y

/

-^

-T^

;. Th

,s -^

^-.-.

Page 12 of 198

<?

\

Attachment #2 /.’

N, /

^

,6^

/

a-

“\

^.**’ T^

s-^

.^

-^ ^

.L-n- u

i

^

^

t

f

-/r

/

/

^.’> ^

^

/ tV

^

f

^

^

Jf

/

-^r

/

I-’

-^

i..

1»

w

^

!-

^

u Lr’-.r^

^’

^

J'

¥

I

.<J

/

If

f

.-» -.' i

1 »

J

1

t

1

\

Hydro

f-'

r

/

/

w

,ion ^

L

f

Transmission Line

^

<

/ f /. /

^ / ^

J

i

/

t * t .I

A <….-. “-<

*-

.-,JL-

-v-f -Ti

.rf

Ttf-

.I

7^. *

UNIT 12

<

UNIT 13

UNIT 14

/

UNIT 11 UNIT 9

UNIT 15 PARKLAND

/

UNIT 18

UNIT 10

f

UNIT 7

UNIT 16

Existing

UNITS

/

ft

House ‘/

Trail BLOCK 21 UNIT 17

UNIT 6

/

UNIT 5

^

,1

r J

.r

/.

/

UNIT 4

/

/

r

/*’-

^

Existing ^

J J 7,

House

f

i

BLOCK 19£i?

^

I

UNIT 3

+.

?

?i ^

/

f

A

UNIT 2

^

/

y

./

r

f

^

/

^

v .^'

f

\

^

^/

v

/

,f

.c ./=?1 -w

–?. -

‘*

.T

rj .-^

M-~y^ ^

-^

^

S1//

/

,/

0 *

f-

."^

/.

^

^

^5

/

v tr

A / 1 , .^ ‘*.

To Be Severed

To Be Retained

J

r

t

/

f

\

^

^

/ r

\

r

1

/

V

/.

^

UNIT1

!.

r\

t. *.

V\

/

ff

flrf*

^nt

?

f^ »t ^r

.^

\

\

^

^

<u

Dog Lake

H_

0 30 60

120

180

Meters 240

y

Page 13 of 198

ATTACHiVlEIMT#3

Residential Development

Planning Report February 25, 2016

Submitted to:

County of Frort^nac &

Township of South FrontencC

In support of applications for: Plan of Condomim’Lm (Vacant Lsnd) Zoning By-law Amendment A**

Prepared for:

Prepared by: f

Mr. Barry Campbell Kingston. ON K7M 3A9

The Woolen Mill

6 Cataraqui Street. Suite 108 Kingston, ON K7K 127 613.542.5454 www.fotenn.com

Page 14 of 198

r

Environmental impact Study

An Environmental Impact Study (EIS), dated December 9, 2015, was prepared by Ecological Services. Natural heritage constraints were identified for this impact assessment’and include

Significant Woodland, Significant Wildlife Habitat. Significant Habitat of Threatened Species.

The EIS recommends a number of mitigation measures, as follows:

Vegetation removal occur in the fall and winter and no removal of woody material occur between April 15 and July 15;

.

Tree removal be minimized, e.g. through site plan control or site-specific zoni defining building envelopes, and prohibiting land owners from clearing trees and

ng,

shrubs outside of the building envelopes; .

Spring surveys for Gray Ratsnake, birds, reptiles, and amphibians should be conducted;

.

Minimum building setback of 40 metres from the highwater mark; with a 30 metre “no cut” buffer from the high water mark;

.

A landowner’s manual for future residents which describes the natural heritage features of the land as well as stewardship guidelines;

.

Small water channels should be protected with a minimum 30 metre top of bank

setback, although a reduced setback may be appropriate for some locations as confirmed by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority.

For the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement and the South Frontenac Township

Official Plan, there will be no negative impacts to the identified natural heritage features if the recommended mitigation measures are applied.

Hydrogeologxsil Assessment and Terrain Analysis A Hydrogeological Report and Terrain Analysis, dated February 2016, was prepared by BluMetric Environmental in support of the proposed development. This report summarizes the results of an investigation of the geology, physiography and the study of groundwater occurrence, quantity and quality available as well as a Servicing Options Statement. Long-term sustainable yield and potential well interference was evaluated by six-hour discharged tests on six test wells throughout the property, five of which were located within the proposed development. The analysis of the drawdown and recovery data indicated that there is sufficient water supply for the proposed development Chemical analyses found that the groundwater is suitable for domestic supply and that all water supply systems should include treatment systems that include disinfection and pre-disinfection filtration as required by the treatment system designer.

The soil type and overburden thickness of the site is suitable for Class IV sewage disposal systems throughout the subject site. It is noted that some bedrock outcrop and shallow overburden occurs, however the lot sizes are sufficient to ensure adequate placement and setbacks.

Servicing options were considered as well. The nearest municipal water and sewer

infrastructure is located 25 kilometres away from the proposed development. This option is therefore severely impractical. Test wells confirmed that there is suitable groundwater

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 6

Page 15 of 198

quantity and quality to meet the needs of this development. Private water and sewage servicing is the preferred and recommend option for this development. Archaeologicai Assessment

^-^r?hf^!?-9ical^ssessment (sta9es one ancf TWO)- dated May 12, 2015, was prepared by AdamLHerltage’, The assessment ^process^ consisted of a field “inspection: b’ackgrou^d research and field testing of the subject site. No registered archaeologicaFsites weTe’found’to

be resent or in Proximity to the study area and although the potential fo7p7e’-Contact’First Nations artifacts was identified as “moderate to high”;no artifacts were recovered’and

ev’denceo,farchae.ologicalsites was found-11 was recommended by the archaeolog’ist that no

no

further archaeological work need be conducted at this site.

Analysis of Stormwater Management Requirements An Analysis o^Stormwater Management Requirements dated February 4. 2016. was prepared

by-JO!selyn.Engineering,!nc:. in support of the proposed development: The’analysis considered the existing conditions of the subject site. especially the existing watercour:ses

that traverse the site and empty into Dog Lake. The author identified a 30^metre setback requirement for two of the four watercourses on the subject site, and a 6-metre setback for the other two watercourses. Watercourse A crosses Units 5 and 6, and Watercourse B

crosses units 12, 9 and 8. The reduced setbacks are justified given the capacity of the existing

channels to accommodate the 100-year flow without overtopping, therefore the reduced setback would provide adequate protection for these five units. The study noted that the implementation of Low Impact Development Practices, as recommended by the CRCA, will provide adequate quality control for the proposed development. ^ “**

^

I.

v

.»

y.-t

‘^

1^-

^–

Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning th Act and in effect since April 30”\ 2014, provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning. Decisions affecting planning matters “must be consistent with” the policy statements issued under the authority of the Planning Act

The Provincial Policy Statement includes a number of policies relating to community development, housing, infrastructure, heritage, agriculture and mineral resources, water quality and quantity, and public health and safety. Section 1.1.5.1 states that when directing development on rural lands, a planning authority shall apply the relevant policies of Section 1: Building Strong Healthy Communities, as well as the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources, and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety.

Section 1.1.5.2 On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are. a) The management or use of resources,

f

b) Resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dweHings), c) Limited residential de velopment;

d) Home occupations and home industries; e) Cemeteries; and f) Other rural land uses.

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW7 AMENDMENT

Page 16 of 198

The proposed development represents limited residential development, which is permitted in the rural area.

Section 7.7.5.3 Recreational, tourism and other economic opportunities should be promoted. The proposed development includes six waterfront residential units along with common

shared access to the water and parkland for all residents within the proposed development which typically appeal to residents seeking to engage in water-based recreational activities;

Section 1.1.5.4 Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted.

T^? Pr°P°sed development will maintain the rural, picturesque qualities of the landscape by

utilizin9 large lot sizes, large frontages and retaining natural features. Units will be serviced by private septic systems and wells which are appropriate to rural service levels.

Section _ 1.1.5.5 Development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure.

The units will make use of private wells and septic systems. The private roads will be maintained through the condominium corporation which ensures the roads will be

appropriately constructed and maintained for emergency access. The proposed development will not require undue expansion of existing municipal infrastructure. Snow removal will also

be funded by the condominium’s monthly fees while it is anticipated that a garbage receptacle would be constructed along Wellington Street to allow for municipal pick-up.

Section 1.1.5.6 Opportunities should be retained to locate new or expanding land uses that require separation from other uses.

The proposed development is not located

in proximity to any land uses that require

separation.

Section 11.5.7 Opportunities to support a diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural and other resource-reiated uses and directing non-reiated development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses.

According to the Ontario Agriculture Atlas, the subject lands primarily consist of Class 7 soils. Class 7 soils are not suitable for arable culture or permanent pasture. Further, the site consists of rocky slopes and ground with the areas in between tending towards bog-like conditions.

The subject site is located in proximity to two Mineral Deposit Inventory (MDi) items identified in the Township of South Frontenac’s Draft Official Plan, Schedule D - Aggregates.

These two mineral deposit sites are shown on Figure 4, below and have been identified I consultation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). The

in

northernmost MDI site, adjacent to the subject site, has been identified as a lead and barite ^~

occurrence with a galena vein. Another MDI site is located approximately 600 metres south of the subjectthsite, is a hematite occurrence. Records at both of the above MDI sites date to the early 20In century and the MNDM confirmed that no recent work has been done at either of the sites.

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 8

Page 17 of 198

f

t

Legend

^

Mneia!OspT;i: knwafy (MDIf ;G < Alaanoorud Ifuaxi* Mme Mszann (^UIS

1

hwclfteAggmgnte

ff

f

it

V-

Active/.iHfngaie

/

.^^^ i ^^ .’ <

iBmlfDrt D»JI TWei.nBU. 1-e-a uia^ im

^’

N *

?

1

Gravel

^r-r

^\

L…

Send

“^.

-V

r;

h <

-u

-f-

a

T^

..

.*-

SSBER ^

^

.f

.r

^

/- ^

^1

/

^

…”"^ £:’-^ A:

!.

*i

‘‘k, ‘.*’>-

f^.

/

^

!

./ /

/-I

.V-

J\

^

^

I, s.

I

BMmck Orifl Tricl.neit -1 OT an

r

^..r^v

y

\

^/yf’[^i^^ y.

-Pufc.cRudi

r

f-

t

k

^.^^ ?rf;

\

^

.I?

^

N

Sufajec Site

7^

n

. /c

^’

\

^-v^ ;r4^W ^

-*

L.

Htmtei E-)undart6t

T~

-f

^) .. _. \M^

Lot* and d. icetiiom

T-+-fr-

^

t_.^-4L,

in-rctBiunaaws

1

^

p

WalBtttNlus

:Fr.,i|(enBCPHHf1UIParti

.kT

-_-f

.^

^

J

m A^ “^^J ).y ff-^.

r

<

\

^’

A.

f

/

^

<fe-

.i

.’-w^

^S&K^ ^r .F.^^^^ 4i

1

/~

.^

.I

I–

.t~- ^^ ‘^

s .*> -A u

<

^J^r

“^

Section 1.1.5.8 Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses. on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices should be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards.

As noted above, the proposed development is located on soil which is not suitable for

^rLciult:cure. orJ?9riculture~rT.lat9!::l usesl simNarly’the proposed development will not displace or interfere with any agricultural uses.

Section 1.1.5.9 _ New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.

The proposed development exceeds all MDS requirements as it relates to agricultural uses. Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources

Section 2of ePPS contains policies that encourage the protection of natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. The proposed development is consistent with Section 2 in that it: .

Is not expected to compromise local drinking water supplies;

.

Will implement stormwater management practices to minimize stormwater volumes;

.

Is not located on prime agricultural land;

.

Will not preclude or hinder the expansion or continued use of existing mineral mining

.

operations, petroleum operations or mineral aggregate operations; and Will mitigate any impact on natural heritage features and resources.

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMEN Page 18 of 198

Section 2: Protecting Public Health and Safety

Section 3 of the PPS contains policies intended to reduce the potential for public cost or risk

to Ontario’s residents from natural or hunnan-r.ade hazards. The proposed development is consistent with these policies in that: .

No dwellings are proposed on lands that are threatened by flooding or erosion; The nearby Mineral Deposit Inventory sites have been confirmed by Ministry staff to not pose any risk to the proposed development. Therefore, the site is not located on,

abutting or adjacent to lands adversely affected by mine hazards; oil, gas and salt hazards; or former mineral mining operations, mineral aggregate operations- or petroleum resource operations.

Based on this review of the PPS with respect to proposed residential development in rural

areas,_it is our opinion that the proposed low density residential development is consistent with the policies described by the Provincial Policy Statement as set out under the authority of the Planning Act.

County or Frontenac Official Plan

The County of Frontenac Official Plan was adopted by County Council on October 29, 2014. It was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in January 2016 and came into force as of February 2. 20"16- As an upper tier-municipality, the County of Frontenac OP

detail high-level goals, objectives and policies for the four constituent’municipalities (the

Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac. and North Frontenac). The County is the approval authority for all Plan of Condominium applications within its

jurisdiction.

Section 3 - Growth Management 3.3.3.4 Special Policies - Waterfront Areas

3.3.3.4.2 Goal - The overall goal of this Plan is to improve and protect the waterfront areas in Frontenac County as a significant cultural, recreational, economic, and natural environment resource and to maintain or enhance the quality of the land areas adjacent to the shore. The proposed development will include enhanced setbacks as detailed in the Environmental Impact Study to ensure that the waterfront areas are protected. 3.3.3.4.3 Objectives

(2) To permit shoreiand development that allows for sustainable growth of existing and new tourist developments and innovative and appropriatefy designed new residential developments;

The use of Vacant Land Condominium for shoreline development is generally innovative i

in

contrast with traditional plans of subdivision and, in the proposed large-lot configuration, appropriate given the surrounding context. The use of Condominium roads ensures a quality

level of access to one’s property without increasing the servicing requirements of the

Township.

(5) To ensure that the built form along a shoreline is not overly concentrated or dominating to the detriment of the natural form;

The smallest size of the proposed shoreline units is 1.11 hectares and the minimum frontage proposed is 91 metres. The low concentration of waterfront units combined with their large size ensures that the built form is not overly concentrated or dominating to the detriment of the natural form.

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Page 19 of 198

(S^^afn^!n!. enhance and/or restore the majority of the developed and undeveloped

shorelines in their natural state by promoting property stewardship;

^e-EIS-recommends.that a lan^"^ ^ be-provided-to-all future residents of the development. The landowner’s guide will include stewardshTpguideiines’.

(7LTOPreserve and enhance fish and w"d"fe habitat 3reas and other natural heritage features that are within and along Water front Areas.

Lhe.EIS ^ade r8commendations to ensure that wildnfe habitat and other natural heritage !e-a^TS.-on?e.?ite win be Protected- Recommendations from the EIS regardingi setbacks

will

be incorporated into the proposed zoning. 3.3.3.4.4 Policies

0. The character of Waterfront Areas is linked to the natural and built form that is associated

w!th.the,!akes,.3nd.rivers in the. county- Genera/ty the natural form includes “vegetated shorelin^ “’th thin soils over bedrock. The built form is predominated “by reMential deyelop^nt eluding resorts and ^rinas. In this context, ne» ~ develop^

redevelopment occurring in the Waterfront Areas should, where possible enhance and

protect those qualities that contribute to the area’s character,

or

The proposed development consists of residential dwellings on large lots, consistent with the neighbouring residential lots and therefore the existing built form’ Enhanced setbacks” from the high water mark will also be provided to ensure further protection of the natural fo

rm.

(6) Tree cover and vegetation is encouraged to be retained along the shoreline to maintain

the visual and env,ronmental integrity of Waterfront Areas. Where development is proposed along shorelines. Township Official Plans should contain policies relating ’to the preservation of a natural undisturbed buffer between the water’s edge and new development,

A 40-metre setback from the high watermark will be incorporated into the proposed zoning by-law, which will include a 30-metre “no-cut” buffer intended to maintain the visual and

environmental integrity of the waterfront.

(7) To maintain the shoreline character and water quality. Township Official Plans and Zoning

By-laws shall require that:

a’ For new lot creation’ buildings and structures, including the septic system tHe field, must be

set back at /east JO metres (100 feet) from the ordinary high water marks of all waterbodies with non-disturbance of the native soils and very limited shoreline removal.

A 40-metre setback from the high watermark will be incorporated into the proposed zoning by-law, which will include a 30-metre “no-cut” buffer. The 30-metre buffer will not permit any disturbance of the native soils or to the shoreline.

Section 7 - Environmental Sustainability

Section 7 of the County Official Plan contemplates goals, objectives and policies relating to sustainability, the protection of the natural environment and water resources, and protection from hazard lands. Subsection 7.1.4.3 - Significant Wildlife Habitat’ details policies dealing with the protection of significant wildlife habitat Subsection 7.1.4.5 - Endangered and

Threatened Species’ defines policies relating to the conservation of endangered and

threatened species in Frontenac County. Subsection 7.1.4.6 - Significant Woodlands’ details policies intended to protect woodlands that are identified as significant. The EiS identified tha number of natural heritage features along with mitigation measures to ensure the resources are appropriately protected i.e. increased shore line setbacks. Further analysis will be required to determine if any endangered and threatened species inhabit the site.

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMEN Page 20 of 198

Based on this review of the County Official Plan with respect to the proposed development. it is our opinion that the proposed low density residential development conforms to the Countv

Official Plan.

Township of Souih Frontenac Official PSan

The Townshigth of^ South Frontenac Official Plan was adopted by Township Council on

^?}T^ber 5* ’ ?^°^lt-^s APProved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

(MMAH) on April 30, 2002. by the Ontario Municipal Board on November 25. 2003 an’dtext Amendments were again approved by the MMAH on May 23, 2013. Schedule A of the Township Official Plan indicates that the lands are designated’Rural’. rt.

F

^^

• /”

/

A,*..’^.'^

.a:v

A. Prf~1^'^

h

1-f / tf

1-.

^.H;LJ.H."< .N.

^

.fMA.. -.i,.?f_^rk;;

.\

1-. A

r-i

,

±’

.;

.^r .)~i;

^

^- ^

“F TAJ.’- ^ .- -,

/

^

‘oi\r

3

• IT ^

h’rlL-:^, -,,.-:CATL -. J

h:;’ Vs

.|T:IF.- .’.f.F^

f

<.

TR

y

1

\

A ^

^. -. V;

,tl

s.

^ J. f

4^ ^f

^.

-.V

.^1 ^-

^

L-. .*

J

.-”’ >

/’

/

v i -^p

‘"^-

m

^s^”

^

w.”

^. ‘.»

»

,^’

If

»

«*.

If

.<

^.i

I**

\

s:

SSSSS’^ .~^^M(.^,-^-’^ ^

^.”-,

<.

“-o^N /

, < ^-’’

f! 1>

‘.^

“fc “.»

^.

r

-<’

.^} ‘<.

..*’

t.

.y^

.f

£/^

^

/-< ^

*K

y J^-,

~*

-A' ,’..”,^^3'

f.

r

.*

0^

1^

t ,-<J

*~

f

-L

il

^/-

“<

.KffV'

t~ & ;

.>

Si f

‘^

^

1k,

-/>s

^* +

<

f/’

‘rf.

/

^

»..^

‘-«, Ir *

*~’?o

3- ;

UL.

WO If-~

.s.

lj»«

\

:>s. .*

.<

^.’ f

If

/

<T-

\

,Aa

/

1^ % f

/ .^» /

f “v,

^^’

^^

/

‘..

?1.L-sTU

f. if,

,*

.-

“. …ar:’ r-’…N:;

^

jr^

»

.-,

‘f,

y

–*

t ks. ^ v%

\

4* . f

.fc-1

/

^

^

!- h m

/

r

“X

s

\

/

L

.* /

<

^

y

^ .^~\

^

."<J^

1

Y

/^ ^

I

*»

;

fc.

/

^ II

,/’

.>

.».

.*

/

^

./.^. f

‘^ n^

f ^

**

<.

\

ihn

I:

+/

/

^.-A

0

1

^’

s»

^

^

f’

V”

ItavlidnunnuiuFr;, mnwnlul PrBtnellan CiiBnito^ ft* \

^

^

/

*»

Jrf .^;»

/

d”

^t.’

‘!

^

I

i

f

*,

*.

f

f

-,

t

.^^./: ~^ ^aa u*

‘^..^.f^ 5;

-nK^-^

1 .*

• ..f.-^ 1

‘,

^

J

/

1

^

*’

*^,

-^.A

^\

f

Is

/ c

./

~^ ^

^

v

<tc

-n

^

/

^

f-

‘-I/”

S-’

/’

f

<

‘!”

/

r

^

*,

.:-^^-..,.>sr “^ c- ^

^^

<

f

.>. J’

/

n

» 3’-

/

u0

rt

4

1*1

1^1*»^

—^

u^if \u

.^ *

^*

.^.

»

^ f^-

4f

»»a

<.

.*^.

F
I

?^'

^

/

km”

I

/

.\

-*N

F

f

n r

<

/

^

.b

v

f.^..^; ^ .^

*t

^ 4

t

v

V-:

Jtf* f

:^ya

tf

v

L. ‘. I F.Y

‘D;-nl ;.i

^

/;-.< -’/

Htrf

b ;Ul,;’,\R’r-

• • • . i:l Xl .-’.J’.

… ‘. ..‘L

^

*. -» .f I-

^

’ 1,.:F’.-L

^- y-

^ .‘ir. t\

/

/ 1ft .X-

t

w.

^1~*^L^ , ^ .tv

E’’.j

.‘ET-.E-C,’ AI.EA-

^

.^

r

,‘y

1

Y \

;^-

/

-T^-^-;

. : 1 ,-KF T^;.;;

/ TA CF ; 1FL.TI 2E -»

r

IM^»

/~

I*

if ^>,

I \i LA .” .

ij

&’~s

A

.-, - .~’^i. i,1UL '

^

‘-"» * ^

:c’.!i

^ Lr

;-’? p[

L^

./

Section 2 - Vision

Section 2.2 interpretation of Vision Statement… “rural character” …Other factors which define

the community as being rural include: large, uncrowded residential lots; private water and septlc systems; mixture of woodlands, bush, agricultural fields and open landscapes…

The proposed development consists of residential condominium units, equivalent to lots, with a minimum area of 1.01 hectare at a gross density of 0.55 units per hectare, on private water

and septic systems. The development also incorporates Common Elements open space which is intended to be kept in its natural state of woodland and bush. The proposed development exemplifies the Township’s vision of rural character.

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Page 21 of 198

Section 5 - Land Use Policies Section 5.2 Environmental Protection

The, g!nera"ntent ofsection 5-2 is to preserve the Township’s natural heritage systems

as

^l^to^Ti!!?,=residents.fronr! natural hazards. Given that the proposed development

IS

located on a shoreline, consideration has been given to the following policies^ 5.2.7 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

b) Policies for Development and Site Alterations Adjacent to Lakes and Rivers

The policies^ of this section apply to all lakes and rivers. except where they conflict

with the policies detailed in Sections 5.2.8 of this Plan for Lake Trout Lakes. i) AH lands within 90 metres (295 feet) of the highwater mark of all lakes and rivers which are not designated Environmental Protection are included as EnvfronmentaHy Sensitive Areas. Where development and site alterations are proposed in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, it is the intent of this Official Plan

that ail buildings, campsites and structures not related to the use of the water and all sewage disposal system leaching beds be well set back from the

highwater mark. More specifically, a minimum setback of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the highwater mark shall apply but greater setbacks may be required depending on conditions specific to individual sites. Vegetation within the

setback area should be disturbed as little as possible consistent with pedestrian passage, safety, provision of views and ventilation. When

considering views and ventilation, it is intended that only selective, minor tree

cutting and trimming occur. The soil mantle within the setback area should not be altered. These measures are intended to minimize environmental and visual

lake impacts by reducing phosphorous inputs, preventing erosion and by maintain a natural appearance of the shorelines. No commercial or clear-cut

logging shall be permitted within 90 metres of the high water mark of all lakes and rivers or on lands sloping towards lakes within the Township. ii) In implementing subsection (s), it Is intended that.

f

1. On lots created subsequent to the approval of this plan and having steep slopes, minimal woody vegetation cover, thin soils and/or soils with poor phosphorous retention capabifity, setbacks of 90 metres (295 feet) may be required.

The proposed lot size and layout has been assessed by an ecologist and a hydrogeologist. All

lots have been designed with these criteria in mind. In general terms a minimum 40-metre high watermark setback, which will include a 30-metre buffer where no disturbance is

permitted has been recommended. Some greater setbacks are also provided on some of the lots to address matters related to steep slopes and thin soil cover. c) Prior to constructing, funding or supporting public projects, such as municipal road

or drainage works on land within or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas

including lake trout lakes. Council shall consult with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or agents to determine what design requirements, if any, are necessary to eliminate or

mitigate adverse effects on the environmental feature or fake trout habitat including water quality requirements.

It is anticipated that the proponent will comply with any design requirements or mitigation measures identified as being absolutely necessary by the relevant Ministries.

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 13

Page 22 of 198

Section 5.7 Rural

!t i-s?e9ener<?1 intent of section 5-70f the op that residential development be encouraged to

locate in Settlement Areas. Limited residential development may be permitted withTn “the Rural area so as to provide for a variety of dwelling types for residents. New residential

developments must be appropriately separated from incompatible agricultural areas; ex.tng and proposed waste disposal, miner^ extraction sites and resource areas, natural-he^age areas, and natural hazards. Section 5.7.4 (ii) describes the following policies, which must be addressed, when considering residential development in the rural area:

a} …As a rule, the minimum lot size shall be 0.8 hectares (2 acres) with 76 metres (250 feet) of frontageon a pubHc road for non-waterfront lots and 7 hectare (2.5: acres) ‘with “76 metres (250 feet) of Vantage on a public road and 91 metres (300 feet) of water frontage for waterfront lots. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overall intent of the Plan is maintained.

Section 7.3 describes the Vacant Land Condominium policies. These policies require that new condominium units comply with Section 5.7.7 ‘Limited Service Residential Policies’ related to lot size and frontages, which are generally larger than the requirements found in Section 5.7.4 and noted above. Sections 5.7.7 and 7.3 are discussed in detail, below.

b) Rural residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary sewage disposal systems approved by the appropriate authority.

All lots will be serviced by individual well and septic systems and will be assessed by the

appropriate approval authorities. The proposed units have been designed so as to accommodate both primary and alternative septic tile beds.

c) New lots for rural residential purposes should be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with lot creation policies included in Section 7 of this Plan. …Any proposal

which woujd create more than three new lots (three plus a retained) from a lot existing on

the day of adoption of this Plan shaff only be considered by plan of subdivision.

The Units in a Vacant Land Condominium are vacant plots of land upon which dwellings can be constructed once the Plan of Condominium is registered. In this way, a Vacant Land Condominium is functionally nearly identical to a Plan of Subdivision. The primary difference is the shared ownership of common elements, such as roads, pathways and open space. d) Al! new rural residential lots shaH have pubfic road frontage.

The subject lands front on the north side of Wellington Street, The proposed residential units will front onto private condominium roads under the common ownership of the condominium corporation, which will provide access to Wellington Street. Further to the above, limited sen/ice residential development is intended to be located in the

Rural areas of the Township adjacent to water bodies or water courses, where primary access is from a private road or navigable waterway. The following development policies, described in Section 5.7.7 (ii) must be addressed when considering limited service residential development and a plan of condominium in the rural area:

a) As a rufe, the minimum lot size shall be 7 hectare (2.5 acres) with a minimum of 91 metres

(300 feet) of water frontage and 76 metres (250 feet) offrontage on a private road. The municipality may consider reductions to the minimum lot size and frontage requirements provided the overaii intent of the Plan is maintained.

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Page 23 of 198

The minimum lot size in the proposed development is 1.01 hectares, the

minimum water

f^ta9els.9lmetres’.and the minimum Private road frontage is 76 metres. No’roductio^ the above-noted requirements is being sought for the proposed development.

b) ^L^.t^n,.^L^P.to ^ maximum ‘ot \three, new fim’ted service residential lots per fandho!ding,exlsting,on the day ofad°Ption of this Plan may’be “permitted’by’consent,

in

The^proposed ^developnnent is seeking the creation of 18 - resident units, therefore

a

accordance with the General Consent policies of Secdon 7 of this Plan.

severance would not be permitted. A Plan of Vacant Land Condominium is the mechanism that has been selected for land division in the proposed development.

c) fllT^cfS. fo^new waterfront l^ed service residential lots may be permitted on ne w/y

created private roads provided the new private road intersects with’anm existing’publfc road and is designed and constructed in accordance with Township standard^for

private roads.

new

,rhe.propos(?c? devebPment is not seeking any severances. The condominium corporation wi

b^r.sponsjble for the routine majntenance (e.g. snow plow,ng) and periodk:-upkeep’(o:g: road repair) of the private roads. The private roads will also be designed and constructed accordance with Township standards.

in

d) Limited service residential development shall be serviced by private water and sanitary

se wage disposal systems. Such systems shall be approved by the appropriate authority. The proposed development will be serviced by individual private well andseptic systems, in accordance with the OP. The appropriate approval authorities will assess the servicing for each unit.

e) Limited service residential development shall be designed to preserve as much as possible a site’s physical attributes, such as tree coverage, varying topography, scenic views, etc, for the benefit of future residents.

The proposed development incorporates three common, element open spaces, which are intended to preserve and protect the natural beauty and physical attributes of the site. Tree coverage and varying topography will be maintained on a large open space in the northwest corner of the site, with an area of 3.11 hectares. Two smaller open spaces on the waterfront, with areas of 0.14 hectares and 0.23 hectares, will ensure that all future residents will have access to the stunning scenic views of Dog Lake. f) Limited service residential development shall be developed in accordance with the applicable policies of Section 5.2 of this Plan.

Please see above for a detailed discussion of how the proposed development relates to the policies of Section 5.2.

g) Where communal docking facilities are proposed, such facilities shall be located a suitable

distance, generaf/y 60 metres (196.8 feet), from the nearest residential use, residential land use designation or residential zone.

No communal docking facilities are proposed for the subject site.

h) Where an existing limited service residential lot or a lot created by consent of the

Committee of Adjustment for limited service residential purposes subsequent to the date

of approval of this P/an fronts upon a private road or unassumed public road, a building

permit may be issued for the erection of a building or structure providing the applicant

enters into an agreement with the Township which is to be registered on title. This agreement is to indicate:

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDME Page 24 of 198

1) that the owner recognizes that the lot is located on a private road which is not snowplowed or in any other way maintained by the Township. 2) that the disposal of garbage, snowpfowing and any other road maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner; and

3. that the Township assumes no liability in the event that emergency vehicles are not able to access the lot because ofimpassable road conditions.

There are two existing residential lots that will be surrounded by the proposed development. These two lots will gain access to the private roads maintained by the condominium corporation that provide a linkage to Wellington Street Section 7 Division of Land

7 7.7 Special severance Policies - Shallow and Narrow Bodies of Water

Notwithstanding anything in this P/an to the contrary, no lot with waterfrontage shall be approved adjacent to a narrow waterbody unfess the water frontage is at least 150 metres (492 ft.) in order to ensure safe boating and swimming conditions, to avoid an

overdeveloped appearance in a consthcted area and to help ensure a reasonable

separation between residential uses. A narrow waterbody is an area where the

minimum general distance from shoreline to shoreline is 150 metres (492 ft.) for a lake and 50 metres (164 ft.) for a nver. Guidelines for measuring narrow waterbodies are included in Appendix ‘B’.

Unit _1 is a waterfront lot with 91 metres of waterfrontage along a small inlet of Dog Lake which meets the criteria noted above for a narrow waterbody. The intent of this policy is to ensure that newly created lots on narrow waterbodies do not contribute to unsafe boating conditions, give the appearance of overdeveiopment, or create an unreasonable separation between residential uses. Unit 1 is located between two existing lots and is maximizing the available waterfrontage at this location. It is therefore an existing condition and not one that is being newly created as a result of lot creation.

7.3 General Policies for Plans of Condominium (Vacant Land with Common Elements) a) Development of land by plan of condominium shall be required when the creation of individual units and common areas within a single lot, is proposed. The proposed development consists of one lot with 18 individual units, three common elements open spaces and one common elements private road. b) The proposed plan of condominium shall be at a scale which is compatible with the existing or anticipated scale of development in the area.

The surrounding area is characterized by rural residential development with some minor agricultural development nearby. The proposed development will surround two existing lots on Dog Lake and will be at a scale comparable to the larger of the two existing lots. The provision of generous unit sizes, large frontages. retained woodlands and natural waterfront area is therefore reflective of the scale and character which is well-established in the area.

c) Existing public access roads shall have the capability to support the additional traffic loads anticipated from the proposal. Where upgrading and additional maintenance may be required, the Municipality will assess the financial impact of these additional expenditures and may levy charges or request a contribution from the developer to offset these costs. All development shall occur on a common element private lane that is maintained through the condominium corporation. Access to the subject site is provided by Wellington Street, which is anticipated to have

sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMEN

Page 25 of 198

development All proposed units will front onto condominium roads, which elements that will be maintained by the condominium corporation. d) New condominium units shaH comply with the minimum lot

are common

areas and frontages

out/!ned/nsect/on5'7'7 c//? ofthis p]an: Reductions .to ’these’ generaTrequirem^s maybe, cons!dered ‘Provided they are justified through the ~condominiu7n"appf:o’val

pmcess.andprovidedtheyarebased on900d land use Planning principles’For greater certainty, all units shall be supported by a sufficient areaoHand’sothat

a

pw3te..we"fwwaterwpply can be.located without dan9er of contamination’by

the^esystem^so^tasenous^^nof^un^te^eis^a^

t^^^<iy^°!.th?..{ot.itseff.c^n be avofded- An application for a phvatefy

serv!cedptan °^- shall be.cco^anie^y. . detaHed ^rogeola^

^udyand.suchother anafysis as.is required in ^o^ance with ^n^try’oTthe En^ment gu.del.nes, all af ^ich shall be prepared by a ^lified professional and satisfactory to the Hunidpafity.

^,l,t4-<?Lt^T-u^ltLT-tt1e,Sr?!:?o!fid develoPment meet the lot area and frontage requirements

outlined in Section 5.7.7 (ii). No reductions are being sought to accomr.odate the proposed development.

e) AH. afDPIications for condominium development shall be accompanied by a preliminary stormier ^nager.ent/drainage plan prepared by . ^fied professional and satisfactory to the municipality.

An_ Analysis of _ Stormwater Management Requirements has been prepared by Josselyn Engineering, This report recommends measures to mitigate impacts from the- proposed developmemand improve existing drainage conditions throughout the site, protect home owners from flooding, protect Dog Lake, and mitigate impacts during construction.

f) Condominium units shall have access to an interior common elements private lane,

engineered and constructed to meet or exceed the Township’s standards for new private _ lanes. A_ higher standard of lane construction may be required by the Township based on the scale of the development and/or conditions that would

adversely affect the quality of the lane construction. Nothing in the aforementioned shalf be construed as encouraging access to existing roads. All of the proposed condominium units shall have access to one of two proposed common

elements condominium roads. The roads shall be designed and constructed to meet the Township’s requirements for private roads.

g) As many trees as possible shall be preserved as part of the development, particularly mature and healthy stands of trees and reforestation shall take place where appropriate.

The proposed development will seek to preserve as many trees as possible, on the understanding that a certain degree of tree removal will be required in order to accommodate the proposed development. According to the Environmental impact Statement

(EIS) those portions of the site’s woodlands adjacent to the waterfront are significant and

provide significant wildlife habitat. In order to prevent and mitigate any negative impacts, the

following mitigating measures are recommended:

.

All buildings and septic beds will be located in order to maximize setback distances and prevent erosion impacts; and The removal of any living tree greater than eight inches in diameter at breast

height (DBH) within 40 metres of the waterfront will be prohibited by the condominium agreement. Any trees knocked over by blowdown can be removed.

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMEN Page 26 of 198

h) Topography and/or vegetation shall be maintained and augmented to create an appropriate or desirable environment and buffering may be requested to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

The EIS recommended a minimum setback of 40 metres from the Dog Lake waterline in order to ensure a^O-metre buffer. All proposed development shall be constructed per the proposed setback.

i) Plans of _ condominium shall be designed to allow for the appropriate integration of the subject land with the adjacent lands. The subject land shall front onto a fully maintained public road and any newly-created private fane on the subject land

shall gain its access directly from the public road.

The subject lands front onto Wellington Street, a public road. Two private condominium roads will provide access to Wellington Street from each unit within the site.

j) The proposed development shall be appropriatefy served by existing levels of municipal services such as fire protection, police protection and school facilities.

Additional services shall be provided by the Condominium Corporation including communal garbage facilities at the public road. The corporation may be required to enter into an agreement with a private firm for the provision of these services.

Any proposal requiring substantial upgrading to existing municipal services wiii generally not be permitted unless it is determined by the Hunicipaiity and any pertinent agencies to be appropriate.

Existing garbage and snow removal are currently provided by the municipality on Wellington

Street. A communal garbage facility for residents of the condominium will be established at

Wellington Street and internal snow removal will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation. Therefore, the proposed development can be serviced by existing levels of municipal services.

k) The Municipality shall enter into a condominium agreement with the owner in accordance with the Planning Act and Condominium Act as a condition of final approval of a plan of condominium. This agreement will set out the internal and external services and obligations that shall be required of the developer and will specify the necessary financial securities required by the Municipality to ensure that conditions of approval are fulfiiied.

The applicant is prepared to enter into a condominium agreement. I) The developer shall provide background information satisfactory to the Municipaiity demonstrating the appropriateness of the location for the plan of condominium. This information shall include a hydrogeologlcal study (as noted above [sic] and may include drainage studies, traffic impact studies and environmental impact statements.

A Hydrogeological Study was prepared which indicates that the quality and quantity of grouncfwater, as well as the general soil conditions of the site, can accommodate the proposed development. A Stormwater Management Analysis is also provided which

recommends best practices for managing surface runoff. An Environmental Impact Study was also prepared, which recommends measures for mitigating environmental impacts to the site. m) Plans of condominium shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the general intent of this Plan.

The proposed Vacant Land Condominium describes units which are comparable in size and quality to adjacent areas. The development will also protect the significant natural features of

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Page 27 of 198

the site which will result in a development which is consistent with the rural and natu

ra

character of the area.

n) A cultural heritage resource assessment and/or an archaeological assessment be^required..for any,,fands to be developed. The assessment " and recommendatlons. for the “-^” of s.gn.fic.nt cultural hent^e sources

may any

ic!^t!!!^^r^h..th,eas.ses.sms?nt may be acond^ion of condominium approval

and may be included in the final agreement with the con^n^n corpora^n. A,stage,’l~2 Archaeological Assessment has been completed. Yherec’o’mmendat’ionrof’the Archaeological Assessment are that no further archaeological work needs"tobe"co’nducted on the site due to the absence of any artifacts or signs of historical habitation;

o) Where units in a plan of condominium are created that front onto or are accessed

bye coupon elements pr^te l.ne ^,nt,,n^ t,y ^ con^n,ur. corporation. a ^nspe^t ^ only ^ iss.ed far ^ erection at . ^n, ar^^re providing the applicant enters into an agreement with the Township’whichis’tobe registered on title of the subject property. This agreement is to indicate:

f

1. That the owner recognizes that the lot is located on a private lane which is not snowpfowed or in any other way maintained by the Township.

