TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL
A G E N D A
FEBRUARY 9, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Town Hall - 124 John St., Napanee
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
2.1 Adopt Agenda Recommendation: That the Agenda of the Regular Session of Council dated February 9, 2016 be adopted as presented.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Staff Presentations
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
5 - 10 5.1 Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Recommendation: That the minutes of the Regular Session of Council dated January 26, 2016 be adopted as presented.
11 - 13 5.2 Special Session of Council - February 4, 2016 Recommendation: That the minutes of the Special Session of Council dated February 4, 2016 be adopted as presented.
6. DEPUTATIONS
14 - 24 6.1 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston & Frontenac
25 - 43 6.2 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napanee Generating Station 2015 Activities and Request for Council support for a Community Project
44 6.3 Karla Maki-Esdon Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road
45 - 46 6.4 Bill Lee Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road
Page 1 of 143 REGULAR SESSION COUNCIL - February 9, 2016 Agenda
Page
47 - 50 6.5 Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road
51 - 60 6.6 Pierre Burger Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road
6.7 Council Resolution to Accept Additional Deputations with No Notice, if required.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
7.1. Correspondence for Information
61 7.1.1 Correspondence for Information Items Dated February 9, 2016 Recommendation: That the Correspondence for Information items dated February 9, 2016 be received.
7.2. Correspondence for Action
62 7.2.1 Ann Normile Re: Concerns regarding the Lions Park Recommendation: That Council receive for information the correspondence from Ann Normile regarding Lions Park.
63 7.2.2 Sondra Elliott Re: Off-Leash Dog Park Recommendation: That Council receive for information the correspondence from Sondra Elliott regarding an off-leash dog park.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8.1 Proposed Date for Next Budget Meeting: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
64 - 67 8.2 Malroz Engineering Inc. Re: Proposal and Letter of Agreement for Plain Language Summary of Environmental Review Tribunal Case No. 12-033 Order dated December 24, 2015 for Richmond Landfill and Review of Related Documents
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS
68 - 72 9.1 Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January 7, 2016 Recommendation: That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Municipal Heritage Committee dated December 3, 2015 and January 7, 2016.
73 - 75 9.2 Napanee BIA
Page 2 of 143 REGULAR SESSION COUNCIL - February 9, 2016 Agenda
Page
Recommendation: That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Napanee BIA dated December 16, 2015.
76 - 79 9.3 Taxation Policy Review Committee - January 5, 2016 Recommendation: That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Taxation Policy Review Committee dated January 5, 2016.
80 - 81 9.4 Youth Programming Task Force Recommendation: That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Youth Programming Task Force Committee dated January 1, 2016.
10. STAFF REPORTS
82 - 110 10.1 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts of Block 24 (One Foot Reserve), Registered Plan 1159 as a Public Highway- Sherman's Point Road Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Community & Corporate Services - By-law to Dedicate Two Parts of Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Part of a Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road report; And further that Council adopt a by-law later in the meeting.
111 - 112 10.2 Infrastructure Services (Roads) - Fleet Re: Purchase of New Back-hoe Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Infrastructure Services (Roads) – Fleet – Purchase of New Back-hoe report; And further that Council authorize the purchase of one (1) new 2016 Back-hoe to replace an existing 14 year old Back-hoe from Hartington Equipment of Hartington, Ontario as a cost of $130,712.31.
113 - 122 10.3 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial Plan for the Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Infrastructure Services (Utilities) – 2014 - 2021 Financial Plan for the Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System; And further that Council approve the 2014-2021 Financial Plan for Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System as presented.
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. NOTICE OF MOTION
12.1 Notice of Motion - Councillor Lucas (Notice Given January 26, 2016)
That the Town of Greater Napanee prepare: (a) staff report;
Page 3 of 143 REGULAR SESSION COUNCIL - February 9, 2016 Agenda
Page
(b) create an ad-hoc committee; (c) host a public meeting; (d) ask for public committee volunteers; and (e) develop a budget/land identification report during 2016 for the purpose of establishing a long term dogs only park for the residents of Greater Napanee; And that a recommendation and report be presented to Council prior to September 1st, 2016.
13. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
14. BY-LAWS
123 - 124 14.1 By-law No. 2016-0009 - To Dedicate and Assume Two Parts of the 0.30 metre (1 foot) Reserve being Part of Block 24, Registered Plan 1159, as Part of the Public Highway known as Sherman’s Point Road
125 - 136 14.2 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services
137 - 138 14.3 By-law 2016-0011 - To Amend Waste Management By-law No. 06-14
139 - 140 14.4 By-law No. 2016-0012 - To Appoint a General Manager-Emergency Services/Fire Chief
141 - 142 14.5 By-law No. 2016-0013 - To Appoint a Deputy Fire Chief
15. CLOSED SESSION
15.1 Adjourn to closed session pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act in order to discuss the prospective disposition of land.
15.2 Rise and report from closed session
16. CONFIRM PROCEEDINGS
143 16.1 A By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee
17. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 143 TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting Held January 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM Council Chambers, Town Hall - 124 John St., Napanee
PRESENT: Mayor Gordon Schermerhorn in the Chair, Deputy Mayor Marg Isbester, Councillor Ward 1 Michael Schenk, Councillor Ward 2 Max Kaiser, Councillor Ward 3 Roger Cole, Councillor Ward 5 Shaune Lucas
ABSENT: Councillor Ward 4 Carol Harvey
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schermerhorn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RESOLUTION #42/16: Isbester & Cole That the Agenda of the Regular Session of Council dated January 26, 2016 be adopted as amended to include: Agenda Item No. 5.2 – Council resolution to accept additional deputations without notice. Closed Session - Cemetery Board Personnel Matters CARRIED. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest. DEPUTATIONS Ian Munro Re: Richmond Landfill Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) Final Decision Ian Munro provided Council with an overview of the Environmental Review Tribunal final decision regarding the Richmond Landfill Site highlighting the most significant findings. Mr. Munro noted recent developments: . Defective test well M178 has now been replaced and the new well M178R was found to have similar contamination to the old one; evidence was also found that this contamination was being discharged onto the surface; and . Waste Management is reporting possible leachate contamination of the Marysville Creek. Mr. Munro advised that amendments to the wording of the site licence, given the ERT decision, is currently being reviewed by the parties. Mr. Munro further advised that the terms of reference for a new landfill at this site has been approved; however the Environmental Assessment process does not appear to be moving forward.
RESOLUTION #43/16: Schenk & Kaiser That Council authorize staff to obtain a quotation from a professional engineer to: (i) review the Environmental Review Tribunal final decision issued on December 24, 2015, regarding the Richmond Landfill Site; and (ii) provide an Executive Summary to Council. CARRIED.
Page 1 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 5 of 143 REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL - January 26, 2016 Minutes
Council Resolution to Accept Additional Deputations with No Notice
RESOLUTION #44/16: Isbester & Cole That Council accept additional deputations with no notice required. CARRIED.
No additional deputations came forward. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Session of Council - January 12, 2016
RESOLUTION #45/16: Isbester & Kaiser That the minutes of the Regular Session of Council dated January 12, 2016 be adopted as presented. CARRIED. Special Session of Council - January 19, 2016
RESOLUTION #46/16: Cole & Kaiser That the minutes of the Special Session of Council dated January 19, 2016 be adopted as presented. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE FOR INFORMATION RESOLUTION #47/16: Isbester & Kaiser That the Correspondence for Information items dated January 26, 2016 be received. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE FOR ACTION City of Kingston Re: Request for Support of Resolution endorsing a national discussion of a Basic Income Guarantee for all Canadians
RESOLUTION #48/16: Isbester & Kaiser That the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee hereby supports City of Kingston Council New Motion 2 adopted on December 15, 2015 endorsing a national discussion of a Basic Income Guarantee for all Canadians; And further encourages the provincial and federal governments, through their respective responsible Ministers, including the Ontario Minister of Health and the Ontario Deputy Minister in Charge of Poverty Reduction, to work together to consider, investigate, and develop a Basic Income Guarantee for all Canadians. LOST.
Township of Madawaska Valley Re: Request for Support of Resolution to Request the Minister of Health & Long Term Care to Reinstate Incentives for Physicians to Practice in Rural Areas of Ontario RESOLUTION #49/16: Isbester & Schenk That the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee hereby supports Township of Madawaska Valley Motion No. 22-0712-15 adopted on December 7, 2015 requesting the Minister of Health & Long Term Care to reinstate incentives for physicians to practice in rural areas of Ontario. CARRIED.
Page 2 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 6 of 143 REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL - January 26, 2016 Minutes
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Re: FIT4 Application Review Process Update
RESOLUTION #50/16: Kaiser & Schenk That Council receive for information the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) bulletin dated January 8, 2016 providing a status update of the FIT 4 Application Review Process. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Councillor Lucas inquired as to the status of the Napanee Cemetery Company’s request for 2016 funding. Raymond Callery, CAO advised that the cemeteries maintenance budget will be presented to Council as part of the February 4, 2016 budget meeting for policy direction.
COMMITTEE REPORTS Youth Programming Task Force Minutes - November 16, 2015 and December 1, 2015
RESOLUTION #51/16: Cole & Isbester That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Youth Programming Committee dated November 16, 2015 and December 1, 2015. CARRIED. Community Development Committee - January 15, 2015 and October 14, 2015
RESOLUTION #52/16: Kaiser & Isbester That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Community Development Committee dated January 15, 2015 and October 14, 2015. CARRIED. Municipal Arts & Culture Advisory Committee - December 8, 2015
RESOLUTION #53/16: Kaiser & Schenk That Council receive and adopt the minutes of the Municipal Arts & Culture Committee dated December 8, 2015. CARRIED. Pool Task Force Committee - November 16, 2015
RESOLUTION #54/16: Isbester & Schenk That Council receive and adopt the Minutes of the Pool Task Force Committee dated November 16, 2015. CARRIED. STAFF REPORTS CAO - Service Area Updates
RESOLUTION #55/16: Isbester & Cole That Council receive for information the CAO - Service Area Updates report. CARRIED.
Emergency Services - 2015 Accessibility Status Report RESOLUTION #56/16: Schenk & Kaiser That Council receive for information the Emergency Services - 2015 Accessibility Status Report. CARRIED.
Page 3 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 7 of 143 REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL - January 26, 2016 Minutes
Infrastructure Services (Utilities) - Re: Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS) 2015 External Audit Results
RESOLUTION #57/16: Cole & Schenk That Council receive for information the Infrastructure Services (Utilities) - Drinking Water Quality Management System 2015 External Audit Results report for the A.L Dafoe and Sandhurst Shores Drinking Water Systems. CARRIED.
