Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: September 7, 2021 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2021/Council - 07 Sep 2021 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

Audio Broadcast to the Township’s Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontemacTwp TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Electronic Participation.

Call to Order and Roll Call

a)

Resolution

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Approval of Agenda

a)

Resolution

Scheduled Closed Session - at the end of the agenda

Delegations - none

Public Meeting - not applicable

Approval of Minutes

a)

July 13, 2021 Council Meeting

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Notice of Motion - Education Development Charge

Reports Requiring Action

a)

Tender # PS-2021-15 - Snowplowing and Sanding/Salting Arterial Roadways (2021-2024)

41 - 42

b)

Tender # PS 2021-16 - Winter Maintenance Operations at Various Locations (2021-2024)

43 - 44

c)

Tender # PS-2021-25 - Winter Maintenance Services - Sidewalks (2021-2024)

45 - 46

d)

Out of Budget Approval - Hinchinbrooke Road

47 - 49

e)

Lake Ecosystem Grants - Intake 1

50 - 51

f)

Road Closing Application RC-21-03 - Unopened Road Allowance between former Loughborough and Portland Townships

52 - 57

4 - 14

15 - 40

Page 2 of 191

g)

Deeming By-law - Deem Lot 21 on Block 3 on Plan 1661 not to be a lot in a plan of subdivision (See By-law 2021-46)

58 - 60

h)

Zoning By-law Amendment - Z-21-10 - Concession 9, Part Lot 20, Christel Lane (See By-law 2021-47)

61 159

i)

Zoning By-law Amendment - Z-21-14 - Concession 7, Part Lots 37 and 38, 2965 Battersea Road (See By-law 2021-48)

160 163

j)

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-21-15 - Concession 2, Part Lot 1 and 2, 56 Nighthawk Lane (See By-law 2021-49)

164 167

k)

Approve Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) with the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

168

l)

Support for application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation Community Building Fund for Reconstruction of the McMullen Net Sport Courts in Verona

169 171

m)

ICIP Green Infrastructure Grant Application

172 174

Committee Meeting Minutes

a)

Joint Recreation Committee Meeting held May 31, 2021

By-laws

a)

First and Second Reading of By-laws

b)

By-law 2021-46 - Deem part of a Plan of Subdivision No. 1661 not to be a registered plan of subdivision

177

c)

By-law 2021-47 - Rezone from RU to RLSW and RLSW-129, Concession 9, Part Lot 20, Christel Lane

178 180

d)

By-law 2021-48 - Rezone from Rural Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU) Concession 7, Part Lot

181 182

e)

By-law 2021-49 - Rezone from Residential Waterfront (RW) to Rural (RU), Concession 2, Part of Lot 1 and 2

183 184

Reports for Information - none

Information Items

a)

Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation - Funding Request

Notice of Motions

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

175 176

185 190

Page 3 of 191

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

Closed Session

a)

Resolution - Council will move into a closed session as permitted by the Municipal Act, Section 239.2 d) to discuss labour relations or employee negotiations relating to the recruitment of a Director of Public Services.

b)

Personal Matters about an Identifiable individual - Verbal Update from the CAO on Director of Public Services Recruitment

c)

Resolution - Move out of Closed Session

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2021-50

Adjournment

a)

Resolution Natural, Vibrant and Growing - A Progressive Rural Leader

191

Page 4 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Electronic Participation/Council Chambers

Meeting # 25 Council Present in Council Chambers: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, Ray Leonard, Doug Morey, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff Present in Council Chambers: Neil Carbone - Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks - Clerk, Claire Dodds - Director of Development Services, Troy Dunlop - Manager of Technical Services and Infrastructure, Darcy Knott - Director of Fire and Emergency Services, Christie Woods - Senior Planner, Jamie Brash - Manager of Facilities and Solid Waste (joined virtually at 8:00 pm)

Call to Order and Roll Call

a)

The Clerk conducted the roll call as outlined in the attendance above.

b)

Resolution Resolution No. 2021-25-01 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That the Council meeting of July 13, 2021 be called to order at 7:10 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a)

Councillor Sleeth declared a pecuniary interest with respect to agenda items 9 e) and 10 c).

Approval of Agenda

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2021-25-02 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That the agenda for the July 13, 2021 Council meeting be approved reflecting the suspension of the Procedural By-law rules to allow delegations to be heard prior to the public meeting. Carried

Scheduled Closed Session - not applicable

Delegations

a)

Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation - Future Plans to continue supporting residents of South Frontenac/Funding Request • David Townsend - Executive Director • Laura Fitzgerald - Fund Development & Communications Coordinator • Duncan Sinclair - Board Member

Page 5 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 The presentation included details on the many services offered by Southern Frontenac Community Services. They continue to be challenged for adequate office space despite applying for capital funding to expand their existing facility. The increasing demands for support and the population growth estimated until 2036 indicate a continued need for all programs as seniors prefer to age at home with flexible health and personal care options. A review of their plans to expand and enhance their building includes a $1.5 million fundraising goal. They noted that for a capital construction project, securing government grants and funding opportunities are harder to come by. They will be reaching out to the township and to the community, the people who care about our community for contributions and support. Mr. Townsend indicated that they will be coming back to Council to further discuss their capital funding project that will include projections for future operational funding. Mayor Vandewal thanked all the SFCS staff and board members for their presentation. 6.

Public Meeting

a)

Resolution and Public Meeting Statement The Clerk provided direction on how to make oral or written submissions on the Zoning By-law Amendment being heard, how to request notification of the decision and the process to appeal the decision of Council and the manner in which to file the appeal. Resolution No. 2021-25-03 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Deputy Mayor Barr That a public meeting be held to allow for comments and input into planning matters related to Zoning By-law Amendment Z-21-10 in Concession 9, Part Lot 20, Storrington District. Carried

b)

Z-21-10 - Zoning By-law Amendment for Concession 9, Part Lot 20, Christel Lane (2290998 Ontario Inc) Christine Woods, Senior Planner reviewed the rezoning application noting that the subject property is located at the end of Christel Lane, off Osborne Lane, which is off Burnt Hills Road. The property has water frontage on Dog Lake. The north end of the property consists of forested rock outcrops and an open field. The south end of the property consists of a high, bedrock plateau that is surrounded on three sides by the lake. The surrounding properties are developed with seasonal dwellings. The subject lands are subject to consent application S-02-20-S to create one residential lot. Provisional approval of the consent application was granted subject to conditions by the Director of Development Services on May 17, 2021 as this consent application met the criteria of an undisputed consent based on Delegation By-law 2020-27. Condition 16 requires the severed parcel and the retained parcel to be rezoned. The new zoning would bring the parcels into conformity with the Zoning By-law. The new residential lot (severed parcel) consists of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of land with 76 metres of frontage along Christel Lane and 134 metres of water frontage on Dog Lake. The severed parcel is vacant. The severed parcel needs to be rezoned from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) to recognize that the parcel fronts onto a private lane. The RLSW zone must have a special provision (RLSW-XX) to

Page 2 of 11

Page 6 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 require a dwelling to be set back a minimum of 40 metres from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline of Dog Lake and 30 metres from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline. The 40 metre setback was recommended in a report by Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) in support of the consent application. The building envelopes and sewage system locations on the severed parcel and the retained parcel were identified. Photos of the property were viewed that provided those in attendance with the visual understanding of the landscape. Building Services was not circulated the rezoning application, as they had no objection to the approval of consent application S-02-20-S when they reviewed it earlier in 2021. It was confirmed that there is one suitable location for a sewage system on the severed parcel and on the retained parcel. It is intended that these locations would be expressly reserved for the sewage system through site plan control, which is a requirement of the provisional approval of the consent application (Condition 9). The site plan control application will be brought forward to Council for a decision once it has been submitted. Cataraqui Conservation had no objection to the approval of consent application S-02-20-S when they reviewed it earlier in 2021. Their position was conditional on future development being setback in accordance with the findings of the Ecological Services report (March 18, 2021). They confirmed, through the Rideau Waterway Development Review Team with Parks Canada, that they have no objection to the rezoning application. The retained parcel consists of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of land with 81 metres of frontage along Christel Lane and 91 metres of water frontage on Dog Lake. The retained parcel is vacant. The severed parcel needs to be rezoned from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) to recognize that the parcel fronts onto a private lane. There were no comments were received from the public on consent application S-02-20-S, however on this application, Bob Volpe and Sue Keefe, owners of 131 Christel Lane, expressed concerns about the aggressive development plans for the area, including blasting and site alteration. In their written correspondence, they urged Council to limit development of additional lakefront properties through regulations that minimize environmental burdens on the water and natural shore areas. Ms. Woods noted that waterfront development will be an area of focus in the current Official Plan update process. Work is also being done to develop a shoreline protection by-law. With respect tot he Provincial Policy Statement, Ms. Woods noted that the Director of Development Services had consideration for the 2020 PPS in the decision to grant draft approval to consent application S-02-20-S. The proposal to rezone the lands through application Z-21-10 is consistent with the 2020 PPS, including Section 2, which encourages the protection of natural heritage, water, and agricultural resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits, and also Section 3, which directs development to areas that are not impacted by flooding hazards and erosion hazards. Ms. Woods explained that residential development on the severed parcel would be required to be setback a minimum 40 metres from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline of Dog Lake, and 30 metres from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline, as recommended in a report by Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) in support of the consent application. Buildings and structures would also need to be setback a minimum of 15 metres from the top of bank of the steep slopes on the property.The proposed development is consistent with these directions of the County Official Plan.

Page 3 of 11

Page 7 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 The new zoning would bring the severed parcel and the retained parcel into conformity with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The intent of the RLSW zone is to recognize residential development on a waterfront property that is accessed by a private lane. This allows building permits to be issued for buildings and structures. Section 6.12 of the Official Plan allows the issuance of a building permit on vacant lots that are in a Limited Service Residential zone. Similarly, section 5.25 of the Zoning By-law indicates that building permits may be issued on a lot with frontage on a private lane and/or a navigable waterway if the lands are zoned RLSW. The applicant retained Ecological Services to perform an analysis using the Assessment of Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines for Waterfront Development in Eastern Ontario’s Lake Country (Hutchinson Environmental Ltd., 2014). Site characteristics including soil texture and depth, slope and vegetation were taken into consideration to determine an appropriate horizontal setback between development and the shoreline of lakes on the Precambrian Shield. As indicated previously, there is one suitable location for a sewage system on the severed parcel and on the retained parcel. While the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law require sewage system to be set back a minimum 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody, Ecological Services determined that a minimum 40 metre setback from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline should be applied to buildings on the severed parcel, and that a minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline should be applied to buildings on both the severed and retained parcels. This was based on site characteristics in the proposed building locations (e.g. there is little soil and vegetation, steep slopes), and the demonstration that the topography of the site allows runoff to be directed in such a way to have a long circuitous route to the lake. The 40 metre setback for buildings and structures is reflected in the draft by-law. All other provisions of the Zoning By-law would apply to the parcels, including minimum setbacks from property lines and top of bank, and maximum lot coverage. Provisional approval requires the applicant to apply for, and enter into, a site plan agreement with the Township to address the development of the lot and environmental standards of the Township, including reserving areas for sewage systems, identifying building envelopes, controlling runoff, and maintaining natural vegetation buffers. The site plan control application will be brought forward to Council for a decision once it has been submitted. Over all, this rezoning application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. It also represents appropriate planning for the subject lands. Concerns from Bob Volpe and Sue Keefe, owners of 13 Christel Lane, were included in the presentation. They expressed concerns about the aggressive development plans for the area and urged Council to limit development of additional lakefront properties through regulations that minimize environmental burdens on the water and natural shore areas. Roger Badura, owner of property at 110 Christel Lane, noted that the first two parcels next to his owned by Mr. Beach can’t be developed and he felt all the construction for these two lots were for nothing. His family has had this cottage for three generations and the scenery has been disrupted for essentially no reason.

Page 4 of 11

Page 8 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 Julian Barrons, 135 Christel Lane, fourth generation owner of the family property. Two letters have been issued as official record of their concerns. His family has witnessed significant impact on the Dog Lake and the surrounding watershed. The applicant has conducted significant blasting in this area, scaring the natural beauty of the area. There have been a series of new roads and pathways that infringe on wildlife which he felt was in direct conflict of the township’s strategic initiative of “natural, vibrant and growing”. He felt this should be enough evidence to deny this application. He noted that the presence of the common five-lined skink (photos provided) found within fifty yards of the proposed development is identified as a species at risk. He felt it is abundantly clear that the developer has not conducted the legally required due diligence with respect to the Ontario Endangered Species Act. Michelle Boussiers, registered just to virtually attend the meeting. Susan Keefe, 131 Christel Lane adjacent to the properties being considered for rezoning. Her family owned this property since 1966 and has become the family home. She felt her family has been responsible home owners for the Dog Lake area. She stated that her family is aware of environmental, cultural, economical interests and these areas need to be balanced and she urged Council to consider these as well. Bob Volpe, reiterated the environmental, cultural and economic interest that Susan Keefe spoke of. He was concerned about the trends of environmental disruption that is allowed to create waterfront lots. There were a lot of rocks blasted from this property to create the entryway is quite significant, none of this is presented in the photos supplied in the presentation. The face of the stone that was blasted out and then filled back in to create a swale was his example of how he felt this development was atrocious and was an extreme disruption to the area. He hoped that the Official Plan updates will have regard for these types of situations. He felt this application was coming in just “under the wire” of implementing the new Official Plan and asked how close the township was to completing this. He had concerns about the process; the applicant did not discuss the potential impact on the adjacent properties. The aerial mapping in the presentation indicated the split in their property by the road allowance, his lot is significantly down hill from where these lots are proposed. He understood that the sites that were tested did not meet the qualifications for a septic system. He wondered how the sites that failed and those on the photos provided are related as he felt there is a lack of information

• what is the difference between the previous site that failed and the approved sites? Due to the terrain, Mr. Volpe indicated that the approved septic sites are directly behind his property and the downhill slope threatens the well on his property (northern boundary of the proposed lots). His family is being encroached upon both from all angles, space wise and from a geological perspective. He urged Council to conduct a site visit to visualize the septic system locations. His final environmental issue is the endangered species noted by Julian Barrons and that rat snakes extend along the lots in questions. Mr. Barrons echoed the concern of Mr. Volpe regarding the potential negative impact to his well. Gary Beach, the applicant, wondered why his comments had not been included in the agenda like the others. He indicated that he would appreciate his comments being circulated to those in attendance virtually who have expressed concern. Mr. Beach indicated that he had reached out to Mr. Volpe and Ms. Keefe extensively in the past and felt he had been transparent. He referred to Shield Shores subdivision that required blasting as well noting this is normal in this terrain. The relocation of Christel Lane and the previous two lots have only been delayed by COVID. He wished to highlight that the adjacent property owners had their legal access changed by the registry office to land titles, the “meets and bounds” descriptions were not followed due to the

Page 5 of 11

Page 9 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 topography. These descriptions have been corrected due to his previous development and the requirement to build an extended township lane. He was surprised that he had not heard of these concerns previously. He noted that an argument could be made to older septic systems near lakes that may have more environmental impact. Mr. Beach indicated he was happy to address any further comments. Christine Woods, addressed some of the comments. The common five-lined skink is the only natural native lizard to Ontario and is a specie of concern and is not a species at risk in Eastern Ontario and not protected in the Act. Julian Barrons felt there were better qualified individuals to respond to this. Ms. Woods indicated her information was taken directly from the Ontario Ministry website about the species. the species in the Windsor area are endangered but not this area. With respect to the comments regarding the new Official Plan, there will be an opportunity for public input next month to get a sense of what direction the township should go in terms of policy regarding growth and development and protecting the environmental. At this time it is inappropriate to consider this application relative to an Official Plan that does not exist. She noted that the township is working towards a shoreline protection by-law however it is no where near being in place to consider it with this application. Ms. Woods reported that she is unaware of original sites for a sewage system but confirmed that there are approved sites which must meet minimum code requirements between sewage systems and wells and can be met on both lots, and will be included in the site plan control. Ms. Woods reviewed the policy framework and how this application was assessed based on the Provincial Policy Statement, the Frontenac County Official Plan and the Township of South Frontenac’s Official Plan. She noted that Council has the discretion on whether or not to support the rezoning application and the future site plan control application. Staff will not be able to sign off on the consent approval without Council’s approval on the rezoning and site plan. Councilor Revill noted that one of the conditions of consent was to rezone and that due to previous experience Council does not have the right to deny a rezoning only apply conditions. Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services stated that Council has one of three decisions to make with regard to a rezoning application, approve with conditions, deny, or defer for more information. She noted that the applicant can appeal if a decision is not made in a timely fashion. Councillor Sleeth asked about the grade of the road going up on the plateau and if Fire Services have reviewed this to determine if fire equipment can access the lane. Christine Woods responded that the lane would have to be built to township standards to allow for emergency vehicles. Councillor Sleeth asked about there only being one viable site for a septic system. Ms. Woods confirmed that each lot (severed and retained) has one suitable location and while it is ideal to have more than one, a secondary site is only required in plans of subdivisions and not consents. Councillor Sutherland indicated that there appears that a few documents were not received by Council and asked when they would be made available. Ms. Woods noted that typically public comments would be summarized in her report but in this case they will be forwarded to Council. Secondly, Councillor Sutherland asked about when the environmental assessment was done before the road was put in and did it assess for hibernaculum. Ms. Woods indicated that it was not an environmental impact assessment but rather to consider what setback would be appropriate from Dog Lake for buildings and structures. Councillor Sutherland suggested that there may have been some impact on the five lined skink habitat when blasting was done. He inquired about there being

Page 6 of 11

Page 10 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 a “no-cut” provision on the shoreline between the house and the land s in between the septic and the shore. Ms. Woods indicated that this (naturalized vegetation buffer) could be itemized in the site plan; Councillor Sutherland strongly supported this being included. Councillor Sleeth asked about the required distance between wells and septic system and how this is regulated. Ms. Woods clarified that where a well has a well casing deeper than six metres, then a septic system can be installed within 15 metres of the well regardless of whether or not it is on the same property. If a well does not have casing of six metres and does not meet the regulation then the system needs to be a minimum of 30 metres from the well. Councillor Sutherland referred to a skink habitat that stopped a development a number of years ago near Tamworth as it had been listed as an endangered species. He questioned the potential for this area to be a rat snake habitat and wondered how to go about getting the Ministry to investigate this and whose responsibility is it to do so. Ms. Woods reported that it is the landowners responsibility to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. It would be up to the person who has concerns to contact the Ministry directly. Roger Badura asked about the requirement of the landowner to meet the requirement of the Endangered Species Act and did that apply to 110 Christel Lane and if there had been any review done by the ministry on the existing two lots. Ms. Woods confirmed that every land owner has the responsibility to adhere to these regulations however she was not familiar with these property Mr. Badura is referencing and could not speak to these applications. Sue Keefe asked about next steps. Mayor Vandewal explained that all of these concerns and comments will be considered and included in the decision. Michelle Boussiers asked about the rerouting of Christel Lane over the past several years and the impact it may have on emergency vehicles access. She asked if the township had signed off on those changes to the lane. She felt she had not received adequate notification about any of these applications and asked if she would receive copies. Mayor Vandewal explained that copies of all documents related to an application are not circulated but suggested that through an email request she can clarity with staff what she is looking for. Ms. Woods confirmed that any changes the lane would have had to have complied with the township’s private lane standards for emergency vehicle access. c)

Resolution - Close Public Meeting Resolution No. 2021-25-04 Moved by Councillor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Roberts That having provided an opportunity for input, the public meeting be closed. Carried

Approval of Minutes

a)

June 1, 2021 Council Meeting Resolution No. 2021-25-05 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Councillor Sleeth That the minutes of the June 1, 2021 Council meeting be approved as presented. Carried

b)

June 8, 2021 Committee of the Whole Meeting

Page 7 of 11

Page 11 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-25-06 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Councillor Revill That the minutes of the June 8, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved. Carried 8.

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Notice of Motion - Environmental Assessment - Stars Corners intersection At this time Mayor Vandewal turned the Chair over to Deputy Mayor Barr. Once the motion was discussed and voted upon he resumed as Chair of the meeting. Resolution No. 2021-25-07 Moved by Mayor Vandewal Seconded by Councillor Leonard Whereas the intersection of Yarker Road and Wilton Road has been identified as a higher risk intersection: and, Whereas the municipality intendeds to explore realignment options on this intersection, Be it resolved that Council request a report from staff outlining the process and options to improve the safety of this intersection, including how options such as a four way stop, round-about or other alternatives will be assessed. Carried

Reports Requiring Action

a)

2021 Private Lane Assistance Program Resolution No. 2021-25-08 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Leonard That Council approve the grant subsidies for the 2021 Private Lane Upgrade Assistance Program as outlined in Option 3 totalling $107,098.01. Carried

b)

Tender PS-2021-11 - Paint Booth Exhaust and Radio Tower Removal Resolution No. 2021-25-09 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That Council approve the tendered bid from Tolles Ltd., in the amount of $147,500.00 plus HST, for the removal of the Paint Booth Exhaust System & Radio Tower at the Keeley Road Patrol Yard. Carried

c)

Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval 10T-2020/002 (Willowbrook Estates - Phase 2) Resolution No. 2021-25-10 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That South Frontenac Council recommend the County of Frontenac approve plan of subdivision application 10T-2020/002 with the conditions outlined in the Planning Report prepared by the Senior Planner and dated July 8, 2021.

Page 8 of 11

Page 12 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 Carried d)

Deeming By-law - Deem Lots 18 and 19 on Plan 1315 NOT to be in a plan of subdivision for the purpose of applying 50(3) of the Planning Act See By-law 2021-36

e)

Zoning By-law Amendment - Z-21-05 - 5056 Battersea Road (Reynolds) See By-law 2021-37.

f)

Z-21-06 Township-initiated Administrative Amendments to the Text and Schedules of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 See By-law 2021-38 also.

Committee Meeting Minutes - none

By-laws

a)

First and Second Readings of By-laws Resolution No. 2021-25-11 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-laws 2021-36, 2021-37 and 2021-38 be given first and second reading. Carried

b)

By-law 2021-36 - Deem part of Plan 1315, Lot 18 and 19 not to be part of Registered Plan of Subdivision Resolution No. 2021-25-12 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Deputy Mayor Barr That By-law 2021-36, being a by-law to deem part of the Plan of Subdivision No. 1315, not to be a registered plan of subdivision, Plan 1315, Lot 18 and 19, Storrington District, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

c)

By-law 2021-37 - Rezone Concession 9, Part Lot 9, 5056 Battersea Road Councillor Sleeth was not in the Council Chambers during the discussion and approval of the resolution. He returned to the Council Chambers for the next agenda item. Resolution No. 2021-25-13 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Leonard That By-law 2021-37, being a by-law to amend By-law 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Urban Residential First Density (UR1) to Urban Residential First Density - Special Provision (UR1-20 and UR1-21-H) Concession 9, Part Lot 9, 5056 Battersea Road, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

d)

By-law 2021-38 - Township Initiated Amendments to By-law 2003-75 Resolution No. 2021-25-14 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Sutherland

Page 9 of 11

Page 13 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 THAT Council confirms that there be no further notice of any changes made to By-law 2021-38 since the public meeting, pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act. Carried Resolution No. 2021-25-15 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sleeth That By-law 2021-38, being a by-law to amend By-law 2003-75, as amended, to effect a number of changes to correct mapping and text errors that have been identified, to reflect the township’s public road winter maintenance program and to ensure current provincial policy and guidance on minimum distance separations for livestock facilities as well as group homes are appropriately reflected, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried 12.

Reports for Information

a)

Development Services Quarterly Reports - 2nd Quarter

b)

Surplus sale of 2009 Fort Garry Kenworth Squad

Information Items

a)

CRCA Comments on Environmental Registry Posting 019-2986 Regulatory Proposals under the Conservation Authorities Act

Notice of Motions

a)

There were no notices of motion served.

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

a)

Councillor Sleeth noted a safety issue in the village of Battersea and believes a resolution has been found that is suitable to both the owner and the township. He also relayed appreciation from residents regarding improvements to Carrying Place Road and commended the staff in Public Services for their professionalism in this project.

Question of Clarity

Members of the public are provided an opportunity to ask a question of clarity about an agenda item. a)

Members of the public are provided an opportunity to ask a question of clarity about an agenda item; there were no questions of clarity from the public.

Closed Session - not applicable

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2021-39 Resolution No. 2021-25-16 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-law 2021-39, being a by-law to confirm generally all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac on July 13, 2021, be given first and second reading. Carried

Page 10 of 11

Page 14 of 191 Minutes of Council July, 13, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-25-17 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Deputy Mayor Barr That By-law 2021-39, the confirmatory by-law, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried 19.

Adjournment

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2021-25-18 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Deputy Mayor Barr That the Council meeting of July 13, 2021 be adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 11 of 11

Page 15 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: September 7, 2021 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion: Education Development Charge RECOMMENDATION That Council supports the resolution passed by the Council of the County of Lennox and Addington regarding the proposal by the French Public School Board to impose an Education Development Charge and directs staff to advise the Minister of Education that South Frontenac Council supports the review of the legislation that allows School Boards the opportunity to tax those who receive limited or no benefit.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting on August 17, 2021 Councillor Revill served a notice of motion requesting that Council support the resolution passed by the Council of the Corporation of the County of Lennox and Addington with respect to the French Public School Board’s proposal to impose a Development Charge of $300.00 to $333 per new residential unit. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION In May of this year, staff provided an information report to Council regarding the CEPEO’s proposed Education Development Charge, including their consultation requirements and the number of students within South Frontenac attending or on a wait list to enrol with the board. That information is attached again for Council’s reference.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Education Development Charge – Report to Council (May 18,

2. CEPEO EDC’s Stakeholders Presentation
3. County of Lennox & Addington Resolution (July 28, 2021)

Prepared by: Angela Maddocks Clerk Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 16 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

AGENDA DATE:

May 18, 2021

REPORT DATE:

May 12, 2021

SUBJECT: Proposed Education Development Charge (CEPEO)

RECOMMENDATION That South Frontenac Council receive this report for information.

