on each of the residential lots. His review of the available topographic mapping of the site indicates that substantial re-

Page 179 of 211 PL160168

grading or placement of imported fill, or both, will be required to achieve satisfactory north-to-south drainage of the site to the PVMD. The determination of whether any maintenance or improvement of the PVMD is required in order to provide adequate service to the proposed subdivision and to ensure there is no increased flood risk to downstream property owners. [151] Should it be determined that improvements to the PVMD are required a new engineering report would need to be prepared in accordance with the Drainage Act. This requires that land owners in the drainage area be notified and consulted as a new Schedule of Assessment for the allocation of costs to benefitting landowners would have to be approved. Mr. Chard advises that based on his review there is a reasonable possibility that an evaluation of the PVMD would demonstrate that improvements are required. He maintains it is important that this evaluation precede Draft Plan Approval because in his view, relegating resolution of any legal matters related to the Drainage Act to a Condition of Draft Plan Approval would be unwise. [152] Moreover, the proposed development of the subject site could potentially have an impact on hydraulic recharge of the local bedrock aquifer. The Preliminary Report and Addendum do not provide an assessment of this potential impact. This assessment is warranted given the concerns about impacts on existing private wells on nearby properties. Development of a preliminary site grading plan is required for such an assessment in order to determine if it will be necessary for site drainage ditches to be excavated down into the bedrock. [153] For these reasons, it is his opinion that the Proponent should be required to provide a revised stormwater management/grading plan before Draft Plan Approval is considered. The revised plan should include an evaluation of the PVMD downstream of the development property; a preliminary site grading plan to demonstrate the feasibility of providing a satisfactory final design of the site drainage system; a requirement that the use of Outlet 2 be eliminated; and an assessment of the potential impact on hydrologic recharge of the bedrock groundwater aquifer.

Page 180 of 211 PL160168

[154] In summary, in Mr. Chard’s opinion there continues to be deficiencies in the supporting technical analysis provided in the Preliminary Report and Addendum. In this regard, the method used to estimate stormwater storage volumes is deficit; the downstream effect on water levels and flood risks along the PVMD has not been assessed; and, it has not been demonstrated that the operating water levels for the proposed facility are feasible given the elevation of the main branch channel at the proposed point of discharge to the PVMD. For these reasons, it is his professional opinion that Draft Plan Approval is premature. [155] Mr. Chard admitted in cross-examination that his only prior involvement with a rural plan of subdivision came earlier in his career (about 30 years prior) and that his experience with municipal drains works is somewhat limited. Submissions by Local Residents [156] Ms. Foxton and her family have resided at 3992 Boyce Road, located approximately 120 m from the proposed development lands, since 2002. She has been active in bringing her and her neighbours water-related concerns to Township and County Councils and municipal staff, and is a founding member of the HCA of which she is currently the President and her husband, Wade Leonard, is the Vice-President. The HCA is an incorporated non-profit organization which sole objective is to “to promote sustainable and responsible development in Hartington, Ontario and surrounding area”. The HCA currently has 118 members, many of whom live beside or near the subject lands. [157] The water supply to the Foxton household is from a private well drilled to a depth of approximately 190 feet. The family relies on water drawn from this well for drinking, cooking, bathing, cleaning and other domestic uses, and so they are very careful about the amount and timing of water use. Ms. Foxton said they have experienced both quantity and quality problems with the water drawn from their well. Shortly after moving into their home they discovered that their well is slow to recharge, and sometimes draws sand into the water system. They installed a whole-house sediment filter and replaced

Page 181 of 211 PL160168

their appliances, hot water tank and water softener with water efficient models. Given their proximity to nearby farms, an ultraviolet light system and a reverse osmosis system was also added to ensure the safety of the household drinking water supply. [158] They first began experiencing sulphur odours in the well water after a near-by car wash installed a new well in 2006. This odour presents intermittently and typically lasts for days before gradually dissipating. In December 2012, the Foxton’s were notified that the Proponent’s hydrogeological consultant wanted to monitor their well level while pumping tests were been carried out on the subject property. Essentially, it was reported to them that the pre-test water sampling (January 13, 2013) indicated that no bacteriological contaminants were detected, but that their water contained sodium concentrations three times higher than Ontario’s health-based standard. Additional pumping tests carried out at the subject lands in March 2013 yielded the same results. Following these pumping tests, and again immediately following a second round of pumping tests conducted in September 2014, they detected a sulphur odour in their water. The pumping tests indicated that there were fluctuations and an increase in the water level in their well while the test wells were being pumped on the subject lands. [159] Ms. Foxton said that after she and other concerned local residents became aware of potential hydrocarbon contamination of the local aquifer in 2016, they decided to retain an independent hydrogeologist (Wilf Ruland) with experience in groundwater contamination matters, and a land use planner (Mark Dorfman). Ms. Foxton confirmed she personally provided copies of Mr. Ruland’s and Mr. Dorfman’s expert reports to Township and County officials, the Health Unit, QCA and the MOECC. However, other than an acknowledgement of receipt of the documents, she never received any written responses from these officials and/or agencies in regard to Mr. Ruland’s reports or the recommendations contained therein. [160] In 2016, the HCA retained a professional engineer (Harold Chard) to review the adequacy of the Proponent’s proposals and supporting documentation in relation to stormwater management. In that regard, as a long-time resident Ms. Foxton has personally observed the following:

47 •

Page 182 of 211 PL160168

significant volumes of standing water on and in the vicinity of the subject lands, and upstream and downstream of the PVMD;

•

high water levels that have produced localized flooding of the ditches and fields along the PVMD, usually occurring in the spring and fall, either after snowmelt or during significant rainfall events;

•

standing water lasting for several days is often experienced in the fields behind their home and in their east side after significant rainfall in the spring and fall - their property is partially drained by a surface water ditch that flows southwards into the PVMD; and,

•

to date, she has never observed any maintenance work on the PVMD being carried out by the Township or its contractors.