Community & Corporate Services - Meeting Schedule RESOLUTION #58/16: Kaiser & Schenk That Council receive for information the Community & Corporate Services - Council and Committee of Adjustment Meeting Schedule for February and July 2016 report; And further that Council approve the following meeting schedule amendments: . cancel the February 23rd, 2016 Regular Session of Council, due to a lack of quorum; . schedule a Special Session of Council on July 19, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.; and . schedule a Committee of Adjustment meeting on July 19, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.; And further that Council instruct staff to advertise these meeting amendments accordingly. CARRIED.
Community & Corporate Services - Consent to Remove Subdivision Agreement from the Title of Certain Lands RESOLUTION #59/16: Isbester & Cole That Council receive for information the Community & Corporate Services – Consent to Remove Development Agreement from the Title of Certain Lands; And further that Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Consent to remove the Subdivision Agreement being Instrument No. LA255868 from the title of the lands being Part Lot 16, Concession 1, Geographic Township of Richmond, Town of Greater Napanee, more particularly described as being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 29R-10286, PIN 45099-0449. CARRIED. BY-LAWS By-law No. 2016-0006 - Amendment to Parking By-law
RESOLUTION #60/16: Isbester & Cole That By-law No. 2016-0006, being a by-law to amend By-law No. 2014-0032, being the parking by-law, be read a first time and brought to the floor for discussion. CARRIED. RESOLUTION #61/16: Isbester & Cole That By-law No. 2016-0006 be read a second time and finally passed and that the Mayor and Clerk sign the same and affix thereto the seal of the corporation. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councillor Kaiser raised three issues: (i) would like a resource binder including, for example: governance procedures, code of conduct and how to bring a motion forward. Mr. Callery advised that the orientation manual will be reviewed with Council to ensure it is complete.
Page 4 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 8 of 143 REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL - January 26, 2016 Minutes
(ii) Committees of Council should have operational budgets. Mr. Callery advised that a report regarding this issue will be brought forward for Council’s consideration during budget deliberations.; and (iii) that Council revisit the Physician Incentive Program and consider relaxing the residency requirements. Mr. Callery advised that this matter will also be brought forward at the budget meeting.
Councillor Lucas commended the proactive enforcement regarding dog control and advised that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion regarding a dogs only park. NOTICE OF MOTIONS Councillor Lucas - Notice of Motion Re: Dogs Only Park That the Town of Greater Napanee prepare: (a) staff report; (b) create an ad hoc committee; (c) host a public meeting; (d) ask for public committee volunteers; and (e) develop a budget/land identification report during 2016 for the purpose of establishing a long term dogs only park for the residents of Greater Napanee; And that a recommendation and report be presented to Council prior to September 1, 2016. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Deputy Mayor Isbester complemented the Municipal Arts & Culture Committee on hosting a successful social meet and greet evening recently which attracted approximately 40 artists of many different types.
Deputy Mayor Isbester noted that the next Taxation Policy Review Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2016.
Mayor Schermerhorn called a recess at 8:20 p.m.
Mayor Schermerhorn reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION RESOLUTION #62/16: Kaiser & Cole That Council resolve itself into closed session in order to discuss a personnel matter at 8:35 p.m. CARRIED. RESOLUTION #63/16: Isbester & Schenk That Council rise and report from closed session; and further that all recommendations made within closed session be hereby adopted. CARRIED.
Page 5 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 9 of 143 REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL - January 26, 2016 Minutes
CONFIRM PROCEEDINGS RESOLUTION #64/16: Schenk & Kaiser That By-law No. 2016-0007 being a By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its Regular Session held January 26, 2016 be read a first and second time and finally passed and that the Mayor and the Clerk sign the same and affix thereto the seal of the Corporation. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION #65/16: Kaiser & Cole That the meeting does hereby adjourn at 8:46 p.m. CARRIED.
Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk
Page 6 of 6
Regular Session of Council - January 26, 2016 Page 10 of 143 TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE SPECIAL SESSION OF COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting Held February 04, 2016 at 7:00 PM Council Chambers, Town Hall - 124 John St., Napanee PRESENT: Mayor Gordon Schermerhorn in the Chair, Deputy Mayor Marg Isbester, Councillor Ward 1 Michael Schenk, Councillor Ward 2 Max Kaiser, Councillor Ward 3 Roger Cole, Councillor Ward 4 Carol Harvey, Councillor Ward 5 Shaune Lucas
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schermerhorn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RESOLUTION #66/16: Isbester & Kaiser That the Agenda of the Special Session of Council for the purpose of 2016 Operating and Capital Budget dated February 4, 2016 be adopted as presented. CARRIED. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Raymond Callery, CAO provided the following opening remarks: . the proposed operating budget represents a 1.89% increase including reductions in expenses and revenue; . new initiatives are provided for Council direction and are not included in the draft budget; and . a more detailed capital budget will be provided at the next budget meeting. Terry Murphy, General Manager and Christine McClure, Water Resources Manager, Quinte Conservation Re: 2016 Budget and Town of Greater Napanee Municipal Levy and Third Lake Dam Project Terry Murphy advised that the 2016 budget results in a 2% decrease for the Town’s operating municipal levy; however the Third Depot Lake Dam Embankment Improvements project cost of $400,000, will result in the Town’s portion of the capital levy being $71,000. Christine McClure, Water Resources Manager provided an overview of the Third Depot Lake Dam Embankment Improvements project and explained how the dam effects the flow of water through the Napanee River to Springside Park falls. Ms. McClure advised that Quinte Conservation will be eligible for provincial funding for this project. Mr. Murphy advised Council that the Town has the option to pay the capital levy over two years. Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Review Mark Day, Director of Finance/Treasurer reviewed the 2016 OMFP funding of $1,591,500, which is a decrease from 2015 of $145,900.
Page 1 of 3
Special Session of Council - February 4, 2016 Page 11 of 143 SPECIAL SESSION OF COUNCIL - February 4, 2016 Minutes
Fleet Funding Review Terry Gervais, General Manager-Emergency Services/Fire Chief reviewed the updated fleet funding plan. 2015 Actual versus 2015 Budget Mr. Day reviewed the 2015 Actual versus 2015 Budget noting a projected surplus of $796,385. as of January 26, 2016. Mr. Day and the General Managers reviewed in detail the projected over/under budget revenue and expenditure figures for each departmental area.
Staff will bring forward a comprehensive report regarding all Town-owned buildings, including their uses, leases, issues, revenue and expenses. 2016 Committee Budget Review Mr. Day reviewed the proposed Council Committees’ budget of $52,000, which includes a $20,000 request from the Pool Task Force for a pool market study.
Staff will bring forward a report regarding the amount of Town staff time allocated to Communities in Bloom.
Mayor Schermerhorn called a recess of the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Mayor Schermerhorn reconvened the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
North Fredericksburgh Hall Report James Timlin, General Manager - Community & Corporate Services provided an overview of the North Fredericksburgh Hall including the goals for the building, potential uses of the facility, operating revenue and expenditures and options for future use or sale. Physician Recruitment Mr. Day noted the Physician Recruitment Reserve projected balance as of December 31, 2016 will be $35,000. Mr. Callery reviewed the current agreement, advising that the requirements to live within 35 km of the hospital and to perform hospital rounds have been issues for some potential candidates. Mr. Callery noted that Council could consider the option of a joint recruitment program with other municipalities. 2016 Budget versus 2015 Budget Mr. Day provided an overview of the 2016 draft budget versus the 2015 budget noting an overall proposed 2016 tax levy increase of $195,470 or 1.89% to date, being a revenue decrease of $623,719 and an expenditure decrease of $428,249. Mr. Day and the General Managers reviewed the projected over/under budget revenue and expenditure figures for major items in each departmental area Proposed Tax Levy Changes to Date Mr. Day advised that the 2016 proposed capital tax levy is $700,000, an increase over 2015 of $75,000. Mr. Day further advised that the overall tax levy increase would be
Page 2 of 3
Special Session of Council - February 4, 2016 Page 12 of 143 SPECIAL SESSION OF COUNCIL - February 4, 2016 Minutes
2.47% with the proposed operating budget of $10,542,264 and proposed capital budget of $700,000, for a 2016 total proposed budget of $11,242,264. New Initiatives under Consideration Mr. Day reviewed the list of new initiatives for Council consideration: Salary and Benefit Changes - $26,984 Strategic Plan Consulting - $25,000 Increase for Physician Recruitment Reserve - $30,000 Youth Programming and Equipment - $10,000 Pool Market Study - $20,000 Sidewalk Winter Maintenance - $60,000 Increase Support for Cemetery Boards – unknown TOTAL: $171,984 Mr. Day noted that if all the new initiatives were added to the draft budget, the result would be a 5% tax levy increase.
Mr. Callery recommended a hybrid approach to strategic planning, including using the Town’s volunteer committees of Council, in house work and the use of a consultant for public consultation and specialized studies. 2016 Preliminary Capital Items and Funding Sources/Strategy for Future Consideration Mr. Day reviewed a preliminary list of capital projects for reference.
Mr. Day reviewed current funding sources for capital to date of $1,338,000 and referenced other funding sources that Council can consider, for example: increasing taxes, development charges, unrestricted prior years surplus, grants (if announced) and reserves. Next Meeting Date Staff will bring forward a proposed date for the next budget meeting. CONFIRM PROCEEDINGS RESOLUTION #67/16: Kaiser & Cole That By-law No.2016-0008 being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council at its Special Session held February 4, 2016 be read a first and second time and finally passed and that the Mayor and the Clerk sign the same and affix thereto the seal of the Corporation. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION #68/16: Kaiser & Schenk That the meeting does hereby adjourn at 9:47 p.m. CARRIED.
Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk
Page 3 of 3
Special Session of Council - February 4, 2016 Page 13 of 143 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN LENNOX & ADDINGTON
9 February 2016 Page 14 of 143 Town of Greater Napanee Council Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
Overview • Founded 1976 • World’s largest non-profit homebuilder • 6th largest homebuilder – of any kind – in the US Page 15 of 143 • Affiliate federation in Canada in every province and territory Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
The ReStore – a Canadian innovation Page 16 of 143 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
The Habitat Affordable Housing Model
• Sweat equity
• No down payment
• Fair market value
• No interest mortgage Page 17 of 143
• Ongoing support Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
Crisis? What crisis?! “Core housing need” 1. Inadequate – major repairs 2. Unsuitable – crowding
Page 18 of 143 3. Unaffordable – over 30% of family income spent on housing Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
From generation to generation
65% 58% 49% 53% 44% 36% Page 19 of 143
From CMHC Survey of Habitat Families in 2013: Percentage reporting improvements for children Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
“It all begins with land.” Page 20 of 143 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
Modest, affordable, and an enhancement to the neighbourhood Bungalow design
Townhome design Page 21 of 143 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
We’re changing, we’re growing Page 22 of 143 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
“… we must cultivate strong and sustainable partnerships in order to best utilize our community’s assets.” Page 23 of 143 Long Term Housing & Homelessness Plan, Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Social Services, p. 50 Dave McGrath, CEO Re: Habitat for Humanity Greater Kingston ...