BACKGROUND The Township of South Frontenac has recently been advised by the French Public School Board for Eastern Ontario, Conseil des ecoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (CEPEO), of their intent to implement an Education Development Charge (EDC) in South Frontenac. All municipalities in Frontenac County, Lennox and Addington County and Leeds and Grenville will be impacted by the proposed Education Development Charge (EDC). The charge is proposed to be in effect for a minimum of 5 years and is intended to cover the cost of the acquisition of land and site development costs of a new French Public School in the west end of Kingston CEPEO is proposing an EDC that will apply to new home construction on vacant lots within the Township. The proposed EDC is imposed in a way similar to the Township Development Charge. It is collected at the time a building permit is issued by the Development Services Department. The funds collected would be remitted to CEPEO by the Treasury Department throughout the year. • • •

CEPEO held a stakeholder meeting with Municipalities on April 15th, 2021. A first public meeting was held on Tuesday, April 27th, 2021. Both the Director of Development Services and the Director of Corporate Services participated in this virtual meeting. A second public meeting will be held on May 25, 2021 to obtain further comment and to consider the adoption of the by-law.

Assuming the by-law is adopted on May 25th, the EDC is proposed to take effect on May 31, 2021. The proposed EDC for South Frontenac, is $300 for the remainder of 2021. Effective May 31, 2022 and every year after that the charge will be $365. School boards in Ontario are permitted to impose EDCs to pay for the land acquisition and site development costs associated with additional pupils generated by new housing development. • •

There are 31 EDC by-laws in Ontario imposed by 27 school boards. Most of these have been in place since 1998. The EDC proposed by CEPEO is the first EDC to be implemented in Frontenac County.

There are currently 125 students from South Frontenac currently on a waiting list (12) or attending JK-Grade 12 programs (104) with the CEPEO school board.

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS •

Additional administration for Building and Treasury staff to collect and remit the fees to the CEPEO

Prepared/Submitted by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 1

Page 17 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

ATTACHMENTS

1. CEPEO EDC’s Stakeholders Presentation Kingston West Area 2021

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 2

Page 18 of 191

EDC Stakeholder Meeting April 15, 2021

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Education Development Charges

Introductions Principles of Education Development Charges and Legislative ‘Cap’ Proposed EDC Rates EDC Legislative Process EDC Calculation Methodology & Eligibility to Adopt EDC By-laws 15-year Residential Forecasts and Gross to Net New Dwelling Units Pupil Yields by Density Type Total 15-year Student Enrolments Site Acquisition Costs Per Acre Site Preparation Costs Per Acre Financial Analysis Proposed Public Meeting Dates Statutory Exemptions Next Steps/ Future Meetings Questions?

Page 19 of 191

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Proposed Agenda

2

Principles of Education Development Charges

• The Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (CEPEO) qualifies to adopt EDCs – the Board currently has EDC by-laws in City of Ottawa and United Counties of Prescott and Russell • EDCs are applied to any residential development that is not statutorily-exempt, at the time of building permit issuance, and to the appropriate municipality • Charging municipalities collect EDCs and forward funds to the CEPEO on a monthly basis (a separate information session will be held with municipalities to review legislative protocols respecting by-law implementation) • Legislation divides Province into various ‘regions’ for the purposes of adopting EDC by-laws – in this case: • United Counties of Leeds and Grenville • Frontenac County and the City of Kingston • Lennox and Addington County

Page 20 of 191

• Area-specific EDC by-laws proposed in each of these 3 ‘regions’. The by-laws will only apply to those communities within each County where students currently attend Madeleine-de-Roybon and Mille-Îles in Kingston

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

• School boards that qualify, can impose EDCs to pay for land acquisition and site development costs associated with additional pupils generated by new housing development over the next 15 years and beyond

3

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Principles of Education Development Charges

Page 21 of 191

4

Principles of Education Development Charges

• Legislation requires that Minister of Education approves spending EDC funds collected in Leeds and Grenville & Lennox and Addington, on lands within the City of Kingston • The EDC scheme was designed to derive precisely the value of the net growth-related land needs (including financing and study costs) – not a penny more; not a penny less. School boards do not have access to the tax base and the Province has limited, enveloped funds for land purchases • As of November 1, 2019 the Province adopted the following legislative ‘caps’:

Page 22 of 191

• Increase residential rates by the greater of $300 or 5% per annum provided that these ‘capped’ rates do not exceed the ‘calculated’ rates determined in the EDC Background Study report. As such, the initial EDC by-laws proposed to support additional CEPEO enrolment growth arising from new housing development cannot exceed $300 per dwelling unit during the first year of the by-laws. By Year 2, the full EDC rates are imposed

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

• Ministerial oversight re purchase of land, funding to pay costs to construct additional pupil places, and to enable a school board to adopt an EDC by-law(s)

5

Proposed EDC Rates QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

The CEPEO is proposing to acquire a 7.65 acre elementary school site in the Woodhaven Phase 4 subdivision

Page 23 of 191

The CEPEO will also require $1.8 million in Land Priorities funding to pay for the new elementary school site in Kingston West. Land Priorities funding is provided by the Provincial through the tax base

6

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

EDC Legislative Process

Page 24 of 191

7

EDCs – Calculation Methodology Overview (Part 1)

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Planning Component:

Page 25 of 191

8

Available pupil places, that, in the opinion of the Board, could reasonably be used to accommodate growth

EDCs – Calculation Methodology Overview (Part 2)

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Financial Component:

Page 26 of 191

While the entire EDC calculation process is a pure mathematical construct and is predictive in nature, the determination of 15-year growth-related needs should align with the board’s long term accommodation plan and future capital priorities funding requests to the Province.

9

• Eligibility to impose an EDC by‐law is either: • the estimated average enrolment over the 5 years following the day the board intends to have the by‐law come into force exceeding the total capacity that exists on the day the by‐law is passed on either the elementary or secondary panel OR • A board has an existing EDC by-law in place and has outstanding EDC‐related financial obligations (deficit in the EDC account)

Page 27 of 191

• The CEPEO qualifies to adopt EDC by-laws within its jurisdiction based on elementary enrolment in excess of capacity

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Eligibility to Adopt a Successor EDC By-law

10

15-year Forecast of Net New Dwelling Units Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

2021/

2022/

2023/

2024/

2025/

2026/

2027/

2028/

2029/

2030/

2031/

2032/

2033/

2034/

2035/

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Singles and Semi-Detached

374

377

369

384

381

388

392

392

351

355

321

327

324

272

270

5,277

Townhouses, Row Housing, etc.

103

109

111

113

110

120

113

111

109

99

98

102

104

79

79

1,560

Apartments

414

379

382

408

593

509

281

415

339

295

303

285

409

564

564

6,140

Total

891

865

862

905

1,084

1,017

786

918

799

749

722

714

837

915

913

12,977

56

41

45

42

51

51

762

Total All Units

FPE01 United Counties Leeds & Grenville incl. Westport, Gananoque, Rideau Lakes (except South Elmsley), Leeds and the Thousand Islands Singles and Semi-Detached

55

56

49

Townhouses, Row Housing, etc.

2

10

6

Apartments

58

40

10

Total

115

106

65

56

56

46

50

57

51

2

1

15

5

4

7

1

2

8

7

3

3

76

37

35

35

5

32

32

40

50

32

30

42

42

520

95

92

96

60

93

90

97

93

85

79

96

96

1,358

2,751

FPE02 South Frontenac Twsp, Frontenac Islands & City of Kingston Singles and Semi-Detached

199

201

201

208

206

218

218

212

176

175

171

172

172

112

110

Townhouses, Row Housing, etc.

54

54

56

62

62

60

61

60

53

51

53

52

53

29

29

789

Apartments

331

314

347

346

533

450

252

359

283

231

231

231

356

499

499

5,262

Total

584

569

604

616

801

728

531

631

512

457

455

455

581

640

638

8,802

FPE03 County of Lennox & Addington south of Highway 7 Singles and Semi-Detached

120

120

119

120

119

124

124

123

124

124

109

110

110

109

109

1,764

Townhouses, Row Housing, etc.

47

45

49

49

47

45

47

47

49

47

43

42

44

47

47

695

Apartments

25

25

25

25

25

24

24

24

24

24

22

22

23

23

23

358

Total

192

190

193

194

191

193

195

194

197

195

174

174

177

179

179

2,817

an existing dwelling unit.

Grand Total Gross New Units in By-Law Area

Less: Statutorily Exempt Units in By-Law Area

Total Net New Units in By-Law Area

13,498

521 12,977

Page 28 of 191

Notes: 1. Assumed to be net of demolitions and conversions. Statutory exemptions include secondary dwellings that are ancillary to, or as part of

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Total Kingston West Catchment Area

11

Page 29 of 191

• Calculated by school, by grade including pre-school attendees • Consist of 2 parts: 1. Requirements of the Existing Community, plus 2. Requirements of New Development (ROND) • Requirements of the Existing Community are pupils enrolled in schools of the board and retained over time (i.e. graduating from grade to grade) • Without increased births and/or positive net migration of increasing apportionment share the Requirements of the Existing Community may decline over time • Requirements of New Development are pupils generated by the construction of new homes in the by-law coverage area over the next 15 years • In a municipality where there is steady and substantive residential construction the Requirements of New Development assist in offsetting what might otherwise be a decline in enrolment • 15-year EDC enrolment is the total of the Requirements of the Existing Community and the Requirements of New Development

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

15-year EDC Enrolment Projections

12

EDC Pupil Yields QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

• EDC pupil yields represent weighted & blended yields as of the final year (Year 15) of the forecast period

Page 30 of 191

13

Weighted Blended EDC Pupil Yields CEPEO EDC 2021 Weighted Blended Pupil Yields

Elementary Review Area FPE01 United Counties Leeds & Grenville incl. Westport, Gananoque, Rideau Lakes (except South Elmsley), Leeds and the Thousand Islands FPE02 South Frontenac Twsp, Frontenac Islands & City of Kingston FPE03 County of Lennox & Addington south of Highway 7 TOTAL

APARTMENTS SINGLE and (includes MEDIUM TOTAL SEMI-DETA purpose-built seniors DENSITY UNITS CHED housing and student housing)

0.0210

0.0132

0.0019

0.0133

0.0403

0.0152

0.0008

0.0144

0.0193 0.0305

0.0072 0.0115

0.0000 0.0008

0.0138 0.0142

CEPEO EDC 2021 Weighted Blended Pupil Yields

Secondary Review Area

0.0039

0.0000

0.0000

0.0022

0.0062

0.0038

0.0004

0.0025

0.0034 0.0049

0.0000 0.0019

0.0000 0.0003

0.0021 0.0024

Page 31 of 191

FPS01 United Counties Leeds & Grenville incl. Westport, Gananoque, Rideau Lakes (except South Elmsley), Leeds and the Thousand Islands FPS02 South Frontenac Twsp, Frontenac Islands & City of Kingston FPS03 County of Lennox & Addington south of Highway 7 TOTAL

APARTMENTS SINGLE and (includes MEDIUM TOTAL SEMI-DETA purpose-built seniors DENSITY UNITS CHED housing and student housing)

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Applicable pupil yields and ROND by area and by density type based on spatial matching of actual student data and MPAC data

14

15-year Enrolment Projections Summary Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario - Kingston Catchment Area

Elementary Panel

Existing

Current

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

2020/

2021/

2022/

2023/

2024/

2025/

2026/

2027/

2028/

2029/

2030/

2031/

2032/

2033/

2034/

2035/

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

533

559

564

587

602

620

628

642

649

672

688

703

716

721

726

729

13

27

40

53

67

80

94

107

120

132

143

155

166

175

184

573

591

627

655

686

708

736

756

791

820

846

871

888

901

913

Requirements of New Development Total

533

380

Secondary Panel

Existing

Current

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

2020/

2021/

2022/

2023/

2024/

2025/

2026/

2027/

2028/

2029/

2030/

2031/

2032/

2033/

2034/

2035/

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

61

65

77

98

116

147

176

199

225

223

218

218

210

227

238

249

2

5

7

9

11

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

31

61

67

81

105

125

158

190

215

243

243

240

243

236

255

267

280

Requirements of New Development Total

219

Page 32 of 191

The construction/occupancy of 13,498 new homes will generate 184 elementary and 31 secondary pupils. The construction of a new elementary and secondary school in Kingston will increase total enrolment (Madeleine-de-Roybon increased by 181% since the Board acquired the school in 2009).

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Historical and Projected Enrolment

15

A February 15, 2019 appraisal report prepared by MW Cotman & Associates Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants established a land valuation of $411,765 per acre.

Page 33 of 191

On January 28, 2021 the appraisers were asked to provide an opinion as to current value and an appropriate annual land escalation factor to be applied over the term of the proposed EDC by-law (consistent with EDC practice across the Province). An annual land escalation factor of 5% provided by the appraiser derives a cost of $500,503 per acre if the Board acquires the land in 2023.

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Site Acquisition Costs per Acre

16

Page 34 of 191

As the Board has never acquired raw land in the City of Kingston, CEPEO site acquisitions in south Kanata and Nepean were used as a proxy. Derived site preparation costs per acre of $287,300 with a 2.5% escalation factor applied to the 15-year forecast period (i.e. in recognition of escalating labour and materials costs)

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

Site Preparation Costs per Acre

17

Financial Analysis • Derives the lowest residential rate wherein the Year 15 closing balance is as close to $0 as possible • The rate applied to each ‘region’ is based on the proportionate share of the growth-related accommodation needs generated by each individual ‘region’ Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario - Kingston Catchment Area CALCULATION OF EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs (over 15-year forecast period including associated financing and study costs) Costs Financed in the Previous By-law Site Acquisition Costs Land Escalation Costs Site Preparation Costs Site Preparation Escalation Costs Credit Line Interest Payments Study Costs

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

N/A (2,039) 2,905 12,977 357

Page 35 of 191

Financial Obligations/Surplus (projected EDC Account Balance as of May 31, 2021) Interest Earnings $ Closing Account Balance $ Total Net New Units Total Non-Residential, Non-Exempt Board-Determined GFA Residential Education Development Charge Per Unit based on 100% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs (average cost of three ‘regions’) $ Non-Residential Education Development Charge Per Sq. Ft. of GFA based on 0% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs 0

4,632,789 N/A 2,427,634 248,832 1,536,000 159,457 260,000

QUADRANT ADVISORY GROUP

• EDC calculation is based on 15-year cashflow analysis of the proposed capital expenditure program for school sites; cash flow methodology is consistent with that undertaken by municipalities

18

Statutory Exemptions Additional Dwelling Unit Exemption Name of class of residential building Single detached dwellings

Description of class of residential buildings

Semi-detached dwellings or row dwellings

Residential buildings, each of which contains a single dwelling unit, that have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts, attached to other buildings. A residential building not in another class of residential building described in this table.

Other residential buildings

Residential buildings, each of which contains a single dwelling unit, that are not attached to other buildings.

Maximum number of additional dwelling units Two

Restrictions

One

The gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building. The gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit already in the building.

One

The total gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit or units must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building.

Secondary Dwelling Unit Exemption DCA legislation revised to add section dealing with secondary dwelling units (i.e. creation of additional units on same property where legal ownership does not change)

•

EDC legislation does not have this provision

•

School boards have taken steps within their by-laws to limit circumstances where applicant is trying to avoid paying the charge

Page 36 of 191

•

19

Statutory Exemptions cont’d • A municipality; a district school board; a private school; place of worship • Farm retirement lots and farm building • A long-term care home, as defined in the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007. • A retirement home, as defined in the Retirement Homes Act, 2010. • A hospice or other facility that provides palliative care services. • A child care centre, as defined in the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014. • A memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds owned by the Royal Canadian Legion. • The owner is a college of applied arts and technology established under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. • The owner is a university that receives regular and ongoing operating funds from the Government of Ontario for the purposes of post-secondary education. • The owner is an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017. O. Reg. 371/19, s. 1.

Page 37 of 191

• A Board may recognize additional exemptions in EDC by‐laws; however, such exemptions, i.e., not‐for‐profit housing; cottages, would be considered non-statutory. Any non-legislative exemptions granted by the Board would create a shortfall in funding • The shortfall would have to be offset from elsewhere within the Board’s funding envelopes – Generally this is not possible given the restrictions imposed through Ministry policies and Regulations

20

Proposed Consultation Process • Legislation requires that a school board conduct 1 public meeting • Consistent with historical practice there will be 2 opportunities to delegate the Board of Trustees prior to consideration of by-law adoption • Stakeholder consultation – April 15, 2021 (this meeting) • 1st public meeting Tuesday April 27, 2021 7:30 PM (virtual meeting) • 2nd public meeting & consideration of by-law adoption Tuesday May 25, 2021 7:00 PM (virtual meeting) • Monday May 31, 2021 – By-law Implementation Date

The Board would appreciate receiving written submissions one week prior to the Public Meetings, so that they may be distributed to trustees prior to the meetings. Anyone wishing to attend the virtual meeting, provide a written submission, or make a request to address the Board as a delegation should contact the Secretary for the Board prior to 3PM on the day of meeting: • Solange Houde, Session Secretary at solange.houde@cepeo.on.ca, (613) 742-8960 ext. 2200 c.c. moncef.cherouk@cepeo.on.ca and karima.menouer@cepeo.on.ca

Any comments or requests for further information regarding this matter may be directed to Mr. Etienne Paquet, Mgr. of Planning (613-742-8960 ext. 2297) during regular office hours.

Page 38 of 191

In addition to the legislated public meetings indicated above, the Board has regularly scheduled Board meetings, at which the Board may receive information regarding education development charges. Regular Board meeting procedures will apply to these meetings.

21

Page 39 of 191

Office of the Clerk

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON Meeting held – July 28, 2021 CC-21-209

WHEREAS the French Public School Board for our region (Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario) is proposing to impose a Development Charge of $300$333 per new Residential Unit built in the Town of Greater Napanee, Loyalist and Stone Mills Townships; AND WHEREAS, the Board imposes an education development charge against land undergoing Residential Development or redevelopment in the southern portion of Lennox and Addington County if the Residential Development or redevelopment requires any one of those actions set out below and described in section 257.54 of the Education Act: • the passing of a zoning by-law or an amendment to a zoning by-law • the approval of a minor variance • a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under the Planning Act applies • the approval of a plan of subdivision • a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act • the approval of a description under the Condominium Act, 1998 • the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, in relation to a building or structure AND WHEREAS, An Education Development Charge will be collected once in respect of a particular development, but does not prevent the application of the board’s by-law to future development of the same property; AND WHEREAS the Councils of the County of Lennox and Addington, Greater Napanee, Stone Mills and Loyalist have expressed concerns with this charge and its negative impact on the issue of alleviating the affordable housing crisis; AND WHEREAS Greater Napanee, Stone Mills and Loyalist have a very minimal number of eligible electors that support this Board; AND WHEREAS the Board has failed to adequately communicate its intentions locally;

97 Thomas St. E., Napanee, Ontario K7R 4B9

tel: 613-354-4883

fax: 613-354-3112 www.lennox-addington.on.ca

Page 40 of 191

AND WHEREAS there are no schools from this Board in all of Lennox and Addington County and these funds are designed to pay for a school in the City of Kingston; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the County of Lennox and Addington call on the Minister of Education, the Honourable Steve Lecce, to rescind approval of the proposed Development Charges as they drastically overreach the principle of local growth paying for local services; AND FURTHER that the Minister initiate a review of the Legislation that allows School Boards this opportunity to tax those that receive limited or no benefit; AND FURTHER that this Resolution be shared with ROMA, the other unfairly impacted municipalities in Lennox and Addington County and our Member of Provincial Parliament Daryl Kramp.

CARRIED (signed) Warden Ric Bresee

Tracey McKenzie Clerk tmckenzie@lennox-addington.on.ca

97 Thomas St. E., Napanee, Ontario K7R 4B9

tel: 613-354-4883

fax: 613-354-3112 www.lennox-addington.on.ca

Page 41 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

September 7, 2021

SUBJECT: Tender # PS-2021-15 - Snowplowing and Sanding/Salting Arterial Roadways (2021-2024) RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the bid from K. Mulrooney Trucking for Snowplowing and Sanding/Salting Arterial Roadways for 2021 through 2024 with a two (2) year option for extensions. BACKGROUND: In January 2021, Council formally approved the in-house delivery of snowplowing and sanding/salting of the majority of the Township’s arterial routes. That in-house model, set to begin in November of 2021, left two (2) arterial routes to be contracted out in order to provide a manageable balance between in-house and contracted winter control services in the initial years of the new model. On July 21st, 2021, the Township released tenders for winter control services on arterial roadways and advertised on Biddingo and the Township’s website. Details included in the tender cover the two (2) plow routes known as Routes 504 and 429. Route 504 includes sections of Desert Lake Road, Bauder Drive, Westport Road and Burridge Road for a total length of 80.6km. Route 429 includes the full lengths of Battersea Road, Moreland-Dixon Road and Sunbury Road at a combined length of 74.0km. Services under the proposed contract include the supply of labour and equipment for plowing, sanding and salting roadways. Materials are otherwise supplied by the Township. Provisions under the contract also allow for standby allowances which are considered standard practice within the industry. On August 11th, 2021, the bid period for the tender closed with one bid received from K. Mulrooney Trucking. Results of the bid are as follows:

PS-2021-15 Snowplowing and Sanding/Salting Arterial Roadways

Bidder K. Mulrooney Trucking K. Mulrooney Trucking

*Price Per Route Vehicle Hour (HST extra)

**Standby Price/Day (HST extra)

Patrol Yard

429

$225/hour

$100/day

Storrington Centre

504

$225/hour

$100/day

Westport Road

*Note 1: Standby pricing applies from November 1st to April 15th of each year. **Note 2: Unit prices are subject to Consumer Price Index adjustments each season.

K. Mulrooney Trucking’s bid was reviewed for accuracy and found to be compliant with the Township’s procurement bylaw. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The funding for services provided under this contract are included in the 2021 Operating Budgets for winter control for routes 429 and 504. The approved budget allocations for these areas are $31,215 and $71,400 respectively.

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 42 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

K. Mulrooney Trucking successfully provided these services to the Township under a previous five year contract. During the winter of 2020/2021 these services were extended with this vendor of record at approved rates of $180/hr and $500/week for standby respectively. Staff have reviewed the current bid and are recommending that the Township proceed with the award of contract at the new rates. Additional increases will be reflected in the draft 2022 budget accordingly. ATTACHMENTS: None.

Prepared by: Brian Kirk, CRS-I Manager of Operations and Fleet Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 43 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

September 7, 2021

SUBJECT:

Tender # PS-2021-16 - Winter Maintenance Operations at Various Locations (2021-2024)

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the low bids submitted for each local road route in response to Tender # PS-2021-16 for Winter Maintenance Operations at Various Locations (2021-2024) as outlined in this report. BACKGROUND: On July 21st, 2021, the Township released tenders for winter control services on local roadways and advertised on Biddingo and the Township’s website. The tender included ten (10) plow routes with a combined length of 87.7km. It should be noted that the local roads on the routes vary in width and complexity. Individual bidders had the option to bid any of the routes identified and the Township reserved the right to award each route separately. Services under the proposed contract include the supply of labour and equipment for plowing, sanding and salting local roadways. Materials are otherwise supplied by the Township. There are no allowances provided for standby pay. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: On August 11th, 2021, the bid period for the tender closed with bids received for all of the routes with the exception of routes 5 and 10. Results of the bid are as follows:

Route

Route Length (km)

PS-2021-16 – Winter Maintenance Operations at Various Locations (Local Roads) (Price Per Trip excluding HST)

1

4.1

$181

2

5.1

$313

3

2.9

$144

4

2.5

$192

5

30.0

6

8.0

$1,000

$1,863.70

7

8.0

$1,000

$2,292.70

8

11.3

$750

9

2.3

$300

10

13.5

Larmon

Dig n’ Dirt

Percy Snider

TW Patching

McNichols

K. Mulrooney Trucking

$565

*$1,440

*$1,100

*NOTE 1 – The bids for Routes 5 and 10 were obtained from vendors of record after the tender was closed due to no bids being received for these routes as noted above. NOTE 2 – Unit prices are subject to Consumer Price Index adjustments each season.

All of the bids were reviewed for accuracy and found to be compliant with the Township’s procurement bylaw.

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 44 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

As mentioned above, the Township did not receive bids for routes 5 and 10 at the time of the closing of the tender and as a result the management team sought out pricing from venders of record afterwards. The bid quotations received for these two routes are noted accordingly within the bid summaries.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The funding for services provided under this contract are included in the 2021 Operating Budgets for winter control. Prices submitted under the current bids reflect a modest increase over the previous four (4) year contracts. Additional increases will be reflected in the draft 2022 budget accordingly. Staff are therefore recommending that the Township proceed with the award of contracts for Routes 1 through 10 to the low bidders as presented.

