Council - 23 Aug 2016 - Agenda

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: August 23, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2016/Council - 23 Aug 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, August 23, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

a)

Resolution

Declaration of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof

Reports Requiring Action

a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner re: Hartington Draft Plan Conditions and Zoning

By-Laws

a)

By-Law 2016-52 - Hartington Subdivision

Information Items

a)

Dorfman Planning Report -previously included on August 2 Agenda

42 - 48

b)

Hanne & Dennis Saunders, re: Hartington Subdivision reports

49 - 50

c)

Wilf Ruland, P. Geo, re: Memorandum regarding PHC Contamination in the Hamlet of Hartington - circulated by email July 28

51 - 57

d)

Email Correspondence - FOI follow up

58 - 62

e)

Malroz Engineering Incorporated, re: Review of Technical Support Documentation - Hartington Subdivision

63 - 68

f)

Email correspondence requesting delegation status

g)

Community Correspondence

70 - 73

h)

Township peer review - August 18 - exp. Services Inc.

74 - 78

i)

Saunders Email

j)

Hartington Water Levels - email rec’d 08-23-16

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

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2016-53

3 - 39

40 - 41

69

79 80 - 81

82

Page 1 of 82

8.

Adjournment

a)

Resolution

Page 2 of 82

PLANNING REPORT: Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Council Special Meeting: August 23, 2016

Planning Department County File No. 10T-2013/002

Date of Report: August 17, 2016 Subject: Draft Plan Conditions and Zoning for Plan of Subdivision, Part of Lot 7, Concession VII, Portland District, Township of South Frontenac: 1278804 Ontario Inc. (Terry Grant)

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is that Council receive the Planning Report dated August 17, 2016, pass zoning amending By-law # 2016-52 and forward the report and all attachments to the County of Frontenac as representing the Township’s conditions of draft plan approval for the proposed thirteen lot plan of subdivision by 1278804 Ontario Inc. (Terry Grant) in the Hamlet of Hartington.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to bring back to Council a proposal for a plan of subdivision located in the Hamlet of Hartington. The plan is for thirteen (13) residential lots and, as Council is aware, it has been changed from its original layout brought forward in July, 2015 where forty-seven (47) lots were proposed. A public meeting was held on July 7, 2015 on the original application and the associated zoning by-law amendment as required by the Planning Act. This report includes a location map attachment, a lot layout plan, 3D images and copies of professional technical reports relating to the development. Draft plan conditions and an implementing zoning by-law amendment are also attached.

BACKGROUND Early in 2015 FoTenn Planning Consultants, acting as the agents for the property-owner, brought to Council a proposal for a forty-seven (47) lot residential plan of subdivision partially within the Hamlet of Hartington, Portland District. An associated zoning by-law amendment was also presented for the new proposed residential uses. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject land partially within the Hamlet of Hartington. The County of Frontenac is the authority for final approval of subdivisions. The Planning Act requires that a public meeting be held on these types of applications and the County requested that the Township hold the public meeting on the subdivision as required under the Act. Accordingly, this public meeting was held on July 7, 2015 dealing with both the subdivision and the accompanying zoning by-law amendment. Feedback received from the public meeting indicated that there were concerns with developing the entire subdivision at the density proposed. The public comments focused on five major concerns namely:

• water quality and quantity – hydrog study was not done properly
• drainage and flooding – Pleasant Valley Drain already overflows
• effect on nearby farming – abutting farm could not expand
• lot frontages and aesthetics – too many lots, wartime houses
• most of the development is outside the hamlet designation – should only be in the hamlet

Page 3 of 82

The concerns expressed above, prompted the developer to reduce the scale of the subdivision to be contained all within the hamlet designation. Hence, the application was officially revised to comprise only thirteen lots. The revised plan and proposed draft plan conditions were presented to the Committee of the Whole on November 24, 2015. At the meeting additional concerns were raised by the public through delegations. The concerns related to:

remnant levels of hydrocarbons (from a former gas station on Road 38) that may still exist in the soil of the subject land and which may affect well water in the Plan and in neighbouring wells;

the direction of stormwater drainage which may affect neighbouring homes and overwhelm the Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain System located to the south of the development;

the high level of nitrates in the soil which may adversely affect well water in the Plan and in neighbouring wells.

Subsequent technical reports from Specialized Onsite Services Inc. and from Cambium Inc. appeared to address the above concerns and, accordingly, the Planning Department brought forward a report to Council on March 1, 2016 with a recommendation to approve draft plan conditions for the subdivision. However, over continued concerns raised by local citizens, Council further deferred decision on the matter and requested that the Township engage an independent consultant to examine all reports submitted and make a final determination of any adverse effects on the water quality and quantity of the surrounding area. This review has now been completed and further reviews have also been submitted. What follows is a final review and discussion on the proposed subdivision..

DISCUSSION The thirteen lot plan would maintain the originally proposed layout in the north portion of the property with a new internal road (accessed from Boyce Road) on which all lots would front. Stormwater flow would be directed away from the thirteen lots by way of ditches directing flow south through a right-of-way to the Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain. Some drainage would also be directed northerly to Boyce Road. All lots would be a minimum of 0.8 hectares (2 ac.) in size and would have 46 metres (151 ft.) of road frontage. The original plan proposed parkland blocks to be dedicated to the Township but cash-in-lieu of parkland is now proposed. The plan is shown on Attachment #2 and Attachment #3 is a three dimensional rendering of the final development indicating how it would fit within the existing community. It should be noted that the layout of the revised thirteen lot plan is designed to accommodate a future stage of development on the remainder of the existing acreage to the south, however, if and when this proposal comes forward it would constitute a new subdivision application requiring the normal full process for approval including a new public meeting. REVIEW Below is a review of relevant provincial and Township documents and all technical information received on the proposal along with the Planning Department’s comments noted in bold type. General The area to be developed is 11 hectares (27 ac.) in size. The majority of the land may be characterized as being mainly flat having been tilled for crops in the past. The K&P Trail abuts the full eastern boundary from north to south and along this boundary are mature stands of trees that form a canopy over the trail. A farm

Page 4 of 82

exists on the abutting land to the west. The area to be developed is located within the Settlement Areas designation (Hartington) of the Official Plan. The location of the subject land generally appears to be well suited to accommodate residential development within the Settlement Areas Designation where the Official Plan prefers development to occur. Access to the subdivision would be by way of a new road with an entrance onto Boyce Road at the north of the development. The new road would provide the frontages for the lots and their direct access. This road would be constructed to Township standards, with a turning bulb at its southern extent and would be dedicated to the Township. From a Planning perspective this is an appropriate layout for a residential subdivision in that traffic can be directed through an existing collector road to a nearby arterial road (Road 38) minimizing traffic volumes on the local streets. This layout scenario proposes development on a fully maintained public road properly constructed to provide efficient road maintenance. As noted above, a Township-maintained drainage ditch referred to as the “Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain System” is aligned east to west through the land to the south of the development. This passageway channels stormwater from neighbouring properties and directs it to a wetland approximately 5.5 kilometres to the west of the subject land. The drain must remain undeveloped and accessible to the Township for purposes of periodic maintenance. Accordingly, the developer has proposed that most of the stormwater be directed through ditches southerly to this drain to accommodate runoff. This scenario is logical in that it ties in the stormwater management of the subdivision with the already established Pleasant Valley Drain. Public Works advises that they are satisfied that the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report dated August 10, 2015, sufficiently addresses drainage but a final stormwater report is still required. It should be noted that there are legal matters associated with tying in new properties with the municipal drain. These will need to be addressed prior to final approval of the subdivision. All the proposed lots would be a minimum of 0.8 hectares (2 ac.) in size and all would have a frontage on the new road of a minimum of 46 metres (151 ft.). The proposed sizes are supported by the hydrogeological study and terrain analysis (peer-reviewed) which determined the allowable density of the development and the configuration of the lots which would allow for appropriate building envelopes. Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement of 2014 provides policy direction from the province on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS states that efficient land use and development patterns should support sustainability by promoting strong, livable, healthy and resilient communities etc. Section 1.1 of the PPS says that developments should avoid land use patterns that prevent the efficient expansion of settlement areas in those areas which are adjacent to or are close to settlement areas. Also, developments should have patterns that are cost-effective and built to standards that minimize land consumption and servicing costs. The proposed development appears to be consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement in terms of its location and, as outlined above, the development pattern/layout is efficient and cost effective for maintenance, servicing and emergency response. It would not require expansion of the Hartington ‘Settlement Areas’ designation.

Page 5 of 82

Official Plan Referring to Attachment #1 of this report, the site is located where it can be accessed from a fully maintained public road and is in proximity to other residential development in the hamlet. As mentioned, it is within the ‘Settlement Areas’ designation of Hartington. It is Council’s intention that the majority of new growth in the municipality will be directed to existing settlement areas where it can be supported by appropriate servicing. According to the Plan, single detached dwellings located on lots developed through a plan of subdivision are envisaged as the preferred method of development. The subdivision proposes thirteen residential lots all serviced by private water and septic systems and fronting onto a road to be constructed to Township standards and to be assumed by the municipality as a public road. In addition, the subject land is in a location where similar residential development has occurred and, despite an existing farm operation and a barn located to the west, there appear to be no incompatibility issues. In this regard, the subdivision seems well located and is near existing commercial uses in and near the village. It is also compatible with adjacent established residences and proposes recreation opportunities by providing a linkage with the existing K&P Trail. Consequently, the subdivision’s location appears to be fully in accordance with the intent of the Official Plan. Zoning The FoTenn planning consultant would zone the land to a special Residential Zone to permit the residential use of the lands and to recognize the frontages as proposed at only 46 metres. Planning staff generally agree to this zoning scenario for the reason that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law reserves the Residential (R) zoning strictly for plans of subdivision lots and the minimum lot size of 0.8 hectares (2 ac.) is specified in this zone category. The Planning Department can support the reduction of the normally required minimum lot frontages from 76 metres to a lesser frontage. This support is for two reasons: (1) The Official Plan, in section 7.2 (d), specifies that the minimum lot area and lot frontages of the plan of subdivision may be reduced if it is demonstrated through the subdivision process that reductions to these minimums can be justified based on good planning principles. A hydrogeological study and terrain analysis was undertaken to support the plan and it determined that there is enough water to accommodate the proposed density with the proper separation between septic fields and wells. This forms the basis to reduce the frontages. (2) The Official Plan policies relating to the land within the boundaries of the Settlement Areas designation do not suggest any minimum frontage requirement – presumably to allow increased densities here. From a planning perspective of course, this does not warrant that inappropriately small frontages are to be contemplated but the Official Plan is a guide and it does provide flexibility in this regard. Further supporting planning rationale was provided by FoTenn consultants in a letter, dated October 9, 2015, attached to previous reports to Council. By-law No. 2016-52 is attached to amend the zoning by-law to permit the residential uses and frontages as described. Technical Studies Various studies were prepared and submitted in support of the original fortyseven lot development proposal and are still applicable. These studies consist of:

• a planning justification report,

Page 6 of 82

-

a Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological assessment, a hydrogeology study, servicing options & terrain analysis, a preliminary stormwater management report, a traffic impact review, an environmental impact assessment.