??????? Page 24 of 143 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada’s Napanee Generating Station (NGS) Page 25 of 143
Presentation to the Town of Greater Napanee Council Tuesday, February 9, 2016
1 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada’s Napanee Generating Station (NGS)
Two contracts for the construction of NGS
• Outside Boundary Limits – E. S. Fox . includes majority of work on Lennox GS property to connect NGS with OPG services (Raw Water, Waste Water, Sanitary, and Water)
• General Contractor (GC)– Matrix NAC . main contract to build NGS. Includes all work within the TransCanada owned property
Page 26 of 143
2 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Shared Services with OPG – E. S. Fox
2015 Activities • Completed Phase 1 of the contract including:
• Installation of the duct bank and raw water service pipe between the Lennox GS pumphouse and NGS site
Page 27 of 143
3 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Shared Services with OPG – E. S. Fox
2015 Activities • Completed Phase 1 of the contract including:
• Installed the sanitary piping and landscape berms
• Restoration of roads, etc.
Page 28 of 143
4 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
February/March
• Site grubbing, installed creek crossing culverts • Began work on storm water management systems • Installed temporary construction road and prepped for office trailer complex and parking/ laydown areas. Page 29 of 143
5 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
April/May
• Began blasting for foundations
• Installed landscape berms Page 30 of 143
6 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
June/July
• Moved into site offices • Focus on the installation of buried services, equipment and building foundations
Page 31 of 143
7 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
August/September • Installed temporary construction and permanent site entrances including traffic lights at temporary entrance • Took possession of Bombardier warehouse- Taylor Kidd Road • Continued excavating and installation of equipment and building foundations Page 32 of 143 • Began receiving major equipment
8 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
October/November
• Continued excavating and installation of equipment and building foundations
• Continued receiving major equipment Page 33 of 143
9 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
Main Site – Matrix NAC
2015 Activities
December
• First structural steel erection
• First Heat Recovery Steam Generator component installation Page 34 of 143
10 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Blasting Program
• Pre-blast house inspections
• Seismic monitoring
• Heronry monitoring
• Osprey – new platform
Page 35 of 143
11 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Traffic Light Installation
• Completed both permanent and temporary construction entrances
• Traffic lights are providing intended traffic control Page 36 of 143
12 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
September to November - Busy Period for Deliveries
• Approximately 80% of all of the heavy equipment required by the project including Combustion Turbine Generators and Heat Recovery Steam Generator components has been delivered.
Page 37 of 143
13 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Public Complaints
• Traffic (8)
• Track Out (4)
• Heavy Haul (2)
• Traffic Signal Cycle (2)
• Portable Lights (2)
Page 38 of 143
14 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Manpower
Approximate 2015 Employment Levels 600
500
400
300
200 Page 39 of 143 100
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
15 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Schedule
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Prelim. Eng’g Detailed Eng’g
Procurement
Implementation Activities Construction
32-35 months Commissioning Construction & Commissioning
Start of Commercial Operation Operation Page 40 of 143
Operations Milestones
December 2018 Q1 2018 Contractual Target Commercial Commercial Operation Operation 16 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Host Agreement Update
• Community Liaison and Construction Coordination Committees – Quarterly meetings
• Power Engineering Scholarships
• Job Fair
• Community Development Committee
Page 41 of 143
17 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
Host Agreement Update
• Community Funding – Vital Sign Needs Study o Health and well-being o Personal Safety and Security o Environment and Sustainability o Arts, Culture and Heritage o Recreation o Housing Page 42 of 143
18 Peter Webster, TransCanada Re: Report of TransCanada's Napan...
TransCanada 2015 Project Review
A Request for Your Help
Page 43 of 143
19 Susan Beckel
From: Karla Maki-Esdon Sent: February-02-16 11:13 AM To: Susan Beckel Subject: Proposed by-lawto assume additional lands (parts of Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159) Sherman’s Point Road
Dear Mrs. Beckel This is in response to the above-noted proposal scheduled to be discussed by Council on February 9, 2016. Please include this e-mail in the agenda package.
We are the owners of Lot 23, Registered Plan 1159. We purchased this property in 1984 when the plan of subdivision was registered. Our choice of this lot was based on three factors: the extensive tree cover which provides privacy, shade and wind protection the high, rocky shoreline which provides protection from potential flooding and ice damage its secluded location on the cul-de-sac on Street A — also known as Sherman’s Point Road. It is this last factor which would be dramatically changed if Council decided to approve this application.
Plan 1159 went through an extensive review and approval process during the late 1970s and early 1980s. This process involved numerous provincial government ministries as well as the Township of Adolphustown (now part of the Town of Greater Napanee). One of the conditions of approval of this plan of subdivision was the creation of Block 24 adjacent to Street A. Block 24 is commonly referred to as a one-Jbotreserve — a tool which is used to restrict access to a public road. This effectively separated the lands that are not part of Plan 1159 (Part 2, Plan 29R-2748) from Street A and from the subdivision itself.
Block 24 is clearly indicated on the subdivision plan and the subdivision agreement, both of which are registered documents readily available to the public in the Land Registry Office located at Service Ontario.
Part 2 of Plan 29R-2748 does have 643 metres of road frontage along the old portion of Sherman’s Point Road located at the south end of the property. This provides access to the property and allows the owners to obtain building permits under the provisions of the Town’s current Zoning By-law.
We have never assumed that the lands adjacent to our own lot and to the balance of Registered Plan 1159 would always remain vacant. However, approving the two entrances as proposed by Acxiz Inc. in this application has the potential to open the door to even more development than is currently being considered by the applicants.
In light of the fact that there is no recourse to appeal Council’s decision should they decide to grant the request by Acxiz Inc. to allow two road access points across Block 24, we request that Council deny this application.
Respectfully submitted, Karla Maki-Esdon and Graham Esdon
1
Karla Maki-Esdon Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 2... Page 44 of 143 Susan Beckel
from: LaurdLee c’. Sent: February-02-164:34 PM To: Susan Beckel Cc: [email protected];Marg Isbester; MaxKaiser;[email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PublicNoticeJanuary 19, 2016
S. Beckel - Town Clerk The Town of Greater Napanee
Re: Public Notice - January 19, 2016, To Adopt a By-Law to change Block 24, Registered Plan 1159
Dear Ms Beckel
This email is in response to the Public Notice issued by The Town of Greater Napanee on January 19, 2016, to consider adopting a by-law that would change Block 24 or Registered Plan 1159. We would ask you to share with the Mayor and all members of Council It has become increasingly alarming to us through email, website and personal contact that this proposed by law application by the new owners, Acxiz Inc., (an international company with multiple interests and resources), have intentions to operate a commercial venture on the property known as R29-2748 “the farm is currently in the process of being acquired by new owners (Acxiz Inc.), Oct. 2015 and will be converted shortly thereafter as an operational residence and agri-business unit 1.Constantia Agri-Estate, Shermans Point Road [a registered website Sept. 25, 2015, original publication with multiple changes thereafter]
Our concerns continue to mount with a building permit ( granted by The Town of Greater Napanee) for a 3300 Sq Ft steel corrugated shed to be erected adjacent to “Street A” Registered Plan 1159, across from Lots 18, 19 & 20 with access to shed from Part 2 of the proposed by-law to change the reserve purpose of Block 24. One can only imagine the size and type of machinery and vehicles to be stored in the shed and have access to a residential road.
The survey map, approved Feb 7, 1984 to register Plan 1159 (then zoned seasonal/residential/waterfront and now residential/waterfront), and for rural property plan 29R-2748 (zoned rural), are two distinct and separate entities separated by Block 24 with entirely different land usages and purposes. The residential purpose speaks for itself were as the Registered Plan 29R-2748 currently zoned rural has endless possibilities that could and would have enormous impacts and the potential for adverse and negative conditions placed upon this community’s infrastructure, environment and loss of residential value.
From the inception of the subdivision to the official registration of Registered Plan 1159, Block 24 was a
necessary condition agreed to by the developers, Charles and Marjorie Bonds, ( who owned both parts 1 and 2), and the Township of Adolphustown.
By means of Provincial Legislation through the passing of the Municipal Act in the mid 1990’s,amalgamation of many municipalities became law in Ontario and this created The Town of Greater Napanee. As a result The Town of Greater Napanee inherited and were grandfathered all agreements, contracts and responsibilities associated with the above mentioned, from The Township of Adolphustown. On November 23, 1983 the Bonds and the Corporation of The Township of Adolphustown entered into a binding agreement with the conditions
1
Bill Lee Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One F... Page 45 of 143 necessary to create, develop and register Subdivision Plan 1159. The Ministry of Housing would only approve the Plan of Subdivision subject to compliance with the conditions imposed which included Block 24 and the construction of ‘Street A” with the standards necessary for residential traffic described as light weight vehicles and for light weight duty. If road construction requirements and Block 24 were requirements and conditions at that time and as it exists now; then, why should the purposes and integrity of a residential road and reserve be changed through a by-law to give access to a commercial business and vice- versa from commercial to residential? There is a looming potential for large commercial vehicles and an increase in traffic on a residential road. Such a condition is contrary to the intent purpose of a residential road and a reserve to separate two distinct properties
As residents we are privileged and fortunate that these current conditions provide a calm environment with local residential traffic. It should be noted that several of our residents have family members, with disabilities, and these families are able to take advantage of walks along this very quiet residential road. Let’skeep it this way!
Acxiz Inc. does have access to their property along the original Shermans Point Road and at least an additional 300 metres of road before reaching an environmental protected portion of their property to use for additional points of access. With multiple resources available to Acxiz Inc. there exists the very real opportunities to construct a driveway (s) of their choosing, required to operate an “agri business unit”
Inclosing, we urge the Mayor and Council to respect the integrity of Registered Plan 1159 and the conditions associated with those documents. As residents we have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Should this proposed by-law be adopted, it sets a very dangerous precedent for Council. Future applications could not be turned down and the purpose and integrity of Block 24 is lost forever. In addition, there exists for we as tax/rate payers and The Town of Greater Napanee a monetary cost and responsibility to upgrade and maintain our road to commercial standards.
As The Town of Greater Napanee is the custodial owner of Block 24 and the guardian of the reserve , the historical reference and present day purpose are more than relevant at this time. There are legal rights, meaningful reasons and overwhelming responsibilities that Council must acknowledge in the decision making process to ensure the well being of residents present and in future.
The concerns we share today deserve Council’s due diligence and the integrity of the conditions that created Registered Plan 1159 and all its parts must remain intact. Council is urged to defeat any and all motions to defeat this by-law application. We trust Council to do what is best for the residents of this community.