ATTACHMENTS: None. Prepared by: Brian Kirk, CRS-I Manager of Operations and Fleet

Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 45 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

September 7, 2021

SUBJECT:

Tender # PS-2021-25 - Winter Maintenance Services Sidewalks (2021-2024)

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the low bids submitted for each of the four (4) sidewalk plowing routes in response to Tender # PS-2021-25 for winter maintenance services on sidewalks (2021- 2024) as outlined in this report. BACKGROUND: On July 22nd, 2021, the Township released a tender for winter control services on municipally-owned sidewalks. The Tender was advertised on Biddingo and the Township website and covered four (4) plow routes with a combined length of 13.67km. Individual bidders had the option to bid any of the routes identified and the Township reserved the right to award each route separately. Services under the proposed contract include the supply of labour and equipment for plowing, sanding and salting sidewalks. Materials are otherwise supplied by the Township. There are no allowances provided for standby pay. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: On August 11th, 2021, the bid period for the tender closed with bids received for all four (4) routes. The results were as follows: PS 2021-25- Winter Maintenance Operations Various Locations (Sidewalks) – Cost Per Trip (excluding HST) Route

Length (m)

Location

Zomers

Percy Snider

1

5,684

Sydenham & Perth Road

$3,695

$290

2

3,048

Harrowsmith & Hartington

$3,695

$268

3

3,220

Verona & Bellrock

$3,695

$192

4

1,721

Battersea, Inverary & Sunbury

Larmon

$950

$3,140

Note – All unit prices are subject to Consumer Price Index adjustments each season. All of the bids were reviewed for accuracy and found to be compliant with the Township’s procurement bylaw. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The funding for services provided under this contract are included in the 2021 Operating Budgets for winter control. Prices submitted under the current bids reflect a modest increase over the previous four year contract. Additional increases will be reflected in the draft 2022 budget accordingly. Staff are therefore recommending that the Township proceed with the award of contracts for all four (4) routes as presented. ATTACHMENTS: None. “Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 46 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Prepared by: Brian Kirk, CRS-I Manager of Operations and Fleet

Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 47 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: September 7, 2021 SUBJECT: Request for Out of Budget Approval and Reallocation – Hinchinbrooke Road Double Surface Treatment RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the budget approval in the amount of $225,000 to advance placement of double surface treatments on Hinchinbrooke Road within the 2021 budget year; and, That the estimated budget shortfall of $225,000 be fully funded from forecasted surplus from the Carrying Place, Bunker Hill and Deyos Road projects. BACKGROUND: In January of this year, Council approved its 2021 Operating and Capital Budgets which included the reconstruction of Hinchinbrooke Road, commencing at Desert Lake Road and extending southerly for approximately 5.4km. This project involved numerous activities including: design, land acquisition, drainage works, road reconstruction, and utility relocations associated with the upgrade. The budget allocation for the project was set at $1,128,100 for 2021, however this amount did not include the placement of the final double surface treatment (DST) on the roadway. At the time of budget deliberations, Council had earmarked this $225,000 expense towards the 2022 budget to stay within the 2021 linear capital budget allocation. Please refer to the capital project detail sheet for additional details (attached). As we head into the late stages of the 2021 construction season, several major construction projects are wrapping up and total project costs are therefore being finalized. The Carrying Place, Bunker Hill and Deyos Road projects are now hard surfaced and these projects are forecasted to close out with a healthy surplus. Despite a major setback on the Spring Lake crossing in late July, the Hinchinbrooke Road project has proceeded uninterrupted on the north and south sides of the crossing. Given the long duration of the project, staff are looking to ease public concerns in the area and advance long awaited hard surfacing activities on the project. For these reasons, scheduling opportunities with the Township’s sub-contractor have been taken advantage of to complete the north portion of Hinchinbrooke Road with DST on August 30th. Surface treatment on the southern section of the project is also being considered for mid-September pending Council’s consideration of this options report. Separate from the surface treatment, staff will be bringing forward a report to review funding strategies relating to the road failure at the Spring Lake culvert. While this issue could result in the overall project being over budget, staff are working with the Geotechnical Engineer on exploring cost effective solutions. Staff will also be exploring several strategies to offset these financial impacts elsewhere within the approved 2021 work program. ANAYLSIS AND OPTIONS: Going forward, Council has two (2) options to consider with respect to funding the double surface treatment activities on Hinchinbrooke Road:

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 48 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Option 1 – Defer Works to 2022 - If Council elects not to proceed with advancing the double surface treatment activities in 2021, the Hinchinbrooke Road project could be extended as a project into 2022 however that would not likely address public concerns over the long duration of the project. Deferring the activities into the 2022 year may also translate into unknown and potentially higher unit prices for surface treatment works. Option 2 – Advance Double Surface Treatment (DST) in 2021 – It is apparent that capital savings for the $225,000 investment can be funded from off-setting surpluses forecasted from the Carrying Place, Bunker Hill and Deyos Road projects. A recent review of labour, equipment, material and contracted expenses on these jobs has identified that the forecasted surplus on Carrying Place will be over $100,000 and similarly, the forecasted savings on the Bunker Hill / Deyos Road project will be in excess of $250,000. In combination, these budget savings will fund the full extent of the double surfaced treatments on Hinchinbrooke Road this year. These savings are also expected to assist in offering further buffer against the yet to be known costs for repair of the Spring Lake crossing. Staff are therefore recommending that Council proceed with Option 2 and fund the DST improvements on Hinhinbrooke Road within the 2021 budget year. Advancing with this work in 2021 also allows the municipality to leverage favourable unit pricing for surface treatment activities already secured under the current capital program.

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The placement of double surface treatments on Hinchinbrooke Road will translate to a commitment of $225,000 in the 2021 Capital Budget. It is currently recommended that this activity be funded by forecasted savings from the Carrying Place, Bunker Hill and Deyos Road rehabilitation projects anticipated to be in excess of $350,000. ATTACHMENTS: 2021 Capital Project Detail Sheet – Hinchinbrooke Road. Prepared by: W. Troy Dunlop, C.E.T. Manager of Technical Services and Infrastructure Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 49 of 191

?w=W7.;wV

m..ZOmu .._Som

Page 50 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

AGENDA DATE:

September 7, 2021

REPORT DATE:

September 2, 2021

SUBJECT:

2021 Lake Ecosystem Grant Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION That Council approve three (3) Lake Ecosystem Grants totalling $24,500, as recommended by the Lake Ecosystem Committee and as summarized in this report, and That remaining funds of $35,500 be allocated to a second intake of the program to be issued in the fall of 2021. BACKGROUND The Township accepted applications for the Lake Ecosystem Grant program for the first time in July 2021. The program was advertised on the Township website and social media, as well as in Frontenac News. Lake Associations were also sent the media release directly. The 2021 operating budget included $30,000 in funding for the program in addition to a carryover of $30,000 from 2020. The Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee reviewed the applications and is making a recommendation to Council, per the Lake Ecosystem Grant Policy. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION Three (3) applications were received by the Township in response to the call for applications. The Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee, through a subcommittee, reviewed the applications based on the approved evaluation criteria, and based on the merits of the applications, recommend that all three (3) of the projects be fully funded for the amounts requested. The three applications are summarized below.

1. Applicant: Battersea Loughborough Lake Association Project: This is a project to survey users of the Perth Road boat ramp to see where they had been with their boats and whether they washed their boats before and after entering a lake. They would also gather information about installing a boat washing station at the ramp. Amount Requested: $8,500
2. Applicant: Fourteen Island and Mink Lakes Watershed Association Project: This project is to help fund a Scoped Dam Safety Assessment which is needed to obtain the necessary permits for repairing the dam on Fourteen Island Lake. Amount Requested: $10,000
3. Applicant: Wolfe Lake Association Project: This project is to fund the buying back of lead fishing tackle at local retail stores. Amount Requested: $6,000

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 1

Page 51 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The initial uptake of this program may have been slow due to the short timeframe and the time of year. The Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee recommends that a second intake be issued later this fall to allocate the remaining funds of $35,500. Prepared by: Gillian Lash, Chair, Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee and Christine Woods, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Submitted by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 2

Page 52 of 191

Report to Council Development Services - Planning

Agenda Date:

September 7, 2021

Report Date:

August 31, 2021

Application:

Road Closing Application – RC-21-03

Owner:

500675 Ontario Ltd.

Subject:

Closure and transfer of a portion of an Unopened Road Allowance between the former Township of Loughborough and the former Township of Portland, Township of South Frontenac

Recommendation That Council direct staff to move forward with the process of closing and transferring ownership of a 20.12 metre (66 foot) by approximately 182.87 metre (600 foot) portion of unopened road allowance to enlarge an adjacent parcel of land municipally known as 5356 New Morin Road, shown in Attachment #1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide background information necessary to enable Council to provide direction to staff regarding the closing of a portion of an unopened road allowance in the Township. Background The road allowance is aligned from north to south, running from New Morin Road to the beginning of Knowlton Lake Road. The southerly portion of approximately 765 metres is open and Knowlton Lake Road runs along this portion. The road allowance is the boundary line between the former townships of Portland and Loughborough. New Morin Road follows the road allowance that meets this subject road allowance before New Morin takes a turn to the west and becomes a forced road wrapping around the property municipally known as 5356 New Morin Road. New Morin Road then ends at the intersection to the south where it meets Vanluven Road. The benefitting property known as 5356 New Morin Road is approximately 40 acres in size and is developed with a dwelling, attached deck and pool and several accessory buildings. Most of the property lies at the bottom of a steep slope from the road and extends down towards a wetland that is directly connected to Knowlton Lake. Knowlton Lake is an at capacity lake trout lake. The benefitting property is also subject to consent applications S-11-21-P and S-12-21-P to create two vacant residential lots, and S-13-21-P to sever the existing dwelling and accessory buildings that are currently accessed by the driveway over this unopened road allowance. The subject road allowance, shown in Attachment #2 is entirely owned by the Township and no portion has previously been stopped up, closed and transferred. The northerly portion of the road allowance is used as access to four properties known as 5356 New Morin Road, 5356B New Morin Road, 1125 Mabel’s Lane and 5300 New Morin Road. The road allowance is also encumbered by a portion of the home that was built on 5356 New Morin Road. Through a property file search it was discovered there is a long history of Encroachment Agreements as well as proposed unopened road allowance closures that were never finalized. In 1988 an Encroachment Permit By-Law was resolved by Council for a period of 5 years. This permit lapsed in 1993 but the property was sold prior to its lapsing.

Page 53 of 191

Report to Council Development Services - Planning

In 1991 Council passed a resolution that approved the closing of the subject Road Allowance. The approval would have deeded the land on which the house encroaches, plus a one (1) foot buffer. A survey and transfer were never completed. The transaction between the owners and the Township was never completed. The owners of the property at that time were notified that the resolution was stale dated. The owners at the time advised that it was too expensive to undertake the purchase of the road allowance and that they wished to enter into a 20 year Encroachment Permit as this would provide long term recognition that the encroachment existed. It was determined that due to the concerns of the neighbouring property owner and access to their lands that the Encroachment permit was the best way to proceed. It was noted that the previous owner did intend to pursue a permanent solution of closing the road allowance as soon as they were financially able. In 2010, By-Law 2010-1 was passed entering into an encroachment agreement to permit the dwelling at 5356 New Morin Road to encroach a maximum of 16.49 feet into the road allowance. This agreement expired with the Transfer of the property in 2020. Following the purchase of the property by the current owner Council passed By-Law 2020-74 authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute an Encroachment Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac and Michael Deodato allowing the dwelling to encroach a maximum of 16.49 feet, the current owner is now looking for a more permanent solution to address access and to help facilitate a consent application that will sever the existing development from the larger vacant property. The aerial image of the property, Attachment #3 shows the encroachment of the dwelling onto the road allowance. The aerial image also shows how the road allowance is being used to access adjacent properties. Planning staff and Public Services staff visited the site on June 1, 2021. Public Services staff advised that they have no objections to selling the road allowance provided that an adequate way to ensure long term access for neighbouring properties is provided. It would be staff’s recommendation, because of the number of properties that rely on this unopened road allowance for access, that a right of way should be established by application and developed to Township Private Lane Standards at the expense of the owner of the benefiting property (5356 New Morin Road). The survey to be prepared by the applicant will be required to identify the boundary of the wetland. Due to the proximity of Knowlton Lake and the wetlands Planning staff and Public Services staff recommend that no portion of the road allowance identified as wetlands be transferred into private ownership. It is recommended that Cataraqui Conservation be circulated as part of the Public Notice process for their comments with respect to the proximity to the wetlands. Based on Township policy, the entire portion of the road allowance that has been requested to be purchased in the application would be charged at a rate of $0.21 per square foot (66 ft x 600 ft = 39,600 square feet @ $0.21 = $8,316.00), the sale price of the road allowance would be approximately $8,316.00 plus HST. Staff is seeking direction as to whether Council has any objections or concerns with the closure and transfer of this unopened portion of road allowance to facilitate the enlargement of lands and to incorporate the encroaching portion of the dwelling on to the benefitting lands, and not property owned by the Township. If Council approves, staff will begin the process to stop up and close the portion of the unopened road allowance between the former Townships of Portland and Loughborough, Township of South Frontenac.

Page 54 of 191

Report to Council Development Services - Planning

Financial and Staffing Consideration The application fee and legal deposit has been paid by the applicant to process this road closing application. It is not recommended that Council waive any of the purchase price and the final purchase price would be determined once the surveyor has completed a survey of the pertinent section of the road allowance. Fees to survey the portion to be transferred would be paid by the applicant. Attachments Attachment #1 – Sketch provided with application Attachment #2 – Location map – entire road allowance Attachment #3 – Location map – aerial view of the encroaching dwelling and access Submitted by:

Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant

Approved by:

Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Neil Carbone, CAO

-

Untitled attachment 1943…

BL} NGALOVJ

ER‘CK

a’

Q

9:

s

H-3

3

as

/ I

‘

/1‘ ‘

T

3”

(5:1)?)

LwO 77-/Vz2:4¢;1+:r/—.

.€:?.\ 0. F‘

/T3/1'5 COC/5 /L:/K/?t ~D‘f30’77b

Haw 5“/?v.§%%cK

/30:79 M22,

pgczp/r77’; <:rEC77z7x_/’

• (3/x/4-T

K?/Kc/+/73.5

./.:1!z’r‘-‘/~".’-"’ i ‘’!£’;.x}‘l“t”;X_

,.

Page 55 of 191

Map Title

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels Ownership Parcels Citations

0.5

0

0.23

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Includes Material © 2019 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

0.5 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 56 of 191

1: 9,028

Map Title

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels Location Labels Ownership Parcels

0.2

0

0.10

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Includes Material © 2019 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

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 57 of 191

1: 3,916

Page 58 of 191

Report to Council Development Services - Planning

Deeming By-law Report Date:

August 31, 2021

Council Meeting Date:

September 7, 2021

Application No:

D-03-21-B

Owner:

Ron & Shelley Ireland

Location of Property:

Lot 21 and Block E on Plan 1661, Sunset Shores Lane, District of Bedford.

Purpose of Application: Deem Lot 21 and Block E on Plan 1661 not to be a lot in a plan of subdivision for the purpose of applying 50(3) of the Planning Act.

Recommendation It is recommended that the by-law deeming the property described as Lot 21 & Block E, Plan 1661, District of Bedford, Bobs Lake, Township of South Frontenac not to be a lot in a plan of subdivision, be passed.

Proposal The property owners are requesting Council pass a by-law to deem the parcels that are currently known as Lot 21 and Block E on Plan 1661. The result of the deeming will allow Lot 21 and Block E to be merged with each other to become one parcel. Currently, because the parcels are lots in a plan of subdivision, part lot control (Section 50(3)) of the Planning Act) prevents these parcels from merging, even when they are held in the same ownership. Passing a deeming by-law and registering it on the title of the parcel that is Lot 21 and Block E, means that they will no longer be treated as a lot in a plan of subdivision and when registered in the same name, they will merge into one property.

Background The subject properties known as Lot 21 and Block E on Plan 1661, Sunset Shores Lane, Bobs Lake, are shown on the attached location map, Attachment #1. Both Lot 21 and Block E, Plan 1661, Sunset Shores Lane, Bobs Lake are vacant waterfront properties owned by the applicants jointly. Lot 21 is 3.17 acres in size and Block E is 2.48 acres in size. They are both located in the same plan of subdivision and are accessed by Sunset Shores Lane. The parcels of land to be deemed were created by a plan of subdivision. Plan 1661 was a plan of subdivision that was created in the Township of Bedford, prior to amalgamation. The applicants wish to merge the two parcels of land to develop a larger parcel as one. Although the parcels are properly sized by today’s standards they are both deficient in waterfrontage and are located on a narrow waterbody. The merging of these two parcels will bring the parcel into conformity with the current Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2003-75 and provide flexibility in developing the property. Upon review of the Subdivision Agreement, Block E does not have any associated restrictions with respect to development. “Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader” 1

Page 59 of 191

Report to Council Development Services - Planning

Authority to Pass Deeming By-law Unlike many types of planning applications, the Planning Act (Section 50 (4)) gives Council the authority to pass a deeming by-law without the requirement to notify neighbours or to hold a public meeting. There is no appeal period that applies to a deeming by-law.

Summary Passing a by-law to deem Lot 21 and Block E not to be part of a plan of subdivision effectively will allow the two portions of the property to merge following registration of the by-law and a consolidation of the parcels. Once the property has been deemed, it can be treated as one property for the issuance of a building permit.

Prepared and submitted by: Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Neil Carbone, CAO

Attachments: Attachment #1: Location Map – Lot 21 and Block E, Plan 1661 Attachment #2: Deeming By-law – 2021-46 (under by-law section of agenda)

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader” 2

Map Title

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels Ownership Parcels Citations

0.2

0

0.11

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Includes Material © 2019 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

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 60 of 191

1: 4,514

Page 61 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Zoning By-law Amendment Report Date:

September 1, 2021

Application No: Owner: Address: Property Location:

Z-21-10 2290998 Ontario Inc. Christel Lane (unassigned) Parts 4 to 14 on Plan 13R22179, Part of Lot 20, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Pittsburgh, Storrington District Purpose of Application: Rezone from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW and RLSW-129) Date of Public Meeting: July 13, 2021 (Virtual Public Meeting)

Recommendation THAT By-law 2021-47 to amend the zoning on Parts 4 to 14 on Plan 13R22179, Part of Lot 20, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Pittsburgh, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac be passed.

Proposal An application was submitted to amend Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 to rezone the subject property from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) and Limited Service Residential – Waterfront – Special Provision (RLSW-129). By-law 2021-47 is listed on the Council agenda under By-laws.

Background The subject property is located at the end of Christel Lane, off Osborne Lane, which is off Burnt Hills Road. The property has water frontage on Dog Lake. The north end of the property consists of forested rock outcrops and an open field. The south end of the property consists of a high, bedrock plateau that is surrounded on three sides by the lake. The surrounding properties are developed with seasonal dwellings. The subject lands are subject to consent application S-02-20-S to create one residential lot. Provisional approval of the consent application was granted subject to conditions by the Director of Development Services on May 17, 2021 as this consent application met the criteria of an undisputed consent based on Delegation By-law 2020-27. Condition 16 requires the severed parcel and the retained parcel to be rezoned. The new zoning would bring the parcels into conformity with the Zoning By-law. The new residential lot (severed parcel) consists of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of land with 76 metres of frontage along Christel Lane and 134 metres of water frontage on Dog Lake. The severed parcel is vacant. The severed parcel needs to be rezoned from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) to recognize that the parcel fronts onto a waterbody and on a private lane. The RLSW zone must have a special provision (RLSW-129) to require a dwelling to be set back a minimum of 40 metres from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline of Dog Lake and 30 metres from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline. The 40 metre setback was recommended in a report by Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) in support of the consent application. Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 1

Page 62 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The retained parcel consists of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of land with 81 metres of frontage along Christel Lane and 91 metres of water frontage on Dog Lake. The retained parcel is vacant. The retained parcel needs to be rezoned from Rural (RU) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) to recognize that the parcel fronts onto a waterbody and on a private lane.

Department and Agency Comments Comments from departments and agencies are summarized in this section of this report. Building Services was not circulated the rezoning application, as they had no objection to the approval of consent application S-02-20-S when they reviewed it earlier in 2021. When circulated the consent application, building staff confirmed there is one suitable location for a sewage system on the severed parcel and on the retained parcel. It is intended that these locations would be expressly reserved for the sewage system through site plan control, which is a requirement of the provisional approval of the consent application (Condition 9). The site plan control application will be brought forward to Council for a decision once it has been submitted. Cataraqui Conservation had no objection to the approval of consent application S-0220-S when they reviewed it earlier in 2021. Their position was conditional on future development being setback in accordance with the findings of the Ecological Services report (March 18, 2021). They confirmed, through the Rideau Waterway Development Review Team with Parks Canada, that they have no objection to the rezoning application.

Public Comments A virtual public meeting was held under the Planning Act on July 13, 2021. Comments were received from five members of the public at the meeting, as well as in writing prior to and following the meeting. The members of public are: Roger Badura, 110 Christel Lane Bob Volpe, 131 Christel Lane Sue Keefe, 131 Christel Lane Julian Barron, 135 Christel Lane Michèle Bussières, 145 Christel Lane All written correspondence from the public, as well as the applicant’s written responses, are attached to this report. Several Councillors also made comments and asked questions during the meeting. Since the public meeting, staff are aware that there has been dialogue between the applicant and the members of the public. Some of the attached correspondence comes from this dialogue. The following is a summary of the comments received through the public meeting and the staff responses. It is noted that the comments focus on the consent application, and that none of these concerns were submitted through the consent application process. As such, they were not considered at the time the consent application was reviewed and given provisional approval.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 2

Page 63 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

1. Concerns were raised about why there was no contact from agencies or the applicant to ask about their concerns for their properties relative to the consent application and the conditions of approval. Staff response - The Township provided landowners within 60 metres of the subject property with the statutory notification of the consent application, and all landowners within 120 metres of the subject property with the statutory notification of the rezoning application. Notice signs were posted on the site in accordance with requirements of the Planning Act. These notifications provide landowners with the opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns about the proposal. No comments were received from the public on consent application S02-20-S before provisional approval was granted. As such, it was treated as an undisputed consent. Following provisional approval, the Township communicates with the property owner regarding how and when conditions are fulfilled. The Township is not required, nor is it our practice, to communicate how and when conditions are fulfilled to adjacent property owners. Should the applicant wish, they can keep adjacent land owners informed about the status of fulfilling conditions.

2. Concerns were raised about the aggressive development plans for the area, including blasting and site alteration. Council was urged to limit development of additional lakefront properties through regulations that minimize environmental burdens on the water and natural shore areas. Staff response - The consent and rezoning applications must be reviewed against and were determined to meet the Township’s current policies. Waterfront development will be an area of focus in the current Official Plan update process. Work is also being done to develop a shoreline protection by-law.

3. Concerns were raised about the changes that were made to Christel Lane, and the steepness of the driveway leading to the building sites on the severed and retained parcels. Councillor Sleeth asked whether the Fire Department had reviewed the driveway, and whether it would be passable for their equipment. Staff response – A large section of Christel Lane between Osborne Lane and the subject property was relocated by the applicant in order to facilitate consent applications S-44-14-S and S-45-14-S as well as a minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark for future development of the lots. The applicant indicated to staff that the former Director of Public Services required the lane to be constructed to the Township’s private lane standards. The Township will require the new private lane on the subject property that will access the building sites to be constructed to the Township’s private lane standards. The Township’s private lane standards were developed in consultation with Fire and Emergency Services. An engineer’s certificate will be required to ensure the standards have been met in order to fulfill condition 11 of the provisional approval of consent application S-02-20-S. The private lane standards do not apply to any driveways off the new private lane. The site plan agreement that will be registered on both properties will also address standard language regarding delivery of emergency services on private lanes.