[161] Linda Stewart has resided at 5539 Highway 38 since 2002. She has two wells on her property; one is an older well installed inside a dug well which she uses for lawn and garden watering, the other, a drilled well installed in 1997 is used for domestic purposes. She first experienced impacts to the quality of the water in this well about two years after a new car wash across the road from her property became operational in 2006. The water utilized by the car wash operation is supplied by an on-site well. It is her understanding that the newly installed well on the car wash property was fracked in order to increase water supply. [162] In February 2009, she noticed that the water from the second well was very discoloured. Testing of her water by the Health Unit revealed the presence of very high levels of E. coli. A subsequent investigation by the MOECC identified the barnyard to the north of her property as the source of this bacterial contamination. She said based on many conversations with officials during the course of this investigation, she understands the MOECC identified the fracking of the car wash well as a possible contributing factor in the contamination of her well. After this incident, she installed ultraviolet disinfection equipment on this well. The offending barnyard was

Page 183 of 211 PL160168

subsequently cleaned up and the cattle relocated to another property. She has not experienced any further E. coli contamination. [163] Due to the proximity of her property to the subject land, her second well was included in the pumping tests carried out on behalf of the Proponent. The test results indicated a slight increase in the water level in her well, which was purportedly attributed to usage of the well during the pumping test, but she was not at home on the two occasions that her well was being monitored and to her knowledge, no water was used or drawn from the well during the pumping tests. She continues to be very concerned about potential well water quality and quantity impacts that may be caused by the proposed development. Based on her past experience with the car wash matter, she questions the Township’s willingness and/or ability to enforce site-specific conditions imposed by the Act. [164] Angela Livie and her family moved into their home at 4033 Boyce Road on November 4, 2011. They had been searching for a home and decided to purchase this property because it was in the country, and enthusiastically purchased the property while the home was still under construction. Their property backs onto the proposed development lands. According to Ms. Livie, the Proponent and his real estate agent told them the fields behind the house were farm fields; she said “they did not mention the proposed development”. It was shortly after they moved into their new home that they heard about the development proposal [165] The water supply to their home is drawn from a private well approximately 98 feet deep. Ms. Livie said they have experienced water quality issues since the day they moved into the home. On closing day her husband noticed a smell in the house, which the Proponent said was due to the water not being used and that running the taps would fix it. Running the taps did not fix the problem. Ms. Livie concedes that they did not undertake independent water testing. They have since installed an ultraviolet drinking water treatment system, water softener and aerate system. The water treatment has generally helped, but when the smell returned during the summer of 2016 the treatment system was not able to alleviate it. At that same time they began to experience water

Page 184 of 211 PL160168

quantity problems. They had to truck water in for the flower gardens, take their laundry elsewhere, and limit the duration of showers to five minutes. [166] Mr. Hasler has resided at 4175 Boyce Road since 1987. His residential property is located approximately 1.4 kilometres to the west of the proposed development lands. The water supply to his home is drawn from a well that is 56 feet deep. When the well was first drilled in 1987, it provided 6.5 gallons per minute of slightly hard water with a high concentration of iron. He installed a water softener, an iron filter, and an ultraviolet light, after which the Health Unit approved the water for human consumption. Until the car wash was built, his well was artesian. In July and August of 2011, his home and surrounding lands experienced a dry spell which caused even the 90 acre wetland alongside his dwelling to dry up. [167] In the spring of 2016, Mr. Hasler again began monitoring well water levels. Between May 1 and October 15, the static water level dropped 7 feet, 8 inches. The submersible pump reaches 5 feet from the bottom of the well. In October 2016, the pump started to thermally shut down. He discovered that running the pump for 15 minutes caused the water level to be drawn below the pump, prompting the thermal shutdown. It took the well two hours to recharge enough to produce water again. Mr. Hasler reported that his well has started to rebound, but it is still a long way from being back to normal. Based on his experiences since 2006-2007 he is very concerned about potential water quantity impacts that could be caused by the proposed development. [168]

Ms. Oliveira resides at 3924 Petworth Road, having moved there in January

She has since sold the property and the new owners are expected to move in on April 28, 2017. This property is located on the Harrowsmith-Hartington border and is due south of the proposed development lands. She moved into her home during the winter and consequently, was unaware of the amount of surface water that flowed over and around her property - the ponding of water became evident in the spring. [169] In the spring of 2011, the driveway and areas around the home were flooded by significant amounts of standing water, at times, as much as 2 feet deep. To alleviate

Page 185 of 211 PL160168

the flooding a ditch was dug on the west side of the house to collect and direct the water to a natural levee, and several (16 to 18) truckloads of fill were deposited on the property. The up-grading helped facilitate water run-off from the property, but the west ditch still often overflows during wet conditions. [170] Mr. (Wade) Leonard resides at 3992 Boyce Road. Prior to moving to his current home he lived and worked for decades on the family dairy farm located at 4004 Boyce Road. The farm maintained up to 50 head of cattle between 1912 and 1998. The water for the barn was drawn from a well 110 feet deep. The water supply to the farmhouse was drawn from a low yield well dug approximately 18 feet deep. He said although water was always a concern on the farm, supply shortages occurred more frequently during the last years of full operation of the farm (mid 1990s). The lack of a sustainable water supply was one of the factors that lead to a herd reduction and ultimately the closure of the dairy farm. Submission of the Participant [171] Steven Leonard owns and operates a livestock farm at 4057 Boyce Road. Like other property owners in this area, he is concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the water quality and supply in this area. His other concerns are that the development proposal will impede his ability to expand his livestock operation due to MDS requirements, and that he will have to contend with livestock/farm-related nuisance complaints from future residents of the proposed subdivision. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [172] The Tribunal has reviewed the documentary materials provided and considered the evidence of the expert witnesses, the concerns of local residents, and the submissions and case reviews provided by counsel. [173] In order to grant Draft Plan Approval the Tribunal must first be satisfied that the development plan being proposed is in accordance with the provincial and local land use planning policies. It is of importance to understand that Draft Plan Approval is not