2. That the disposal of garbage, snowplowing and any other road maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner; and

3. That the Township assumes no fiabffity in the event that emergency vehicles are not able to access the lot because ofimpassabie road conditions.

The applicant is prepared to enter into such an agreement.

p) The specific provisions of the Planning Act and the Condominium Act relating to

plans of condominium shall apply in addition to the policies set out in this Plan. A Vacant Land Condominium is a form of condominium ownership found in the Condominium

Act, 1998. Per Section 155(1), it cannot apply where any unit is located above or below any

other unit Further, no building or structure can be constructed prior to the registration of the condominium plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Condominium Act in this regard, as units are located on either side of one another and buildings and structures will only be constructed after plan registration.

The sections of the Planning Act which describe the approval process of a plan of subdivision application (Sections 51, 51.1 and 51.2) also apply to a plan of condominium application. The

Planning Act prescribes information that must be provided by the applicant to the approval

authority. The Draft Plan of Condominium enclosed includes items (a) through (I) as defined in Section 51(17).

According to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, in considering a plan, regard shall be had to

the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the

present and future inhabitants of the municipality. The proposed development conforms to these considerations as it .

is consistent with matters of provincial interest;

.

conforms to the policies of the Official Plan; is suitable for the subject lands; is accessible via an existing public road; conserves the site’s natural resources;

. . . .

does not require the expansion of municipal services.

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Page 28 of 198

Section 51.1(1) of the Planning Act addresses parkland dedication requirements. As discussed

below, the proposed Common Elements open space meets the requirements of the Planning

Act.

q) The Township is entitled to and will require a dedication ofparkfand or cash-sn-lieu ofparkland under the terms provided in the Planning Act While the proposal provides over 3 hectares of open space it is intended for the use of the

condominium. As such, cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed to satisfy this requirement.

Based on this review of the Township Official Plan with respect to the proposed development, it is our opinion that the proposed low density residential development conforms to the policies of the Plan.

Township of South Frontenac Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned Rural (RU) by Zoning By-law 2003-75.

^ .I

-t. <.,

-*-.

-L’.a? <*L

ra-.

^

4

r’

^

a-

.^-

^ <^ V*

/-

^

9

^-

f

»

^

/V7

» -»*-

s

^

^

r^–,

Legend

A^ ^
-)t.,^3t^ ^ I;

. *.

^

‘il

.I.

r-ff'1^

“^ /.

1

‘f

^

JH!^1-V vf

.;

,^>

-.y -a

^ _. I T

-*

f

^^ -^

“d

^

.1^

^1

f*

^

J> s

/-^-

Limited Service Residential (RLS1 a

I

^

¥

Rural (RU) ||

V…

->

T ^-~B- ^

f

ii

SubjectSite [~~]

1

^.

^

F^

k^.

Limited Service Residential WaterfronttRLSWI

a

‘&.=:

Open Space Public(OSl[’_]

<

‘. .*

^

“t

<-k ^-.

/

Recreational Resort ]i Commercial (RC)’-I

.}
d

I-I

Residential (R) I_1 ~i3J,^.’: i’ T

^r

1

f-‘S:-;;?C;FS

^-

^-1.

;’. F-0:."^.

<

c c’;,

t-

‘;..£

r

^

^ ^

The proposed zoning for the site will consist of two zones for the residential units, Limited Service Residential (RLS) and Limited Service Residential Waterfront (RLSW). The Common Elements open spaces are to be zoned Open Space Private (05P). The Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis prepared by BluMetric includes a plan showing the proposed locations of building envelopes (20 metres x 20 metres) and both primary and alternative septic bed locations.

PLANNING REPORT I DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 2

Page 29 of 198

1) *

< f

V

^ ^ f *

}

/ TV

^

/-

^

a-”

^

f

/

fr

. 1L f. .»

*t

//

» f

*’

t .’-.

I

^

<w’S

-’-*

jl

.,Cv

^

w ‘…’

»

/. ./.

L

T

i

L£G-::3

.**. ‘.”-

.7^– ‘-> ^

I

^ Existing Well

*’

Proposed Well Primary Septic Alternative Septic

k y

^»u.

Potential Building Envelope

n-t

k

1 ^^ ^

r;*

^ ^

E ;.

t

0^

} ^ /

^ ^ ~-

i^

^

L

Distance from (m) Unit

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Object

Dog Lake

Water Course

septic

65

33

build envelope

44

47

septic

NA

NA

build envelope

NA

NA

septic

AM

32

build envelope

AM

NA

septic

NA

52

build envelope

NA

35

septic

NA

66

build envelope

NA

31

septic

40

19.8

build envelope

43

36

septic

NA

NA

build envelope

NA

NA

septic

41

49

build envelope

42

32

septic

NA

47

build envelope

AM

42

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Page 30 of 198

10 n 12 13-18 t

^.1,

1 I

septic

61

NA

build envelope

47

AM

sept! c

97

AM

build envelope

58

NA

septic

91

NA

build envelope

51

NA

septic

NA

NA

NA

build envelope V.

^^. T ;v. T

Cl’^.

f,-:..^n, .-.i L— _ . 1 - -w/ *LI

.-

i-

NA ^*. <^

^

-i.-‘10;

-Oi

. ‘. i~

n.

.i

.w ^”

f-

• ._ . J

I-UL nrea (.mm.;

o.uuu sq. rneires

iu,uuu sq. men

Lot Frontage (min.)

76 metres

76 metres

7’

Front Yard (min.)

20 metres

20 metres

7

Rear Yard (min.)

0 metres

10 metres

7

Interior Side Yard (min.) Exterior Side Yard (m in.) Lot Coverage (max.)

3 metres

3 metres

7

20 metres

20 metres

7

10%

10%

y

Building Height (max.) Gross Floor Area (min.) Off-street Parking

1 metres

11 metres

7

59 sq. metres

59 sq. metres

7

2 spaces per unit

2 spaces

7

Private Lane Setback

5 metres

5 metres

^

Highwater Mark Setback

30 metres

40 metres

7

ca

v

Amendment to exceed

Fop of Bank Setback t ..

;.’! -’-.~.’li-C -.^

^

.’^ -^

15 metres fi -

\I.I

‘i’ET.^tjr-

requirements y

15 metres (:

I

ci

-X’’

I-UL mca ^.i nil ,)

iu,uuu sq. metres

iu,uuu sq

Lot Frontage (min.)

76 metres

76 metres

7

Water Frontage (min.)

91 metres

91 metres

7

Front Yard (min.)

30 metres

30 metres

^

Rear Yard (min.)

10 metres

10 metres

7

Interior Side Yard (min.)

3 metres

3 metres

7

Exterior Side Yard (min.)

10 metres

10 metres

7

Gross Floor Area” (min.)

59 sq. metres

59 sq. metres

7

Lot Coverage (max.) Building Height (max^)

5%

5%

7

11 metres

11 metres

^

icLies

v

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 22

Page 31 of 198

stback from highwatei

30 metres

40 metres

7

2 spaces per unit

mark or floodline of a body of water (min.)

ai

ing

,ane Setback

2 spaces

^

netres

5 metres

^

30 metres

40 metres

^

0

ghwater Mark Setback

Amendment

3p of Bank Setback

3

to exceed requirement c

metres

15 metres

?»

ry^ fc<-~-^

f y

J*n’

J>

1 f,

/. t, v

:?

^-

rt

<1 Ik

/.

*; <

.-^*5Se^

i^imKSS^.i~. -2 -14

.r^s

^

1r

^ .A

^

~^

.^

^

f*. H -^’

K It s

15

N

^

/

I?

4 T

y

A jl

.f

Legend

^

^

/ .f ‘^t. n

i

^T?/^

rys^

^.

,v

n

.^ 4

-x

1

c

St ‘.^ 1*^* .F

/

r

v^.

Rural tRU) I|

/

/* I

.-’”

I

^

J-

J^

SubjectSite j-\

“v ^

:. ^A.1

Limited Service Residential (RLS)

I

^

^.

/

c^,

a

Limited Service Residential

.-.

Waterfront(RLSW)

.J

Open Space Private (OSPJ .^

^.

<^..*.

«r1-I

/^

i 1

Open Space Public (OS) Recreational Resort Commercial (RC)

/ 1.

-t

-EG ./..’.:- …- ‘:

^ ^

f

I_

^ ^…J^>

:;,.l. .,(.:. .,J

‘~^,

‘.‘ros.:

f”, ^

Residential (R)

a

i.)‘‘C-

The proposed Site Specific zones ‘RLS-X’ and ‘RLSW-X’ do not require any relief from the

provisions described in the parent Zoning By-law. The site-specific RLS zone is seeking an

expansion in minimum lot area in order to ensure a consistent lot fabric throughoufthe proposed condominium development. Both zones will also incorporate an enhanced minimum setback of 40 metres from the highwater mark to satisfy the environmental considerations of

the site. No amendment is sought for the Open Space Private zone as the language in the parent zoning is appropriate for the proposed use.

PLANNING REPORT [ DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Page 32 of 198

T ^

The descriptive information and policy analysis presented within this report brings us to the conclusion that the proposed Vacant Land Condominium to allow the development of 18 sir1?le family dwellings is appropriate and desirable from a land use perspective. The lands within the vicinity of the site are occupied by rural residential and’agricultural uses. “The proposed development is similar and compatible with adjacent uses. Approval of the

proposed Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment will provide an opportunity for additional residential development in a manner which is consistent with the vision, goals, objectives, and policies of the Township of South Frontenac’s Official

Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as it represents limited residential development and does not require an unnecessary expansion of municipal services. A review of the supporting studies indicates that the’proposed development can _be serviced appropriately while implementing measures to mitigate any impact on the ecological features of the subject lands.

We trust the above-noted and enclosed information and materials are sufficient to allow the

Township of South Frontenac to process this application. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 613.542.5454 ext. 221. Respectfully submitted,

^^

fr

^ *^-<.

MIKE KEENE, MCIP RPP

Manager, Planning + Policy

PLANNING REPORT DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Page 33 of 198

J

vs r i-/

t.

n

tt1.’

^ ^CUNTT Cf F.t-.^TEt-. .:

Ul IT 1 <k I

‘.fi

^ U 1 16

/-
n’””

1,-n 7

n

/ ~^. 4

-/

^ t w-

^

17

^ ^ / < I’»’.°’

y

.^

/

^ .J

/

;/

0 ~T

f-BE 1

^

f-

.=*r

i£

i?

)’:^ 1

1

i» J

<

-<

BL »..-<:

\

/

-/-.

\

\

Uttfl ^

\

^

t

icfSfc /

/

^.ifc

/

Uf’

/

1

‘/

/

.f

/

/

/ / ^ ,

^1-tffal-bON. “r

*!-” nr<

^

^

-*

.^

I ////

^

/

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMEN Page 34 of 198

t?

^chedrjle -I

DRAFT 7-l.AM OF 3C ^r-c^^njy

R^X

RISW

1

JNTv F r~;-^NTCN*-J

^

I

F;_A 1

aisy

RL^

I-

H1S.X

I

w.

I.

.ir.itE i

.»

I;

^

-t

^

1

ft

T^

;>Sf

RISW

/ ff

^

<

T

^.>

pl

//^ f

s *.-

^^ :-<

w^

‘]. ._

-../ r r-. -

<I r 1

Legend

OS?

<

^s

1a. -.a; ‘..”-’- ^ ,

J -_,

iW;C 1

h-«

‘.f'2.^^* :^

c-"^

^

/

/

Subject Site

-^- h

»

/

./

^

.f

.^3 tCB

t,

^

^

»* -^ .

/^

HijunfSlibnrfctkt. .s

»

‘*????.»

?.‘‘isu

ia

/

^

Limited Service

i/^i.tt’isb ‘/ *

^

‘w

Rural (RU» ||

./

RISW

k ……-,

,1

/

^ .^

/ /

^ /-

-../

/

//

/t

/

^

Residential (RLS)

a

Limited Service Residential Vfaterfront(RLSW)

n

Open Space Private [OSP)

I

h

PLANNING REPORT j DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 26

Page 35 of 198

u

I:

T

»

-k

» -^

RLS-X

Notwlhsntandmganyth;ngin this by;law to the. contrary, the lands zoned Site Specific Limited

Serv.eResidential shall be used only in accordance with the follov.ng; a) The minimum lot area shall be 10,000 square metres;

b) ^heminimum setback from the established wetland boundary or high water mark shall be 40 metres. 0 The minimum setback from identified watercourses shall be as follows: ?’ !Jnlts ?and 12:_The minimum setback shall be 6 metres; b. Units 3, 4,14. 15, and 16: The minimum setback shall be 30 metres.

RLSW-X

Notwlthstandlncl.anythin9-in this by-law to the contrarV’ the lands zoned Site Specific Limited ServiceResidential Waterfront shall be used only in accordance with the following^

a) The minimum setback from the established wetland boundary or high water mark shall be 40 metres.

b) The minimum setback from identified watercourses shall be as follows: a. Units 5, 6 and 8: The minimum setback shall be 6 metres; b. Unit 1: The minimum setback shall be 30 metres.

PLANNING REPORT | DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 27 Page 36 of 198

*-

ATTACHi:NT#4 .^~,

.’^ ^

5^. …^: ^ -if.

‘V,

;.

“-I us

*.

h <

i–^—r –

/

r

fr

<

\

:\

^

1

f

lfwf^^^^,tr^_ " _

.^. *

f

^

.^, F

J

I

.J;.

1»

*^

J

/ 4-

fr-

t0

t

a ^

t

.. / r .

w

\

.^

^ F’

/

“^t

-; y

1

^

/

./’” /

4

y
‘a’

k-

.’

I

t \

^

-’. -’

‘’..I

r I; -s, l-i

/

‘j!

i

^

..J!

F..-^r ^

.w ^ *T.u

or

4 T.

*-

K

31

…‘Y

.

1

.'^

-;1

;.s i.

‘*.

I:»

.Jl

±

^\

\

\

I

J

\

^

• T.

_t

fl

\

^

‘y’:^-1 .^-

r

/

3’’ . ,‘1^:

‘V

3

f

.t

I

g

\

t.-

…’./.

/

.\

\

t

\y

.,

L» *. \

\

1’

\

l»

/.

i

^ I

/

/”

N1

/

/

\

< ~\

“J

\

<

t

s s

1^-

/ ^

^

^

\

/

\

*»

/

/

f

I

-My a

-1>’

\

^

V I

..?. .s / .. -.*..

^s.*

\

<

!..

^t

.^ p R

\

t

‘2

-. .^

//

/.,

\

<.. v

,t: \

^

3

s

I

v

\

tf

^

<i I

\

‘-

.^

–*

I

\

t

t

\

\

‘-’\

*.

-v’^
i»f

/

I’l

f^

f.

\

^

\

-^ ^ ^

‘.>v&.

*l

\

v i

-< *.

s$i

t

.I

»

t t

h-

0-;

f-

?=

-^’ -»

*‘JL -

‘*

IW.^.

^

r

LJ\ z

.< la. Ip

/ \

s

\

^-

<’\ >

^

y

ir

*d

,->

..

^\

3

I

<BBfr* f ‘r - -^» ->.*

\

<

L”

V,

‘*"»’”.. ^ r–”-,

s&’

.l-

“k

s

‘.^.

^,

*^^^

/.

^‘f

\

e

I

YE

f

<

t \

‘.\

^

;

«

t-

.s

3

<

\

/ I-

-.‘3’

^

\ ‘A

\

.^i

/

A’.

..^/./¥..

fl

\

l1-

X-

1

.f

-t-

^

t r

^

.^.

..I

.\

^ 1\

^ t,

^.–

‘I

‘! " 1. ^

V’-

:8

s^ s ^” r.,..-ei^” V

..?..\1.’ \

<’ .w fr Sv^

^ 9r

.^

Jf’

.-:"^ -;/.

f ‘. 4i

.

,..»

I

^-

» «

‘%

.^"^

^ ^”/

\

‘*””’

L?

gl;

.:>

.^

y.

r,

rf

..,;.?

.

^: ,.^N’ ‘,..

\

I-

z

I

,\

t

1-

^’ t.

L.^…

<

^/S’h ^

^ <..

^

<-
^.
V\

s, \

^ /". <-

3

\ ^

,1,

.V

\

^,

V ‘/,–. :>Y:1

^…",

^

/ If

y n,v

w.: /

1

1,.

^s ’ 1'%

<

rt

^.

B

‘^

^A <

^ ^

\

s

\

1

^-’

‘.^.

…v\

t .

»

‘\

\

*

t

B

f

,\ r<

<

-^

\

.^ Si

^’

t.

tf

~Y

-..

.V\ f-,

/

4>

–S

t

‘1…

^

/

».M *

\

.u-m^s^M %r,

/.’

4

a

J

.t

.‘it-%^

u

f

IL

.

f ‘it~ : 1 u

‘.

\

^ fj ..

‘-'^

/.

^.’

v

\

I.

\

I

1» ^^ < I

/

/.

‘/

• »- *

v^.*,

“.

<; Y

f .+

t

?y
/ (.

l-^

^

*._ " _^r

^

<:’:riZ ; <

..^-.

^ r

ci

^’, vt ;

.,A,,-..,;..^”( V.

t

1’ h

“s -

^ . ^

<u a. 0 (U

c

LU u

oa c ia. 5 =? u t3 .^ (b 2 0 - *.> i p- (/S n 0 (U ixs fl> T3 co & co

’ ‘^. aa u (B V 1c 0(0 c -^ ?: ro ~+3 c 0 D. E ff) $ -<-. 0 uj CL CL ^ CL

+sr

§

s

^. 2 .j= ^

Q g

:; \

I ^

^f'1

/

^p’£ f

‘/ .^

f

J

.I.

s. ’ sy

\

.^ :. –: tv

• ‘w^ u

vrtrtf

A,:^

f

T’

UIT, .s~

f.

i^: ‘.

-V vI

I

/.

'

,t

\

it

^\

t

. ‘^^

‘I

,>

.Y”

/’

f>.t

I

^

.

;

.11

/’

/

\

Al »

.&y

3

:%

/ .r

s

I<f

./

/

\

^ z

.\A ;.

in-.

.*l

‘\

/

?^ ^\ ^ .-21

:.^^ ?1

\

.^

,- .A

.^A^

J.

-_

^-.

»

.

.b

^:.* L,

\

.;

–:^’

4 f

^.^"^-

/^

\

\

/

s

’ ^–

.^—^

us’\

tl

1, "

\

I

p

<. < F 4 .’"..i. ^
^ <

^

?

».

:^

,<

^ /*

^ «.

J ‘*; .s

f

I

/

^

r

/

r^^T ? i

1

in I-

.V J S’ ^

N.

^

.f…i—^-

.*

.t

\

:>‘‘1^’ . / -i’i.n-;y. ;,-’

f

I_I

.1

w “% ?’./

\

f

.

&

1v

I/ ‘f

\

w- \ t> ^

r-J

/

-r-i

t

bh. ‘V

»,

s ^*

..3h s

ft .i_^

.1

,,..?.

.*» .^

T.

-s

C ,..-.A. f ft. ‘(

4

.* .<i J ^ / *.

“f

1

^

1^

/

,f

‘-. fl

3:

. . ui

\

s

.^

‘-t

1 ‘.

^ ‘.’\

’s

f

i1 i <

It

-a

0

.^

/^;

\

h4"i

/

%

..I^ N

0’ z

t. I

^ t> <fe %

^1.

^,

s

3

-

I-

^

\

5

?

<

.^-..‘x-

.1^<.”

.

‘f’< *:..^1.

4

/

:^‘I

r

f

<

s

^ \

t.T^.

v

4

^

&. <*

^

;

..^-)-Y1 .->.

h

.\

^.fr, ..V-’.N’.^.IS. ,../

4

f

sf. <k % ro

s;

I I

I

‘.,

.,-<;<:" h

r:

/

. f1 .:

: »

^

ct.

^’

,.^

s /

i

h

‘V

,/’

v

.o,

L^ )’;

1

I

1,

f

r»’

£1 1; . £:” a a

II.

….-.’),

^’

.0

»/ f-’-f-

.w . I

1

\

£ 3

t.

r-

r

I

i:

f^

/’

i~

fl

^- 4s <J

Page 37 of 198

.f,1

-".

a;

‘f

ATTACHMENT #5

.^ f

An T^‘fSl^if^S?, S^ FS(/C?t7^r^clS'1S£r^^n^m y

March 16, 2016

Mr. Joe Gallmm, Director of Planning County ofFrontenac 2069BatterseaRd.

Glenbumie, ON KOH1SO

RE: Application Plan^of Condomimmn (Dog Lake Development) - as lands legally described as Part of Lots 15 16 and 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township ofStomngton,

Township of South Frontenac, Country ofFrontenac. Dear Mr. Gallivan,

Inspection of the above property was conducted by the undersigned and Gord Mitchell, CBO

on

November 10,2015.

^^e^c+^r^^^y,^u!? Jil^!!^^?ll^!.Me^cT^t^e owner Ban7campbelL The

purpose of the inspection was to determine the site’s suitability to support a residential subdivision, serviced by individual onsite sewage systems.

The proposal consists of eighteen (18) residential lots accessed &om Wellington Street situated on the western shore of Dog Lake. The property has a number of areas with shallow

overburden and rock outcrops. Test holes revealed a variety of soil conditions ranging from

sandy silt to clay at various depths and saturation. All of the test pits exanuned hada minimum 0.25meters of native soil over rock.

Each of the lots was^examined to determine if the minimum requirements for onsite sewage disposal were met. Each lot has a 500m2 sewage system area and a 500m2 reserve sewage system area delineated on it. Where possible test pits were located in these areas. Examination

of these test pits and areas has determined that all of the lots are suitable to be built upon from an onsite sewage disposal point of view.

The following conditions will apply to the installation of all of sewage systems to be installed in the subdivision and are to become part of the final subdivision plan and agreement:

1. A site servicing plan showing the location of the house, well and sewage system envelopes [primary and alternate], taking into consideration site topography, be prepared and provided to all fuUire purchasers.
2. Primary and alternate sewage system locations are to be reserved and maintained solely

for that purpose. No constructions of wells, homes, driveways, pools, garages or other stmct.ues is to take place in the primary or alternate area. KINGSTON, FKONTE^AC AND LENNOX ^ ADDINGTON FUBUC HEArm .at-l4>-^\l+t-^+ -J-JW

^-^^.ff-th

h^- ^U^AMU^u1»l( .’-.

-<!. n^-"

+n

.I n -T* -.V-v-

M?ia Office

22\ Fortsmuutli Avi.mi-. Km(,3ttm, O’ntario K7M 1V5

^»:,

“w^vnk<*^nv^u.

nm- ^-^-, 1-t—^t-^0>

..f’-T^fl-^-.

TW^r

f-^f- Sh.’tf.^

-a^-v.

Braucli OEKces Tel: yi3..:^y-s91:^ Cioyni-^1

Tel: 8l3-y4®-m2

l-800-2.S7^87£

S,h;^bot L^’ T(.;J: 613-279-2151

Fax; Q13~S^7W

wwv- .kfktptfHxcJi 3vdih,e^

N-Au.iupe.

Tel-. 6l3^54-3’;S7

vtfl-^f*^

_au^cm^^( uf-^jav. I»A

-^Vt

‘rt»

-tw.

F:ix: 6]^-n:lG-Oft^2 F^fU3-;?79-3i)97 F^til;l.;i.ti4.^7

Page 38 of 198

3) Existmg soil conditions will necessitate the importation of suitable fill for the installation

^/^^^? ^?^ff,!^l?/^^17.miJ^ eTge.syster?ls’ s,orne lots wil1 reciuire additional fill or extensive site grading to deal with saturated conditions. 4) As the sewage systems are raised, pumps may be requu-ed.

5^ ^T^IT^I ^^^/!^°^^ ^^/^??^te^ ?!e^e^vicmf plan may requnie the SAm!ssio:nrf.m.engmeCTmgrq>ort/<iesign md terrain m^sis supportins the proposed changes (including potential impact on adjoming properties).

If you have any questions , or require further assistance or clarification in relation to this

development do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely /

7

»

t

Mu-anda lezzi, BASc, CPHI(C) Public Health Inspector MI.bs

/ c.c. Lindsay Mills
Barry Campbell Philip Tibble

Page 39 of 198

April 12,2016

CRCAFUe: SUBD/FRS/38/2016

Sent by Email and Regular Mail

Mr. Joe GalUvan, Director of Planning and Economic Development County ofFrontenac

2069 Battersea Road

Glenbumie, ON KOH1SO

Dear Mr. Gallivan:

Re: Application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condommium 10CD-2016/001

Dog La;te Development - Bar*‘y Campbell

Part of Lots 15,16 & 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township ofStomngton

Township of South Frontene.c, County ofFroatenac Waterbody; Cog Lake / Ridsau Canal

The Rideau Waterway Development Review Team (RWDRT), made up of staff from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) and Parks Canada, has received the technical circulation for the

above-noted application, including the following: Notice of Complete Application, County ofFrontenac (March 3,2016)

“> Application for Condominium Description, Barry Campbell (February 25, 201 6) Draft Plan of Condominium, Josselyn Engineering Inc. (November 24,2015) » Planning Report, FOTENN (Febmary 25, 2016) 3 .A’

Environmental Impact Statement, Ecological Services (January 10,2016)

-3

Preliminary Stormwater Management Report, Josselyn engineering Inc. (February 4,2016) Hutchinson Evaluation Letter, FOTENN (March 31,2016)

Staff provide the following comments for the County’s consideration and for action/response from the applicant. The subject lands were visited by staff on April 5, 2016. Summary of Proposal / Site Description

The proposal involves the creation of a vacant land condominium development consisting of 18 residential units, private lanes, two blocks for private water access and an open space block. The subject property consists of approximately 32 hectares of land located along a portion of the western shore of

Dog Lake. The property has road frontage onto Wellington Street and water frontage on Dog Lake, which is part of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site.

I

Page 40 of 198

Mr. GalUvan (10CD-2016/OOI - Shield Shores) April 12,2016

The 18 units range in size from 1.01 ha to 2.17 ha in area with a minimum road frontage of 76 metres.

six ofthelots will have water frontage of between 91 metres and 138 metres. Access will be provided from Wellington Street to the south with a primary road that ends in a cul-de-sac. A secondary road will extend as a crescent from fhe primary road and will provide access to six of the proposed lots.

The subJect property contains a mix of heavily wooded upland area and lower-lying area (units 1,6, 8). Six offhe proposed units, plus Blocks 19 and 21 have frontage on Dog Lake. There are aiso four

watercourses crossing through the property. These features generally convey drainage in a soufheasterly direction, eventually outletting into Dog Lake. The subject property is designated ‘Rural’ in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan and is

zoned ‘Rural’ in the implementing Zoning By-law. A concurrent Zoning By-law amendment has been

submitted in support of this application. The proposed zoning for the site will consist of two zones for the existing residential units. Limited Service Residential (RLS) and Limited Service Residential

Waterfront (RLSW). The common element open spaces are to be zoned Open Space Private (OSP). T<ki

.

discussion

The main interests of the RWDRT in this application are protection of surface water quality of the unnamed watercourses and Dog Lake, the avoidance of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) associated with the watercourses and the lake, natural heritage, as well as the provision of adequate stormwater management.

Parks Canada is also particularly interested in proposals for water access facilities on fhis property, namely docks, as well as the protection and enhancement of the cultural and natural heritage and scenic values of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site. Water Quality

Section 2.2 of fhe Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) suggests that planning authorities should seek to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Accordingly, fhe Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Township of South Frontenac provide guidance with respect to how development should occur in consideration of protecting, improving and restoring water quality within the municipality. »

Similarly, the CRCA’s Planning Policy (April, 2015) contains provisions fhat seek to support these objectives.

The Township Official Plan recognizes the need to minimize impacts to waterbodies by reducing phosphorous inputs, preventing erosion and maintaining natural appearances. Accordingly, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law require fhat all development occur at a minimum setback of 30 metres from the high water mark of a waterbody. The intent of this setback is to provide a buffer of undisturbed soil and vegetation along the shoreline, which will help to filter runoff, prevent soil erosion, and provide wildlife habitat.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted along with the draft plan of condominium application recognizes the importance of a natural shoreline and recommends fhat development be set back a minimum distance of 40 metres from the high water mark of Dog Lake, and that 30 metres offhis

Page 2 of 11

Page 41 of 198

Mr. Gallivan (10CD-2016/001 Shield Shores) April 12,2016

?ietback be maintamed as an undisturbed buffer of natiu-al vegetation. Generally, RWDRT staff support these recommendations. However, policy 6.1.6 of the-CRCA-s Piling Policy suggests’Aat development setbacks should be based on &c findings of lake management plans and site valuation

^^li?es.-if^vail^lT. ,FOT precambrian shield lakes such as this one, Appendix G of tfaepTaiming policyis used to establish an appropriate setback for future development. Appendu G was developed in consideration of tfae findings of a report entitled “Assessment of Municipal Site Evaluation Guidelines

^OI«,!!La^^?toJ^^I,OF^e^tA-i?i ^s1.emJontari0.^ ,Lake< colmtry’ . completed by Hutchmson

Environmental Sciences Ltd. (April, 2014). These guidelines define a horizontai water setback distance

based upon site characteristics such as soil texture and depth, slope and vegetation along the shoreline. Based upon observations made during the site visit, the recommended minimum depth of shoreline

buffer for development for Umts 1, 6, and 8 should be 40 metres to protect the water quality of Dog

Lake. The recommended setback for development for Units 10, 11 and 12 is 70 metres. The

Hutchinson Evaluation Letter provided by FOTENN suggests that the building envelopes and septic

systems on Units _1, 6 and 8 will meet the minimum 40 metre setback as suggested by tfae Hutchinson Report and the EIS. The FOTENN letter also suggests that the septic and building envelope for Unit 10, and the building envelopes for Units 11 and 12 will be less than the required setback. However, staff agreewifh the rationale provided in the FOTENN letter for a reduction to the required setback, more

specifically, that the proposed development on Units 10, 11, and 12 will be situated in a location that provides drainage away from the shoreline of Dog Lake. Therefore, RWDRT staff are satisfied that fhe

proposed development meets the intent of the PPS, the Official Plan, and the CRCA-s Planning Policy for water quality.

In order to ensure that future residential development is consistent with the setbacks noted in the FOTENN letter, staff recommend fhat additional controls be placed on Units 1,6,8,10,11 and 12.

1. RWDRT staff recommend that site specific limited service waterfront residential zones be applied to Units I, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 that requires development (including the septic systems) to meet the setbacks identified in the FOTENN letter entitled “Hutchinson Evaluation Letter” (March 31, 2016).
2. RWDRT staff recommend that Units 1, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 be subject to site plan approval to control the location of buildings, structures and site alteration on the subject lots.
3. RWDRT staff recommend that the RWDRT be circulated the site plan applications for Units 1, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 for review prior to receiving final site plan approval and that this be added as a condition of approval. Natural Hazards

Flooding Hazard - Dog Lake In our review of development applications, RWDRT staff, in accordance with Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement and through Ontario Regulation 148/06, direct development away from areas subject to potential flood risk. The CRCA’s Planning Policy suggests that new development be set back a minimum horizontal distance of 15 metres from the extent offhe regulatory flood plain. In the absence of engineered flood plain mapping, the RWDRT uses the maximum recorded water level to

Page 3 of 11

Page 42 of 198

Mr. GaUivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) Aprill2,2016

define the extent of the flood hazard. The maximum recorded water level for Dog Lake is 98.95 metres

geodetic. Based on site observations and our review of contours shown on the draft plan, some of the

lands adjacent to Dog Lake appear to be low-lying (Units 1, 6 and 8). However, staff note that the 15 metre setback from the flood plain will be contained within the setback recommended by the EIS. Therefore, staff have no concerns with meeting the 15 metre setback from the flood plain of Dog Lake.

^^^^.^^1^^?, ^ba?k^froll?^l?aximum rTco^de(? ,water level* the RWDRT> through

implementation of Ontario Regulation 148/06, requires that buildings, structm-es, roads and septic systems meet specific floodproofing standards when proposed adjacent to a waterbody. At this stage (Draft Plan), the lowest finished floor and opening elevations for proposed dwellings have yet to be proposed. It may be helpful to at least consider this aspect at this time. Recommendations in the past have sometimes used 0.3 metre minimum vertical freeboard above fhe 100 year floodplain elevation for the lowest finished floor and opening elevations. In recent years, staffhas found this to be insufficient

on some sites. Factors such as ice jams/dams, blocked/collapsed culverts, beaver activity, hydrologic changes resulting from development upstream/downstream, fill in the floodplain, and unknown variations between assumed hydrologic conditions used in analysis and reality can contribute to

increasing flood risk to dwellings and structures adjacent to watcrcourses. Staff note that evidence of beaver activity on this site has been found.

In consideration of this, staff recommend that the minimum finished floor elevation (i.e. basement floor) and all exterior openings of all dwellings on the subject property must be located at or above 99.55 metres geodetic (0.6 m above maximum recorded water level). It is also suggested that all roads and driveways have a finished grade no lower than 98.7 metres goodetic (0.25 m below the maximum recorded water level). Finally, the distribution system for individual leaching beds must be located at or above 99.95 metres geodetic (1.0 m above). f

4. RWDRT staff recommend that a final grading plan be submitted as a condition ofdraftplan approval, and that the grading plan .will indicate the above noted floodproofing requirements for Units 1, 6, and 8.

Flooding Hazard - Unnamed Watercourses As noted above, there are four small watercourses that convey drainage through the site. Three of those

watercourses flow fhrough one or more offhe proposed units. The fourth watercourse is located on a common element parcel (Block 20).

The RWDRT does not have floodplain mapping for these features. In such situations, the RWDRT requires that new development be located a minimum distance of 30 metres from the top of bank of a watercourse, where there is a suitable elevation difiference between the top of bank and adjacent land.

The Analysis of Stormwater Management Requirements provides a floodplain analysis for two of the watercourses that cross fhe site. RWDRT staff provide the foUowing comments with respect to this analysis. 5. RWDRT staff recommend that the consultant review the drainage areas provided for Watercourses A

and B. Based on a review ofLidar topographic mapping, staff suggest that the drainage area for

Page 4 of 11

Page 43 of 198

Mr. Gallivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) April 12,2016

Watercourse A is approximately 4.5 ha in size as opposed to the suggested 3.9 ha, and that the

drainage area for Watercourse B is approximately 7 ha in size as opposed to the suggested 3.9 ha. Staff note that the Airport Method is being used to estimate the time of concentration in flow calculations for both Watercourse A and B. This method was developed for airfields and may not be appropriate for this site.

6. RWDRT staff recommend using a more conservative time of concentration calculation method (e.g. Watt and Chow).

The Frontenac County Soil Map was consulted to determine the overburden material and associated

hydrologic soil group (HSG) for use in detemiining nmoff?; The report indicates that the overburden material consists predominately of sandy loam. The report also indicates that soil depths range from 0 to 5 metres over bedrock. An HSG of A was selected for the floodplain analysis based on MTO design charts. CRCA staff concur that sandy loam is a major component of the native soils on-site, but caution

fhat the particular soil type associated with this site, according to the County soil map, is a soil complex called Monteaglc Sandy Loam - Rock (i.c. rock outcrop). As such CRCA staff is concerned that the

selection ofHSG A is an over-simplification of soil type, ignoring the rock outcrop component, which may lead to underestimating the runoff and resulting flows and flood depths in the watercourses being evaluated. CRCA soils mapping infonnation concurs with the County map in that the soils on-site are ‘Monteagle Sandy Loam - Rock’. The infonnation specifies that the soil consists of 70% HSG D and 30% HSG C.

7. RWDRT staff recommends the use of a more conservative HSG selection for the floodplain analysis. Manning roughness coefiRcient values of 0.030 and 0.032 are used in channel calculations in

determining 100-year flood depths, but no explanation is given to support fheir use. 8. RWDRT staff recommends existing watercourse conditions be properly documented (e.g. photos) and reference the specific locations on appropriate design charts to support the use of the roughness coefficient values.

Staff note that the report suggests a 6 metre setback from the centreline ot the watercourses for which floodplain analysis was performed. The CRCA’s guidelines for implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06 suggests fhat all buildings and structures must be located a minimum horizontal distance of 6

metres beyond the furthest landward extent offhe regulatory flood plain. 9. RWDRT staff recommends that the report be revised to reflect a 6 metre setback measured from the regulatory floodplain and not measured from the centerline of the watercourse. Natural Heritaee and Wildlife Habitat

Staff provide the following comments with respect to the natural heritage and wildlife habitat

information contained with the EIS provided by Ecological Services dated January 10,2016.

Page 5 of 11

Page 44 of 198

Mr. GalUvan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) Aphl 12,2016

Section 4.2 Natural Heritage Features

The consultant notes consultation with the OMNF Natural Heritage Information Centre CNHIC) database for species records in the 3 - lkm2 blocks within which fhe property is located. Staff, through

consultation with OMNRF staff in the past year, has found that it is best to contact OMNRF staff

directly to ensure that any recent information can be relayed to the consultant as NHIC records may not

be up to date. CRCA staff have accepted the use of the NHIC database in the past, however based on

the recent communications with OMNRF staff, the consultant should be advised that direct contact with OMNRF is encouraged.

10. RWDRT staff recommend that the NHIC review be expanded as per the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (pg. 52) and that the NHIC database search include consideration of species records within a 1km buffer around the site.

Section 6 ‘.1 Woodland Habitat

It is recommended that the consultant discuss fhe planning area size that is used for forest cover with CRCA staff. The report references fhe use of the OMNRF site district 6E-10 as a planning area scale. The County NHS recommends that woodland cover within a watershed be used to inform which size criteria denotes significant woodlands. The NHRM notes that the planning area should be at a reasonable scale and suggests the use of municipal or watershed boundaries. As fhe selection of the

planning area is not specific and using eco-district areas is also mentioned, the consultant has adopted specific approach consistent with the NHRM. Due to the nature of the region, staffbelieve fhat a more representative approach would be to define the planning area based cm the landscape that fhe site is

located in. It would be appropriate for the consultant to review the various landscape scales and determine what would be appropriate for the site. It is not expected that the findings offhe report will change, however the report may be modified such that it recognizes a refined planning area consistent with fhe County NHS. CRCA staff, through the preparation of watershed report cards, has woodland statistics for the Cataraqui River Watershed. However consultation with GIS staff was not possible to obtain this specific number at the time of this review. This information can be relayed to the consultant as soon as it is available.

Section 6.1 Woodland Habitat - water protection

Staff find that the statements in this section are somewhat unclear and could be mis-interpreted to be an error. Staff have read and taken an interpretation that can be supported. However editing should be considered to clarify or amend the statement so that interpretation is not necessary as others who read the statement may not have fhe same interpretation as staff. Section 6.3 Habitat for species at Risk

See comments on Section 4.2 above regarding additional NHIC database area search. As noted above, the field ofenviromnental reviews is constantly evolving. It would be beneficial to consult with

OMNRF in particular with respect to ESA species and regulated habitat as the requirements under the ESA are separate from the Planning Act considerations despite the overlapping consideration of

threatened and endangered species. Page 16 (fhird/fourfh/fifth paragraphs) deals with Gray Ratsnakes. MNRF is the agency responsible for

the administration of the ESA (Endangered Species Act) and it should be verified that the proposed development will be consistent with the Act prior to approval. Approval of a development application

Page 6 of 11

Page 45 of 198

Mr.Gallivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) April 12, 2016

prior to addressing ESA concerns to OMNRF’s satisfaction can create conflicts and potentially be in conflict with the PPS.