4. The members of the public identified the presence of the Common Five Lined Skink and Grey Ratsnake (including nesting sites) on their properties, and asked Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 3

Page 64 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

whether the subject lands were assessed for species at risk as part of the consent application. Councillor Sutherland asked whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared before the road was constructed and whether it assessed the site for hibernacula. Staff response – The report from Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) that was submitted in support of the consent application was required to assess the property for appropriate development setbacks from the highwater mark, not for species at risk. It was prepared using the Assessment of Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines for Waterfront Development in Eastern Ontario’s Lake Country (Hutchinson Environmental Ltd., 2014). An EIA focusing on species at risk was not required in support of the consent application because there was no immediate policy trigger for one (e.g. typically an EIA is required where there are mapped natural features such as a wetland or area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI)). It was noted that the Eastern Ontario population of the Common Five Lined Skink is a species of concern rather than an endangered species or a threatened species. As such, the species and its habitat are not protected by the Endangered Species Act. The applicant provided the Township with a Species at Risk EIA following the public meeting. The EIA is attached, and is discussed in the Planning Analysis section of this report. It is every landowner’s responsibility to meet requirements of the Endangered Species Act regardless of whether there is an application under the Planning Act. Individuals who have concerns that habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act has been damaged should report the situation to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. 5. Councillor Sutherland asked whether there is a no cut provision between the buildings/structures and the lake. Staff response – Yes, maintaining a natural vegetation buffer will be established in the required site plan agreement. 6. Concerns were raised about the potential impact of the proposed sewage system on the severed parcel on the existing wells at 131 and 135 Christel Lane, given that the well would be downgradient of the sewage system location. Councillor Sleeth asked whether there are minimum separation distances between wells and sewage systems. He also asked why there is only one sewage system location on each parcel, and not two, as is normally required. Staff response - The proposed sewage system locations on the severed parcel and the retained parcel would be more than 65 metres from the well at 131 Christel Lane and more than 40 metres from the property line with 135 Christel Lane, which exceeds the minimum 30 metre separation distance between a sewage system and a dug well that is required by the Ontario Building Code. When circulated the consent application, KFL&A Public Health, and then the Township Building Department, confirmed there is one suitable location for a sewage system on the severed parcel and one on the retained parcel. It is intended that these locations would be expressly reserved for the sewage system through site plan control. In addition, the sewage systems will need to be designed by a Professional Engineer with expertise in the field, due to the complexity of the parcels and the distance between the building sites and the locations of the sewage systems.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 4

Page 65 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

While it is ideal to have more than one potential sewage system location on a parcel, only one is required for a consent application. Section 6.10 and 7.1(s) of the Official Plan requires confirmation that soil conditions are suitable for the installation of a septic tank and leaching beds that conform to the standards outlined by the authority responsible for their approval. Until January 2021, KFL&A Public Health was the approval authority for sewage systems. Their standards did not require the identification of a primary and alternate sewage system location for lots created through the consent process. The Township uses the same standards. It is standard to require primary and alternate locations to be identified for lots in a proposed plan of subdivision. 7. Councillor Revill noted that he understood that if rezoning is a condition of a consent approval, that Council cannot deny the rezoning. Staff response – Consent application S-02-20-S was granted provisional approval as it was determined to comply with all relevant policy. The condition requiring the severed parcel and the retained parcel to be rezoned would ensure the parcels will comply with Zoning By-law 2003-75. That said, Council always has the discretion to approve, deny or defer a rezoning application. Both the applicant and members of the public who have provided comment through the rezoning process have the right to appeal the decision of Council, in which case a final decision would be made by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Planning Analysis Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that Council decisions be “consistent with” the PPS. 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 Director of Development Services had consideration for the 2020 PPS in the decision to grant provisional approval to consent application S-02-20-S. The proposal to rezone the lands through application Z-21-10 is consistent with the 2020 PPS, including Section 2, which encourages the protection of natural heritage, water, and agricultural resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits, and also Section 3, which directs development to areas that are not impacted by flooding hazards and erosion hazards. Residential development on the severed parcel would be required to be setback a minimum 40 metres from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline of Dog Lake, and 30 metres from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline, as recommended in a report by Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) in support of the consent application. Buildings and structures would also need to be setback a minimum of 15 metres from the top of bank of the steep slopes on the property. As a result of comments received at the public meeting about endangered species and threatened species, the Township requested that the applicant prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that assessed the site for species at risk.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 5

Page 66 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

A Species at Risk EIA (Ecological Services, August 22, 2021) was submitted to the Township. The EIA assessed the subject property for endangered species and threatened species that are afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act. The EIA concluded that the potential for species at risk habitat on the subject property is low. The consultant provided follow up information in response to questions raised by staff. Staff are satisfied with the EIA, and that development and site alteration will not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements, per section 2.1.7 of the PPS. The EIA recommendations around tree clearing and construction barriers will be incorporated into the site plan agreement. County of Frontenac Official Plan, 2016 The County of Frontenac Official Plan sets out the general direction for planning and development by defining strategic goals, broad objectives and policies. Section 3 – Growth Management sets outs policies intended to help guide new development across the County as well as manage change at a regional level. The Rural Lands policies are meant to recognize the importance of rural areas for future growth and create guidelines for development that is sensitive to the surroundings. Consistent with the PPS, the Natural Environment policies (Section 7.1) do not permit development and site alteration in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. The EIA demonstrated that the potential for species at risk habitat on the subject property is low. The proposed development is consistent with the directions of the County Official Plan. Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003 The subject lands are designated Rural in the Official Plan on Schedule A. The type and amount of development on Rural lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage, and cultural landscape in the Township. The Official Plan permits limited service residential development in the form of single detached dwellings and seasonal dwellings adjacent to waterbodies where the primary means of access is from a private road or a navigable waterway (section 5.7.7). Residential land uses may include accessory buildings and structures. The new zoning would bring the severed parcel and the retained parcel into conformity with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The intent of the RLSW zone is to recognize residential development on a waterfront property that is accessed by a private lane. This allows building permits to be issued for buildings and structures. Section 6.12 of the Official Plan allows the issuance of a building permit on vacant lots that are in a Limited Service Residential zone. Similarly, section 5.25 of the Zoning By-law indicates that building permits may be issued on a lot with frontage on a private lane and/or a navigable waterway if the lands are zoned RLSW. Section 5.2.7(b)(ii)(1) of the Official Plan intends that newly created lots which have a steep slope, minimal woody vegetation cover, thin soils and/or soils with poor phosphorus retention, may require a setback of up to 90 metres from the highwater mark. The applicant retained Ecological Services to perform an analysis using the Assessment of Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines for Waterfront Development in Eastern Ontario’s Lake Country (Hutchinson Environmental Ltd., 2014). Site Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 6

Page 67 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

characteristics including soil texture and depth, slope and vegetation were taken into consideration to determine an appropriate horizontal setback between development and the shoreline of lakes on the Precambrian Shield. As indicated previously, there is one suitable location for a sewage system on the severed parcel and one on the retained parcel. Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) determined that a minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark should be applied to sewage systems on the severed parcel and the retained parcel. This was based on the site characteristics in these suitable locations (e.g. there is deep soil, vegetation and minimal slope). The General Provisions of the Zoning By-law require sewage system to be set back a minimum 30 metres from the highwater mark of a waterbody. Ecological Services (March 18, 2021) determined that a minimum 40 metre setback from the highwater mark of the northern shoreline should be applied to buildings on the severed parcel, and that a minimum 30 metre setback from the highwater mark of the southern shoreline should be applied to buildings on both the severed and retained parcels. This was based on site characteristics in the proposed building locations (e.g. there is little soil and vegetation, steep slopes), and the demonstration that the topography of the site allows runoff to be directed in such a way to have a long circuitous route to the lake. The 40 metre setback for buildings and structures is reflected in the by-law. All other provisions of the Zoning By-law would apply to the parcels, including minimum setbacks from property lines and top of bank, and maximum lot coverage. Site Plan Control Condition 9 of the provisional approval of the consent application requires the applicant to apply for, and enter into, a site plan agreement with the Township. Township of South Frontenac Site Plan Control By-law No. 2003-25 may be applied to the subject property, as it contains lands within 90 metres of a waterbody. Site plan control is required to address the development of the lot and environmental standards of the Township, including reserving areas for sewage systems, identifying building envelopes, controlling runoff, and maintaining natural vegetation buffers. It would also address recommendations of the Ecological services reports (March 18, 2021 and August 22, 2021). A site plan control application has been submitted to the Township. A report on the site plan control application will be brought forward to Council at a subsequent meeting after the site plan has been reviewed by Township and agency staff, and the applicant has agreed with the terms of a draft site plan agreement.

Summary As this rezoning is consistent and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the South Frontenac Official Plan, and represents good planning for the subject property, it is recommended Council approve this application by passing By-law 2021-47. Prepared by: Christine Woods, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Submitted by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 7

Page 68 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Attachments:

1. Water Setback Assessment (Ecological Services, March 18, 2021)
2. Species at Risk Environmental Impact Assessment, August 22, 2021)
3. Species at Risk EIA additional response to Township (August 25, 2021)
4. Written Correspondence from Sue Keefe and Bob Volpe (July 6, 2021)
5. Written Correspondence from Sue Keefe and Bob Volpe (July 12, 2021)
6. Written Correspondence from Julian Barron (July 9, 2021)
7. Written Correspondence from Julian Barron (July 12, 2021)
8. Written Response from Gary Beach to neighbour comments (July 12, 2021)
9. Written Correspondence from Michele Bussieres, Bob Volpe, Sue Keefe and Julian Barron to Gary Beach (August 12, 2021)
10. Written Response from Gary Beach to neighbour comments (August 21, 2021)

Date of Site Visit: October 20, 2020 and August 27, 2021

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 8

Page 69 of 191

Ecological Services R.R. 1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca March 18, 2021 C/O Gary Beach Via Email: beachgaryj@gmail.com RE:

HUTCHINSON ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE SHORELINE SETBACKS Christel Lane Severance

The following Hutchinson (2014) analysis is presented to assist the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) and South Frontenac Township in decision making regarding the Christel Lane severance as they relate to the Hutchinson (2014) analysis for determining shoreline setbacks. The results from the analysis below demonstrate that potential building and septic field locations can meet the recommended shoreline buffers listed in Hutchinson (2014). To provide context to the analysis, Figure 1 has been provided. A survey diagram by Clancy and Hopkins Ltd. should accompany this report.

Figure 1. In the above image RH represents the approximate location of the retained dwelling; SH represents the approximate location of the severance dwelling; the red dashed lines represent the natural stormwater flow to the lake; the white dashed lines represent the recommended direction of stormwater to the lake; ST represents the approximate location of the severance tile field; RT1 and RT2 represent two possible locations of the retained septic field.

Page 70 of 191

Severance Septic Field The severance septic field is proposed for an area of flat meadow with deep soils (see photo below) to minimize Hutchinson (2014) scoring that extend to the lake. There may be some minor variation close to shore, but this would not statistically change the overall scoring. It would be approximately 100 m from the dwelling and at a lower elevation, so septic pumping will not be required to get effluent from the dwelling to the field. The calculations for the Hutchinson (2014) variables for the severance septic field are presented in Table 1, showing a total score of 6. From Table 3 of Hutchinson (2014), a score of less than or equal to ten comes with a recommended horizontal setback distance of 30 m. for the severance property. In the accompanying Clancy Survey document it is shown with a setback of 55 m, but there is potential for greater setbacks in this field area for the severance lot. Table 1. Hutchinson scoring for the severance septic field. Characteristic

Criteria

Score

Soil Depth >150 cm

150 cm

0

Soil Texture

Silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand

3

Slope Class

0 to 9%

0

Vegetation Type

Disturbed meadow

3

Total Score

6

Page 71 of 191

Retained Septic Field We provide two approximate locations for the retained septic field in Figure 1, described as RT1 and RT2. RT1 is located in the same field as ST (severance tile bed). Like RT1, flat field and lawn separate both sites from the lake. RT1 would be about 135 m from the proposed retained lands dwelling and is shown in the Clancy Survey diagram as being at least 39 m from the lake. RT2 would be about 60 m from the proposed retained lands dwelling and would be about 45 m from the lake. The calculations for the Hutchinson (2014) variables for both RT1and RT2 are presented in Table 2, showing a total score of 6 for both. From Table 3 of Hutchinson (2014), a score of less than or equal to ten comes with a recommended horizontal setback distance of 30 m, which can be met with both septic fields. Our recommendation would be for RT2 as it located further from the lake and is closer to the proposed retained lot dwelling, although it would require bringing in some fill as the RT2 location chosen for the tile field by Martin Burger of Groundwork Engineering is in a rocky hollow. The calculations below for RT2 refer to the intervening land between the lake and the tile field. The fill brought in for the actual tile field itself (i.e., the rocky hollow) would need to be greater than 150 cm. Table 2. Hutchinson scoring for the retained lands septic fields. Characteristic

Criteria

Score

RT1 Soil Depth RT2 Soil Depth

150 cm

0 0

RT1Soil Texture RT2 Soil Texture

Silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand

3 3

RT1Slope Class RT2 Slope Class

0 to 9%

0 0

RT1 Vegetation Type RT2Vegetation Type

Disturbed meadow (mowed field and lawn)

3 3

RT1 Total Score RT2 Total Score

6 6

Septic System Summery Septic systems for both the retained lot and the severance can meet calculated Hutchinson Analysis (2014) setbacks.

Hutchinson Analysis – Severance Dwelling A request for the Hutchinson Analysis (2014) to be applied to the severance and retained lot dwellings was made via correspondence from Andrew Schmidt (CRCA Planner) and Anna Geladi (South Frontenac Township Planner). This request was based on stormwater concerns. We agree that stormwater runoff to a lake should be considered during the impact assessment process, but we would like to go on the record that in our opinion, the Hutchinson Analysis should only be applied to the septic field for the following reasons.

1. In the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 2003-75 (Appendix 2 Shoreline Setbacks) it is apparent that calculations are intended for sewage systems.

Page 72 of 191

2. The analysis considers soil depth within the scoring. This makes sense regarding the sub-surface flow associated with a tile field, but except for situations with very shallow soils, it has limited relevance to surface stormwater. This is borne out in the wording of both the South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 2003-75 (Appendix 2 Shoreline Setbacks) (see example excerpt below) and Section 4.1.1 Soils of the Hutchinson (2014). The influence of soil texture on water infiltration is well known, and forms much of the basis for much of the basis for establishing total distribution line lengths for septic tile field systems.

3. Similar to the above, Hutchinson (2014) makes several other inferences regarding the actual analysis parameters and how they apply to tile fields. In contrast, stormwater is discussed in Hutchinson (2014) as a separate issue in the context of standard stormwater impacts and mitigation features.

4. One of the Hutchinson (2014) parameters specifically states tile field, the implication being the model is only for tile fields. Soil Analysis

If native soil between tile field and lake is > 1m deep, <1% CaCO3 and

1% Iron/Aluminum

5. There is no calculation for building size in the analysis, and therefore the analysis would imply that the large stormwater energy coming from a warehouse roof is the same as from a small house.
6. The model is primarily intended to reduce phosphorous impacts to an adjacent lake, as this nutrient has been shown to have the greatest impact to lake water quality. The potential phosphorous inputs via stormwater from a rural dwelling is dwarfed in comparison to potential inputs in a tile field. By applying the model to both, it implies an equal impact, and we doubt this inference would withstand the rigors of a hydrological test. Despite our objections, we have applied the Hutchinson Analysis to the proposed building sites as follows. Severance House Analysis It can be seen in the Clancy Survey that the proposed location of the severance house can have at least a 15 m top of bank setback and a 40 m straight line setback to the lake that is located to the east. However, the topography of the land would direct stormwater to the northeast through a natural 77 m long conduit, and so the Hutchinson Analysis is applied to the route that stormwater from the proposed dwelling would take. This is in keeping with the South Frontenac Official Plan (see excerpt below) regarding a sensitive lake trout lake. Dog Lake is not a sensitive lake trout lake, but the intent of the following excerpt from the OP is to point out that it is not necessarily the direct straight-line distance on a map, but the distance traveled by the impact. … pathway from a septic system tile field would flow in a manner equalling a distance of at least 300 metres to the at-capacity lake; This has also been our experience with other CRCA applications, where the route that stormwater takes (versus the straight line distance on a map) is the one given consideration. As a result, our Hutchinson Analysis for the Severance House (next page) applies to the stormwater route.

Page 73 of 191

Soil Depth: First 15 m is 75-100 cm, 25-50 cm for the next 20 m, and then less than 25 cm for the remaining 37 m. Score: 15/77x4 + 20/77 x 8 + 42/77 x 10 = 8.3 Soil Texture: Entire route is “silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand” Score: 3 Slope Class: First 53 m is 0-13% and for final 24 m is > 25%. Score: 53/77 x 0 + 24/77 x 12 = 3.7 Vegetation: The stormwater travel route is currently undisturbed woodlands, old fields, and meadows. Score: 0 Total Score: 8.3+3+3.7+0 = 15.0, which requires a recommended depth of Shoreline Buffer of 40 m. Although the building placement at 77 m for this stormwater flow route meets the Hutchinson Analysis parameters, we recommend that stormwater coming off the roof be directed to the west via eavestrough downspouts and then through the same conduit used for the septic field (albeit in a separate pipe) towards a natural depression to the north that will be further enhanced with a small 70 cm high rock check dam (see white dashed line in Figure 1). There are two reasons for this recommendation:

1. It will provide a lower Hutchinson Analysis score (see below), implying a lesser potential impact to the lake.
2. This recommended route flows over a cultural landscape, versus the native woodland of the natural route. The analysis starts at the rock check dam where the piping ends. The travel route to the lake from here is about 75 m. It should be noted that the volume of stormwater coming off an approximately 168 sq. m. dwelling (i.e., size suggested by the proponent) is not significant. Soil Depth: First 20 m is 25-50 cm, final 53 m is 100 to 150 cm. Score: 14/75 x 8 + 61/75 x 2 = 3.1 Soil Texture: Entire route is “silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand” Score: 3 Slope Class: Entire route is 0 – 13% Slope Class. Score: 0 Vegetation: Disturbed woodland, old field and meadow. Score: 3 Total Score is 9.1, which requires a recommended depth of shoreline buffer of 30 m, which is met by the 75 m separation distance.

Page 74 of 191

Retained House Analysis It can be seen in the accompanying Clancy survey that the proposed location of the severance house can have at least a 15 m top of bank setback and a 30 m straight line setback to the lake further east. However, the land slopes away from the lake to the east of the proposed house within the 15 m top of bank distance and towards the proposed house location. As such, the natural topography of the land would direct stormwater from the dwelling to the southwest down a 50 m slope to the lake, and this is what we have applied the Hutchinson (2014) analysis to below. Soil Depth: First 7 m is >150 cm, and it is 25-50 cm for the remaining distance. Score: 7/50 x 0 + 63/50 x 10 = 8.6 Soil Texture: Entire route is “silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand” Score: 3 Slope Class: First 59 m is 0-13% and final 11 m is >25% Score: 39/50 x 0 + 11/50 x 10 =2.2 Vegetation: Stormwater travel route it is currently undisturbed woodlands, old fields, and meadows. Score: 0 Total Score: 8.6+3+2.2+0 = 13.8, which requires a recommended depth of Shoreline Buffer of 40 m, which is met by the 50 m flow distance. Although the analysis above meets the Hutchinson (2014) analysis parameters, we recommend that stormwater coming off the roof be directed to the west via eavestrough downspouts into an existing natural depression (see white dashed lines in Figure 1), and then from here to flow passively to the lake. This will add about an extra 10 m to the stormwater travel route, and the natural depression will reduce the stormwater energy imparted by the fall distance from the roof. From the depression, the analysis is as follows: Soil Depth: First 7 m is >150 cm, and 25-50 cm for the remaining distance. Score: 17/60 x 0 + 43/60 x 10 = 7.2 Soil Texture: Entire route is “silty sand, clayey sand, silt and find sand” Score: 3 Slope Class: First 49 m is 0-13% and final 11 m is >25% Score: 49/60 x 0 + 11/60 x 10 = 1.8 Vegetation: Stormwater travel route it is currently disturbed and undisturbed woodlands, old fields, and meadows. Score: 10/60 x 3 + 50/60 x 0 = 0.5 Total Score: 7.2+3+1.8+ 0.5 = 12.5, which requires a recommended depth of Shoreline Buffer of 40 m, which is met by the 60 m flow distance.

Page 75 of 191

The recommended and natural stormwater route Hutchinson (2014) calculations of the retained lot result in the same recommend 40 m, which is met by the existing setbacks. Nevertheless, we favor the recommended route as it provides a lower overall Hutchinson (2014) score. Respectfully Submitted,

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services

References Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. 2014. Assessment of Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines for Waterfront Development in Eastern Ontario’s Lake Country. Prepared for Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Clancy & Hopkins Surveying Ltd. Plan of Survey of Part of Lot 20 Concession 9.

Page 76 of 191

Ecological Services R.R. 1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: mail@ecologicalservices.ca August 22, 2021 Via Email: beachgaryj@gmail.com RE:

Species at Risk EIA, Christel Lane Severances on Dog Lake

In a July 16, 2021 email from Christine Woods (Senior Planner, South Frontenac Township) the following was requested: Regarding species at risk, the Township requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to consider and identify species at risk that may be on or beside the subject property, and to evaluate the impact of the consent and anticipated development of the severed and retained parcels.

In that regard, Ecological Services has undertaken this Species at Risk (SAR) EIA, which is an assessment of Threatened or Endangered species that are afforded some protections under the Endangered Species Act. Background screening for significant natural heritage features was undertaken using the MNRF (2018) and MECP (2019) screening protocols, and the site was visited on Jan. 15, Feb. 24, and August 21, 2021. We have a long history of study in the region, including on Dog Lake and are aware of SAR that might be present in association with Dog Lake. We also have a close family association with Dog Lake and have been visiting the north end of lake every summer since 2008. In summary, the potential for SAR to be at risk on the severance properties is low and the severance applications will be consistent with the South Frontenac Official Plan. In our opinion, no special recommendations regarding SAR are warranted, but the following are included as recommendations made for most development in South Frontenac Township.

1. No tree clearing during the breeding bird season (April 15 to August 15), unless it has been confirmed by a qualified biologist that birds are not nesting in the trees that need to be removed. This is to avoid a possible contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
2. No tree clearing, and especially clearing of dead trees, during the bat roosting season (April 15 to Sept. 15), unless it has been confirmed by a qualified biologist using either exit surveys or acoustic surveys that bats are not roosting in the trees that need to be removed. This is to avoid a possible contravention of the Endangered Species Act.

Page 77 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

3. Silt screens should be placed between top of bank next to Dog Lake, and the construction area and be maintained throughout the life of the construction and landscaping period. Discussion of SAR related to the north section of Dog Lake that contains the severances are discussed below. Potential Species at Risk Fish: There are no known or listed SAR fish in Dog Lake as noted by both the Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) aquatic species at risk mapping. Amphibians: There are no SAR amphibians associated with Dog Lake, and there is no amphibian habitat associated with the severances. There is amphibian habitat in two wetland bays, approximately 1 km and 700 m north of the severances, which is well outside any impact zone, especially considering the intervening ridges and woodlands. Avifauna: Eastern Whip-poor-will (Threatened): The closest and most recent reporting of Eastern Whip-poor-will was in 2021 in association with a wooded area about 800 m north of the severances, in proximity to Burnt Hills Rd. The habitat at this site represents good Whippoor-will features in that it is high forest habitat with openings, as outlined by Spiller and King (2021), Vala et al. (2020), and Purves (2015). By comparison, the severance property does not have enough tree cover to be favorable. The 2021 Whip-poor-will sighting location is beyond the 500 m impact zone of Category 3 habitat described in MNRF (Undated). There are numerous existing houses and roads between the severance lands and this Whip-poor-will site that would be within Category 2 and Category 3, and the adjacent Burnt Hills Road could be within Category 1 habitat, the most sensitive habitat according to MNRF (Undated 1). Despite this, the closer proximity to Burnt Hills Rd. and the intervening houses gives credence to Whip-poor-will tolerance to nearby human disturbances. In our work, we have come across several Whip-poor-will nest sites adjacent to roadways that are within Category 1 habitat. Whip-poor-wills were calling on Dog Lake during the full moon of August 21, 2021, but not from the severance properties. In our opinion, the severance lands are too open to support Whip-poor-will nesting. We are aware of several other areas in association with the north section of Dog Lake that do have good nesting features, and these are currently going unused. Bobolink/Meadowlark (Threatened): Both are birds of large fields and meadows that could potentially be found in the fields associated with the area near the connection of

2

Page 78 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

Burnt Hills Rd. and Osborne Lane. This is about 900 m of the severances. There are no recent sightings in these fields, but there is a historical record of the Eastern Meadowlark. This distance is well outside any impact zone including Category 3 habitat as described in MNRF (Undated 2) and MNRF (2019). The severance lands lack appropriate Bobolink/Meadowlark habitat. Cerulean Warbler (Threatened): A bird of forests with core habitat, which is not present on the severances. The closest known sighting is from a core woodland about 2.8 km to the southeast, noted in 2005. The most recent sighting is from about 3.7 km to the southwest, noted in 2021. Bank Swallow/Barn Swallow (Threatened): No appropriate nesting habitat for either species on the severance lands, and the nearest sightings of both species are over 3 km away. Least Bittern (Threatened): No records for Dog Lake, and the closest wetland with some suitable habitat features is about 1 km from the severances. However, it is our opinion that this wetland is too small to support Least Bittern, as they require a more extensive area of emergent wetland growth on the edge of open water wetland to support their foraging strategies and nesting. Mammals: The only SAR mammals to be found in this region are four Ontario bat species that have been decimated by the White Nose Syndrome (WNS). This fungus impacts these bat species during their winter hibernation, when large numbers congregate in a limited number of cave sites in the region. Consequently just a few infected bats can wipe out whole populations. These bats were not habitat limited prior to the introduction of WNS, and with greatly reduced populations there is even less potential for being habitat limited. The potential SAR bats using the Dog Lake area, would all be migrants, flying in from winter cave sites further northwest. Consequently, it would only be non-winter impacts that are a concern. From our extensive bat acoustic monitoring efforts in Eastern Ontario over the last several years, we have determined that SAR bats are spread throughout the region during the non-winter season, albeit in low numbers, and it is not unusual for us to pick up a few SAR bats at all sites we monitor. This includes areas of dense human habitat such as downtown Kingston. As such, it would come as no surprise that the severance lands are occasionally used as a foraging site for SAR bats, although favored foraging sites outside of urban areas are typically in association with wetlands because of their greater flying insect production. Bats will also forage in proximity to houses, partly as the lights attract insects at night that bats forage on. In this way, human habitation can provide a benefit to bats. Bats are only active at night, typically from dusk to about 5 a.m., and therefore conflicts with daily human activity are limited. The main consideration for bat protections concerns roosting sites, where female bats raise their young, and where bats rest out the

3

Page 79 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

day. Some bats prefer human structures for roosting, but large old trees with numerous cavities, or snags are also used. Snags are dead trees, and the best snags are those that are hollow or have with numerous cavities. There are no snags associated with the potential build areas on the severances (i.e., ridge tops), but we did observe a few on the cliff face that may be used by roosting bats. They were small snags with limited cavities, and so their potential as roosts is limited. If used by SAR bats, they would be under no direct threat by regular cottage use as bats are very tolerant of nearby human activity as evidenced by our highest SAR counts have always been in association with human habitation. The main threat would be if these snag trees were removed during the roosting season. However, given their location on the cliff, that would be difficult to do. Our standard recommendation for bats (SAR or otherwise) is to restrict any tree clearing during the bat roosting season (mid-April to mid-Sept) to prevent direct harm to roosting bats. This really should apply to any tree felling in the township, unless bat exit surveys or acoustic monitoring is undertaken. However, the loss of such trees outside of the roosting season is not a limiting feature or a negative impact, as bats are flexible in their pursuit of such trees both during the roost season, and when returning from winter hibernation. Reptiles: Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened): There are no NHIC records of Blanding’s Turtle in the north section of Dog Lake except for one record in association with a wetland area north and west of Huntbach Lane, about 1 km from the severance lands. Given the proximity of a wetland east of this wetland (700 m north of the severance properties) it also likely that they could be found in this wetland as well. Blanding’s Turtles are a wetland associated species and these two small wetland areas represent two of the only three in the north section of the lake, meaning the north section of Dog Lake would not be a Blanding’s Turtle population concentration area. They will use the open lake as a travel area in pursuit of new feeding areas (i.e., wetlands) or nesting areas. Nesting takes place in uplands in areas that are not shaded and contain appropriate substrates. Substrate preferences vary, but the gravel edge of roads are often used and this gives an example of an appropriate substrate. The two wetland areas discussed above are bisected by Osborne Lane and old turtle nest sites have been observed on the gravel edge along the east side of Osborne Lane. We were unable to determine what turtle species made the nests. Snapping Turtles are known for the north part of Dog Lake, but the nest features appeared to be those of the Midland Painted turtle. Neither is a SAR species. There are turtle nesting features on the far side of the lake in association with the shoreline adjacent to Moore Lane, but these were not investigated in detail due to their distance from the severances. Turtles are opportunistic nesters and will choose sites that are the closest to their foraging areas that have good nesting features (e.g., Osborne Lane). Consequently, certain areas around a lake will get heavily used and are easily identified and this is certainly not the case with the severance lands. The mowed lawn of some of the adjacent properties have

4

Page 80 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

the potential for turtle nesting, but the severances have no control over the management of these lawns. In our opinion, Blanding’s Turtles (or any turtle species) have not been using the severance properties for turtle nesting, and the potential for them to be used for nesting is also low due to a lack of appropriate features, and distance from suitable foraging areas. Gray Ratsnake: There are no Ratsnake records for the one-kilometer NHIC square (18UQ9321) that includes the severance properties. There are records for the nearby square 18UQ9322 that is northwest of the severances, and square 19U9420 that is to the southeast, and on the far side of the lake. We are also aware of Gray Ratsnakes in this region and have encountered them in association with Burnt Hills Rd. and properties at the far north end of the lake. It is conceivable that they could be found at any location surrounding Dog Lake, including the severances as they move an average of 1 km from their hibernacula MNRF (Undated 3). MNRF (Undated 3) notes 3 potentially incompatible activities to the Frontenac Axis population. These are.