Malroz Engineering Incorporated, under contract with the County of Frontenac, undertook a peer review of the Hydrogeology and Terrain Analysis Report and advised in their letters dated January 21, 2014, October 17, 2014, April 20, 2015, that all of their concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Quinte Conservation also peer reviewed the report and agreed with its findings generally but recommended that a separate hydrogeological evaluation be performed on each residential well when it is installed. However, in addition to the above reviews, the firm of Mcintosh Perry was retained to undertake a further hydrogeological review of the development on behalf of the Hartington community. This review report forwarded to the Township on September 1, 2015, looked at the original hydrogeological report and outlined eight items of potential concern concluding that additional investigation is required to support the development as proposed. In response, by letter dated October 29, 2015, the firm of ASC Environmental provided comments on the McIntosh Perry report. Some of the findings of note from ASC are as follows. Five of the original eleven test wells for the hydrogeological testing are located within the area of the thirteen lot development. The ASC review states “The pumping tests conducted on test wells TW02 and TW10 during August and September 2014 were undertaken following consultation and recommendation by Malroz Engineering and Quinte Conservation Authority to assess water supply during seasonal summer-like conditions. These wells were pumped for periods of 6 hours at rates of 20 litres per minute to account for seasonal variables in accordance with MOECC D-5-5. Results of the pumping tests clearly demonstrated water supply sufficient to support seasonal peak demand conditions. We are of the opinion that the test well pumping tests conducted in August and September, 2014 represent stressed conditions.” ASC further concludes that they agree with Malroz and McIntosh Perry that a higher level of investigation was warranted and, accordingly, they advanced test wells, conducted additional field work and developed an analytic model to assess impacts demonstrating a level of investigation exceeding the minimum requirements on the MOECC D-5-5. ASC advises that they are committed to having each well installed at the site evaluated by a qualified hydrogeologist. They concur with Malroz that all of the above work exceeds all ministry requirements and demonstrates long term water supply for the proposed thirteen lot subdivision to be developed in the north portion of the property. They also acknowledge that when further development is proposed, clearly, further terrain assessment will be required. The above reports were reviewed previously with Council. Agency Comments The Planning Department’s comments are outlined above. However, Planning also wishes to make note of a concern for the stand of mature trees forming a canopy of shade along the K&P Trail on the east boundary of the subject land. Although it appears that the trees are located wholly on the Trail lands, the importance of maintaining these trees as an amenity for the trail-users and to enhance the general appeal of the subdivision lands should be emphasized. Also, Planning will require a walkway link from the subdivision directly to the K&P Trail to provide formal pedestrian access to and from this amenity. Public Works appears to be generally supportive of the subdivision layout and finds the access areas to the subdivision to be acceptable. Also, as noted, they

Page 7 of 82

are satisfied that stormwater drainage is addressed by the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report. Public Works and Planning are recommending that the new road be paved with asphalt and that a sidewalk also be required from north to south on one side of the new road given that the development is within the hamlet designation - an urban setting. It is also required that services be installed underground within the road allowance of the new road. Public Comments One of the concerns from the public that was not addressed in the discussion above is the adverse effect on adjacent farming operations. The concern is that, with this residential development, any new well must be at least 1,000 feet away from existing barns meaning that abutting farms would not be able to expand in the future because they would be near these new wells. This concern is well-founded because the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) required Minimum Distance Separation Formula (MDS 2) would apply to prevent or severely limit any new farm facilities for animals from locating near these new residences. As a further note on Minimum Distance Separation, in terms of building near the existing barn on the abutting property to the west, the OMAFRA’s Guidelines explain that, when any residential development is proposed within an area designated Settlement Areas, the MDS calculation need not apply. This is the case in the subject development as it is located in the Hartington Settlement Area. Additionally, the OMAFRA Guidelines provide that, if there are already four or more residences located closer to the livestock facility than the new proposed residences, then again, the MDS calculation is overruled and would no longer apply. Planning has included a condition in the attached draft plan conditions requiring that the final subdivision agreement include a clause notifying all prospective purchasers of the lots that a farm operates nearby and that related odours may be experienced. It is also noted that the hydrogeological report took the existence of the farm use into consideration during testing on the eleven wells drilled to determine whether ground water contamination from farm animals and the farm operation in general, would affect the water quality of the new wells. The report, peerreviewed, still came back with a positive recommendation. Concerns noted above regarding nitrates and hydrocarbons in the soil have been addressed by previous reports, notably Malroz Engineering and by letter dated December 3, 2015, from the firm of ASC Environmental. This letter concludes that:

adjacent residential septic systems and agricultural operations clearly have no potential for adverse influence on groundwater quality from nitrates in the soil, and

regarding hydrocarbons, there would be no adverse impacts from the property located at Holleford Road and Road 38 (former gas station) on the proposed Hartington Development.

In addition, letters dated January 18, 2016 and January 28, 2016 from Specialized Onsite Services Inc. (SOS) note that groundwater flow from the former gas station site is not in the direction of the subdivision and that no hydrocarbon impact was ever observed in supply wells at adjacent properties. Further, remediation work that was performed at the site in 2015 which involved excavation and removal of more than 250 tonnes of material has significantly reduced the potential for hydrocarbon migration. They conclude that the potential is very low that hydrocarbon impact from the site would migrate to the proposed wells in the subdivision.

Page 8 of 82

The SOS letters were also reviewed by Malroz Engineering who, by letter sent to the Township on February 19, 2016, agreed with the findings and confirmed that groundwater analyses conducted by SOS and Cambium Inc. revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was below laboratory detection limits. The letters and reports noted above were attached to the Planning Report dated February 23, 2016 to Council. Additional Recent Technical Submissions

1. A memorandum dated July 28, 2016 from Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.) was submitted on behalf of four members of the Hartington Community commenting on the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the settlement area. The memo is a follow up to a previous report dated May 10, 2016 (attached to a previous Council agenda) and is not directly applicable to the Hartington subdivision proposal but infers an effect due to the proximity of the contamination to the development. The Ruland memo refers to the site of a former service station at Boyce Road and Road 38 (900 feet to the east from the proposed subdivision) and contamination of the ground that resulted from leakage of gasoline. He posits that remediation of the site may not have been properly completed and that recent site investigation and remediation activities may have had the unintended effect of mobilizing the contamination which has been directed spreading into the aquifer of the site. He recommends that: testing of existing wells be undertaken immediately on all wells within 300 metres of the site of the former gas station and follow-up testing of wells within 150 metres done twice per year thereafter with additional follow-ups. tests be done for BTEX parameters and F1 through F4 PHC’s on the water being pumped from the well for the Hartington car wash’ test results should be shared with property-owners.

2. An additional peer review report, dated August 9, 2016 from Malroz Engineering Incorporated, provides a further review of the submitted technical support documentation. This report reviewed the documents pertaining to groundwater contamination associated with the former gas station on Road 38 located 274 metres (900 ft.) to the east of the proposed development. It advises as follows: Groundwater contamination was identified in shallow groundwater monitoring wells installed to intersect the surface of the water table but that sampling of the onsite water wells and nearby residential wells showed that groundwater met the standards. This indicates that the contamination has not impacted the water supply aquifer and furthermore, it is noted that groundwater flow is easterly onto lands owned by the Township and not westerly towards the proposed development. Malroz does not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed subdivision. Malroz also notes that the values reported for hydraulic conductivities are within typical values for limestone but below that for Karst Limestone. They see no substantial evidence of Karst within the saturated aquifer. Regarding the potential impacts from the potential septic systems in the development Malroz does not see substantiated information that the site requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of septic systems. They also advise that:

the proponent’s consultant has shown that the potential increase in the concentration of nitrates from the proposed subdivision would remain below the drinking water standard of 10mg/l.

• because of the variability of concentrations over the site and other factors, the developer should consider further analyses for nitrates and or mitigation measures such as the use of tertiary treatment systems.

Page 9 of 82

-

groundwater flow is to the south – away from the Hartington settlement area meaning that an impact from new septic systems on existing groundwater users in Hartington is not anticipated.

In addition to Malroz’s general comments above they advise that the proponent has done over and above what is required by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s Guidelines. The conditions outlined in their letter of April 20, 2015 remain mostly unchanged. 3.

A planning report was prepared for the Hartington Community Association. The report, dated July 11, 2016 undertaken by Mark L. Dorfman, F.C.I.P, R.P.P., provides his assessment of the development from a planning perspective. The report concludes that the proposed development is premature and should not be approved. It supports this by advising that part of the development would extend beyond the Settlement Areas boundary and that this is not usually acceptable. He includes an attachment which was contained in a previous report from ASC Environmental showing Blocks 14 and 20 outside the hamlet boundary which he believes are to be for further residential development. Additionally, he advises that the underlying stratigraphy is Karst-like and that there appears to be no consensus among the experts in regards to effects on water quality in this type of landscape. The Planning Department does not agree with the conclusions of the Dorfman report noting that the area of the proposed subdivision is within the Settlement Areas boundary except for a small portion of the southern-most lots. The present plan does not extend southerly to include the blocks indicated on the map attached to the Dorfman report. The “Interpretation” section of the Township’s Official Plan specifies that the boundaries on Schedule “A” of the Plan are approximate only and are not meant to be specific (as in zoning bylaws). Consequently the location of the development is fully in accordance with the intent of the Official Plan. Also, the latest review by Malroz noted above states that there is little evidence of the presence of Karst.

4. The Township of South Frontenac contracted the firm of exp Services Inc. to conduct a review of all material submitted related to the proposed development and determine whether or not the proponents have reasonably evaluated the groundwater source quantity and quality as well as sewage disposal conditions. Their report dated August 17, 2016 augmented an earlier report dated May 5, 2016 and its main findings are reviewed below. The report recommends a detailed scope of testing requirements be established to include further evaluation of groundwater quality through individual well yield evaluation of all thirteen wells and interference testing on neighbouring existing wells. The report states that the Malroz August 9, 2016 review provides a reasonable set of conditions from which the developer can evaluate the suitability of the target aquifer/water supply and that their concerns would be satisfied under this scope of work. Regarding potential petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, the exp review says that, while it is prudent to request groundwater analyses to evaluate actual groundwater contamination, it is not reasonable to request the proponent to evaluate the potential for future contamination beyond what is being done. All of the above reports are attached hereto as Attachment #4.

CONCLUSION The Planning Department has provided a discussion explaining how the proposed subdivision meets the intent of the Official Plan in terms of its location

Page 10 of 82

and residential use. Township and County staff have relied on expert advice to indicate that the subdivision itself would function with due regard to the health and safety of existing and future residents. Malroz Engineering Inc., an independent expert engineering firm with experience in evaluating hydrogeologic functions, has peer reviewed the science in the supporting studies and subsequent reports and supports their findings and they recommend conditions that should be met in order for the development to move forward. Exp Engineering Services acting for the Township is of a similar opinion. Conditions for draft plan approval are included below in this report which incorporate all the agency conditions reviewed above. It should be noted that the Township has discussed the above information with Planning staff at the County of Frontenac and the County’s conditions for draft plan approval echo those of the Township. Zoning By-law No. 2016-52, to zone the subject lands to accommodate the residential uses with the reduced lot frontages as proposed for the subdivision, is attached and should be considered for passage.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended: A. That Council receive the recommendations contained in the Planning Report dated August 17, 2016 and approve the following list of recommended conditions as representing the Township of South Frontenac’s ‘Conditions of Draft Plan Approval’ for the thirteen lot Plan of Subdivision by Terry Grant, in the Hamlet of Hartington:

1. That this conditional approval applies to the draft plan of proposed subdivision dated September 18, 2015 prepared and certified by Forefront Engineering Inc., and Smith & Smith Surveyors, comprising a total of thirteen residential lots, two blocks and a new street.
2. That the owners of the subject land enter into a subdivision agreement with the Township of South Frontenac, prepared to the satisfaction of the municipality, to be registered on title of the subject land.
3. That the road allowance included in this draft plan shall be identified as Street ‘A’ and shall be constructed to Township standards for new public roads with paved asphalt surfacing and that the road be dedicated as a public highway.
4. That the new internal road identified as ‘Street ‘A’ be named to the satisfaction of the municipality.
5. That Boyce Road be upgraded at the entrance to the subdivision to the Township’s satisfaction to facilitate ingress and egress.
6. That Centralized Community Mail Boxes be installed at a location on the road allowance of Street ‘A’ near the entrance to the development at Boyce Road along the west side of the road allowance of the new road and to the satisfaction of the Township and in accordance with Canada Post specifications.
7. That a 0.3 metre wide reserve be identified by survey along Lot 13 where the lot abuts the road allowance of Boyce Road and at the south end of Street ‘A’ and around the circumference of the turning bulb at the south end of Street ‘A’ to be held in trust by the municipality for the purpose of denying additional access onto Boyce Road and the undeveloped lands to the south.
8. That the Owner install a 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of the new road allowance from the northern limit of Street ‘A’ (i.e., from Boyce Road), to the southern limit of Lot 7.