The EIS suggests that additional surveys are yet to be done on fhe site.

ll- RWDRT staff recommend that the additional information collected from the surveys yet to be done be forwarded to the CRCAfor review. This should be done prior to draft plan approval.

General

With recent changes to fhe Public Lands Act and the abilities of the municipalities to zone waterways

and waterbodies, it is becoming more and more appropriate for the consultant to speak to water access

and use of the shoreline. This is an emerging trend that the consultant should be aware of and may

consider expansion of the report to include additional comments in this regard.

CRCA and Parks Canada staff had the opportunity to walk the site with the developer and his consultants (planning and ecological). The site does have a mix of habitat types and it may be appropriate for the ecological consultant to identify any additional sensitive features that could be

preserved through a site plan or condominium agreement. These sensitive features may not be specific at a provincial or regulatory scale, but could be at a local scale to make the development fit into the

landscape to the best extent possible. It may also be beneficial to have a landowners guide prepared for the landowners identifying the features of importance.

12. RWDRT staff recommend that the consultant contact Tom Beaubiah (CRCA biologist) to discuss the above noted sections of the EIS further. Cultural Heritase

Given the location offhe development, Parks Canada staff note the absence in the Planning Justification Report of a discussion on the impact of this development proposal on the heritage values of the Rldeau Canal. The Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada, a Canadian Heritage River and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is administered by Parks Canada to preserve fhe cultural, natural and scenic values so that all Canadians can enjoy this legacy into the future. All parties have a responsibility to ensure the stewardship and conservation of this internationally recognized waterway. To respect the visual setting of the Rideau Canal, the RWDRT recommends that any new development proposed on this property be unobtrusive, visually screened and integrated wifhin the vegetation and topography. The objective is to mmimize impact on the scenic views from the water and the heritage values of the waterway. Staff also recommend that building envelopes and associated services are sited to minimize disturbance to the landscape, including vegetation removal. In the future residential development of each waterfront lot (Lots 1, 6, 8,10,11 and 12), it is

recommended that fhe architectural design offhe dwellings complement the ragged Canadian Shield landscape character of the area and all building facades are clad usmg natural materials such as wood

and stone and the application ofearthen-tone colours to complement and integrate the buildings into the surrounding landscape.

Page 7 of 11

Page 46 of 198

Mr.GaUivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) April 12, 2016

Docks

^ ^TT^T°It.(^OTENN? s^8ests &at only those lots having direct waterfront onto Dog Lake ^!,??Je^?fSof^t^toia?pl_y.^’ dock’through parks cana^’s m-wat^ andI shorelineTpermittmg

process. While the interior lots will have access to water through Blocks 19 and 2~l;Park7canada reminds the proponent that no docks will be permitted on these blocks.

RWDRT staff noted during the inspection that there appears to be no suitable shoreline access to allow

£SS^S^±^S.£K£=S^ 12. Due to fhe steep shoreline of Unit 12. a dock will not be permitted for this lot and

2y^l-^ejhal.low waters at u?its L 6'8 and Ae southem end of Unit 10, (approximately 3 feet or less),

this^waterirontarea is not conducive to recreational boating. Should a dock be approved for these units, no dredging will be permitted to accommodate larger boats’or to provide accessrto deeper water Please note that Parks Canada’s Policies for In-Water and Shoreline Work and Related Activities require docks to be situated a minimmn of 4.5 metres from side lot lines, with no more than 25% 15metres (50ft), whichever is less, of shoreline development. In fhe identification of suitable dock

or

areas

for Uts 1,6, 8,10 and 11, we caution the proponent to be mindful of the angle of side lot lines as adock

must be 4.5 metres from the projection of the lines out into the water.

13. RWDRT staff do not support the placement of an access structure to the shoreline or a dock on Unit 11 as presently configured.

14. RWDRT staff do not support the placement of an access structure to the shoreline or a dock on Unit

16. RWDRT staff do not support dredging of Dog Lake to accommodate larger boats or to provide access to deeper water.

RWDRT staff also note that there are three water access right-of-ways proposed for Units 5 and 7 as

well as the retained lot, adjacent to Unit I. Please note that only one dock is permitted per lot. Parks Canada staff will not support applications for a dock at these right-of-way locations.

16. RWDRT staff do not support the placement of a dock structure on the water access right-of-ways for Units 5 and 7 as they do not meet the permitting policies of Parks Canada.

Stormwater Management

Generally, the SWM report proposes the use oflot-level and conveyance practices. A) Quantity Control

Pre-development and post-development flows are not quantified. Currently quantity controls are not

proposed for this site. The SWM report justifies this due to the apparently insignificant increase to peak

Page 8 of 11

Page 47 of 198

Mr. GaUivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) Aprill2,20l6

fio^ th,at ^y111 result from this devel°Pment and the proximity to Dog Lake, to which stormwater flows

will be discharged.

17. In order to mitigate the cumulative effects of development, RWDRT staff -recommend (per CRCA Policy) that pre-development and post-development flows are determined and that peak flows be held to pre-development levels for 2-year through 100-year storm events.

751 RJWD^TSta^^ecomme!td that asphalt be asswned w the proposed condition when evaluating post^o^ntfl^ands^e^iremen^ntkee.en^tHer^ay^faceanddn^ays are changed to asphalt in the future. Alternatively, the approval authority (Frontenac County) may prefer^^n^aryc^^(r^fi^^-^^d^^e:in^en^^^ was installed, be determined for future implementation, should they be required.

B) Quality Control

The SWM report suggests that an enhanced level of protection is targeted for this site. A 20 metre wide municipal road allowance is proposed with a 9 metre clearing to allow for a 4.5 metre

\ane width and roadside ditches. A gravel roadway surface is proposed. It is assumed that the majority of quality protection that will be provided on-site for roadway runoff will occur in fhe proposed roadside ditches.

19. Similar to recommendation 13 above, RWDRT staff recommend that asphalt be assumed in the event that the roadway surface is changed to asphalt in the future.
20. RWDRT staff ‘recommend that the Low Impact Development Stormwater Manasement Plannins &

Desisn Guide (CVC/TRCA. 2010} be consulted during design of the roadside swales/ditches to ensure the design is going to provide the level of Junction and performance appropriate for this site. C) Drainage

21. The SWM report indicates that roadside ditches will convey stormwater runoffand the Draft Plan of Condominium drawing illustrates the proposed road network, but it is not clear from the information provided how/where post-development stormwater will be directed via roadside ditches through the site and where discharge(s) will occur. Please address. D) General

22. RWDRT staff recommend that the Township be consulted to discuss their concerns regarding stormwater management maintenance should the situation arise in which maintenance responsibility is not fulfilled or otherwise transferred to the Township.

23. RWDRT staff recommend that the design have regard for maintenance efficiency [e.g. pre-treatment practices such cis sediment forebay(s) to ensure optimal function, prevent premature failure (e.g. clogging) and concentrate sediment build-up to facilitate maintenance by those responsible],

Page 9 of 11

Page 48 of 198

Mr.GaUivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) April 12, 2016

24. RWDR1 ^ staff ‘recommend that the final SWM report include a section on maintenance that indicates inspe^c^fre^ncy^ceaure, a^kase responsible, ^n^be^^

specify SWM maintenance responsibilities and as,oc,ated/e,timated costs in th^condomimwn agreement

Climate Change

25’ R^^l^r c^end that. thepotential effects of climate change be considered (e.g. how storms of greater intensity/precipitation volume might impact overlandflaw routes/depths/extents).

Prouosed Zonine

?n?age.2.? ofthe shield shores planning RePort (FOTENN), the consultant indicates that the proposed toning will consist of two zones for Ae residential units, Limited Service Residential (RLS)-andLmutal Service Residential Wateriront (RLSW). Tbe Common Hements open space areas are to be zoned Open Space Private (OSP).

26’ ^E^LSta^.r^quest that the Pr°P°sed zoning by-law amendment be drafted, and circulated to RWDRT ‘staff for review prior to draft plan approval.

27. RWDRT staff recommend that the 30 metre setback from the high water mark of Dog Lake, as well as the identified development setbacks from the watercourses be zoned ‘Environmental Protection

)

(EP). R 2 commendation

Staff recommend deferral of application 10CD-2016/001 until the above noted recommendations

are

addressed to the satisfaction ofRWDRT staff. Once our concerns are addressed, staff will be able to provide conditions for Draft Plan approval.

Parks Canada - Rideau Canal Office oversees all in-water works along the Canal system. If the landowner wishes to carry out any in-water works in the future, the Rideau Canal Office must be contacted and written approval obtained prior to the commencement of construction. Ontario Regulation 148/06

Portions of the property are subject to Ontario Regulation 148/06, Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, made pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. The purpose of Ontario Regulation 148/06 is to ensure that proposed changes (e.g. development and site alteration) to a property are not affected by natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion, and that fhe changes do not put other properties at greater risk from these hazards. By virtue of tins regulation, the CRCA regulates all development and site alteration activities (including grading and filling) within 15 metres of the maximum recorded water level of Dog Lake, 15 metres inland from the top of valley, and within 30 metres of the watercourses on fhe subject property. Within a regulated area, written permission must be obtained from fhe CRCA prior to development or site alteration takmg place.

Page 10 of 11

Page 49 of 198

Mr. Gallivan (10CD-2016/001 - Shield Shores) April 12,2016

Stormwater management and flood plain analysis queries should be directed to Shmvn Fairbank at extension 284, or by email at sfairbankffl),crca.ca. Queries pertaining to the review of the EIS should be directed to Tom Beaubiah at extension 240, or by email to’tbeaubiahO.crca.ca.

^eaisemform this °^ce in.writinf ofany decisions made by the County regarding this application. If you have any general questions, please contact the undersigned at (613) 546-4228 extension 244, email at aschmidtf5).crca.c&.

<

or via

Yours truly, “^

/? ^^

^

/’ * -^

Andrew Schmidt, C.Tech.

Development Review Manager

ec: Susan MUlar, Program/Policy Officer, Parks Canada, via email Lindsay Mills, Planning Coordinator, Township of South Frontenac, via email Mike Keene, FOTENN, via email

Page 11 of 11

Page 50 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-

BEIN<^ A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 2003-75, AS

AMJNDED^ TO REZONE LANDS FROM RURAL ZONE (RU) TO OPEN SPACE PRIVATE (OSP), LIMITED SERVICE RESffiENTIAL (RLS) AND SPECIAL LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL-

WATERFRON^ (RLSW-110)); PART LOTS 15, 16 & 17,

CONCESSION IX, DISTRICT OF STORMNGTON: CAMPBELL

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 Lots 15,16 and 17, Concession DC, in the District of Bedford,

NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOU FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

L TH^T sche^ule /c’ to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby

^1^ ^^ec^ ?^^^an^^^teoT^^^l’^?^al-,zio^e. ^JJ) !° ope,n!,sp Private (OSP), Limited Service Residential (RLS) and Special Limited Service

Residential-Waterfront (RLSW-110) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “I”.

2. THAT a “ew section RLSW-110 (Part Lots 15 16 & 17, Concession DC, Storrington District- Campbell) be added immediately following section RLSW-109 (Part Lots 23 & 24, Concession VI, Loughborough District), to read as follows:

RLSW-110 (Part Lots 15,16 & 17, Concession DC, Storrington District - Campbell) Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law to the contrary, on the lands zoned Special Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (RLSW-110), the following special provision applies:

Setback from highwater mark

of awaterbody…………………………………………………….40 metres (131 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 day of ,2016. Read a first and second time this day of , 2016.

Read a third time and finally passed this day of 2016.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 51 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

(STORRINGTON DISTRICT) ^s^ ^ ;^

SCHEDULE ‘1

BY-LAW NO. 2016-

^ ?PWL

J,

/

,3

^ -I

AREA REZONED FROM IRU1 TO ‘OSP

y

\

!. &^

/>

/

AREA REZONED FROM ‘RU’ TO RLS1

en AREA REZONED FROM IRUI TO IRLSW-110 ^<s.

^ fsS

;.>

./f

–^

"

,-f-

.^

-.-J

^ wC^ .I

.-x^

B

yf

;t

^

t..

.^

T ^.—»

/

E

si-

f <f

y

sZ ‘-^-

.s

^

^K

t

s

.<

V-

\

\

^ f

v

f

^

“\

/ .

1 1» s

/ f

/

1«

-f

-T

..V

L

I

UNIT 12

*T ^-

»^’

UNIT 13

UNIT 14

PAPKLAND

v ^r

-» d

^fto»

rf

^.

Vt

UNIT 11

UNIT 9

UNIT 15

UNIT 18

UNIT 10 UNIT?

UNIT 16

/

UNITS

/ /

UNIT 17

UNIT 6 UNITS

.s

UNIT 4

/

^

^

¥v

/

^ /

UNITS

‘.r/h

1-h

^r

ft

/

^

^h

f

J

iV

\

‘,

UNIT1

f

\

/

^

,^

^ s”.

s

.^“i

‘/

s?

-J

‘!’.

r

IT

.<y/£-

;. t

p

.7 f ^-

—.‘T… -d* rfr

Tr.

.~1

^^

v
’ -”. “,J

,v

\

^

s^-’

<

lci^-y

-i-^

if

^

if

^

‘-7

w ‘^-

s ^.*

\

^ ^ y

^f-

/

$

.^ .-?”-”’-

1^*’ ‘ft ~
.n

M^^ J

v

-^/

-T

jf t

…–“V

s:

;t

^

\

»

/

-^

*,

f

^ f-

.rf- -tri”

^^ ^

\

\

f

./

^

^. ‘-.

-^ ^fc

^

-r

T.

~> .<» .T^/

^

3

< t

J,

f

i>

‘,-^

t

).

^

.f

.^

‘\

’s

^

\

V

\

^

.

I

^y^
p

/

^t

^

./ ^

UNIT 2

Dc’g La/’£

f

/

f- .»*n

\

-*

’t,

<’.

^

Meters 0

37.5

75

150

225

300 ,J> t

THIS SCHEDULE “1” TO BY-LAW NO.2016-

PASSED THIS ND DAY OF

2016

MAYOR CLERK Page 52 of 198

Shield Shores Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Applications for: Zoning By-Law Amendment Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Applicant: Barry Campbell Page 53 of 198

Page 54 of 198

Shield Shores | Context

Page 55 of 198

Shield Shores | Site Photos

Page 56 of 198

Shield Shores | Official Plan Schedule ‘A’

Page 57 of 198

Shield Shores | Zoning By-law Schedule ‘C’

Page 58 of 198

Shield Shores | Draft Plan

Page 59 of 198

Shield Shores | Concept

Page 60 of 198

Shield Shores | Proposed Zoning

Key Considerations ƒ Large lot sizes, > 1 ha ƒ 5RDGIURQWDJH•P ƒ Waterfrontage•P ƒ Common elements open space, trails, shoreline access ƒ Provincial Policy Statement • Protects natural heritage • Safe and sufficient water supply

ƒ County of Frontenac Official Plan • Enhanced shoreline setbacks • Large lots

ƒ Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Page 61 of 198

• Meets or exceeds minimum lot requirements • Refinement of lot fabric and layout may require slight relief from minimum zoning requirements

Shield Shores | Key Considerations

Supporting Work ƒ Environmental Impact Study • Additional work being completed this spring ƒ Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis ƒ Analysis of Stormwater Management Requirements ƒ Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment ƒ Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium ƒ Planning Justification Report

Page 62 of 198

Shield Shores | Supporting Work

Summary ƒ Compatible land use for the area ƒ Appropriate and ideal location for this type of development ƒ Consistent with Official Plans and Provincial policies ƒ Revisions to Zoning By-law to increase minimum requirements ƒ Extensive supporting work

Page 63 of 198

Shield Shores | Summary

Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 10 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsay Mills, Planner, David Holliday, Area Supervisor, Brian Kirk, Area Supervisor

Call to Order

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2016-10-1 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT the Council meeting of April 5, 2016 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a)

Councillor Roberts declared a pecuniary interest with respect to items 8(a) Accounts payable page 13, and Item 5 Collins Lake Subdivision because he is an adjacent property owner.

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

***Recess *** - n/a

Public Meeting

a)

Open Public Meeting Resolution No. 2016-10-2 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT a public meeting be held to discuss planning matters related to:  Proposed Sale of Municipal Land -Concession IX, Part Lot 14, Bedford District  Collins Lake Subdivision Proposal Carried

b)

Proposed Sale of Municipal Property, Part Lot 14, Concession IX, Bedford District Lindsay Mills addressed his report and explained that Council has options including declaring surplus and selling to Mr. Amey or declaring the property surplus and directing staff to sell the property through another method. Deputy Mayor Sutherland expressed that the sale should be public to allow others to bid. Councillor Revill felt the property should be advertised as usual and only if no one else is interested.

Page 64 of 198

Page 2 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Councillor Barr felt it should be advertised to the public. Councillor Sleeth asked who owns the building on the right of way and it was noted that the owner is Maureen Jones. Mayor Vandewal asked if the buildings could exist if the lot doesn’t front on a road. Given its zoning it would need public road access, no they are not permitted. Lindsay Mills read a letter into record from Diana Brunke. It will be included on the April 12 agenda to form part of the public record. Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, highlighted the letter from Ms. Brunke’s agent S. Kilby. It too will also be on the April 12 agenda to form part of the public record. Shirley Barrett, mother of Doug Amey spoke of Doug Amey’s purchase in 2012 and the initial challenges with gaining access over the unopened road allowance. She conveyed that Council had at the time permitted Doug to do some brushing so that he could get into his property. He had originally sought a license agreement with Council. However Doug has not had access since 2014 in order to avoid conflict with the Jones’s who have buildings on the right of way. Acquiring this property will shorten the access and solve the water barriers to Doug to get to the current property. Both lots are land locked. Doug was informed by Township staff that he had to acquire an appraisal. The initial letter that had cost him $250 was not sufficient so he invested another $1900 to obtain an acceptable appraisal. There has been a quagmire of communication. Doug is still interested in purchasing the property if he can get access. The Township was not even aware that it owned the property initially. Doug acknowledges that the hunting camp on the property is illegal but he is willing to work with it. Council was asked if it is fair to ask Doug to pay for survey costs of a township owned unopened road allowance. He is already financially committed to the purchase. Terry Quinn spoke and asked if the drawing that had been projected as part of the planner’s report was a survey and where are the survey markers. Lindsay Mills responded no, however a recent survey had been done. He also asked will it be sold tonight and if a road goes through will it be up to township standards. It was clarified that Council will decide on the sale later, but that there is not discussion on establishing a road on the unopened road allowance at this time. Unopened road allowance exist for further needs. With no further comments from the public this portion of the meeting was closed. c )

Collins Lake Subdivision Councillor Roberts left the room at this time, due to a declared conflict of interest. Wayne Orr briefed the public on the planning procedures for tonight’s meeting. Copies had been distributed this evening, they were projected and had been available as part of the Council agenda package. A sign in sheet was being circulated and everyone who wished to speak or wished to receive further information on the project was asked to sign in. The public was asked if there were any questions on the procedure. None came forward. Mr. Mills addressed his report. He referenced correspondence from Treena Garrison, Denise Taillon and Mike and Tara Petrie that were part of his report.

Page 65 of 198

Page 3 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 He further reviewed two letters received from Douglas Farquhar and Ted Lang that will be attached to the April 12 Agenda to form part of the public record. Upon conclusion Mayor Vandewal pointed out that three additional letters from John Williamson, Linda Phibbs and Alex Simmons had been circulated with the agenda items 12 h) i) and j). Councillor Revill asked if the proposal predates the County’s official plan. Mr. Mills confirmed this. Councillor McDougall asked that staff provide clarity on the relationship and role between the County and the Township for the public. Deputy Mayor Sutherland raised five key points and the broader perspective of building a community compared to a building a subdivision, he also encouraged taking a green innovative approach. A copy of his comments will be attached to the April 19 agenda to form part of the public record. Councillor Schjerning raised concern with the immediate request for relief from the 76 meter frontage requirement. He felt that this should be a black and white issue and addressed in a Official Plan change. He also asked about the next steps given the results of the Malroz peer review. Lindsay Mills replied that the developer is looking at options to address the hydrogeological study and this would form part of the basis for the request for reduced frontages. Lindsay Mills pointed out that any further development on this site would trigger a requirement for secondary plan. Mayor Vandewal expressed his surprise that the Fire Chief indicates a new hall would be required. Further study would be necessary before this sort of decision would be made. The Mayor also indicated that each home is generally considered to generate 10 car trips per day. Joe Gallivan was given the opportunity to briefly address the role of the Township and County in the process. He spoke of the traditional role that the Township plays in hosting the public meeting and offering comments. He clarified that there is nothing in the County’s procedural bylaws that require the County to wait for the Townships feedback. He also spoke to the new planning committee required from changes to the Planning Act. Mr Ryan Guetter, a land use Planner from Weston Consulting presented on behalf of the developer. He acknowledged that given the nature of the planning process there are lots of questions from both Council and the public. He committed to being available either in the form of further public open houses or one on one discussions. He pointed out that the application for the subdivision is deemed compete and that all information submitted with the application is publicly available. (seehttps://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7v5hKv9tkKVemtQbFMyQjNuUms&u sp=sharing) He understands the concerns around the Hydrogeology report and confirms that they will be addressing the issue. There is a lot of data to deal with and any information that comes forward will also be available to the public. He stressed that only the lands outlined in red are before Council for consideration and that there is no access off of Holmes Road. While submitted before the County plan was in effect, the proposal would comply with it and also the Township’s Official Plan. The 120 m setback along Collins Lake has been reviewed by an ecologist and the impacts even beyond have been

Page 66 of 198

Page 4 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 assessed. Within the proposed zoning the lots are adequate to accommodate services. A Transportation Engineer will be engaged to dealt with traffic capacity and operational conditions. The design has minimum access points and logical access. All technical studies are available. He reviewed the Parkland and Open Space vacant areas that are proposed. With the zoning there would be nothing that precludes trails and walking paths. With regard to the 5% of land or cash in lieu, he pointed out that with lots of a minimum of 2 acres that there is typically a reduced use of parks. The road cross section is wider and allows for sidewalks. The concept for the development involves homes nestled within and amongst trees. Where trees are limited on a lot , new ones will be planted and where there is an abundance they will be assessed prior to removal. The concept is to be compatible with a rural landscape. Roads will have swales and ditches. The developer has a progressive vision for the site. Once again he reiterated that he is available to address questions and will respond formally to comments at the appropriate time. Kasia Staszak read a letter into record ( included with April 19 agenda package) A letter from Ted Lang was read in to record by Mr. Mills. He spoke to one sentence that was glossed over. This will be the largest community in the Township. Is there a subdivision of this size in Ontario that is on wells and septic. Soybeans were planted for the first time in 24 years. Expressed concern that with Lyons Landing having one acre slots that the addition of 51 lots is a building disaster. Rebecca Creasy-Buchner read a letter into record ( included with April 19 agenda package) Nick Adams indicated he had a number of issues. This is only the first step in major development. 51 lots is only the beginning. The roads are designed to lead to future development. Water is a concern as well as the bottle neck that will be at Holmes Road from Lakefield. The Official Plan says to focus development in hamlets. This is completely away form that, it is in a rural area. Inevitably this is creating a small town with no services, no shops, nothing. Walt Sepic attending with his wife Jerri. He expressed appreciation for hiring Malroz. It is quite clear that there are many errors, conflicts and inconsistencies. So many questions have been raised (14). Test wells with potential interference with east side of Lakefield Dr, there is reference to being susceptible to mining of ground water. Only one test well has sufficient water. The terrain analysis and nitrate calculation raises other concerns. The Malroz summary is clear, they need to address issues to the satisfaction of the County. Street lights will have an impact on dark skies, traffic concerns with the narrowing crest on Holmes Road, the blind hill. Concerns about a loss of respect for the walkers and pedestrians. Boat Launch – while Lyons Landing residents have deeded access, how will this be policed. Do not accept the 1 acre park – demand the full space now. 51 lots is not rural

Page 67 of 198

Page 5 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 A written copy of his comments were requested. Karyn McLean read a letter into the record (included with April 19 agenda package) Tara Petrie expressed concern with only one access point at Holmes and Lakefield. There have been at least three occurrences where access has been shut off, this would be even a greater concern with 51 more homes. Bonnie Henderson just found out about this meeting. She was concerned that many will not be represented. She lives 5 homes down from someone who did receive notice, yet she did not. She is concerned that her well may be impacted. She asked about general communication and what is the plan as many residents are just returning. John Wright had concerns that there isn’t enough water; it’s the white elephant in the room. The elevation is 10 – 15 feet higher than Lyons Landing, storm and septic run off is toward Lyons Landing. Jack Staszak read a letter into record and distributed a map (included with April 19 agenda package) Micki Mulima attended with her young family because it is that important. Questioned that while the application is considered complete is does not fully address the issues. Concerns and significant issues were glossed over. Why are there regulations and setbacks if they are not heeded? In essence they are building a village, does the mini mall come next? There is only one way in. Will future phases all travel in this way as well? Traffic impacts will directly affect her family. This proposal can’t be supported . She wishes to be on record as against this proposal. Bruce Paterson read a letter into record ( included with April 19 Agenda package) Treena Garrison, developer of Lyons Landing stated that future development can be a healthy thing, it contributes to a stronger tax base. Lyons Landing has been developed over years. She is relying on Council to have read all the reports. This proposal is based on a small number of wells and is frightening. What is “mining of the aquifer”? Phase I of Lyons Landing was about 50 homes excluding others is the area. Phase II another 50 homes, excluding others and was slowly started in 2004. We were asked to use complex septic system on some lots and conventional on others as a result of nitrate levels. This proposal is the worst location for Lyons Landing both current and future. Council is cautioned to exercise caution in their decisions especially regarding water quality given the density approved for Lyons landing and the proposal today. Do communal services need to be considered? If rezoning is for 800 acres , Council is urged not to rezone the entire lot but only the section proposed to be developed now. Council needs to keep control. Strange that the studies speak to how relief for the reduced frontage is in keeping with Lyons Landing, however Lyons landing was approved when only 1 acres lots were needed. With the narrower fronts developers and contractors will load the front portion of the lot with well and septic further compacting the space for these services. Are there up to date Health Unit comments? Information from 1990 /91 should not be considered as reliable. Lakefield was only built by Lyons Landing to support Lyons Landing. Surprised that

Page 68 of 198

Page 6 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 further development may all go through this road. Concern with entry and egress, a health and safety issues. Drainage patterns and storm water needs to consider the natural lay of the land and where it flows now. Major historical drainage came from farmland under Lakefield down Cooper Kettle toward Plan 13-M56. Spring flows are a concern. You can’t take ditches lower on Lakefield, they are exposed rock. Drainage comes out between two lots and proceeds over an easement to the lake. Storm water cannot be directed to Lyons Landing as it cannot handle it. Water access is no use without potable water on site. Under the Planning Act, health and safety for inhabitants is being placed at greater risk. The proposal is not in the public’s interest. Does not conform to the plan and the land is overburdened and not sustainable. Development and paving will cause problems. Lyons Landing is not designed to accommodate their storm water. Will pose a great risk to Lyons Landings Phases I & II. She is prepared to explain current and further plans for Lyons Landing. Appreciation was expressed for a peer review. Jerri Jerreat. She has a pond on the property that does not freeze over. This is a turtle habitat. She feels that 51 lots is too many. Another water source should be considered. Collins Lake is a shallow large lake with limited access, provincially significant wetlands and a large variety of wildlife and fauna. She would be concerned if the proposal was taking water from the lake. Traffic is a concern given the growing younger neighbourhood that exists. With 500 projected traffic count, there needs to be access off Holmes. Even the slightest disruption on the road is problematic. She had concerns that septic flow from upper elevations will come into Lyons Landing. Intensification would ruin the rural character. Look to three large million dollar lots and leave it that. Don’t put rails into the protected area, keep it protected. Anne St Marie noted that she had wanted to move to the country. When she arrived coyotes were frequently on the roads along with deer. She felt it wasn’t safe for her children. She recognizes there is pre-approved development still in Lyons Landing, but the impact has been there are no more coyotes or deer; squirrels and chipmunks now replaced them. Her well has already dropped. The road is only tar and chip and can’t handle the traffic. If it proceeds there is a dangerous intersection at Holmes and Lakefield that must be addressed. She is at one of the highest elevations and I have a large turtle every year. They do climb up. She questioned the logic of a 30 to 40 foot ridge with a park at the top of it. Parks have not been put in place in Lyons Landing. Do it up front, don’t wait. Homes currently waiting 7 months to sell. Will the market bear this or will we all lose value. With no park there is nothing for kids to do. Darlene Clement indicated that she has lived her whole life in the area and travels daily on Division St. It is a death trap. It is a continuous accident waiting to happen at Bucks Corners. Speed on Perth Road is a concern and she feels traffic light are needed. Wells were bad way back and still are. Rob Garrison was concerned that a number of wells had to be abandoned and one didn’t recover for 24 hours. The current storm water is eroding the ditches and impacting the trees that Mr Mills spoke to along Lakefield. Alex Simmons (comments included with April 5 agenda) recognizes that there is no perfect system for communication. Information has been available and she is thankful for the assistance she has received. People were able to become informed so we could voice our concerns today.

Page 69 of 198

Page 7 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Ron Abboud was hoping for more information from the developers. Now that all the problems have been expressed where is the accountability. What do we do if it is approved and there are problems? Ryan Guetter acknowledged that there is more information to obtain and that he is open to dialogue. No specific design/build had been worked out. He anticipated that the market will dictate the uptake of the build. Mayor Vandewal spoke to the process of establishing sufficient water as the primary basis for approval. He stated that additional written comment will be accepted. Councillor Schjerning encouraged people to sign up for news from the townships’ website and this is automatically pushed out by email to those who subscribe. Councillor Roberts left the room at this time, due to a declared conflict of interest. Wayne Orr briefed the public on the planning procedures for tonight’s meeting. Copies had been distributed this evening, they were projected and had been available as part of the Council agenda package. A sign in sheet was being circulated and everyone who wished to speak or wished to receive further information on the project was asked to sign in. The public was asked if there were any questions on the procedure. None came forward. Mr. Mills addressed his report. He referenced correspondence from Treena Garrison, Denise Taillon and Mike and Tara Petrie that were part of his report. He further reviewed two letters received from Douglas Farquhar and Ted Lang that will be attached to the April 12 Agenda to form part of the public record. Upon conclusion Mayor Vandewal pointed out that three additional letters from John Williamson, Linda Phibbs and Alex Simmons had been circulated with the agenda items 12 h) i) and j). Councillor Revill asked if the proposal predates the County’s official plan. Mr. Mills confirmed this. Councillor McDougall asked that staff provide clarity on the relationship and role between the County and the Township for the public. Deputy Mayor Sutherland raised five key points and the broader perspective of building a community compared to a building a subdivision, he also encouraged taking a green innovative approach. A copy of his comments will be attached to the April 19 agenda to form part of the public record. Councillor Schjerning raised concern with the immediate request for relief from the 76 meter frontage requirement. He felt that this should be a black and white issue and addressed in a Official Plan change. He also asked about the next steps given the results of the Malroz peer review. Lindsay Mills replied that the developer is looking at options to address the hydrogeological study and this would form part of the basis for the request for reduced frontages. Lindsay Mills pointed out that any further development on this site would trigger a requirement for secondary plan. Mayor Vandewal expressed his surprise that the Fire Chief indicates a new hall would be required. Further study would be necessary before this sort of decision would be made. The Mayor also indicated that each home is generally considered to generate 10 car trips per day. Joe Gallivan was given the opportunity to briefly address the role of the Township and County in the process. He spoke of the traditional role that the Township plays

Page 70 of 198

Page 8 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 in hosting the public meeting and offering comments. He clarified that there is nothing in the County’s procedural bylaws that require the County to wait for the Townships feedback. He also spoke to the new planning committee required from changes to the Planning Act. Mr Ryan Guetter, a land use Planner from Weston Consulting presented on behalf of the developer. He acknowledged that given the nature of the planning process there are lots of questions from both Council and the public. He committed to being available either in the form of further public open houses or one on one discussions. He pointed out that the application for the subdivision is deemed compete and that all information submitted with the application is publicly available. (seehttps://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7v5hKv9tkKVemtQbFMyQjNuUms&u sp=sharing) He understands the concerns around the Hydrogeology report and confirms that they will be addressing the issue. There is a lot of data to deal with and any information that comes forward will also be available to the public. He stressed that only the lands outlined in red are before Council for consideration and that there is no access off of Holmes Road. While submitted before the County plan was in effect, the proposal would comply with it and also the Township’s Official Plan. The 120 m setback along Collins Lake has been reviewed by an ecologist and the impacts even beyond have been assessed. Within the proposed zoning the lots are adequate to accommodate services. A Transportation Engineer will be engaged to dealt with traffic capacity and operational conditions. The design has minimum access points and logical access. All technical studies are available. He reviewed the Parkland and Open Space vacant areas that are proposed. With the zoning there would be nothing that precludes trails and walking paths. With regard to the 5% of land or cash in lieu, he pointed out that with lots of a minimum of 2 acres that there is typically a reduced use of parks. The road cross section is wider and allows for sidewalks. The concept for the development involves homes nestled within and amongst trees. Where trees are limited on a lot , new ones will be planted and where there is an abundance they will be assessed prior to removal. The concept is to be compatible with a rural landscape. Roads will have swales and ditches. The developer has a progressive vision for the site. Once again he reiterated that he is available to address questions and will respond formally to comments at the appropriate time. Kasia Staszak read a letter into record ( included with April 19 agenda package) A letter from Ted Lang was read in to record by Mr. Mills. He spoke to one sentence that was glossed over. This will be the largest community in the Township. Is there a subdivision of this size in Ontario that is on wells and septic. Soybeans were planted for the first time in 24 years. Expressed concern that with Lyons Landing having one acre slots that the addition of 51 lots is a building disaster. Rebecca Creasy-Buchner read a letter into record ( included with April 19 agenda

Page 71 of 198

Page 9 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 package) Nick Adams indicated he had a number of issues. This is only the first step in major development. 51 lots is only the beginning. The roads are designed to lead to future development. Water is a concern as well as the bottle neck that will be at Holmes Road from Lakefield. The Official Plan says to focus development in hamlets. This is completely away form that, it is in a rural area. Inevitably this is creating a small town with no services, no shops, nothing. Walt Sepic attending with his wife Jerri. He expressed appreciation for hiring Malroz. It is quite clear that there are many errors, conflicts and inconsistencies. So many questions have been raised (14). Test wells with potential interference with east side of Lakefield Dr, there is reference to being susceptible to mining of ground water. Only one test well has sufficient water. The terrain analysis and nitrate calculation raises other concerns. The Malroz summary is clear, they need to address issues to the satisfaction of the County. Street lights will have an impact on dark skies, traffic concerns with the narrowing crest on Holmes Road, the blind hill. Concerns about a loss of respect for the walkers and pedestrians. Boat Launch – while Lyons Landing residents have deeded access, how will this be policed. Do not accept the 1 acre park – demand the full space now. 51 lots is not rural A written copy of his comments were requested. Karyn McLean read a letter into the record (included with April 19 agenda package) Tara Petrie expressed concern with only one access point at Holmes and Lakefield. There have been at least three occurrences where access has been shut off, this would be even a greater concern with 51 more homes. Bonnie Henderson just found out about this meeting. She was concerned that many will not be represented. She lives 5 homes down from someone who did receive notice, yet she did not. She is concerned that her well may be impacted. She asked about general communication and what is the plan as many residents are just returning. John Wright had concerns that there isn’t enough water; it’s the white elephant in the room. The elevation is 10 – 15 feet higher than Lyons Landing, storm and septic run off is toward Lyons Landing. Jack Staszak read a letter into record and distributed a map (included with April 19 agenda package) Micki Mulima attended with her young family because it is that important. Questioned that while the application is considered complete is does not fully address the issues. Concerns and significant issues were glossed over. Why are there regulations and setbacks if they are not heeded? In essence they are building a village, does the mini mall come next? There is only one way in. Will future phases all travel in this way as well? Traffic impacts will directly affect her family. This proposal can’t be supported . She wishes to be on record as against this proposal. Bruce Paterson read a letter into record ( included with April 19 Agenda package) Treena Garrison, developer of Lyons Landing stated that future development can be a healthy thing, it contributes to a stronger tax base. Lyons Landing has been developed over years. She is relying on Council to have read all the reports. This

Page 72 of 198

Page 10 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 proposal is based on a small number of wells and is frightening. What is “mining of the aquifer”? Phase I of Lyons Landing was about 50 homes excluding others is the area. Phase II another 50 homes, excluding others and was slowly started in 2004. We were asked to use complex septic system on some lots and conventional on others as a result of nitrate levels. This proposal is the worst location for Lyons Landing both current and future. Council is cautioned to exercise caution in their decisions especially regarding water quality given the density approved for Lyons landing and the proposal today. Do communal services need to be considered? If rezoning is for 800 acres , Council is urged not to rezone the entire lot but only the section proposed to be developed now. Council needs to keep control. Strange that the studies speak to how relief for the reduced frontage is in keeping with Lyons Landing, however Lyons landing was approved when only 1 acres lots were needed. With the narrower fronts developers and contractors will load the front portion of the lot with well and septic further compacting the space for these services. Are there up to date Health Unit comments? Information from 1990 /91 should not be considered as reliable. Lakefield was only built by Lyons Landing to support Lyons Landing. Surprised that further development may all go through this road. Concern with entry and egress, a health and safety issues. Drainage patterns and storm water needs to consider the natural lay of the land and where it flows now. Major historical drainage came from farmland under Lakefield down Cooper Kettle toward Plan 13-M56. Spring flows are a concern. You can’t take ditches lower on Lakefield, they are exposed rock. Drainage comes out between two lots and proceeds over an easement to the lake. Storm water cannot be directed to Lyons Landing as it cannot handle it. Water access is no use without potable water on site. Under the Planning Act, health and safety for inhabitants is being placed at greater risk. The proposal is not in the public’s interest. Does not conform to the plan and the land is overburdened and not sustainable. Development and paving will cause problems. Lyons Landing is not designed to accommodate their storm water. Will pose a great risk to Lyons Landings Phases I & II. She is prepared to explain current and further plans for Lyons Landing. Appreciation was expressed for a peer review. Jerri Jerreat. She has a pond on the property that does not freeze over. This is a turtle habitat. She feels that 51 lots is too many. Another water source should be considered. Collins Lake is a shallow large lake with limited access, provincially significant wetlands and a large variety of wildlife and fauna. She would be concerned if the proposal was taking water from the lake. Traffic is a concern given the growing younger neighbourhood that exists. With 500 projected traffic count, there needs to be access off Holmes. Even the slightest disruption on the road is problematic. She had concerns that septic flow from upper elevations will come into Lyons Landing. Intensification would ruin the rural character. Look to three large million dollar lots and leave it that. Don’t put rails into the protected area, keep it protected.