1. Significant clearing of woodlands, wetlands, rock outcrops, hedgerows, and meadows. Comment: This will not be undertaken for the severances, as only minimal tree clearing is possible due to the topography, minimal tree coverage, and size of the severances.
2. Large scale construction, such as a housing development or roads. Comment: The severances are not a housing development or represent large scale construction and are to be accessed using existing roads.
3. Removal or alteration of documented nesting sites that may be found in rotting logs or compost piles. If these features are man-made (other than hiberncula), they are protected during the season that they are being used by the snake. Comment: See below. For EIA purposes, the intention is to prevent harm to key life cycle features and functions, which include the following: Egg Laying Sites: These can occur in rotting stumps, wood piles, and compost piles that have some exposure to the sun. This provides sufficient moisture and heat to support incubating eggs. MNRF (Undated 3) suggests a buffer zone of 30 m around egg laying sites. Egg laying features were not observed on the severance lands or within 30 m of them on the adjacent properties, and in our opinion, they are not present. Hibernacula: Typically occur on south facing slopes with fractured openings to allow for subterranean access to avoid wind driven ice crystallization in winter and enough moisture to avoid lethal desiccation in winter. Subsequently, hibernacula need to be deep enough to provide these features. The ratsnake is far more common in the U.S., where a limited summer season is less a concern. However, in Ontario the south facing aspect is

5

Page 81 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

important as these are the first to heat up in spring, providing Ontario snakes the critical few extra weeks to complete their life cycle during the relatively short summer egg laying season. The steep slopes that face the lake are facing southeast and, in this regard, have some potential for appropriate sun exposure. However, it was apparent during the site inspection on August 21, 2021 that the granite underlying this site is a medium grained massive rock type that is not friable. As such, its potential for deep subterranean chambers is limited. This was evident with site probing. The fracturing that was present is the surface fracturing that is common on steep shorelines throughout the region, whereby exposed rock portions are cleaved off by erosional processes. As well, the tight nature of of this rock was clearly on display from the recent clearing work that has been undertaken on the plateau of these lots. In our opinion, the severance lots lack appropriate hibernacula features We are aware of potential hibernacula in other parts of the lake and continue to investigate those, although to date these have not been confirmed. These sites are outside the 1 km area of concern outlined in MNRF (Undated 3), relative to the severances. Plants: Purple Twayblade (Threatened): A wetland associate and there is no wetland within 120 m. The nearest known location is in Frontenac Park. American Ginseng (Threatened): A species of mature woodland typically found on south facing slopes in association with Butternut and Maidenhair Fern. Neither of these two latter species is present, and the site lacks appropriate woodland features to support Ginseng. There are no known Ginseng within 1 km and for confidentially agreements made with the NHIC, we are not allowed to list the nearest known location of Ginseng. Butternut (Endangered): This tree is thinly dispersed throughout South Frontenac Township. Due to the lethal Butternut Canker it is getting more difficult to find living trees. No Butternuts were observed within 120 m of the severances.

6

Page 82 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

Rob Snetsinger Ecological Services

References MECP, Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks. 2019. Clients Guide to Preliminary Screening for Species at Risk. MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section. MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario 248 pp. MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011. Survey Methodology under the Endangered Species Act, 2007: Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Bobolink). Ministry of Natural Resources Policy Division Species at Risk Branch. MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. Second Edition.

MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2013. Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch, Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 10 pp. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule. MNRF Peterborough Regional Office. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Guelph District). 2014. Use of Buildings and Isolated Trees by Species at Risk Bats: Survey Methodology. October 2014. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Survey Protocol for Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario. Species Conservation Policy Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 16 pp. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2015. Technical Note Species at Risk (SAR) Bats. Regional Operations Division. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2016. Survey Protocol for Ontario’s Species at Risk Snakes. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Species Conservation Policy Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 17 pp.

7

Page 83 of 191 Christel Lane Severances

Ecological Services August 22, 2021

MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Undated 1. Eastern Whip-poor-will General Habitat Description. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Undated 2. Eastern Meadowlark General Habitat Description. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Undated 3. Gray Ratsnake. Habitat protection summary for Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Population). MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Undated 4. Blanding’s Turtle General Habitat Description. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2018. Natural Heritage Information Request Guide. Regional Operations Division. MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2019. General Habitat Description for Bobolink. Purves, E. 2015. The role of breeding habitat loss in the decline of Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus) populations in Canada. M.Sc. thesis. Queen’s University. Spiller, K., and D. King. 2021. Breeding habitat associations of Eastern Whip-poor-wills in Managed Forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 85: 1009-2021. Vala, M. A., G. W. Mitchell, K. C. Hannah, J. Put, and S. Wilson. 2020. The effects of landscape composition and configuration on Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) and Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) occupancy in an agroecosystem. Avian Conservation and Ecology 15 (1):24.

8

Page 84 of 191 Christine Woods From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Rob Snetsinger snetsing@queensu.ca August 25, 2021 11:11 AM Christine Woods Gary Beach 2020 Christel Lane EIA extra

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Completed

Hi Christine, Gary Beach sent some questions that you had for the Christel Lane site. I have provided some responses below.

1. The EIA states that the mowed lawn of some of the adjacent properties have the potential for turtle nesting. Does the meadow on the subject property (e.g. sewage system location) also have the potential for turtle nesting? All mowed lawns surrounding any property on Dog Lake have the potential for turtle nesting, but I am unaware of mowed lawn nesting occurring in the north end of Dog Lake. I am aware of other areas (not lawn) associated with the north end of the lake that turtles traditionally are using for nesting. The north end of the lake is not a rich turtle area as it is deeper than the south end, and only has a few suitable wetlands, unlike the more wetland rich and shallow south end of the lake. As a result, the north end population would be smaller, which means the nesting sites that I am aware of likely represent the bulk of the nesting that occurs. In my experience with other lakes, areas of mowed lawns with the greatest potential for nesting are those that go to the waters edge, as turtles are opportunistic, and will take advantage of sites that require the least amount of effort. As such, most nest sites are usually immediately adjacent to the water body. This reduces their predator risk while on land, but also makes it easier for the newly hatched turtles to get to water. The mowed lawn I was referring to is the neighbors patch that goes to the waters edge. Conflict risks with mowing by the neighbor should be low, as the baby turtles emerge in the fall or early spring, when mowing is less common. In my opinion, the probability that they might use the mowed area where the septic field is proposed is low. Furthermore, septic fields need to be kept as a mowed area, so the placement of a septic field would not be removing a potential nesting area.
2. The EIA assessed the shoreline slopes for Gray Ratsnake hibernacula. Was the slope at the north end of the property (e.g. sewage system location) assessed? Does this slope have the potential for hibernacula? I assessed all slopes on the property. In my opinion, the adjacent north end slope area is too heavily shaded. It is also further away from the lake in comparison to most ratsnake hibernacula that I have encountered, and also reported in the work by Dr. Pat Weatherhead, where hibernacula not only face a water body, but are in near proximity to a water body. Rob Snetsinger

1

Page 85 of 191

July 6, 2021 Ms. Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services and Members of Council Township of South Frontenac Box 100 4432 George St Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Re: Application #S02-20-S by for parcel rezoning by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach) Dear Ms. Dodds: We are writing to express our considerable concern about the aggressive development plans for our area. Between the late 1930s and 1950s, seven properties were developed from designated farmland along Christel Lane and on the point at the end of the Lane. Two newer sites have been approved in the past few years, but construction has not yet occurred there. The seven original properties were created in locations where conditions were hospitable to the key elements of development: easy water access, vehicle accessibility, level ground for building construction, access to potable water, and soil conducive to septic systems. The location of the two proposed lots was not previously developed because the sites didn’t meet the reasonable criteria to which the earlier properties were held by geological and topographical conditions. Recent development has involved blasting significant amounts of rock in the lots of this application and another lot near the “Warwick Camp” which is located off Christel Lane near the hairpin turn that have resulted in dramatic visual and environmental scarring of property that has long been a naturally inaccessible development area. In the foreseeable future, we hope that extreme steps like the massive rock blasting used to carve out these lots will be prohibited. The new Ecosystem Advisory Committee should henceforth review the commonsense viability of proposed development. Finally, we urge the Council to limit development of additional lakefront properties through regulations that minimize environmental burdens on the water and natural shore areas of all our Township’s 75 lakes. Other Townships in Ontario are beginning to consider limiting development because of the burden of environmental pressures caused by the impact of projects. Ontario has begun to develop limits in its “Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook: Protecting Water Quality in Inland Lakes.” While this handbook focuses on Trout lakes, the difference between the water quality measures for Trout, Bass, Pike, and other prominent Dog Lake fish and animal species cannot be vastly different. We respectfully request that Council and other Town officials begin to take a different view of the characteristics of new development proposals and the long-term impacts on the water and shorelines as well as aesthetics of lakefront properties. Development pressures need to be countered by fresh responses to projects that are beginning to press the limits of environmental and human cultural impacts. Best Regards, Sue Keefe and Bob Volpe 131 Christel Ln. Battersea

Page 86 of 191

July 12, 2021 Ms. Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services and Members of Council Township of South Frontenac Box 100 4432 George St Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Re: Added Comments-Application #S02-20-S for parcel rezoning by 2290998 Ontario Inc. Dear Ms. Dodds: Comments on Gary’s application for severance We have concerns in addition to those expressed in our letter to Council of July 6,2021 based on the details of the materials enclosed with the Council’s packet that will be presented at the July 13,2021 Council meeting. Considering the massive environmental destruction needed and allowed to create these lots, we are appalled at the approvals various agencies have given before Council’s consideration for approval. A plan for the lots in their natural state should have been considered by Council and all the agencies prior to the significant rock blasting and other site preparation steps including the septic location. It seems to us that the agencies’ approval texts conflict with all the wording and intent for environmental stewardship in their various plans and agency guidelines. We’re also concerned that this environmentally intrusive application, if approved, will likely “sneak in under the wire” of what will probably be significant restrictions of the Township’s imminent and new Official Plan and the proposed shoreline protection by-law referenced by Planning Department staff. It seems likely that future changes for South Frontenac codes will be like other more restrictive trends in environmental limitations for development regularly being added to various plans, codes, and by-laws among other Ontario Municipalities. If South Frontenac follows current trends, it would seem likely development of these 2 lots as proposed might not be approved. The photos of the site don’t adequately reflect the significant amount of rock blasting at the top of the hill that was needed to create a driveway for access to both lots thus destroying significant areas of natural environment. If Council members have not yet made a personal site visit to this property, we urge you to do so before this application is considered for approval by Council. Walk up the proposed driveway to see the amount of rock that has been blasted from the former solid bedrock berm. Also note the natural area of the driveway that was filled in by the rock blasting materials. Why is rock blasting allowed in creating property sites? The septic locations are onerous to us because: 1- It is planned that they will be located uphill from our property at 131 Christel Ln and our neighbor’s property at 135 Christel Ln. The open area of the 2 proposed building lots slopes dramatically enough from West to East that heavy stormwater runoff often runs on the surface through our sloped lot on its way to the lake. This perspective is not visible from the photos in 1

Page 87 of 191

the presentation pdf file. While we have installed narrow bands of rock near our western property line, paved part of our driveway and parking area with crushed stone and have waterfront shrubs planted by Watersheds Canada several years ago, during heavy rains, and probably snow melts, stormwater still rushes downhill through our lot to the lake. We will be doing more to construct a swale or other catchment options to totally eliminate stormwater from freely flowing through our sloped lot. However, we know of no safety measures that will prevent septic leaching runoff below the surface reaching our property. 2- Neighbors who regularly walk Christel Ln reported to us late last year that pits had been dug in the open area of the proposed lots behind our properties. We contacted the septic inspector of KFL&A Public Health who reported that the sites failed the “perc test” due to the predominance of clay soil. We are concerned that the proposed siting of the septic systems to be in the same area as the inspector said didn’t pass the perc test. The photo of the field shows the sites of the perc test pits. We are concerned because of the soil’s clay content throughout the Northwest area of the proposed lots, seepage from the proposed leech fields could migrate downhill/East to our properties and spoil our well’s aquifer that are in the rear of our sites. 3-The question of the siting of the septic fields has never been reviewed with us by the applicant nor a representative of any of the agencies that have approved this application. Given our lack of information, we have no reason to feel confident that the approved severance of the proposed lots and zoning change will not impact our properties and especially our potable water wells. Best Regards,

Susan Keefe and Bob Volpe 131 Christel Ln.

2

Page 88 of 191 Michelle Hannah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Julian Barron julian.barron@canopygrowth.com July-09-21 8:52 AM Claire Dodds; Angela Maddocks; planning Barron, Keith; Pat Barron File # Z-21-10: Application #S02-20-S by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach)

Importance:

High

Hi Claire / Angela, Hope all is well. We’re writing to express our strong concern over the recent commercial / residential development on Christel Lane led by Gary Beach. My family has owned 135 Christel Lane since 1946 and we have personally witnessed the negative impacts to Dog lake and the surrounding watershed zones resulting from Gary’s commercial and residential development. The quality of the water has significantly degraded over the past several decades, due mainly to the many cottages developed along Dog & Cranberry Lake’s shorelines (e.g., sewage run-off, gray water, eutrophication, etc.). Gary in recent years has taken this too far, having conducted significant dynamite rock blasting which irreparably scar our land’s natural beauty. Furthermore, he has created a series of new roads and pathways, all of which disturb the delicate balance of our lakes and watershed zones and infringe on South Frontenac’s wildlife. He has done this without any communication to our family or our surrounding neighbors, many of which have owned cottages for decades. I find this conduct to be in direct opposition to the intent of our township to create a natural, vibrant, and growing community. We cannot grow at the expense of what makes South Frontenac a special place to live and visit. I respectfully ask that the council reconsider approving any parcels of land for rezoning until additional broader environmental impacts can be assessed by qualified subject matter experts. I look forward to participating in the July 13th virtual council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments above. Thank you, Julian Julian Barron Director, U.S. Finance Canopy Growth Corporation (646) 220-2285

1

Page 89 of 191 Michelle Hannah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Julian Barron julian.barron@canopygrowth.com July-12-21 11:48 AM Claire Dodds; Angela Maddocks; planning; Michelle Hannah Pat Barron; Barron, Keith RE: File # Z-21-10: Application #S02-20-S by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach) Common five-lined Skink 1.jpg; Common five-lined Skink 2.jpg

Importance:

High

Hi Claire & Team, I’d like to formally submit the following evidence to the official record for tomorrow’s council meeting. I have attached two pictures I personally took of a critically endangered reptile in Ontario, the common five-lined skink. More information on this species can be found via the link below. https://www.ontario.ca/page/common-five-lined-skink I took these pictures within 50 yards of the property that is being considered for rezoning. The presence of a critically endangered reptile in the immediate area demonstrates that more environmental considerations should be assessed before any rezoning or development is to be considered. I look forward to participating in tomorrow’s Zoom. Thank you, Julian Julian Barron Director, U.S. Finance Canopy Growth Corporation (646) 220-2285

From: Julian Barron Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:19 PM To: Claire Dodds cdodds@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: File # Z-21-10: Application #S02-20-S by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach) Thank you, Claire. Have a nice weekend! Julian Barron Director, U.S. Finance Canopy Growth Corporation (646) 220-2285 1

Page 90 of 191

From: Claire Dodds cdodds@southfrontenac.net Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:18 PM To: Julian Barron julian.barron@canopygrowth.com; Angela Maddocks amaddocks@southfrontenac.net Cc: Barron, Keith kbarron@usf.edu; Pat Barron kedapachan2@gmail.com Subject: RE: File # Z-21-10: Application #S02-20-S by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach) ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Good afternoon Julian – Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments in writing regarding rezoning file Z-21-10. I have passed these comments on to our Senior Planner who is processing the rezoning application. These comments will also be provided to Council ahead of the July 13th Council meeting. Sincerely, Claire

Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, Box 100 Sydenham, ON, K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2235 613-376-6657 Fax Natural, Vibrant and Growing - a Progressive Rural Leader From: Julian Barron [mailto:julian.barron@canopygrowth.com] Sent: July 9, 2021 8:52 AM To: Claire Dodds cdodds@southfrontenac.net; Angela Maddocks amaddocks@southfrontenac.net; planning planning@southfrontenac.net Cc: Barron, Keith kbarron@usf.edu; Pat Barron kedapachan2@gmail.com Subject: File # Z-21-10: Application #S02-20-S by 2290998 Ontario Inc. (Gary Beach) Importance: High Hi Claire / Angela, Hope all is well. We’re writing to express our strong concern over the recent commercial / residential development on Christel Lane led by Gary Beach. 2

Page 91 of 191 My family has owned 135 Christel Lane since 1946 and we have personally witnessed the negative impacts to Dog lake and the surrounding watershed zones resulting from Gary’s commercial and residential development. The quality of the water has significantly degraded over the past several decades, due mainly to the many cottages developed along Dog & Cranberry Lake’s shorelines (e.g., sewage run-off, gray water, eutrophication, etc.). Gary in recent years has taken this too far, having conducted significant dynamite rock blasting which irreparably scar our land’s natural beauty. Furthermore, he has created a series of new roads and pathways, all of which disturb the delicate balance of our lakes and watershed zones and infringe on South Frontenac’s wildlife. He has done this without any communication to our family or our surrounding neighbors, many of which have owned cottages for decades. I find this conduct to be in direct opposition to the intent of our township to create a natural, vibrant, and growing community. We cannot grow at the expense of what makes South Frontenac a special place to live and visit. I respectfully ask that the council reconsider approving any parcels of land for rezoning until additional broader environmental impacts can be assessed by qualified subject matter experts. I look forward to participating in the July 13th virtual council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments above. Thank you, Julian Julian Barron Director, U.S. Finance Canopy Growth Corporation (646) 220-2285

Confidential: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the email immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that disclosing, copying, distributing or using the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited.

3

Page 92 of 191

Page 93 of 191

Page 94 of 191 Christine Woods From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

beachgaryj@gmail.com July 12, 2021 1:55 PM Christine Woods; Claire Dodds Michelle Hannah; beachgaryj@gmail.com; Ron Vandewal; rmscouncilor@gmail.com; councillorNRoberts@gmail.com Supplementary Planning/Property Info for Z-21-10 - Approved Christel Lane Consent S-02-20-S, - and - reply comments + new comments Entrance Way - 145 Christel Lane; 2021-07-12 Z-21- 10 Supplementary Planning_Property Information provided for public meeting .docx Follow up Flagged

Hello Christine and Claire, Please find attached additional information speaking to details regarding all but one property south of the Concession Allowance (Part Lot 20/Concession 9), which indeed had their legal access stripped from their title as part of the conversion from the Registry to the Land Titles system. Additionally there was no built road or lane access for these properties south of the Concession Allowance. Where there was a described ROW, it could not be physically followed due to topography (rock cut). It’s very possible some or many of these owners may not be aware other than McPhie/Bruce and Volpe/Keefe that I corrected this issue as part of the severance process, at no expense to any of adjacent owners, I also built the road access way to each of the adjacent owners properties. Previous to this these owners accessed their property by driving over a grass meadow. Through this process we have now provided all owners a legally described access to the Township Road, which is built to their property line, and in the case of Volpe/Keefe – built into their property ~ 60’ Comment from Sue Keefe and Bob Volpe dated July 6, 2021: Ms. Keefe and Mr. Volpe have a certain ideal of what they believe where and how development should occur. Many would argue their tile bed is far too close to the lake (~ 20’) and is a threat to Dog Lake water quality. If an adjacent property owner wishes to be an advocate one step they could take - to protect lake water quality – is by having their tile bed inspected and upgraded if necessary. They also suggest that there has been dramatic visual and environmental scarring of property they hoped would stay inaccessible – we completely disagree with this statement. Further to our view - in all the years we’ve been involved in land development, we have never had near the level of compliments relating to the subject severed parcel – with statements that this lot is the most attractive lot they’ve seen in the region to date. Ms. Keefe and Mr. Volpe, obviously have not reviewed the study data and environmental steps and process we followed to ensure protection of lake water quality, including stormwater being directed away from the lake. Comments from Julian Barron, dated July 9, 2021: 1

Page 95 of 191 We simply do not agree with any of Mr. J Barron’s comments. Our development over the years at the Osbourne & Christel Lane properties, is all within the permitted number of severances of any property in SF Township or they would not have been approved. Further all the new lots implement conditions that far exceed any safe guard and environmental weaknesses existing properties have surrounding them. That is not a debate. It is a fact with new development versus older lot creation that occurred in the 60’s and 70’s and long before. Mr. Julian Barron is completely incorrect about consulting his family. I met Chris Barron on August 17, 2019, when he was on site with his wife and children. They appeared to be quite happy that they could actually drive on a laneway to their cottage. They were provided with a detailed letter as were all adjacent owners of our intentions to the property.. Chris simply said if he has any concerns, he would let me know. Comments from Michelle Bussieres, dated July 10, 2021: Please see attached. Sincerely, Gary Beach

2

Page 96 of 191 Z-21-10 Supplemental Background provided for Public Meeting/Planning Report, dated July 5, 2021. Land Registry System Update to Land Titles - Loss of Legal Access: 130, 131, 135, 141, and 145 Christel Lane

When these Christel Lane properties were moved to Land Titles, the legal access was removed from the property Parcel Registers outdated metes and bounds description, or in fact no described legal access at all. Please see Survey 13R-31211 confirming the above status.

Several years ago, the owners of 130 Christel Lane took it upon themselves to get a portion of the concession allowance they dire for the property to be transfer within family members. A proper legal description including complete access, is necessary to transfer, encumber, or even to do planning applications, for properties. No Built Access

The Christel Lane properties facing west being 141 and 145 Christel Lane did not access their properties using their described (me legal access. This was simply because that access went through a rock cut, and the best guess is no one ever went to the trouble alternatively have that described access go around the rock cut. The Christel Lane properties facing east being 131, and 135 Christel Lane had general or no described legal access. All the Christel Lane property owners noted above, travelled over a grass meadow to their properties. Solutions to Legal Access & Built Access for all Christel Lane owners, put in place as part of the Severance Process

2290998 Ontario Inc. applied to close the unopened road allowance to allow for a Christel Lane Extension to be built over 229099

2290998 Ontario Inc. built the Christel Lane Extension below the Concession Allowance following what was legally described in th properties 141 and 145 Christel Lane, including going through the rock cut.