With sincere thanks and appreciation
Laura & Bill Lee
2
Bill Lee Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (One F... Page 46 of 143
Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard Re: By-law to Dedicate Two P...
To:
Subject:
these Cc:
submissions Sent:
Sincerely. submissions Dear
The Susan
in assume
We Dear Please 1-rom:
storage upcoming
version Cecil I
consensus an suggestion and Martha briefly
owners
delay in road
incurred before
stands. support Proposed
In
am
following
front
the
altered
had
to
Proposed
the
at
Ms.
Leonard
Mayor
and
and
absence
speak
find
explain
Lot
the
which
of
additional
Downey
and
of
thought
Beckel
of
owner
as
Beckel:
Additional
the
uncertainty
retirement,
our
Lot
version
of
25
all
made
below
end
notices
up
Schermerhorn,
perhaps
will
in
at
the
interested
and
along
submissions
25.
might
own
By-Law:
our
its
of
by
the
of
of
be
that and
two
at
deliberations
either
the
circulating
I
Lot
the
(Of
along
lands,
reasons.
would
driveway
have
Council
part
the
our
see
Lands
woodworking
Cecil
an
adjacent submissions
11
course,
together
cul
being
water)
home
of
of
altered
these
the
property
made
on
being
de
have
Leonard
of
the
the
to
meeting
Deputy
Plan
difficult
second
sac
the
if
others
the be
on
lines.
foregoing,
that record
this
property-owners, and
Part
to
in
with
version
for
submissions
Dedicated
1159—
30
owner
respect
owners,
be
of
our
purposes.
Lot
Two
would
Cecil
Susan
Mayor RE:
February-02-16
Martha
of
a
proposed
on
to
January
given
our
We
sent
my
residence of
Block
7.
full-time Council
09
of
Support
municipally
the
Entrances
handicapped
of
husband
would
Leonard
however,
This
of
out
Beckel
the be
given the
February
Isbester,
Lot
and
Downey
24
this
meeting.
by
more
to
We
again
access
short
would
proposed
members
25
on
the
have Assumed
for
residence
our
that
proposed
for
and
Cecil
understood
might
Registsered
to
acceptable
we
the
owners
and
2016.
and
building
10:00
identified Mayor,
Proposed
additional supported
point
for
have
Lot
adult
We
do
Leonard
new
Council
he
not By-Law
the
in
as
25
not
would
since
PM
Thank
provided
By-Law.
(for
would
advance
of
daughter.
Deputy
owners
Part
wish
season
reasons
from
oppose that
Lots
as
1
to
Plan
By-Law
the
survey
and
such -
2001,
might
of
438
be
you
our
to
have
Street
23
the
owner’s
Sherman’s
We
1159
Mayor
for
etc.)
of most
me,
present
of
outlined
a
Sherman’s
neighbours
for
the (on
and
be
We
work
new
Lot
the
By-Law
Re
to
two
would
in your
...“.
“A’
the
grateful
put
above-noted
await
Part
we
25,
are
09
support
and
owners
planned
access
would
an
on
forward
cul I
February
below.
hope
as
assistance
also
contacting
as
Point
understand
of
Council.
altered
the
Point
Plan
well
de
farther
having
Block
for
be
points
be
of
of
to
next sac
shed,
Road,
as the
1159
Nor
the
appreciative
for
Lot
required
peacefully
Road,
version
proposed
2016
24
at
for
been
down
in
Council
you
Council’s
Council’s
close
25
proposed
would
part
the
to
you
Registered
responding
a
Napanee,
might
meeting,
advise
shed
further
proposed
end
the
2
will
unless
together
and
on
we
meeting
live By-Law
Page 47 of 143
to
of
road
of
consideration
be
approval
have
given
the
By-Law
of
oppose
here
to
our
the
be
he
providing
and
Plan
Ontario.
our
to
survey)
the
and
on
used
from
been
were
as
road
opportunity
that
for our
throughout
that
support
the
1159
“to
it
Public
feasible
an
based
a
presently
for
questions
the
delay
content
and
assured
decision
basis
the
altered
dedicate
moved
copies
My
to
equipment of
existing
Notice
the
on
for
written
these
husband
would
Provide
for
of
to
the
our
with
same
last
of
of to
—
and
the
and
the
of
be
lot be Our only request of Council, is that in approving any By-Lawgranting any access from Street “A”on Plan 1159 over Block 24 to Lot 25, it be made very clear in either, or preferably both of, a preamble to the By-Law,and the Minutes of the Council meeting, that (a) Council is aware of the interests of the owners of lots 1 through 23 on Plan 1159 in preserving their quietude, privacy and property values; (b) it is assumed that the purpose of Block24 was to support preservation of the interests of the owners of Lots 1 through 23; and that (c) the sole purposes of Council in approving the By-Laware to facilitate access for a residence on the waterfront on Lot 25, and to facilitate access for the carrying on of activity in the nature of hobby farming on Lot 25 consistent with the existing surrounding rural area and zoning, noting the intended use described by the owners of Lot 25 on http://constantia.ca (a copy of which could be included in the Minutes).
We hote that any future development is subject to municipal by-laws and zoning, and environmental rules and regulations. We note that any additional access points would require another Public Notice and By-Law. We wish to state very clearly, that should further access points across Block 24 be sought, or should efforts be made to re-zone Lot 25, we would be vehemently opposed. We believe that in granting any access over Block 24, Council has a responsibility to safeguard the interests of the owners of Lots 1 through 23. However, we feel that access across Block24 by, and for the purposes identified by, the present owners, would not be at odds with any underlying intentions of Subdivision Plan 1159. We feel, moreover, that the plans of the present owners have the potential to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and character of Sherman’s Point and that they should not be put to undue hardship in the realization of same.
Our reasons are as follows.
Reasons:
Owners of Lot 25 and Intended Use:
We feel that the plans of the owners of Lot 25- Mr. and Mrs. Burger - to build a residence on the waterfront part of Lot 25, and a shed farther back but not too far from their home for use in conjunction with the activities contemplated on the remaining 80-odd acres of non-waterfront property, would not detract from the neighbourhood or its surroundings but rather, would preserve and enhance same. Alltoo often, all around us, when farmland can no longer be used as such for
practical reasons and/or falls into disuse and neglect, it is irreversibly altered for the sake of profit — subdivided and built up not always in ways which are desirable for surrounding property owners, turned into vast solar farms which utterly destroy every livingthing on the property in question and certainly destroy the quality of surrounding homes. Unity Road/Mud Lake Road, and Little Creek Road, are two areas in which the quiet rural lifestyle of many property owners has been dramatically altered by the intrusion of unsightly solar farms which have destroyed nature. Mr. and Mrs. Burger seek to reside at the end
of this road in exactly the same way as all other persons presently reside here — quietly and with a view to retirement. They
also seek to preserve and enhance the value of the Point by farming it on the scale of a hobby farm — a plan which if realized would benefit everyone livingaround the Point. They have been forthcoming enough to publish their plans on http://constantia.ca. We feel that this use should be supported and facilitated by granting them sensible access from the end of the road onto their waterfront property to where they will be living,and to make it possible for them to have their shed close enough to their home to be easily accessible to them. We see no point in frustrating their efforts, by denying the
proposed By—Lawand thereby requiring them to build a very costly long road — a road which would also be costly to maintain, potentially difficult to keep ploughed in winter, potentially a less secure situation for their property, and might detract from the appearance of the property which is highly visible to residents of both sides of the Point.
We note that the proposed access is for two people — a middle-aged married couple — owners of one solid block of property — and should not therefore create any noticeably different level of traffic, noise or pollution than that which exists at present, or will exist once the remaining vacant lots on this street are occupied.
The Existing Road:
We note that there are stillS vacant lots amongst Lots 1—23 and no doubt houses will be built on theseS lots in the next few years. We cannot see that the building of one more home and a shed on this extension of road, will make much difference to the condition of the road.
Expectations of Property Owners:
2
Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard Re: By-law to Dedicate Two P... Page 48 of 143
Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard Re: By-law to Dedicate Two P...
this
to Thus, the
There
As Sherman’s
and not Sherman’s called cannot what
entire immediately also, over sympathize
destructive Conclusion: keeping Napanee out acres We other within
what our The odd limited the always
If potentially such course
believe Reach Long about generally When
Point of
rural.
this
Sherman’s
benefit
property
be waterfront—
more
home past also
area
Mrs. Geographic
acres
for
Block
environments.
Reach,
could
purposes?
Road
the
of
forms
property
is
“The
area. 100—150 we
and
My
the
more
that
been
imagine
access
that
with
a
non-waterfront
this
note
Picton
are
Burger
community,
use attractive
familiar
broader purchased
to of
all
husband
expectations
24
Hay
Point, Point undesirable
—
become
Cradle
use
the
with
owners
they
of
Their and
historic
laudable.
concerned
which
non-waterfront
amongst
beyond
of
the becomes
that
Point,
of
being
across
undesirable
cannot
Bay
Bay
of
the
that
land
Lot
Location
have
feet
from
all
the
Restriction
most
neighbourhood
connected
should
with
the
even
plans
of perspective:
—
the
and
the
residents
into
due
the
25 denied.
along
of
the
We being
and
misgivings
the
our
are
Upper
from
Block
willingly
we
the
property boat
Mr.
significant
rooms
be Lot
the
on
owners
way
activity
at
I
value
about
we
include to
Adolphus
access
property
be
have
end
previously
naturally
enjoyed
property,
feel
of
reasonably
most
this
the
Plan
25
and
the
Lot
uses
this
24
traffic development
assisted
had
Canada”
up
of to Sherman’s
property,
of
around
and
overlook
that
of
always
back for
stretch
whether
25
shared
road,
access
Mrs. a
29R-2748
the
remaining
of
across
across
which
of
natural
of
this
the
when
Sherman’s
our
waterfront
of
not
on
by cared
the
what
in
Lots
our
Reach.
the
beautiful
rural
my
Napanee
of
enhancement
lived
homes
road,
as
Burger’s
the
and
property,
many Plan
-
the
accessed
expected
only
purposes
of
across their
our
is we
the
Block
ie neighbours
use
1
will
husband
much
the
and
activity
might
Point:
for. property
readily
spring,
through
road,
the we
—
which
Point
rurally
29R
purchased
along
natural
properties
road
for
proposed
boaters
create
water.
being
all
Point
plans
beautiful
area
24
lot
planted
Adolphustown,
River
Block
as
plans
the
—2748
be
around
and
and
and
and
that
from
by on
intended,
accessible
immediately
summer
could
possible
with and
in
the
23
as is
and
for
roughly
beauty.
existing
any
who
and
Therefore, the
Mr.
into
the
as
24
our
for
from
in
the
utilized
a
sooner
were
I
for
our evergreen
the
us.
implications
a
away
across
whole. the activities were
remaining
residents
occur
between Sherman’s
disruption
this
property
and Yarker
maintenance
hobby
quality
the
oppose
area
Lot
within
and
towards
property,
property,
Most
a
heart
presents
invited
property-owners
from
These
property,
from
Town, Mrs.
triangle
unaware
as
or
25
due
the
as
Greater
beyond
fall
farm
and
from
proposed
later,
of
3
of
which
by
a
any
of
as
Lots
of trees
the
might
Burger
in
street
to the
—
whole.
to
beautiful,
life.