Page 73 of 198

Page 11 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Anne St Marie noted that she had wanted to move to the country. When she arrived coyotes were frequently on the roads along with deer. She felt it wasn’t safe for her children. She recognizes there is pre-approved development still in Lyons Landing, but the impact has been there are no more coyotes or deer; squirrels and chipmunks now replaced them. Her well has already dropped. The road is only tar and chip and can’t handle the traffic. If it proceeds there is a dangerous intersection at Holmes and Lakefield that must be addressed. She is at one of the highest elevations and I have a large turtle every year. They do climb up. She questioned the logic of a 30 to 40 foot ridge with a park at the top of it. Parks have not been put in place in Lyons Landing. Do it up front, don’t wait. Homes currently waiting 7 months to sell. Will the market bear this or will we all lose value. With no park there is nothing for kids to do. Darlene Clement indicated that she has lived her whole life in the area and travels daily on Division St. It is a death trap. It is a continuous accident waiting to happen at Bucks Corners. Speed on Perth Road is a concern and she feels traffic light are needed. Wells were bad way back and still are. Rob Garrison was concerned that a number of wells had to be abandoned and one didn’t recover for 24 hours. The current storm water is eroding the ditches and impacting the trees that Mr Mills spoke to along Lakefield. Alex Simmons (comments included with April 5 agenda) recognizes that there is no perfect system for communication. Information has been available and she is thankful for the assistance she has received. People were able to become informed so we could voice our concerns today. Ron Abboud was hoping for more information from the developers. Now that all the problems have been expressed where is the accountability. What do we do if it is approved and there are problems? Ryan Guetter acknowledged that there is more information to obtain and that he is open to dialogue. No specific design/build had been worked out. He anticipated that the market will dictate the uptake of the build. Mayor Vandewal spoke to the process of establishing sufficient water as the primary basis for approval. He stated that additional written comment will be accepted. Councillor Schjerning encouraged people to sign up for news from the townships’ website and this is automatically pushed out by email to those who subscribe.

Resolution No. 2016-10-3 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT an opportunity having been provided, the public meeting be closed. Carried Resolution No. 2016-10-4 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Sleeth THAT the Council meeting of April 5, 2016 be extended to 11:00 p.m. Carried d)

Councllor Roberts returned to the room.

Approval of Minutes

Page 74 of 198

Page 12 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 a)

Minutes of March 8, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting Resolution No. 2016-10-5 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council approves the minutes of the March 8, 2016 and March 22, 2016 Committee of the Whole meetings. Carried

b)

Minutes of the March 15, 2016 Council meeting Resolution No. 2016-10-6 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council approves the minutes of the March 15, 2016 Council meeting. Carried

c)

Minutes of the March 22, 2016 Committee of the Whole Meeting

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Conveyance of Closed Road Allowance between Lots 24 and 25, Concession VIII, Storrington District Resolution No. 2016-10-7 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to quitclaim any interest in the closed road allowance between lots 24 and 25 Concession VII, Storrington District and described within Part 1 on Plan 13R-7226. Carried

b)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Recreation Committee Secretaries Payments Resolution No. 2016-10-8 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council approve all 5 recreation recording secretaries be paid a single allinclusive honorarium of $65.00 per meeting, retroactive to January 1, 2016. Carried

c)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Joint Appointment to Cataraqui Source Protection Committee Resolution No. 2016-10-9 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT the nomination of Greg Newman to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee representing the Central Area, be supported; and

Page 75 of 198

Page 13 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 That John Conley, the incumbent member, serving as the Municipal representative at-large, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Source Protection Committee be supported. Carried d)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Notice of Motion - Supporting Local Businesses Resolution No. 2016-10-10 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac consider the development of policies and procedures related to supporting local businesses: AND THAT this includes the awarding of contracts and tenders that have been advertised in accordance with current procedures: AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac be authorized to award a contract or tender that is withing five (5%) percent of the lowest bid; and, AND THAT this can only be applied to a business that has met all requirements contained in the tender or Request for Proposal (RFP), or Request for Quotation (RFQ) document and have been assessed by staff, or consultants who have been engaged by the Township, of meeting the requirements set forth in the tender RFP or RFQ documents(s); AND THAT this applies to those business physically located and operating within the Township of South Frontenac; and, AND THAT the development of these policies and procedures be referred to staff to research and that a report be brought back to Council for consideration along with the recommendations to amend the Procurement By-law in time for a July 1, 2016 implementation.

Resolution No. 2016-10-11 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT this motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee. Carried 8.

Reports Requiring Action

a)

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing Resolution No. 2016-10-12 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council receives for information the Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing dated April 5, 2016 in the amount of $2,107,797.66. Carried

b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Amendment to Subdivision in Part of Lots 18 and 19,

Page 76 of 198

Page 14 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Concession II, Willowbrook Estates (See By-law 2016-24) c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law: Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 Resolution No. 2016-10-13 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill (Amendment) THAT delegations be received on April 26 and May 10 and be communicated as such. Carried Resolution No. 2016-10-14 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT Council adopt the proposed timeline and approach to dealing with the deferral of items 6 and 7 from By-law 2016-20 as amended. Carried

Committee Meeting Minutes

a)

Police Services Board - Annual Meeting held November 19, 2015 A request was received for further details on the 5 year rolling crime stats referenced in the minutes.

b)

Police Services Board - Regular Meeting held November 19, 2015

c)

Corporate Services Committee Meeting held January 15, 2016

d)

South Frontenac Recreation Committee Meeting of January 18, 2016

e)

South Frontenac Recreation Committee Meeting of February 29, 2016

f)

Public Services Committee Meeting held February 18, 2016 Resolution No. 2016-10-15 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings:  Police Services Board Annual Meeting held November 19, 2015  Police Services Board Regular Meeting held November 19, 2015  Corporate Services Committee Meeting held January 15, 2016  South Frontenac Recreation Committee Meeting held January 18, 2016  South Frontenac Recreation Committee Meeting held February 29, 2016  Public Services Committee Meeting held February 18, 2016 Carried

By-Laws

a)

By-law 2016-24 - Change Schedule B of Matias Subdivision Agreement Resolution No. 2016-10-16

Page 77 of 198

Page 15 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT the following by-laws be given first and second reading:  By-law 2016-24  By-law 2016-25 Carried Resolution No. 2016-10-17 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT By-law 2016-24, being a by-law to amend By-law 2016-14, to change Schedule “B” of the Subdivision Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac and 1059823 Ontario Limited (Tony Matias) be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried b)

By-law 2016-25 - Sale of Surplus Lands - Concession IX, Part Lot 14 Resolution No. 2016-10-18 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Roberts AND THAT the sale be conducted through a public process. Carried Resolution No. 2016-10-19 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT By-law 2016-25. being a by-law to declare lands as surplus to the Municipality’s needs and to authorize the sale of such lands described as Part of Lot 14, Concession IX, Bedford District, be given third reading, signed and sealed as amended. Carried

Reports for Information

a)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender No. PW-2016-10 Micro Surfacing Program

b)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender No. PW-2016-15 - Crack Sealing Program.

c)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Harrowsmith Intersection on Road 38

d)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender PW-2016-08 Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning Program.

e)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Contract 2016-11 South Frontenac, North Frontenac and Frontenac Island - Pavement Marking Program

Information Items

a)

Reta Azulay, Dealer/Owner, Northway Home Hardware, re: Support for LCBO/Beer Store

Page 78 of 198

Page 16 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 Council directed the Mayor to write a letter of support. b)

Delan Jinapriya, re: Proposed Zoning By-law changes

c)

Daniel Floyd, re: Changes to Proposed Zoning By-law

d)

Mary Masse, Clerk, Town of Lakeshore, re: Request for resolution endorsement - OMB Simplified Process

e)

Meela Melnik-Proud and Matt Rennie, re: March 2016 Settlement Agreements on Johnston Point

f)

Mayor Vandewal’s letter to Premier Wynne, re: Large Solar Projects

g)

Michael Chan, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, re: Lincoln M. Alexander Award Nominations

h)

John Williamson, re: Collins Lake Subdivision

i)

Linda Phibbs, 3178 Lakefield Dr, re: Collins Lake Subdivision

j)

Alex Simmons, re: Collins Lake Subdivision

Notice of Motions

Announcements

a)

The status of the communication policy was clarified.

b)

Councillors were reminded of the upcoming farm tour.

Question of Clarity - n/a

Closed Session - n/a

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2016-26 Resolution No. 2016-10-20 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT By-law 2016-26, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given first and second reading this 5 day of April, 2016. Carried Resolution No. 2016-10-21 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT By-law 2016-26, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given third reading, signed and sealed this 5 day of April, 2016. Carried

Adjournment

Page 79 of 198

Page 17 of 17 Minutes of Council April, 5, 2016 a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2016-10-22 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT the meeting be adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 80 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Communications Standards Policy RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council adopt the Communications Standards Policy as presented in the Agenda 19 agenda package. BACKGROUND: Further to a decision of Council to direct staff to develop a communications policy and the suggested changes made to the draft at the Committee of the Whole on April 12, the attached policy is before Council for adoption. Upon adoption by Council, staff will be advised of the policy by their managers who will brief them on the expectations. IT services have been preparing to roll out technical support to assist with the implementation. ATTACHMENT: •

Communications Standards Policy

Submitted by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 81 of 198

Township of South Frontenac Policy Subject: Communication Standards – Telephone, Cell Phone, Correspondence, Complaints and Public Notifications Approved by Council Date Revised. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to provide general guidelines as to the:

1. Level of customer service expected from Township of South Frontenac employees in an effort to supply the most efficient and cost effective service delivery to our internal and external customers.
2. Level of service provided to property owners, and other contacts with the Township of South Frontenac
3. Standardization of written communication to ensure a professional image is portrayed. The Township of South Frontenac is committed to Customer Service and the following values: • All customers (both internal and external) will be treated in a pleasant, courteous and respectful manner • We will provide our customers with good value for the dollar • We will treat our customers honestly and fairly • We will be responsive to our customer’s needs. • We appreciate constructive feedback from our customers. • We will be conscious of our customer’s barriers and serve them accordingly wherever possible and make every attempt to be accommodating. Correspondence Logos The acceptable logos for all Township of South Frontenac correspondence including letters, faxes, memos, forms, invoices, Request for Proposals/Quotations, reminder notices, envelopes etc. are the following.

Page 82 of 198

Accessibility: In all areas of communication the Township of South Frontenac shall have regard for those clients who may experience barriers in their day-to-day lives, as per the Township of South Frontenac’s Accessible Customer Service Policy. The Font type, size and letter and memo formats have been developed considering vision barriers that may exist with our internal and external clients. Wherever possible hard returns and tabs should be used as little as possible. 1.0

Phone Standards 1.1 The primary telephone system will be answered via an automated answering system, supplemented by a full time receptionist 1.2 If it is known that an individual is out of the office due to illness, etc. DO NOT identify why they are out of the office as it may put that individual’s personal property at risk, or the reason may be considered to be of a personal and/or private nature. 1.3 Phone standards apply to both landlines and cell service. 1.4 Telephone calls must be returned within 48 hours. If the staff person receiving the message is in the office efforts should be made to return calls earlier.

2.0

Answering Phone Calls:

All staff are to answer calls with a greeting, followed by your name and an offer to assist. For example – Good Morning, Bob speaking, what can I help you with? 3.0

Personal Phone Greetings

Personal greetings must be current. Whenever a staff person is away from their phone for a prolonged period of time (including traveling or illness) the message must identify the expected date of return. Personal Greetings shall contain the following information: 3.1 ALWAYS identify yourself and your position 3.2 ALWAYS inform callers why you are unable to take calls (in the office, but away from your desk) 3.3 ALWAYS encourage the caller to leave a “detailed message” including their name and telephone number. 3.4 If you have a co-worker that can field questions or comments in your absence tell your caller how they can be reached. 3.5 If you are going to be away for an extended period of time (vacations, training, conferences, etc.) inform callers when you will be returning and how often you will be retrieving messages. 3.6 In the interest of home security DO NOT inform callers that you will be “out of town or on vacation, or at a seminar or conference”. 3.7 REMEMBER, the more information you can provide to the caller in your greeting the better level of customer service you will be providing.

Page 83 of 198

Suggested Personal Greetings: Standard In-Office Greeting – Greeting #1 You have reached the desk of (NAME) (POSITION). I am in the office today but unable to answer your call at the present time. Please leave a detailed message including your name and telephone number and I will return your call within 48 hours. If you want immediate assistance please dial Ext (### and name of the person to whom your calls are to be directed). Thank you. Busy Greeting – Greeting # 2 You have reached the desk of (NAME), (POSITION). I am in the office today however I am on another line, please leave a detailed message including your name and telephone number, and I will return your call within 48 hours. Out of Office – Greeting #3 You have reached the desk of (NAME), (POSITION). I am out of the office today, but will be returning on (DATE). If you require immediate assistance in my absence, please dial zero and request to speak with (NAME) at (Ext). If you would still like to leave a message for me please feel free to do so at the tone by providing your name, telephone number, and a detailed message. I will return your call within 48 hours of my return. Thank you. 4.0

Email and Internet Standards 4.1

Email is a business communication tool and users are obliged to use this tool in a responsible, effective and lawful manner. Although by its nature email seems to be less formal than other written communication, the same laws apply. Therefore it is important that users are aware of the legal risk of email: • If you send or forward emails with any libellous, defamatory, offensive, or obscene remarks or remarks that are contrary to the Human Rights Code, you and the Township of South Frontenac can be held liable and disciplinary action may result. • If you unlawfully forward confidential information, you and the Township of South Frontenac can be held liable. • If you unlawfully forward or copy messages without permission, you and the Township of South Frontenac can be held liable for copyright infringement. • If you knowingly send an attachment that contains a virus, you and the Township of South Frontenac can be held liable. • Any misuse of electronic mail (email) privileges or the Internet System may expose an employee to disciplinary action. • All email is subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Page 84 of 198

• Minimal private use of the email system will be allowed to the same degree that personal phone calls are permitted from time-to-time when necessary. Personal use will be subject to the Township of South Frontenac’s policies and guidelines and must not detrimentally affect employee productivity, disrupt the system and/or harm the reputation of the Township of South Frontenac • The Township of South Frontenac reserves the right to monitor the use of the Township network and monitor selected network traffic at the request of the CAO. Alleged inappropriate use of email or the internet will be reviewed on a case-by case basis and may lead to disciplinary action. The CAO and Manager will be responsible for taking disciplinary action when required. Social Networking and Social Media • Employees shall abstain from using personal internet based social medial (i.e. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) during work hours; an employee shall not represent themselves as a Township employee on their personal social media. Best Practices. The Township of South Frontenac considers email as an important means of communication and recognizes the importance of proper email content and speedy replies in conveying a professional image and delivering good customer service. Users should take the same care in drafting an email as they would for any other communication. Therefore the Township of South Frontenac requires users to adhere to the following guidelines: Writing email: • Write well-structured emails and use short, descriptive subjects. • Users must spell check all emails prior to transmission • Do not send unnecessary attachments. • Do not write emails in capitals. • Only send emails of which the content could be displayed on a public notice board. If they cannot be displayed publicly in their current state, consider rephrasing the email, using other means of communication, or protecting information by using a password (see confidential) Replying to emails: • Emails must be answered within 48 hours, but users should endeavour to answer priority emails as quickly as possible. • Priority emails include emails from taxpayers, existing customers and business partners. 4.2

Emails should be in Arial font at 12 pitch, and in black lettering. Bolding may be used to indicate headings and to bring the portion of the text to the attention of the read. Coloured and enlarged font is not acceptable, nor is the use of coloured theme, graphics, stationary or “add-ons”.

Page 85 of 198

4.3

All emails must include a signature in Arial font 12 pitch and include your: Name Job Title Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 Telephone Number/s Include Ext’s) Fax Number Cell Number Example: Jane Smith, CA Director of Finance/Treasurer Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 1234 613-376-6657 (Fax) 613-484-4321 (Cell) as applicable

4.4

All email signatures shall include the following disclaimer, expressed in Arial font 9 pitch and shall be attached to both initial and response emails: Confidential: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the email immediately. If you are not he intended recipient, be aware that disclosing, copying, distributing or using the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. NOTE: IT services will ensure that all messages leaving the Township of South Frontenac will be sent with an environmental and confidentiality statement.

4.5

Out of office reply must be used when you will be away for more than a day.

4.6

In the interest of home security when composing your out of office assistant message, please do not indicate that you will be out of town or on vacation.

4.7

Internet •

The computer network is the property of the Township of South Frontenac and is to be used for legitimate business purposes. Users are provided access to the computer network to assist them in the performance of their jobs. Additionally, employees (“Users”) are provided with access to the Internet through the computer network. All Users have a responsibility to use the Township of

Page 86 of 198

•

South Frontenac computer resources and the Internet in a professional, lawful and ethical manner. Abuse of the computer network or the Internet may result in disciplinary action.

5.0

Written Material • All communications, including letters, memos, reports etc, shall be in a semi-block format composed using the Arial fond at the 12 pitch.

6.0

Front Counter Standards • There will be a staff person available at all times between the hours of 8:00 am to 4:30 pm to assist with the front counter. If you are on the phone when a customer comes to the counter, acknowledge the customer by making eye contact. • When staff is with a customer, the customer will be given full and undivided attention. • The only exception to the customer, or caller coming first would be in the event of an emergency. • Signs directing customers must be in place at all times.

7.0

Customer Complaints • Listen until the customer is finished and respond courteously. Staff may end a conversation if a customer uses profane language or is obnoxious. • Complaints relating to an identified staff member must be transferred to the staff member’s direct supervisor • The supervisor must collect all pertinent data from the caller and then meet with the Staff member for the purpose of collecting any additional or corrected information. • The supervisor must then call the complainant back for any clarification purposes, and to reassure the complainant that the issue has been addressed.

8.0

Customer Requests • Requests for information must be transferred to the appropriate individual for a response. Where possible, front line staff will assist with responding to simple inquiries relating to property taxes and water billing and general procedure questions related to Township operations. • Where applicable some request may need to go to Council, forward these types of requests to the Chief Administrative Officer or the Executive Assistant. • Where applicable, a follow up call may be required. For example, when a request has been addressed and the requester has not been a part of the dialogue/resolve a follow up call should be made

Page 87 of 198

•

9.0

to advise of the outcome, ensure that the request has been satisfied, and explained the process if concerns still exist Request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation should be directed to the Clerk. (more information can be found on the township website under Living Here/Information Requests)

Project Communications

Capital Works • Each year the Township of South Frontenac undertakes scheduled capital works that involve construction and may inhibit traffic flow, parking and access to residences etc. These projects are typically known in advance of the actual construction. Therefore, the residents directly affected will receive hand delivered notices from the Township or the contractor identifying potential inconveniences. • After the passing of the budget, the Township shall list the capital projects along with timelines (if possible) on the Township’s website and also identify them in the local newspaper under the weekly advertising banner. • All public communications shall include relevant contact information for day to day inquiries and an emergency contact number to facilitate twenty-four hour support. Day-to-day Works • On occasion, the Township encounters emergency or unexpected construction works that are made a priority for various reasons. These projects typically have a limited advance notice and require immediate action. • The Township will endeavour to notify residents where possible. The timing of the notice will be dependent on the urgency to respond first and advice after-the-fact. The means of which may have to be face-toface communication or in terms of water main break or road washout, communication may only be made at the earliest convenience. An Alert Banner shall be posted on the township website and a posting of the pertinent information shall also be added to the News and Public Notices portion of the website. • Public Works staff shall ensure that Town Hall staff is equipped with appropriate information to answer calls or questions regarding any work that may occur unexpectedly.

Page 88 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Township of Georgian Bay – Resolution Endorsement- Enforcement of “No Wake“ Zones RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorses the resolution passed by the Township of Georgian Bay on March 14, 2016 requesting the implementation of legislation that would provide authorities with the ability to enforce a “No Wake” restriction in Ontario’s navigable waters. BACKGROUND: Council’s Procedural By-Law 2007-83 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the April 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting Deputy Mayor Sutherland requested that this item be brought forward for support. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon. ATTACHMENTS: Township of Georgian Bay letter and resolution Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Prepared by: Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant

Page 89 of 198

d

B

Township of Georgian Bay

April 7, 2016 Honourable Marc Garneau

Minister of Transport House of Commons OTTAWA ON K1A OA6 Mr. Minister: Re: Enforcement of “No Wake” Zones

Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Georgian Bay, on March 14, 2016, adopted the attached resolution requesting

the implementation of legislation that would provide authorities with the ability to enforce a WNo Wake” restriction in Ontario’s navigable waters. Yours truly,

^^ Jessica Gunby, Dipl.M.A, ACST Acting Clerk iaunbv@abtownshlD. ca :lsl

ec: - Tony Clement, M.P. Parry Sound - Muskoka 44A King William Street (Main Office) Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1G3 (hand delivered)

• All municipalities in Ontario

X:\Clerk\C04 Council Correspondence\2016\160314\No wake resolution .docx

99 Lone Pine Road, Port Severn, Ontario LOK ISO 1 -800-567-0187 www. abtownshio. ca

Page 1 of 2

Page 90 of 198

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY MOTION C-83-2016

Adopted by Council on Monday, March 14, 2016

WHEREAS the Office of Boating Safety, which administers the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (VORRS) pursuant to the Canada

Shipping Act, 2001, has advised that the issue of “No Wake” is currently addressed by limiting the speed or power of a vessel; AND WHEREAS the Office of Boating Safety has advised that “/Vo Wake” /s not a restriction found in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, or its

regulations, and therefore is not an enforceable restriction; AND WHEREAS a boat’s wake can do a great deal of damage, including .

the erosion of shorelines

.

the swamping of nests ofloons and other waterfowls the damaging of docks and vessels moored at docks and at marina

.

gas pumps . . . .

the danger to swimmers the interference with safe navigation the disruption of wetland habitst

the upsetting of canoes and small boats, especially in narrow channels

BE FT RESOLVED that the Township of Georgian Bay requests the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, to address this

dangerous and harmful situation, by implementing legislation that would provide authorities with the ability to enforce a “No Wake” restriction in Ontario’s navigable waters;

AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all municipalities in Ontario with a request for endorsement; AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable

Tony Clement, M.P./ Parry Sound - Muskoka.

Page 91 of 198

99 Lone Pine Road, Port Severn, Ontario LOK ISO

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Official Plan and Zoning Matters RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council confirm the 3 priorities and associated challenges identified in the Councillor Report dated March 21, 2016 and tabled April 12 AND THAT the CAO be directed to bring forward a report which outlines a potential process to address these issues by no later than the end of June 2016. AND THAT the CAO’s report include estimates of the fiscal and time implications BACKGROUND: At the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 12 Councillors McDougall, Revill and Deputy Mayor Sutherland brought forward a report that outlined challenges related to implementing Council’s three strategic priorities as they related to the development process, the official plan and zoning bylaw. There was general agreement to bring the recommendation forward for debate and decision. Excerpt from the report dated March 21: Council decisions and comments from the community in the last year make it clear that there are Official Plan and Zoning changes that need to be considered to achieve the priorities of our 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. Priority # 1. ENCOURAGE AND FOSTER RESPONSIBLE GROWTH IN SOUTH FRONTENAC Strategic Direction: Clear Vision, goals and plan for future development in the community through an updated Official Plan. Our Challenges: • What do we see South Frontenac looking like in 20-30 years? • A more specific statement with respect to environmental concerns around development near wetlands and overall water protection; • A clear statement of protection for our Provincially Significant Wetlands; • A clear statement of our policy for placement of docks on waterfront lots without truly navigable water; • A designation of the rural areas where subdivisions and condominium development should be directed; • Limitation of subdivision and condominium development in areas that have documented poor water quality. Priority # 2. BEING A CATALYST TO SUPPORT AND HELP BUILD VIBRANT COMMUNITIES Strategic Direction: Hamlets that are friendly to residents of all ages Our challenges: • A clear statement of the components of a ‘vibrant’ hamlet;

Page 92 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT • • • • •

A rationale for our present hamlet boundaries; The appropriate number of hamlets for South Frontenac; A clear vision of the differences between hamlet development and the surrounding rural areas; The hamlets in which we encourage development; Defining areas in our hamlets where appropriate commercial and industrial development can occur.

Priority # 3. CONTINUALLY IMPROVE HOW THE TOWNSHIP CONDUCTS ITS BUSINESS Strategic Direction: Community Relations- Public Outreach and engagement Our challenges: • An internal and public review of this year’s developmental process experience, with particular emphasis on the role of the community, the staff, the external agencies, the County of Frontenac and the Council of the Township of South Frontenac; • Broad-based community involvement in addressing the Strategic Plan issues identified in this report; • Implementations of any recommendations that come from a review.

Submitted by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 93 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Organizational Review – Joint meeting RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council proceed with a May 4 joint meeting of Council and the management team for the purpose of hearing directly from the managers with a focus on solutions to the challenges faced. AND THAT the framework proposed for the meeting by the CAO be accepted. BACKGROUND: At the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 12, the Organizational Review consultants presented their recommendations to position the Township to address both the Strategic Plan and the challenges identified. Councillors listened and questioned the basis for some of the recommendations. Councillors also expressed a variety of views and directed staff to coordinate a joint meeting of Council and the management team. The focus of the meeting is to hear directly from the team and to focus on solutions to the challenges faced. The CAO was asked to propose a framework for the working session. The session would run from 9:00 – 4:00 with Lunch and be held in the community room in the library. To be effective there needs to be agreement on the priorities and challenges before looking at solutions. The following sequence of statements are proposed to frame the day’s discussions. • • • • • • • •

Confirmation from Council on the priorities identified in the Strategic Plan Confirmation of the challenges identified in the Organizational review Identification of further challenges identified by Council and Managers Comment from managers on adequacy of current resources to address the priorities and challenges identified in a timely manner Are there other barriers beside resources to addressing the challenges Did the Organizational review address the challenges What are the barriers to the proposed solution besides money What other options are proposed and how do they meet the challenges

In advance of the meeting all participants would receive hardcopies of relevant materials. It is human nature for staff to approach an organizational review from the perspective of “how will it impact me”. Similarly it is also a key role of Council to beware of cost implications. Both groups will be challenged in this exercise to think about the priorities, and functions and not the staffing and human resource implications while at the same time balancing the best interests of the Township and the cost.

Page 94 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT No decisions will be made during the day. It is intended to inform Council by hearing from managers directly in an informal setting followed by a brainstorming session. The closed meeting provisions under the Municipal Act do not apply to this meeting as it is about advancing the business of Council. Following the session, the CAO will summarize the information, offer recommendations and report back to Council for debate and decision.

Submitted by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 95 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Large Renewable Procurement Initiatives RECOMMENDATION: Whereas the Province is moving forward with another round of large renewable procurement initiatives; And whereas these projects can create economic opportunities for property owners and municipalities as well as job creation in both manufacturing, installation and site maintenance; And whereas certain large renewable procurement projects may not be aligned with the priorities of residents and municipal councils, despite municipal governments having been given enhanced power to negotiate with green energy proponents; And whereas the installation of large renewable procurement projects can have a significant negative impact on municipal infrastructure and operating costs; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of South Frontenac calls upon the Provincial government to regulate that; where there is not a willing municipal host and subsequently no community benefit agreement in place and green energy projects are awarded anyway that; successful proponents would be responsible to pay to the municipality, according to an established formula, and over the life span of the project, the associated costs to both infrastructure and operations commonly known as a Community Vibrancy Fund. And that this resolution be sent to the Premier, the Leaders of the Opposition, Local MPPs, the IESO, Local Municipalities and AMO BACKGROUND: Council’s Procedural By-Law 2007-83 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the April 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting Mayor Vandewal served Notice of Motion that he would be tabling a motion on Large Renewable Procurement Inititiaves. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.

Page 96 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Prepared by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 97 of 198

PLANNING MEMORANDUM Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Council Agenda Date: April 19, 2016

Planning Department

Files No. 10T-2015/001 and Z-16/05

Date of Report: April 13, 2016 Subject:

Applications for Plan of Subdivision and Associated Zoning By-law Amendment, Part of Lots 28 to 30, Concession VII, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac: Collins Lake Estates (Maybach Group Inc.)

RECOMMENDATION

That Council forward the Planning Report dated March 29, 2016 including all attachments and comments from the public meeting, to the County of Frontenac.

BACKGROUND On April 5, 2016 the Planning Department brought forward a report to a public meeting that presented a proposed 51 lot plan of subdivision in Storrington District. The report made recommendations to Council including the recommendations that Council receive the report and defer any decision on the proposed subdivision until comments resulting from the public meeting were reviewed. However, the following recommendation was inadvertently not acted on: “Forward the Planning Report dated March 29, 2016 including attachments and comments from the public meeting, to the County of Frontenac.”

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills,

CollinsLakeSubdivisionPublicMeetingReport2

Page 98 of 198

Payment Listing For the period of April 6, 2016 TO April 19, 2016

Accounts Payable Payment Listing: For the period of April 6, 2016 TO April 19, 2016

130,815.86

Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #8

Pay date April 13, 2016 For the period of Mach 27, 2016 to April 9, 2016

Council Reimbursement

Pay date April 13, 2016

Volunteer Firefighters

Pay date April 15, 2015

75,557.58 2,277.79

For the period of December 16, 2015 to March 31, 2016 Total Payments

91,699.41 $

300,350.64

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending April 19, 2016 in the amount of

$

300,350.64

Submitted/approved by: Suzanne Quenneville - Deputy-Treasurer Louise Fragnito - Treasurer

Page 99 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

Ranges: Cheque Date:

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

1:31:29 PM

From: 4/6/2016

To: 4/19/2016

Page:

1

Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC

10 GG 1000 Cheque 067401

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Amount

ORSER, DAVE 2016004

Total 067401 EFT000000005294

Description

4/19/2016

7 PLOWS @ $60

$420.00 $420.00

WATER COOLER RENTAL DELVIERY

$65.00 $10.12 $4.05 $79.17

CULLIGAN 0919836 0919836 0919836

Total EFT000000005294 EFT000000005321 4/19/2016 24904

SELECT DOOR AND FRAME 6 X 20 TEMPERED

Total EFT000000005321

Total

$24.42 $24.42

$523.59

1100 Counc Cheque 067406

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

Amount

TERRYBERRY C43237

Total 067406

PINS

$256.49 $256.49

Total Counc

$256.49

1250 Clk Cheque EFT000000005295

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

137661 137659

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY GENERAL ADVICE GENERAL ADVICE

5754-2016 8650

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND CREAM, COFFEE COFFEE, CREAM

20827A

UPPER CANADA OFFICE SYSTEMS BROTHER 4750 DRUM-FAX

Total EFT000000005295 EFT000000005326 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005326 EFT000000005329 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005329

Total Clk

Amount $127.20 $127.20 $254.40 $32.74 $13.98 $46.72 $167.90 $167.90

$469.02

1275 Fin Cheque EFT000000005288

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

19892 19905

BAYRIDGE PRINTER PROS 2 LEXMARK TONER - SUE’S PRINTR 2 TONERS - RECEIPT PRINTERS

137666 137664

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY GENERAL ADVICE GENERAL ADVICE

41138

INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES PHONE SYSTEM PROGRAMMING

Total EFT000000005288 EFT000000005295 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005295 EFT000000005306 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005306

Amount $1,109.18 $335.81 $1,444.99 $279.84 $141.88 $421.72 $290.02 $290.02

Total Fin

$2,156.73

Total GG

$3,405.83

20 PP&P 2100 Fire Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

Page 100 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

EFT000000005281

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

4/19/2016 22011 22023 22024

1622411 ONTARIO LTD. PUMP HOLDING TANK 3 PLOW/SAND @ $50 3 PLOW/SAND @ $50

03437233

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. MARCH PEST CONTROL

Total EFT000000005281 EFT000000005282 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005282 EFT000000005305 4/19/2016

Page:

2

$244.22 $152.64 $152.64 $549.50 $34.53 $34.53

HUGHSON, KENT 0333

Total EFT000000005305 EFT000000005312 4/19/2016

SAND FIREHALL

53930364 53928472

LINDE CANADA LIMITED T4070 OXYGEN OXYGEN

K60319

MAGNACHARGE BATTERY CORP 12V BATTERY, TERMINAL CLAMP

11284

NORTHWAY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES

10706 10700

R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES INSTALL TWO-WAY RADIO TOWER SITE RENTAL

57935 57924 57791

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE DOOR CLOSER HOSE HANGER 3 PAILS

TCL-1510428 TCL-1510482

TURRIS COMMUNICATIONS LTD REPROGRAM RADIOS PAGER BATTERIES

Total EFT000000005312 EFT000000005314 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005314 EFT000000005317 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005317 EFT000000005320 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005320 EFT000000005327 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005327 EFT000000005328 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005328

Total Fire

$66.14 $66.14 $17.90 $330.00 $347.90 $90.30 $90.30 $52.14 $52.14 $701.38 $381.60 $1,082.98 $70.57 $13.22 $6.08 $89.87 $26.97 $54.71 $81.68

$2,395.04

2110 Cvc# Cheque EFT000000005322

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

Amount

SIGNS PLUS 2929

2 CIVIC NUMBERS

Total EFT000000005322

Total Cvc#

$18.32 $18.32

$18.32

2515 Rid Vly Cheque 067404

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 IN000035673

Vendor

Description

RIDEAU VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2016 LEVY

Amount

Total 067404

$21,625.07 $21,625.07

Total Rid Vly

$21,625.07

2605 Build Cheque EFT000000005295

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 137667

Vendor

Description

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY CBO ADVICE

Total EFT000000005295

Total Build

Amount $178.33 $178.33

$178.33

2620 Anml Ctl Cheque EFT000000005301

Date 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005301

Total Anml Ctl

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-AC-2016-MARCH MARCH ANIMAL CONTROL

Amount $3,256.19 $3,256.19

$3,256.19

Page 101 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

3

2640 Bylaw enf Cheque EFT000000005301

Date 4/19/2016

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-P-2016-MARCH 20 HRS @ $22.50 SF-P-2016-MARCH 1200 KMS @ $.52 SF-B-2016-MARCH 22 HRS @ $22.50 SF-B-2016-MARCH 380 KMS @ $.52

Total EFT000000005301

Amount $457.92 $634.98 $503.71 $201.08 $1,797.69

Total Bylaw enf

$1,797.69

Total PP&P

$29,270.64

30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000005285

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

C14258-0416

ALLIANCE WIRELESS CALL FORWARDING

J492046 J492047

GRAND & TOY LIMITED OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES

193898

UPPER CANADA OFFICE SYSTEMS 11/24/15-02/24/15

Total EFT000000005285 EFT000000005303 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005303 EFT000000005329 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005329

Total PW OH

Amount $204.23 $204.23 $46.48 $23.51 $69.99 $359.86 $359.86

$634.08

3005 RdAdmOH Cheque 067398

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 LTDC 16-132

Vendor

Description

LOYALIST COLLEGE LEGAL ISSUES

Total 067398

Total RdAdmOH

Amount $284.93 $284.93

$284.93

3010 Cap/Equip/Ptrl Cheque 067385

Total 067385 067388 Total 067388 067390 Total 067390 067391 Total 067391 067393 Total 067393 067396 Total 067396 067400

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE TEES, DUST CONTROL COMPOUND 1 X 12 PINE X 8 CEILING TILES, TES

83339

CANADIAN SMALL ENGINES 20” BAR & CHAIN

07042016-01

ENVIRONMENTALL CONTRACTING SERV ASBESTOS CEILING REMOVAL

0072819

EQUIPEMENTS LOURDS PAPINEAU INC CYLINDER

02947

FOSTER EQUIPMENT LTD. REPLACE PINION SEAL

19670

KINGSTON DIESEL SERVICES AIR FILTER, SCAN TOOL

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

Amount $171.50 $17.83 $637.24 $826.57 $107.76 $107.76 $2,951.04 $2,951.04 $612.73 $612.73 $1,030.23 $1,030.23 $306.30 $306.30

NORR LIMITED

503594 503600 Total 067403 067407

Description

033525 033759 033716

0077139 Total 067400 067403

Vendor

SERVICES 15/12/01-16/03/31 REVELL FORD LINCOLN INSTALL ALTERNATOR OIL CHANGE TOROMONT INDUSTRIES LTD.