Page 186 of 211 PL160168

the end of the approvals process. As Mr. Keene correctly pointed out the proposed plan of subdivision must receive Final Approval before any development can occur. Final Approval is not provided until such time that the requisite Conditions of Draft Plan Approval are fulfilled and the necessary regulatory approvals and/or permits have been secured. It is also of significance that if the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval are not or cannot be fulfilled the plan of subdivision as currently proposed will not advance. [174] Moreover, the mechanics of water and sewer servicing, stormwater management facilities and drainage, and the lot grading plan are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. These are aspects of a development proposal that are regulated by the OBC and for which the municipal Chief Building Officer has approval authority, and/or is subject to QCA and MOECC approvals. [175] In regard to the planning merits of the proposal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the policy directives of the PPS, conforms to the policy objectives of the COP and TOP, and meets the criteria set out in s. 54 (24) of the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the recommended Conditions of Draft Plan Approval appropriately respond to matters of provincial interest and are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. [176] The issue of the Settlement Area boundary is unsustainable. Firstly, Mr. Goodreid’s contention that “this form of development is not permitted outside the Settlement Area boundary” is not correct. To the contrary, it is established in the TOP that a plan of subdivision is permitted in both the Rural and the Settlement Areas designation. [177] The COP assigns the designation of Settlement Areas, including the delineation of the boundaries, to the Township. It is noteworthy that in a November 18, 2015 report to Council the Township staff planner (Lindsay Mills) indicated that the proposed 13 residential lots “are all within the hamlet boundary”. That same position is held by the County’s former planning consultant (Michael Otis) in an August 24, 2016 report to

Page 187 of 211 PL160168

County Council. Both Messrs. Keene and Gallivan maintain the proposed residential lots are all within the Settlement Area boundary. [178] Furthermore, the non-residential components of the proposed subdivision are not required to be located within the Settlement Area boundary. The TOP provides that, except for the Agricultural and Environmental Protection designation, stormwater management works and a public street are permitted in any designation and zoning category. [179] The significant issues in this case are water quality and quantity, and to a lesser degree, stormwater management. Residents of the Hartington community have on occasion experienced water-related difficulties, including odorous tap water, low well water supply levels, contamination of well water, and property flooding. The diligent attendance and attentiveness of several residents on each day of the hearing is indicative of the community’s deeply-held concerns about the quality and quantity of local drinking water. The Tribunal has given careful regard to these matters. [180] Foremost, it is the Tribunal’s observation that all sides in this dispute are alive to the importance of the sustainability of an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The County and the Township retained expert peer-review consultants, as did the HCA. Substantive investigative work has been undertaken by the Proponent’s experts. The QCA has been involved throughout the process and continues to monitor this development application. The Township retained an environmental consultant in response to the contamination at the former gas station property and the MOECC is continuing to monitor the situation at that site. [181] The issues/concerns advanced by Mr. Ruland indisputably give cause for apprehension. However, while unyielding in his challenge and criticisms of the work and opinions of the other hydrogeological-geological experts, Mr. Ruland has not produced any tangible evidence to support his own contentions. He has not been on the property and he has not undertaken any actual site investigative work or performed any testing.

Page 188 of 211 PL160168

[182] The Tribunal notes that many of the concerns/issues raised in the evidence of Mr. Ruland were addressed in the evidence/reports/data provided by other expert witnesses, or will be addressed through the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. In some cases, the investigative work completed actually invalidates assumptions made by Mr. Ruland, such as with respect to on-site karstic features. [183] In this case, the recommended Conditions of Draft Plan Approval include significantly enhanced precautionary measures beyond what is typically required, including that the subdivision wells be further assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist; that pre-filtration and disinfection be included in drinking water systems; that a staggered well orientation be implemented; that individual on-site tertiary treatment septic systems be utilized; that each well in the subdivision be evaluated for nitrate and nitrate concentrations; and, that a soil investigation be undertaken by a qualified professional to ensure that the proposed lots are suitable for these systems. [184] In regard to the gas station property, the evidence before the Tribunal is that drinking water wells on properties adjacent to the development site were recently tested and no PHCs were detected. As the directional flow of groundwater from the contamination site is down-gradient and in the opposite direction, the potential of impact to the subdivision lands is considered to be negligible. However, as a condition of Draft Plan Approval three subdivision wells will be tested for compounds indicative of contamination associated with a rail bed and a gas station. The MOECC continues to maintain oversight of matters related to the gas station property. [185] While the Tribunal is mindful of Mr. Ruland’s professional accreditations and extensive experience, the experts presented by the Proponent, the County, the Township and the QCA are equally qualified and also have demonstrated professional experience. Incidentally, these experts have the same duty to report matters that could potentially threaten public health, safety and well-being as does Mr. Ruland. [186] Mr. Chard’s concerns were focused on what he perceives to be deficiencies in the supporting technical analysis, and the lack of engineering detail, grading, drainage,

Page 189 of 211 PL160168

and stormwater management that has been provided. These details will be provided in the Final Stormwater Management Report required as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. The Final Report must be approved by the Township and the QCA, and will be reviewed by the MOECC in consideration of the required ECA. Notwithstanding Mr. Chard’s contention that until a final stormwater management/drainage plan is provided Draft Plan Approval is premature, when asked if he could design an appropriate stormwater management facility conceptual plan for the proposed subdivision he did not hesitate to reply “yes”. [187] In this case, the best-available technical evidence that has been placed before the Tribunal indicates that the supply demands for quality drinking water can be met, and that appropriate stormwater management measures are available. The Tribunal is satisfied that sufficient water quality and quantity investigation and stormwater management study has been advanced to warrant the granting of conditional Draft Plan Approval. [188] The ZBL reserves the Residential zoning category strictly for plans of subdivision. The proposed site-specific ZBA rezones the development lands to Residential (R) Zone and reduces the minimum required road frontage from 0.76 m to 0.46 m for the residential lots. In as much as the Tribunal has deemed that Draft Plan Approval is warranted, it is appropriate to approve the proposed ZBA. ORDER [189] The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed and the Draft Plan shown on the plan prepared by Forefront Engineering Inc. is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in the Attachment 1 to this Order; and, [190] The Tribunal orders that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Frontenac shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event there are any difficulties implementing any of

Page 190 of 211 PL160168

the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to; and further, [191] The Township of South Frontenac is directed to amend Zoning By-law No. 200375 in accordance with the Tribunal’s Decision. “M. A. Sills”

M. A. SILLS MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 191 of 211

DRAFT CONDITIONS - REVISED

Approved Draft Plan:

A. That this draft plan approval applies to the draft plan of proposed subdivision dated

September 18, 2015 prepared and certified by Forefront Engineering Inc., and Smith & Smith Surveyors, comprising a total of thirteen residential lots, two blocks and a new street.