Point,
our
recently
realization
for
as
this Odessa
its
well what
and
Ontario.
the
both
on
entry
as
our
access
of
this
other
1
an
road,
well
of that
as
the
new
Napanee,
our
along
living
take
great
through
Our
80-some
the
irreversibly
much
front
from
our
as
this
owner
for
perspective,
described
as
eminent
neighbourhood on
—
cul-de-sac
from
as
properties.
Block
from
owners
side
areas,
what
to
80-odd
there
well
across
home,
place
their
homes
their
natural is
the
area,
a
around
into
our
of
larger
The
of
meet
directed
threat
would
the
of
23
which
far
as
Prince
their front
24
acres
kind
residence
is
the
home
nn
surrounded
website,
Canadian
waterways
and
the
Block like
—
on
in
on
acre
and
are
was
plenty other
beyond
and
beautiful
landscapes
the
namely
ciirh
at
to
we
keeping
of
Bay
plans,
of
Plan
wish
Point.
http://constantia.ca
the
bordered
preservation
directly
However,
close
the
Edward towards
negatively
was
field
owned
our
ask
owner
24,
the
perimeter see
—
side
farms
of
of others
and
1159,
but
to
end
this
and
historian
questions
and
property
which
vacant,
Quinte,
road
together.
a
the
in
noise
On
around
region
with
by
utilize
of
residence
overlooks
it
will by
the County
by
of
and
area
their
the
and
we
by
the
we
would planned small
the
will
on
for
their
what
the
affect
seem
the
from
of
it middle the
Page 49 of 143
of
share
waterscapes
back and
do
other
were
and
this
and our
—
Point
not
eventual
attract
Sherman’s
Dr.
and
planned
Sherman’s
Town.
of
Lot
farms,
the
natural
area.
road
My
attendance
not
be
is
that
Highway
street,
to on
the
Arthur
in
the
property
prevent unique
Lot
of
use
lifestyle,
their
called
comfortable
25
waterways
hand, regardless
of
nice
husband
the
are
think
have
the
our
which
in
unique
25.
Burgers.
the
The
as
the
of and
We
use
privacy
beauty
future,
other
worries
entirely
to
waterfront
is
a
Lower
Lot
Sherman’s
property,
Greater Point
facilitating
real
Point, We
zoning
that
stretch
Point
potentially
49
landscapes
whole. knew
set we
see
of
and
as
runs
in
25
character
and
across
the
deeply
direction
potential
numerous back
were
of
the
person
of
the
from being
—
We
and we
once as
—
IM%
about
but
of
in
around
access
Long
was
this
80-
I
from
could
Mr.
being
80-
have
on
to
the
all
in
in at
Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard Re: By-law to Dedicate Two P...
Thank
Sincerely,
Martha
and to further
Mr. Granting
land of
property residents
use
the
deprive
and
proposed
I
to
have
you
natural
be
the
Downey
Mrs.
owner
access
and
preserved
for
chosen
us
interests
Burger
all
character
by
consideration beauty
—
across
of
and
the
far
to
significant
which
have
Cecil
present
make
by
more
of
B½ck
the
of
this
given
Leonard
the
a
than
the
public
of
property
leap
24
owners
benefit
area.
this
individual
the
forthe
most.
of
sector
matter.
fullest
faith
However,
by
and
and
While
wrong
allowing
and
by
residents
even
the
information
supporting
there
therefore,
quiet
reasons
denying
to
the
cause
and
are
rural
access
could
and
no
the
limited
harm.
the
in
character
guarantees
all
Town
best
requested,
proposed
undoubtcdly
of
4
access
the
assurances
of
of
circumstances Greater
the
which
in
By-Law.
does
private
area.
harm
which
Napanee
has
offer
the
sector
been
a
one
and
realistic
quality
have
proposed
might
development,
for
the
of
in
hope
reasonably
common),
life,
foregoing for
Page 50 of 143
for
property
the
continued
it
is right
expect
has
reasons,
not
values
equal
reasons,
feasible
of
preservation
my
any of
potential
the
husband
for (ie
to this Summary Statements Who are we - Married, professional couple since university student days, Professionally active in Canada, born in South Africa, Canadian citizens since 2006, dream of a tranquil, quiet life on the water with lots of room to move around and well isolated with as much forest we can get, spend our summers at the planned river house on the farm in Napanee, winters at our beach house in Bahamas. We have no family or relatives in Canada and most of our friends live in the GTA and elsewhere in Canada. We have sold a storage unit we owned in 1 Burlington conditionally on closing of this property. We will need similar space to store the content of this including a smaller tractor with attached implements which we will need to groom this farm. We plan to build a home for the two of us, downsizing to allow us to live here on the farm as our final home, as long as we have good health. We don't spend enough continuous time in Canada to embark on new business or to assume long term care for livestock. Why a (agri) business - We bought the farm from a HST Registered company and for tax reasons closed the sale with a similar business 2 entity, keeping it personal would have attracted HST on the whole transaction. We will be "Agri" (on the farm) oriented, NOT "Renewables" (Solar or wind) or any other industrious type of business on tax records What we want to do - We plan to clear the tall grassed area of the property to re-attract natural wildlife as best we can and to maintain the natural habitat and forest areas undisturbed and intact as best we can as stewards of this beautiful farm. We will get rid of illegal dumping on the farm by using the existing illegal dump site as the location for the storage unit, clean the whole area up, fence it, use it as 3 our storage building site and actively prohibit future illegal dumping of waste anywhere on the farm. We will be building a river front home along the water side of the property as our primary residence while in Canada for summers, this will follow shortly on the completion of building of the storage building. What we will not allow the farm to be used for (if by-law access is granted): large scale business of any kind, unnecessary deforestation or 4 harvest of trees, commercial agriculture, solar or wind farming, noise or nuisance activities, large social gatherings or events, noise, fireworks, illegal dumping, or subdivide the property in any way. Our development declaration at the time of application for the storage building permit - 30th Sep 2015 - "It is our sincere intent to exclude the use of any non environmentally friendly materials and practices as best we can to develop this property with the lightest 5 environmental impact possible. Waste management plans will be the best we can fathom to manage all waste produced on this property responsibly and cleanly. " Our current separate access requirements and the By-law notice do not require negative neighborhood or natural impacts, eliminating any and all tree removal / deforestation and associated movement of heavy earthworks equipment and truck haulage and all other negative impacts associated with this kind of activity at the location of the storage building. Proposing to move the storage building and 6 driveways into any tree covered location will indeed cause these undesirable disturbances and negative impacts with unnecessary & additional schedule and added cost, all of which we are desperate to avoid and have successfully achieved by locating the storage building where it is located on the by-law survey and in the process close the illegal dump site. Moving the storage building from this By-Law position to any other alternative along the roadway that remains as visible and secure anywhere along the western boundary will not lead to full acceptance by all neighbours, it will always be across the road from someone. Thus we placed the storage building access across the boundary between neighbours and selected a very suitable farm style, (Not 7 Commercial), wood construction building, finish the storage building to high standards with trim to suit and significantly enhance the roadway view in addition to obliterating the illegal dumping spot in this location. All of this will certainly contribute to a cleaner, better looking and cared for street-scape / roadway frontage. Moving the storage building to any other tree covered area proved non-sensical from all of the main objectives - security, design integrity, 8 schedule (additional activities) and cost. The impacts suffered are out of scale to the benefits sought. Refer to Impact versus Benefit analysis attached.
False sense of security as result of the reserve - some groups seem to believe that allowing access across the reserve will be equal to "pulling the finger out of the dyke" and that all "protection" will be lost!. If the primary intent and security offered by the reserve is aimed to achieve that it is over kill. Zoning and other very important due process steps are designed to regulate and manage this threat. This by- 9 law application is simple - we need access to use the land with low impact. The building permit application proves that - we applied to build not subdivide. Alternatively if the reserve is used as an excuse to complicate access to the farm, this by-law process is unbiased to consider this access application in fairness. Building a 950 meter driveway - parallel to the road to get access in spite of this reserve - in order to use the property as intended (farms have homes and storage buildings) will be wasteful and have many other negative impacts - again - more equipment, more activity, more construction hauling of materials to construct and more disturbance while being built.
1 of 5
Pierre Burger Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (... Page 51 of 143 Groups of opinion: During our discussions and measurement of response it definitely seems there are three distinct groups of opinions regarding this by-law notification. First - The informed group who have read and listened, asked questions and formed an opinion understanding the intent of the reserve and the benefit of having the property enhanced and used as intended. Some of whom - especially those living south of the farm not "protected" by the reserve seem to be exited for the prospect of habitation of the farm and the associated improvement and positive impact on the area and have made it known to others too. We salute you! Second - The concerned open minded group who have some reservations but are optimistic and hopeful that our intent is believable and can see the benefits but tread carefully and are willing to listen and are prepared to evaluate options We will not stop short of providing answers to 10 your questions and concerns and will consider valid options - just prove ourselves in time! Third - The Uninformed suspicious group this group believes that we have ill intent or that we are "scheming" to pull the finger from the dyke with a hidden agenda. Not prepared to discuss any issues or listen with an open mind but would rather prefer to believe in the false sense of security of keeping the reserve intact, perplexed with perceived negative impact of adjusting the status quo. Not able to see beyond their own property boundaries - the value and improvement brought to the area associated with a well manicured and cared for farm which will be contributing to all properties. We really & truly remain hopeful but we will not allow this group to derail our dream and decision to live here in this community on this beautiful piece of earth! We have to unfortunately resort to use access alternatives with very simple avoidable impact.