$2,362.87 $2,362.87 $251.45 $57.14 $308.59

Page 102 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT PS040640173 PS040640174 WO040637929

Total 067407 EFT000000005283

4/19/2016

PIN RINGS BROKEN BOLT AT ROCKER BOX

38235964

AECOM CANADA LTD 02/06/16-03/04/16

64007716 64158163

AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC. CYLINDER RENTAL CYLINDER RENTAL

11753

AUTO ELECTRIC RE-BUILDERS ALTERNATOR

5180 5195

BRAD’S AUTOGLASS & CANVAS SUPPLY/INSTALL WINDSHIELD SUPPLY/INSTALL WINDSHIELD

Total EFT000000005283 EFT000000005284 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005284 EFT000000005287 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005287 EFT000000005290 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005290 EFT000000005292 4/19/2016

Page:

4 $145.64 $9.24 $3,793.43 $3,948.31 $3,115.72 $3,115.72 $27.86 $26.06 $53.92 $305.28 $305.28 $356.16 $305.28 $661.44

CINTAS 884722458 884722458 884722458 884720817 884722468

Total EFT000000005292 EFT000000005293 4/19/2016

MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES COVERALLS COVERALLS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES

90058131

CRUICKSHANK CONSTRUCTION GRAVEL

0905818

DALTCO ELECTRIC & SUPPLY COMBO EMERG. UNIT

Total EFT000000005293 EFT000000005296 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005296 EFT000000005299 4/19/2016

$186.22 $13.29 $9.51 $35.62 $149.17 $393.81 $2,569.58 $2,569.58 $539.35 $539.35

DRAPER DOORS REPLACE WINDOW SECTION CHANGE LIMIT SWITCH ON DOOR

$183.17 $188.26 $371.43

5918

4 CLEANS @ $75

$300.00 $300.00

36076

GIN-COR INDUSTRIES INC LAMP, STROBE, MOUNTING BAR

15253

THE GREER GALLOWAY GROUP INC SERVICES TO 02/29/16

847114765 847115474 847115219

KAL TIRE ONTARIO 4 TIRES OIL CHANGE OIL CHANGE

9303923733 9303923732 9303930148 9303949360 9303956020

KENT AUTOMOTIVE PLOW BOLTS PLOW BOLTS 43 SERIES FITTINGS FITTINGS GARAGE SUPPLIES

16/03/30-41

LEONARD, ELIZABETH 5 CLEANS @ $75

DAR21036149

LIEBHERR CANADA LTD CAB ROOF, ANTENNA, WIPER BLADE

53815982 53919155 53929757

LINDE CANADA LIMITED T4070 WELDING GAS CYLINDER RENTAL WELDING SUPPLIES

204295

MCKEOWN AND WOOD FUELS 1447.4L @ $.6350

9132 9253 Total EFT000000005299 EFT000000005300 4/19/2016

FISH, DOROTHY

Total EFT000000005300 EFT000000005302 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005302 EFT000000005304 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005304 EFT000000005307 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005307 EFT000000005308 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005308 EFT000000005310 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005310 EFT000000005311 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005311 EFT000000005312 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005312 EFT000000005315 4/19/2016

$177.66 $177.66 $8,344.32 $8,344.32 $649.31 $46.80 $52.63 $748.74 $111.67 $130.05 $313.74 $152.02 $158.53 $866.01 $375.00 $375.00 $860.46 $860.46 $62.23 $23.00 $204.13 $289.36 $935.28

Page 103 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000005315 EFT000000005317 4/19/2016

Page:

5 $935.28

11281 11283

NORTHWAY HARDWARE SCRAPER & 2 PAILS TAPE MEASURE

0000128733

PAT’S RADIATOR SERVICE LTD. INDUSTRIAL RADIATOR RECORED

Total EFT000000005317 EFT000000005318 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005318 EFT000000005319 4/19/2016

$56.93 $14.23 $71.16 $3,629.08 $3,629.08

PETRIE FORD 207825 209940

Total EFT000000005319 EFT000000005324 4/19/2016

REAR LAMP ASSY W/W CAP

371586

SURGENOR TRUCK CENTRE LEVELING VALVE LEAKING

428426 428421 428425 321300T 321598T 321421T 428386

TALLMAN TRUCK CENTRE LIMITED SAFETY/REPAIRS OIL LEAK NEAR OIL PAN SAFETY SEAT W/S WIPER FILTERS PRE SAFETY INSPECTION

3946 6472

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND COFFEE, WATER, CREAM WATER

201170 58056 57425 57134 57691 57160 57600 200834 200629 57135 58129 57304 200512 58123

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 2 WALLDRILLERS GARBAGE BAGS STEP LADDER DRYWALL, COMPOUND, STUDS BEAD, DRYWALL SCREWS 8 SPRUCE FASTENERS DRYWALL SCREWS DRYWALL 6 SPRUCE STUDS PAINT & BRUSHES BATTERIES & CAR FRESHENERS PADLOCK & HASPS

Total EFT000000005324 EFT000000005325 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005325 EFT000000005326 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005326 EFT000000005327 4/19/2016

$80.85 $9.41 $90.26 $7,999.84 $7,999.84 $2,130.93 $3,940.97 $328.07 $635.30 $567.32 $172.31 $1,420.31 $9,195.21 $73.58 $34.93 $108.51

Total EFT000000005327

$11.58 $7.71 $53.92 $168.73 $20.53 $29.50 $32.48 $16.74 $25.42 $15.20 $18.25 $66.09 $6.28 $30.50 $502.93

Total Cap/Equip/Ptrl

$54,958.75

3502 Winter Prop Damage Cheque 067385 Total 067385 EFT000000005286

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

032904

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE MAIL BOX

2519

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE MAIL BOX

4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005286

Total Winter Prop Damage

Amount $25.43 $25.43 $20.34 $20.34

$45.77

3505 Snw Plwng Cheque 067394 Total 067394 EFT000000005281

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Description

16/03/31

HOGAN’S SUNRISE SNOWPLOWING INC MARCH PLOW/SANDING

22028 22022 22021 22020 22019

1622411 ONTARIO LTD. 3.5 HRS @ $72.50 3 PLOW/SAND @ $30 3 PLOW/SAND @ $30 3 PLOW/SAND @ $55 18 HRS @ $72.50

4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005281

Vendor

Amount $1,515.00 $1,515.00 $258.22 $91.58 $91.58 $167.90 $1,327.97 $1,937.25

Page 104 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

EFT000000005291

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

4/19/2016

6

CABINTREE 1039 1039

Total EFT000000005291 EFT000000005309 4/19/2016 2016-42016 2016-42013 2016-42017 2016-42014 2016-42015 2016-42011 2016-42012 Total EFT000000005309 EFT000000005316 4/19/2016

Page:

3 PLOWS @ $130 1 PLOW @ $75 K MULROONEY TRUCKING LIMITED 36 HRS @ $147 12 HRS @ $147 13 HRS @ $154 4.5 HRS @ $154 11 HRS @ $147 3 HRS @ $154 10 HRS @ $147

MCNICHOLS CONSTRUCTION LTD 16/03/25-LLORDS RD PLOW/SAND LLORD’S RD 3X 16/03/25-TIMMERMAN PLOW/SAND TIMMERMAN 3X 16/03/25-J WILSON PLOW/SAND J WILSON RD 3X 16/03/25-DEYO RD PLOW/SAND DEYO RD 3X 16/03/25-BUNKER HILL PLOW/SAND BUNKER HILL 3X 16/03/25-HENRY RD PLOW/SAND HENRY RD 3X 16/03/25-WHITE RD PLOW/SAND WHITE RD 3X 16/03/25-NEW RD PLOW/SAND NEW RD 3X

Total EFT000000005316 EFT000000005330 4/19/2016 511056 511055

WHALEY, GEORGE 9 PLOWS @ $125 14 PLOWS @ $125

Total EFT000000005330

Total Snw Plwng

$396.86 $76.32 $473.18 $5,385.14 $1,795.05 $2,037.23 $705.20 $1,645.46 $470.13 $1,495.87 $13,534.08 $422.30 $147.55 $381.60 $442.66 $381.60 $218.78 $223.87 $320.54 $2,538.90 $1,144.80 $1,780.80 $2,925.60

$22,924.01

3506 Snow Clearing Sidewalks Cheque EFT000000005281

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 22025 22026

Vendor

Description

1622411 ONTARIO LTD. 2.5 HRS @ $75 1 HR @ $65

Total EFT000000005281

Total Snow Clearing Sidewalks

Amount $190.80 $66.14 $256.94

$256.94

3515 Stock Snd&Slt Cheque 067395

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 5300245710 5300241038

Vendor

Description

K+S WINDSOR SALT LTD 37.23T SALT @ $84.74 42.59T SALT @ $84.74

Total 067395

Total Stock Snd&Slt

Amount $3,210.40 $3,672.60 $6,883.00

$6,883.00

3601 Barricds & Sfty Matls Cheque 067386

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 BPC00005172

Vendor

Description

BARCO PRODUCT - CANADA SPEED BUMPS

Total 067386

Amount $2,184.31 $2,184.31

Total Barricds & Sfty Matls

$2,184.31

Total Trans

$88,171.79

40 Env 4110 Water Treat Cheque 067387

Date 4/19/2016

Inv #

Vendor

Description

BELL CANADA-WATER TOWER PHONE LINE N6027631-16/03 WATER TOWER CIRCUIT LINE

Total 067387

Total Water Treat

Amount $74.28 $74.28

$74.28

5105 Garb coll Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

Page 105 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

067396

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

4/19/2016 19722

KINGSTON DIESEL SERVICES REPLACE FUEL FILTER

Total 067396

Total Garb coll

Page:

7

$261.01 $261.01

$261.01

5110 Gab disp Cheque EFT000000005281

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

22018

1622411 ONTARIO LTD. 3 HRS @ $65

7152

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING FABRICATE BOTTOM RAILS & DOOR

511054 511054 511054

WHALEY, GEORGE 15 HRS @ $80 25 HRS @ $100 35 HRS @ $10.65

Total EFT000000005281 EFT000000005297 4/19/2016 Total EFT000000005297 EFT000000005330 4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005330

Total Gab disp

Amount $198.43 $198.43 $3,425.24 $3,425.24 $1,221.12 $2,544.00 $379.30 $4,144.42

$7,768.09

5200 Recyc Cheque 067389 Total 067389 EFT000000005327

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

247842

CARD FOREST PRODUCTS BOARDS

58217 58129

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE PLYWOOD, STUDS 2 SPRUCE STUDS

4/19/2016

Total EFT000000005327

Total Recyc

Amount $311.39 $311.39 $219.73 $6.09 $225.82

$537.21

5210 Rec Disp/Prc Cheque 067405

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 16/01/01-39

BIN RENTAL

Total 067405

Total Rec Disp/Prc

$915.84 $915.84

$915.84

Total Env

$9,556.43

80 Rec 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000005313

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016

Vendor

Description

Amount

LONDRY ALARMS 183889

ALARM MONITORING & RENTAL

Total EFT000000005313

Total Gen

$50.88 $50.88

$50.88

8000 Rec Cheque 067397 Total 067397 067399 Total 067399 067402 Total 067402 067408

Date 4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

Inv #

Description

LEBLANC, CHRISTINE 16/03/29 - P REC 16/03/29 - P REC MOREY, PAM 16/03/29 - P REC SEC

16/03/29 - P REC SECRETARY

PRESTON, CHERYL 16/03/29 - P REC 16/03/29 - P REC

4/19/2016 134288524-003 133270344-005

Total 067408

Vendor

UNITED RENTALS OF CANADA INC MODULAR FENCE MODULAR FENCE

Amount $30.30 $30.30 $65.00 $65.00 $30.30 $30.30 $915.84 $122.11 $1,037.95

Page 106 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

EFT000000005281

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

4/19/2016 22027

Total EFT000000005281 EFT000000005289 4/19/2016

1622411 ONTARIO LTD. 3 PLOW/SAND @ $50

BELL, DAN 16/03/29 - P REC

Total EFT000000005289 EFT000000005294 4/19/2016

8

$152.64 $152.64

16/03/29 - P REC

$30.30 $30.30

WATER DELIVERY

$65.00 $2.02 $67.02

CULLIGAN 0817486 0817486

Total EFT000000005294 EFT000000005298 4/19/2016

Page:

DOWKER, MARY JO 16/03/29 - P REC 16/03/29 - P REC

Total EFT000000005298 EFT000000005317 4/19/2016 11282 Total EFT000000005317 EFT000000005323 4/19/2016

NORTHWAY HARDWARE SWIFTER WET JET & MATERIALS

$30.30 $30.30 $51.86 $51.86

SLEETH, SARAH 16/03/24-05 16/03/24-05 16/03/24-05

Total EFT000000005323 EFT000000005327 4/19/2016 500170 200815

5 CLEANS @ $70 5 WKS BOOKING @ $10 1 HR @ $15 TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE CORNERS FOR DOCK LAMPS

Total EFT000000005327

Total Rec

$350.00 $50.00 $15.00 $415.00 $93.57 $24.40 $117.97

$2,028.64

8036 Family Day Cheque 067392

Date

Inv #

4/19/2016 797176 797176

Vendor

Description

FINDLAY FOODS (KINGSTON) LTD. FOOD FOR FAMILY DAY FOOD FOR FAMILY DAY

Total 067392

Total Family Day

Amount $101.76 $213.55 $315.31

$315.31

Total Rec

$2,394.83

90 Plan 9000 Plan Cheque 067409 Total 067409 067410 Total 067410 067412 Total 067412 067413 Total 067413 EFT000000005295

Date 4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

4/19/2016

Inv #

Vendor

Description

BANNON, JUSTIN Z-16/02 REFUND BAL -16/02 PLANNING CHARGES BARKER WILLSON PROF CORP TRUST Z-16/03 REFUND BAL -16/03 PLANNING CHARGES PELLERIN, LORRAINE Z-16/01 REFUND BAL Z-16/01 PLANNING CHARGES SNIDER, PERCY Z-15/08 REFUND BAL

4/19/2016 137609 137671 137670 137668

Z-15/08 PLANNING CHARGES

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY DIRKSEN OMB APPEAL PLANNING ADVICE PLANNING ADVICE PLANNING ADVICE

Total EFT000000005295

Amount -$1,300.00 -$1,300.00 -$1,300.00 -$1,300.00 -$1,200.00 -$1,200.00 -$1,100.00 -$1,100.00 $329.87 $127.20 $127.20 $178.08 $762.35

Total Plan

-$4,137.65

Total Plan

-$4,137.65

99 9999 Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

Page 107 of 198

System:

4/14/2016

User ID:

srummell

067411 Total 067411

1:31:29 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

4/19/2016

CASSEN INVESTMENTS INC 060 020 04100 REFUND 060 020 04100 REFUND

Page:

9

$2,153.99 $2,153.99

Total

$2,153.99

Total

$2,153.99

Total

$130,815.86

Page 108 of 198

STAFF REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Council Agenda Date: April 19, 2016 Date of Report: April 14, 2016

Planning Department File No. RC-14/01 Applicant: 1324789 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Review of Application for Road Closure; Part of Lot 24, Concession VI & VII; Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac: Johnston Point

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that Council pass a by-law to stop up and close and transfer ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance to an abutting property-owner in the District of Loughborough. Purpose of the report: The purpose of this report is to bring back to Council an application for a road closure. A public meeting on the application was held on October 7, 2015 as required under the Municipal Act. The report includes a location attachment, a map illustrating the portion of road allowance to be closed and a by-law to effect the closure. Background An application has been submitted to the Planning Department to stop up and close a portion of unopened road allowance in Loughborough District. An advertised public meeting on the proposal was held on October 7, 2015 where no concerns were made. The land is proposed to be sold to the abutting land owner on the north side and south sides of the road allowance as part of the Johnston Point Plan of Condominium development. Attachment #1 shows the location of the subject land and Attachment #2 illustrates the area requested to be closed. Prior the public meeting, the matter came before Council on August 2, 2014 and was discussed as part of the condominium development. Council appeared favourable to the closure. Discussion Referring to Attachment #2, the portion of road allowance is 255 metres long and a portion is wetland as illustrated. To the west of the subject closure the road allowance continues through private land and more wetland. To the east, the road allowance continues through private fields to Koen Road. North Shore Road is a forced Township road paralleling the unopened road allowance constructed to the north to avoid these wetland areas. A by-law to effect the closure and sale of the road allowance is attached as Bylaw # 2016-28. Conclusion The road allowance does not lead to any usable water and, thus, it appears that the road allowance would probably not be useful as a future road or access for the public. For Council’s information, the By-law may be passed at this time but the actual land transfer would only take place when a deed is prepared to transfer the land. Staff will not stamp the deed until the applicant has paid the full cost of the land to the Township. The cost of the land is $9,685.00.

Page 109 of 198

Recommendation It is recommended that Council pass By-law No. 2016-28 to close and sell a portion of unopened road allowance in part of Lot 24 between Concessions VI and VII, Loughborough District. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Attachments JohnstonPointRoadClosingReport2

Page 110 of 198

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 14th, 2016

AGENDA DATE: April 19th, 2016

SUBJECT: Tender No. PW- 2016 - 14 – New Tires and Repairs RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves the bid of Black Dog Tire for the supply and service of the Township’s tire and repair needs. PURPOSE: A Tender was advertised for New Tires and Repairs for Public Works, Fire, and Building Inspection for a One year period with an optional One year Extension. This Tender closed on March 30th, 2016 and one bid was received. ANALYSIS: Extending the term of this tender was considered. However, we have not had many years of experience tendering for these items and because of so many variables we were uncomfortable at this time. Each tender requires individual consideration. The result, based on previous annual usage and repairs, is as follows: Bidder Black Dog Tire

Tender Price (excluding HST) $89,791.24

The submissions of the bid submitted was evaluated compared to the pervious 2014 submissions, service calls and new tires purchased. Based on numbers from our purchases and repairs in 2013, Black Dog Tire has actually provided a more competitive price list than what we received in 2014. Black Dog Tire is a reputable supplier with many years of experience in tire supply and repair. For these reasons, and also because their submission was the only one received for this service, it is recommended that the tender from Black Dog Tire be accepted. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Sufficient Funds exist in the approved 2016 budget for this purpose. ATTACHMENTS: APPENDIX A – VENDOR NEW TIRE AND REPAIR EVALUATION Submitted/approved by:

Prepared By:

Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday, CET Area Supervisor

Page 111 of 198

PW-2014-03 New Tires and Repairs Evaluation Item 1 - New Tires 2014/15 Tender Unit Price Dept.

Description

Est. Qty

Price Listed is After Discout

Price Listed is After Discout

8

144.95 35%

123.76 48%

$1,159.60

$990.08

4

169.00 35%

142.48 48%

$676.00

$569.92

4

203.45 35%

184.08 48%

$813.80

$736.32

4

224.25 202.80

163.28 48%

$897.00

$653.12

8

221.65 35%

216.84 48%

$1,773.20

$1,734.72

4

85.00 Net

146.12 48%

$340.00

$584.48

4

148.00 Net

225.68 48%

$592.00

$902.72

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

All Season Light Truck Tire 265/65R18

PW

All Season Light Truck Tire LT265/70R17

Bldg.

Light Truck Winter Tire LT235/75R15

PW

Kal Tire

All Season Light Truck Tire 265/70R17

Fire

Blackdog

All Season Light Truck Tire 235/70R16

PW

Tender Total Price

Kal Tire

All Season Light Truck Tire 235/75R15

Bldg.

Item 1- New Tires 2016/17

Blackdog

Light Truck Tires

Bldg.

PW-2016-14 New Tires and Repairs Evaluation

Light Truck Winter Tire LT265/70R17

275/65R18 E/10 NOK ROTIIVA AT PLUS 950/R16.5E/10 FST TRANSFORCE H/T ST205/75D14 C/6P CAR SPORT TRAIL L

Tender Unit Price

Tender Total Price

Blackdog

Blackdog

Price Listed is After Discout Bridgestone 159.12 49% Michelin 176.15 35%-40% Bridgestone 213.59 49% Michelin 227.50 35%-40% Michelin 243.10 35%-40% Sailun Ice Blazer 99.00 Net Sailun Ice Blazer 165.00 Net

$1,272.96

$704.60

$854.36

$910.00

$1,944.80

$396.00

$660.00

Truck Tires

Fire

Commercial Tire

16

339.57 37%

340.83 37%

$5,433.12

$5,453.28

Michelin 355.74 35%-40%

$5,691.84

6

328.60 38%

333.90 37%

$1,971.60

$2,003.40

Bridgestone 270.30 49%

$1,621.80

68

486.36 37%

437.22 37%

$33,072.48

$29,730.96

Michelin 486.36 35%-40%

$33,072.48

8

616.20 35%

498.96 37%

$4,929.60

$3,991.68

Michelin 625.68 35%-40%

$5,005.44

8

684.81 37%

591.57 37%

$5,478.48

$4,732.56

Michelin 684.81 35%-40%

$5,478.48

4

688.59 37%

637.56 37%

$2,754.36

$2,550.24

Michelin 688.59 35%-40%

$2,754.36

4

793.80 37%

742.77 37%

$3,175.20

$2,971.08

Michelin 793.80 35%-40%

$3,175.20

$0.00

$0.00

F, 16/32” Tread Depth 225/70R19.5

PW

Premium Steer/All Position Tire 12 P.R., F Speed, 22/32” Tread Depth 8R19.5

PW

All Position Steer/Trailer Tire 16 P.R., H Speed, 19/32" Tread Depth 11R22.5

All Position On/Off Road Tire 16 P.R., L Speed, 21/32" Tread Depth 12R22.5

All Position On/Off Road Tire L Speed, 18/32" Tread Depth 315/80R22.5

Fire

All Position On/Off Road Tire 18 P.R., L Speed, 21/32" Tread Depth 385/65R22.5

Fire

All Position On/Off Road Tire 20 P.R., L Speed, 21/32" Tread Depth 425/65R22.5

10.00/R20 H/16P KUM FD04 w/o flap**SI* Trailer Tires Trailer Tire

8

74.00 No List

98.95 37%

$592.00

$791.60

Galaxy Road Rider 8P 68.00 Net

$544.00

12

85.00 No List

118.95 37%

$1,020.00

$1,427.40

Galaxy Road Rider 8P 78.00 Net

$936.00

4

289.00 No List

422.47 37%

$1,156.00

$1,689.88

Primex Boss Grip 14P 285.00 Net

$1,140.00

4

665.00 No List

845.25 37%

$2,660.00

$3,381.00

Primex Razor Back 725.00 Net

$2,900.00

4

4238.50 30%

4340.70 37%

$16,954.00

$17,362.80

Michelin 2714.45 35%-40%

$10,857.80

4

3364.20 30%

3190.32 37%

$13,456.80

$12,761.28

Michelin 2467.78 35%-40%

$9,871.12

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

LRC, 10/32" Tread Depth ST205/70D15

Trailer Tire LRD, 11/32" Tread Depth ST225/75D15

Off Road Tires

PW

Backhoe Tire (Front) 14 P.R., N.H.S. 14 - 17.5

PW

Backhoe Tire (Rear) 16 P.R. 21L - 24

PW

Loader Tire 45/32" Tread Depth 23.5R25

PW

Motor Grader Tire 45/32" Tread Depth 23.5R25

17.5R25 1* BST VSW TL G2A G2 1400R24 1* BST VSW TL G2A G3

All Invetory Parts Total/2015 Scrap Tire Sales Total/2015 (Environmental Charge) Industrial and Farm Tires Total/2015 Sub-Total

$0.00

$0.00

$98,905.24

$95,018.52

Sub-Total

$89,791.24

Page 112 of 198

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 11th, 2016

AGENDA DATE: April 19th, 2016

SUBJECT: RFP #PW-P02-2016 – Supply of Diesel Fuel and Gasoline RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves the bid of Rosen Energy Group for the supply and delivery of the Township’s Diesel Fuel and Gasoline for a period of five years. PURPOSE: A Request for Proposal was advertised for Supply and delivery of Diesel Fuel and Gasoline for Public Works, Fire, and Building Inspection for a Five year period as the existing contract term comes to completion at the end of March 2016. This RFP closed on March 30th, 2016 and seven bids were received. ANALYSIS: The term of contract has been changed from 2 years to 5 years. The purpose of this lengthening of term is to acquire more interest from larger vendors and gain more competitive prices. This also solidifies a contract for a longer period of time resulting in less time requirements for contract preparation and administration. The Request for Proposal indicated a need for experience in supplying and delivering of diesel fuel and gasoline. Experience during emergency situations cleaning up spills, fuel transfer from one location to another, supplying diesel fuel and gasoline, and responding within a suitable timeframe were also components that the vendors were evaluated on. Each of the firms submitted a proposal based on the following scoring system: 1.

Company Profile Contact Information, Location, Years in Business Mission Statement and Policies Health and Safety Policy

10%

Experience Related Projects References and Credentials Project Personnel Sub consultants

10%

Emergency Delivery Time

5%

Financial Component

75%

The total cost, based on estimated annual quantities of fuel consumption at 2016 fuel prices, is as follows. The detailed breakdown of cost has been attached as

Page 113 of 198

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Appendix A: SUMMARY

Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Grand Total (Part A-F) 336,523.50 335,343.05 326,650.50 321,846.85 321,609.15 345,135.05 324,134.25

Based on these criteria, the five proposals, ranked in ascending order, are as follows: Vendor

Score

99.9% 95.7% 95.1% 92.7% 90.6% 90.0% 88.3%

Rosen Energy Group W.O. Stinson and Sons Ltd. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. MacEwen Petroleum Inc. CST Canada Co. (Ultramar) 4Refuel Canada LP Noco Fuels Canada LP

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Sufficient Funds exist in the approved 2016 budget for this purpose. ATTACHMENTS: APPENDIX A – VENDOR FUEL DELIVERY PRICE BREAKDOWN

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared By:

Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager

David Holliday, CET Area Supervisor

Page 114 of 198

2016 VENDOR FUEL DELIVERY PRICE BREAKDOWN Part A: Keeley Patrol Yard Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Item 1: Gasoline Item 2: Diesel (Coloured) Item 3: Diesel (Clear) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.762 80000 $ 60,960.00 0.612 50000 $ 30,600.00 0.755 115000 $ 86,825.00 0.7315 80000 $ 58,520.00 0.5933 50000 $ 29,665.00 0.7703 115000 $ 88,584.50 0.749 80000 $ 59,920.00 0.588 50000 $ 29,400.00 0.731 115000 $ 84,065.00 0.7305 80000 $ 58,440.00 0.5801 50000 $ 29,005.00 0.7231 115000 $ 83,156.50 0.7195 80000 $ 57,560.00 0.5858 50000 $ 29,290.00 0.7229 115000 $ 83,133.50 0.793 80000 $ 63,440.00 0.6101 50000 $ 30,505.00 0.7531 115000 $ 86,606.50 0.7575 80000 $ 60,600.00 0.5825 50000 $ 29,125.00 0.7255 115000 $ 83,432.50

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total 178,385.00 176,769.50 173,385.00 170,601.50 169,983.50 180,551.50 173,157.50

Item 1: Gasoline Item 2: Diesel (Coloured) Item 3: Diesel (Clear) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.762 13000 $ 9,906.00 0.612 25000 $ 15,300.00 0.755 50000 $ 37,750.00 0.7315 13000 $ 9,509.50 0.5933 25000 $ 14,832.50 0.7703 50000 $ 38,515.00 0.749 13000 $ 9,737.00 0.588 25000 $ 14,700.00 0.731 50000 $ 36,550.00 0.7305 13000 $ 9,496.50 0.5801 25000 $ 14,502.50 0.7231 50000 $ 36,155.00 0.7195 13000 $ 9,353.50 0.5858 25000 $ 14,645.00 0.7229 50000 $ 36,145.00 0.7934 13000 $ 10,314.20 0.6201 25000 $ 15,502.50 0.7631 50000 $ 38,155.00 0.7575 13000 $ 9,847.50 0.5825 25000 $ 14,562.50 0.7255 50000 $ 36,275.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total 62,956.00 62,857.00 60,987.00 60,154.00 60,143.50 63,971.70 60,685.00

Part B: Bedford Patrol Yard Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Part C: Hartington Patrol Yard Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Item 1: Diesel (Coloured) Item 2: Diesel (Clear) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.612 25000 $ 15,300.00 0.755 60000 $ 45,300.00 0.5933 25000 $ 14,832.50 0.7703 60000 $ 46,218.00 0.588 25000 $ 14,700.00 0.731 60000 $ 43,860.00 0.5801 25000 $ 14,502.50 0.7231 60000 $ 43,386.00 0.5858 25000 $ 14,645.00 0.7229 60000 $ 43,374.00 0.6201 25000 $ 15,502.50 0.7631 60000 $ 45,786.00 0.5825 25000 $ 14,562.50 0.7255 60000 $ 43,530.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Item 1: Diesel (Clear) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.755 1500 $ 1,132.50 0.7703 1500 $ 1,155.45 0.731 1500 $ 1,096.50 0.7231 1500 $ 1,084.65 0.7129 1500 $ 1,069.35 0.9781 1500 $ 1,467.15 0.7255 1500 $ 1,088.25

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total 1,132.50 1,155.45 1,096.50 1,084.65 1,069.35 1,467.15 1,088.25

Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Item 1: Gasoline (Premium) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.842 20000 $ 16,840.00 0.8282 20000 $ 16,564.00 0.827 20000 $ 16,540.00 0.8105 20000 $ 16,210.00 0.7995 20000 $ 15,990.00 0.8734 20000 $ 17,468.00 0.7575 20000 $ 15,150.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total 16,840.00 16,564.00 16,540.00 16,210.00 15,990.00 17,468.00 15,150.00

Item 1: Diesel (Clear) Net Price Delivered Est. Quantity Sub-Total 0.755 22000 $ 16,610.00 0.7703 22000 $ 16,946.60 0.731 22000 $ 16,082.00 0.7231 22000 $ 15,908.20 0.7229 22000 $ 15,903.80 0.7631 22000 $ 16,788.20 0.7255 22000 $ 15,961.00

Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. $ $ Incl.

Total 60,600.00 61,050.50 58,560.00 57,888.50 58,019.00 61,288.50 58,092.50

Part D: Burridge Fire Hall Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Rank Grand Total (Part A-F) 336,523.50 335,343.05 326,650.50 321,846.85 321,609.15 345,135.05 324,134.25

6 5 4 2 1 7 3

Part E: Sydenham Fire Hall Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Part F: Sunbury Fire Hall Vendor Noco Fuels Canada LP MacEwen Petroleum Inc. Mckeown and Wood Fuels Ltd. W.O. Stinson & Sons Ltd. Rosen Energy Group 4Refuel Canada LP CST Canada Co. (Ultramar)

Tank Rental $ $ $ $ 500.00 $ 3,600.00 $ $

Total 16,610.00 16,946.60 16,082.00 15,908.20 16,403.80 20,388.20 15,961.00

Page 115 of 198

STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COW: April 14, 2016 AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Road and Lane Standards RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council adopt the Roads and Lane Standard Cross-Section Policy dated March 17, 2016. ORIGIN: Refinements to the existing Road and Lane Standards Cross-Section Policy are proposed to address some of the situations that have been encountered with the existing standards. ANALYSIS: The changes proposed are to the Private Lane Standards. They involve the width of clearing and establishing embankment protection criteria. With regard to reducing the width of clearing from 9.0m to 6.0m it is unnecessary to clear trees to 9.0m when fire trucks require a horizontal and vertical clearance of 4.5m. Historically, our Standards have not addressed any requirement for embankment protection. Embankment refers to the drop off at the edge of the road or lane and protection is required when the slope of the drop off exceeds 3 vertical to 1 horizontal (3:1). This standard is adopted from MTO Roadside Safety Manual. Embankment protection can include guide rails, posts and cable, trees, etc.

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None Submitted/approved by: Mark Segsworth, P. Eng. Public Works Manager Attachments:

1. Existing Roads and Lane Cross-Section Policy dated March 16, 2015
2. Proposed Roads and Lane Cross-Section Policy dated March 17, 2016.

Page 116 of 198

EXISTING

Township of South Frontenac Road and Lane Standard Cross—Section Policy ITEM

PUBLIC ROAD

PRIVATELANE

Right of Way Width

20.0m (66 ft)

20.0m (66 ft)

Height of Clearance

50m (16 ft)

5.0m (16 ft)

Width of Clearance

ll.Om (36ft)

9.0m (30 ft)

Surface Width

7.0m (23 ft)

4.5m (15 ft)

Surface Material

Per Table Below 8" of Granular A 10" of Granular B

Crushed Stone 4" of Granular A 6" of Granular B

1.0m (3 ft)

Nil

2%

1%

400mm (16 Inches)

400mm (16 Inches)

Culvert Material

CSP/HDPE

CSP/HDPE

Maximum Grade

10% (1:10)

12% (1:8)

0.6m (2.0 ft)

0.5m (1.5 ft)

Depth of Granular Material, Minimum Shoulder, Excluding Rounding Crown, Minimum Cross Culvert, Minimum

Ditches, Minimum Depth from Crown to Bottom of Ditch

Traffic Volume <2OO 200-1000

1000

Surface Type Crushed Gravel Double Surface Treatment Asphalt

Steel Pipe HDPE: High Density Polyethylene (Double Wall)

CSP: Corrugated

March 16 2015

Note:

Public Road Cross—Section does not apply to New Sub—Divisions. Please refer to Design Criteria and Standards.

Page 117 of 198

PROPOSED Township of South Frontenac Roads and Lane Standard Cross-Section Policy ITEM

PUBLIC ROAD

Right of Way Width

20.0 m (66 ft)

20.0 m (66 ft.)

Height of Clearing

5.0 m(16ft)

5.0 m (16 ft)

Width of Clearing

11.0 m (36 ft)

6.0 m (20 ft)

Surface Width

6.7 m (22 ft)

4.5 m (15 ft)

Surface Material

Per Table Below

crushed stone

Depth of Material, Minimum

(150mm) 6” of Granular A (300mm) 12” of Granular B

(100mm) 4" of GranularA (150mm) 6" of Granular B

Shoulder, including Rounding

1.0m(3ft)

Nil

Crown, Minimum

2%

1%

Cross Culvert, Minimum

400 mm (16 inches)

300 mm (12 inches)

Culvert Material

CSP/HDPE

CSP/HDPE

Maximum Grade

10% (1 in 10)

12% (1 in 8)

Geometrics

TAC Standards

Safe Passage of emergency vehicles

Ditches, Minimum Depth from Crown to Bottom of Ditch

0.6 m (2 Feet)

03 m (1.0 feet)

PRIVATE LANE

Embankment Protection (edge of surface drop off)—Required for side slopes greater than 3:1 and depths of fill greater than 3m (MTO Roadside Safety Manual) Traffic Volume

Surface Type

Minimum Depth

<2OO

Crushed Gravel

375mm (15 inches)

200-1000

Double Surface Treatment

N/A

<1000

Asphalt

As per Development Guidelines

CSP: Corrugated Steel Pipe HDPE: High Density Polyethylene (Double Wall) TAC: Transportation Association of Canada March 17, 2016 Note: Public Road Cross—Section does not apply to New Sub—DiVision5. Please refer to Subdivision Design Criteria and Standards. 1

Page 118 of 198

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

April 13, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

April 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Chief Building Official RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council direct staff to proceed with the recruitment of a Chief Building Official. BACKGROUND: It is a statutory requirement that a municipality have a Chief Building Official. Given our current staffing vacancy Council has cross appointed Central Frontenac’s CBO Jeremy Neven as South Frontenac’s CBO. Hiring was deferred pending the outcome of the organizational review, recognizing that there could be outcomes that would change the scope of work and reporting relationships. While both of these factors were part of the recommendations, there has been no final decisions made. The cross appointment was done on the basis that it was for the slow winter period while there was snow on the ground. With the warmer weather coming in, the pressures on our CBO in his own fulltime role and within our own building department will grow exponentially. We need to move forward with recruitment regardless of the outcome of the organizational review.

Submitted by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 119 of 198

PORTLAND DISTRICT & AREA HERITAGE SOCIETY GENERAL MEETING MARCH 24/16 PRINCESS ANNE COMMUNITY ROOM – 10 A.M.

Members discussed opening and closing of museum as follows: Open – May Saturday 21 and Sunday 22 , also Wednesday 25th – 1 – 4 p.m. After that every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday 1 - 4 p.m. Closing Oct. -9 – at 4 p.m.for the season. We will sign up Volunteers at our next General Meeting on April 20. If the volunteer can’t work on the date they sign for, will be responsible for finding their own replacement. We will talk to Jamie Brash about a sign. Lynn Hutcheson and Homer Card volunteered to go in as Directors. That will be done at our next general meeting. We need a new accounting program for the computer. It was moved by Doug Lovegrove and seconded by Wilhelmine Card we get “Simply Accounting”. Carried. We will be having “Doors Open” at the Museum this year – full day.

Next Director’s Meeting at South Frontenac Museum – April 13th – 10 a.m. Next General Meeting

at South Frontenac Museum – April 20th – 7 p.m.

Page 120 of 198

Page 121 of 198

SOUTH FRONTENAC PORTLAND REC COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes –March 29th, 2016

Attendees: Dan Bell, Mary Jo Dowker, Pam Morey, Cheryl Preston, Christine Leblanc, Tim Laprade Regrets:

1. The minutes of October’s meeting were reviewed. Motion to accept by Christine Leblanc and seconded by MaryJo Dowker.
2. The Agenda for March 29th, 2016 meeting was reviewed. Motion to accept by Cheryl Preston and seconded by Pam Morey.
3. There was discussion on the business arising from the minutes: Business Arising from Minutes: •

Recreation Update- User fees : No decisions have been made as of yet whether to change fees. Central recreation recommended proceeding with further investigation. It was noted that this issue needs to be addressed. Secretary Payment: It was brought to our attention at the last Central Recreation meeting that some recording secretaries for the district recreation committees have been paid different honorarium amounts for their services. In some cases they have been paid nothing. It was motioned to be presented to council that all district secretaries be given the same amount across the board. Family Day: The family day event ran very successfully this year. Thank you was given to Dan Bell for all of his guidance and help on this project. Canada Day 2017: The option to have a joint celebration for Canada’s 150th at one location for all of the districts was brought to the Central Rec meeting. Only two of the four districts agreed. No amalgamation will take place for this celebration. Fireworks: The fireworks for all Districts that require fireworks for their Canada Day Celebration are now being handled by the township. Elections: It was mentioned that the election for the Central Recreation Committee resulted in Mike Howe as chair and Dan Bell as vice chair.

New Business: •

•

•

It was mentioned that the township is considering making the tennis courts at Centennial Park a multi use pad. This decision was brought forth after several user groups expressed interest in using this pad for their activities. The introduction of user fees for any organized group using this facility was mentioned and it was agreed that this recommendation should be further investigated. A meeting will be set up by the Recreation Coordinator with these groups to discuss their opinion on this recommendation. Summer Camps were mentioned by Tim Laprade. The township will be introducing a sports camp at Mc Mullen Park this year. It will include several kinds of sports. The basketball nets were replaced at McMullen Park in anticipation of this camp. Members of the committee suggested several ways to promote this new camp. Pam Morey also mentioned the possibility of some day having a summer drop in program at Centennial Park. It could be structured following the City of Kingston’s drop in programs at their parks. The five year plan and what our district would like to include was discussed. To date the following are our recommendations for the 5 year Plan for Portland District in order of importance.

1. Portable Soccer Nets
2. Benches at Centennial Park for Soccer fields.
3. Active Drop in Parks Program for Centennial Park
4. Splash Pad for Centennial Park
5. Ice Stock Dedicated Area
6. Pickle Ball- Nets, Resurfacing and Dedicated court.
7. Skateboard park at Centennial Park •

•

The contract for the grass cutting for soccer fields was discussed. A motion was made to make a recommendation to the township to consider the standards of the Soccer Association when structuring the tender for the grass cutting in the future. This tender should take into consideration how many days the grass cutting will occur per week. The length of the grass. The schedule of grass cutting in conjunction with when the fields are used. This motion was brought forth by Christine Leblanc and Seconded by Pam Morey, all were in favor. The Skateboard Park was mentioned. Further investigation needs to be done. This committee will reach out to the community in hopes of finding interested parties to spear head the project. This topic will be discussed at the next meeting.

Page 122 of 198

•

Healthy Kids event sponsored by the Health Unit will be taking place at the North Frontenac Arena May 1st. Any sporting groups that would like to attend are asked to contact Tim Laparde.

Meeting was adjourned at 8:19. Our next will be held at the Princess Anne building in Hartington at 7:00, Monday, April 25th.

Page 123 of 198

South Frontenac Recreation Committee Minutes Monday, March 21, 2016 Attendance: Chair Mike Howe, Vice-Chair Dan Bell, Councillor Pat Barr, Councillor Mark Schjerning, Councillor Norm Roberts, Kevin Fox, Tim Laprade, Wolfe Erlichman, Tracy Holland, Donna Brown

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes – Monday, February 22, 2016 Motion to approve the minutes from Monday, February 22, 2016 Moved by: Kevin Fox Seconded by: Vice-Chair Dan Bell Carried
3. Business Arising from the Minutes

• No new information to discuss at this time.

4. New Business a. 5 Year Recreation Plan Process

• Tim Laprade circulated a hard copy of notes to discuss with the committee in terms of developing a 5 Year Recreation Plan such as; Public Consultation, Existing Plans/Reports, Current Processes and Other Items. Tim also outlined what his needs are from each district in order to begin the process such as; Outcomes that Districts would like to see from the plan, Potential survey questions for public consultation, List of events/opportunities in each district that can be used to gather input and Review of the current plan.
• Please forward specific survey questions you would like answered by the public to Tim Laprade by May 11, 2016. Specific items to be incorporated in the 5 Year Recreation Plan should be ranked in order of priority and sent to Tim as soon as possible.
• Councillor Mark Schjerning suggested ensuring that we incorporate seasonal residents into the survey. An advertisement might work well in a tax mail-out to make sure it reaches everyone in the Township.

5. Updates a. User Fees

• Council will evaluate the suggestions and information regarding user fees for outdoor sports teams at the next Committee of the Whole meeting on April 5, 2015. b. Standardization of Recreation Committee Secretaries Payments
• The recommendation/motion from SFRC regarding payments of Recreation Committee Recording Secretaries will be reviewed at the next Council meeting.

Page 124 of 198

c. Meeting Minutes and Attendance process

• An email was circulated by Tim Laprade to inform the committee of the new process regarding attendance and minutes from SFRC meetings.
• To ensure payment of honorariums, mileage and Secretary tasks to the appropriate committee members, Tim would like the attendance sheet provided in the email submitted to him following each meeting so that he can forward the information to the treasury department.
• Minutes are to be submitted within a reasonable amount of time to Tim Laprade to action the necessary items and to Angela Maddocks to circulate to Council.
• An agenda template was also circulated in the email. d. 2017 Canada Day Motion: THAT each district in the Township of South Frontenac continue with their own individual programming through the 2017 Canada Day celebrations. Moved by: Kevin Fox Seconded by: Vice-Chair Dan Bell Carried e. District Committee Updates i. Portland
• The Portland District Recreation Committee plans to begin the process of building a skateboard park. Public meetings will be held in the near future to discuss the idea further.