Subdivision Agreement: A. That the owner of the subject land enters into a subdivision agreement with the

Township of South Frontenac, prepared to the satisfaction of the Township, to be registered on title of the subject land. A copy of the subdivision agreement shall be provided to the County of Frontenac by the Township of South Frontenac.

B. That the subdivision agreement include text to the satisfaction of the Township, which text shall be registered on the title of all lots, that all Agreements of Purchase and Sale include provisions advisi[lg that a farming operation exists in the adjacent areas and that adverse effects may be experienced. 3. Financial Requirements:

A. That the Owner agrees in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the Township concerning the provision/upgrading of roads, installation of services and drainage, in accordance with the Township’s standards and procedures, and that this shall be reflected in the subdivision agreement. B. That the Owner shall reimburse the Township of South Frontenac and County of Frontenac for all legal, engineering, planning, administrative expenses and permit fees including the cost of any peer review(s) that the Township of South Frontenac or County of Frontenac may require in relation to the plan of subdivision. 4. Access

A. That the road allowance included in this draft plan shall be identified as Street ‘A’ and shall be constructed to Township standards for new public roads with paved asphalt surfacing and that the road be dedicated as a public highway. B. That the new internal road identified as ‘Street ‘A’ be named to the satisfaction of the Township. 1

Page 192 of 211

C. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement that Boyce Road be upgraded at the entrance to the subdivision to the Township’s satisfaction to facilitate ingress and egress.

D. That the subdivision agreement shall provide that 0.3 metre reserves be identified by survey at the following locations: (i) along Lot 13 where the lot abuts the road allowance of Boyce Road ~ 1foot reserve; and (ii) around the circumference of the turning bulb at the south end of Street TV; and (iit) along the east lot line of 4023 Boyce Rd, where the said lot abuts Street “A”, all to be held in trust by the Township for the purpose of denying additional access onto Boyce Road and the undeveloped lands to the south.

E. That the Owner install a 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk along the side of the new road allowance from the northern timit of Street ‘A’ (i,e., from Boyce Road), to the

southern limit of Lot 7. F. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement that all entrances to the lots including entrance culverts be located and constructed to the satisfaction of the Township. G. That the Owner convey to the Township a 10 metre wide Block free and clear of all encumbrances along the south lot line of Lot 7 from the south end Street ‘A’ to the K&P Trail to provide access from the subdivision to the Trail, with a walkway to be constructed by the Owner to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac 3.0 metres wide with stone dust surface within the 10 metre wide Block. Landscaping and buffering along the full length of the Block on both the north and south sides shall be constructed and instaiied by the Owner to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac, H, That, prior to final approval, the Township shaij be satisfied that all servicing issues are resolved such as road, sidewalk and walkway construction.

On-Site Sewage Disposal and Water Systems: A. That the subdivision agreement includes a requirement that any abandoned wells

must be decommissioned according to MOECC regulations. B. That the recommendations outlined in the letter dated December 12, 2014 from KFL&A Public Health to Terry Grant Construction 1278804 Ontario inc., be addressed to the satisfaction of the Township for the thirteen-iot development.

C, That all requirements and recommendations specified in the Hydrogeological Study, Servicing Options and Terrain Analyses Report, dated October 31, 2013, from ASC

Environmental, updated by covering letter dated October 7, 2015 from ASC Environmental, and all associated drawings be complied with for the thirteen-lot development.

Page 193 of 211

D. That the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Report, dated August 27, 2013 from Ecological Services, be complied with for as they apply to the thirteen-iot development.

E. Prior to final approval, that the County of Frontenac and its peer review agency, Malroz Engineering Inc., be satisfied that ai! matters outlined below have been addressed: (i) The Ownershall report elevated chloride and sodium levels to the Medical Officer

of Health; (ii) The subdivision agreement shaii require that pre-fittration and disinfection (eg: ultra violet light) be included in drinking water systems to maintain a bacterioiogical free water supply; (iif) The potential presence of sulphur in wells and remedial measures shall be identified to potential buyers in the subdivision agreement; (iv)A staggered wei! orientation shall be implemented to mitigate mutual well interference; (v) Each well shall be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity, in accordance with the foliowing: o A minimum pumping rate shall be utilized that is appropriate for the size of residence proposed for the lot in accordance with the D-5-5 guideline for a minimum duration of 6 hours; o Representative neighboring wells and/or nearby welis will be monitored

during the pumping test; Q The suite of groundwater analytical parameters that witl be analysed shall include: • For each well, the suite of analyses tested for in the supporting reports a For three select wells, PHC, BTEX, voiatiie organic compounds (VOC) and polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which would be indicative of contamination associated with a rail line or gas bar; o Each well shall be evaluatedfor nitrate and nitrite concentrations, and

trends in concentration and impact to potable groundwater supplies; o An evaluation of the potential for mining of the potable water aquifer shall be conducted; and, o Conclusions on the sustainability of the water supply aquifer and water quality shall be prepared and supported in a final evaluation report submitted to the County and Township.

F. That Class 4, CAN/BNQ 3680-600 standard septic systems (or an equivalent tertiary treatment system recognized in the Ontario Building Code) that are designed to include nitrogen reduction be insta!led for each tot in the thirteen-Sot development, G. That prior to final plan approval, soil investigations shall be undertaken by a soils scientist or other suitably qualified professional to ensure that the proposed lots are

Page 194 of 211

suitable for individual on-site sewage treatment disposal systems and to identify the leve! of treatment required for each lot, ail to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac. The investigation shall include test pits on each lot, If the test pit for the soi!s investigation identifies the possible presence of karst, an assessment of the significance of the observations sha!l be evaluated by bore holes cored into the bedrock. The resulting report shall identify any constraints to the deveiopment and shall be submitted

to the Township Chief Building Official and KFL&A Health Unit That the subdivision agreement shall contain provisions to place the foHowing

restrictions on development:

Prior to the issuance of a buiiding permit for a septic system for any \o{, the lot owner shall provide engineering details for an on-site sewage disposal system designed in

accordance with Condition 5.F to service the subject tot for review and approval

bytheKFL&ANeaithUnit 2. No buiiding permit shall be issued for any lot within the plan of subdivision until the lot owner has provided satisfactory evidence to the Chief Building Officia! for the Township that the following requirements have been met; a. That the design of aforesaid sewage disposa! system shall be undertaken by a contractor certified by the manufacturer and/or fully familiar with such systems; b. That the installation of the aforesaid sewage disposal system shall be undertaken by a contractor certified by the manufacturer of the system; c. That the lot owner has been provided with a detailed information package which outlines the nature, operation and maintenance requirements of the aforesaid sewage disposal system.