The Christel Lane Extension was further extended to access the east facing properties, meeting SF Township Frontage requiremen

The Christel Lane Extension and additional driveway accesses were all built and all further surveyed on an Reference Plan - 13R-2 Lane property owners complete legally described access from their properties to the Township Road. All are built lane/driveway properties.

Page 97 of 191

Page 98 of 191

Page 99 of 191

Page 100 of 191 Christine Woods From: Sent: To: Subject:

Michele Bussieres michelebussieres@gmail.com July 10, 2021 1:01 PM Gary Beach Entrance Way - 145 Christel Lane

Hi Gary, Further to your last text, I am not sure who the “we” are that you referred to as being happy, but I am certainly much happier than I was the last time we chatted . There are a couple of things that I wanted to ask about:

1. While the entrance way is definitely lower than it was, it is still higher than the original right of way that you had built previously. I had hoped (and thought you had agreed) that the level would be taken down to the original “red” stone level. While it is definitely an improvement, it still makes for a great dip and greater hill coming out than I had hoped for.
2. The new access angle is wonderful and you have managed to essentially eliminate the dangerous blind angle in.
3. I know we discussed in a previous discussion that I didn’t want you to do any additional work on our driveway (i.e. past the fence line), HOWEVER, your crew pushed the larger stone about 9 feet onto the property when they did the original work and they did NOT cover it with the smaller gravel. So we have about a 9 foot section where the large, uneven gravel is the surface. Can you please have the crew put down and compact the smaller gravel onto this last section - thanks. Thanks again for helping to make us all much happier! Cheers

Michèle

Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For, indeed, that’s all who ever have. Margaret Mead

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/margaretme101283.html#zrgBMO8HM0j34i2t.99

1

Page 101 of 191

August 12, 2021

Mr. Gary Beach o/a 2290998 Ontario Inc.

Dear Gary,

Re: Township of South Frontenac File # Z-21-10 After the Township of South Frontenac Council Meeting held virtually on July 13th, 2021, a number of us who attended the meeting got together to discuss the referenced file/severance application and some of the concerns that we raised during the public portion of the meeting. We have also taken some considerable time to ensure we fully understand the application and the various conditions that the Township has outlined in their conditional approval dated May 12th, 2021. A number of these conditions do cover some of the concerns we had raised, however, we felt it was important, in the interest of ensuring full and open communication, that we provide you with a summary of our concerns, and, most importantly, what we are hoping the desired action/outcome will be for each of the Township conditions and our additional concerns. In the interest of completeness, we have included in our summary below all of the Township conditions, plus our additional concerns. However, a number of them are not relative to our concerns or interests (e.g. the condition requiring payment to the Township in lieu of parkland) and we have noted “No concerns” for these. Gary, we are providing this summary primarily to initiate an open and transparent dialogue on the concerns and, hopefully, enable us to have a fulsome discussion. We appreciate that it is not easy to ensure that communication on these matters is managed when many of us are not full-time residents and, of course, many of the neighbours have not been able to visit their properties since March, 2020. Hopefully, by consolidating our thoughts into a single document, working as a group, and, doing our best to ensure that we tied our concerns/desired outcomes directly to the specifics of this file, we can initiate a positive discussion to help move this process forward. We want to assure you that we are not trying to stall or impede the Township’s conditional approval. Our main objectives in providing this letter are:

1. Ensure that we are communicated with relative to the outcomes of the specific actions required as part of the Township’s conditions that relate to our interests as neighbours;
2. Ensure that our additional concerns are recognized and addressed; and
3. Have our input considered relative to our specific conditions that impact all of us (e.g. lane naming, rights of way, etc). We look forward to reviewing this summary with you at your earliest convenience. While the rules allowing Americans to visit Canada have been relaxed, we might still suggest that we get together by Zoom to ensure

August 12, 2021

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 1

Page 102 of 191

we can involve everyone. Once you have had a chance to review the summary, please let us know and we will be happy to set up a Zoom call to walk through this with you. Recognizing that a number of our desired outcomes/actions, specifically involve Township departments, we are forwarding a copy of this coummunication to Christine Woods, Senior Planner, Township of South Frontenac.

Sincerely,

Michèle Bussières

Bob Volpe

131 Christel Lane, Battersea, Ontario K0H 1H0

Julian Barron 135 Christel Lane, Battersea, Ontario K0H 1H0

August 12, 2021

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 2

Summary of Comments/Concerns and Proposed Actions/Outcomes Relative to Township of South Frontenac Application to Sever – File # Z21-10

1

2

3

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) Conditions imposed must be met within one year of the date of Notice of Decision, as required by Section 53(41) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. If conditions are not fulfilled as prescribed within one year, the application shall be deemed to be refused. Provided the conditions are fulfilled within one year, the application is valid for two years from the date of Certificate of Official issuance. The deed must be registered within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Official The land to be severed by Consent Application S-0220-S shall be for the creation of one new lot with an area approximately 1.24 hectare (+/- 3.07 acres), with a minimum of 76 metres (+/-250 feet) of frontage along Christel Lane and +/- 134 metres (+/- 440 feet) of waterfrontage on Dog Lake. An acceptable reference plan or legal description of the severed lands in duplicate [Registry Act, s.81, Land Titles Act, s. 150], the deed or instrument conveying the severed lands, and the Certificate of Official shall be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer for review and consent endorsement within a period of one year [Planning Act, s. 53(41)] after the date that “Notice of Decision” is given [Planning Act, ss. 53(17) and 53(24)].

Desired Actions/Outcome

Would like to be able to track status/progress Specific information on how we of conditions where we have specific can track the status of the actions comments. Please see below. associated with the conditions we have provided comments on below.

No concerns.

As information only, would appreciate knowing when the final reference plan/legal description is submitted.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Copy of final submitted reference plan/legal description to confirm no conflict with our property registrations.

Page 3

Page 103 of 191

August 12, 2021

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

4

5

6

7

8

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) The surveyor or applicant shall submit the draft Reference Plan, including an area calculation noting frontage along the lane and the water frontage, electronically or in paper form for review and approval by planning staff prior to depositing the Reference Plan with the Land Registry Office. Payment of the balance of any outstanding taxes and local improvement charges shall be made to the Township Treasurer. This includes all taxes levied as of the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Official.

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

Desired Actions/Outcome

See #3

See #3

The Township of South Frontenac shall receive 5% of the value of the parcel to be severed through Consent Application S-02-20-S, in lieu of parkland [Planning Act, s. 51(1)]. The Owner shall submit a well driller’s report demonstrating a potable water pumping capacity of 3.5 gallons per minute sustained over a 6-hour pump test for the parcel severed through Consent Application S02-20-S.

No concerns.

In the event that there are abandoned wells located on the severed parcel or the retained property, they shall be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and that this work shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official.

As information only, would appreciate having written confirmation that there are no abandoned wells on the severed or retained properties and/or confirmation that any such wells are sealed as outlined in the condition.

Concern that the new wells could impact the water quality/flow of the current wells of 141, and 135 and 131 Christel Lane.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Confirmation in the well drillers report that the two new wells will not impact either the quality or flow rates for the wells located at 141, 135 and 131 Christel Lane. Written confirmation that there are no abandoned wells on the severed or retained properties and/or confirmation that any such wells on the described properties are sealed.

Page 4

Page 104 of 191

August 12, 2021

No concerns.

9

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the Township to be registered on title to the severed parcel to address the development of the lot and environmental standards of the Township to be submitted at the building permit stage, including: a lot grading and drainage plan; the use of appropriate erosion control measures; maintaining existing trees and vegetation as a natural buffer; to expressly reserve areas for on-site sewage systems only and to implement the recommendations and setbacks for development to occur outside the minimum 40 metre setback from the highwater mark outlined in the Ecological Services report dated March 18, 2021 which would be further addressed through a re-zoning application.

August 12, 2021

Desired Actions/Outcome

It is our understanding (based on conversations with Mr. Beach) that both the severed and retained properties are currently under some form of “agreement to purchase” with prospective buyers. As a result, we would like to see a site plan agreement in place for both the retained property and the severed property. We would like to see the specifics relative to the well location and associated conditions included in the site plan agreement (please refer to Condition #7 above).

Site Plan Agreements with the Township of South Frontenac for both the severed and the retained properties to include everything noted in the Township’s condition #9, PLUS

1. Specifics on the location of the wells for both properties.
2. Confirmation on what additional clearing of trees will be allowable for both properties.

As a significant number of trees have already been removed from both the severed and retained properties (construction of driveway, clearing for buildings, etc). we would ask the site plan agreements specifically cover what, if any, additional tree removal is permittable. No concerns.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 5

Page 105 of 191

10 The surveyor who prepares the reference plan referred to in Conditions #3 and #4 shall also survey Christel Lane located on the subject property and also survey the extension of the Lane required for access the severed and retained parcels to meet the standards of private lanes as outlined in the Township of South Frontenac Road and Lane Standard Cross Section Policy.

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) 11 The extension of Christel Lane to be created to access the severed and retained parcels shall be constructed in accordance with the Township of South Frontenac Road and Lane Standard Cross Section Policy, and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac Staff.

12 Prior to final approval, the portion (66 feet) of the unopened road allowance that provides access to the subject property over Christel Lane be stopped up, closed and the ownership transferred from the Township to the owner of the subject lands.

Desired Actions/Outcome

While the conditions specifically reference the extension of Christel Lane associated with providing access to the severed and retained properties, we would like to ensure that the Township reviews all of the changes to Christel Lane made by Mr. Beach over the past several years (from approximately 2014 onwards), including re-routing the lane, etc. to ensure that the entire lane meets the Township’s Road and Lane Standards. We also want to ensure that the Christel Lane extension, which now provides access to 131 and 135 Christel Lane, be officially recognized as part of this application. We (the property owners who access our properties from Christel Lane) are initiating the process to determine how we form a Lane Association and would want to ensure that the current lane meets the Township standards and/or be aware of any deficiencies. No concerns. It should be noted that the current road allowance exists on paper only and it does not provide access to anything at the moment.

Copy of report from the Township staff outlining the outcomes of their assessment of the entirety of Christel Lane, including the “new” extension. Inclusion of the extension of Christel Lane is a past the proposed severed and retained properties and which provides access to 131 and 135 Christel Lane be officially recognized as part of the documentation of this application.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 6

Page 106 of 191

August 12, 2021

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) 13 Legal deeded access to the severed and retained parcels shall be provided over the Osborne Lane and Christel Lane rights of way. The lawyer for the applicant shall submit the pertinent documentation in draft form for review prior to registration.

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

Desired Actions/Outcome

No concerns.

14 The extension of Christel Lane providing access from Christel Lane to the Severed and Retained parcels shall be named for civic addressing purposes prior to the signing of the Certificate of Official. The name is to be chosen from the list of approved Lane names listed in By-law #2015-60. The applicant shall cover the costs of producing the signage for the new lane and its installation by Township staff. All civic addressing matters for the subject property shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Township.

We would propose that the “extension” be considered as part of Christel Lane and that the “driveways” for each of the properties that run from Christel Lane be considered as driveways, not new lanes.

As the individuals who require the “right of way” we would request that we all receive copies of the draft prior to registration (with some reasonable time for review and comments) AND copies of the final registered deeded access documents. Christel Lane extension be considered part of Christel Lane.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Any costs associated with changing the civic addresses for the impacted properties (i.e. changing the #’s to reflect the new routing of Christel Lane) be borne by the applicant.

Page 7

Page 107 of 191

August 12, 2021

Address changes to be limited to changing the #’s on impacted properties.

All access “driveways” to be considered as driveways and not separate lanes.

Conditions for Consent Application @-02-20-S (As outlined in the Township of South Frontenac report dated May 12th, 2021) 15 Christel Lane currently has various extensions off the lane to access existing properties that require a lane name. In an effort to provide greater clarity of which lane is Christel Lane and which properties are accessed from a previously existing extension to Christel Lane, the applicant is required to give these extensions a lane name and correct the civic addressing for properties along Christel Lane including properties with roll numbers 102906006017100, 10290600601700, 102906006016900, 102906006016800, 102906006016700, 102906006016600. The names for the new lanes will be chosen in accordance with By-law #2015-60. The applicant shall incur the Township costs associated with generating new addresses and signage for these properties. 16 The applicant is required have the zone changed on the severed and retained parcel from Rural (RU) zone to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) site specific zone to establish setbacks from the highwater mark and to recognize access from a private lane. Please contact the Township’s Planning Department to begin this process. 17 Where a violation of Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 is evident, the appropriate minor variance or rezoning be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township.

Desired Actions/Outcome

See #14 above.

See #14 above.

No additional comments.

No additional comments.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 8

Page 108 of 191

August 12, 2021

Comments/Concerns from Christel Lane Neighbours

Additional Concern from Christel Lane Property Owners

1. Concerns have been raised about the wildlife impact of both the blasting that has already been done to create the driveways up to the potential severed and the retained properties, and additional potential construction impacts when the building on the properties begins. We have provided evidence of the existence of the Five Lined Skink (refer to submission by Julian Barron to the Township as part of the July 13th, 2021 Public Meeting process). Additionally, we have identified that the Grey Rat Snake (aka Eastern Rat Snake) is present on adjoining properties and this species is categorized as “threatened”. https://www.ontario.ca/page/gray-ratsnake Desired Actions/Outcome We would ask that a full review be undertaken by the appropriate conservation/wildlife authorities to determine how to best protect these, and any other at-risk species located on/near the potential severed and retained properties. We would further ask that the associated report be made public so that we can understand the findings, recommendations and required actions.

Letter to Gary Beach re Application to Sever – File # Z-21-10

Page 9

Page 109 of 191

August 12, 2021

Page 110 of 191 Christine Woods From: Sent: To: Cc:

Attachments:

beachgaryj@gmail.com August 22, 2021 11:33 PM ‘Michele Bussieres’; Claire Dodds; Christine Woods ‘Roger Badura’; rvvolpe38@gmail.com; ‘Rachel McPhie’; ‘Julian Barron’; ‘Julian Barron’; ‘Sue Keefe’; beachgaryj@gmail.com RE: Zoom Meeting to Discuss Comments from Neighbours Group on Application to Sever # Z-21-10 @ Wed, Aug 25, 2021 7:00pm – 8:30pm (GMT-04) 2021-08-22 S-02-20-S communications for adjacent owners.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

Subject:

Hello, Please find attached the first batch of information for everyone’s review. This includes:

• The Hutchinson EIA completed by Ecological Services.
• The SAR EIA completed by Ecological Services.
• 2 page note regarding S-02-20-S, the EIA, SAR, and comments by G. Beach
• G. Beach reply comments to S. Keefe/R. Volpe, and J. Barron
• XL sheet tracking comments and requests by adjacent owners regarding S-02-20-S with G. Beach comments
• Registered Survey Plan 13R-22455. What will be sent tomorrow evening:
• Registered Survey Plan 13R-22179
• Site Plan Application with Site Plan (already with SFT Planning)
• Survey sketch including survey parts which will need to be designated at new Private Lanes for certain neighbours.
• Martin Burger (Groundwork Engineering Limited) evaluation of an alternative tile bed location for the new East Lot. Best regards, Gary

From: Michele Bussieres michelebussieres@gmail.com Sent: August 22, 2021 12:32 PM To: Gary Beach beachgaryj@gmail.com Cc: Roger Badura badurars@panelogic.com; rvvolpe38@gmail.com; Rachel McPhie drrach_mcphie@hotmail.com; Julian Barron julian.a.barron@gmail.com; Julian Barron julian.barron@canopygrowth.com; Sue Keefe suskeefe@gmail.com Subject: Zoom Meeting to Discuss Comments from Neighbours Group on Application to Sever # Z-21-10 @ Wed, Aug 25, 2021 7:00pm – 8:30pm (GMT-04) Hi Gary, 1

Page 111 of 191 I just wanted to confirm that you received the invitation for the Zoom meeting at 7:00 p.m. this coming Wednesday, August 25th @7:00 p.m. Confirmed to attend are myself, Julian Barron, Bob Volpe, Sue Keefe, Roger Badura and Rachel McPhie. Looking forward to chatting with you then. Cheers

Michèle

Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For, indeed, that’s all who ever have. Margaret Mead Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/margaretme101283.html#zrgBMO8HM0j34i2t.99

2

Page 112 of 191

Page 113 of 191

Page 114 of 191

Page 115 of 191

Page 116 of 191

Page 117 of 191

Page 118 of 191

Page 119 of 191

Page 120 of 191

Page 121 of 191

Page 122 of 191

Page 123 of 191

Page 124 of 191

Page 125 of 191

Page 126 of 191

Page 127 of 191

Page 128 of 191

Page 129 of 191

Page 130 of 191

Page 131 of 191

Page 132 of 191

Page 133 of 191

Page 134 of 191

Page 135 of 191

Page 136 of 191

Page 137 of 191

PROPOSAL FOR CLASS 4 & 5 SEWAGE SYSTEM BUILDING PERMIT NOTE: The property owner, applicant, designer and installer of the sewage system retain full responsibility to ensure that the sewage system is designed and installed in accordance with the approved plans, the Building Code Act, and the Ontario Building Code. If the listed applicant is not the property owner, please provide a Letter of Authorization from the registered property owner. Application forms should be submitted electronically as a PDF to building@southfrontenac.net; pictures not accepted. Alternatively, you can mail/drop off your application form to: Township of South Frontenac ATTN: Building Department 4432 George Street PO Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Directions to lot:

Take Battersea Rd from Kingston,

Turn right onto Burnt Hills Rd, Turn right again onto Osborne Ln,

Turn right again onto Christel Ln.  E-mail

 Mail

 Pick Up

Installer communication method:  E-mail

 Mail

 Pick Up

Owner communication method:

The proposed system will be (check appropriate box):

 CLASS 4: LEACHING BED/TANK  CLASS 5: HOLDING TANK

✔ Tank & bed

Test Holes:  Excavated to 1.5 metres (5 feet) deep ✔ OR until bedrock  Located in leaching bed dispersal area  Located in mantle loading area (if required) ✔  Located in (if no mantle)  Covered / protected from precipitation, collapse, fall hazards Leaching Bed Area:  Leaching bed dispersal area clearly marked with stakes, paint, or other method  Filter bed base contact area clearly marked with stakes, paint, or other method  Mantle loading area clearly marked with stakes, paint, or other method Sewage System Application Form - Updated February 26, 2021

 Tank only

 Bed only

 Treatment unit

Items Included in Submitted Proposal: Floor Plans:  One (1) copy of floor plans including all levels of the structure, no larger than 11” x 17” Letter of Authorization:  Included with this application Additional Information (if required): ✔ Sampling and Maintenance Agreement   Copy of Design Sheet for BMEC System  Daily Design Sewage Flow calculations for non-residential or multiple occupancies

Page 138 of 191

Application for a Permit to Construct or Demolish This form is authorized under subsection 8(1.1) of the Building Code Act.

For use by Principal Authority Application number:

Permit number (if different):

Date received:

Roll number:

Application submitted to: Township of South Frontenac________________________

A. Project information Building number, street name Municipality

Unit number

Concession 9, Christel Ln

South Frontenac

Postal code

K0H1H0

Lot/con.

20

Plan number/other description 2

Project value est. $

Area of work (m )

B. Purpose of application  New construction  Addition to an

✔

 Alteration/repair

 Demolition

existing building

 Conditional Permit

Proposed use of building

Current use of building

Residential Dwelling Description of proposed work

Construct & install a new class 4 sewage system consisting of a septic tank, pump chamber, and raised filter bed.

C. Applicant

Applicant is:

Last name

 Owner or

 Authorized agent of owner

First name

Corporation or partnership

Street address

Unit number

Municipality

Postal code

Telephone number ( )

Fax (

Province

Lot/con.

E-mail Cell number ( )

)

D. Owner (if different from applicant) Last name

First name

Corporation or partnership

Street address

Unit number

Municipality

Postal code

Telephone number ( )

Fax (

)

Application for a Permit to Construct or Demolish – Effective January 1, 2014

Province

E-mail Cell number ( )

Lot/con.

Page 139 of 191

E. Builder (optional) Last name

First name

Corporation or partnership (if applicable)

Street address

Unit number

Municipality

Postal code

Telephone number ( )

Fax (

Province

Lot/con.

E-mail Cell number ( )

)

F. Tarion Warranty Corporation (Ontario New Home Warranty Program) i. ii.

Is proposed construction for a new home as defined in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act? If no, go to section G. Is registration required under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act?

iii.

If yes to (ii) provide registration number(s): ____________________________________

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

 Yes

 No

G. Required Schedules i) Attach Schedule 1 for each individual who reviews and takes responsibility for design activities. ii) Attach Schedule 2 where application is to construct on-site, install or repair a sewage system.

H. Completeness and compliance with applicable law i) This application meets all the requirements of clauses 1.3.1.3 (5) (a) to (d) of Division C of the Building Code (the application is made in the correct form and by the owner or authorized agent, all applicable fields have been completed on the application and required schedules, and all required schedules are submitted). Payment has been made of all fees that are required, under the applicable by-law, resolution or regulation made under clause 7(1)(c) of the Building Code Act, I992, to be paid when the application is made. ii) This application is accompanied by the plans and specifications prescribed by the applicable by-law, resolution or regulation made under clause 7(1)(b) of the Building Code Act, 1992. iii) This application is accompanied by the information and documents prescribed by the applicable bylaw, resolution or regulation made under clause 7(1)(b) of the Building Code Act, 1992 which enable the chief building official to determine whether the proposed building, construction or demolition will contravene any applicable law. iv) The proposed building, construction or demolition will not contravene any applicable law.

I. Declaration of applicant

I __________________________________________________________________________________________declare that: (print name)

The information contained in this application, attached schedules, attached plans and specifications, and other attached documentation is true to the best of my knowledge. If the owner is a corporation or partnership, I have the authority to bind the corporation or partnership.

Date

Signature of applicant

Personal information contained in this form and schedules is collected under the authority of subsection 8(1.1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, and will be used in the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, 1992. Questions about the collection of personal information may be addressed to: a) the Chief Building Official of the municipality or upper-tier municipality to which this application is being made, or, b) the inspector having the powers and duties of a chief building official in relation to sewage systems or plumbing for an upper-tier municipality, board of health or conservation authority to whom this application is made, or, c) Director, Building and Development Branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay St., 2nd Floor. Toronto, M5G 2E5 (416) 585-6666.

Application for a Permit to Construct or Demolish – Effective January 1, 2014

Page 140 of 191

Schedule 1: Designer Information Use one form for each individual who reviews and takes responsibility for design activities with respect to the project.

A. Project Information Building number, street name Municipality

Unit no.

Concession 9, Christel Ln Postal code

South Frontenac

Lot/con.

20

Plan number/ other description

K0H 1H0

B. Individual who reviews and takes responsibility for design activities Name

Firm

Martin Burger

Street address Municipality

Groundwork Engineering Limited Unit no.

654 Norris Court Postal code

Kingston

Province

K7P 2R9

Telephone number ( 613 ) 634-1789

ON

Fax number ( )

E-mail

640

Lot/con.

mburger@groundengineer.ca

Cell number ( )

C. Design activities undertaken by individual identified in Section B. [Building Code Table 3.5.2.1. of Division C]  House  HVAC – House  Building Structural  Small Buildings  Building Services  Plumbing – House  Large Buildings  Detection, Lighting and Power  Plumbing – All Buildings ✔ On-site Sewage Systems  Complex Buildings  Fire Protection  Description of designer’s work

Design a new class 4 septic system consisting of a septic tank, pump chamber, raised type ‘A’ bed. D. Declaration of Designer Martin Burger I ___________________________________________________________________ declare that (choose one as appropriate): (print name)

 I review and take responsibility for the design work on behalf of a firm registered under subsection 3.2.4.of Division C, of the Building Code. I am qualified, and the firm is registered, in the appropriate classes/categories. Individual BCIN: _________________________________ Firm BCIN:

 I review and take responsibility for the design and am qualified in the appropriate category as an “other designer” under subsection 3.2.5.of Division C, of the Building Code. Individual BCIN: _________________________________ Basis for exemption from registration: ___________________________________

 The design work is exempt from the registration and qualification requirements of the Building Code. P.ENG. Basis for exemption from registration and qualification:__________________________________________

I certify that:

1. The information contained in this schedule is true to the best of my knowledge.
2. I have submitted this application with the knowledge and consent of the firm.

Date

Signature of Designer

NOTE: 1.

For the purposes of this form, “individual” means the “person” referred to in Clause 3.2.4.7(1) d).of Division C, Article 3.2.5.1. of Division C, and all other persons who are exempt from qualification under Subsections 3.2.4. and 3.2.5. of Division C.

Schedule 1 is not required to be completed by a holder of a license, temporary license, or a certificate of practice, issued by the Ontario Association of Architects. Schedule 1 is also not required to be completed by a holder of a license to practise, a limited license to practise, or a certificate of authorization, issued by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

Application for a Permit to Construct or Demolish – Effective January 1, 2014

Page 141 of 191

Schedule 2: Sewage System Installer Information A.

Project Information

Building number, street name Municipality

B.

Unit number Postal code

Lot/con.

/

Plan number/ other description

Sewage system installer

Is the installer of the sewage system engaged in the business of constructing on-site, installing, repairing, servicing, cleaning or emptying sewage systems, in accordance with Building Code Article 3.3.1.1, Division C? Yes (Continue to Section C)

C.

Installer unknown at time of application (Continue to Section E)

No (Continue to Section E)

Registered installer information (where answer to B is “Yes”)

Name

BCIN

Street address

Unit number

Municipality

Postal code

Telephone number

Fax

D.