6. Chair to sign off on meeting attendance

• A completed attendance sheet was submitted to Tim Laprade at the conclusion of the meeting.

7. Next Meeting: Monday, April 18, 2016 and Monday, May 16, 2016
8. Adjournment: 8:00 p.m. Recording Secretary: Sarah Vandewal

Page 2

Page 125 of 198

VERONA AND DISTRICT HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 21, 2016 11.30 am MOM RESTAURANT Present: Don Coleman, Wayne Conway, Louise Day, Karl Hansen, Jim Lansdell (Chair), John McDougall (Secretary); Regrets: Beth Freeland

1. Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Confirmation of the Minutes “That the minutes of the VDHSC held on Feb 18, 2016, be confirmed.” Hansen/ Conway Carried
4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: Wayne Conway declared a conflict for item 7 and stepped back from the discussion.
5. Clinic Lease with the Township of South Frontenac “That the Verona and District Health Services Committee confirms the success of the present agreement in attracting and retaining doctors for the Verona Clinic and recommends that the Township of South Frontenac negotiate a new lease with the doctors to come into effect when the present lease expires on Oct. 31, 2016.” Conway/Day

Carried

6. The Role of the Property Committee “That the Verona and District Health Services Committee confirms the role of its Property Committee and its valuable relationship role between the doctors and the Township of South Frontenac.” Lansdell/Conway

Carried

7. Retirement of Dr. Laurel Dempsey June 30, 2016 The Verona and District Health Services Committee will plan a Retirement Party for Dr. Laurel Dempsey for May 28, 2016, to be held at the Verona Lions Club Hall.” There will be an Open House for the community from 2.00-4.00 pm, with a catered dinner at 6.30 pm. Both options will be open to the community, with a limited seating for the dinner at a cost of $ 25.00 a plate. Louise Day will contact the caterer. John McDougall will look into the community making a donation in Dr. Dempsey’s honour to the fund raising campaign of the new Kingston Providence Care Hospital. Jim Lansdell will sign the contract with the Lions Hall.

Page 126 of 198

VDHSC Minutes March 21, 2016

Pg. 2

9. Property Committee Update The Committee was happy with the Township of South Frontenac maintenance contractors and the fine work of Township staff, especially Jamie Brash. Louise Day and Karl Hansen are willing to carry on with this role. Their November building inspection prompted the attached recommended list of repairs to be sent to Township staff for their consideration.
10. Clinic Update Dr. Sabra Gibbens will join the Clinic on June 30, 2016 when Dr. Laurel Dempsey retires. Dr. Poitr Oglaza will be taking time next year to work in a contract capacity and will arrange for a temporary long-term locum to cover his patients.
11. We will plan a welcoming meal at Rivendell Golf Course in the spring for our new student doctors assigned by to our Clinic by the Eastern Regional Medical Education Program. Chair, Jim Lansdell will coordinate this event.
12. Adjournment

Next Meeting: April 18 at 11.30 at Rivendell Golf Course

Page 127 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2016-27 A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2014-71, APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND ASSOCIATIONS. WHEREAS the Council of the Township of South Frontenac appoints a number of individuals to carry out various duties in the Municipality and constitute different boards and committees; and, WHEREAS it is expedient to consolidate these appointments in order to provide a consistent list of these appointees, AND WHEREAS Councillor Robinson is temporarily unable to represent the municipality on various committees, NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: THAT: 1)

Persons, as set out on Schedule “A” attached hereto, are hereby appointed to carry out various duties in the municipality and serve on the certain Committee and Boards for the term as set out opposite their names on Schedule “A”.

Schedule “A” of this by-law may be amended by resolution of Council.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its final passing.

Dated at The Township of South Frontenac this 19 day of April 2016. Read a first and second time this 19 day of April 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 19 day of April 2016. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, CAO / Clerk

Page 128 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW NO. 2016-27 COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS NAME

TERM EXPIRES

Quinte Conservation Authority

Dec. 31, 2018

Committee of Adjustment

Dec. 31, 2016

South Frontenac Recreation Committee and the Portland District Committee

Dec. 31, 2018

Verona Community Association

Dec. 31, 2018

Community Caring

Dec. 31, 2018

Page 129 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-28

BEING A BY-LAW TO STOP UP, CLOSE AND SELL A PORTION OF AN UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS VI AND VII, PART LOT 24, LOUGHBOROUGH: 1324789 0NTARIO INC.

WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac may pass a bylaw to stop up, close and sell any highway or part thereof pursuant to the Municipal Act, section 34( l ):

AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Township of South Frontenac’s Notice By-law No. 2002-92, the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac caused to be advertised the proposal to close the said road allowance: AND WHEREAS the said road allowance is not used as a publically travelled road: AND WHEREAS no objections have been received to the road closing: NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THAT the portion of road allowance in Lot 24, lying between Concessions VI and VII, in the District of Loughborough, identified as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 13R21292 and shown on Schedule 1,attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, shall be stopped up and closed and ownership transferred to the abutting propertyowner on the north and south in Lot 24, Concessions VI and VII.

THAT the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents as are required; and

THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon registration of this By-law.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this nineteenth day of April 2016. Read a first and second time this nineteenth day of April, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this nineteenth day of April, 2016.

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, C}erk-Administrator

Page 130 of 198

Page 131 of 198

50 YEARS

Fifty years of conservation in the Rideau Valley March/April 2016

RVCA Turns Fifty! The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Board of Directors formally acknowledged the 50 year anniversary of the Conservation Authority’s formation on March 31, 2016. “We are delighted to celebrate 50 years of conservation,” announced RVCA Chair Lyle Pederson as he unveiled the Authority’s special 50-year logo. “This will be a year to share our successes and how they have made a significant contribution to the health and prosperity of our watershed.” Covering 4,241 square kilometres, the RVCA was officially formed on March 31, 1966 and over the past 50 years, the RVCA and its many partners have had a positive, cumulative impact on our local watershed.

“The work done has laid a strong foundation for a healthy and sustainable future,” said RVCA General Manager Sommer CasgrainRobertson. “But there is lots left to do and we look forward to working with our many partners and landowners to achieve our goals for a healthy watershed for all.” Those interested in more details on the history of the RVCA can visit www.rvca.ca/timeline.html for an online walk through the years since 1966. An infographic highlighting the RVCA’s achievements is also available on the website. Be sure to follow the RVCA on Facebook and Twitter to see interesting highlights over the year (#RVCA50). For more information, contact DIANE at ext. 1126, diane.downey@rvca.ca.

CA History

The conservation movement began in Ontario in the early 1940s. Community leaders expressed concerns about the condition of the environment and managing natural resources. The result was the Province of Ontario passing the Conservation Authorities Act in 1946. Conservation Authorities began to form throughout the province. This legislation was considered innovative and farsighted and it responded to growing concerns that land uses and deforestation were contributing to deteriorating water quality, flooding and soil erosion. The Act empowered municipalities to address these issues by forming a single collaborative agency based on a watershed. Today, conservation authorities continue to respond to local issues and conditions and are accountable to their member municipalities.

Fifty Years of Success Includes— • 9 million dollars of grants distributed to landowners undertaking stewardship projects • 5.7 million trees planted on private lands equaling 24 square kilometres of new forest • 2,800 hectares of environmentally sensitive lands acquired and protected • 186,450 water quality samples taken • 16.5 kilometres of shorelines naturalized and buffers planted

• 9,650 kilometres of streams surveyed • 17,500 butternut seedlings planted • 29,000 volunteer hours invested in watershed health • 23,700 Planning Act application reviews completed • 6,475 permits processed under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act • 250 Environmental Assessment Act reviews

RVCA staff gather to celebrate RVCA’s 50th Anniversary

• 42 kilometres of trails created for outdoor recreation at local conservation areas • 4.5 million dollars fundraised by the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation • 62,000 visitors annually to our conservation areas including 10,000 students • 14,950 septic approvals issued, plus 3,600 re-inspections along lakes

Page 132 of 198

March/April 2016 Headwater sampling

Spring Means Headwater Monitoring! Headwater drainage features (HDFs) provide important ecological and hydrological functions to downstream reaches of creeks and rivers. RVCA began its HDF monitoring program in 2012 to assess surface and groundwater, riparian conditions and terrestrial and aquatic habitat. This spring the focus was on the Tay River watershed and City Stream Watch Program headwater sites — approximately 54 sample locations! Since the Tay River watershed is so large (358 sampling locations), it will be divided up into two monitoring years. The data collected will be presented in the 2017 Tay River Subwatershed Report catchment sheets. A big thank you to the volunteers who joined RVCA staff to sample this spring. For more information call JENNIFER at ext. 1108 or jennifer.lamoureux@rvca.ca.

RVCA’s Shoreline Naturalization Program RVCA’s Shoreline Naturalization Program can provide you with everything you need to naturalize your shoreline including a custom planting plan, native plants and assistance with planting. The program covers 75 percent of project costs — site visits and advice are always free! New in 2016 landowners in the Rideau Lakes and Middle Rideau subwatersheds are eligible for FREE shoreline naturalization projects! Contact MEAGHAN at ext. 1192 or meaghan.mcdonald@rvca.ca to see if you qualify!

Have You Seen These Signs? These nifty, new road signs have been installed around eastern Ontario and mark Drinking Water Protection Zones! The signs aim to raise awareness about the zones that surround municipal drinking water sources which now get special protection under the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.These zones are located in communities with municipal water services, including Almonte, Carleton Place, Kemptville, Merrickville, Perth, Smiths Falls and Westport. In some locations the zone extends into neighbouring municipalities so portions of the Drinking Water Protection Zones can be found in the townships of Beckwith, Drummond/North Elmsley, Montague, Rideau Lakes and Tay Valley. To learn more contact ALLISON at ext. 1148 or allison.gibbons@mrsourcewater.ca.

Green Acres Tree Planting If you have a minimum of one acre of suitable land and are interested in planting at least 500 tress, Green Acres can help! We offer a full service program with customized planting plans, free on-site technical advice, site preparation, ordering, handling and planting of trees, and everything needed to make your tree planting project a success. Significant subsidies are available on all projects. Seedlings are 15 cents per tree. Contact SCOTT at ext. 1175 or scott.danford@rvca.ca.

Restoration Project Wins Award The Brewer Park Pond Restoration Project won the Top Canadian Fishing Industry Conservation Project Award for 2015. RVCA and it’s partners (Minto, Richcraft, Muskies Canada Ottawa Chapter, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, City of Ottawa and the Institute of Environmental Science at Carleton University) collaborated on re-connecting Brewer Pond back to the Rideau River. Among the project’s many aesthetic and

environmental benefits,16,000 m² of new spawning, nursery, rearing and feeding habitat was created to support the 40 species of fish that reside in the Rideau River. RVCA and Muskies Canada received the award at the Toronto Sportsman Show on February 12, 2016. To learn more about the project visit www.rvca.ca/brewerpark or contact JENNIFER at ext. 1108 or jennifer.lamoureux@rvca.ca.

We’re looking for volunteers! RVCA is looking for volunteers to record rain and snow in the watershed. Ideally it would be best if you have an open area (not many trees blocking device) and be dedicated to recording information daily. For more information please contact ANDREA at ext. 1140 or andrea.larsen@rvca.ca.

Check First! You May Need a Permit If you are planning work around a lake, river, stream or wetland, be sure to call the RVCA to get advice on any permits or applications you may need. You may also be eligible for different RVCA stewardship programs where grants and technical assistance are available. Drop in to the office or visit our website at www.rvca.ca — under “Planning, Regulations and Permits” — to see what local rules and regulations may apply. Contact EMMA at ext. 1132 emma.bennett@rvca.ca or KELLIE at ext. 1128 kellie.iacovitti@rvca.ca.

Long Time Conservation Partner Pratt & Whitney Canada is a loyal, long-time donor to conservation and tree planting in the Rideau Valley. Known for their community work, P&WC has made annual donations to help finance the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation’s annual planting program for 13 years. “They make the job of protecting our land and water so much easier,” said RVCF Chair Jason Kelly. A big thank you to this important conservation partner. For more information, contact DAN at ext. 1124 or dan.cooper@rvca.ca.

Around the Rideau Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Box 599, 3889 Rideau Valley Drive Manotick, ON K4M 1A5 613-692-3571 or 1-800-267-3504 www.rvca.ca Follow us @ twitter.com/RideauValleyCA Like us @ facebook.com Around the Rideau is made possible thanks to our generous sponsors:

Bell Baker, Barristers and Solicitors — 613-237-3444, Effectively providing quality legal services in Eastern Ontario for over 50 years

Bird Richard, Lawyers for Employers — 613-238-3772, www.lawyersforemployers.ca Representing management in labour and employment law across Ontario

Thank

You TO OUR GENEROUS

Spon sorS!

Ramada Ottawa on the Rideau — 613-288-3500, www.ramadaottawa.com, Previously The Monterey Hotel Offers 87 fully renovated rooms with balconies overlooking the Rideau River. Pet friendly.

Page 133 of 198

12 Apr 2016 CAO - TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC TRAIL COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORT – APRIL 2016 This is my fifth quarterly report covering the period of January to March 2016 with the Cataraqui Trail Management Board. There were two meetings (3 and 31 Mar 16), which I attended. The Cararaqui Trail website has been updated and the date for our annual the Bike & Hike of 20 August 2016 confirmed. The Opinicon Dinner date has been changed to 30 Sep 16. The existing state of officers will remain the same but the CTMB size will be reviewed. Share the Road. On 30 Mar 16, I attended the Share the Road briefing and discussion with Ross Sutherland, our Mayor and the Cycle Fest team. A report should be coming to Council and I hope it will help to foster better understanding for our SF cycling needs. Resurfacing Km 63. What a difference this new surface makes. I see more and more people using this section than ever before. It proves that if you make the trail more agreeable, it will be used. Gates needed. Many gates are needed and some required minor work to stop unauthorized vehicles, such as ATVs. We need simple solution such as positioning big rocks so gates are not circumvented. I will make an effort to have this done this year. Beaver dam. I am also looking to find an ecological solution for Km 54 constant flooding. I want to install a special made cage with a drainage pipe, which effectively manage beaver dam level so it does not cause flooding. That area is full of wildlife when the water level is normal and could used as a fine example on proper wildlife and water management. Km 54 wash out. Last week we had a big wash out at km 54 (Stonehouse Lake) that created a big hole and now making it impossible to drive to Chaffeys Locks. This illustrates the need for appropriate funding for unexpected event such as this. I hope the Township will help so it doesn’t drain our small budget.

Robert Charest SF Trail committee member 613-353-3083

Page 134 of 198

Bnokemqe Bowes 81 Cocks I.iMlTEd, 4916 RD. 38, HARROWSMlTH,

ONTARIO KOH wvo - OFFICE: 613-372-1394

755

• INTERNET:www.bowesandcocks.com

April 4, 2016

Vanessa Skelton AECOM Canada Limited 1ISO Morrison Drive, Suite 302 Ottawa, On K21-I8C9

RE: Road # 38 Proposed Changes at Harrowsmith

I have read with great interest your proposal to correct the problem with the road layout here in the Village of Harrowsmithi I do agree that there is a need to remove some of the connecting roads at the Colebrook Road intersection . I bring it to your attention that the real problem here in the Village of Harrowsmith is the intersection of Road# 38 & Harrowsmith Road. We have had our business located here on this comer since 1991 and have seen many accidents and near misses because of this blind corner, not only for people turning south on 38 but also turning north on 38. If I read your report correctly your proposal is to install traffic lights at the top of the hill instead of the intersection of Harrowsmith Road and 38 . This to me is just totally ridiculous and what you are proposing is a total waste of tax dollars to do nothing to correct the problem.

In case you have read my message clearly, the real problem is the comer of Road # 38 & Harrowsmith Road. Yours truly

John Johnston , Broker, Manager Bowes & Cocks Limited Brokerage

A TrustedName Since 1956 OFFICES AT:

AFSLEY BANCROFT BAYSVILLE

BUCKHORN

HARROWSMITH

LINDSAY

WESLEMKOON LAKE

BURKS FALLS

HUNTSVILLE

NORWOOD

WESTPORT

HAUBURTON

LAKEFlELD

PETEHEOROUGH

WILBERFOFICE

Page 135 of 198

From: Douglas Makwa [mailto:giizis@gmail.com] Sent: April-08-16 1:25 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; rshepherd@frontenaccounty.ca; Douglas Chimtig dchimtig@gmail.com Subject: Follow up to Collins Lake Estate Subdivision Public Meeting April 5, 2016

Hello Mr. Orr, As you noted in your previous email, I may add to the questions about the proposed subdivision Collins Lake Estate Subdivision. Attached is a brief letter I hope will be addressed by the COW on April 12th. I have been reading the various documents available that pertain to the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and the impact this will have for the Township of South Frontenac. Do you have access to the OMB meeting from the Storrington Township archives from the early 1990’s. The OMB hearing might have been in 1993 – first in June and then in September. I would like to read the minutes of the meeting and any recommendations from the OMB at that time. What impact has it had on the work to create the Official Plan for South Frontenac? I am sending this letter to Mr. R. Shepherd at the County of Frontenac to share with the two levels of government involved with this proposed subdivision application. Is there another person on Council who should receive my questions? Thank you Douglas Farquhar 313-353-1713

Page 136 of 198

April 6, 2016 Mr. Wayne Orr Township of South Frontenac

Dear Mr. Orr, Thank you for your attention to my concerns about the proposed subdivision on Lots 29 and 30 Concession 7. Following the public meeting on April 5, 2016 in Council Chambers, I have had time to read more of the reports and documents related to the issues of a large subdivision in a rural area (including the possibility of further residential development proposals on lands outside of the Official Plan “Settlement Area”). I will give my concerns in four areas:

1. Request by the applicants to the Township to alter the Official Plan to allow an amendment from rural land to residential.
2. Request by the applicants to reduce lot frontage by amendment in order to give more lots for the subdivision.
3. Request by the applicant to reduce the park land for a subdivision and to deal with a park in future.
4. Comparison of the Malroz Report to the applicant Report with a focus on water quality and quantity.

I) Request to amend Official Plan

1. In the early 1990’s (I believe September 1993) the Township of Storrington was involved with and Ontario Municipal Board Hearing about the land shown on the map for the Application for Subdivision of “Collins Lake Estate Subdivision”. The OMB hearing talked about Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 Concession 7. How has the new land use proposal differed from the OMB ruling?
2. Has the Township team looking at this proposed subdivision and/or Council members reviewed the Storrington Township report from OMB which may have been sent to the Storrington Township late 1993? Is the report available to the public?
3. Will the rezoning for the entire area (348 hectares) be part of this application for proposed subdivision?

Page 137 of 198

II) Request to amend the lot frontage from current Official Plan 2013

1. The Weston Consulting Report (October 2015, File 5909) on page 25 reads: “The lots in the proposed in the plan of subdivision meet the minimum lot size of 0.8 hectares (2 acres). The lots in the proposed plan of subdivision do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements. The proposed rezoning is seeking relief in the minimum required lot frontage.” With the Official Plan requirements for development, why would the Township approve any change to lot frontage for this proposed subdivision? Will the amendment or rezoning then be used for further development proposals and in fact change the Official Plan slowly to allow smaller lot frontages anywhere in the Township? What impact will the rezoning request for changes to current Official Plan requirements have on the entire Township of South Frontenac when proposals for another subdivision or subdivisions are created and proposed to Council?

III) Request by the applicant to reduce the park land for a subdivision and to deal with a park in future.

1. The Weston Consulting Report (October 2015, File 5909) on page 5 reads: “A public parkette with a total size of approximately 0.456 ha (111 acres) is provided for Phase 1 of the Collins Estates development. Parkland will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Please note that any deficiency in Parkland will be addressed in future phases of the Collins Late Estates development and secured through the provisions of the Planning Act” At the public meeting on April 5, 2016, Mayor Vandewal stated that the meeting was solely on this proposed subdivision and not about future applications. The applicant has stated that the proposal for a subdivision does connect to the other phases of development . This amendment to the Official Plan request is another of the changes that may have an impact on our community. The issue of parkland size is not as concerning as the fact that Council is asked to make amendments in 2016 that may be used to make further requests from the next phase in this development proposal for the 348 hectares. Will these amendments if granted be an opening for land owners adjacent to the Collins Lake Estate planner/owners to create other subdivision proposals with a very different look than the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan 2003 (as amended 2013)? Will development outside of “Settlement Area” on the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan 2003 (as amended 2013) be

Page 138 of 198

permitted and/or encouraged by the approval of the Collins Lake Estate Subdivision?

IV) Comparison of the Malroz Report to the applicant Report with a focus on water quality and quantity.

1. A reading of both the Malroz Report and the Weston Consulting Justification Report give a varied response to the Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis. Concerns about the quantity of water for 51 lots as proposed in the application for Collins Lake Estate Subdivision leads to many questions. Since the Weston Consulting Report says that this is Phase I of the development, concerns about water quality and quantity must be discussed with relation to the entire area of development (348 hectares) plus the commercial area to be developed (south west corner of Lot 25 Concession 7 bordered by Spooner Road and Perth Road). Will the Township response to the water quality and quantity be shared publicly?
2. Weston Consulting Justification Report (page 9) #4. “Further evaluation may result in the need to increase well storage through the use of deeper wells. A sensitivity analysis would be necessary to determine whether or not fresh water would be encountered at deeper depths. The potential for groundwater mining should be evaluated during eh addition of lot wells.” This statement indicates a further planning by the developers to add more to the subdivision or a new subdivision and suggests that Township Council must evaluate the proposed subdivision be considered on the entire 348 hectares of land. What is the Township of South Frontenac’s current statement about “groundwater mining”? Will future requests for groundwater mining be part of the entire Township? Could the use of this storage of water be available on a commercial basis to provide drinking water in small or large quantities to anyone?
3. I have not been able to locate the Public Health Unit’s response to the well water and public health issues. Do you have a copy of this report available to the public? Have doctors in the area been concerned with well water from the area of South Frontenac in the past years? Does the concern about the public health have any impact on the Council’s decision making with regard to a proposed subdivision?

Page 139 of 198

I look forward to your response to my questions. As you mentioned in your email that any further questions will be shared with Council and the planning department, I will continue to read the reports available and I will be available to meet with your planning team if you wish.

One last thought about the proposed subdivision and land use in the Township of South Frontenac: What portion of the Township of South Frontenac is included in the Agreement in Principle for an Algonquins of Ontario Land Claim found at the government of Ontario website: https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquin-land-claim. The map is at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquins-ontario-settlement-areaboundary

Thank you for your attention to my questions. I await your responses.

Douglas Farquhar 3759 Copper Kettle Drive Inverary, Ontario 613-353-1713

Page 140 of 198

—–Original Message—-From: Norman Dobney [mailto:dobneyn@eagle.ca] Sent: April-11-16 10:30 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Collins Lake proposal Attention Mr. Orr: Our names are Norman and Kathryn Dobney. We were in attendance at the council meeting on Tuesday April 5th and we are on the list. We live at 1070 Kahala Ct. This submission is regarding the proposed Collins Lake real estate development and is for the attention of the township council.

1. We wish to echo the serious concerns of the local residents regarding the lack of the ability of the land in question to provide adequate potable water for such a development and the inevitable adverse effect on the wells of those established and future residents of properties to the east of the land in question that this will have-both in potential drying up of their wells and possible bacterial contamination. It occurs to us that the potential for another Walkerton E. Coli. type tragedy not to mention flooded basements with contaminated water cannot be dismissed when uncontrolled storm water runoff floods in to the properties to the east. Such potential future eventualities will have drastic consequences for property values and in fact may make existing properties virtually worthless- what then? From what we heard from the presenters, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, this would be the largest privately serviced residential development anywhere. Needless to say the consequences of that will be at the very least, unpredictable. We prefer that our council not engage in that risk taking on our behalf or on behalf of other stakeholders in the land already under approved occupation and development to the east of the proposed development or the ratepayers of South Frontenac in general who may also be at risk should an untoward but foreseeable event occur. The stakes are simply said- too high.
2. We will not dwell on the unsuitability of Lakefield Drive to handle this proposed development. This issue as well as threats to wetlands, protected species and more were well presented at the meeting.
3. As was so eloquently presented by the first speaker to make a presentation to council, it is clear that there have been unsuccessful prior proposals for use of this land primarily based on the unsuitability of the water supply where water would be a key necessity of the proposed use. It was also abundantly clear that the applicant has come to council with hydrological reports that have been bought and paid for by them. These studies are clearly at odds with previous investigations and therefore appear to be highly suspect in their findings and conclusions. Thankfully the objective peer review by Malroz has demonstrated the serious shortcomings of said reports and have reaffirmed that residential development here is ill advised and fraught with foreseeable adverse consequences for the local inhabitants.
4. Our conclusion after hearing the well researched presentations by several of the presenters to council is that this applicant appears to be once again dressing up a clearly unsustainable proposal using flawed research in an attempt to blindly forge ahead in the name of progress, regardless of the

Page 141 of 198

consequences to the environment or residents- on many levels- and have sought to minimize if not trivialize very real concerns for adverse consequences. We, the local residents, made a good faith decision to come to this area to enjoy the beauty and serenity of the rural life and not be subjected to what is clearly going to be the urbanization of the environment. We all realize that the approximately 800 acres of land in question may some day be put to some alternate use- however it should be done in a way that is safe and harmonious to its surroundings. We do not believe that the proposed use fits this paradigm. It appears to us that this applicant may have made an ill-considered purchase of this property, possibly without due diligence and is now attempting to mitigate the effects of that decision through this proposal at the expense of others and the environment. Respectfully Submitted Kathryn & Norman Dobney

Page 142 of 198

Nicholas and Christine Adams 3783 Maple Crest Court Inverary, Ontario K0H 1X0 Mayor and Council Township of South Frontenac P.O. Box 100, Sydenham, Ontario Canada, K0H 2T0

Warden and Council County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, Ontario K0H 1S0 April 13, 2016

Dear Warden, Mayor and Councillors, As residents of the Lyon’s Landing subdivision, we have serious concerns regarding the development of lands between Lakefield Drive and County Road 10 (Perth Road), Phase 1 of which is contained within the ‘Application Draft Plan of Subdivision, Phase 1 of Collins Lake Estates’. We request notice of any further public meetings, open house sessions, and notice of any Township Council / Committee of the Whole meetings on which the Collins Lake project will be discussed. Our concerns with the development are detailed in the document attached below. Sincerely

Nick and Christine Adams

cc: Joe Gallivan MCIP Director of Planning and Economic Development County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0

1

Page 143 of 198

COLLINS LAKE ESTATES an inappropriate development plan Central to the vision plan for South Frontenac, as set out in the Official Plan 2003, is the intention ‘to preserve the Township’s environmental integrity while enhancing its rural character’ where rural character is defined as (Official Plan 2.1: 1) “……. a combination of many factors which in total differentiates South Frontenac from urban or suburban communities. Key amongst the factors is the sustained use of the land for economic sustenance. Other factors which define the community as being rural include: large, uncrowded residential lots; private water and septic systems; mixture of woodlands, bush, agricultural fields and open landscapes; major services being located in adjacent cities; industrial activities limited to those which support the local economy; residential activity either singly or in small subdivisions/hamlets; limited municipal services.” (Township of South Frontenac Official Plan, 2003: 3) The Collins Lake Estates application does not maintain the Township’s environmental integrity, will certainly not enhance its rural character, and is completely at odds with the municipality’s vision statement. The proposed development, lying immediately adjacent to Lyon’s Landing subdivision, would create an even larger suburban community than exists already - essentially a small, unserviced town, larger and more populous than the village of Inverary, and approaching the size of Sydenham and Harrowsmith. A DISINGENUOUS APPLICATION It is disingenuous to apply for a Plan of Subdivision for 51 lots when the developer’s intention is so evidently to develop a much larger area. The existing plan contains road linkages into the ‘Other lands owned by applicant’ which would not have been included in the current plan unless further development was intended. Indeed, in their own ‘Planning Justification Report’ the developers specifically note that the small size of the proposed parkette (0.456Ha) will be addressed in subsequent development phases. “A public parkette with a total size of approximately 0.456 ha (1.11 acres) is provided for Phase 1 of the Collins Estates development. Parkland will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Please note that any deficiency in Parkland will be addressed in future phases of the Collins Lake Estates development and secured through the provisions of the Planning Act.” (Weston Group 2015) This plan should therefore not be evaluated in isolation, but examined as the first phase of a much larger development, with correspondingly large impacts, and which is completely out of line with the Township of South Frontenac Offical Plan.

This application is a ‘foot-in-the-door’ tactic which, if the development is allowed to proceed, would fundamentally change the nature of the township and make it little more than a suburban extension of Kingston.

2

Page 144 of 198

GROUNDWATER The EXP / Oskar Group Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Report (EXP 2015) indicates that of the 8 new wells tested, 4 (#2, #3, #12 & #13) provided insufficient water to meet domestic requirements and 3 (#1, #7 & #9) ‘did not meet recovery expectations’ (EXP 2015: 19 (6.2)). This does not seem a very firm basis for the establishment of 51 new wells. As identified in the Malroz Peer Review (Malroz 2016), the potential for groundwater mining is of particular concern. As residents of the adjacent subdivision, we are concerned that the proposed development will have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of our existing water supply. Results from two phases of hydro-geological testing indicate that aquifer is inadequate to supply sufficient water of acceptable quality for the proposed development (Malroz 2016). With a large number of lots/houses still to be developed within the Lyon’s Landing subdivision on (already approved) lots, smaller than those required in the Official Plan, this will undoubtedly stress the aquifer beyond current levels. In the light of this, it seems unconscionable that the Collins Lake Estates plan can even be given serious consideration. Furthermore, since this is Phase 1 of the proposed development of a much larger area, consideration must be given to the overall impacts of water use for the whole proposed development area, (ie. Phase 1 - 59.9 Ha., PLUS the remaining 264.1 Ha. of the ‘total development site’ (Oskar 2015: 1)) and not just the portion contained within the existing plan. As indicated in their own supporting documents, Based on the above-noted information, the wells located in the western portion of the proposed development area in the vicinity of TW #2, #3, #12 and #13 do not have sufficient amounts of groundwater from the bedrock aquifer(s) to support the residential development. For this reason lots are not proposed in this area. (EXP 2015: 10 (3.5.5)). Based on the data provided, it seems a reasonable assumption that a paucity and poor quality of water will exist, not only within the Phase 1 area (as indicated in the Malroz review) but within the whole development parcel. These lands are simply not suited to any large scale development.

3

Page 145 of 198

SOILS The whole development lies on a limestone plain. The areas which have been fields in the past are thinly covered with topsoil, and bedrock is present at the surface in a number of locations. The EXP Hydrogeology and Terrain Analysis Report indicates that: ‘Previous work suggests that an average of 0.3metres soil thickness exists at the site’ (EXP Report 5.1). My observations during 15 years of residency in the area are that there are very few portions of the land where overburden (soils, till and drift) is more than 30 centimetres thick. Virtually the whole property is mapped as having ‘Farmington Loam’ soils; shallow soils usually between 10 and 30 centimetres in depth overlying bedrock or shallow till (Gillespie, Wicklund and Mathews 1966). In the southern part of the development area (ie. Lots 30 - 42) soil is limited, with bedrock at or within a few centimetres of the surface over much of the area. There is not enough topsoil to provide adequate material for the construction of conventional septic beds. Any septic bed construction will require the trucking in of large volumes of soil, with significant traffic / danger implications for local residents. If the limited material on site is to be used, it will involve the extensive disturbance of the surrounding area, merely to scrape up enough topsoil. This is completely incompatible with maintaining the existing forest cover as it would require largescale stripping down to bedrock.

Plate 1: Shallow topsoil cover towards the southern end of the proposed Phase 1 development. Less than 10 centimetres of topsoil is present in this area. The track has eroded through the topsoil to expose the bedrock surface.

4

Page 146 of 198

TRAFFIC BOTTLE-NECK No consideration appears to have been given to the hazard to residents of adding considerably more traffic to Lakefield Drive and Holmes Road. Policy 4.10 item viii. of the Official Plan provides the following objectives in regards to Transportation: To limit development on roads which are not able to sustain increased usage. It is important to note that: C C C

all residents of the existing houses within Lyon’s Landing, (approximately 47 houses), all future residents in houses yet to be built within the approved additional and as-yet undeveloped lots within Lyon’s Landing (approximately 52 houses), and all residents who would occupy the proposed 51 lots of the new application,

will be funnelled down Lakefield Drive. This is a serious safety hazard. A single accident at the intersection of Lakefield Drive and Holmes Road could prevent access and egress to the area, and perhaps more importantly, prevent Fire, Ambulance and Police vehicles from reacting to any safety issues within the community coincident with such an accident. The intersection of Lakefield and Holmes occurs below a blind hill on Holmes Road (Plate 2). It is a dangerous corner at the best of times. Increasing traffic - which has no option but to travel that way - is a disaster waiting to happen.

Plate 2: Intersection of Holmes Road and Lakefield Drive looking east on Holmes Road. Lakefield is 50 metres from the camera - completely obscured by a blind hill. Any increase of traffic in this area is courting disaster.

5

Page 147 of 198

Plate 3: Looking west on Holmes Road from the intersection with Lakefield Drive. The full-sized van is almost complete obscured by the hill, yet is approximately 50 metres from the intersection. Any accident in this area will completely cut off residents within Lyon’s Landing - a problem that will be exacerbated by any additional development.

Plate 4: View north along Lakefield Drive. The junction with Copper Kettle Drive is completely obscured by the blind hill. Adding another road joining from the west would create a significant hazard.

6

Page 148 of 198

Plate 5: View from the intersection of Maple Crest Court and Lakefield Drive looking south. Traffic proceeding north up the steep hill towards Maple Crest is invisible until they breast the rise. The addition of another road and additional traffic at this location will add to an already dangerous intersection.

Various studies in Canada and the USA have estimated the average trips per single family detached home households at roughly 10 per day (cf: Ali, Juell and Lui 2011, Ulmer et. al. 2003) thus the traffic load from existing dwellings is roughly 470 trips per day. This figure does not include additional vehicles such as school bus trips, service vehicles, construction and delivery vehicles, mail service etc. Actual daily road use is higher. By the time the remaining lots within Lyon’s Landing have become occupied, this number will have jumped to approximately 1000 household trips per day, with a corresponding increase in the traffic from ancillary vehicles. If the Collins Lake Estates (Phase 1) is built, this will add a minimum of 510 household trips per day, plus another corresponding rise in service and ancillary vehicle trips, bringing the daily total to approximately 1500 trips per day, plus ancillary vehicles - all of which have no choice but to use Lakefield Drive and negotiate the difficult, blind corner at Holmes Road (Plates 2 & 3). Lakefield Drive is a narrow road, built on a high berm with deep ditches on either side (Plate 4). Already, vehicles tend to drive near the centre of the road (especially in winter) to avoid the ditches and to negotiate around pedestrians. At current traffic volumes, mothers with strollers or families with young children can negotiate the road in reasonable safety. However, any increase in traffic will increase the danger of car to car, or car to pedestrian contact, and will definitely have a negative impact on quality of life in the neighbourhood.

7

Page 149 of 198

The Weston Planning Justification Report (Weston 2015) is dismissive of the additional impacts the development would bring and does nothing to assess the cumulative affects of adding to existing and current developments. The impact on the local road network is expected to be negatable as local roads can provide the capacity to accommodate the trips that would be anticipated based on an additional 50 lots. The Traffic Impact Study may be submitted at a later stage of the approval process if deemed necessary to determine if the existing road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. (Planning Justification Report 2015: 3.8) This is a specious assumption. How can addition of at least 500 trips per day - most of which will occur during peak hours - be ‘negatable’ when they haven’t bothered to investigate or assess those effects? The application is misleading and evasive. The proponents are clearly hoping to put off any kind of Traffic / Transportation study until a later phase in the development of the whole 800+ acre property.

8

Page 150 of 198

ARCHAEOLOGY Although the report “Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Collins Lake Development Property” by Abacus Archaeological Services makes reference to registered archaeological site BcGc-7 it does not discuss the potential impacts the development may have in this area. This Middle Woodland and early historic Euro-Canadian site lies less than 100 metres from the edge of proposed Lot 35. The site has not been subject to any testing or evaluation, so its nature and extent are unknown, however, any increase in human traffic in the vicinity of the nearby small creek could have an erosional effect on this heritage resource. Other pre-Euro-Canadian First Nations artifacts have been found within the setback zone along Collins Lake. This setback zone along the lake does not appear to have been investigated or tested as part of the ‘Abacus’ report, yet the increased human use of the lakeshore that 51 new dwellings will bring, and the potential for damage to cultural heritage (and natural heritage) along the lake shore has not been addressed.

NATURAL HERITAGE As defined in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan (Policy 4.1.III), III. To consider the cumulative impact of planning decisions, recognizing that development proposals cannot be addressed only on an individual basis in isolation from past and future decisions. While a 120 metre buffer to the Collins Lake high water mark and wetland is proposed, no consideration has been given to the potential impacts that 51 additional dwellings and their inhabitants will have on that zone. That critical buffer area will almost certainly experience considerably more human impact if additional dwellings are permitted. People will inevitably gravitate to the lake shore, making the strip along the shore into a de facto park - especially in the light of the laughably small park provision within the proposed development. While residents of the Lyon’s Landing subdivision have been using the unofficial trail network on the 348 Ha. property, this use would be channelled into the narrow ‘protected area’ along the lake shore once the formerly used area is covered in houses. Any value it once had as an ecological zone and a wildlife corridor will be lost.

9

Page 151 of 198

SUMMARY This application can not be reviewed in isolation, but must be considered in conjunction with the existing Lyon’s Landing subdivision, the potential long term impacts of the already approved development in Lyon’s Landing, and any subsequent applications for the proposed Collins Lake Estates property (ie. the whole 348 Ha.). Although presented as a single Plan of Subdivision, it is patently Phase 1 of a much large development area comprising the whole ownership parcel. The provision of water for the proposed 51 dwellings is a serious issue - and probably cannot be resolved. If the development proceeds, it has the potential to have a devastating effect on the long-term habitability of dwellings within the existing Lyon’s Landing subdivision. In the event of widespread well failure, the Township of South Frontenac could be placed in the position of having to provide emergency municipal water services - something completely at odds with the Official Plan Goal of minimizing municipal servicing costs (Official Plan 2003: 4.2). Soils within the southern half of the proposed Phase 1 development area are extremely thin. Construction of septic beds will inevitably involve the importation of fill or widespread disturbance of the existing ground flora and forest cover. The proposed road linkages to Lakefield Drive all occur near blind hills. An increase in traffic volume would increase the risk of serious accidents, especially considering the narrow, elevated and deeply ditched nature of Lakefield Drive. The intersection of Lakefield Drive and Holmes Road is a bottle-neck. There are no alternative routes in or out of the existing subdivision. This is a problem now, which would be compounded if the proposed development proceeds. Insufficient consideration has been given to the cumulative affects on natural and cultural heritage. As indicated in the Township Official Plan, it is important to examine past, current and future impacts. Clearly, this has not been done.