H, That prior to final plan approval, hydrogeological investigations by a qualified professional shall be undertaken to ensure that the proposed lots within the subdivision have a suitable water supply from individual welts in terms of water quantity, quality and interference and that the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards are met on a lot by lot basis, all to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac.

Stormwater

A. That as part of the subdivision agreement a Final Stormwater Management Report and detailed engineering drawings addressing grading, drainage and stormwater

Page 195 of 211

management be submitted to the satisfaction of the Township and Quinte Conservation Authority for the thirteen-lot development. The site drainage, design, construction and maintenance shall be in accordance with the recommendations contained in the final Stormwater Management Report, with all final designs incorporated into the subdivision agreement.

B. That all legal matters associated with tying the stormwater from the development into the Pleasant Valley Municipai Drain system be resoived to the satisfaction of the Township.

Parkland Dedication: A. That the Owner convey up to five percent of the land included in the plan to the Township for park purposes. Alternatively, the Township may require cash-in-Heu for all or a portion of the conveyance.
Human Remains:

A. The subdivision agreement shall contain a clause providing that any owner(s) be advised, and also that a notice be placed in the purchase and sale agreement alerting any prospective purchasers that in the event that human remains are discovered during construction or site development of a lot, that the Owner shall immediately contact the OPP, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Unit of the Ministry of Consumer Services (or the applicable agencies at the time of final approval).

Archaeological Resources:

A. That all recommendations of the Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2) Reports, dated September 16, 2013 by Archeoworks Inc. be implemented to the satisfaction of the Township for the thirteen-lot development. B. That if during the process of development any archaeological resources or human

remains of Aboriginal interest are encountered, the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office will be contacted immediately at: Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office 31 Riverside Drive, Suite 101 Pembroke, Ontario K8A 8R6 Telephone: (613)735-3759

Fax: (613)735-6307 emai!: algonquins@nrtco.net

Page 196 of 211 10. Utilities and On-Site Works A, That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement that Centralized Community Maii Boxes be installed at a iocation on the road allowance of Street ‘A’ near the entrance to the development at Boyce Road along the west side of the road ailowance of the new road and to the satisfaction of the Township and in accordance with Canada Post specifications,

B, That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement that all servicing including telephone, internet, Hydro, etc. generally be installed underground.

C. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement that street signage and lighting shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Township including lighting at the turning bulb at the south end of the development and at the entrance to the development at Boyce Road such lighting to also illuminate the mail boxes to be located there.

Revisions to Draft Plan: A, That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the Owner shail submit a revised Block Plan, if required, to refiect any significant alterations caused from this Draft Plan Approval.

B. That where final engineering design(s) result in minor variations to the Plan (e.g., in the configuration of lots, etc.), these may be reflected in the Finai Plan subject to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac and the County of Frontenac. C. Prior to final approval and any site alteration, the Owner shall submit the following to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac, Township of South Frontenac and the Quinte Conservation Authority;

Stormwater Management and Report and Pians;

2, General Servicing, Grading and Drainage Plans including sidewalk and trail details; 3. A Composite Utility Plan (for applicable utility providers); 4. Individual Lot Servicing and Grading Plans; 5. Tree Preservation Plans;

6, Landscaping Design Plans; 7. Internal Road Construction Plan Drawings; 8. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,

D. That the Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to carry out or cause to be carried out the recommendations and requirements contained within the plans, studies,

and reports described above to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac, the Township of South Frontenac and the Quinte Conservation Authority.

Page 197 of 211

E. The Draft Plan may be subject to revisions, inciuding a reduction of building tots, in order to address study findings at the detailed engineering design stage and satisfy ati the Conditions of Approval set out above and in Section 12 (General Conditions).

Genera] Conditions: A. That prior to final approval, the County of Frontenac is to be advised by the Township that this proposed subdivision conforms to the Zoning By-law in effect of the Township of South Frontenac.

B. That when requesting final Approval from the County of Frontenac, the Owner shall accompany such request with the required number of originals and copies of the Final Plan, together with a surveyor’s certificate stating that the [ots/blocks thereon conform to the frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-Law. C. That the Owner submit a draft Plan of Subdivision Declaration for approval by the Township and County to ensure ati conditions of approval will be satisfied.

Clearance Letters;

A. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County of Frontenac shall be advised that all Conditions of Draft Plan Approval have been satisfied; the clearance memorandum shall include a brief statement detailing how each Condition has been met.

B. That Prior to Fina! Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in writing by the Township of South Frontenac the method by which conditions 1 to 13 have been satisfied.

C. That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in writing by

KFL&A Public Health the method by which condition 5B has been satisfied. D, That Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the County is to be advised in writing by the Quinle Conservation Authority the method by which condition 6A has been satisfied. 14. Lapsing Provisions;

A. That pursuant to Section 51 (32) of the Planning Act, this Draft Plan Approval shal! lapse at the expiration of three (3) years from the date of issuance of Draft Plan

Approval if final approval has not been given, unless an extension is requested by the Owner and, subject to review, granted by the approval authority.

Page 198 of 211

B. That pursuant to Section 51 (33) of the Planning Act, the Owner may submit a request to the approval authority for an extension of the Draft Pian Approval. The extension period may be for a period of one (1) to three (3) years subject to the approval by the County of Frontenac. Request for any extension shall be provided no less than six (6) weeks prior to the lapsing date.