ON

E-mail Cell number

Qualified supervisor information (where answer to section B is “Yes”)

Name of qualified supervisor(s)

E.

Province

Lot/con.

Building Code Identification Number (BCIN)

Declaration of Applicant:

I

declare that: (print name) I am the applicant for the permit to construct the sewage system. If the installer is unknown at time of application, I shall submit a new Schedule 2 prior to construction when the installer is known; OR I am the holder of the permit to construct the sewage system, and am submitting a new Schedule 2, now that the installer is known.

I certify that: 1.

The information contained in this schedule is true to the best of my knowledge.

If the owner is a corporation or partnership, I have the authority to bind the corporation or partnership.

Date

Signature of applicant

Application for a Permit to Construct or Demolish – Effective January 1, 2014

Page 142 of 191

Schedule 3: Site Evaluation Form  Proposed

Water Supply:

 Existing

 Lake

 Drilled well

 Dug well

 Shore well

Casing depth:

m  Sandpoint

 Other (specify):

APPROXIMATE SOIL PERCOLATION RATES (T-time) The following are estimated ranges of soil percolation rates (T-times) measured in a rate of min/cm. Actual on-site soil conditions may vary significantly from estimates; it can be difficult to tell a 30 from a 50 just by looking at it. Estimated T-times shall be determined by samples analyzed by the Unified Soil Classification System, the Soil Texture Classification from the USDA Soil Survey Manual, or percolation tests being conducted on in-situ soils. Disputes about estimated T-times shall be resolved by sending in-situ soil samples to a Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories testing firm at the applicant’s cost. The T-time will be determined by the falling head test and grain size analysis; the percent passing the 75 µm #200 sieve is to be included for silt content. Soil Type

Sand

Sandy Loam

Loam

Silty Loam

Clay Loam

Silt - Clay

Clay

T-time (min/cm)

10

12 - 20

17 - 25

20 - 30

30 - 40

40 - 50

50+

Applicant’s Use

Sub-surface conditions encountered: Depth (m) Indicate depth to bedrock, T>50, &/or high ground water table (where present):

Soil type

Sandy Loam

Approved by Inspector

T-time  Yes

20

 No

IMPORTED SEPTIC STONE AND LEACHING BED FILL CERTIFICATION I, _________________________________________ (Registered Installer per Div. C, Section 3.3 of the Ontario Building Code), certify that the materials used to construct the sewage system, under the application herein, meet Ontario Building Code requirements, and correspond to the percolation rate on the application and the soils analysis provided to the Township of South Frontenac: NAME/NUMBER OF LICENSED AGGREGATE PIT

TYPE OF MATERIAL

T-TIME / SILT CONTENT

LAST TESTING DATE (M/D/Y)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Note: Leaching bed fill means soil used to construct of conventional and chamber leaching beds, filter beds, dispersal beds, and area beds as prescribed under specific Building Materials Evaluation Commission authorizations. It may not include a requirement for other soils as prescribed by treatment unit manufacturers; check with the manufacturer before installation. The silt content of leaching bed fill must be included in the analysis.

The Township of South Frontenac may require you to submit soil samples for analysis.

Signature of Licensed Installer Sewage System Application Form – Updated February 26, 2021

Date

Page 143 of 191

Schedule 4: Design Criteria OTHER:

DWELLING

DESCRIPTION Total # of Existing Bathroom group – 3 piece (toilet, sink, tub/shower)

UNITS

Total # of Proposed

PER FIXTURE

TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS

2

x 6.0 =

12

Total # of Existing

Total # of Proposed

TOTAL FIXTURE PER FIXTURE UNITS

UNITS

x 6.0 =

Additional toilet

x 4.0 =

x 4.0 =

Bathtub or shower

x 1.5 =

x 1.5 =

1

Additional sinks

1.5

x 1.5 =

Kitchen sink

x 1.5 =

x 1.5 =

1

Dishwasher

x 1.5 =

1

x 1.0 =

x 1.0 =

Clothes Washer

x 1.5 =

x 1.5 =

Laundry tub

x 1.5 =

x 1.5 =

Other:

x . =

x . =

Total: 14.5

FIXTURE UNITS FINISHED FLOOR AREA m2

Existing

Proposed

Total

160

3

OF BEDROOMS

160

Total: Existing

Proposed

Total: 1600

Total

Total:

DESIGN FLOW CALCULATION TABLE Residential Occupancy

(A) Bedroom flow

(B) Extra bedroom flow

(C) Living area flow

(D) Fixture count flow

Volume (L)

1 bedroom dwelling

750

2 bedroom dwelling

1100

3 bedroom dwelling

1

1600

4 bedroom dwelling

2000

5 bedroom dwelling

2500

Each bedroom over 5,

500

Each 10 m2 (or part thereof) over 200 m2 up to 400 m2,

100

Each 10 m2 (or part thereof) over 400 m2 up to 600 m2, and

75

Each 10 m2 (or part thereof) over 600 m2, or

50

Each fixture unit over 20 fixture units

50

Daily Design Sewage Flow, Q = 1600 Sewage System Application Form – Updated February 26, 2021

Flows

1600

liters/day A + (B or C or D)

Page 144 of 191

Schedule 5: Proposal to Construct Propose to Construct & install

a Class 4

sewage system to serve Single Family Dwelling

(construct, install, alter, extend, enlarge, replace, etc.)

Is the land currently vacant?

 YES

(facility: e.g. single family dwelling, motel, etc.)

 NO

 YES

Additions/renovations proposed?

 NO

If replacing, is there a permit for the system on the property?  YES  NO Permit # Is the existing system failing?  YES  NO Explain: Is there more than one system on the property?  YES  NO Permit # ■ NO List: Will the proposed system service more than one building?  YES 

Provide proposed information instead of minimum requirements:  Septic Tank ✔

 Class 5 Holding Tank

■ New Proposed working capacity: 3600

 Use existing Size T-time (min/cm) of existing soil: 20

litres

 Level II

Subsurface detection method: sewer tape

Trench Bed, Leaching Chambers, Filter Bed only Existing Soil (T ≤ 15) Imported Leaching Bed Fill

 Class 4 Trench Bed Typical Drawing A

 Class 4 Type II Leaching Chambers Typical Drawing A

 Class 4 Filter Bed Typical Drawing B

If Q ≤ 3000 L/day, Q÷75 If Q > 3000 L/day, Q÷50

 Class 4 BMEC Bed



Digester Tank

 Level III

 Level IV

Make / Model of treatment unit:

Permit #

Mantle Loading Area

 

 Treatment Unit

Pump required?  No  Effluent  Macerating  TBD

Percolation Time (T) of Existing Soil, min/cm

1 < T ≤ 20

20 < T ≤ 35

35 < T ≤ 50

T > 50

Loading Rates, (L/m2)/day

10

8

6

4

Q ÷ Loading Rate =

Total pipe length:

Total pipe length:

Q×T 200 Q×T 300

m2

Length

m x Width

m

=

m

Raised height (above grade):

m

=

m

Raised height (above grade):

m

m2

If over 50 m2, # of filter beds:

m2

Raised height (above grade):

m

m2

Length

m x Width

m

Raised height (above grade):

m

m2

Raised height: (above grade):

m

m2

T > 15 sand area:

Loading area: Q ÷ 75 / 50 = 21.33 Contact area:

Q×T 850

Specified sand area:

= 37.65

Q×T 400

=

Typical Drawing C, D or E

=

Number of modules: Q ÷

 Type A Dispersal Bed Typical Drawing F, G, H or I

If Q ≤ 3000 L/day, Q÷75 If Q > 3000 L/day, Q÷50

Stone area: Q ÷ 75 / 50 = 1<T≤15 sand area:

 Shallow Buried Trench / Type B / Other: Attach calculations and design Sewage System Application Form – Updated February 26, 2021

Q×T 850

=

Q×T 400

=

m2

Page 145 of 191

Schedule 6: Site Plan and Cross-Sectional Diagram Checklists SITE PLAN DIAGRAM CHECKLIST DRAWING REQUIREMENTS: PLEASE CHECK (IF ATTACHING A SEPARATE DIAGRAM, ENSURE THESE ARE INDICATED)  1 Copy of site plan submitted

PROPOSED DISTANCES (Actual, not minimum)  Property owners name and property (civic) address;  Lot size, property dimensions, roads, existing rights-of-way, easements, or municipal/utility corridors;  Indicate distances to all utilities (i.e. telephone, Hydro lines above and below ground);  Show and identify neighboring properties, including wells (indicate if none);  Show location and size of all proposed and existing sewage system components (tanks, pump chambers, alarms, distribution bed) and the test pits;  Show the direction of surface water flow, as well as any surface water (i.e. creek, pond, lake) on or adjacent to the property and provide the common name;  Indicate directions of North on the site plan; and  Show the distances from pipes in bed and tank to ALL buildings, structures, property lines, surface water, easements, rights-of-way, driveways and wells (including neighbouring wells)

Distribution pipe (or stone area) distances: to closest structure:

70.75

m

to closest lot line:

23.20

m

to well on lot:

m

to neighbouring wells:

m/

m

54.75

to surface water:

m

Septic Tank / Treatment Unit distances: to closest structure:

1.50

m

to closest lot line:

47.50

m

to well on lot:

m

to neighbouring wells:

m/

to surface water:

m m

CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAGRAM CHECKLIST DRAWING REQUIREMENTS: ATTACH THE SEPARATE CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAGRAM AND ENSURE THE BELOW ARE INDICATED

 1 Copy of Cross-Sectional Diagram Submitted  Typical Drawing A (Absorption Trench)  Typical Drawing B (Filter Media Bed)  Typical Drawing C (BMEC Eljen GSF)

Depth to bedrock / hardpan / groundwater table / T > 50 soil:  Raised

 3 sides open

Proposed raised height above existing grade:

m

Check appropriate:

 Dug In

m

 Typical Drawing D (BMEC EnviroSeptic)  Typical Drawing E (BMEC Infiltrator ATL)  Typical Drawing F (Waterloo Biofilter Shed)

Existing grade:

 Typical Drawing G (Waterloo Biofilter Flatbed)  Typical Drawing H (Type A Dispersal Bed)  Typical Drawing I (Ecoflo Biofilter)

Sewage System Application Form – Updated February 26, 2021

Finished side slope ratio:

1:4

Page 146 of 191

Schedule 7: Site Plan Diagram

Sewage System Application Form – Updated February 26, 2021

Page 147 of 191

Page 148 of 191

Page 149 of 191

Page 150 of 191

Page 151 of 191

Page 152 of 191

Page 153 of 191

Page 154 of 191

Page 155 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BUILDING SERVICES

Page 156 of 191

4432 George Street PO Box 100 Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 X2226 building@southfrontenac.net

SEWAGE SYSTEM SETBACK WAIVER and INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS Permit #: ________________ Project location information:

(Office use only)

Property owners name: _____________________________ Phone #: ________________ Municipal Address: __________________________________________________________ Roll Number: ______________________________________________________________ Concession: ________ Lot: ________ Part: _______ R Plan #: ______________________ To the Township of South Frontenac, I declare that;

I am owner listed above

, or;

I am the authorized agent of the property owner listed above As the owner/agent I hereby acknowledge; 

That the issuance of a Building Permit and/or a general site review by the Building Department Staff is not confirmation that all zoning setbacks have been adhered to. This includes but is not limited to separation of structures to the high water mark, lot lines, septic systems and other structures. It is understood that it is the sole responsibility of the owner/agent to meet the setback requirements as set out in the Township Zoning By-law, and;



The owner(s) are obligated to arrange for the inspections indicated on the permit card issued for the project, and that no work will proceed until the Building Inspector has inspected the various stages of construction indicated on the permit card, and;



Permit Drawings and documents submitted with errors or omissions contained therein do not relieve the owner and/or authorized agent from the responsibility of completing all work to meet or exceed the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.



If the owner is a corporation or partnership, I have the authority to bind the corporation or partnership.

Signature

Date

Note: The Ontario Building Code Act requires that request for inspections are made a minimum 2 regular business days in advance of the regular business day upon which the inspection is needed.

Page 157 of 191

Agent Authorization Letter

Property Owners Name

Corporation or Partnership

Mailing Address

Phone & E-mail

Date: ______________________________ To:

The Chief Building Official Township of South Frontenac Building Department PO Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0

RE:

Proposed Project: ________________________________________________________ (A brief description of the work to be performed)

Project Location: ________________________________________________________

(Property Address, Legal Description etc…)

The undersigned, being the current owner of the above referenced property, authorizes; /_________ Agents Name

Company Name

to apply for a building permit for the above referenced project on my behalf. This will allow my agent to answer any and all questions on my behalf and to sign any and all documents for me; however, I understand that I shall be responsible to ensure that my project complies with the Ontario Building Code.

Print Name

Signature

Of Individual Owner OR Authorizing Officer

of Individual Owner OR of Authorizing Officer (I have authority to bind the Corporation)

Date

Note: This form is valid only for one access to Building Permit Record Application. Subsequent applications by an authorized agent will require a new agent authorization form completed by the current property owner.

Page 158 of 191

Page 159 of 191

Page 160 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Zoning By-law Amendment Agenda Date: Report Date: Application No: Owner: Agent: Location of Property: Purpose of Application: Date of Public Meeting:

September 7, 2021 September 1, 2021 Z-21-14 K. Mulrooney Trucking Ltd. Gary Beach 2965 Battersea Road, Storrington District Rezone from Rural – Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU) August 17, 2021 (Virtual Public Meeting)

Recommendation THAT By-law 2021-48 to amend the zoning from Rural – Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU) for a property municipally known 2965 Battersea Road located at Part Lot 37 and 38, Concession 7, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac, being Part 1 on Plan 13R10403 be passed. Proposal An application was submitted to amend Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 to rezone a portion of the subject property from Rural – Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU). By-law 2021-48 is listed on the Council agenda under By-laws. Background The subject property, municipally known as 2965 Battersea Road, is located on the north side of Battersea Road, east of McGarvey Road and south of Princess Road. The northern portion of the subject property contains a pit and quarry and is zoned Special Quarry ‘A’ Zone 1 (QA-1). The southern portion of the subject property contains fields, an existing stone dwelling, a storage shed and a water tower. There is residential development on properties along McGarvey Road, Battersea Road and Princess Road in the area of the subject lands. The area surrounding the subject property is a mix of rural residential lots and agricultural uses. Each of the consent applications comply with MDS I from barns capable of housing livestock in the area. Attachment 1 to this report is a map showing the location of the property relative to local landmarks. The subject property is subject to consent applications S-12-20-S, S-13-20-S and S-1420-S to create three new residential lots. Provisional approval of the consent applications was granted subject to conditions by the Director of Development Services on April 6, 2021, as the consent applications met the criteria of undisputed consents based on Delegation By-law 2020-27. A condition of approval is that the new lots be rezoned from Rural – Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU). The new zoning would bring the new lots into conformity with the Zoning By-law and establish suitable provisions for development of the severed lots with a single detached dwelling.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 1

Page 161 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The three new, vacant residential lots would each be at least 1.0 hectares in area, and have at least 76 metres of frontage on McGarvey Road. The parcels need to be rezoned from RU-3 to RU because the RU-3 special provision zone speaks to uses permitted in the existing residential stone building on the retained lands (permits a maximum of four multiple unit dwelling units) and so the zone cannot be applied to the new lots. Public Meeting A virtual public meeting was held under the Planning Act on August 17, 2021. No comments were received from Council or members of the public. Planning Analysis Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that Council decisions be “consistent with” the PPS. The PPS allows growth and development to be directed to rural lands, including residential lot creation and development that is compatible with the rural landscape (section 1.1.5). Section 1.1.5.8 requires new land uses, including the creation of lots to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae. The proposed development is consistent with these directions of the PPS. County of Frontenac Official Plan, 2016 & Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003 The County of Frontenac Official Plan sets out the general direction for planning and development by defining strategic goals, broad objectives and policies. Section 3 – Growth Management sets outs policies intended to help guide new development across the County as well as manage change at a regional level. The Rural Lands policies are meant to recognize the importance of rural areas for future growth and create guidelines for development that is sensitive to the surroundings. The County Official Plan recognizes the importance of economic sustainability of natural resources including agriculture. Section 2.1.1.4 requires the use of a Minimum Distance Separation formulae when considering the creation of new lots and new development in proximity to livestock facilities. The proposed development is consistent with the direction of the County Official Plan. The type and amount of development on ‘Rural’ lands must maintain the rural character, natural heritage, and cultural landscape in the Township. Sections 6.23 and 7.1(l) of the Township Official Plan require farm and non-farm development to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae I and II. The zoning by-law amendment is consistent with policies that apply to new lot creation and non-farm development near livestock facilities. Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 2

Page 162 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Consideration for the Provincial Policy Statement, County of Frontenac Official Plan, Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, and Zoning By-law 2003-75, was had in the decision to grant provisional approval to the consent applications. The zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the applicable policies on rural residential lot creation and development. The RU zone is applicable to rural properties that have frontage on a public road. As this rezoning is consistent and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the South Frontenac Official Plan, and represents good planning for the subject property, it is recommended Council approve this application by passing By-law 2021-48. Prepared by: Anna Geladi, Planner Reviewed by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO Date of Site Visit: October 20, 2020 Attachments:

1. Location Map
2. By-law 2021-48 – under By-law section of the agenda

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 3

Attachment 1. Location Map - 2965 Battersea Road

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels Settlement Area Citations

1.8

0

0.92

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Includes Material © 2019 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

1.8 Kilometers

Notes Z-21-14

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

Page 163 of 191

1: 36,112

Page 164 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Zoning By-law Amendment Agenda Date: Report Date: Application No: Owner: Agent: Location of Property: Purpose of Application: Date of Public Meeting:

September 7, 2021 September 1, 2021 Z-21-15 Jason and Laura Quesnel The Boulevard Group 56 Nighthawk Lane, Bedford District Rezone from Waterfront Residential (RW) to Rural (RU) August 17, 2021 (Virtual Public Meeting)

Recommendation THAT By-law 2021-49 to amend the zoning from Waterfront Residential (RW) to Rural (RU) for a property municipally known 56 Nighthawk Lane, located at Part Lot 1 and 2, Concession 2, District of Bedford, South Frontenac be passed. Proposal An application was submitted to amend Zoning By-law No. 2003-75 to rezone a portion of the subject property from Residential Waterfront (RW) to Rural (RU). By-law 2021-49 is listed on the Council agenda under By-laws. Background The subject property is located between Deyos Road and Thirteen Island Lake. The dwelling on the property is accessed by Nighthawk Lane, which runs through the western half of the property. The subject lands slope from Deyos Road towards Thirteen Island Lake and consist predominantly of forest and rock outcrops. There is residential development on properties along Deyos Road and Nighthawk Lane in the area of the subject lands. Attachment 1 to this report is a map showing the location of the property relative to local landmarks. The subject property is subject to consent applications S-48-20-B, S-49-20-B and S-5020-B to create three new residential lots. Provisional approval of the consent applications was granted subject to conditions by the Director of Development Services on June 1, 2021, as the consent applications met the criteria of undisputed consents based on Delegation By-law 2020-27. A condition of approval is that the new lots be rezoned from Waterfront Residential (RW) to Rural (RU). The new zoning would bring the parcels into conformity with the Zoning By-law and would establish the most appropriate zoning for development of a single detached dwelling on the severed lots. The three new, vacant residential lots would each be at least 1.0 hectares in area, and have at least 76 metres of frontage on Deyos Road. The parcels need to be rezoned from RW to RU because the parcels will not be waterfront properties.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 1

Page 165 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Department, Agency and Public Comments Public Services, the Building Department (Septic System Review), and Quinte Conservation were not circulated the rezoning application, as they had no objection to the approval of consent applications S-48-20-B, S-49-20-B and S-50-20-B when they reviewed them earlier this year. Public Meeting A virtual public meeting was held under the Planning Act on August 17, 2021. No comments were received from Council or members of the public. Planning Analysis Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that Council decisions be “consistent with” the PPS. The PPS allows growth and development to be directed to rural lands, including residential lot creation and development that is compatible with the rural landscape (section 1.1.5). Section 1.1.5.8 requires new land uses, including the creation of lots to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae. The proposed development is consistent with these directions of the PPS. County of Frontenac Official Plan, 2016 & Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003 The County of Frontenac Official Plan sets out the general direction for planning and development by defining strategic goals, broad objectives and policies. Section 3 – Growth Management sets outs policies intended to help guide new development across the County as well as manage change at a regional level. The Rural Lands policies are meant to recognize the importance of rural areas for future growth and create guidelines for development that is sensitive to the surroundings. Rezoning the lands from Waterfront Residential (RW) to Rural (RU) zone establishes the most appropriate zoning to facilitate the development of residential lots that do not have waterfront and are accessed from a public road, such as Deyos Road. As this rezoning is consistent and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the South Frontenac Official Plan, and represents good planning for the subject property, it is recommended Council approve this application by passing By-law 2021-49. Prepared by: Anna Geladi, Planner Reviewed by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 2

Page 166 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Date of Site Visit: April 21, 2021 Attachments:

1. Location Map
2. By-law 2021-49

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader 3

Attachment 1. Location Map - 56 Nighthawk Lane and Deyos Road

Legend Road Highway Major Road Secondary Road Ferry Route

Assessment Parcels Citations

1.8

0

0.92

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Includes Material © 2019 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

1.8 Kilometers

Notes Z-21-15

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

Page 167 of 191

1: 36,112

Page 168 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

September 7, 2021

SUBJECT: Approve Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) with the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) with the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) for Funding through the Second intake of the Municipal Modernization Program for a Joint Fire Hall and Fleet Location Study. BACKGROUND: Following completion of the Frontenac municipalities’ Joint Service Delivery Review and stemming from one of its recommendations regarding collaboration between Frontenac Fire Services, The Townships of South and Central Frontenac submitted a joint application for funding under the Province’s second intake of the Municipal Modernization Program (MMP2) in order to conduct a Joint Fire Hall Location and Fleet study. Council had approved a capital project for a local Fire Hall location assessment initially in 2019; however, that project was funded from Township reserves and would be more limited in scope. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The approved funding of up $100,000 through the MMP2 program will be used to contract a third-party to conduct a joint study for both Central and South Frontenac that will assess Fire Hall and fleet locations for both Townships, and make recommendations for future facility planning and fleet deployment that will best address future needs as the Townships grow. Individual and joint fire service scenarios will be considered in order to compare options and make recommendations. Council’s authorization of the attached TPA is required in order to execute the Agreement with MMAH for this funding. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This expanded study is fully funded by the MMP2 program up to $100,000. Executing this transfer payment agreement allows the Township to submit grant claims to MMAH for 100% of eligible expenses up to the $100,000 maximum funding amount. ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone, Chief Administrative Officer

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 169 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL RECREATION DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:

September 7th, 2021

SUBJECT:

Support for application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation Community Building Fund for Reconstruction of the McMullen Net Sport Courts in Verona

RECOMMENDATION: That Council support a grant application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) Community Building Fund – for up to the maximum funded amount of $500,000, for the reconstruction of the McMullen Net Sport Courts in Verona; and, That authorization be given to the Mayor and Clerk to sign a transfer payment agreement with the OTF for the funding if the grant application is successful.

BACKGROUND: As part of the 2021 Budget Council had approved $55,000 to resurface and install equipment to support two full size Tennis courts, a small basketball court and a shuffleboard area at McMullen Park in Verona. Staff issued a Tender for the project and received two (2) bids along with a 3rd quote from a Vendor of record. The prices from all three (3) vendors exceeded the budget by between 34-96% Given the current condition of the court and the cost of the work required, Staff felt it may be more cost effective to replace the entire base and surface/fence/etc., than to only reseal and paint the court surfaces. This would increase longevity and allow the surface area to be enlarged to meet actual recreational or higher-play specifications. For this reason, staff brought a report to the June 15, 2021 Council meeting, with a recommendation to cancel the project in 2021 and reconsider it with the potential for an increased scope (replace instead of refurbish) in the 2022 budget. Council passed a motion at that meeting to authorize the cancellation of Capital project 21-21 being the Resurfacing of the McMullen Park Net sports Courts.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Staff are recommending an application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) Community Building Fund for the reconstruction of the McMullen Courts. Under the program, organizations are eligible to apply for up to 100% of their total project cost up to a maximum of $500,000. The Community Building Fund – Capital stream provides “…support for non-profits, Indigenous communities and Municipalities in the community sport and recreation sectors.” “The fund will help strengthen communities by supporting the repair, renovation or retrofitting of existing sport and recreation facilities to address: •

local community need by extending the life and maximizing the use of existing facilities”

Complete reconstruction of the McMullen net sport courts in Verona will provide an opportunity to create a safe and vibrant space that offers tennis, basketball and shuffleboard. The current footprint of the tennis courts does not meet the official size requirements for recreational tennis play. The new footprint would exceed these

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 170 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL RECREATION DEPARTMENT requirements and meet the specifications for tournament tennis providing greater opportunity to continue to grow the sport locally and improving player safety. The space will also include a small basketball area and a space for shuffleboard. Project Readiness: The Township is in the process of obtaining quotes for the complete reconstruction and resurfacing of the courts. This includes removal of the existing pad and fencing. The Township has had great success in resurfacing other courts in South Frontenac resulting in the growth of both Pickleball and Tennis.