Page 11 of 82

9. That the owner convey up to five percent of the land included in the plan to the municipality for park purposes. Alternatively, the municipality may require cash-in-lieu for all or a portion of the conveyance. 10. That prior to final approval, the County of Frontenac is to be advised by the municipality that this proposed subdivision conforms to the Zoning By-law in effect of the Township of South Frontenac including that the zoning is satisfactory to Quinte Conservation Authority. 11. That all conditions outlined in the letter dated June 2, 2015 from Quinte Conservation Authority to the County of Frontenac, be addressed to the satisfaction of the municipality including the requirement for a draw down test for each individual well to be installed and including testing to confirm that nitrate levels are at an acceptable level. 12. That, the subdivision agreement include a requirement that any abandoned wells be decommissioned according to MOECC guidelines. 13. That the recommendations outlined in the letter dated December 12, 2014 from KFL&A Public Health to Terry Grant Construction 1278804 Ontario Inc., be addressed to the satisfaction of the municipality for the thirteen lot development. 14. That, prior to final approval, a Final Stormwater Management Report and detailed engineering drawings addressing grading, drainage and stormwater management be submitted to the satisfaction of the Township and Quinte Conservation Authority for the thirteen lot development. The site drainage, design, construction and maintenance shall be in accordance with the recommendations contained in the final Stormwater Management Report, with all final designs incorporated into the subdivision agreement. 15. That all legal matters associated with tying the stormwater from the development into the Pleasant Valley Municipal Drain system be resolved to the satisfaction of the Township. 16. That all requirements and recommendations specified in the Hydrogeological Study, Servicing Options and Terrain Analyses Report, dated October 31, 2013, from ASC Environmental, updated by covering letter dated October 7, 2015 from ASC Environmental, and all associated drawings be complied with for the thirteen lot development. 17. That the recommendations of the Natural Heritage Report, dated August 27, 2013 from Ecological Services, be complied with for as they apply to the thirteen lot development. 18. That all matters outlined in the letter dated August 9, 2016 from Malroz Engineering Inc., specifically under section 2.0 Summary and Recommendations, be addressed to the satisfaction of the Township of South Frontenac and the County of Frontenac. 19. That each of the thirteen lots in the subdivision be serviced by a tertiary septic system. 20. That all entrances to the lots including entrance culverts be located and constructed to the satisfaction of the Township. 21. That all servicing including Bell, Hydro etc. be installed underground. 22. That all recommendations of the Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2) Reports, dated September 16, 2013 by Archeworks Inc. be

Page 12 of 82

implemented to the satisfaction of the Township for the thirteen lot development. 23. That, prior to final approval street signage and street lighting shall be installed to the satisfaction of the municipality including lighting at the turning bulb at the south end of the development and at the entrance to the development at Boyce Road such lighting to also illuminate the mail boxes to be located there. 24. That the Subdivision Agreement include text to the satisfaction of the Township, which text shall be registered on the title of all lots, that all Agreements of Purchase and Sale include provisions advising that a farming operation exists to the west and that adverse effects may be experienced. 25. That the subdivision agreement provide that a 3.0 metre wide walkway to be dedicated to the municipality be provided along the south lot line of Lot 7 from the south end Street ‘A’ to the K&P Trail to give access from the subdivision to the Trail, such walkway to be constructed to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac and to be constructed 1.5 metres wide with a stone dust surface. Landscaping and buffering along the full length of the walkway on both the north and south sides shall be installed to the satisfaction of the County of Frontenac. 26. That, prior to final approval, the municipality shall be satisfied that all servicing issues are resolved such as road, sidewalk and walkway construction. 27. That prior to final plan approval, the Owner shall submit a Landscape Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Township which provides for appropriate tree planting and landscape buffering and said Landscape Plan to be included as a Schedule to the subdivision agreement. 28. That the owner agree in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the municipality concerning the provision/upgrading of roads, installation of services and drainage, in accordance with the municipality’s standards and procedures. B. That the Planning Report dated August 17, 2016, including attachments, be forwarded to the County of Frontenac as representing the Township’s conditions of draft plan approval for the thirteen lot Hartington Plan of Subdivision. C. That By-law No. 2016-52, to change the zoning on land in Part of Lot 7, Concession VII, Portland District from Special Rural Zone (RU-46) to Special Residential Zone (R-29) for the Hartington Subdivision, be passed.

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills Prepared by: Lindsay Mills, attachments HartingtonDraftPlanConditionsToCouncil2

Page 13 of 82

2

Attachment #1

“???o

u

l i

l

l

l

‘% l !

l I i

l

l i

I

l

i

J

I

li

li

i t

‘-I

} l l l

l

} i l

l

l

!

1

}

t-l

I

17 l ‘. 1. l

LU

v

l H taJAL)

I

n

I

i

l

)

l l

l l l

I

l

l

l

m ‘#A?)-

l

J( {

i

l

F

171

I

l l l

I l

i

%

]

I

lI

l I

l

i t

l l

I

I

l

l

l

l

u

l Page 14 of 82

ATTACHMENT #2 I?l /

l

S’

7,. 1.

i

?lh I(1)

l’ : i (

{

<7P Ol8

‘Xi j

m

%

l

RED UNDER 4NNINC ACT :??’% i s Hasie J’ll (nttrest

-,I?-

:nd Hyh

:ORPORATION

I{VIDED !i ARE

11

<

.s.

r1,

(:?.:-

E

e

?-1

4

IER isip!S OWNED BY APPLICANT

l

t,

l

t t

l—-?

‘/Z’-’-?’– ?”—? ‘-?l

ml

,x

.}@,4+;: ‘,?: :,:?

-l

tl a

i

I

r’ s

)

.r

} l

?

-?

‘,l

il

( 4 ?’

/ l

.?l

:‘w8.lli ?i

,,-? f’,y

i

-i’=r’ x;

1

1,,,. ,

0(i /–=’-’

?

’ -4 /i .a

E

Page 15 of11182

11

1

1

1

1

ATTACHMENT #3 it

I

l

t l

-J

l l

I

l

+n N

If

lm’

ffi

ij?l

1111 ? ? air ’l

it

?a

s

IW-

T?J M[M,

nm iia Hn

l

lli!!I

l

i

i

}l

i : n alJ

t

I:

2N

2 {iL"

a ra

l

l

l

l

‘[7-‘1’,A ,J,? '

i t

r l

1

’n Q -3:.

l

l

l

t

I

i

r l

i l

l

[

l!

l r

}i li

1111

il

11

li

Ii

l

i;J

;l

l

l

l

11

l’!

l

It il !l

il, JI

lk, llx

l

k r

tfi

7@?iTl= T

!l

17.,

? -1ll-

i

l

i

I?

r

l

J

11

i

J;

4

l

1

il

,“Je=W 7i

l

l

l

I

l

:@,

7

l

l

?

l

l

r

l

6?!L=4/ ji

{

l

i

i

!I l

l

l a

l-11

:HMl

l

I

Ii

i-

I

i

l

Fl$1

Un

l

wr

11

l

l i

I

? Propos*d Lot Fabric

? Exist)rig lot Fabric I

%

l -e

S-

@?

I

% %=

p

l

%*‘Ja’

‘k’

?

7

!

l

d

l

l

l

l

a

r

l

l

$

&# 7’l

,.;)

i

r l

r

1

i I

,4 i

i

l

w

‘!’

y

E-

L-.

‘%

‘Q

?

i

l l I

l

’l i

?y

i

$

1

fl

r

,1??

!

l

l I

l

I

l

nt

l l l

l

%

m

l

h

U

!Z

l

I

Q

p’ff

i

t

19

Y l

l

l

$6

%’s

g *

ll

l1l’€w?

?

!

I

l

!l#

I

l

G'1

/

l

%

i

i

1 1

l %.

,J

l

l t

r

l

r

l

7

l

55 Proposed Lot Fabrfc ? Existing l.ot Fabric

Pl..-,ANNING BRiEFl HA.R-!-INGTON SLlBDlVISlONi ZBA & DRAF-f- Pl.AN OF SC,)BDMSION

8

Page 16 of 82

ATTACHMENT #4 To: Michelle Foxton, Wade Leonard, Charlie Labarge and John Lesperance

From: Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.)

Re: Memorandum Regarding Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) Contamination in the Hamlet of Hartington, Ontario

Date: July 28, 2016

1. Introduction

I am writing to follow up on my report of May 10, 2016 which I prepared regarding a proposed development in the hamlet of Hartington. In the course of preparing my report, I had come across information about petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination from a former gas station in the centre of the hamlet which raised significant concerns. Section 6 of my report outlined some of the concerns I had at the time I prepared the report. I have reprinted Section 6 in italics below: “6) Impacts of Proposal on Aquifer Contamination by Petroleum Hydrocarbons In the materials presented to me for review, there is unsettling evidence that there is an area of ongoing petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the Hartington Aquifer near the main intersection in town (centered on the site of a former service station at Boyce Road and Highway 38). The contamination appears to have been caused by leakage of gasoline from the former service station many years ago. Site investigation activities and some remediation have been carried out in recent years.

I have real concerns about the adequacy of the investigation of the contamination site, and about the remedial works which have been carried out to date. Some i4ormation has been provided and further information will be sought through an Access to Information request.

In the meantime it appears (based on the currently availabLe information) that the remediation of the site may not have been properly completed, and that the site investigation and remediation activities may have had the unintended effect of mobilizing the contamination which has been detected spreading into the aquifer from the site.

page 1

Page 17 of 82

Current groundwater flow directions are poorly defined, but so far there have been no reports of local domestic wells being contaminated. It is quite possible that the 30% increase in the number of wells which the development proposal represents will reverse local groundwater flow directions, and induce flow from the contaminant site toward the proposed subdivision. Impacts on local wells appear likely if this scenario comes to pass.

The prudent thing to do would be to place a temporary moratorium on development in Hartington until:

full details about the remediation which has been done to date have been made publicly available and have been assessed for their adequacy, the contaminant concentrations and the dimensions of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume (and the threat it poses to Iocal wells) have been adequately defined, and any further remedial work which is considered necessary has been completed.”

At this point (some 2 months after issuing my report) my concerns about the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in Hartington are even greater than they were at the time I issued my report. I am concerned about the potential threat to public health and safety which this contamination poses, and I am concerned that the responsible authorities may not be responding as strongly and as quickly as I believe they should in response to this threat.

My concerns include the following:

• I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been removed from the site,

and as a result I am concerned that the remediation of the site may be incomplete.

• I am gravely concerned by the fact that groundwater contamination levels appear to have gotten worse following remedial works done at the site, and that the extent of the groundwater contamination is currently not delineated. There is off-site contamination moving through the groundwater in Hartington, and no one knows where it has gone.
• I am very concerned at the very limited testing of residential wells that has taken place to date - much broader testing involving many more homes is urgently needed. These issues are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Memorandum.

2. Incomplete Removal of Contaminated Soil from Site

I am currently not convinced that all of the contaminated soils which were found to be

present on-site have been removed. If there are still contaminated soils in the ground then these will pose an ongoing potential threat to public health and safety.

page 2

Page 18 of 82

One of the reasons I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been

removed is because of an unfortunate incident earlier on in the site investigation/ remediation process. As described in a September 28, 2015 report from Specialized Onsite Services (SOS) the investigation and excavation of contaminated soils began in February 2015. Significant quantities of obviously contaminated material were first excavated from the contaminated area, but then rather than taking the contaminated material away for proper disposal the contaminated material was backfilled back into the excavation by the property owner (the Township of South Frontenac). Subsequent investigations in May and early June 2015 were hampered by the flow of contaminated water from the previously excavated/backfilled contaminated soils. Moreover, after the subsequent more extensive excavations/investigations were completed on June 3, 2015 the “excavation area proceeded to be backfilled by a contractor working for the Township at the direction of representatives of the Township? The wording of this section of the SOS report raises the concern that for a second time, contaminated materials could have been re-deposited back into the area of investigation/ excavation by Township officials. The site investigation/excavation process will have disturbed the contaminated soils - and if these disturbed soils were simply dumped back into the excavation then contarninants could leach from them more easily than they would have prior to the disturbance.

A subsequent letter of January 28, 2016 from SOS indicates that about 250 tonnes of material were removed from the site in 2015. While this sounds like a lot of material, it

is only a small fraction of the quantity of contaminated material which would have been present in the excavation. The obvious question is what exactly has happened to all of the additional contaminated soils which were found during the excavation/investigation? Attempts to date to get an answer to this question since I issued my original report 2 months ago have not been successful. Despite an Access to Information request to the Township, there has been no disclosure in response to the request for records regarding off-site trucking and disposal of contaminated materials from the investigation/excavation area. Access to Information inquiries to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) have also not yielded any information to date.