Page 199 of 211

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture Allison Shannon, President

2542 Perth Road

November 24, 2018

Glenburnie, ON. K0H 1S0

Dear Mayor and Members of Council –South Frontenac : On behalf of the Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, I wish to congratulate the members of the newly installed Council of South Frontenac. The Frontenac Federation of Agriculture represents over 300 farm families in the County of Frontenac and we value the positive working relationship that we have maintained over the years with this Council. Please know that as always , we welcome any opportunity, both formal and informal to support you and advocate for the farmers in the County as you conduct the important work on behalf of all residents of the township. Agriculture is at the heart of economic development in our region and we need to ensure that the sector remains robust in order to build economic prosperity for the community. Feel free to contact any of these members of our Executive should you wish to consult or gain some insight on any issues that could impact farming in our community. We are happy to help. Brian Tolls Taylor Orser Dudley Shannon

Past Pres. Vice Pres. Secretary

bktolls@hotmail.com taylor.orser1@gmail.com shanlake@kingston.net

613-542-0605 613-484-7371 613-353-2341

President

sunharvest@sympatico.ca

613-541-7953

Yours in agriculture, Allison Shannon

Page 200 of 211

From: Housing Supply (MMAH) [mailto:HousingSupply@ontario.ca] Sent: November-28-18 10:25 AM Subject: Consultation - Increasing Housing Supply in Ontario Ontario’s Government for the People is developing a broad-based action plan to help increase the supply of housing in Ontario. To inform the plan, the government wants to hear the views of all Ontarians on how to expand the supply of ownership and rental housing in Ontario. This initiative is a cross-government effort involving many ministries. You are receiving this email because your organization has been identified as potentially interested in providing feedback. The government is interested in hearing from as many interested parties as possible. You are therefore invited and encouraged to share this email with any other individual or organization you believe may be interested in participating. Visit www.ontario.ca/housingsupply to participate. Submissions will be accepted until January 25, 2019. Thank you, Rachel Simeon Director, Market Housing Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Page 201 of 211 Grant Wedge Assistant Deputy Minister

Grant Wedge

Negotiations and Reconciliation Division

Ministry of Indigenous Affairs

Division des n6gociations et de la rfconcjliation MinistSre dea affaires autochtones

180 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2E6

Toronto, ON M7A 2E6

Telephone: (416)326-4741 Facsimile: (416) 326-4017

TSKphone: (416)326-4741 ra&sopleur: (416) 326-4017

Email: Grarrt. WedaefEaQDtanp-iEa

Courriel: Grant. WedaeOtontario. ca

Sous-ministre adjoint

^(’^°^^i’’ ^=& TWO

i’V .lUifl U

160, rue Bloor Est, 9*6tage

fW .jf»\

pi ^

p -

R^CEIVFD NOV 0 S .’(118 TOvM. ii!:” OF

SOUTH FRONTENAC October26, 2018

Subject:

Settlement of Williams Treaties Land Claim

I am pleased to inform you that we have achieved a negotiated resolution of the Williams Treaties First Nations Claim. Canada, Ontario and the Williams Treaties

First Nations have signed a Settlement Agreement and the Alderville litigation has been discontinued. Please find attached a news release (Appendix A) and

backgrounder (Appendcc B) that provide further information on the settlement. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Williams Treaties First Nations will receive financial compensation of $1. 11 billion ($666 million from Canada and $444 million from Ontario). Underthe terms of the agreement, Canada and Ontario have also formally recognized the pre-existing treaty harvesting rights of the Williams Treaties First Nations’ members to hunt, trap, fish and gatherfor food, social and ceremonial purposes within the areas covered by Treaties No. 5, 16, 18, 20 and 27-27%, the Crawford Purchase, the Gunshot Treaty and LakeSimcoe. The precise boundaries of the treaty areas will be the subject of further discussion among the parties. In the meantime, for general information on the location of these treaties please see httDS://files. ontario. ca/firstnationsandtreaties 1 . pdf. In day to day practice, this places the Williams Treaties First Nations in a similar position in terms of harvesting in the areas set out above as most other treaty First Nations in Ontario.

Also as part of the Settlement Agreement there is provision for each of the seven First Nationsto add up to 11 ,000 acres of land to their reserve land base (subject to fulfilment of the conditions of Canada’s Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation

Policy). Lands to be added to reserve may be purchased on the open market, or from Canada or Ontario, on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.

Page 202 of 211

Canada. Onterio snc! the Williams Treaties Firsi [’.’“tione are coniinuinc. work towards

i’mplsmeniing ths ierms of ths Ssttlemen; Agresment. Should yo’. ’ hsvs any

cj’-’esiions conceming the irnplicstions of the recogp.ition of tresiy hsn.’esiing ricjiits or yie tsrms of’the Wiiliams Treeitiss Sstilement Agreement. pieF. se .“oniect Ses.n -!‘uta!t, Senior Megotiato;-. r/iii’iisir” 01’ Nai’i.irsl Resources eno’ S-oresi’ry, or Mark Clssnwaier, I’fetjctistor. . ^iinisti-y of Indiyenous Affairs, b” srnei! ai’ ;‘VTR’‘C!s’i. -ni”)0, ‘wrir,. ^;? or by phone si S33-650-Q756.

iV;ec!ia inquiries e;re to bs directed to Fisvie iviussio, Ssiiior Msclic. R.elation;: c-. nci Issues Coordinator by email at fl?. “ia Mu’?sio(?vOniaiTO;;;i or by phone s’. 4’!3-3U-9<:55. aincsre”/,

Grant WectSe

Assistant Deputy Minister) rjsgofe’tion’s and Reconciliation Oivision Enclosures:

Append);; A - News Release ‘.vppendi;; B - Eeckgrounds: .

Page 203 of 211

Backgrounder: The Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement: A Journey Toward Reconciliation

Overview

The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the seven Williams Treaties First Nations have reached a negotiated settlement agreement and the

Alderville litigation has been discontinued. This is a significant step forward on our path to advance reconciliation with the Williams Treaties First Nations. The seven First

Nations are: Alderville First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and Mississaugas ofScugog Island First Nation.

Terms of the negotiated settlement include:

Financial compensation of $1. 11 billion ($666 million by Canada and $444 million .

by Ontario). An entitlement for each First Nation to add up to 11 ,000 acres of land to their reserve land base subject to Canada’s Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation policy. The First Nations are responsible for acquiring these lands. Recognition of the First Nations’ continuing treaty harvesting rights and a commitment to continue to work together to implement these rights.