10

Page 152 of 198

REFERENCES 2003

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC OFFICIAL PLAN

Abacus Archaeological Services 2015 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Collins Lake Development Property, Parts of Lots 25 – 30, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac, Frontenac County, Ontario. Interim Report. Ali, Dr. Ahmed, Darwin Juell and Shirley Lui 2011 Household Trip Patterns and Travel Characteristics in Lethbridge, Alberta Paper prepared for the 2011 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Edmonton. Exp Associates Inc. 2015 Hydrogeology and Terrain Analysis Report Collins Lake, South Frontenac, Ontario, prepared by Exp Associates Inc., dated October 7. Gillespie J.E., R.E. Wicklund and B.C. Mathews, 1966 The Soils of Frontenac County. Report No. 39 of the Ontario Soil Survey, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Department of Agriculture. Josselyn Engineering Inc. 2015 Servicing Report for Collins Estates Subdivision, prepared by Josselyn Engineering Inc., dated October 9, 2015. Malroz Engineering Inc. 2016 Peer Review of Hydrogeological, Terrain Analyses and Servicing Reports, Proposed Residential Subdivision, Part of Lots 25 to 30, Concession 7, Collins Lake, Township of South Frontenac, County of Frontenac. Provided to Joe Galliva, Director of Planning & Economic Development, County of Frontenac. Ulmer J M, A K Goswami, J S Miller and L A Hoel 2003 Residential Trip Generation: Ground Counts Versus Surveys. Final Report. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia Department of Transportation, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Charlottesville, Virginia. Weston Group 2015 Planning Justification Report, prepared for Maybach Group Inc.

11

Page 153 of 198

Wayne Orr From: Sent: To:

Subject: Attachments:

KS kasia_m_@hotmail.com

April-06-16 11:00 AM Wayne Orr; Reid Shepherd Fw: lyons landing lyons landing.docx

Good morning,

am forwarding a copy of my questions and concerns that spoke about yesterday at the council meeting. Mr. Orr has a physical copy with my side bar notes, but overall it is the same. Thank you for giving us a chance to speak/ I look forward to seeing what direction this goes in. Kasia Staszak Ill .

This E-mail contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient/ or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient/ you are hereby notified that any review/dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, or if you wish to stop receiving communications from the City of Kingston/ please notify us by reply E-mail and delete the original message

Page 154 of 198

My name is Kasia Staszak, am a resident of Lyons Landing and our family has lived there for about 3 7i years.

It is to my utter dismay and serious concern to hear about the proposed development. My trepidations are serious and range from the destruction of priceless green space to the very obvious signs pointing to the fact that there is not sufficient water to support 51 residential homes.

After reading a majority of the assessments and studies done to date on the land, I am appalled that this proposal is even being entertained. All reports that were provided on behalf of Oskar Group minimize, belittle, downplay and trivialize the importance of that land. Short cuts were taken by developers and the ones they hired to do the studies and results were manipulated and skewed. Some were also incomplete as in page, section 2. ofJosselyn Engineering servicing report. (hardly professional). Here are some questions and concerns I have;

1. Why is there an exception being requested in regards to frontage being reduced by 21 ft?

2. Which other subdivision in South Frontenac would have such a high concentration of homes with only 1 exit and entry point?

3. Why is there no reference to the inevitable surge of traffic? 51 more homes will

result in a minimum of 100 more vehicles, and who knows how many ATVJs, etc. 4. If were there only 8 test wells drilled, 4 were abandoned, leaving only 4 that can be used to predict whether there is sufficient water quantity/ quality for 51 additional homes in the area. When requirement is:i) The minimum number of test wells will be:

3 for sites up to 15 hectares in area; 4 for more than 15 and up to 25 hectares; 5 for more than 25 and up to 40 hectares; for more than 40 hectares, one additional test well for each

additional 20 hectares or portion thereof. (D-5-5 MOE)

meaning that with 59.9 hectares, there should be a bare minimum of 6 useable wells to base results on - even though this still seems far too low to be a valid representative sample.

5. Looking at the results, there was only Test Well #10 that passed the necessary requirements, how could Josselyn Engineering (hired by Oskar Group) conclude in one sentence that “there is sufficient quantity and quality of water to support the development of 51 residential lots”? The report from Malroz was nearly two pages reviewing water quantity alone, and has a list of serious concerns.

Page 155 of 198

6 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS D-5-5 MOE: 4.1-General

A hydrogeological study will be required by MOEE prior to recommendation of draft approval for plans of subdivision and

condominium, and may be required prior to approval of official plan amendments which would permit development on private services. The study must be performed and a report submitted to the MOEE at the

time of circulation of the proposed official plan amendment or plan of subdivision. The report must address concerns relative to the following:

.

Future residents must be provided with water for domestic

consumption that is of acceptable quality and of adequate quantity.

Appropriate well construction techniques must be followed

inorder to minimise the possibility of well water quality degradation.

There must be minimal adverse effects on well water in the development from sources of contamination on the site or on

adjoining lands.

Developments must not result in water quantity interference conflicts between users in the development and users on the adjoining lands.

8. Why was it decided to run three test wells on the same day? And the

remaining on separate days? And although it was acknowledged that 2 of the 3 should be abandoned due to lack of water, low yielding conditions

and not suitable for residential water supply without treatment, why was the 3rd, Test Well 9, described as being more than sufficient to provide an adequate water supply, when after 19 hrs it only receovered to 67%, not the 95% as required by MOE, D-5-5 , which states “must be monitored in the test wells until 95% recovery occurs or for 24 hours/ whichever is less; where sufficient recovery does not occur,

Page 156 of 198

the issue of the long-term safe yield of the aquifer is especially significant and must be addressed”

9. Lyons Landing has been 40 + years in the making, and there are still over 2 dozen lots not yet completed. What about the effect those will have on the

current residents that the proposed developer cannot even being to take into account as the effects are anyone’s guess? And there are already issues present regarding wells and water.

10. There were references in the EXP report to hydrogeologicaf investigations from 1990, but no attached document, and as I’ve come to find, it is quite difficult to obtain, therefore could not be interpreted.

11 What exactly does “General Accordance” mean, when referring to following D-5-5 with MOE? Shouldn’t it be in ‘Specific or direct accordance"?

12.Why was Test Well #7 described as being more than sufficient to provide an adequate water supply, when the generator shut off 3 times, and an

average was used to assume water quantity. Furthermore, the average given in the EXP report was 1 .IL/min below what the requirement is, therefore not sufficient. MOE D-5-5 states, “the pumping test must begin with a static water level and must be performed at a

fixed rate (±5^) for a minimum period of six hours (longer where supplementary storage systems are necessary) of " continuous” pumping (no stoppages)

13. I am outraged that in the E.I.A. report the developer is comparing the use of a few ATV’s and the supposed damage they have caused to be more

detrimental than the clear cutting, wiping out of forests and leveling of land that they are proposing.

Page 157 of 198

14.E.I.A states that “wetland is being impacted by unauthorized ATV use and it

is the developers plan to end this damaging activity to the wetland, by restricting ATV use - how do you plan on enforcing that, not only for current residents but for the future ones who will, INEVITABLY, own ATV’s?

15. Phrases such as “will not be directly impacted” and “not significant” is used repetitively to describe various angles; from the damage it will cause to the vegetation, the wildlife and their habitats to the lack of water that will

inevitably occur, affecting the current residents. Water not recovering in fact is VERY significant for those of us who live there.

16. These phrases are also used to specifically refer to Phase 1 - why is there no mention or attached proposal for Phase 2? If there are futher plans beyond Phase 1 they should be presented as well.

17. How do you explain such contradictory statements such as “the small

wetland located west of proposed lots 3, 4,7,8,9 is not significant. However it does contain significant wildlife habitat”? <

18. It states in the E.I.A. that the Eastern Whip-poor-will - A threatened

species, was observed, but 500 m away from the directly proposed development site. Coincidentally, MNR states that this is the minimum distance it needs to be away from the developed site. How can 3 visits,

which were not even in peak season for that particular bird’s migratory pattern, determine where that bird actually was? Visually spotting one is next to impossible, therefore impossible to determine if it was or was not

500 m away from the proposed site. BTW, the main threat to this species is habitat loss and degredation. And if it somehow isn’t affected in Phase 1, it inevitably will be in further phases.

19. Was the presence of this species reported to MNRF as required?

Page 158 of 198

fl)

0- 3 -1 -t -^ (d 0 3 CD 3’

~t

< -0 0 [SJ ~l 3- -^

rt ®

{it!

3 (D 0 0) ^^ Q (Q ^? =: r^~ -1 01 W 0 ^.= 3:S -1 (D w ^ < (D a- (D -3 3 Q-® Q) o 3 0 ^.=^ < 0 -h Q. (Q 0 3- 01 CD (D 3ry 3 (D ^ 7^ ^ (D -K

=T« M«w CD

CD c6 0 0 0- I-*Q–’

.o

3 0 T Q -

03 CD w c r->3 ^r rQ- ^ 03 s 1-^

Q) 3 3-

3- co ^

o a?

CD 0 ^c 3 co

CD'0?

ffiii i 3

^

=;. CD 3 5’ ai

riil^‘1,-1 £13 (D c 3 ^

r-^

-t

3- (D

w

3

E^ co

cB^a. ^g^‘ssi S. 7- 3’

tiaro5:^^s

-h

ro CD

3 3 0) 3 T3 T3 3 0 ^ F3-CQ 1-^ EU su -0 0 0 ^- -f c y. o (D (D w 0 0 -1 3 3- 3- 0 3 0 C/) M Q) 3 Q. 3?^ oi’ ^ 3^ ^.^ ^

»^^»

^Hlllli! sS

® FT 3 *< 3

1-1-

0 F^‘55

(D

CT-

^ §^

CD 0) 3

^21.5 :r3 S» 3 Q)

0 i Q. < 0 c 3 Q. ^CD Q. 0 Q. - Q.

• ^70 3 <D c 0^ c

3 ^

^§ 2

I-*-

fl) 0 3- <k* S^-CD Wlt’ 0 c 0 3- -I a) 3L ^ w SS S: $ S CD’ en ;- o1-^ ?:^ $ S s- fl5 < *< ^ =: ST CO 7!: CD c co 0 -t CD a) -h 01 0 EU 3 3 < m3» Q.-’ Q. ® -I Q) >c’ 0 =T i -» (D 0 ^ . rQ) 30) w 1 Q) 3- ^h 3 co a) 0 -? (D 1-t3-

Q)

3

3 Q) CD ~^1 CL 1-t1-^ -. w 3 0 3CQ -h 0 3- 1-^ 0 <h fl)r^ 3- 0 CD ^- 3 CO 5 -0 Q) -I

~f

<(d 2 ^

3-

-0 c 3^ 0) 5 Q) &3 &) < =+1 3 ^L -1 CD CD Q co ~I (Q

-0

§

-\

co

ilo. ills 0 = 7T W

a 3I ^ 3 1-1-

~l

N)

K) hO

00

0–5 s^§ (D 0 (D c

crt

-0

s*

(0

(D CO 3’

=. (D 3 ~f =T 0 0 &) 3 c w 3 -^ -i -^

.o

.^1

co s c Q) -a SL -g -I 0 0 3. N w co c CD

^ 3 ^ 3 0

=. 0) 3 (Q ‘5

Q co -h

r; 3- c a> ^ (D co f^ T3 0 0 m ^^ (Q 3- 3 -I 0 Q) c 3 (Q 1-t3- Q) 3 .o

^ Q. <

03 I-*-

c:

Q) w, o co (D

^ 0

-1 -I

co 3 1-1-

c

Q)

Q) 0 3 3

(ft

Q) 3

c

® ^ w ^r-h

0- o

0

(D 3 -. 03 CD Q- ~f < ^t a. 1 V*

(D 5 CD co ^: =? ft-

w

3-

3

(D

u u

a. CD w 3 0 3 0 r^

^ -0 -1 .z.

0 0

0 y.

^ 0’ <.

§ 3-

0

-n 0

CD 0 0 Q) ^- =i. 3 0 ^h <D 3 3 0- 0’ 3 .a S- ^ (D Q. 0 ^ CD (D S. c5 3r QQ- Q. 0 1-^ (D 33 CL fl) CD 3 -I I-*GO 3- Q. (D ?… c Q) c+ 3- &> i=1-1-L. CD 3 (D r~t0) -^ 0 s 0- 3 Q) z =- c (D ^ 3 <u ‘U 7) -I 0- -n fl) -1 (D 3 (D 0 CL (D ^1 CD 0 3 0 3: 3 ^ iu 0 03 =3 (D 0 $ a o- sED (D CD Q- Q- CD 3.y ^ ^ CIS > co 3 co 3(D 0 mQ w c - < CD co ^^

Q. 3

f ^

3-

CD

CD 33 1-t=^’ Q? ^ co 30) *< m .o (Q .o 0 ^ ^ -i 3 0) > 0 (D co Q. < 3 ® Q) 0) r^(D

• <Q

§

Q). ^ 3co 3 (Q

V)

1-1-

M ^.

N3 ~t

m

r-^

~Q ^

w CT 0 ^(D w 3

3

5= W CffM to

0-

T3 0 CD 03 S. 3-

fl) w

3

i– 9: 0

CD -3

(0 a. ^

co ^fc

0 ~y

(D

0 CT 0 EU 3 -^

3 w

co

0

^. CD

3

.~tk

~v

1-t-

fll

0

M. ^

(D

*< Q) w

• ? -^ 5 3 CL Q 1-1.o i 0 CD Q. w is CD w. iu Q) 0- 3 -^ ^- 0. 3 CD ** (Q 3-

^‘0

CD 33 0

0-I CD

3

0 CD 3- ^ =: 3. (D = fl) ^3 i CD 3 (D -h !-¥.

§

CD 3-

Q. < 3 ^ CQ (D - w CD

<D ^ iu

co

=3-

3

CD -I (D

0

-I

0

CD

=T 3 =^. 0 co -h Q. 3- CD co Q) Q3 0: ^

(D

N> 0

301

1-^

03 a0 c

(D

8 3 3

® 3

CL

^ Q)

r-1-

co ^ c 0 0- 3 co w

CD 0

.Q c:

~K

(D

co

3

co

r-^

r+~ -1

^<

Q

Q) -7 ys ^

0 (D Q)

»

(D -^

~v

3

(Q l~t-

0

^ °’-12.

0 c

Q. CD a. I-*3- c 3 ^. CD -h ^aco I-tQ) 0 Q 3^ Q 1-^ 3-

w a. (D

Q) 3

C/) su

1->-

0 Jw

^ ^

CD

i-h

0 -h

Page 159 of 198

Input regarding the Proposed Collins Lake Subdivision (Collins Lake Estates - Maybach Group Inc.) Prepared By: Rebecca Creasy-Buchner, Lyons Landing Resident since November 2014

1. Significantly concerned with the viability of the local aquifer and the impact additional buildings will have on those who currently own properties in Lyons Landing. Malroz Engineering’s review of the water viability concluded that there is not sufficient well water viability to service the proposed 51 properties by private wells. As noted in the Review of Applications for Plan of Subdivision/ those that live in the area have raised significant concerns about the

long-term susta inability of the aquifer that currently provides well water to the properties of Lyons Landing.

From personal experience, I live on Maple Crest Court in one of the homes from the original subdivision plan, and prior to purchasing the property, conducted a well water test to/ among other things/ validate that the property had an adequate water supply. The minimum amount ofgroundwater necessary to support a family home of our size is 3 gallons per minute; the wateriest conducted in

October 2014 indicated that our property’s well is operating just above that minimum requirement. Considering that there have already been additional residential builds on Kam and Kahala since our

property was built, I would suggest that by adding any other properties that rely on the aquifer, the gallons per minute of local Lyons Landing residents will be negatively affected. Based on what our well

water viability test indicated fess than two years ago, the aquifer is simply not large enough to accommodate an influx of buildings/ let alone over 50 of them. Allowing the development to continue would be irresponsible, as it not only has an impact to those future home-owners, but also to the

current residents of Lyons Landing who purchased their properties with the understanding that the aquifer was a viable option for obtaining water over the long-term.

2. Significantly concerned with the increased likelihood of accidents with the increased population density as a result of the proposed subdivision.

As noted in the Review of Applications for Plan of Subdivision, those that live in the area have also raised concerns regarding the safety of current residents and the higher risk of vehicular accidents as a result of the proposed subdivision. This neighbourhood has a fair amount of children, and has since

it was built. I am quite concerned that with the increased traffic comes a population and subsequent vehicle density that will create the “perfect storm” for increased pedestrian-vehicle accidents.

I grew up in the Inverary area/ and although it was over 15 years ago/ I clearly remember the day that a serious accident occurred on my street. I lived on a dead-end street, mainly consisting of farm field with maybe 20-25 houses/ and a boy who was a grade ahead of me in school and who lived on my street, was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. My street was not nearly as populated as Lyons Landing/ at that time people didn’t speed down the road, racing to get home/ and yet it happened there. If you assume 2 cars per household/ which is pretty standard today, and multiply that by the 51 proposed houses, you have over 100 new vehicles on roads that are not meant to see that kind of traffic

Page 160 of 198

particularly with no sidewalks or even a wide shoulder. It is true that accidents can happen at any time, but why would we want to create the conditions that would in essence encourage them? 3. More properties in the area are not necessary, as the housing market in South Frontenac is a Buyer’s market, not a Seller’s.

Although the Provincial Policy Statement “encourages efficient land use planning to create and maintain strong communities and a healthy environment while encouraging economic growth over the long term” (Review of Applications for Plan of Subdivision and Associated Zoning By-Law Amendment/ Part of Lots 28 to 30, Concession VII, Storrington District/ Township of South Frontenac: Collins Lake

Estates), I would argue that the area does not require any additional properties to encourage long term growth. A search of the Royal LePage website on April 4/ 2016 shows that there are 5 properties currently for sale in the Lyons Landing and Holmes Road area, with a total of over 130 properties for sale in the South Frontenac area overall. This number does not even include the other subdivision that is

currently being developed on Perth Road across from Northway Hardware. By developing such a large number of properties/ the market will in essence become even more flooded with available properties/ as the real estate market in this area is currently a buyer’s market, with the buyer heavily negotiating the terms. With an abundance of real estate, it is no wonder that houses can sit on the market for months before a sale closes.

When my husband and I were researching and looking at properties in September 2014, our real estate agent advised us that properties in this area can be on the market an average of 6-8 months, giving us the advantage, as the buyer, to negotiate down on price and ask for a quicker closing because the properties had been up for so long. This is in stark contrast to the selling experience we had/ as the market conditions in Whitby favoured the seller, with many property sales resulting in a bidding war within days of being on the market. In addition to the significant concerns raised over the viability and long term sustainability of the aquifer and the increased population density, it simply does not make sense to add more residential properties into a market that already has more properties for sale than being purchased.

4. Supportive of adding a parkette-like area to the current Lyons Landing subdivision Despite my concerns over the proposed subdivision expansion, the one item that am

supportive of is adding the parkette to the Lyons Landing area. This would provide a safe community space for people and pets, and would fulfill the Provincial Policy Statement’s section 1.4.1 on building strong community relationships and leveraging the space to provide a safe/ healthy community. Building such a space would not only be an effective use of space/ but would also not have a significant impact to either the water supply/ the “pedestrian experience* or the woodlands environment. One of the great things about living in the country is that we have space - space in our own back yards, but also space to share as a community. In my opinion/ if the developer was to focus more on planning space that can be

used by the community without disturbing the aquifer or increasing the population density, that would be embraced much more openly by the community than the proposed expansion.

Page 161 of 198

WayneJ)rr From: Sent: To:

Langwood Park lyonslanding@kingston.net April-06-16 1:09 PM

Subject:

LYONSLANDING SAFETY

Wayne Orr

Enough already with Collins Lake Subdivision as I’m sure your saturated. Last nights discussion reminded me of a proposal I have had for years about the corner of Holmes and Lakefield. Its a blind comer. You cant see approaching traffic. Two options for consideration. Could we have a sign on Holmes indicating a blind intersection. Should have been one for decades.

Second option which is not common in Canada but might be very useful! here. A mirror showing the corner from both directions. Could really add to the safety of our residents today. Sorry but with respect to Collins Lake Subdidvision, traffic would be mind boggling with the construction of 51 homes. Dump trucks, gravel trucks, soil trucks, lumber trucks, septic tank trucks, worker trucks, etc etc. You get my point. Too many darn trucks and other safety and noise factors. Regards Ted Lang

Ted & Elizabeth Lang Langwood Park Inverary, ON 613-353-1848

1

Page 162 of 198

Wayne Orr From: Sent: To:

Wait Sepic waltsepic@gmail.com

Subject:

Re: Collins Lake Subdivision

April-08-16 10:16 AM Wayne Orr

Thanks Wayne,

1. Clearly, there is not enough water in the aquifer for 51 new wells. There is already concerns about the water since the northern approved development ofLyon’s Landing.
2. Street lighting at night is an issue since we moved here to enjoy dark nights and star gazing.
3. Traffic is a serious concern even after the recent road upgrades as fhelOO extra trips per day will make the north end ofLakefield unsafe as the road narrows about 100 meters south ofHolmes on a hill. Also, the blind

hill on Holmes just west ofLakefiled makes that intersection a challenge as it is with numerous near accidents attested to by neighbours. 4. The boat launch off lower Lakefield that all ofLyon’s Landing residents have deeded access to becomes a concern as well. Will we have to Lock the gate there? 5. The park slated for the Collin’s Lake development is almost an insult. The required 5% should be 7 acres, not 1 acre pending. If it goes ahead, please do not accept this. Require the full 5% in this “phase”. 6. The official plan designation as “rural” permits “limited” development. 51 new homes at one time does not meet that definition.

Thanks Wayae. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Wayne Orr <worr(%southfrontenac.net> wrote: Hello Wait,

Sorry to have missed your call.

Please feel free to forward your written comments from Tuesday night to this email address.

Wayne

Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer

Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100 1

Page 163 of 198

Karyn McLean 613-353-65254 karyn@tdstrade.com 3010 Lakefield Drive, InveraryON KOH1XO

April 5, 2016

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

4432 George Street, Box 1 00 Sydenham,ON,KOH2TO Dear Sirs,

Please find attached my written submission to the Count of Frontenac in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision as requested in your Public Meeting Notification. Please note that this submission is being made before the approval authority gives or refuses to give approval o the draft plan of subdivision as required in your notice.

Addressed in this submission are my concerns as a current resident of Lyons Landing, adjacent to the proposed community. It is my request that the concerns of the residents of Lyons Landing be given due consideration as contributing and active members of this county. ,’

/

mcerely yours, Su

‘\

//

1^ i/ Kah/n l^c^e^ /

J

/

/

Page 164 of 198

Former Reports Assessing Suitability for Development of the proposed Collins Lake Estates

I understand that two previous hydrogeologic studies were performed in an effort to develop the

land by a previous owner / developer and that those reports concluded that the watershed was incapable of supporting a development on this land. Unfortunately, due to the late notice of this

meeting, \ was unable to locate these past studies. Does the committee have copies for our

review? Certainly any previous studies that indicated that the watershed could not sustain a development should be given due consideration.

Both the existing community and the members of the future development have a reasonable interest in adequately understanding the impact of this development on the environment, the watershed, and it’s ability to continue to access water to supply its’ homes and families.

Lf-yc?u,have ??! s.een ,th_8se p.revi?.us r?p?rts’!?is. Ty exPectation that committee will delay

decision on the development until such time that the report can either be found or its existence

can be validated and whatever environmental impact and assessment have been performed, had, at the very least, considered the findings of these past reports. I would expect the planning

committee would take responsibility for looking into that and closing the loop with the members

of our community.

I suggest that the committee refrain from making a decision about the development of this

subdivision until those studies can be located and appropriately considered, or a similar study

can be performed.

would also like to understand how any current studies reflect these past studies as there is no indication in the reports that they have been. Specifically, how does the current plan account for

those studies in ensuring for the existing community and the future community that adequate consideration has been given to the watershed and its ability to support a community of this size

or future developments and importantly, the existing community.

Given the conclusions of these two former studies and the Malroz report (peer review study of the exp report contracted by the developer), all with similar findings that clearly conclude that the watershed h the area could not support a development of this size, it is abundantly clear

that the committee can not proceed in approving this application for development.

Moreover, when multiple studies over prolonged periods of time have shown that development

of this property will cause an interference to the existing and future groundwater users, the township places itself in a situation of precarious legal liability. Current Reports Groundwater Quantity

Referring specifically to the two reports that we have been given access to, that commissioned by the prospective developer EXP, and it’s peer review Malroz, what is clear is that “two of the

eight test wells went dry, and four of the eight pumped wells had insufficient water to complete

Page 165 of 198

the six hour pumping test”. On-site draw down was SIGNIFICANTLY below adjacent residential wells. 1

According to the inferred groundwater flow direction, it can be clearly concluded that draws in

the new development would significantly impact draws in the existing community. In point 11 of the Malroz report, it clearly states :

“We concur with section 3.5.3 that test wells TW #@, #3, #12 and #1 4 provided insufficient

yield and are not suitable as residential supply wells and do not support development of the site as a residential subdivisions.2

1?_’_Te?_YV_e^s.TV!/f7 al?.?9 ar® two.oftt!e clo®est wells to the existing residential development

along Laketield drive. We concur that there may be interference from existing well users. We

consider this significant and may be indicative along with TW#2, 3,12 and 14 that the aquifer is

susceptible to mining of groundwater resource and result in interference to existing or future

groundwater users. The consultant should elaborate on the mining of the aquifer and potential inference to existing and future groundwater users. 3

This is obviously of great concern, as the current residential development will require water for its continued functioning.

Moreover the current residential development is subject to it’s own growth by 35 houses on Kam

Avenue, based on a development approval of 40 years ago. No more recent studies have

evaluated the impact of the increase of residential use by 40% (35 house increase over existing community of 80 houses) has been performed to my knowledge, or has been made available to

its current residents and all of the above concerns apply equally to that development, and significantly impact the overall development in the area from the 35 houses already approved 51 houses currently being evaluated for approval + subsequent phases of this proposed

development which have been referred to, but the specifics of which have been withheld.

The Malroz report and the current residents share the concern over the insufficient groundwater yield, artesian conditions and susceptibility to long term mining of the aquifer. Groundwater Quality

‘Three test-wells exceeded ODWS for Health related parameters and all eight wells exceed the

aesthetic parameters. Exceedances were also reported for total ooliform at’four of the on-site

test wells and six of the nearby residential wells. Three of the nearby residential wells had

detectable e-coli. Bacterial detections were reported to be related to adjacent farming

activities.”

This clearly indicates that the water does not meet the quality requirements for further development on this aquifer.

1 Malroz report p.3 2 Malroz report p. 4 3 Marloz report p.4

Page 166 of 198

Furthermore, and of great interest, is the attribution of the quality of water to farming activities. As a 15 year resident of this community, I can clearly attest to the fact that this property has not been farmed in the 1 5 years I have been here until last summer when 4 small plots’ were

seeded for soybeans. I will return to this later, but it clearly does not contribute to the e-coli readings. While a small number of cows are kept at the Campbell farm in the North-West

corner of the delineated properties, they are at least 3 kms from these wells, and no crops have been grown here for a minimum period of 2001-2015. The e-coli is being inaccurately attributed

to the farming.

The Malroz report also recommends further comment on the occurrence of E-coli at nearby wells and the potential impact to the development is required.4 We would also ask that

comment be made about the implications for the existing community as well. The Malroz report recommends that consideration be given to assessing the groundwater for herbicides and pesticides.s We would concur with this recommendation.

Section 23 of the Servicing Report section of the Malroz report, it states: “Section 4 identifies that the lots will be serviced by individual septlc systems in accordance with the previously mentioned 1990 report. The consultant should identify whether the recommendations made in 1990 remain valid considering the EXP report did not speak to all

septic system design parameters.” The septic systems require serious deliberation as e-coli

(not likely attributable to agricultural practices) is found in the existing and test wells, an has

serious implications for the existing and new community. The addition of 51 septic tanks (+35

on Kam) will clearly put the water at significantly greater risk of contamination. and section 24 of the Servicing Report section of the Malroz report, it states:

“Section 5 and 7 identify that the EXP report supported development of the 51 lots. We (Malroz)

disagree that this was the conclusion of the EXP report. The consultant should revisit this

conclusion considering the EXP report and the comments above.” All indicators in this report

firmly contradict a conclusion that supports development of these lots under the private well and septic systems, and we expect Council to reflect that in their decision to not proceed with this

development.

Finally, the Malroz report goes on to say in it’s summary:

‘The hydrogeology and terrain analysis prepared by EXP and servicing report prepared by Jocelyn identifies a number of concerns with respect to the water quantity and quality that we

recommend be addressed to the County’s satisfaction prior to approval of the proposed subdivision. Four of the Eight test wells installed during the investigation are recommended to be abandoned… Considering the variability of the groundwater quality and quantity data we are of the opinion that the current studies do not support servicing of the site through private individual services at this time.”

4 Malroz p.5 5 Malroz p. 5

Page 167 of 198

Furthermore, this study was not an audit, and did not attempt to detect facts that were

concealed, or omissions in the report. Given the results, I would strongly suggest that an audit for concealed facts and omissions be performed, because the results reported did not support development, it is just as likely that some facts were committed that were even more decisively against development.

Give that the mandate of the County Official plan is to “promote rural living in a manner sensitive to the ecological balance, sensitive to the farming and forestry communities and sensitive to the

protection of groundwater and surface water quantity and quality”, it is clear that the county

cannot proceed with approval for the development of the proposed Collins Lake Estates. Additional concerns not accounted for in the hyrogeologic studies

Given the existence of e-coli in the current community and in the proposed development which

as referred to above cannot clearly be attributed to farming activities, what is the threshold of e-

coli and coliform before the Health Unit steps in and requires the building of a water treatment facility as was done in Sydenham?

What formula was used by EXP to extrapolate 4 (of 8)functioning wells to suggest that 51 wells could be serviced in addition to the 80+ existing wells and the 35 already approved for development? Also, literally 1/2 of the wells drilled were unusable due to contaminants. How can this be

interpreted as a successful result by EXP and Jocelyn engineering? This judgment is a clear indication of the faulty conclusions drawn throughout the hyrdogeologic report. How do the studies account for climate change and the expected changes in groundwater?

The recovery monitoring showed slow recovery due to existing residential use that will only go up with time and the addition of the new 35 houses on Kam avenue, so this result will only get worse with time, and impact new and existing users negatively, and possibly permanently effect

the aquifer.

The exp report suggested that the existing homes’ wells did show impact from the 6 hour well

tests. How was that measured? And how is that extrapolated to the 51 + 35 (Kam Ave) new homes proposed?

If the proposed development proceeds despite ample information (referred to specifically above)

suggesting that it should not, and the County Development Plan point 1.6.6.4 refers to individual

services with no negative impact, the community is placed in a position where its only recourse to protect its water will be legal action, particularly when the County has been directly advised about the potential negative impact on the quality and function of the watershed.

It is clear that this Hydrogeologic study is unsatisfactory for the committee to approve the draft plan of this subdivision.

Page 168 of 198

Other concerns

Noxious Weed - Poison Parsnip

L^^II«?h°^^nJ^^Ll^^!,^Jff^r^^^?^u-s^? T^^a^P^!so^p??nipint?our region with deleterious effects including a fatality in our area, residents are justifiably deeply

^^^ ^^1 !^T?f^^^T«r^p!!^^:T?is-!n-?i???^.^t.hI^Pro_p?s?1 wl1ich will encourage

the spread of the noxious weed into our neighbourhood. It has already lined Perth Road adjacent to this development, and the disruption of the soils would guarantee its arrival at our

homes. What responsibility will the township and developer take to remove this extremely

dangerous weed from our properties once introduced by the disrupted land?

The Planning Act says that “Regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility … for present and future inhabitants of the municipality.”

The required road expansion of Lakefield Drive would further drive the poison parsnip into our neighbourhood, bringing it right to our driveways. Environmental Impact Study

Contrary to the EIS, there is a turtle wintering pond on Lot 42 of the existing development that does not freeze over in winter. It is within the 120 m of the proposed development.’ Section 2.1.8 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permrtted on adjacent

lands to woodlands unless the ecological function has been evaluated and no negative impacts

on their ecological functions. Development would affect the turtles, their wintering, their mating,

and their hatchlings.

Soybeans were planted in 2015 for the first season the property was farmed in the full 15 years

have lived here. These soybeans were left unharvested. Then in the fall, they were mulched and spread across the fields and surrounding areas. This was a curious observation made by many of the residents. It later came to our attention that there is a protected bird, found in the

land proposed for development, that is repelled by soybeans. So in a very unseemly

coincidence, this land was farmed for the first time in well over 15 years. Soybeans were planted in the fields. These soybeans were not harvested, but instead spread around the area so as to force the relocation of a protected bird that would have otherwise prohibited

development of the proposed Collins Lake Estates. This was done seemingly under the disclaimer at the end of Section 2 of the PPS stating that “Nothing in policy 2^1 is intended to

limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue.” I would argue that when something hasn’t

happened in well over 15 years, we are not evaluating a continuance of activities at all, and therefore this disclaimer does not apply to these activity of intentionally driving out protected species.

Page 169 of 198

Adequacy of School sites

Iih.T ?i??*i?l:?LO-n-th.?t^e_local_sc,^QQIS c?n. ab®orb the children from the 51 home development

plus the 35 approved homes on Kamjs false^ Perth Road public school, the designated school

for this catchment area, already has 2 portables and as of today is only 1 5 students short of full capacity. Both Elgniburg and Glenburnie are at capacity. Parkland

According to the proposal, the mandated 5% parkland requirement is not being met as reauired

by Planning Committee. Instead of 7.89 acres, only 1.1 acres is being developed as parkland. Conclusion

Th-e^ot??i?n_Qf?h?_,He.altl’!^ndJ?a?ty ?f the^urrent Residents of Lyons Landing and the proposed future residents of the Collins Lake Estates must be ensured. AH indicatore suggest

that not only can this not be ensured, but that it would be put greatly at risk. This evaluation and

these ind^tore must be strongly considered when evaluating the approval of this proposal, and lead to a firm decision to protect its residents. It does not seem that adequate consideration is

being given to the existing community and their sizeable investment in their families, their well-

being and their homes’s continued access to safe and potable and adequate volumes of water.

Page 170 of 198

John and Martina Wright 3054 Lakefield Drive

Inverary, Ontario KOH1XO

County Of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Rd., Glenburnie, Ontario KOH1SO

ATTN: Reid Shepherd Community Planner

recently email Wayne Orr regarding a notice I received in the mail for the proposed plan of the subdivision that will be accessed off Lakefield Dr./ in Lyons Landing. I would like to be advised of any related Ontario Municipal Board Hearings and/or township meetings in this matter. I would also like to

be added as a party to the hearing of appeal if need be in the future. I have lived at 3054 Lakefield Dr., Lyons Landing Inverary for the past 17 years and I have concerns regarding the purposed 52 lot subdivision in the land adjacent to Lakefield Dr., and my home.

The land purposed for the 52 lot subdivision is a higher elevation than my property and the plan for diverting water run off from approximately 25 of these households is to the ditch across from my house. It states that the ditches will have to be cleaned regularly and inspected semi- annually. How is the township going to insure that my house and my neighbors are not flooded by the additional run off resulting from this development? Also what action will the township take if my well becomes contaminated by septic run off from this development?

After reading some of the documents from the well test that were done on the development site. It is

very clear that there is simply not enough water to support this development and my fear is that my well will be impacted. What action will the township take if this development affects my well in a negative manner? For example loss of water amount and pressure or lack of water at all. Directly affecting my property value in the future. Would you buy a house with no water? Water is essential to life and a basic human right that has to come before progress and profit.

Other concerns are of course the protecting wetlands and wild life that exist on these lands. There are

millions of dollars spent trying to fix past mistakes where lands have been destroyed for progress. Endangered species, droughts, ecosystems thrown off balance. The list is endless, feel at this point it is Page 171 of 198

not necessary to develop more land in the Inverary area when current developments are sitting incomplete.

realize that the township has put some effort into redoing the roads within Lyons Landing but I am concerned that the traffic this development will add to this area is not going to work. The roads will not

support the extra traffic.

Thanks

John & Martina Wright

Page 172 of 198

My name is Jack Staszak, I live about 400 ft away from proposed development. I would like to sign under all concerns regarding water situation and the effects on existing subdivision of proposed development/ as well as traffic disturbances. Since the water issue is well

presented I would like to skip over to the environmental aspect of proposed development. We have to understand that proposal of this development involves removal of thousands of trees and destroying very crucial ecosystem that thousands of living organisms depend on. It is a shame that all environmental reports classifies this beautiful green space as insignificant. We think different/ green space is very significant to us. This is where we live, many of us raising families, many retired people seeking peace and quiet. We chose to be here for its natural beauty that south Frontenac has to offer. The only way to keep its natural wonders, is smart planning promoting ecological awareness.

We have to understand that going ahead with this project shaves of 860 acres of significant, beautiful/ vibrant ecosystem surrounding Collins Lake that can never be brought back. Once it’s gone its gone forever/ it will never be recovered. It is controversial and

upsetting that the proposed development meets the bare minimum of regulated setback from environmentally recognized areas. This plan meets the bare minimum of 120m setback of

development from a provincially designated wetland. In most wetlands the lifecycle of much wildlife extends beyond the 120m limit. It is important to prevent disturbance of this land

during construction or final use. Furthermore/ these measures will be difficult to enforce during construction and more so after the homes are sold. My question is; how will the woodlands/ which were found to be significant in some aspects, be protected so that they continue to serve as the important buffer to the Environmentally Sensitive Wetland on the shore?

Presents of threatened species seems to be ignored and neglected. During environmental studies consultants acknowledge present of threatened eastern whip-poor-will. Quoting: “Eastern whip-poor-wills where observed on Maybach property but more than 500 m from phase 1 development. This more than sufficient setback for negative impact to this species”. I live 100 m from proposed development and hear whip-poor-wills all summer long which would be in contrary with Ministry of Natural Resources survey protocol for eastern whip-poor-will which states:

Eastern Whip-poor-will can be heard for 300 m but may be heard up to 500 m under extremely good conditions. Phase 1 proposed development extends way beyond 500 m that is why additional studies are needed to effectively determine the presence of that threaten species. Environmental Impact assessment has been sent to Ministry of Natural Recourses regarding

eastern whip-poor-will’s presence. It has been noticed that to be compliant with Ministry of

Natural Resources survey protocol for Eastern whip-poor-will consultants should ask-about c?^? /-o(r-

Ministry of Natural Resource comment: “The three nights of surveying should include mapping where the calls are coming from”.

Mapping has not been provided in official report that is why the document is not in compliance with Ministry of natural resources surveying protocol.

Beyond all that information I would like to ask very important question : since the presence of threaten whip-poor-will is unquestionable on Maybach property, what is the township’s

Page 173 of 198

further approach in conservation of this threaten species on that property, since additional development is being planned in the future. Does the developer hope to create enough disturbance that in the next phases that threatened species will not be observed at all? Under ministry of natural resources regulation, under threatened species habitat protection quoting: “threatened species and their general habitat are automatically protected”. It is in our and south Frontenac’s hands to make sure this threatened species doesn’t face the worst threat and reason for steady decline which is habitat loss. I would like to encourage everyone to take a look at threatened eastern whip-poor-will occurrence map on Ontario.ca website and notice that we are still fortunate enough to find this threatened species next to our homes. The little yellow dot over Collins Lake indicates the presents of this species. Once 860 acres of that habitat is taken away that small dot will become even smaller or may even disappear completely.

Province of Ontario spends millions of dollars every year in conservation efforts. Smart planning and putting ecology first can save a lot of that money. Beautiful green space

surrounding Collins Lake is only considered as monetary value for the developer. Every square foot of that property has its price.