I am fmstrated by the fact it has proven challenging to obtain relevant information about the remediation of the PHC contamination site from the Township of South Frontenac

(which owns the contaminated property), in particular information which would shed

light on how much of the contaminated soils were actually removed from the site. page 3

Page 19 of 82

This information is important, because for as long as there are contaminated materials in the ground these will be a source of groundwater contamination which can threaten public health and safety in the community. It should be noted that in any event there are also contaminated materials beneath adjacent roads which won’t be removed until scheduled road work is carried out in coming years.

3. Groundwater Contamination is Getting Worse and Extent is not Delineated Norrnally when a contaminated site is remediated there is a slow but steady improvement in groundwater quality following the remediation. Unfortunately, at the contamination site in Hartington groundwater contamination levels have gotten worse since the site investigation/excavation work which was done in 2015. Peak levels of the contaminant of greatest concern (benzene, which is a known carcinogen) went up from 13 .4 to 66.1 micrograms per litre (ug/L) following the investigation/excavation - the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard (ODWQS) for benzene is s ug/L, and will be dropping to 1 ug/L in 2017. A benzene level of 66.1 ug/L is high enough that even with the attenuation (ie. reduction) of contarninant levels which occurs as water moves through the ground, there is still a significant potential for contamination of nearby residential wells to above the ODWQS.

What makes the current situation particularly unsettling is the fact that to date the monitoring effort has not been adequate, and as a result the extent of the off-site contamination is unknown. What is known is that badly contami’nated groundwater is

present on the site of the former gas station - what is not known is which direction(s) it is moving or how far off-site it has gone.

I am not confident that the additional 2 monitoring wells proposed by the Township will be adequate to delineate the plume, and I recommend that the MOECC provide the Township with further direction/guidance in this regard.

4. Precautionary Testing is Required

The fact that there is a PHC groundwater contamination plume in Hartington whose offsite extent and direction of movement have not been delineated means that precautionary testing of nearby residential wells is required. My understanding is that the wells of 4 nearby private residences have been tested (with no contamination found) to date.

page 4

Page 20 of 82

I strongly recommend that additional precautionary monitoring is warranted for protection of public health and safety - given the questions surrounding the site investigation/excavation, the fact that unremediated areas of contamination are still present, and the fact that the off-site contarninants are not delineated. Testing should be done on all homes within 300 meters of the boundaries of the former gas station property.

Testing should also be done on the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in Hartington, because this is widely believed to be the biggest water user in the hamlet making the movement of groundwater and contaminants in that direction more likely. This testing could be done by any combination of the Township, the County and the MOECC. In my experience it would be appropriate under the circumstances for the County and the MOECC to assist the Township in ensuring that public health and safety are protected through the recommended precautionary testing.

5. Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation l

i

The wells of all homes within 300 meters of any boundary of the former gas station should be tested within 30 days, with follow-up testing of homes 150 meters from the site being done twice per year thereafter and with follow-up testing of homes within 150-300 meters being done once per year thereafter. Testing should be done for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) with a detection limit of 50% or less of their respective ODWQS, as well as for petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) fractions Fl through F4.

Recommendation 2

Tests should be done (for BTEX parameters and Fl through F4 PHCs) on the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in Hartington.

Recommendation 3

Once they are available, test results should be shared with the respective property owners, together with an explanation of the test results. Test results should also be shared as soon as they are available on a confidential basis with the professionals who are currently concerned with the hydrogeology of the Hartington area. page s

Page 21 of 82

6) Signature and Limitations This memorandum has been prepared in its entirety by Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.).

It is based on my honest conviction and my knowledge of the matters discussed herein following careful review of the available evidence and documentation. This memorandum has been prepared for the use of my clients.

Signed on the 28th of July, 2016

Wilf Ruland (P.Geo.)

766 Sulphur Springs Road Dundas, Ont. L9H 5E3

Tel: (905) 648-1296 deerspring 1 @ gmail .com

page 6

Page 22 of 82

WP

Y

MALROZ

via: e-mail

August 9, 2016 File: 840-114.00

ENGINEERING INCORPORATED

308 Wellington Street 2’d Floor Kingston, ON K7K 7A8

Mr. Joe Gallivan,

Canada

County of Frontenac

613-548-3446 www.malroz.com

Director of Planning and Economic Development 2069 Battersea Road

Gfenburnie, Ontario, KOH 180

Subject: Review Technical Support Documentation - Hartington Subdivision Part Lot 7, Concession 7, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac (MP File No. OCP-15-0397) Dear Mr. Gallivan,

Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) is pleased to present our comments on the proposed Hartington Subdivision. Malroz was retained by the County of Frontenac to provide technical review and consulting on the proposed Hartington Subdivision. Our document review included the following:

1. Soil and Ground Water Assessment Report - 5598 King’s Highway 38, Hartington, ON, prepared for Environmental Contracting Services Inc. c/o Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Specialized Onsite Services Inc., dated September 28, 2015.

2. On- and OffSite Groundwater Sampling, 5598 Country Road 38, Hartington, Orxtario, Cambium Reference No. 4560-001, prepared for Mr. Jamie Brash, Facilities and Solid Waste Area Supervisor, Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Cambium Inc., dated January 4, 2016.

3. Initial Independent Review of Hartington Development Proposal, prepared for Michelle Foxton, Wade Leonard, Charlie Larbarge, John Lesperance, prepared by Wilf Ruland, dated May 10, 2016.

4. exp. Peer Review Comments Regardirxg Hydrogeologic and Terrain Analysis Components of a proposed Plan of Subdivision Application, Hamlet of Hart’mgton, Towmhip of South Frontenac, prepared for Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk, Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Chris Rancourt, dated May s, 2016.

As a part of our review of the above documents we met with Mr. Ruland and his clients, Mr. Wayne Orr (CAO Township of South Frontenac) and yourself at the County offices on May 19, 2016. We further attended a meeting with Township of South Frontenac (South Frontenac) and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) personnel to review the status of the former Hartington gas bar on July 7, 2016. Eniimnmental Scienllsts & Englneers ?INGSTON O TORONTO 0 oTTAwA

Page 23 of 82

Page 2 File: 840-114.00

County of Frontenac

Hartington Grant Subdivision

Malroz has previously issued comments on the proposed subdivision in letters dated: January 21, 2014, October 17, 2014, April 20, 2015, September 24, 2015 and supplementary emails on December 15, 2015 and April 2, 2016. 1.O Commesits

Our review considers the proposed 1,3 lot residential development. Our previous reviews have considered technical information and comments from:

• ASC Environmental Inc.,

Quinte Conservation Authority, Mclntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

To date we have not received comments on the four documents revievved below from the proponent’s consultant. Our current comments are as follows: Documents 1 & 2:

We have reviewed the documents provided regarding the contamination associated with the former gas station. The documents identify soil and groundwater contamination related to historic retail petroleum activities at the site. Subsequent to our review, we attended a meeting with South Frontenac and MOECC personnel to review the status of the former Hartington gas bar on July 7, 2016.

Our review ideixtified that the groundwater contamination was identified in shallow groundwater monporjpg?‘H61ls installed to intersect the surface of the water ta61e. Sampling of the onsite -water wells ana riearby residenti@l wells showed that groundwater met the standards. In our opinion this indicates that the contamination has not impacted the water supply aquifer. purther

g’roundwater flow is east,eily onto ,lands owned by South Froritenac, not -westerly towards the

proposed subdivision.

We understand that the Township. continues to actively manage the contamination in conjunction with regulatory oversight by the MOECC. Considering the results of domestic well water sampling and the oversight by the MOECC, we do not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed development. Document 3:

The report identifies a number of potential issues with the site characterization, impact assessment and the former Hartington gas bar. As discussed above, we consider the issue of the gas bar to be adequately addressed. We offer the following general comments on Document 3 : Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 24 of 82

Page 3 File: 840-114.00

County of Frontenac

Hartington Grant Subdivision

1. Section 2 of Document 3 speaks to the movement of groundwater in the limestone bedrock aquifer at the site. This includes vertical flow, hydraulic conductivity, vulnerability and water resource sustainability.

We agree that the proposed deveiopment site is likely an area of recharge and that groundwater has a downward component. Furthermore recharge from precipitation is the method of recharge for the limestone aquifer. We see conflicting information in the report between the comments on the potential for karst or no impediment to vertical groundwater flow and Mr. Rul?’s comments that the aquifer has a low porosity and the area is subject to more than usual amount of precipitation loss through surface runoff.

The range of hydraulic conductivities is discussed at the site. Document 3 identifies

the conductivities as ranging from on the order of 10-4 to 10-7 m/s. A mnge of three

orders of magnitude. The individual wells and their coriductivities are not identified. The calibration data provided to support the analytic model in the ASC March 23, 2015 letter documented a range of hydraulic conductivities from test wells TW2, TWI 0 and

TW12 that ranged from 10 to 10 rn/s. The values reported by ASC are within typical values for limestone and below that for Karst limestone (Freeze and Cheriy, 1979).

We see no substantiated evidence of Karst within the saturated aquifer. Nor do we see substantiation that surface runoff is more than usual. 2.

Section 3 of Document 3 includes a discussion of the evaluation of impacts from the

potential septic systems in the development. Based on the discussion in item 1 above and the work to date, including the reviews by other parties, it is our opinion the MOECC D-s-4 guideline is appropriate for application at the site. We do not see substantiated information that the site requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of septic systems.

ASC in their December 3, 2015 letter provided an update nitrate dilution calculation. The calculation in their letter considere4 two scenarios, one for nitrates at the boundary of the 13 lots on an 11.82 ha area and one that considered the 13 lots on the full 45 ha site owned by the applicant.

Scenario one, for the 11.82 ha area, used an average background concentration for nitrates of 1.79 mg/l from the four existing test wells on the proposed 13 lots and one well just south of the development. ASC calculated through the MOECC D-s-4 predictive assessment, for residential development, that the nitrate concentration couid increase to 9 mg/1.

Scenario two, for the 45 ha development, as well used an average background concentration for nitrates of 1.79 mg/1. ASC calculated through the MOECC D-s-4 Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 25 of 82

Page 4

County of Frontenac

File.: 840-114.00

Haitington Grant Subdivision

predictive assessment, for residential development, that the nitrate concentration cou?d increase to 3.9 mg/1.

In both scenarios the proponent’s consultant has identified that the potential increase in the concentration of nitrates from the proposed subdivision will remain below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1.

Considering that the calculation for the 13 lots uses: an average concentration of 1.79 mg/l rather than jhe maximum concentration of 4.21 mg/l; the variability of the concentrations; the single data sampling poirit, and; the potential age/condition of upgradient septic systems, the proponent should consider additional confirmatory groundwater analyses for nitrates and/or measures such as, tertiary treatment systems to mitigate nitrate impacts.

Considering that groundwater flow is southerly, away from the Hartington Hamlet, an impact from septic systems on existing groundwater users in Hartington is not anticipated.

As an added precaution, future wells installed should be sampled for nitrates (see document 4 review below). Should future development of the lands to the south of the proposed subdivision will need to consider the predicted upgradient nitrate concentration calculated in scenario one.

3. Section 3. e, of Document 3 speaks to hydrofracturing. We are not aware of any hydrofracturing of test wells at the proposed development. We have asked the proponents hydrogeologist and they have reported that they are not aware of any. If someone has evidence that can substantiate hydrofracturing at the site, we ask they bring this forward for review.

Section 4 speaks to stormwater management. Quinte Conservation provided comment on stormwater management in a letter dated September 30, 2015. We understand based on the letter they were supportive of the plan with the conditions outlined in their letter.

s.

Section s speaks to the future assessment of water supply wells post development. This is addressed in the summary below.