We cannot postpone the storage building work, Critical Planned occupation remains to be end April 2016. This is a very uncomfortable costly, time consuming and exhausting surprise to us and some things cannot be reversed without severe penalties to us. Deposits were 11 paid upfront to guarantee this date well in time. We are committed on many fronts to occupy the storage building at end of April / Early May 2016. We will have no option but to build a 950meter long driveway in lieu of the by-law to access the storage building in its current location by other means. We will not change plans to include mass deforestation, and we will g et rid of the illegal dumping site by fencing it off and building on it, discouraging this illegal practice along the way. Insistence on Postponing the By-law Access equals a no vote. A "No Access" decision will not change the plan & schedule , the costly and wasteful access options available will have to be used - the storage building entry will be reversed to the east and access will be obtained from a driveway entering on the south beyond the reserve, superseding the by-law access over the reserve. We have to remain on schedule, and cannot afford forfeiting deposits or the additional wasteful cost and schedule impacts of unnecessary activities. We are 12 already late as a result of this added unexpected due process associated with the by-law. We are six days away from payment of the next contractual installment to commence building in time, there are 20 days left to issue the building permit, currently stalled as a result of this additional process, two months have lapsed since we were informed of this surprising additional access requirement by law. We need to act and decide now! Our planned home construction will be a normal home like all others in the neighbourhood in the 3000 square foot range when built. It is to scale of most homes in the community, our development will not attract any more noise, pollution and whatever else that can be thought up as a hindrance. The amount of disturbance and traffic resulting from building and living in a home is relational to the square footage and the count of occupants. We will definitely be well below average in utilization and impact compared to the neighbourhood , 13 since we are away for long periodsand the hope we have for a quiet tranquil lifestyle. The planned home will be no different than the existing neighbourhood homes. Our plans are totally nature focussed specifically to avoid deforestation and disturbance that goes with it. Unfortunatly all community options require deforestation, some not only for the storage building and clearing around the building but also in certain options for unrealistic, multiple laneways in addition to the building, without realising the bulk contribution to disturbance these options with deforestation will cause.
"Agri" "Hobby" activities on the farm will be limited to mowing the grass and keeping it neat and tidy for natural wild animals and fowl, 14 there will be no noise or disturbances especially no pollution or any other negative impacts because of our inclination to minimise activities. We want a tranquil and low impact lifestyle, stop illegal dumping, keeping busy with our summer hobbies - gardening, woodworking etc, while semi retired and act as stewards of this special piece of earth entrusted to us personally.
2 of 5
Pierre Burger Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Parts on Block 24 (... Page 52 of 143 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
Timeline and Sequence of Events Days Seq Activity Date Located at Event Left -17 Decision 22-Sep-15 -140 Napanee Decide to pursue an offer on property -16 Due Diligence Napanee Agent introduction to Town Staff discuss any development limitations -15 Decision Napanee Offer to be submitted as corporation for HST Purposes, current owners HST Corporation -14 Due Diligence Napanee Discussion with accountants as result of Corporation owning the property - HST Implications 23-Sep-15 -139 -13 Decision Napanee Proceed with offer drafting as Corporation - HST Impacts -12 Submit Napanee Submit offer as corporation -11 Acceptance Napanee Offer accepted by seller/s -10 Formality 21-Oct-15 -111 Burlington Closing & transfer of property ownership to new owners -9 Development 03-Nov-15 -98 Burlington Bid by Shed Builder -8 Commit 10-Nov-15 -91 Burlington Pay Deposit for Securing Schedule, material and resources - Shed Construction -7 Submit 27-Nov-15 -74 Napanee Documentation for Building Permit -6 Notification 10-Dec-15 -61 Bahamas Access restriction required to finalise building permit -5 Instruct 11-Dec-15 -60 Bahamas Surveyors to proceed with Survey of Accesses -4 Receive 29-Dec-15 -42 Bahamas Survey Complete for By-Law accesses -3 Anticipated 07-Jan-16 -33 Bahamas Proposed date of issue of building permit for Shed -2 Meet 30-Jan-16 -10 Napanee With Local Resident neighbours discussing notification and or intent and planning -1 Prepare 01-Feb-16 -8 Burlington Submission for Town Meeting 0 Decision 09-Feb-16 0 Napanee Town Meeting 1 Issue 22-Feb-16 13 Napanee Final day for issue of building permit 2 Payment 15-Feb-16 6 Burlington 2nd Down payment due to ensure builder mobilize to site 3 Mobilize 29-Feb-16 20 Burlington Planned date of Builder mobilizing to the farm to build 4 Complete 29-Apr-16 80 Napanee Construction of Shed.
Critical Observations: 140 Days Passed from "Buy" to get to this decision 87 Days From Application submission to issue of building permit deadline 6 Days Remaining to next Down Payment to Secure Builders crews & mobilization 20 Days Remaining to Issue Permit - Meeting for Approval of By Law
Page 53 of143 40 Days Remaining Construction Duration
3 of 5 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
Access Locations and Assessment Two versions of access requirement are on record for the shed and the house
Shed access - This access only considered, part of building this Due diligence was done prior to proceed with offer to purchase. Specifically questions were asked and answered in a permit application, immediately south of the cul de sac, on order to determine any and all impacts that could hinder the development of this property with Town Staff. 1 The building permit application for the shed the corner where west and south the boundaries intersect. Requirement in terms of a home and shed was discussed. Assurance was given at the meeting that nothing unforeseen is expected, assuring that we plan & proceed with permit application/s. Home access - not applied for, assumed to be part of home b building permit process, not pursued at the same time.
Once Building permit application was submitted and progressed with approvals and reviews by Town staff, the access The by-law location accesses required for both Shed access - moved further south from building permit restriction requirement across the 1 foot reserve spanning the cul-de-sac, the full length of the west and part of the shed and home across the reserve - combined in a location to eliminate tree removal and associated activities, 2 south boundary of the farm became known. We were informed of this (to our complete surprise based on the above) the interest of due process into a single application impacting foundation integrity, schedule and cost. and requested to allow this process to closeout with the placing of a by-law on record granting us access as a pre-cursor as per the current by-law notification. Home access - Deemed required at cul-de-sac for home to to the building permit being issued. b combine both into a single by-law process
The meeting held on the 30th of January with neighbouring land owners & residents, options were discussed. The consensus of the meeting expressed support to allow a shed access but expressed desire to have it moved northwards towards the cul-de-sac end. Even closer to the top corner of the boundary, closer to the home access a The Shed Access alternative Consensus of discussions at the meeting was preferred position. We have not discussed the impact of the trees & roots on the integrity of the foundations of the 3 reached that in principle access to both sites shed. would be supported The consensus of the meeting expressed acceptance to a home access at the top of the cul-de-sac, but expressed desire b The Home Access alternative to have it moved too, eastwards towards the corner. Maybe to have the accesses either side of the north east boundary corner of the cul-de sac.
Options offered by the community that can be accommodated - without deforestation, postponements or delays No "New" alternatives here can be considered or negotiated, its too time critical, design critical and security critical. If not approved the shed will remain here for these reasons but access will be from the main driveway across the farm A The Shed Access alternative with an access off the road along the boundary beyond where the reserve ends, However we could revert back to the permit application site to ensure schedule and eliminate delays Alternative to move this access eastwards as opposed can be accommodated its not time critical, as long as it is granted B The Home Access alternative conditional pending the survey change to suit the consent of the other landowners.
A request is noted from one party that we should consider combining both entrances into a single entrance, tucked way in the far corner of the Cul de sac. moving the shed way out of sight into the forest or even better back into the open farm land way behind - why not while we are in the process. It also requested / suggested to preferably combine both accesses and set back deeper into the property away back from the corner, and, it is also further proposed to be angled to serve both purposes "better" and set back inside behind the corner substantially into the property. It is definitely not acceptable, not even open for discussion since it is complete overkill and highly impractical. The farm equipment, trucks moving our belongings over and trucks delivering building materials are much larger than automobiles. The access Consensus of discussions at the meeting was required for this combined purpose will be impractical since it will require larger turning circles, huge wider, higher and 4 reached that in principle access to both sites impractical ornamental home driveway style gates in addition to thick concrete aprons etc that is never necessary for would be supported automobile access. Automobile access needs to be smaller, nicer in appearance lighter in construction since it will be used daily. Shed access should be steel lockable, on automated gate type without all the nice design features a house Page 54 of143 Combined single Shed and home access (Totally C entrance needs especially for shed gates that will only need to be operated occasionally. Combining all this will also unacceptable) further cause a convoluted split curved access road split flowing in different directions to serve both purposes and excessively large areas of deforestation to accommodate all this totally unnecessary functionality, especially the impact of all this deforestation and remediation required which we are desperately trying to avoid for all the right reasons. The proponents of this combined access is definitely not aware or informed of the impact the apparent "simple" solution will have overall especially the impracticality thereof. Its equivalent to installing a fully motorised garage door as a front door to a home. The roof needs to be higher, the floors needs to be stronger, larger heavier driveway is required, less garden is left, more power is needed to automate - even thoughit will operate frequently / daily moving all this mass and oversize with all the associated noise and other impracticalities - just to walk in and out of multiple times every day? Garage doors are for vehicles and mandoors for people, entrances are the same -large & simple for irregular specific requiremens smaller an nicely presented for visitors, they are very different in their design, application and frequency of use!
4 of 5 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
Sherman's Point Farm Access Options Comparison
Current By Law versus Cul-De-Sac Option - Impact versus Benefit comparison Location Benefit / Suitability Current Option Effort to equalize benefit Immediate Impact Long Term Impact Basic Requirement for Shed # Benefits (For & During) A Usability requirements and Impacts
1 For Shed construction - trucks and crews
Direct, simple road access, entry & exit 2 For Personal content and equipment (2016) Unnecessary and For trucks delivering building material for future home 3 Will require wide turning circles, Unnecessary, avoidable Schedule construction After all this - Will remain 1 Yes No unsightly, additional tree removal, soil delays, additional For staging future House building materials inside and outside undesired and complex 4 remediation, activities and severe shed. additional cost. No on property turns, corners and complex manoeuvring For smaller unit loads unpacked & moved to future house 5 building site 6 For Quarterly access to LPG Gas storage by delivery truck
Direct field access for Farm equipment movement without the 1 need to run on roadway Same as above but additional land access at rear Unnecessary & simple Will remain undesired and 2 Secondary exit to land Yes No Easy Land access with machinery - straight & simple through trees avoidable additional cost. complex 2 manoeuvring
Good visibility from road on multiple sides to see and act on 1 trespassing Good visibility from land while working on farm - awareness of Same as above but yet additional clearing for Unnecessary & simple Risk and exposure to 2 visitors Yes No visibility (Desires for obscuring building visibility -avoidable additional risk & trespassing will remain risk and not feasible) cost. complex 3 Security, visibility and protection Open Clear surroundings, Not surrounded by close dense dark 3 /treed areas to hide and make security visits difficult
4 Fenced with locking gates, limit access for trespassing Security cameras and monitored service, to provide warning of Yes Yes No Difference - Both Equal 5 trespassing and provide identity cues
B Design Integrity & Construction impacts No Removal of trees and roots No disturbance of soil stability 1 and bearing capacity Will require complete tree root excavation, Unnecessary & avoidable - Clean stable soil for shallow augured / pile foundations (Shed engineered backfill and compaction, With heavy equipment, 4 Foundations and soil bearing stability 2 Foundations NOT the same as house - No Basement extending Will not be a stable as Yes No associated heavy equipment traffic, roadway movement, activities, deeper to undisturbed soil) undisturbed subsoil damage, and haul truck traffic (Even more Schedule delays and Lay down area during construction other than building plan area unnecessary removal for working space) severe additional cost. 2 - Sufficient space for machinery, materials and shed building activity
C Other Area/Owners Benefits & Impacts Opt to Minimise general impact on natural resources, tree, soil, Multiple additional, unnecessary zones of tree 1 Yes No Long term owners impact wildlife habitat, windbreaks etc. clearing required to facilitate Avoidable activities, Additional & unnecessary major work activities, Schedule/time/delays) & Opt for Elimination of Major Earthmoving equipment and Long term - All owners (road 2 Yes No contributing disturbances of the farm, and all Significant cost impacts haulage trucks integrity impact) 5 Focussed Natural awareness and minimized disturbance other owners, possible damage to road surfaces
Page 55 of143 to load and unload heavy tracked machinery Added cost for electrical Permanent, but small in Further away from the home site, power pole cable to shed offset by 3 Best Farm Owners placement for convenience No Yes magnitude and beneficial to and less visible from home access gate. elimination of loss of health & exercise trees.