A commitment by Canada and Ontario to provide an oral and written statement of apology to the Williams Treaties First Nations.

Looking Back: Historic Treaties and the Alderville Litigation

The seven First Nations are signatories to various 18th and 19th century treaties that covered lands in different parts of south central Ontario. After these pre-Confederation treaties1 were signed, the First Nations maintained that they continued to have an interest in other lands in central Ontario, known as their northern hunting grounds. These lands had not yet been addressed through treaty and were increasingly being

subject to encroachment. To address these outstanding issues, new treaties (called the Williams Treaties) were signed between the seven First Nations and the Crown in 1923.

1 Treaties that were signed between the Crown and First Nations before Canada became a country in 1867

Page 204 of 211

More than 90 years later, questions remained about the making, terms, interpretation and implementation of the Williams Treaties. In 1992, the seven First Nations filed litigation to seek a resolution of this longstanding dispute. The case, known as the Alderville litigation, went to trial in 2012 before the Federal Court of Canada. In their litigation, the First Nations alleged that the Crown breached its duties to them in the making and implementation of the Williams Treaties. In particular, the First Nations alleged that they were not fairly compensated for their lands and should have received additional reserve lands at the time of treaty. Harvesting rights were another key issue raised in the Alderville litigation. The First Nations maintained that the pre-Confederation treaties they signed with the Crown protected harvesting rights and that those rights were not affected by the Williams Treaties and continue to exist.

In October 2012, based on evidence obtained and prepared for the trial, Canada and Ontario recognized on an interim basis, the treaty harvesting rights of the Williams

Treaties First Nations in Treaty No. 20. In February 2017, Canada and Ontario formally recognized these rights, not only within Treaty No. 20, but in additional preConfederation Treaty areas. With the negotiated settlement, Canada and Ontario now formally recognize the existing treaty harvesting rights of the Williams Treaties First Nations within the areas covered by Treaties No. 5, 16, 18, 20, 27-27 %; the Crawford Purchase, the Gunshot Treaty and Lake Simcoe.

The recognition of the First Nations’ constitutionally protected treaty harvesting rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather in certain pre-Confederation treaty areas for food, social and ceremonial purposes addresses a longstanding dispute between the parties. This is an important step toward renewed relationships and reconciliation with the First Nations for the benefit of everyone. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of natural resources for future generations is a key priority for all parties going forward. A New Beginning: From Litigation to Negotiations In early 2016, Canada, Ontario and the seven First Nations began substantive exploratory discussions to see if they could find the common ground to negotiate a settlement of the Aldewille litigation outside of the courts. A negotiated resolution achieved through co-operation and dialogue is preferable to litigation. In February 2017, the parties agreed to a process to begin formal negotiations toward a negotiated settlement of the Alderville litigation and the court case was adjourned on March 27, 2017 on joint consent of the parties.

Page 205 of 211

Negotiations Timeline March 2017: Formal negotiations begin.

June 2018: Williams Treaties First Nations members approve settlement in vote. July 2018: Williams Treaties First Nations sign settlement.

August 2018: Province of Ontario and Government of Canada sign settlement. September 2018: Settlement announced after Federal Court approves discontinuance o^Alderville litigation and a related Ontario Superior Court of Justice action is discontinued.

Looking Ahead: Continuing to Rebuild Relationships Achievement of a negotiated settlement to resolve the Alderville litigation is an important

milestone for all parties. The Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the Williams Treaties First Nations will continue to work together to implement the First Nations’ constitutionally protected treaty harvesting rights and to address applications

by the First Nations to have lands added to reserve pursuant to Canada’sAdditions to Reserve/Reserve Creation policy. Further, Canada and Ontario have committed to provide an oral and written statement of apology to the Williams Treaties First Nations.

Page 206 of 211

1*1

Gwanumnt Gouvsrneinent of Canada

du Canada

News Release For Immediate Release

Canada, Ontario and Williams Treaties First Nations reach negotiated settlement agreement for Alderville Litigation

September 13, 2018

Ottawa, ON Crown-lndigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Province of Ontario Williams Treaties First Nations

As we build a new future with First Nations, reconciliation requires that we acknowledge

the wrongs of the past and work collaboratively with Indigenous people to take the necessary steps to respectfully resolve them. Today, the Government of Canada, the Province ot Ontario and the seven Williams Treaties First Nations, announced that the Federal Court has granted a discontinuance of the Alderville litigation as a result of the parties reaching a negotiated settlement agreement that resolves the litigation. The Alderville litigation was filed by the seven Williams l reaties First Nations in 1992 and went to trial in 2012. The Alderville litigation deals with a longstanding dispute about the making, terms, interpretation and implementation of the 1923 Williams Treaties. Terms of the negotiated settlement include:

. .

Financial compensation of $1. 11 billion ($666 million by Canada and $444 million by Ontario). An entitlement for each First Nation to add up to 11 ,000 acres of land to their reserve land base subject to Canada’s Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation policy. The First Nations are responsible for acquiring these lands. Recognition of the First Nations’ continuing treaty harvesting rights and commitment to continue to work together to implement these rights.

A commitment by Canada and Ontario to provide an oral and written statement of apology to the Williams Treaties First Nations.

Achieved through partnership and dialogue, the settlement advances reconciliation and resolves outstanding issues in a way that respects the rights and interests of the seven Williams Treaties First Nations and all Canadians.

A formal celebration of the settlement agreement and the delivery of an apology by the federal and provincial Crowns is currently being planned. … 12

i<>A*i<.