In our opinion the concerns brought forward by Mr. Ruland are similar to those previously brought forward by Malroz, Quinte Conservation, and McIntosh Perry. Through the successive iterations of the investigation and review comments to date we are satisfied that a higher level of detail and investigation has been conducted by the proponent over and above w’hat is required by the MOECC D-s-4 and D-s-s guidelines. The supplementary investigation of each well, ana Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 26 of 82

Page s

County of Frontenac

File: 840-114.00

Hartington Grant Subdivision

each lot by the proponent further exceeds the MOECC guidelines and assists to protect existing and future- groundwater users in the vicinity of the proposed development. Document 4

We have reviewed the letter prepared by exp Services Inc. (exp). Our interpretation of the Ietter is that it concurs with the-approach outlined in our April 20, 2015 letter which provided recommendations for the planning authority to move forward with draft conditions on the plan of subdivision. In particular the assessment of each future well installed at the proposed subdivision, should it be granted by the approval authority.

The exp. letter included a recommendation to test for common agricultural pesticides. This was previously completed and reported by ASC in their letter dated, September 15, 2014. Tables 11 and 12 of the letter reported that test wells TWO?, TWO3, TWO5 and TWO7 had been tested for a

range of herbicides and pesticides, and all parameters analysed were below laboratory detection limits. We consider this issue addressed.

We are satisfied that the additional testing beyond the minimum required in the D-s-s guideline,

meets the request for additional testing in our April 20, 2015 letter, Quinte Conservation’s June 2, 2015 letter and the exp May s, 2016 review, as supplemented by our comments below. 2.O Summai7 and Recommendations

Considering the information that we have previously reviewed and the supplemental information reviewed in this letter we remain of the opinion that the proposed plan of subdivision be subject to the conditions as outlined in our April 20, 20l51etter. Based on our review of comments from Quinte Conservation (June 2, 2015) and exp. they appear to be of a similar opinion. We recommend the following conditions as outlined in our April 20, 2015 letter: The subdivision agreement should require the reporting of elevated chloride and sodium *

levels to the Medical Officer of Health. @

Pre-filtration and disinfection (eg: ultra violet light) should be included in drinking’water systems to maintain a bacteriological free water supply. The potential presence of sulphur in wells and remedial measures should be identified to potential buyers in the subdivision agreement. A staggered well orientation is proposed to be implemented to mitigate mutual well interference.

Each well at the proposed subdivision should be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity. o In accordance with the ASC June 23, 2015 letter supplemented for clarity by items i to vi in the summary below.

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 27 of 82

Page 6

County of Frontenac

File: 840-??4.00

Hartiiigtoii Grant Subdivision

Considering the issues the changes to the proposed subdivision since our Apiil 20, 2015 letter, we recommend that as pmt of draft approval the proponent confinn that the concetxtration of nitrates has not increased or implement mitigation measures u discussed in the Document 3, item 2 review. Further that the individual well assessment plan be clarified to include: A mirmnum punnpiiig rate for the size of residence proposed for the Iot iii accordance 1.

with the D-s-s guideline for a tninimum duration of 6 liours; IL 111.

Neigliboring wells mid/or nearby wells will be monitored during the pumping test; Tlie suite of grottndwater ana[yticaL parm’neters that will be ana[ysed for slia[k include o For eaclt weil, the suite of mialyses tested for in the supporting reports by ASC, o For three seIect wells, PHC, BTEX, vo[atike oyganic compounds (VOC) axtd polycyclic arotnatic hydrocarbons (PAH), whiclx would be indicative of contamination associated with a rail line or gas bar;

IV.

Evaluation of nitrate and nitrite concentrations, and trends in concentration and impact to potabIe groundvvater suppiies;

V.

Evaluation of mining of the potable water aquifer; and,

Vl.

Conclusions on the sustainability of the water suppky aquifer and water quality.

We recommerid our con’uiients be revisited should new information become available and remjnd

the reader that no comments from the proponent’s consultant, to Malroz, on the doc?ents reviewed wm provided prior to issuance of this letter. 3.O Closure

Malvoz ret’ninds the readey that the purpose of tlffs review was to assess if the propoxient has used generaily accepted practices to support their conclusions in the report provided. Tliis review is

not an audit and as such is not intended to detect facts that were concealed, or omissions in tlte report. Unless otherwise stated, this review does not consider local By-iaws nor does it repyesent a legal opinion regarding 6ornpliance with regulations and guidelines.

Malroz hopes this process has been helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Yours truly;

4?’%, r5hq

Malroz Engineering

,o.4p ;%p2r.p2ia: ,’, zsst,isan ,;,

1855

per: ? John Pyke, P.G’m.” %%%?T a v?

rei

Dav{d Malcolm

Pro3hct Manager

Environmental Geoscit

Malroz Eiigiiieeriiig Iitc.

Page 28 of 82

Page 29 of 82

Page 30 of 82

Page 31 of 82

Page 32 of 82

Page 33 of 82

?>OntariO

AND FORESTRY

'

Make a Topographic

Q

Map

The Ontario Ministry ol Natural Resources and Forestry shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon. Ihis map or any lnlormation on thrs map This map should

Queen’s Printer lor Ontario 2015

Hartington

Projection Web Mercator

3 km

not be used for navrgatton, 3 plan 0! survey. routes,

Not

nor locations.

Imagery Copyright Notices: Mano Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; NASA Land Program First Base Solulrons Inc , Aero-Photo (1961) Inc ; DigitaIGlobe nc ; U.S Geological Survey

Copyright lor Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen s Pnnler for Ontario and its lroensors ant not be reP”°d"C3¢ WW0"! P9""‘55’°"

Page 34 of 82

Page 35 of 82

Page 36 of 82

Page 37 of 82

Page 38 of 82

Page 39 of 82

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-52

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 2003-75, AS AMENDED, TO REZONE LANDS FROM SPECIAL RURAL ZONE (RU-46) TO SPECIAL

RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-29); PART LOT 7, CONCFSSION Vll, DISTRICT OF PORTLAND: 1278804 0NTARIO INC. (TERRY GRANT)

WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac deems it expedient to amend By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, as it relates to a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 7, Concession Vll, in the District of Portland, NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THAT Schedule ‘E’ to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Special Rural Zone (RU-46) to Special Residential Zone (R-29) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1 “.

2. THAT Zoning By-Iaw Number 2003-75 as amended is hereby further amended by adding a new section R-29 (Part Lot 7, Concession Vll, Portland District-Hartington Subdivision) immediately after section R-28 (Part Lot 19, Concession 11, Storrington District-Willowbrook Estates), to read as follows:

R-29 (Part Lot 7, Concession Vll, Portland District - Hartington Subdivision)

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12.3.1 or any other provision of this By-law to the contrary, on the lands zoned Special Residential (R-29), the following special provision shall apply: Lot Frontage (Minimum)……. 46 metres (151 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, either on the date of passage or as otherwise provided by section 34.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this twenty-third day of August, 2016.

Read a first and second time this twenty-third day of August, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this twenty-third day of August, 2016.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 40 of 82

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

‘?e’Nsmp

{43?–“o:l

C’? s6?%i

S, ?% B;q

SCHEDULE ‘1’ BY-LAW No. 2016-52

AREA REZONED FROM ‘RU-46’ TO ‘R-29’

N

W*E S

BOYCE ROAD

7

J

l

l

l

7

i’

01530 60 90 120

Metsrs

THIS SCHEDULE “1” TO BY-LAW No. 2016-52

PASSED THIS 23’o DAY OF AUGUST 2016 MAYOR CLERK Page 41 of 82

Page 42 of 82

Page 43 of 82

Page 44 of 82

Page 45 of 82

Page 46 of 82

?>OntariO

AND FORESTRY

'

Make a Topographic

Q

Map

The Ontario Ministry ol Natural Resources and Forestry shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon. Ihis map or any lnlormation on thrs map This map should

Queen’s Printer lor Ontario 2015

Hartington

Projection Web Mercator

3 km

not be used for navrgatton, 3 plan 0! survey. routes,

Not

nor locations.

Imagery Copyright Notices: Mano Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; NASA Land Program First Base Solulrons Inc , Aero-Photo (1961) Inc ; DigitaIGlobe nc ; U.S Geological Survey

Copyright lor Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen s Pnnler for Ontario and its lroensors ant not be reP”°d"C3¢ WW0”! P9""‘55’°”

Page 47 of 82

Page 48 of 82

For the record. For the past three and a half years, we have been expressing our concerns regarding the proposed Hartington subdivision. We have done this both in writing and verbally at council meetings. Mostly, these concerns have been based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence. We are writing this letter to express, once again, our deep concern. A reliable and safe water supply has been at the heart of our concerns from the moment we first learned about this proposal. Personal observation and anecdotal evidence, however, will not, as a rule, carry the day. There is now an abundance of evidence to support what we, as a community, have been trying to tell you all along. In fact, the situation is more dire than we had feared. I am referring specifically to two preliminary reports that are in your possession. These are reports compiled by Wilf Ruland (Professional Geoscientist), and Mark Lyon Dorfman (F.C.I.P., R.P.P.) There are so many red flags in these reports that it is difficult to know which ones to focus on. The fact is, council has these reports, and has had for some time. Wilf Ruland’s report has been in your possession since early May. You should be aware of these red flags, and yet it appears that council is still undecided. To quote the Dorfman report: “In my opinion, this planning application is premature and should not be approved. The uncertainties of the evidence supporting the application are sufficient to conclude that as a matter of precaution, the municipality and the Board should not approve this application.” There are a number of issues that lead Mr. Dorfman to this conclusion. One of these is the issue of surface and ground water, which is obviously a matter of public health and safety. As our elected representatives, it should be of primary concern to you to protect our health and safety if it is in your power to do so. At this juncture, it seems that you are willing to take unnecessary, and frankly irresponsible and unacceptable, risks with our health and safety. To again quote Mr. Dorfman, “Since the science is uncertain, it is prudent to not approve the plan of subdivision.” The issues raised in Mr. Ruland’s report are many. As a geoscientist, his focus is on the water supply. Mr. Ruland’s report points to the fact that Hartington’s water supply is a limited resource, and a highly vulnerable one. It is Mr. Ruland’s professional opinion that " the Hartington aquifer is showing unmistakable signs of stress from a groundwater resource perspective. It is currently being used at/or beyond its sustainable limit, and showing clear signs of unsustainable usage in places including reduced amounts of water to individual wells and deteriorating groundwater quality." Another issue we, the community, have raised a number of times, is what we saw as flawed methodology in the pump tests conducted for the proponent. The tests were conducted, in both cases, during extremely wet periods. No tests were conducted in dry periods, which occur, to one degree or another, annually. As we write this, we find ourselves in mild to moderate draught conditions. Now is the time to do the pump tests- not when it is raining every other day! We believe council should either arrange to have tests conducted and send the bill to the proponent, or require that the proponent have testing done-NOW- not after it starts to rain again! In addition to the timing of the tests, the fact that the water pumped from the wells was pumped onto the surface of the ground in the immediate vicinity of the wells made no sense at all. Unless, of course, the goal was to take advantage of the ‘closed circuit’ effect that would result from the water immediately starting to seep back to the aquifer. The other possibility is that those doing the test simply didn’t know any better. Either way, proper testing should be done during the current dry spell in order to get a proper sense of the aquifer’s ability to cope. Also at issue is the likelihood that ‘fracking’ took place on one or more of the test wells, and was not reported by the proponent’s consultants. This process can have significant impact on the results of the tests, as well as permanent negative impact and should have been reported.