For us it’s not the dollar value that matters. It’s the clean water/ clean air, and country lifestyle that we love the most.

I ask Township to consider and recognize the environmental impact that this proposed development would have on environment and its residence Attachments:

1. Ontario Whip poor-will-status

2. Ministry of natural resources whip-poor-will surveying protocol

3. Map of Eastern whip-poor-will occurrence in Ontario

Page 174 of 198

Eastern Whip-poor-will

T~ /.

in Ontario

^f

?

^

t

as recorded by the Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre as of February 29,2012

\

*i,^

.^

^,

a

I

f

1

Mamtob? .

/

\

Communities

./

0

Roads

.

^. > MOOSOTIM .»

,i

\

I j Spedes occurrence Keno .

Areas inysHow lament known occurrences ofttilsapecias.

For animate this Indirias areas such asb^-cdonlBS; breeding ponds, derring sites and htoemacda. For plants this

IL.’’

Is usual/ wtwre N occurs naturally. /

z

t/^,

00

0

tl.

\

0

^

“n

/

/

(.:

KBnora

** 1tiui;<ler Bay

.

0

I

.t. -^.

0

thunder Bay

0

"

Q u f b E> r

1

^^^ ^^]ton^^^^

^

LAKESUPB^IOR

Monwnee

‘ilnfmlna

-.

(^aulSte < …^’ *.

^^ :awa

d*

. .

i

\

T

»

^

M innesota

.

Tbronffi *

Sautt

S|Q>

ario

North Bay

8b

..">.

Michigan

Wndwr

Q> 0

^v

A 0

45

90

180

0 \ gpgo %°

LAKE MICHIGAN

N

Wisconsin 270

o*

OUama^” .^ .^T-

<-’

/ f-

<-1 ^

c? <0

360

Kilometre®

Toronto LAKE ONTWO

.

0 Michigan

For information on spades at risk, visit ontario.ca/spBdeaabisk

0

0

r

0

^cowo

To learn more about tha Ontario Natural Haritage InfarmaBon Centre, visit nhlc.mnr.gauon.ca

“^

I owa

0

Note:

New York

ERIE

1

This mapahodd not be rdied on as a complete and accurate representalion far locations of species at risk, routas or bcaBons, nor asaguideto navigation. Trie Ontario Ministiy of Natural

Page 175 of 198

Rwoureea shall not be GaUB in any way for tfw use of, or reliance upon, thismaporanylnfonnattononthlamap.

Illinois

M Issouri

\

1

Pennsylvania Indiana Ohio

ontario.ca/speciesatrisk lUHBl^?!

»

p: Ontario

7^c^ ^ffM!

Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) in Ontario

August 2013

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Species at Risk Branch

Ministry of Natural Resources

^Ontario Page 176 of 198

Citation: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2013. Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will

(Caprimulgus vociferus) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch, Peterborough, iii + 10 pp.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of the Natural Resources, 2013. All rights reserved.

»»

u

Page 177 of 198

f

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..! 1.1 Objective………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………! 1.2 Rationale………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………! 1.3 Authorizations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….^ 2.0 SPECIES INFORMATION…………………………………………………………………………,………………….^ 2.1 Identification…………………………………………………………………………………………………………,,….^

2.2 Seasonal Movements and Suggested Dates for Survey…………………………………………^ 2.3 Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………………,…………………….3 2.4 Typical Habitat - Area to be Surveyed…………………,………………………………………………….^ 3.0 SURVFT PROTOCOL……………………………………….._……………………………………………………….3 3.1 Technique………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………..3 3.2 Qualifications and Records Review………….,………..;….. …………………..””""…….."……….6 3.3 Recommended equipment……………….. ……"………………:.. …,.".. “”"……………………………… 6 3.4 Survey Period……………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.5 Conditions……………………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………………7 3.6 Pre-Survey………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………..7 3.7 Timing and Number of Surveys…………………………………………………………………………….7 3.8 Conducting the Survey……… …………………………………………………………………………………8 3.9

RepeatVisits………………………………………………………..""""..""……………………….."."………."§

3.10 Alterations to survey protocol and important points ………………………………………………9 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.0

DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING……………………… …………………………………… ………9 Documentation……………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………….9

Reporting……. …………………………………………………………………………………………………."."….10 REFERENCES

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Global range (left) and Ontario range (right) for Eastern Whip-poor-will……………………… 4 Figure 2: Breeding evidence for Eastern Whip-poor-will from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas,

2001-2005

5

. . 1

Ill

Page 178 of 198

EASTERN WHIP-POOR-WILL SURVEY PROTOCOL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective The purpose of this survey protocol is to describe a method for determining the breeding status of

Eastern Whip-poor-will in an area, their relative abundance and the number of territories in an area. This

information will aid in identifying habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). The survey protocol uses standardized methods, including point counts in typical habitat along a driving or walking route. The method allows for consistent and repeatable surveys. 1.2 Rationale

When a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, it receives protection under sections 9 and 1 0 of the ESA. Effective protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitat under the ESA requires complete and up-to-date knowledge of species occurrences throughout the province (may or may not be the same as EOs or Elemental Occurrences used by the Natural Heritage Information Centre). For example, local species occurrence data is required to make an assessment of whether or not an activity in a specific area will affect a species at risk or its habitat.

However, systematic, province-wide sun/eys or inventories have not been conducted for many of Ontario’s species at risk. Consequently, the lack of occurrence data at a particular site does not indicate

that the species is likely absent from the site; it may simply mean that surveys have never taken place, previous surveys were not adequate to detect the species or no one has reported observations.

Field surveys in potentially suitable habitat are necessary to determine if a species is present at a particular site. However, some species at risk are inherently rare, occur at low densities and are very cryptic, making detection of these species difficult. Furthermore, the detection probability of some species varies considerably with time of year, weather and search method. This species at risk Survey Protocol was developed in response to the need for standardized, systematic surveys for species at risk in Ontario.

The survey protocol uses roadside point counts, involving timed stops at a series of predetermined points along a route. At each survey stop, the listening penod is used to determine the presence (or absence), direction and location of one or more calling Eastern Whip-poor-will. Multiple surveys of the route over a single breeding season allow determination of the highest level of breeding category and potentially delineation of breeding territories. Other survey techniques use similar methods (Bird Studies Canada 2012, Center for Consen/ation Biology 2012).

Three levels of breeding (i.e. possible, probable, confirmed) have been used in breeding bird atlases to indicate the degree to which it is likely a bird is breeding in an area (Cadman et al 2007). Evidence such as calling from the same location on two or more dates can be used to assign a breeding site to a particular breeding category. Probable and confirmed breeding evidence may be used to identify habitat under the ESA. Data from surveys conducted on consecutive nights may be used to support probable

breeding.

Page 179 of 198

1.3 Authorizations Species at Risk

Under some circumstances, surveys for threatened or endangered species in Ontano may require a

permit under the ESA. For example: the collection of voucher specimens; . capturing and handling an animal; . repeated disturbance of an individual; and . any activity that damages the habitat. No permit is required for those using this protocol.

Federal authorizations may also be required under the Spec/es at Risk Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act if working on federal lands or if you are likely to contravene protection afforded under these Acts and their Regulations. Work in Provincial or National Parks

A permit from Ontario Parks or Parks Canada Agency is required to carry out work in a provincial or national park, respectively, regardless of other authorizations that have been obtained. Applications to conduct research in Ontario provincial parks usually take up to two months for review and approval. Landowner Authorization

Permission to carry out work on private property is required from the property owner prior to accessing the property, regardless of other authohzations that have been obtained. Surveys conducted from an adjacent property line for which access has been granted or from public property such as a public road

do not require specific landowner permission. 2.0 SPECIES INFORMATION 2.1 Identification

During the breeding season, males give the primary advertising “whip-poor-will” call in the dusk, evening

and early morning from calling perches which may be either elevated (e.g. in trees, on rock outcrops, fenceposts, etc.) or on the ground. It may also call during migration. During the day, males roost In trees or sometimes on the ground. The species’ cryptically-coloured plumage makes Ft very difficult to find when roosting. Foraging birds or birds flushed from a roost site exhibit an erratic, floppy, moth-like flight pattern.

The Common Nighthawk (ChordeHes minor} is similar in appearance to the Eastern Whip-poor-will and these two species may be observed foraging and calling at the same time. They have a transverse white bar near the tip of the wings, exhibit an erratic, stiff-winged flight, generally fly higher in the sky, vocalize with a nasal “pent call and make a “booming” sound with their wings. 2.2 Seasonal Movements and Suggested Dates for Survey The Eastern Whip-poor-will is a summer resident in Ontario before migrating to the southern United States and Central America in the fall. Here are some typical dates when it is found in Ontario:

2

Page 180 of 198

Average Early Spring Arrival: 27 April (first 20% of arrivals; Burrell 2012) Normal spring arrival: mid-May (first arrivals in early April; James 1991) Breeding Season

Egg dates: 21 May to 21 July (Peck and James 1993) End of Breeding: Mid August (estimated) Fall departure: eariy October (James 1991)

Suggested best dates for Eastern Whip-poor-will surveys: May 18 - June 30* *Survey dates may vary slightly by location so contact the local OMNR office for the best dates suitable in your area.

2.3 Distribution

The Eastern Whip-poor-will is widely distributed across central Ontario as well as parts of southern and northern Ontario (Figures 1 & 2). The range of the Eastern Whip-poor-will is not well known in northern

Ontario since there was no requirement in the Atlas for crepuscular surveys. 2.4 Typical Habitat - Area to be Surveyed The Eastern Whip-poor-will is primarily found in relatively open, coniferous, deciduous or mixed

woodlands and in forest habitats, particularly along the edges of habitats where there is exposed rock, clearings, younger forest or wetlands. Typically occupied habitats may include sand barrens and forested dunes, regenerating bums, Precambrian rock barrens, limestone barrens (alvars), deciduous and mixed savannahs and woodlands, particularly those of dry upland oak, oak-pine, and coniferous woodlands.

They may also occur in cutovers in regenerating harvest sites. Frequently these habitats will be part of a larger forested area. OMNR district staff may have additional information on locations in a district at which Eastern Whip-poor-will may be found.

Note: This document provides guidance on where to look for species at risk, given their typical habitat

preferences. This is not a description of general habitat as defined under the ESA. 3.0 SURVEY PROTOCOL

3.1 Technique

Calling Eastern Whip-poor-will can be heard for up to 500 m under good conditions and as far as 1 km

under ideal conditions. This protocol relies on observers undertaking point counts at locations that they

have established in advance. The point counts shall have a fixed radius of 300 m so that absolute

numbers of birds can be counted. At each point count location, the calling male(s) are identrfied, and the direction and distance to each is estimated and plotted on a map. The direction of a calling male is recorded by taking a compass bearing. Distances to calling birds are often difficult to determine and may be influenced by topography, the proximity to waterbodies, the maturity and density of the surrounding

vegetation and relative humidity (e.g. heavy mist or fog).

3

Page 181 of 198

J

<tl.

J»

^.<.^ ‘^.’s: 5,’ <^

** \

w

*»

.» ,IL,

‘^i

^

-^-

J. f

/r

:^–^

i

-1*

f

i

.^

if

\

I 1. ^ .1

^.

.+

t(

T>

I

-?%^M i ^. ft

s

I”’

.’/

\

1:

F

“>’,

^

w y

/ 1>^ ; ,^-

<r~

7f

t

^

/

t

.-‘f

^’(^’’

V

^

1

/°

‘^

.;1

.^

t;

.. >!.-.-

~-^t .^ ^.-

»

^’

r/

*. I

\

£

‘»»

I

1-

/

-^

<

h

1,

Is.r>-^ ^^.

y ?r

{:

t

. .-“I.

Y”.;

Spedes Range/Gomme des esp6ces

<>. .» Jl

r

‘. .^-

H

r .-/.’.-.

^^ TJI.

Only/ . Breeding Reproduction aeulemBnt

-ll

.i.

N

1

^6 ^ t> ‘-

A

‘r

“^

^

/

Reiidenl Year Round/

<

Resident 6 longueur d’unn6e

I-

^

^ 1’

,<

Winlanngpnlyy

*.

<

RAierofe d I’tthwnoge

Legend ‘,¥

Hifltl density (from NatnreSflne)

*. 1

jji Moderate denilty (horn OBBArecacds)

0

125 250

500 Kilometers

Figure 1: Global range (left) and Ontario range (right) for Eastern Whip-poor-will Sources: Project Wildspace (left), CWS, OMNR (right).

4

Page 182 of 198

Whlp-poor-will

t

\

Caprimulgus vociforus

.<

s

r

t-* \

t,

" . f,

7

^*-

y»

t

/k

tf^

‘~y

Breeding Evidence

~^.

t.

..*

-T

i,- \

^

.*
1 \

^./

^..

^

.\

f

L” 7

^

.

.1.

Souare nHh Bocqjgla ociwage

^

A

%

^.rf

PcesUe PmtiBUe Confrmmt

I;

4 ^

^<

r^

.^ I1/J

fr »

0 Found in saand <llat b.rtixHhlrsi

<»

^

Found in frd allai tyl not in .Kxrd

.

^f’A

)>’.’t;

r

f

x * <

^

f

1

^^

v

“–I

1

r\ L~^.^.

Sovsw.

Alias of the Breeding &-nts

“_.-.

-^.J

v^’^,

.**.

ofdntertol2001:20&»

Map t"l * .

• »

L

a <.

.

fT M

»

.f fc t; f .* . * <n

-^t-

. F-^

t>^t

^ .

^

vs

<s»» J>

1

^

<»

^.-

»*^

r<–,»i

» . “’.’’*. . I= 4

• .

1’

n

»

*? *

<

.

»

a

. » * » *

\

.-.,,/

.

f

.

1 ^

^n’

S’tT

. nt » *

.

<.. f

»»*

^

t

f-’.;

» *

h *0

»

. * * *

*.

f.^‘Kti, ..

*» »

^

.

tt

0’-^? i.’.

• <*

j.’

1

f

h * *l <’

*,

T ^,

1

.

f » »

v

J

f

< .If *

^1

»

^

• . f

»

»

fr f t. v

t *

.

• » n »*

»

.

.

t.

I

».

. *

0

. t *

»

^…^;-’ t*

^ * If .* *

t*

<* t

IH

^

…-.^ *

.

.

» *

. .

.*

. v ‘“V

• *t

^

^ V- < .

• M

<» »

fa-

r.

.

m fr

af

.

^

(

» .

»

»

ft

• »

:<r\.

»

. ** t . *

4

»* t

or

t9

.

«<» ^ ^

» *

<1 t

.. ^ . * . f * 9

.«

t. t

‘S 4-1 ^> .>. a d *.

»

^1

<

*(

» f

» *., *. ^ .. » » . . +»

l.t

*.

»

t

»t *

» <.

t

fr * . * »

<

‘» . *’

< * t

^

»

^

*«

f t .

.

<* t . » *

&"’e

.

»

« f

ft

1

». *

^ <t

*’»^<"»”

% .. -

~r

L

. * >a < ». . I

• . .

t ora* » . * …-* -t . ^

• <» rf t

b”:

.

Bfc-d SttKtes Canada

.^.-n

a»

F* w*

~

.

t

.

1

k Figure 2: Breeding evidence for Eastern Whip-poor-will from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 2001-2005 Black dots indicate locations where the species was seen in the first Atlas, 1981-1985 but not in the second.

5

Page 183 of 198

Triangulation should be used whenever possible to obtain the most accurate locations. The error associated with estimating direction increases with distance. Caution should be used if the landscape is rugged or if it is windy and the bird is far away as the sound may echo, distort or come from two directions.

Should methods used in surveys deviate significantly from what is described in this protocol, the information obtained may not be acceptable to the MNR. 3,2 Qualifications and Records Review

Surveys for Eastern Whip-poor-will should be carried out by biologists or observers with demonstrated experience with the species or who have appropriate field skills and are familiar with the habitat used by Eastern Whip-poor-will. Surveyors are expected to be knowledgeable about the species, its calls, and its

behaviour based on information in Cink (2002), Mills (2007) or other sources. Surveyors will also need to be experienced in conducting field work in the evening or night, using a GPS unit to record tracks or find specific coordinates. A records review should be carried out prior to field surveys. Existing occurrence records may help to

better scope the field survey or, if extensive data are already available for a site, existing records may eliminate the need for a field survey. The absence of occurrence records from an area does not indicate that the species is absent; suitable habitat must be adequately surveyed before concluding that the species is absent. The following sources can be consulted for general information on Eastern Whip-poor-will occurrence within Ontario: .

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) httD://nhic.mnr.aov.on.ca/

.

OMNR district offices http://www mnr aov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPaae/STEL02 1790Q2.html

Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (ORAA) httD://ontarionature.ora/Drotect/SDecies/herDetofaunal atlas.php .

Status reports from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) httD://www.sarareaistrv.ac.ca/default e.cfm

.

Other information sources such as, but not limited to species experts, site-related environmental impact or screening reports, published scientific literature and natural history inventories

3.3 Recommended equipment Compass, GPS, map or aerial photo, pencil, notebook or datasheets, watch, headlamp, insect repellent; cell phone; Optional: hand-held radios (if two observers will be simultaneously conducting the survey), anemometer, flagging tape, camera.

6

Page 184 of 198

3.4 Survey Period

The dates when this survey may be used are May 18 - June 30. If surveys outside these dates are required, please consult with biologists at the local OMNR office. 3.5 Conditions

Surveys must be conducted under field conditions with no precipitation, low noise levels, little or no wind

(up to 3 on the Beaufort Scale [<12 kph]; Beaufort scale 3 = Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended), clear skies and good visibility. Because moon phase is known to affect calling rates, the moon should be > 50% illuminated, and above the horizon (generally one week on either side of date of full moon). The sky should have Irttle or no cloud cover. The temperature should be 10°C or

above. Nights when the moon is visible under these conditions have significantly higher calling rates for Eastern Whip-poor-will. Information on moon phase and position relative to the horizon can be obtained at websites such as: httD://www.timeanddate.com/

3.6 Pre-Survey

1. Examine aerial imagery or a map, and set up a survey route(s) along existing roads (when possible) or trails within or adjacent to the project area so that the route passes within 300 m of all typical habitat. In some cases, individual survey points may be positioned off a route to ensure

coverage of an area. Routes may even be done on water if this is the more practical. Eastern Whip-poor-will can be heard for 300 m but may be heard up to 500 m under extremely good conditions.

2. Establish survey points along the route at 500 m intervals. Identify a 300 m radius circle around

each point as the area to be surveyed. This area is equal to 28.3 ha. Aim to have one survey point for every 30 ha of typical habitat. Drive or walk the route during the day if unfamiliar with the area. Create waypoints on your GPS for the survey points.

3. When travelling the route during the day, visit the waypoints set as survey stations and note features immediately along the roadside which might be reference points at night such as bends in the road, creek crossings, large trees, forest edges or rock outcrops.

4. Two observers are recommended for the survey; one to listen and one to record. At specific survey points the two observers may split apart to triangulate locations of the same calling bird by simultaneously recording the direction and distance. Always take personal safety into account; this may support having more than two observers if you wish to triangulate locations of birds. Notify others about your trip plans. 3.7 Timing and Number of Surveys

Surveys should start thirty minutes after sunset when the moon is visible above the horizon and may continue as long as the moon is visible. If conditions are favourable, surveys may extend until as late as 15 minutes before sunrise. The hours immediately following dusk and preceding dawn are the best times for a survey; calling may be less frequent at other times.

7

Page 185 of 198

A minimum of three surveys should be completed during the breeding season so that sufficient data is obtained to determine breeding status and interpret territories.

Ideally, two of the surveys should be completed in late May or the first week of June during a week preceding or just after a full moon, and a third survey in the next available full moon period which might be the middle/end of June. If it is necessary to conduct all three survey nights during one moon phase

cycle, this should be confirmed with the OMNR. If a scheduled survey must be cancelled because of rain or clouds covering the moon, one survey but not more may be done in the period when the moon is <50% illuminated because some data will be obtained.

3.8 Conducting the Survey:

1. The surveyor shall drive or walk the predetermined route and stop at the established stops (i.e. GPS determined locations) to listen for Eastern Whip-poor-will for 5 minutes at each stop. The observer shall get out of the vehicle at each stop.

2. If an Eastern Whip-poor-will is heard, take a compass bearing on the calling bird, record the time, GPS location and estimate the distance to the calling bird. On many GPS units, one can move the cursor on the screen to the estimated location of the calling bird and ft can be marked as a

waypoint. Estimating distances can be very difficult: it is likely that you will need to scale them to the nearest 50 or 100 m.

3. If two or more birds are heard calling simultaneously, note the directions and probable locations of each on a map as this is important for establishing that multiple territories may be present.

4. Where possible, two observers may work simultaneously from different spots on the route (or points) to triangulate the location of the same calling bird. The greatest accuracy is obtained when the two observers and the bird are equal distances apart (i.e. forming an equilateral triangle).

5. Stay at the point for five minutes to ensure all Eastern Whip-poor-will are noted. Record any

changes in calling locgtion that are noted and take new compass bearings and distances as necessary. If not done during a pre-survey reconnaissance, make notes on the general

conditions of the area surrounding the listening stop (e.g. small clearing, rock outcrop, etc) in

case the location needs to be located during the day.

6. As the observer moves to the ne?ct point on the route, he or she may take additional bearings or take note of calling bird(s) at intermediate locations if it will give better location data than at’the next point. At each point, try to avoid double counting of birds by noting whether a bird is a new

calling bird or one that was heard from a previous survey point. Note that birds may stop calling and may move to a new calling perch within their territory.

7. Continue to make 5 minute stops at the established points and record any calling birds as noted above until the survey is completed.

3.9 Repeat Visits

As mentioned above^ surveys should be repeated a minimum of three times during the breeding season

to ensure data is sufficient to confirm identify and delineate territories. Two of the three surveys may be 8

Page 186 of 198

conducted on successive nights. Some observers have found that doing their surveys in reverse order on subsequent visits allows the survey end points to be surveyed under ideal conditions at least once. 3.10 Alterations to survey protocol and important points

Stops will normally be set up every 500 m and listening periods set for 5 minutes to give the best results. If stops need to be set further apart than 500 m (e.g. surveying a very large area) or other changes from

the protocol are required, contact the OMNR for advice. The following actions should be avoided:

1. Playback should not be used on Eastern Whip-poor-will because it may move birds from their established calling perches and outside of their normally defended territory.

2. Nest searches should not be conducted unless instructed to do so by OMNR staff. Eggs are cryptically coloured and laid cNrectly on the forest floor. They blend into the adjacent leaves, litter,

or ground. Nests are very difficult to find and during searches the nests or sitting birds may be harmed. Incubating birds may not flush until observers are directly upon them.

3. Close approach of calling birds should be avoided unless instructed to do so by OMNR staff. 4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING 4.1

Documentation

Survey: Documentation should include observers’ names, the date, weather conditions including temperature and cloud cover, wind speed, time of surveys and visibility of the moon for each survey stop. Breeding Evidence: Information collected on surveys should be compiled and analyzed by transcnbing the data to a map_for each survey. You should also make a master map showing all calling bird locations from all surveys. The master map should show locations of birds in the following situations: single calling birds on one night only, territory registered by a calling male in the same area on at least two surveys,

two males singing simultaneously (indicates a territory boundary between them), and the movement of calling males to new calling locations (indicates two calling locations in a territory). Birds heard calling on two or more surveys from the same general location would provide probable breeding evidence to demonstrate that a territory is found in a particular area. Single calling birds heard on only one survey out of three at a location indicate a bird is present but do not demonstrate use.

Territories: Use the maps of calling birds with the breeding evidence (e.g. calling on multiple nights) to create maps of territories. Once several birds have been mapped on different nights, it is possible to draw polygons around sets of calling locations to create defended territories. While the breeding bird atlas requires surveys to be done 7 days apart to register a territory, this protocol allows surveys done on

consecutive nights to be used to map territories. Territories in Ontario are approximately 9 ha.

9

Page 187 of 198

4.2 Reporting Species at risk occurrence data should be reported to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Hentage Information Centre (NHIC): httD://nhic.mnr.aov.on.ca. The NHIC is Ontario’s conservation data

centre and maintains the provincial record of Ontario’s species at risk occurrences. Negative survey results should also be submitted to the NHIC. Data should be submitted in digital format (spreadsheet or

shape files with associated tabular data) as per instructions on the NHIC website. The local OMNR or

Ontario Parks office should also be provided with a copy of the data (but please indicate if it has already been submitted to NHIC).

5.0

REFERENCES

Bird Studies Canada 2012. “Where in the Square?” Whip-poor-will Pilot Project Participant’s Guide.

2012. Bird Studies Canada, 12pp. accessed at httD.//www.birdscanada.ora/birdmon/wDwi (May 5, 2013).

Burrell, Mike. 2012. Guide to spring arrival dates in Ontario. The Nomadic Naturalist blog accessed at httD://mikeburrell.bloasDot.ca/2012/04/auide-to-SDrina-amval-dates-in.html (May 8, 2013). Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R Couturier, eds. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field

Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp Centre for Conservation Biology 2012. Instructions for Conducting the Nightjar Survey Network 2012 Season. Accessed at

httD://ncbirdconsen/ation.sauaresDace.com/storaae/niahtiar survev/2012 %20Niahtiar%20Surve v%20Network%201nstructions%20and%20Data%20Sheet.Ddf (May 3, 2013). Cink, Calvin L. 2002. Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus}. The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed ). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online (December 2011).

eBird. 2012. eBird database accessed by Don Sutherland. January 2012. Ontario checklists (n=3000) from 1991 to present.

James, R.D. 1991. Annotated checklist of the birds of Ontario. Second edition. Lrfe Sciences

Miscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 128 pp.

Mills, A. 2007 Whip-poor-will pp 312-313 in Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R Couturier, eds. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1999. Breeding birds of Ontario, nidiologyand distribution, Vol 1: nonpasserines (additions and revisions). Ontario Birds 17:105-123.

10

Page 188 of 198

Eastern Whip-poor-will

7” ‘!>

in Ontario

r?fr 1”

V ^

as recorded by the Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre as of February 29, 2012

.^

^

^.

.^

.^ *

a

<

^ /

Iwarn; o b ?

^

^,

Communities

.

t

^MooBonee ^

0

Roads

.

s

Species occurrence Keno

Areas myeljow represent known occurrenceBofthisapecfes. For animals this indudas _ areas such as breodlng: coioniBs, breeding ponds, denning sites and hibemacula. For’plants thu b usually where It occurs naturally. »

/

/

/

\ *>

“-1

r

Queues

0

00

p

^

*«.

0 0 Thunder Bay

0

0

Thnmins

f^-

LitKESUPER/UR Mooaonee kwiora «

<

T^lrierBny

.

^SaUNSte .v.‘1 ^- f

WMS

.r

Minnesota

.

. >…

. .

0

‘Hnjmtna

TbnritSf

SauttS ^-yario

.

North Bay .*.

fiPc

f-^,

Michigan

UUndwr

Aa«^ *

/

W9 .<

A

0

LV(E MICHIGAN

0

N

Ws cousin 0

45

90

180

270

^\

° £?8o

0 ^

c? <0

360

Kitometres

TprohtOUKE OhTAR/0

.

0 M lchi gan

ForinfbrmaUon on apecies at risk, visrt ontario.ca/apecresatrisk

0

0

0

J^ Is”” “ws about 9 Ontario Natural Haritage Information

Cantre, visit nhlc.mnr.gov.on.ca

0 owa

0

New Vuik

0 o®

^Wn^pr^

Note:

Ts-mapshou!d “otbardiedonas a complete and accurate I??‘8.!????!?-*?1???!-01?,8 or .E?c1^ d risk.re"to8 orlocHtlons, no;.a8aSuideto nav'9a"on- The Ontario Ministry or Natural ResoKws shdl not be laUe h any wayforth8\»ed;or reliance upon, thismaporanyhfonnattononthisrap.

y

f T-

si

KE ERIE

.1 d

Illinois

Pennsyl-‘ania Indiana

Page 189 of 198

Missouri

Ohic

Bdinml.htokfcr iSnuu.dlri

ontario.ca/speciesatnsk

e>,Ontario

County Clerk,

April 5, 2016

2069 Battersea Road, Glenbunue, ON, KOH ISO

re: CoUins Lake Subdivision Proposal

Dear Sir:

I have several concerns with respect to the proposed plan for the Collins Lake Subdivision.

My main concerns revolve around the impact of many new wells on my well water supply and purity. If the 51 lot proposal is approved and homes that are built do not have water problems at the outset, such problems may develop when the next phase of 100 to 300 homes is built. Having said this, I think that before the present application goes for approval, the public should be informed as to how many homes are planned for the remainder of the 800 acre piece of land. Also are plans being made for a subdivision development on the other side of Perth Road across from lots 25, 26, 27 and 28?

I wonder ifWeston Consulting objectively and carefully read the documents: the Hydrogeology and Terrain Analysis Report and the Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report. One of the Weston Consulting conclusions in the Planning Justification Report p.55 is that “……..the development will be serviced by private wells and septic systems, which will be maintained at the owner’s expense”. The exp Services Inc. Hydrogeology and Terrain Analysis Report points out several problems when pumping and recovery tests were conducted on the newly installed wells. L 2 test wells went dry

2. 4 out of 8 test wells that were pumped did not have enough water to complete the six hour pumping test

Other findings included: 3. elevated coliform counts in 4 wells and

4. elevated sodium content in the groundwater.

I find it hard to imagine that significant water problems will not arise if the present development proposal goes through.

What is the Township’s plan if a large number of homes are built and occupied and wells go dry or are contaminated?

My second personal concern is that if a subdivision is built, one solution to resultant water problems could be a water purification and pumping plant close to Collins Lake. Should that happen I would be fearful of a significant property tax increase and a negative effect on the lake we all enjoy. I do not feel that any development should be considered. Sincerely, R. Brace Pritchard

3757 Maple Crest Court

ec: Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk Township of South Frontenac, 4432 George Street, Box 100 Sydenham, ON, KOH 2TO Page 190 of 198

April 5/2016 Council Meeting, Sydenham Public Meeting RE: Collins Lake Estates, South Frontenac

We are opposed to the application for the proposed subdivision on Collins Lake. This development of 51 residential estate lots would seriously compromise the health, safety and security of the existing residents and wildlife in the area. Our concerns regarding the plan expressed are (but not limited to): Water. In addition to the quality and quantity/ it does not satisfy the Ministry requirements for recovery and several of the tests were inadequate. This is an unequivocal ‘fail”. With sulphur now beginning to be problematic in the area, quality and volumes are also in question, what guarantees will there be to preserve what is currently adequate for residents. While minimum regard was placed on this by the applicant, this is a significant concern. The county’s own recommendations were to abandon and did not support the application. What good are guidelines, requirements and assessment if they will not be followed? Traffic. While only a few neighbours were notified of this proposal, the area of Lyons Landing has only one entry point so it affects all residents in the area. With an additional 100+ cars

moving daily on already inadequate (now gravel that used to be paved) roadways it will be congested and dangerous for my children. There are narrow and deep ditches which do not

support the additional vehicles. There are near misses and blind spots already. The other development already underway will already create increasing sienificant challenges. Will the township pave the roads/ widen them and make them safer for residents?

Preservation. The exception request to encroach on the wetlands and lots that are required to have restrictions speaks to the precarious nature of this application. There will be an increased volume of human activity that is likely to have a sienificant impact on the wildlife, land use and

shoreline. Greater ATV usage/ greater water usage, greater trail usage means greater damage anticipated. When the developer is gone and the residents are left with the damage/ what is lost will never return. .

Size. The small nature of the area with the housing density will make this a village. This will be larger than Inverary. This type of development would be better suited to an existing population dense area to increase the footprint in a thoughtful, planned way. With the increase in people, greater issues are attracted such as noise/ thefts and unauthorized persons who are not

inhabitants of the area. This will have a sienificant impact on the security of the residents. What is next in the township plan for the area; a school/ or mini mall?

Green space. The proposal for a ‘park’ is inadequate. Already the so-called ‘green spaces’ or ‘parks’ in the area are uninhabitable, unsafe and consist of boulders, cliffs and are in absurd

places. No assurance is given regarding trees, land preservation or policing the usage. The impact will be sipnificant. The shared property by existing residents of Lyons Landing will be

Page 191 of 198

impossible to police or curb usage by non-deeded residents of the area. Will the township set up mechanisms to control the traffic and usage or conduct inspections to control the damage?

Despite the glossing over of the issues by the application, it would be a mistake to proceed with the application for approval. Please do not consider this a viable plan or allow it to move any further in the process. Please listen to your own staff, residents and constituents who are best to make recommendations and inform decisions regarding our future. It is certainly “significant” to us.

Sincerely submitted for ^he record, MickiMulima

^ ^e^

Sharon Titley & family

\

3677 Maple Crest Court: Inverary, ON KOH 1X0

Page 192 of 198

From: Ross Sutherland [mailto:7846elbe@gmail.com Sent: April-06-16 9:09 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net Subject: Collins Lake Estates Coments

Hi Lindsay and Wayne these are the comments I made for inclusion into the Collins Lake record, thanks, Ross.

Collins Lake Estates Comments

Suggestions: .

A two meter wide non-motorized path deeded to the Township possibly taken as parkland running from Lakefield to Spooner road at least 120 meters back from the PSW boundary. This would provide a beautiful path for all area residents,

enhancing the value of the subdivision, encouraging an active lifestyle, providing a possible cycling commute connection to Kingston and providing an extra buffer to the lake and PSW. .

Appropriate gating at the ends of the ridge path to prohibit motorized vehicles.

.

Sidewalk up Lakefield to increase safety for walkers and bikers with increased traffic.

.

Agree with taking the full parkland, setting site plan controls on cutting the trees on Lakefield and identifying other treed areas on the property to promote maximum tree retention. This will make a more livable and valuable development and be good for the environment.

Incorporate commuting options, a ride sharing parking lot at Holmes and Perth Road, and a potential bus stop. Broader questions:

All fall under the heading of lack of planning on the Township’s part and the need to address the development pressures m a way that builds community.

Page 193 of 198

Hamlet Boundaries: OP says limited growth in rural areas, so rather than actually ignoring this OP priority, we need toe looking at appropriate hamlet boundaries and real distinctions between hamlet growth and rural growth: have our rules reflect our goals. This site is close to a hamlet with services and strong growth potential, but it is nonetheless rural. Seems like a good site for more residential, if water and sewage problems can be solved. Which raises the second planning issue: I would encourage our Township and County planners to work with developers on ways the Township and County could promote the development of a water conserving community that uses alternative approaches to water provision and waste disposal, for instance small population modular communal systems or cistem Systems. This might work best as a model green community with a focus on ground water protection. Given that many areas in the Township have questionable ground water, as have many areas close by, like Prince Edward County, and farther afield, like the Ocala aquifer in western USA, we could make an industry out of expertise in developments that works with the limitation of poor water.

Last comment on overall planning issues: we are developing what could be the largest residential community in the Township (including all the subdivisions existing and proposed around Inverary) and we have no planning to integrate these developments and provide services that make a viable, safe livable community. The current proposal is within 3 kilometres of a recreation field but no way to have kids, or adults, to safely get there under their own steam. Similarly, some forms of active transportation connections would facilitate walking or hiking to shop. There are no community meeting areas, public WTFI, and limited commercial services. Addressing these and other ideas is needed to turn this from a disparate collection of 1950’s suburbias into a viable community.

Page 194 of 198

Mr. Ron Vandewal Mayor of South Frontenac Township P.O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario K0H 1S0

April 14, 2016

Dear Mr. Vandewal: We have enjoyed living in the community of Lyons Landing for the past twenty-eight years. Our attraction to this area was its rural, tranquil setting within close proximity to the city of Kingston. During the early 1990’s, a proposal was put forward to our township council to develop the 850-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Lakefield drive and immediately adjacent to the established subdivision of Lyons Landing. This development proposal was rejected following extensive community information sessions and the results of a summative report which should be on file. As long time residents and tax payers, we are extremely concerned and disappointed that a more effective communication strategy was not employed by the township to inform all affected parties about the Phase 1 Collins Lake Estates development proposal. A number of people that we have spoken to were not aware of the development proposal and were certainly not aware of the council meeting of April 5th where this issue was discussed. Given the magnitude of this proposed development and the potential negative impact on the residents of the area, a much more extensive, open and transparent means of advising affected parties should have been employed. At the April 5th council meeting held in Sydenham, Mayor Vandewal directed attending participants to submit questions and or concerns. We have the following questions and concerns: Concerns: i)

ii) iii)

iv) v)

vi)

vii)

We are concerned regarding the negative impact that the proposed wells would have on the quantity and quality of water in our area. Test wells to date do not support development in this area. The soil depth does not appear sufficient to support septic beds in the 1st phase of this development. There is only one access/egress point, Holmes Rd. at Lakefield. Traffic volume and safety concerns already exist and Phase 111 of Lyons Landing is not yet complete. Prior approval has already been given for 35 more residences yet to be built in Lyons Landing. The road infrastructure simply cannot support any additional traffic volume. The access concerns also have a significant impact on the delivery of emergency services (fire/ambulance/police etc.) into the area. After reviewing the available information regarding Phase 1 of the Collins Lake Estates proposal, it is evident that there have been no studies or consideration given to the impact that this development would have on the existing community of Lyons Landing. The Phase1 Collins Lake Estates proposal does not conform to the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan 5.6 “new growth in the municipality will be directed towards existing settlement areas…where it can be supported by appropriate servicing”. Currently, the developer has not shared the plan for the entire parcel of land (850 acres) so the full impact of this proposed development on the existing dwellings, environment and infrastructure cannot be measured or assessed with complete accuracy.

Questions:

Page 195 of 198

i)

ii)

iii)

iv)

In the early 1990’s, several studies were completed regarding soil and water quality and quantity pertaining to the 850-acre area currently under development review. Can these reports be located and made available to residents either electronically on the township website or at the township offices? Does council have any knowledge or information of the plan for the total parcel of land (850 acres) beyond Phase 1 of Collins Lake Estates? If so, can this information be shared with residents on the website or at a subsequent council meeting? Why did council approve an application to change the zoning from R-7 special residential to a site specific residential R zone allowing for reduced lot frontages and potentially increasing the impact of close proximity septic beds? Many residents, including those of Lyon’s Landing were not informed of council’s initial meeting on April 5th and those present had many concerns and questions that went unanswered. When is council planning to have a follow-up meeting to address and answer the questions and concerns raised?

Page 196 of 198

In closing, we would like to emphasize how concerned we are about water quality and quantity given that the majority of test wells were unsuccessful and so many questions regarding this development remain unanswered. Respectfully, we ask you to place yourself in our position. Hopefully as our Mayor, we can depend on your careful consideration of this matter and an open and transparent communication of findings which impact a large number of your constituents.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Gerry&Bonnie Henderson

Herman&Mady Schafer

3767 Maplecrest Court

3748 Maplecrest Court

RR#1 Inverary, Ont.

RR#1 Inverary, Ont

Henderson3767@Hotmail.com

Schafer@xplornet.ca

c.c. Mr. Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning & Economic Development, County of Frontenac Mr. Wayne Orr, C.A.O. of South Frontenac Township Mr. Lindsey Mills, Planner of South Frontenac Township

Page 197 of 198

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2016-29 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac at its Council Meeting of April 19th, 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 19th day of April, 2016. Read a first and second time this 19th day of April, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 19th day of April, 2016. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 198 of 198

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.