5 of 5 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
1(a) - Full Property Survey Page 56 of143 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
1(b) – Full Property Aerial View
Home Site - Future
Closest Clearing To home Clear Shed Roadside Zones Page 57 of143 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
2 - Access Locations - Survey & Aerial Page 58 of143 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
3(a) - Part Survey & Access By Law – House Access
Cul-de Alternate House Access Sac ( Further Eastwards )
Building Permit– Shed Access Page 59 of143
By Law – Shed Access Between lots 17& 18 Pierre BurgerRe: By-lawto Dedicate Two Parts onBlock 24(...
3(b) – Part Survey /Aerial Access - Overlay
Page 60 of143 Building Permit – Shed Access By Law – Shed Access
By Law – Home Access Alternate House Access ( Further Eastwards )
Summary of Correspondence for Information Items February 9, 2016
This summary contains correspondence that was received by the municipality from outside organizations, which were broadcast to all municipalities, or which were addressed generally to the Town. This includes requests for support for resolutions.
All correspondence addressed to an individual member of council or to the whole council from a resident are placed in the appropriate council mailbox. These items of correspondence are not added to the agenda unless requested by a member of council.
Correspondence for Action items are pieces of correspondence that were received by Town staff that require further council attention or action. Members of Council may request items be added to the agenda for consideration.
1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario – Re: Federal Minister starts to Frame Infrastructure Investments.
2. Autism Ontario – Re: Invitation to participate in Autism Ontario’s “Raise the Flag” campaign on April 4, 2016.
Correspondence for Information Items Dated February 9, 2016 Page 61 of 143 RECEIVEDFEB032016
Forsome time Ihave had concerns about the LionsParkand have made most councillorsaware of those concerns,
Havinglivedin Napanee most of mylife Iwould liketo share some history as Isee it and bringanother perspective to the park/boat ramp discussion.
Sofar as the boat ramp isconcerned since we already have two ramps and parkingfor launchingwest of the bridgewith better signageand enforcement that area should continue to be adequate.
Mybiggerconcern is preservation of the LionsClubPark. Firstof all Iwould commend the LionsClubon the foresight shown so long ago in purchasingthe properties alongthe riverthat now comprise the l.ionsPark especiallybecause at that time the waterfront was not at all as you see it today. There was no Conservation Parkand no RiverWalk. Instead on the south shore was a scrap yard and what is now the LionsParkwas an area containingseveral dilapidated boat houses, allthe trash people coulddump, brush and weeds, a place to stay away from my mother said. The LionsClubhad the boat houses, trash and weeds removed, the land levelledand seeded to produce the park we now have. When the work was done the park was handed to the town with the intent that when possiblethe house would be purchased and the parkcompleted.
Unfortunatelywhen the familywas able to sellthe house town councilwas busywith amalgamation talks and the house again passed into private hands. Councilwas finallyable to purchase the property in 2015.
Asgood stewards Ibelieve it istime councilcompleted the park that was started so manyyears ago. We are extremely fortunate in Napanee to have an impressivefallsand picturesque riverrunningthrough our town which residents, visitorsand tourists can enjoy. It Istime we took fulladvantage of this asset and the gift of
the LionsClub. Withthe continued efforts of town councilIbelieve it is now possibleto have on the north side of the rivera beautiful park unspoiledand without obstruction whichwillonly add to the attraction of our town and of whichthe town can be proud. (
1
Ann Normile Re: Concerns regarding the Lions Park Page 62 of 143 MEMORANDUM
Upton U8 Attention: Town Council
Re: Off-leash dog park
I would like to respond to the article in the Napanee Beaver (Thursday, February 4, 2016) regarding creating an off-leash dog park. As owner of Pet Panache I routinely have customers inquiring about the possibility of providing to dog owners a controlled area for dogs to socialize and run free. Currently, owners take their dogs to whatever open space is convenient.
I encourage Council to approve investigating fUrthersuch a park in Napanee. I have discussed the use of dogs parks with my colleague and professional trainer, William Robinson. Will is very knowledgeable about such parks and is willing to provide his expert advice and guidance regarding the challenges you can expect, and protocols needed, should this initiative move forward.
Respectfully
Sondra Elliott Owner, Pet Panache
Sondra Elliott Re: Off-Leash Dog Park Page 63 of 143 MALROZ via: e-mail(rcalIerygreaternapanee.com) February 5, 2016 ENGINEERINGINCORPORATED File: 964-100.00
308 WellingtonStreet Raymond D. Callery Kingston, ON K7K7A8 Chief Administrative Officer Canada Town of GreaterNapanee 613-548.3446 124John Street, P.O. Box 97 www.malroz.com Napanee, Ontario, K7R 3L4
Subject: Proposal and Letter of Agreement for Plain Language Summary of Environmental Review Tribunal Case No. 12-033Order dated December24, 2015, and review of related documents.
Dear Mr. Callery:
This letter follows from my telephone conversation with you on January 26, 2016, with respect to the subject ERT case and related documents received by the Town from party(ies) to this proceeding. You have requested that Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) review the technical nature of the following documents, and furnish a brief, written, plain language summary of these documents to the Town.
Document I: Environmental Review Tribunal Case No. 12-033,Order delivered by Maureen Carter-Whitney, dated December 24, 2015.
Document 2: Deputation to Greater Napanee Council, September, 2015, lan Munro
Document 3: Environmental Review Tribunal Case No. 12-033, Order delivered by Maureen Carter-Whitney,dated July 21, 2015.
Document 4: Deputationto GreaterNapanee Council, January, 2016, Ian Munro
We understand that your request specifically instructs Mab-oz to provide a plain language summary of document 1, for the purposes of reviewing this document in comparison with documents 2 and 4, as they may be supported by document 3.
The purpose of the plain language summary and review of related documents is to provide an aid to the Town in understanding similarities and differences between these documents.
Our review is not considered to be an audit and as such is not intended to detect concealed or omitted facts.
EnvironmentalScientists&Engineers
KINGSTON0 TORONTO0 OTTAWA
Malroz Engineering Inc. Re: Proposal and Letter of Agreement... Page 64 of 143 ______
Town of GreaterNapanee Page2 Letter of Agreement,Plain Language Summaryof ERT CaseNo. 12-033Documents 964-100.00
Based on our understanding of the level of effort required to undertake a review of the anticipated documents, we have assigned a budget cost of $2,000 to undertakethis work on your behalf. Taxes are extra. We will complete this scope of work on a fixed price basis. As the Town of Greater Napanee is an existing Client in good standing, we will waive our nonnal practice of requiring a retainer payment, and will commence our work upon receipt of your written authorization to proceed. We will issue a single invoice for this undertaking upon completion of our review and presentation of our written summary to you.
We understand that the schedule for this work has a target completion date of February29,2016.
Our cost opinion for this work does not cover any follow-up review work if the source documents are found to be unclear or inadequate, nor does it apply to review of any supplementary documents. We will, however, make ourselves available for a meeting at your offices either at the time of delivering our summary report, or following your review of our summary report. The purpose of this meeting, if required, is to allow a discussion of the results of our work with the Town and to facilitate your use of our swmnary report for its intended purpose.
We will undertake this work subject to our standard terms and conditions (attached), and will seek your authorization before expanding the scope of our work. Additional work will be billed on a time and materials basis using our standard fee schedule (attached)
Thank you for your confidence in Malroz Engineering Inc. We look forward to working with you on this mandate. Please indicate your approval to proceed with this work by returning one signed copy of this document to our office.
Should you require further information, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly, Project authorization to proceed:
MALROZ ENGINEERING INC. Town of Greater Napanee
signing authority
er: Stev n Rose, P.Eng., P.Geo. Proj ct Manager name and title
end: Fee Schedule StandardTerms and Conditions date
address
Matroz Engineering Inc.
Malroz Engineering Inc. Re: Proposal and Letter of Agreement... Page 65 of 143 Town of Greater Napanee Page 3 Letter of Agreement, Plain Language Summary of ERT Case No. 12-033 Documents 964-100.00
Malroz Engineering Inc. Fee Schedule
Classification Hourly Rat&1 Director! Technical Advisor! Senior Project Manager 200 Project Manager! Senior Engineer/Scientist i 80 Project Engineer! Project Scientist! Q.P. 160 Intermediate Engineer!Scientist! Systems Analyst 140 Junior Engineer! Scientist 120 Senior Technologist 100 Intermediate Technologist 90 Junior Technologist! CAD Operator 75 Clerical 50 Expenses Cost + 10% Travel $0.50/km
Note: 1. BasedonOntarioSocietyofProfessionalEngineersfee guidelinefor Engineeringservices,2012.
2. Seniorstaffengagedfor the purpose of providingexperttestimonyare billedat 100%more thanthe rates specifiedabove.
Ma!roz Engineering Inc.
Malroz Engineering Inc. Re: Proposal and Letter of Agreement... Page 66 of 143 Town of Greater Napanee Page 4 Letter of Agreement, Plain Language Summary of LIlT Case No. 12-033 Documents 964-100.00
STANDARDTERMS AND CONDITIONS
TERMS OF OFFER: Performance of services by any reliance on or any decisions based on such are Malroz Engineering Inc. are subject to the terms the sole responsibility of said third party. Malroz and conditions set forth herein. No modification accepts no responsibility for any damage, shall be effective unless in writing and signed by an whatsoever or howsoever caused, suffered by any authorized representative of Malroz. We will third party as a result of decisions made or actions undertake this assignment as per this agreement based on such opinions, reports, drawings or other (applicable taxes extra). documents or information.