Page 49 of 82

We are disappointed, to say the least, by the failure of the Township to adequately test for possible hydrocarbon contamination migrating from the old gas station at the Holleford Road / County Road 38 intersection. The possibility of a spreading plume of contaminants is alarming and needs to be investigated thoroughly. There is a very real possibility that the introduction of up to thirteen new wells in this proposed subdivision will alter the direction of ground water flow and lead to the contamination of domestic wells. This, once again, comes back to the public health and safety issue discussed earlier. It is your job to do what it takes to protect our health and safety! It seems rather remarkable that the Township’s planner either didn’t notice, as pointed out in Mr. Dorfman’s report, that the proposed subdivision extends beyond the southern limit of the Settlement Area, or didn’t deem it significant. Either way, this is unacceptable. The South Frontenac Official Plan provides that the boundaries of settlement areas are intended to accommodate the planned 20-year growth. Expansion of a settlement area must be justified by a municipality undertaking a comprehensive review. We have questioned the planner’s impartiality in this process since he expressed concern over the sizeable investment that the proponent had made up to that point. The general response of the community was, first, that is what developers do. They invest and hope it pays off in the end. Second, what about the investments we, the community, had made, and continue to make, in our homes. It is the threat to our investment that has driven, and continues to drive, our fight against this proposal. We are surprised by the lack of response by the Township, County, MOECC, and other agencies, to the many red flag issues raised by Mr. Ruland and Mr. Dorfman. We are concerned and upset over the failure of both the Township and the County to indicate that they will not support this proposed subdivision. This plot of land is important to the recharging of the aquifer. A key component of this recharge process is the Pleasant Valley Drain. Water collects in this drain and is channeled southward. As is courses along the drain, it also seeps back into the soil, and eventually helps recharge the aquifer. It has recently come to our attention that a significant part of the water that has been flowing into the Pleasant Valley Drain has been diverted. The purpose of this diversion project was apparently to divert water away from a house recently built by the developer proposing this subdivision, to correct a mistake in design made by this developer. At the tax payers expense and to the detriment of the Hartington aquifer. This seems to be an example poor planning on the part of one party turning into an emergency on the part of a second party. The list of issues, concerns, and red flags is long. What we have covered in this letter are the items at the top of our list. The bottom line is this- neither the Township nor the County have signaled that they will reject this proposal, even after receiving the above mentioned reports. This is the biggest red flag of all. Municipal election are just over two years away, and we can assure you that your response to this issue will be topmost in our minds when we mark our ballots.

Hanne and Dennis Saunders 4034 Boyce Road Hartington, Ontario K0H 1W0 613-376-3874

Page 50 of 82

From: hartington subdivision [mailto:hartington.subdivision@gmail.com] Sent: July-28-16 11:46 AM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillorrevill@gmail.com; John McDougall john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; elbe@web.ca; Pat Barr patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; mschjerning@lennoxaddington.on.ca; Bill Robinson robinsonw@bell.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; eilevale@kingston.net; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net; jgallivan@frontenaccounty.ca; kyle.stephenson@ontario.ca; Sarah.Dick@ontario.ca; Gord.Mitchell@kflapublichealth.ca; sarah.ryding@kflapublichealth.ca; mboone@quinteconservation.ca; ttrustham@quinteconservation.ca Subject: PHC Memorandum Dear Mayor, Councillors, Mr. Orr, Mr. Mills, Mr. Gallivan, Mr. Stephenson, Ms. Dick, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Ryding, Mr. Boone and Mr. Trustham, We are writing further to our production of the May 10, 2016 report from Mr. Wilf Ruland, expert in hydrogeology and contamination. Since delivering Mr. Ruland’s report to each of your organizations, we confirm we have received no further communications from same. Mr. Ruland is concerned with this lack of response, and regarding the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (an issue of grave and urgent concern) he has prepared a Memorandum with further comments and recommendations to the community in this regard. A copy of his Memorandum is attached hereto. We sincerely trust Mr. Ruland’s communications will be duly considered and will be acted on. We again await your response in this regard. Yours truly on behalf of the Hartington Community Association, Michelle Foxton, Charlie Labarge, John Lesperance, and Wade Leonard

Page 51 of 82

To:

Michelle Foxton, Wade Leonard, Charlie Labarge and John Lesperance

From: Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.)

Re:

Memorandum Regarding Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) Contamination

in the Hamlet of Hartington, Ontario

Date: July 28, 2016

1. Introduction I am writing to follow up on my report of May 10, 2016 which I prepared regarding a proposed development in the hamlet of Hartington. In the course of preparing my report, I had come across information about petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination from a former gas station in the centre of the hamlet which raised significant concerns. Section 6 of my report outlined some of the concerns I had at the time I prepared the report. I have reprinted Section 6 in italics below: “6) Impacts of Proposal on Aquifer Contamination by Petroleum Hydrocarbons In the materials presented to me for review, there is unsettling evidence that there is an area of ongoing petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the Hartington Aquifer near the main intersection in town (centered on the site of a former service station at Boyce Road and Highway 38). The contamination appears to have been caused by leakage of gasoline from the former service station many years ago. Site investigation activities and some remediation have been carried out in recent years. I have real concerns about the adequacy of the investigation of the contamination site, and about the remedial works which have been carried out to date. Some information has been provided and further information will be sought through an Access to Information request. In the meantime it appears (based on the currently available information) that the remediation of the site may not have been properly completed, and that the site investigation and remediation activities may have had the unintended effect of mobilizing the contamination which has been detected spreading into the aquifer from the site.

page 1

Page 52 of 82

Current groundwater flow directions are poorly defined, but so far there have been no reports of local domestic wells being contaminated. It is quite possible that the 30% increase in the number of wells which the development proposal represents will reverse local groundwater flow directions, and induce flow from the contaminant site toward the proposed subdivision. Impacts on local wells appear likely if this scenario comes to pass. The prudent thing to do would be to place a temporary moratorium on development in Hartington until: • • •

full details about the remediation which has been done to date have been made publicly available and have been assessed for their adequacy, the contaminant concentrations and the dimensions of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume (and the threat it poses to local wells) have been adequately defined, and any further remedial work which is considered necessary has been completed.”

At this point (some 2 months after issuing my report) my concerns about the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in Hartington are even greater than they were at the time I issued my report. I am concerned about the potential threat to public health and safety which this contamination poses, and I am concerned that the responsible authorities may not be responding as strongly and as quickly as I believe they should in response to this threat. My concerns include the following:

• I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been removed from the site, and as a result I am concerned that the remediation of the site may be incomplete.
• I am gravely concerned by the fact that groundwater contamination levels appear to have gotten worse following remedial works done at the site, and that the extent of the groundwater contamination is currently not delineated. There is off-site contamination moving through the groundwater in Hartington, and no one knows where it has gone.
• I am very concerned at the very limited testing of residential wells that has taken place to date - much broader testing involving many more homes is urgently needed. These issues are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Memorandum.

2. Incomplete Removal of Contaminated Soil from Site I am currently not convinced that all of the contaminated soils which were found to be present on-site have been removed. If there are still contaminated soils in the ground then these will pose an ongoing potential threat to public health and safety.

page 2

Page 53 of 82

One of the reasons I am not convinced that all of the contaminated soils have been removed is because of an unfortunate incident earlier on in the site investigation/ remediation process. As described in a September 28, 2015 report from Specialized Onsite Services (SOS) the investigation and excavation of contaminated soils began in February 2015. Significant quantities of obviously contaminated material were first excavated from the contaminated area, but then rather than taking the contaminated material away for proper disposal the contaminated material was backfilled back into the excavation by the property owner (the Township of South Frontenac). Subsequent investigations in May and early June 2015 were hampered by the flow of contaminated water from the previously excavated/backfilled contaminated soils. Moreover, after the subsequent more extensive excavations/investigations were completed on June 3, 2015 the “excavation area proceeded to be backfilled by a contractor working for the Township at the direction of representatives of the Township”. The wording of this section of the SOS report raises the concern that for a second time, contaminated materials could have been re-deposited back into the area of investigation/ excavation by Township officials. The site investigation/excavation process will have disturbed the contaminated soils - and if these disturbed soils were simply dumped back into the excavation then contaminants could leach from them more easily than they would have prior to the disturbance. A subsequent letter of January 28, 2016 from SOS indicates that about 250 tonnes of material were removed from the site in 2015. While this sounds like a lot of material, it is only a small fraction of the quantity of contaminated material which would have been present in the excavation. The obvious question is what exactly has happened to all of the additional contaminated soils which were found during the excavation/investigation? Attempts to date to get an answer to this question since I issued my original report 2 months ago have not been successful. Despite an Access to Information request to the Township, there has been no disclosure in response to the request for records regarding off-site trucking and disposal of contaminated materials from the investigation/excavation area. Access to Information inquiries to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) have also not yielded any information to date. I am frustrated by the fact it has proven challenging to obtain relevant information about the remediation of the PHC contamination site from the Township of South Frontenac (which owns the contaminated property), in particular information which would shed light on how much of the contaminated soils were actually removed from the site. page 3

Page 54 of 82

This information is important, because for as long as there are contaminated materials in the ground these will be a source of groundwater contamination which can threaten public health and safety in the community. It should be noted that in any event there are also contaminated materials beneath adjacent roads which won’t be removed until scheduled road work is carried out in coming years.

3. Groundwater Contamination is Getting Worse and Extent is not Delineated Normally when a contaminated site is remediated there is a slow but steady improvement in groundwater quality following the remediation. Unfortunately, at the contamination site in Hartington groundwater contamination levels have gotten worse since the site investigation/excavation work which was done in 2015. Peak levels of the contaminant of greatest concern (benzene, which is a known carcinogen) went up from 13.4 to 66.1 micrograms per litre (ug/L) following the investigation/excavation - the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard (ODWQS) for benzene is 5 ug/L, and will be dropping to 1 ug/L in 2017. A benzene level of 66.1 ug/L is high enough that even with the attenuation (ie. reduction) of contaminant levels which occurs as water moves through the ground, there is still a significant potential for contamination of nearby residential wells to above the ODWQS. What makes the current situation particularly unsettling is the fact that to date the monitoring effort has not been adequate, and as a result the extent of the off-site contamination is unknown. What is known is that badly contaminated groundwater is present on the site of the former gas station - what is not known is which direction(s) it is moving or how far off-site it has gone. I am not confident that the additional 2 monitoring wells proposed by the Township will be adequate to delineate the plume, and I recommend that the MOECC provide the Township with further direction/guidance in this regard.

4. Precautionary Testing is Required The fact that there is a PHC groundwater contamination plume in Hartington whose offsite extent and direction of movement have not been delineated means that precautionary testing of nearby residential wells is required. My understanding is that the wells of 4 nearby private residences have been tested (with no contamination found) to date.

page 4

Page 55 of 82

I strongly recommend that additional precautionary monitoring is warranted for protection of public health and safety - given the questions surrounding the site investigation/excavation, the fact that unremediated areas of contamination are still present, and the fact that the off-site contaminants are not delineated. Testing should be done on all homes within 300 meters of the boundaries of the former gas station property. Testing should also be done on the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in Hartington, because this is widely believed to be the biggest water user in the hamlet making the movement of groundwater and contaminants in that direction more likely. This testing could be done by any combination of the Township, the County and the MOECC. In my experience it would be appropriate under the circumstances for the County and the MOECC to assist the Township in ensuring that public health and safety are protected through the recommended precautionary testing.

5. Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1 The wells of all homes within 300 meters of any boundary of the former gas station should be tested within 30 days, with follow-up testing of homes 150 meters from the site being done twice per year thereafter and with follow-up testing of homes within 150-300 meters being done once per year thereafter. Testing should be done for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) with a detection limit of 50% or less of their respective ODWQS, as well as for petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) fractions F1 through F4.

Recommendation 2 Tests should be done (for BTEX parameters and F1 through F4 PHCs) on the water being pumped from the well for the car wash in Hartington.

Recommendation 3 Once they are available, test results should be shared with the respective property owners, together with an explanation of the test results. Test results should also be shared as soon as they are available on a confidential basis with the professionals who are currently concerned with the hydrogeology of the Hartington area. page 5

Page 56 of 82

6) Signature and Limitations This memorandum has been prepared in its entirety by Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.). It is based on my honest conviction and my knowledge of the matters discussed herein following careful review of the available evidence and documentation. This memorandum has been prepared for the use of my clients.

Signed on the 28th of July, 2016

Wilf Ruland (P.Geo.)