STAFFING/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A budget estimate for reconstructing and resurfacing is not available at this time, but will be obtained before the application is submitted; based on earlier estimates and the prices tendered for the initial project, the full reconstruction is not anticipated to be in excess of the maximum funding allocation of $500,000 and so would be fully funded if the application is approved. Cancellation of the 2021 project resulted in $45,000 being returned to the Infrastructure Reserve and $10,000 in community donations being held in reserve in anticipation of re-budgeting in 2022.

ALIGNMENT WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN: This project is in alignment with South Frontenac’s Strategic Plan, specifically the following priorities: •

To promote and support growth than meets the community’s needs while maintaining the integrity of our natural environment;

•

To be a catalyst for the creation of vibrant, complete communities

ATTACHMENTS: •

21-21-McMullen Netsport Court_capital detail sheet

Prepared by: Tim Laprade Manager of Recreation and Frontenac Community Arena Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

zoE :59

Page 171 of 191

Page 172 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

August 17th, 2021

SUBJECT:

ICIP Green Application

RECOMMENDATION: That Council support a grant application to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Green Infrastructure Stream, for upgrades to the Sydenham Water Plant as itemized in the August 17th, 2021 report; and, That authorization be given to the Mayor and Clerk to sign a transfer payment agreement for the funding if the grant application is successful. BACKGROUND: In July 2021, the Province announced a new intake under the ICIP. This new Green Infrastructure stream focuses on the rehabilitation or replacement of drinking water infrastructure in order to address health and safety concerns or improve drinking water quality. Municipalities and First nation communities with a population of 100,000 or less are eligible to apply. Total funding of $240 million is available and projects can be submitted up to a value of $5 million. The cost share for this grant is 73.33% Federal/Provincial and 26.67% from the applicant. The deadline for submission is September 9th, 2021. Notification to successful applicants will not take place until spring of 2022. Projects must start no later than September 30th, 2022 and be completed by October 31st, 2026. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: In discussion with Utilities Kingston, three eligible capital works were identified for a potential application under the new stream:

1. Replacement of Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) instrumentation: The PLC is the physical hardware and SCADA is the software which provides automation and controls various processes at the Sydenham Water plant. There are currently challenges with the communications between the current PLC hardware and SCADA software due to the age of the equipment. The replacement will reduce service interruptions. This replacement is scheduled for 2023-24 in the Sydenham Water 10 year financial plan and the total cost of the project is estimated at $275,000.
2. Replacement of Chlorine Contact (Serpentine) Piping: A multiple barrier approach is used to prevent drinking water contamination within the Sydenham Water Plant. Barriers used within the supply system includes source water treatment by chemically assisted filtration, primary disinfection through UV light application and chlorination as well secondary disinfection through chloramination, continuous monitoring and automated control of treatment processes and distribution system facilities.

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 173 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

The entrance to the aluminium detention chlorine contact (serpentine) piping is the primary disinfection point of filtered water through the use of UV light and free chlorine residual. The serpentine piping is original and with the current material type, is susceptible to pin-hole leaks. To date, these pin-hole leaks have been maintained by Utilities Kingston but, they have suggested that the piping could be replaced or that an alternate technology be deployed to reduce ongoing maintenance and to prevent additional issues as the piping ages. An alternate technology could require building expansion to accommodate the size/layout of such technology. Staff is recommending replacement of the existing piping. It is currently unknown whether a building expansion would take place in the next ten years. Further, given the existing age of the serpentine pipe and anticipated remaining useful life based on its current condition, replacing the serpentine piping will minimize any incidents of system breakages or failures and improve the system’s reliability and efficiency. The estimated project cost for the replacement of the serpentine piping is $700,000 and would be scheduled for 2024-25. This work is not currently part of the 10 year financial plan. 3. Installation of redundant pneumatic actuated valves: There are 22 pneumatic actuated valves controlling the flow of water in the water treatment plant. The majority of these are original and the seals are susceptible to failure requiring regular maintenance. The valves are currently scheduled to be replaced individually and funded through operating budgets, however the installation of 22 new pneumatic actuated valves would act as a primary system allowing the existing valves to be maintained as a backup system in case of failure or maintenance of the primary system. The estimated total cost of the project is $20,000 and the work would take place in 2022 within the guidelines of the Transfer Payment Agreement to ensure the costs would be eligible. Since applications to the ICIP Green Infrastructure Stream can include multiple components, it is staff’s recommendation that all three components be included as one project for the purpose of an application. FINANCIALS: The current 2019-2029 capital plan for the Sydenham Water Plant included the replacement of the PLC/SCADA system at a cost of $250,000. This amount is to be funded by users through water system rates that are contributed to a dedicated reserve. The total project costs of all three components is $995,000. A successful grant application would provide funding of 73.33% or $729,633.50 leaving an amount of $265,366 to be funded by the Township through the Sydenham Water dedicated reserve.

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 174 of 191

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Alternatives Considered Since the replacement of the Serpentine pipe is not contemplated in the 10 year financial plan for the Sydenham Water System, any costs associated with this replacement would be new. For this reason, staff considered omitting the Serpentine pipe from the application, resulting in a project cost of $295,000 of which $78,676 would need to be funded by the applicant. This smaller application would produce net savings of $171,323; however, the application may not be as strong without the Serpentine pipe component and ratepayers could incur unknown costs or service interruptions associated with future repairs of the pipe as it ages. For this reason, staff has recommended inclusion of the Serpentine pipe in the application. ATTACHMENTS: None. Prepared by: Louise Fragnito Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

“Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader”

Page 175 of 191 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting May, 31, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Electronic Participation Recreation Committee - Via Zoom Present: Councillor Morey, Councillor Sutherland, Councilor Roberts, Councillor Barr, Shary Denes, Donna Garland, Tracy Holland, Mark Schjerning, John Kot, Annie Campbell, Linda Bates, JoAnne Timmins, Karl Hammer, Megan Sedore Staff: Tim Laprade - Manger of Recreation & Arena, Jamie Brash - Manger of Facilities and Solid Waste, Amanda Pantrey - Program, Events & Education Coordinator Regrets: Toni Angus, Roberta Smith, Ted Howard, John Zuber, Paul Wash, Heidi Traulsen 1

Call to Order

2

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a)

None.

3

Approval of Minutes

a)

March 8th, 2021 Resolution No. 01 Moved by Mark Schjerning Seconded by Linda Bates THAT the minutes from March 8th, 2021 be approved as presented. Carried

4

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Recreation, Parks & Leisure Master Plan Update The public engagement part of the plan has been going forward through EngageFrontenac.ca. Public survey closes on May 31st, 2021, but many other ways to contribute through the website. Next steps include a needs assessment and a draft report presented to the Recreation Committees from the consultants. The final phase includes a draft report to Council, correcting any feedback and adoption from Council.

b)

Capital Project Updates • • •

• •

c)

Storrington Centre - The drawings for the Storrington Centre were reviewed and comments regarding the size of the coat storage, the storage room and removing the column will go back to the architect. Multi-purpose pad - The Multi-purpose pad facility will be completed next month. Verona Courts - Quotes to resurface came in $50,000 over budget so the project has been postponed. Staff will investigate other options, including expanding the surface to make room for two regulation recreation sized courts. It will be reviewed in the 2022 budget. Gerald Ball/ Centennial Courts - Some repair work is required. The court contactor will be onsite on June 1st to complete this work. They will be closed for two days at most. This is covered under the warranty. Frontenac Community Arena - Project moving along very well. Should be complete in the next few weeks. The arena will re-open in the second week of September, COVID-19 pending.

2021 Volunteer Appreciation Program

Page 176 of 191 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting May, 31, 2021 Recommendation to Council to postpone the program until the fall in hopes that in-person recognition can take place passed without comment. d)

2021 Swim & Day Camp South Frontenac Township will cancel Swim & Day Camp once again this summer due to COVID-19. The Township does not have the capacity to host a camp with the restrictions are in place. Staff are organizing a parks drop-in program. Details about the program will be available in the coming weeks.

e)

Net-Sport Court Allocation Process The new process is rolling out. There was over 3000 hours of court-time requested for this year. The process will be reviewed again post-season and adjusted as needed.

5

New Business

a)

COVID-19 - Steps to Reopening South Frontenac Recreation Facilities The Township is not responsible for making up the regulations but required to follow local and provincial mandates. The Township will adjust the restrictions on our facilities based on the 3 Step plan announced by the province.

b)

South Frontenac Museum update The Museum cannot open until the province enters Step 3 of the reopening plan. When permitted to operate, the Museum will be open on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays until Labour Day.

c)

South Frontenac’s Public Services staffing changes and updates The Township welcomed Troy Dunlop as the Manager of Technical Services & Infrastructure.

d)

Program & Events update • •

•

•

Frontenac Farmers Market - Started over the long weekend, they will operate every Saturday from 9:00 am - 2:00 pm until October. Lakes & Trails Festival - Councillor Sutherland provided and update including the plans for a scavenger hunt, family bike rides, and guided paddle on the lake. No food will be on site this year. If permitted, the event will take place July 17th, 2021. Open Farms (presentation from County Staff starts at 28:45 minutes) Scheduled for September 10th (virtual), and 11th and 12th (hybrid event

• some in-person and some online). It will be a time and ticketed and ‘hub and spoke’ model event with the hub being at Centennial Park in Harrowsmith and the spokes being on local farms. Pumpkin Festival - October 2nd this year. Event organizers hoping to do a walk-through in-person event with a take home kit at the end of the walk-through for families to bring home and complete on their own.

6

Next Meeting:

a)

At the call of the Chair.

7

Adjournment:

a)

Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.

Page 2 of 2

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-46

Page 177 of 191

BEING A BY-LAW TO DEEM PART OF PLAN OF SUBDIVISION NO. 1661 NOT TO BE A REGISTERED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION: LOT 21 and Block E, PLAN 1661, DISTRICT OF BEDFORD WHEREAS, section 50(4) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, authorizes Council to pass a by-law to designate any plan of subdivision, or part thereof that has been registered for eight years or more, to be deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision for purposes of the part lot control provisions of section 50(3) of the Planning Act. AND WHEREAS Plan of Subdivision 1661 has been registered for more than eight (8) years; AND WHEREAS Council considers it appropriate and necessary that those parts of Plan 1661 described in this by-law be deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision to facilitate the merging of lands that will be utilized as one property and is developed as a single property for a period greater than eight years. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

THAT Lot 21 and Block E, Plan of Subdivision 1661, District of Bedford is hereby deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision for purposes of the part lot control provisions of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act.

That the Owner(s) of the lands as of the date of by-law passage shall pay all costs associated with the development, passage and registration of this By-law.

That this By-law shall be registered in the proper Land Registry Office and the Municipality shall be provided with appropriate documentation that the registration has been completed within ten (10) business days of the date of registration;

That passage of this By-law shall be deemed to include authorization to legal counsel to register same in the appropriate Land Registry Office without further written authorization;

That this By-law shall come into effect when registered in the proper Land Registry Office.

Read this 7th day of September, 2021. Read a first and second time this 7th day of September, 2021. Read a third time and finally passed this 7th day of September, 2021. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 178 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-47 BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2003-75, AS AMENDED, TO REZONE LAND FROM RURAL (RU) TO LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL – WATERFRONT (RLSW) AND LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL – WATERFRONT – SPECIAL PROVISION (RLSW-129) ON LANDS DESCRIBED AS PARTS 4 TO 14 ON PLAN 13R22179, PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 9, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PITTSBURGH, DISTRICT OF STORRINGTON: 2290998 ONTARIO INC. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of 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, 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) to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW) on the Severed Parcel in Consent Application S-02-20-S and to Limited Service Residential – Waterfront – Special Provision (RLSW-129) on the Retained Parcel in Consent Application S-02-02-S as shown on Schedule “1”.

THAT Zoning By-law number 2003-75 as amended is hereby further amended by adding a new section RLSW-129 (Severed Parcel in Consent Application S02-20-S, Parts 4 to 14 on Plan 13R22179, Part of Lot 9, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Pittsburgh, District of Storrington – 2290998 Ontario Inc.) immediately after section RLSW-128 (Part of Lot 2, Concession 10 (PIN 362900446) and Part 1 on Reference Plan 13R8822, Part of Lot 2, Concession 10 (PIN 362900231) District of Storrington – Malden and Knox) to read as follows: RLSW-129 (Parts 4 to 14 on Plan 13R22179, Part of Lot 9, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Pittsburgh, District of Storrington – 2290998 Ontario Inc.) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 or any other provision of this Bylaw to the contrary, on the lands zoned Special Limited Service Residential – Waterfront (RLSW-129), the following provisions apply: The Principal Building and Accessory Buildings and Structures shall be: • •

Setback from highwater mark of northern shoreline (Minimum) Setback from highwater mark of southern shoreline (Minimum)

40 Metres (131.2 ft.) 30 Metres (98.4 ft.)

All other provisions of this by-law shall apply. 3.

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 7th day of September, 2021. Read a first and second time this 7th day of September, 2021.

Page 179 of 191 Read a third time and finally passed this 7th day of September, 2021. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 180 of 191 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2021-47.

Passed this 7th day of September, 2021

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 181 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-48 BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2003-75, AS AMENDED, TO REZONE LAND FROM RURAL – SPECIAL PROVISION (RU-3) TO RURAL (RU) ON LANDS DESCRIBED AS 2965 BATTERSEA ROAD, PART OF LOT 38, CONCESSION 7, DISTRICT OF STORRINGTON, TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC: K. MULROONEY TRUCKING LTD. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of 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, 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 – Special Provision (RU-3) to Rural (RU) for the lands shown on 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 7th day of September, 2021. Read a first and second time this 7th day of September, 2021. Read a third time and finally passed this 7th day of September, 2021. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 182 of 191 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2021-48

Passed this 7th day of September, 2021

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 183 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-49 BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2003-75, AS AMENDED, TO REZONE LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT (RW) TO RURAL (RU) ON LANDS DESCRIBED AS 56 NIGHTHAWK LANE, PART LOT 1 AND 2, CONCESSION 2, DISTRICT OF BEDFORD, TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC: QUESNEL WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of 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, 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 Residential Waterfront (RW) to Rural (RU) for the lands shown on 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 7th day of September, 2021. Read a first and second time this 7th day of September, 2021. Read a third time and finally passed this 7th day of September, 2021.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 184 of 191 Schedule 1 This is Schedule “1” to By-law No. 2021- 49

Passed this 7th day of September, 2021

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

‘??? southernfl-ontenacOU mUnICy rv

4295 Stagecoach

Road, Box 43, Sydenham,Page 191 ON 185 KOHof 2T0

P (613) 376-6477 | 1-800-763-9610 1F (613) 376-6734 info@sfcsc.ca | www.sfcsc.ca

Township of South Frontenac

july 30, 2021

4432 George Street, PO Box 100 Sydenham, ON, KOH2T0

QOA Dear Mayor Vandewal and Councillors Barr, Leonard, Morey, Revill, Roberts, Ruttan, Sleeth and Sutherland;

Thank you for your time and consideration at the July 13, 2021 Township of South Frontenac Council Meeting. Southern Frontenac Community Services Corp. (SFCSC)is seeking a $750,000 investment from the Township of South Frontenac to help support the building costs for the expansion and upgrades to the Grace Centre that will ensure the Township of South Frontenac’s rural community has the resources in place to provide health, wellness and social support services to residents for years to come. Council is aware of the statistical data and trends that show the signi?cant expected population growth in our Township and in particular the increase of residents who are seniors. Council is also aware of the changes in healthcare models and the move by the Ontario Ministry of Health to integrate providers and service support organizations to work together in ways that will improve patient/client outcomes and provide care close to home.

Further, data from the SFCSC 2020-21 ?scal year shows Council the thousands of residents who bene?t from the health and social service support programs SFCSC offers. For example, 27,032 support services provided; 1,874 individuals served by the Food Bank; 17,730 hot and frozen Meals on Wheels delivered, representing a 75% increase in the number of seniors using this service; and 1,990 health and wellness check-in calls to isolated seniors. In order to continue to provide important community health, wellness and social support services, SFCSC’sonly option is to expand and upgrade our building facility. To do this, we need your support, both for this ?nancial request and as a champion for our efforts when we move to launch a community fundraising campaign to meet our goal of $1.5 million. We welcome the opportunity to address additional questions/concerns and encourage Council members to come to the Grace Centre for a site tour so we can show you ?rst hand the essential need for support of this project that will bene?t the entire community of South Frontenac. S ce

Fijgm

David Townsend

Laura

Executive Director

Fund Development & Communications Coordinator

CC

Neil Carbone

Greg Fisher

Chief Administrative Of?cer/Deputy Clerk

Chair, Board of Directors

Township of South Frontenac

Southern Frontenac Community Services

Serving South Frontenac and Rural Kingston since 1989 Registered Charitable No. 122150204 RR 0001

Page 186 of 191

THE PROPOSAL Southern Frontenac Community Services Corp. (SFCSC)is poised to kick—offits fundraising campaign which seeks to raise $1.5 million to support the expansion and upgrades to the Grace Centre that will ensure our rural community has the resources in place to provide community health, wellness and social support services.

SFCSC is seeking $750,000 from the Township of South Frontenac to help support

the building costs associated with this project.

BACKGROUND SFCSC Programs

& Services:

For 32—years, SFCSC has provided a full range of health and social support

services to older adults and seniors, lowincome households and those facing food security challenges throughout the Township of South Frontenac and rural Kingston (north of Hwy. 401).

SFCSC has four main categories of community support services seniors’ health supports, food security, family support services and in cooperation with the Township of South Frontenac, social and recreation activities for adults aged 55+. —

o

Adult Day Program monitoring

o 0

—

for frail seniors or those living with life—limit1’ng illnesses such as dementia who need

and/orassistance.

Transportation

Services

—

gets seniors to and from medical appointments,

errands and social events.

Telephone Reassurance Program combats social isolation. Approx. 200 seniors receive regular phone calls from volunteers who check in on them, assist with real connections to other services as needed, orjust to have a friendly chat. —

Food Security programs hot and frozen Meals on Wheels, a high demand service that has gone from one day a week delivery to three days a week during the Covid—19pandemic. Based on its success, plans are being explored to expand meal deliveries to ?ve days a week.

Food Bank is open to any resident of South Frontenac or rural Kingston. Similar to Meals on Wheels, our Food Bank continues to see a steady increase in the number of users.

0

—

Family Service supports include homelessness prevention, referrals to other agencies, ?nancial supports to help with rent or utility bills, annual income tax clinic, provision of backpacks/school supplies, winter coat drive, etc.

Social and Recreation programs for ages 55+ social interaction, weekly Good Graces Café, card and board games, a book club, ?tness classes, education workshops, walking programs, pickleball and more.

Foot Care clinics

Homemaking and Home Maintenance

0

0

—

Services

Respite to caregivers so they can have peace of mind leaving the home knowing that their loved one is being well cared for in their absence. Hospice and Bereavement

supports

.5‘:

southem Frontenac " CES Sé?i Page 2 of 5

Page 187 of 191

Township of South Frontenac population and demographics:

According to the Watson and Associates report to the Township using data and projections from Statistics Canada, from 2016 2036 population in the Township of South Frontenac will grow by 21.2%. Of that, the percentage of those aged 55 74 Wlllgrow by 15.57% and the 75+ age group will grow by 137.32%.

the

—

—

This means that based on records of service delivery and applying a medium growth scenario rate of 19.3%, SFCSC can expect that by the year 2036 to be providing community health and social services support programs and services to more than 1,500 South Frontenac residents aged 55+. We fully expect and are planning for a much higher demand for our services due to the 75+ age group growth.

THE BUSINESS OF HEALTHCARE The right care in the right place at the right time. SFCSCdoes this. Currently the system of administering healthcare is moving from a regional Local Health Integration Network or LHIN,to a model that targets smaller geographical areas called Ontario Health Teams or OHTs. This new system brings together health care providers and health service support organizations to work as one coordinated team to improve patient/ client outcomes, lessen the burden on hospitals and provide care close to home. SFCSC is intricately involved in the Frontenac Lennox & Addington Ontario Health Team leadership.

From the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long—TermCare website,

httgszl[hea|th.gov.on.ca/eglprolgrogramsgnnectedcare/oh_t[ ”0ntario Health Teams are being introduced to provide a new way of organizing and delivering care that is more connected to patients in their local communities. Under Ontario Health Teams, health care providers (including hospitals, doctors and home and community care providers) work as one coordinated team no matter where they provide care.” —

To meet the diverse needs of an aging population and growing numbers of people with chronic and increasingly complex conditions, the government is modifying its focus and some funding models will move from acute care to home and community care.

This paradigm shift in healthcare delivery further secures SFCSC as an important and |ong—term community resource for the Township of South Frontenac and gives con?dence of appropriate operational funding in the years to come.

COMMUNITY BASED PARTNERSHIPS SFCSC and the Township working together

to assess health and wellness service needs through a community

lens is

essential for the creation of vibrant, complete communities. The Township of South Frontenac and Southern Frontenac Community Services strategic priorities align. There is a shared commitment to support the needs and wel|—beingof the community, to operate in ways that are respectful of the environment, and SFCSC wants to contribute to the Township’s leadership position by providing a community service hub as part of what makes the Township a vibrant community of choice for people to live in, visit and enjoy.

504

I‘; southem fronbenac A

Page 3 of 5

Page 188 of 191

BUDGET Cost estimate dated July 2021 New build is 1,680 square feet per ?oor for a total of 3,360 square feet.

~gcojN;sTRu._c"rioN COSTS’ 3:350Sq ft @ $325 per sq ft. Septic system replacement

Parking lot paving, soft and hard landscaping TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Permits and fees Project Management—

M. Sullivan & Son Ltd., CCDCSB

Contingency 7.5% TOTAL PROJECTCOST *some project costs, i.e. excavation will be donated in-kind

Sources of Funding

Total Project Cost $1.5 million

Township of South Frontenac

S 750,000

South East Local Health Integration Network (Now Ontario Health )

100,000

SFCSC Capital Reserve Fund

100,000

SFCSC Food Bank

50,000

Fundraising (Capital Campaign)

500,000

to include federal/provincial gov’t asks and community campaign

$5

soulhem Frontenac

community

services Page 4 of 5

Page 189 of 191

RESULTS A building expansion adds 3,360 sq. feet to the facility and positions SFCSCto deliver sustainable community support services for years to come.

Bene?ts include: 0

Food Bank renovations comply with all Public Health guidelines including Covid—19and any future pandemic protocols

0

Accessible washrooms for clients, volunteers, staff and visitors

0

Professional work areas for staff and volunteers

0

Hand and food washing stations

0

Con?dential meeting room that provides sufficient space for physically distancing

0

Enhanced ef?ciencies for food handling and preparation that meets Public Health guidelines

—

prepare, pack and distribute food hampers in one area

0

Renovated space will meet all legislated accessibility regulations and provide user—friend|y work areas

0

Safe, accessible parking and building access

0

Increases the capacity of SFCSCto address and meet the growing needs of the more than 8,000 seniors residing within our catchment area (South Frontenac and rural Kingston).

CLOSINGCOMMENTS SFCSC is seeking an investment of $750,000 from the Township of South Frontenac to assist with the building expansion and upgrades. This demonstrates to our community Council’s desire to ensure a wide breadth of health and social supports are delivered locally.

Contributing funds to SFCSCis a good investment for our rural community. SFCSC has an outstanding record of ?scal responsibility and only moves forward with projects when they are feasible and properly funded. SFCSC has managed to balance its budgets consistently for more than a decade, all while delivering a top—rate health and social support experience for residents of South Frontenac. An improved community health and wellness resource will undoubtedly enable the Township of South Frontenac to entice more people to choose the area as their preferred residence and in doing so further contribute to the economy and overall quality of life for those living in the Township. We respectfully ask for your ?nancial support to help SFCSC expand capacity and enhance community care in South Frontenac.

504

‘’ Frontenac‘ southern

semiées

Page 5 of 5

Page 190 of 191

August 19, 2021 David Townsend Executive Director Southern Frontenac Community Services PO Box 43 4295 Stagecoach Road Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Via email david.townsend@sfcsc.ca Dear David Thank you for reaching out to the Frontenac Lennox and Addington Ontario Health Team (FLA-OHT) regarding your capital project to upgrade your facilities to meet the needs of the people you serve. The ability for the OHT to bring partners together to meet the needs of our community is foundational to our work. As you know Ontario Health Teams are in their infancy in the province. I can confirm with you, that at the present time, and into the foreseeable future, there is no intention for the Ministry’s OHT initiatives to have a direct effect on funding to partners. Specifically, no changes to the funding arrangements currently in place between Southern Frontenac Community Support Services and the Ministry of Health are anticipated at this time. Our efforts are focusing on team building and co-designing a system of care to meet the needs of our community both from the perspective of those who use the health and wellness services and from the partners who provide such services. Community care such as the services you provide are essential to the health home vision we are working collaboratively to create and implement. The FLA–OHT is very happy to support the project you are starting out on, and the role you are, and will continue to play in the FLA-OHT as we build together. Please let me know how I can best support you. Sincerely,

Dr. Kimberley Morrison MD CCFP FCFP Executive Lead Frontenac Lennox and Addington Ontario Health Team

www.FLAOHT.ca

Page 191 of 191

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-50 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY ALL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 Whereas Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act of any other Act; and; Whereas Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of the jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2,subject to certain provisions, and; Whereas Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O 2001 c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise, and Whereas the Council of the Township of South Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on September 7, 2021 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.

That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac held September 7, 2021 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.

That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on September 7, 2021 except those taken by by-law and those required by bylaw to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law.

Execution by the Mayor and the Clerk 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.

Read a first and second time this 7 day of September, 2021. Read a third time and finally passed this 7 day of September, 2021. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

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.