NCRffl0811137-vl

ag^j.*

1^1 y^ ^»-| 1|T–

Ontario CanadSC

Page 207 of 211

-2Quotes

“Afteryears of litigation and repeated attempts at negotiations, am extremely proud that the negotiations team has successfully resolved our longstanding battle for constitutionally protected hunting and fishing rights. Our ancestors have fought since 1923 to exercise our rights freely and without encumbrance and finally we have been able to secure this for our people and for future generations. It is a success for the Williams Treaties First Nations, but also for all Ontarian’s and Canadians who will see a

new way forward in Crown-lndigenous relations.” Chief Kelly LaRocca, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, Portfolio Chief, Williams Treaties First Nations

“I have been a part of the trial and negotiations for more than a decade. We have come full circle. My Grandfather, Norman Marsden was one of the signatories on the Williams Treaties and it is gratifying for me to be able to sign my name to this settlement as current Chief of Alderville First Nation because it represents how far we have come. This settlement will benefit the Williams Treaty First Nations today and for our future generations.” Chief James Robert Marsden, Alderville First Nation

“Beausoleil First Nation acknowledges and honours our ancestors who endured the

hardships created by the misinterpretation ofthe 1923 Williams Treaty. Finally 95 years later, today we celebrate the conclusion of this chapter and work towards reconciliation and a new beginning for our community. We extend our full-hearted appreciation and acknowledgement to Peter Hutehins and all associates at Hutchins Legal Inc. for their advocacy throughout our litigation. We are extremely proud that our own Karry Sandy, negotiator, was a part of this negotiation team and also recognize Ceyda Turan,

counsel, and Mel Jacobs, co-negotiator, for achieving their mandate and in bringing this settlement home for the Anishinabek of Beausoleil First Nation. Miigwetch.” Chief Guy Monague, Beausoleil First Nation

“On this historic day, we acknowledge the hard work of our ancestors, our elders, our leaders and knowledge keepers in their determination to have our collective Treaty

rights recognized and affirmed. We are on a path of reconciliation, healing and Treaty implementation for Curve Lake members and for our future generations. Miigwetch to those who have made this Settlement possible.” ChiefPhyllis Williams, Curve Lake First Nation

Page 208 of 211

Gjwwnment Gouvarnement of Canada

du Canada

“We are happy to resolve this outstanding injustice that affected our ancestors tremendously and impacted the future generations of our people. We want to recognize and honour our past leadership who began this journey to bring forth justice and reconciliation. The resolution of the Williams Treaty will benefit our future generations to come and contribute to restore the loss of our culture and independence. I would like to say miigweteh to our Chiefs and Councillors, negotiating team and lawyers who worked with our First Nations and brought us to the settlement of the Williams Treaty. I’m grateful that our children do not have to take on the burden of reso Iving this claim. Miigwetch to the Creator Lord for allowing me to be a part of this historical resolution.”

Chief Donna Big Canoe, Georgina Island First Nation

“It is with honour and pride to our ancestors and our people today that we have settled the Williams Treaties claim for our Seven Generations to come.”

Chief Laurie Carr, Hiawatha First Nation

“Rama First Nation joins with Williams Treaties leadership in celebrating the conclusion of the work our ancestors began so long ago, the resolution of this long-standing claim. The restoration of harvesting rights throughout our territories is a part of our cultural identity that these treaties compromised. G’chi miigwech to the Williams Treaties members who contributed to this effort and to the leadership, past and present, who continued to press for the resolution of this claim. This historic settlement paves the way for a better future in our communities for many generations to come.” Chief Rodney Noganosh, Rama First Nation

“Working together in partnership to resolve and address the wrongs ot the past is critical to resetting our relationship with Indigenous peoples. This settlement agreement is a demonstration of our government’s commitment to move forward to renew our relationship and advance reconciliation between Canada, Ontario and the Williams Treaties First Nations and is an example of whatwe can achievewhen we uphold the honour of the Crown and treat Indigenous peoples with respect and support strong, healthy and sustainable Indigenous Nations that are full partners.” The Honourable Camlyn Bennett, M. D., P. C., M. P. Ministerof Crown-lndigenous Relations

vy NCMI0811137-V1

^Ontario CanadS

Page 209 of 211

“This agreement avoids further costly litigation and will help create opportunities within the Williams Treaties First Nations and surrounding communities.” The Honourable Greg Rickford, M. P. P. Minister of IndigenousAffairs for Ontario

“This negotiated settlement supports strong and enduring relationships and means we can focus on ensuring the long-term sustainability of Ontario’s natural resources for future generations.” The Honourable Jeff Yurek, M. P. P.

Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for Ontario

Quick Facts

. .

The seven Williams Treaties First Nations are: Alderville First Nation, Beausoleil

First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and Mississaugas ofScugog Island. Since March 2017, the parties have been working together towards a negotiated resolution of the Aldewille litigation Under the settlement, the First Nations can use the funds to buy land on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis and apply to Canada to have the land added to their reserve land base.

Associated Links Williams Treaties First Nations Additions to Reserve

30 For more information, media may contact: James Fitz-Morris

Director of Communications and Issues Management Office of the Honourable Carolyn Bennett Minister of Crown-lndigenous Relations 819-997-0002 Crown-lndigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Media Relations

819-934-2302 RCAANC. media. ClRNAC@canada. ca 819-953-1160

Page 210 of 211

1^1

GwemmOTt Gouwriieniant of Canada

du Canada

Brayden Akers Director of Communications

Office of the Honourable Greg Rickford Minister of IndigenousAffairs for Ontario

416-816-9383 Flavia Mussio

Ministry of IndigenousAffairs for Ontario Issues Management & Media Relations

416-314-9455 Chief Kelly LaRocca Portfolio Chief Williams Treaties First Nations

905-985-3337 Stay Connected Join the conversation about Indigenous peoples in Canada: Twitter: GovCan - Indigenous Facebook: GovCan - Indigenous Peoples

Instagram: fiiacindiaenous You can subscribe to receive our news releases and speeches via RSS feeds. For more information or to subscribe, visit www.cimac. ac. ca/RSS

^ .

v^r^it^i^s’wi

^ ^V

NCRM0811137-V1

^ if”

^“Ontario CanadS

Page 211 of 211

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-77 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac at its Council Meeting of December 4, 2018 be confirmed.

Execution by the Mayor and the Clerk-Administrator of all Deeds, Instruments and other Documents necessary to give effect to any such Resolution, Motion or other action and the affixing of the Corporate Seal to any such Deed, Instruments or other Documents is hereby authorized and confirmed.

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passage.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 4 day of December, 2018. Read a first and second time this 4 day of December, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 4 day of December, 2018.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

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.