766 Sulphur Springs Road Dundas, Ont. L9H 5E3 Tel: (905) 648-1296 deerspring1@gmail.com

page 6

Page 57 of 82

From: Wayne Orr Sent: August-05-16 10:36 AM To: hartington subdivision hartington.subdivision@gmail.com Cc: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Follow Up Hello Thank you for your follow up email. Since returning from vacation, I have followed up with the Public Works Department. The Township did not have quantities on file, however they have sought out information on this and I provide the attached emails for your information. Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225 613-376-6657 (Fax) From: hartington subdivision [mailto:hartington.subdivision@gmail.com] Sent: July-28-16 11:49 AM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillorrevill@gmail.com; John McDougall john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; elbe@web.ca; Pat Barr patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; mschjerning@lennoxaddington.on.ca; Bill Robinson robinsonw@bell.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; eilevale@kingston.net; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: jgallivan@frontenaccounty.ca; kyle.stephenson@ontario.ca; Sarah.Dick@ontario.ca; Gord.Mitchell@kflapublichealth.ca; sarah.ryding@kflapublichealth.ca Subject: Freedom of Information Request Follow Up Dear Mayor, Councillors, and Mr. Orr, We are writing further to our recent email communication providing additional information from Mr. Wilf Ruland. In this regard, we confirm Mr. Orr advised Charlie Labarge and Michelle Foxton on May 9, 2016, when they attended at the Township offices in Sydenham to collect the most recent results of Ms. Foxton’s Freedom of Information Request, that he would be speaking with his department heads regarding the lack of disclosure from them concerning the contaminated materials removed from 5598 Hwy 38 and apparently moved to the Portland Landfill site, which is under the Township’s control. To date, as indicated in Mr. Ruland’s attached memo, we have not received any materials from Mr. Orr in this regard. We request this matter be followed up by the Township with due haste, as the Township is now in violation of the Freedom of Information legislation. Yours truly, Michelle Foxton, Charlie Labarge, John Lesperance and Wade Leonard on befalf of the Hartington Community Association

Page 58 of 82

Page 59 of 82

Page 60 of 82

Page 61 of 82

Page 62 of 82

via: e-mail

August 9, 2016 File: 840-114.00

ENGINEERING INCORPORATED

308 Wellington Street 2nd Floor Kingston, ON K7K 7A8 Canada 613-548-3446 www.malroz.com

Mr. Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, Ontario, K0H 1S0 Subject:

Review Technical Support Documentation - Hartington Subdivision Part Lot 7, Concession 7, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac (MP File No. 0CP-15-0397)

Dear Mr. Gallivan, Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) is pleased to present our comments on the proposed Hartington Subdivision. Malroz was retained by the County of Frontenac to provide technical review and consulting on the proposed Hartington Subdivision. Our document review included the following:

1. Soil and Ground Water Assessment Report – 5598 King’s Highway 38, Hartington, ON, prepared for Environmental Contracting Services Inc. c/o Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Specialized Onsite Services Inc., dated September 28, 2015.
2. On- and Off-Site Groundwater Sampling, 5598 Country Road 38, Hartington, Ontario, Cambium Reference No. 4560-001, prepared for Mr. Jamie Brash, Facilities and Solid Waste Area Supervisor, Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Cambium Inc., dated January 4, 2016.
3. Initial Independent Review of Hartington Development Proposal, prepared for Michelle Foxton, Wade Leonard, Charlie Larbarge, John Lesperance, prepared by Wilf Ruland, dated May 10, 2016.
4. exp. Peer Review Comments Regarding Hydrogeologic and Terrain Analysis Components of a proposed Plan of Subdivision Application, Hamlet of Hartington, Township of South Frontenac, prepared for Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk, Township of South Frontenac, prepared by Chris Rancourt, dated May 5, 2016. As a part of our review of the above documents we met with Mr. Ruland and his clients, Mr. Wayne Orr (CAO Township of South Frontenac) and yourself at the County offices on May 19, 2016. We further attended a meeting with Township of South Frontenac (South Frontenac) and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) personnel to review the status of the former Hartington gas bar on July 7, 2016. Environmental Scientists & Engineers KINGSTON ◊ TORONTO ◊ OTTAWA

Page 63 of 82

County of Frontenac Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 2 File: 840-114.00

Malroz has previously issued comments on the proposed subdivision in letters dated: January 21, 2014, October 17, 2014, April 20, 2015, September 24, 2015 and supplementary emails on December 15, 2015 and April 2, 2016. 1.0

Comments

Our review considers the proposed 13 lot residential development. Our previous reviews have considered technical information and comments from:  ASC Environmental Inc.,  Quinte Conservation Authority,  McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. To date we have not received comments on the four documents reviewed below from the proponent’s consultant. Our current comments are as follows: Documents 1 & 2: We have reviewed the documents provided regarding the contamination associated with the former gas station. The documents identify soil and groundwater contamination related to historic retail petroleum activities at the site. Subsequent to our review, we attended a meeting with South Frontenac and MOECC personnel to review the status of the former Hartington gas bar on July 7, 2016. Our review identified that the groundwater contamination was identified in shallow groundwater monitoring wells installed to intersect the surface of the water table. Sampling of the onsite water wells and nearby residential wells showed that groundwater met the standards. In our opinion this indicates that the contamination has not impacted the water supply aquifer. Further groundwater flow is easterly onto lands owned by South Frontenac, not westerly towards the proposed subdivision. We understand that the Township continues to actively manage the contamination in conjunction with regulatory oversight by the MOECC. Considering the results of domestic well water sampling and the oversight by the MOECC, we do not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed development. Document 3: The report identifies a number of potential issues with the site characterization, impact assessment and the former Hartington gas bar. As discussed above, we consider the issue of the gas bar to be adequately addressed. We offer the following general comments on Document 3:

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 64 of 82

County of Frontenac Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 3 File: 840-114.00

Section 2 of Document 3 speaks to the movement of groundwater in the limestone bedrock aquifer at the site. This includes vertical flow, hydraulic conductivity, vulnerability and water resource sustainability. We agree that the proposed development site is likely an area of recharge and that groundwater has a downward component. Furthermore recharge from precipitation is the method of recharge for the limestone aquifer. We see conflicting information in the report between the comments on the potential for karst or no impediment to vertical groundwater flow and Mr. Ruland’s comments that the aquifer has a low porosity and the area is subject to more than usual amount of precipitation loss through surface runoff. The range of hydraulic conductivities is discussed at the site. Document 3 identifies the conductivities as ranging from on the order of 10-4 to 10-7 m/s. A range of three orders of magnitude. The individual wells and their conductivities are not identified. The calibration data provided to support the analytic model in the ASC March 23, 2015 letter documented a range of hydraulic conductivities from test wells TW2, TW10 and TW12 that ranged from 10-6 to 10-7 m/s. The values reported by ASC are within typical values for limestone and below that for Karst limestone (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). We see no substantiated evidence of Karst within the saturated aquifer. Nor do we see substantiation that surface runoff is more than usual.

Section 3 of Document 3 includes a discussion of the evaluation of impacts from the potential septic systems in the development. Based on the discussion in item 1 above and the work to date, including the reviews by other parties, it is our opinion the MOECC D-5-4 guideline is appropriate for application at the site. We do not see substantiated information that the site requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of septic systems. ASC in their December 3, 2015 letter provided an update nitrate dilution calculation. The calculation in their letter considered two scenarios, one for nitrates at the boundary of the 13 lots on an 11.82 ha area and one that considered the 13 lots on the full 45 ha site owned by the applicant. Scenario one, for the 11.82 ha area, used an average background concentration for nitrates of 1.79 mg/l from the four existing test wells on the proposed 13 lots and one well just south of the development. ASC calculated through the MOECC D-5-4 predictive assessment, for residential development, that the nitrate concentration could increase to 9 mg/l. Scenario two, for the 45 ha development, as well used an average background concentration for nitrates of 1.79 mg/l. ASC calculated through the MOECC D-5-4 Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 65 of 82

County of Frontenac Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 4 File: 840-114.00

predictive assessment, for residential development, that the nitrate concentration could increase to 3.9 mg/l. In both scenarios the proponent’s consultant has identified that the potential increase in the concentration of nitrates from the proposed subdivision will remain below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l. Considering that the calculation for the 13 lots uses: an average concentration of 1.79 mg/l rather than the maximum concentration of 4.21 mg/l; the variability of the concentrations; the single data sampling point, and; the potential age/condition of upgradient septic systems, the proponent should consider additional confirmatory groundwater analyses for nitrates and/or measures such as, tertiary treatment systems to mitigate nitrate impacts. Considering that groundwater flow is southerly, away from the Hartington Hamlet, an impact from septic systems on existing groundwater users in Hartington is not anticipated. As an added precaution, future wells installed should be sampled for nitrates (see document 4 review below). Should future development of the lands to the south of the proposed subdivision will need to consider the predicted upgradient nitrate concentration calculated in scenario one. 3.

Section 3. e, of Document 3 speaks to hydrofracturing. We are not aware of any hydrofracturing of test wells at the proposed development. We have asked the proponents hydrogeologist and they have reported that they are not aware of any. If someone has evidence that can substantiate hydrofracturing at the site, we ask they bring this forward for review.

Section 4 speaks to stormwater management. Quinte Conservation provided comment on stormwater management in a letter dated September 30, 2015. We understand based on the letter they were supportive of the plan with the conditions outlined in their letter.

Section 5 speaks to the future assessment of water supply wells post development. This is addressed in the summary below.

In our opinion the concerns brought forward by Mr. Ruland are similar to those previously brought forward by Malroz, Quinte Conservation, and McIntosh Perry. Through the successive iterations of the investigation and review comments to date we are satisfied that a higher level of detail and investigation has been conducted by the proponent over and above what is required by the MOECC D-5-4 and D-5-5 guidelines. The supplementary investigation of each well, and

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 66 of 82

County of Frontenac Hartington Grant Subdivision

Page 5 File: 840-114.00

each lot by the proponent further exceeds the MOECC guidelines and assists to protect existing and future groundwater users in the vicinity of the proposed development. Document 4 We have reviewed the letter prepared by exp Services Inc. (exp). Our interpretation of the letter is that it concurs with the approach outlined in our April 20, 2015 letter which provided recommendations for the planning authority to move forward with draft conditions on the plan of subdivision. In particular the assessment of each future well installed at the proposed subdivision, should it be granted by the approval authority. The exp. letter included a recommendation to test for common agricultural pesticides. This was previously completed and reported by ASC in their letter dated, September 15, 2014. Tables 11 and 12 of the letter reported that test wells TW01, TW03, TW05 and TW07 had been tested for a range of herbicides and pesticides, and all parameters analysed were below laboratory detection limits. We consider this issue addressed. We are satisfied that the additional testing beyond the minimum required in the D-5-5 guideline, meets the request for additional testing in our April 20, 2015 letter, Quinte Conservation’s June 2, 2015 letter and the exp May 5, 2016 review, as supplemented by our comments below. 2.0

Summary and Recommendations

Considering the information that we have previously reviewed and the supplemental information reviewed in this letter we remain of the opinion that the proposed plan of subdivision be subject to the conditions as outlined in our April 20, 2015 letter. Based on our review of comments from Quinte Conservation (June 2, 2015) and exp. they appear to be of a similar opinion. We recommend the following conditions as outlined in our April 20, 2015 letter:  The subdivision agreement should require the reporting of elevated chloride and sodium levels to the Medical Officer of Health.  Pre-filtration and disinfection (eg: ultra violet light) should be included in drinking water systems to maintain a bacteriological free water supply.  The potential presence of sulphur in wells and remedial measures should be identified to potential buyers in the subdivision agreement.  A staggered well orientation is proposed to be implemented to mitigate mutual well interference.  Each well at the proposed subdivision should be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity. o In accordance with the ASC June 23, 2015 letter supplemented for clarity by items i to vi in the summary below.

Malroz Engineering Inc.

Page 67 of 82

Page 68 of 82

From: Wayne Orr Sent: August-17-16 9:01 AM To: Michelle Foxton foxton@personainternet.com Cc: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net Subject: RE: Special Council Meeting - August 23rd Hello Michelle, I am in receipt of your request for delegation status for the special meeting on August 23. As per the Notice that was sent to the Hartington subdivision email address on August 11: “Please be advised that the Mayor has called a Special Council Meeting for August 23, 2016 at 7:00pm, Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting is for Council to receive written material/reports regarding the proposed Hartington Subdivision and to consider Draft Plan Conditions and Zoning. Should you wish to submit any written comments for Council’s consideration they would be due to me by no later than noon on Thursday August 18, 2016.” This notice is similar in nature to that published on our website August 11 and that which will appear in our banner ads. The August 23 meeting is a Special Council Meeting and not to be confused with the regularly scheduled blended meetings held the first Tuesday of July and August. I am happy to attach the documents you forwarded to the agenda and would again invite you to submit any written comments for Council’s consideration by no later than noon on Thursday August 18. Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225 613-376-6657 (Fax) From: Michelle Foxton [mailto:foxton@personainternet.com] Sent: August-16-16 8:10 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: Labarge Charlie charlie.labarge@gmail.com; Lesperance John & Brenda lesperance2@hotmail.com; Leonard Wade wadel@personainternet.com Subject: Re: Special Council Meeting - August 23rd Hi Wayne, Further to your August 10, 2016 email regarding the above-referenced Special Council meeting, and further to the last line of procedural By-Law 2015-56, which states “During July and August a blended meeting agenda will be used incorporating both delegations and public meetings”, and in the absence of any procedures preventing delegations at a Special Council meeting, we are writing to request that the Hartington Community Association be added as a delegation to the Council Agenda for the August 23rd Council meeting. Charlie Labarge & I would be appearing to speak to the documents attached hereto. Many thanks - Michelle Michelle Foxton & Wade Leonard P.O. Box 130 Hartington, ON K0H 1W0 613-372-0887

Page 69 of 82

August 18, 2016 By E-mail Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0 County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, Ontario K0H 1S0 Attention:

Mayor Vandewal Warden Smith Township and County Councillors

Dear Mayor, Warden, Councillors and County Councillors: Re:

Proposed Hartington Development – Part Lot 7, Concession 7, former Township of Portland, now Township of South Frontenac

Since the initial disclosure of a proposal for a subdivision in the Hartington area, local residents have asked significant questions about a number of issues surrounding this application. Unfortunately, after a very long, arduous and costly process for the community of Hartington, many of these questions remain unanswered and many of the issues raised remain unresolved. These questions and issues are critical to a proper assessment of this matter, yet adequate answers and assurances remain elusive. The most recent communications from Malroz Engineering dated August 9, 2016, raise even further questions: HYDROCARBONS

1. Why does Malroz state “groundwater flow is easterly” at the site of the former gas station (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), yet monitoring wells at the westerly extent of the former gas station property and to the west of the tank location have some of the highest contaminant readings, with MW2 (monitoring well 2) having readings 66 times greater than the acceptable level that is to be introduced in 2017? (Cambium, January 4, 2016, MW1 & MW2)
2. After stating, as indicated above, that “groundwater flow is easterly”, why does Malroz then state “the proposed development site is likely an area of recharge and that groundwater has a downward component” and that “groundwater flow is southerly, away from the Hartington Hamlet” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p 3 & 4)?

Page 70 of 82

2

3. After Malroz stated, as indicated above, that “groundwater has a downward component” in the subject area, why has Mr. Ruland’s recommendations for testing to be conducted on residential wells within a 300m radius of the said former gas station not been implemented?
4. Why does Malroz state they “consider the issue of the gas bar to be adequately addressed” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), when the contamination plume has not yet been delineated to MOECC’s satisfaction?
5. If Malroz “does not consider the former gas station to be a risk to the proposed development” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p2), why do they recommend further testing of wells for PHC, BTEX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), indicative of contamination associated with a rail line or gas bar (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p6)? WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
6. Why has a conceptual model to describe the hydrogeology of the Hartington Aquifer not been developed, in light of the obviously diverse conditions in this area?
7. Why are ASC’s hydraulic conductivity figures, used to determine Karst, based on the mean of only three, closely situated test wells (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3), rather than the data available for all test wells?
8. Why does Malroz state they “do not see substantiated information that the site requires the application of an alternative method of assessing the impact of septic systems” (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p3), yet they recommend at pages 5 and 6 of the same document: a) pre-filtration and disinfection of drinking water systems; b) a staggered well orientation to mitigate mutual well interference; c) each well to be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity; d) that the proponent confirm the concentration of nitrates has not increased; and e) that the individual well assessment plan be clarified to include the evaluation of nitrate and nitrite concentrations, and trends in concentration and impact to potable groundwater supplies?

Page 71 of 82

3 9. If Malroz believes there is adequate water supply at the subject site, why do they recommend the following (Malroz, August 9, 2016, p5 & p6): a) “each well at the proposed subdivision should be assessed by a qualified hydrogeologist for water quality and quantity”; b) “evaluation of mining of the potable water aquifer”; c) production of “conclusions on the sustainability of the water supply aquifer and water quality”; and d) “neighbouring wells and/or nearby wells will be monitored during the [additional] pumping test”? 10. Why has the proponent not been required to conduct proper pump testing, involving the use of holding tanks for the pumped water, during stressed conditions such as the current severe drought? 11. Why does Malroz continue to reiterate and rely on the proponent’s nitrate calculations, which include data from TW12 (test well 12), which is located outside of the proposed, revised site? PLANNING 12. Why has the community received no response to the observations and conclusions of the community’s planner, Mark Dorfman, that the proposed, revised development is outside the boundaries of the Hamlet of Hartington and that the development is premature? SUMMARY 13. Prior to deciding on whether the subject proposal should be supported, why would Council not first require Malroz’s recommended evaluations be completed and the corresponding results be produced? 14. Why has Malroz not referenced in any of their reports the 2007 TROW Western Cataraqui Region Groundwater Study or the February 9, 2010 Report from Frank Crossly at MOECC characterizing the subject area as highly sensitive? 15. Given the amount of uncertainty surrounding the subject proposal, can Malroz, the Township of South Frontenac and/or the County of Frontenac guarantee the residents of Hartington & the surrounding area that they will not suffer any adverse affects to the quantity & quality of their drinking water supply if the proposed development is permitted to proceed?

Page 72 of 82

4 16. In light of the overwhelming volume of materials alerting the municipalities to known issues and risks associated with the proposed development and hydrocarbon contamination in the Hartington area, have the Township and County’s legal advisors provided advice with respect to issues of liability? 17. Why has there been no action taken on the numerous, specific and significant recommendations advanced by expert hydrogeologist, Wilf Ruland? With such fundamental questions still unanswered, we the citizens who will be most affected by your decision ask you, in all conscience, to reject this proposed development. Require the technical experts to first prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no harm will come to us, our children, our land, our livestock, and our livelihoods. The community of Hartington should not be asked or expected to move forward on a “let’s hope this works out” basis. Were your health and safety, or your family’s or your neighbors’, put at such risk, you too would ask for the same due diligence, caution and rigorous consideration that we are asking for. It is far wiser to prevent a tragedy than to attempt to recover from one. Please vote with your conscience and refuse to support this proposal at this time! Sincerely, Charlie Labarge Michelle Foxton John Lesperance on behalf of the Hartington Community cc:

Wade Leonard

Wayne Orr, Township Clerk Jannette Amini, County Clerk Lindsay Mills, Township Planner Joe Gallivan/Michael Otis (interim), County Planner

Page 73 of 82

From: Lindsay Mills Sent: August-18-16 9:02 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Fw: Exp Review Comments Technical Documents Hartington Importance: High

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network. From: Chris Rancourt Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:52 AM To: Lindsay Mills Subject: Exp Review Comments Technical Documents Hartington Hi Lindsay Per request please find attached a copy of our peer review comments and recommendations regarding the additional technical documents provided. Thank you, Chris

Christopher C. Rancourt, M.Sc., P.Geo. Kingston Branch Manager Manager Environmental Services exp Services Inc. t: + 1.613.542.1253 Ext.128 | f: + 1.613.547.3767 | c: + 1.613.985.2703 | e: chris.rancourt@exp.com Suite 315 The Woolen Mill 4 Cataraqui Street Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 CANADA exp.com | legal disclaimer keep it green, read from the screen

Page 74 of 82

Page 75 of 82

Page 76 of 82

Page 77 of 82

Page 78 of 82

From: handen@xplornet.ca [mailto:handen@xplornet.ca] Sent: August-18-16 11:57 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed Hartington Subdivision

Mr. Orr We have written numerous letters outlining our concerns, and they are on record. Our main concerns, as decision time approaches, boil down to the following: What happens if a particular well fails its assessment? Does all subsequent development stop? The conditions as outlined in the latest Malroz report sound like putting the cart before the horse. The uncertainties that lead to these conditions should be resolved, one way or the other, before deciding whether to approve this proposal. Who is liable if this subdivision goes forward and our water supply is either depleted or contaminated? What is the backup plan if this occurs. If possible, pleas acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Hanne and Dennis Saunders 4034 Boyce Road

Page 79 of 82

From: Mike Keene [mailto:keene@fotenn.com] Sent: August-23-16 1:39 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: tgranthomes@gmail.com; doug.prinsen@forefronteng.ca; ‘Paul Johnston’ paul@ascenvironmental.ca Subject: FW: Hartington Water Levels - 2016 Wayne, I asked our Hydrogeologist to provide me with a summary of the well monitoring that has been conducted this summer. Please see the note below and don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. You will note the results of the monitoring are very positive. Mike

MIKE KEENE, MCIP, RPP Manager Policy + Development

The Woolen Mill | 6 Cataraqui Street, Suite 108 | Kingston, ON | K7K 1Z7 T: 613.542.5454 ext. 221 | F: 613.730.1136 fotenn.com

From: Paul Johnston [mailto:paul@ascenvironmental.ca] Sent: August-23-16 1:31 PM To: keene@fotenn.com Cc: tgranthomes@gmail.com; doug.prinsen@forefronteng.ca Subject: Hartington Water Levels - 2016 Mike: We have conducted water level monitoring in test wells TW01, TW02, TW03 and TW04 at the Hartington property. Test Well TW01 was monitored for between June 15 to July 26, 2016. Initial water level reading on June 15, 2016 was 5.13 m below the top of well casing and 6.31 m on July 26, 2016 for a total difference of approximately 1.18 m. Test Well TW02 was monitored between June 15, 2016 and June 28, 2016. Initial water level reading on June 15, 2016 was 6.11 m below top of well casing and 5.56 m on June 28, 2016 for a total difference of -0.55 m (rebounding). Test Well TW03 was monitored between June 28, 2016 and July 26, 2016. Initial water level reading on June 28, 2016 was 7.14 m below top of well casing and 7.76m on July 26, 2016 for a total difference of 0.62 m. Test Well TW04 was monitored for between June 15 to July 26, 2016. Initial water level reading on June 15, 2016 was 6.94 m below the top of well casing and 7.95 m on July 26, 2016 for a total difference of approximately 1.01 m. Test well TW01 water level on August 21, 2013 was 7.4 m below top of casing. August 19, 2014 6.4 m below top of casing. Test well TW02 water level on August 21, 2013 was 7.25 m below top of casing. August 19, 2014 6.7 m below top of casing.

Page 80 of 82

Test well TW03 water level on August 21, 2013 was 6.19 m below top of casing. August 19, 2014 5.7 m below top of casing. Test well TW04 water level on August 21, 2013 was 6.51 m below top of casing. August 19, 2014 5.6 m below top of casing. Basically we have not seen a significant change in the trend of water levels at the Hartington property based on the drought conditions for 2016. Our wells have experienced a rebound of 0. 55 m to a total drawdown of 1.18 metres during the period of monitoring. The water levels in the monitored wells when compared to the data from 2013 and 2014 have not changed dramatically. Water levels were actually measured to be lower in test well TW01 and TW02 in 2013 and 2014. The wells have ample supply to support the proposed development. Furthermore it does not appear that the existing residences have impacted upon the test well water levels either to date. This is to be expected, based on our pumping test data confirming that interference would not be significant to the existing neighbours and vice versa. Therefore, we do not expect the existing neighbours to negatively impact the water supply of the proposed development. I also discussed our preliminary findings with Mr. John Pyke at Malroz indicating that our water levels had changed between 0.5 m to 1.0 m during the height of the drought. I hope this helps and is clear to demonstrate that the proposed development water supply is more than ample to support the 13 lots with no significant interference to existing neighbours. Regards, Paul N Johnston, M.Sc., P. Eng. President ASC Environmental Inc. 491 O’Connor Drive Kingston, Ontario K7P 1J9 tel: (613) 561-7088 email: paul@ascenvironmental.ca

Page 81 of 82

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2016-53 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac at its Special Council Meeting of August 23, 2016 be confirmed.

Execution by the Mayor and the Clerk-Administrator of all Deeds, Instruments and other Documents necessary to give effect to any such Resolution, Motion or other action and the affixing of the Corporate Seal to any such Deed, Instruments or other Documents is hereby authorized and confirmed.

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passage.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 23rd day of August, 2016. Read a first and second time this 23rd day of August, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 23rd day of August, 2016. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 82 of 82

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.