2. OTHER SERVICES AND COSTS: We will 6. BURIED UTILITIES: Mairaz will take reasonable undertake any additional work beyond the scope of precautions to avoid damaging buried man-made this agreement, as authorized by you, on a ‘time objects identified to us. We willrely on the Client and materials’ basis using the Malroz Standard Fee to identifyany such objects to us in the field and to Schedule. Our fee schedule is based on rates approve the location of our surface penetrations published by PEO, the regulatory body for engineers prior to their being made. The Client agrees to practicing in the Province of Ontario. waive any claim against Malroz and to defend, indemnify and hold Malroz harmless from any liability 3. INVOICING AND PAYMENT: We will submit claim or from Malroz’s damaging monthly invoices for our work based on our progress underground utilities or other man-made objects against the agreed scope. Invoices are payable on which were not brought to Malroz’s attention or a net 30-day basis. Overdue accounts are subject which were not located, or not properly located, on to carrying charges at a rate of 2% per month. plans furnished to Malroz.
4, COLLECTIONCOSTS: In the event legal action is 7. INSURANCE: Malroz, at its expense, caries necessary to enforce the payment provisions of this professional errors and omissions liability Agreement, Malroz shall be entitled to collect from insurance to the extent that it deems prudent. the Client all costs and legal fees incurred by Malroz Malroz’s errors and omissions policy is available in connection therewith. for inspection by the Client upon request. When requested, MaIro2 shall supply to the Client a summary of the insurance coverage being 5. LIMITED LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION: maintained, including but not limited to Malroz agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the comprehensive general liability, errors and Client from and against liabilitycaused by Malroz’s omissions and automobile insurance. Ifthe Client, negligent performance of The services, limited as because of its particular circumstances or follows: Malroz’s liabilityfor any claim, whatsoever otherwise, desires further insurance to protect it or howsoever arising, in contract or in tort, related to against any risk beyond the coverage provided by the services provided under this agreement shall be such policies. Malroz shall co-operate with the limited to the lesser of (a) Malroz’s fees for the Client to obtain such insurance at the Client’s performance of those services and (b) the extent expense with Malroz named as a co-insured under that such liabilityis covered by errors and omissions the policy or a waiver of subrogation thereunder in insurance from time to time in effect and which is favour of Mafroz available to indemnify Malroz. In any event Malroz’s liability under this agreement shall be limited to the loss or damage directly attributable to 8. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: Except where the negligent acts or omissions of Malroz, its required by law, Malroz shall not divulge any directors, officers, servants or agents. In no event confidential information acquired in the course of shall Malroz, its directors, officers, servants or carrying out the services provided for herein. agents be liable for loss or damage caused as a result of circumstances beyond Malroz’s control or 9. GOVERNING LAW: Interpretation, and for loss of earnings or for other consequential enforcement of this Agreement shall be pursuant damages howsoever caused. The Client in to the laws, statutes, and regulations of the consideration of the provision of the services herein Province of Ontario agrees to the limitations of Malroz’s liability aforesaid. The Client shall have no right of set-off against any billings of Malroz under this agreement to perform services. Any opinion, report, drawing or other document or information provided by Malroz under this agreement to perform services are for the account of the Client only. Any use which a third MALROZ party makes of any opinion, report, drawing, or other document or informationproduced hereunder or
Malroz Engineering inc.
Malroz Engineering Inc. Re: Proposal and Letter of Agreement... Page 67 of 143 TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held December 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM Committee Room, Town Hall, 124 John St., Napanee PRESENT: Jane Lovell in the Chair, Councillor Michael Schenk, Raymond Karu, Peter Rustige, Fran Goring-Koch, Shirley Boston
ABSENT: Eileen Ronald, Dennis Mills, Mike Normile and Ron Gillespie
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Beckel, Clerk
CALL TO ORDER Jane Lovell, Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Boston & Rustige That the agenda of the Municipal Heritage Committee dated December 3, 2015 be hereby adopted. ADOPTION OF MINUTES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Rustige & Karu That the minutes of the Municipal Heritage Committee dated November 5, 2015 are hereby approved. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (i) NATHAN BRUCE - GIS ANALYST COUNTY OF LENNOX & ADDINGTON, RE: GIS MAPPING Nathan Bruce, GIS Analyst provided a detailed presentation of GIS mapping services at the County of Lennox & Addington and how it can be applied to Municipal Heritage.
(ii) HERITAGE AWARENESS AND EDUCATION (a) 18 Water Street East: Tour Summary, Research Update and January 2016 Deputation to Council Jane Lovell advised that a tour of the 18 Water Street property had been provided by Town staff, and highlighted the following: . structurally there is no reason to retain the building; . reviewed the history and context of the building; . a binder containing historical information and photos of the house will be donated to the County Archives; . age of the house - on fire insurance maps as 1876; on the bird’s eye map of 1874; assessment rolls show from 1850s; and the land was acquired by Madden in 1840s; . will be providing a deputation to Council on Jan. 12, 2016 summarizing the findings;
Page 1 of 2
Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January ... Page 68 of 143 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE - December 3, 2015 Minutes
. there are some exposed beams, a small bathtub and the board and batten siding that could possibly be repurposed; . Options: architectural salvage when taking the building down; keep the stone foundation and plaque it with a picture and story of the house; and/or use the beams for a bench or pergola as a waterfront rest area/seating area.
Progress Report on Heritage Photography Project Fran Koch provided an update on the Photography Project advising that using the Drop Box for the pictures is working well.
NEW BUSINESS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Schenk & Koch That the Municipal Heritage Committee recommend that the Town consider hiring a GIS summer student to do some GPS and/or mapping for the Town.
Susan Beckel will circulate the notice for the Public Open House tentatively scheduled for December 16, 2015 for the waterfront and Town Hall proposed redevelopment concepts. NEXT MEETING Next Meeting: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Boston & Karu That the committee does hereby adjourn at 6:06 p.m.
Jane Lovell, Chair
Page 2 of 2
Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January ... Page 69 of 143 TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held January 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM Committee Room, Town Hall, 124 John St., Napanee PRESENT: Jane Lovell in the Chair, Councillor Michael Schenk, Dennis Mills, Peter Rustige and Fran Goring-Koch
ABSENT: Eileen Ronald, Raymond Karu, Mike Normile, Shirley Boston and Ron Gillespie
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Beckel, Clerk, Guest - Kenn Morrison, Owner of 232 Dundas Street West
CALL TO ORDER Jane Lovell, Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
A quorum was not present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mills & Rustige That the Agenda of the Municipal Heritage Committee dated January 7, 2016 be hereby adopted. ADOPTION OF MINUTES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Koch & Rustige That the minutes of the Municipal Heritage Committee dated December 3, 2015 are hereby approved. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (i) HERITAGE DESIGNATIONS
(a) Designation Amendments - Updates This Agenda Item was deferred to the next meeting.
(b) Communication with Owners of Designated Properties: Introductory Letter/Ongoing Interactions/Heritage Week 2016 The draft letter was reviewed and proposed to include: (i) Statement that the process of updating designation by-laws will not change the designation of the property, but the by-law will include a more detailed description of the properties’ heritage elements; (ii) List the potential financial incentives first in the letter as this will be the most important information to heritage designation owners; (iii) That the committee is continuing to review best practices from other municipalities; and
Page 1 of 3
Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January ... Page 70 of 143 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE - January 7, 2016 Minutes
(iv) Heritage infrastructure is an economic benefit to the Town; that the Town’s largest amount of tax dollars received are from residential properties that pre- date end of WWI The committee recognized that it would be beneficial to have a designated property owner as a member of the committee. The draft letter will be reviewed at the next meeting. (c) Listing Candidates - Updates This Agenda Item was deferred to the next meeting.
Incentive Programs - Update This Agenda Item was deferred to the next meeting.
HERITAGE AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 18 Water Street East: Findings and Recommendations to be presented to Council on January 12, 2016 Jane Lovell advised that she had forwarded the committee members a draft summary of the presentation to Council for 18 Water Street. This presentation fulfills the mandate of Section 5.6 of the Town's Official plan to conduct an heritage valuation done prior to any re-development. Jane Lovell summarized the draft presentation with the conclusion that its heritage interest lies in the building's age, and its significance is in its modest and everyday structure of our industrial past from the 19th century. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Koch & Mills That the Municipal Heritage Committee recommend that the report summary prepared by Jane Lovell be accepted as revised during the meeting discussion with the recommendation that Council consider, despite the 18 Water Street East building's age, preserving the building if possible without formal designation under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act. CHOnews Winter 2016 This Agenda Item was deferred until the next meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS Waterfront Redevelopment - Water Street Boat Launch - Recommendations The committee reviewed Concept A and Concept B, with concern that both options will result in the loss of green space for parking and that there is a commemorative monument in Lions Park. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mills & Koch The Municipal Heritage Committee is not in support of Concept A or Concept B for the Water Street Boat Launch and recommend that the Town look for other options that will meet its future needs and preserve the Town’s green space and parkland. Town Hall Improvements - Recommendations The Municipal Heritage Committee reviewed the draft concepts for the front and back of the Town Hall improvements and made the following recommendations:
Page 2 of 3
Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January ... Page 71 of 143 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE - January 7, 2016 Minutes
Planters on the Front Steps: that the planters proposed on the steps of the Town Hall not be included as recommended in the concept plan, as by the previous Heritage Committee; and that the existing width of the front steps be kept intact; so as not to restrict the public gathering space of the steps - historically and aesthetically Trees in Front of Town Hall: that the existing trees at the front of Town Hall near John Street not be replaced but maintained and that they be pruned as required, to provide an open vista from John Street to the Town Hall; Location of Flag Poles: that the etiquette for the location of the flag poles be investigated to determine if the flags should be flown at the back of the building, and that the flag pole on the roof of the Town Hall be retained; Centre Street Parkette: that the concept for a parkette near Centre Street at the back of the Town Hall be incorporated into the re-design
Notice of Demolition - Response Procedure 99 Hickory Lane - Notice of Demolition Dennis Mills presented a detailed historical summary of the dwelling and property at 99 Hickory Lane, advising that the dwelling is an 1841 classic early revival farmhouse and is the last remaining early homestead in north Adolphustown. The committee discussed whether or not to recommend an intent to designate the property to Council, which if approved by Council, would provide 30 days for public comment. Given that the property owner would likely be unaware of this information regarding the heritage of the property, it was the consensus that Dennis Mills and Fran Koch would offer the heritage research on the property to the owner, rather than bring forward a recommendation for an intent to designate to Council. Photo Project Update This Agenda Item was deferred to the next meeting. Property Standards Proposed Amendments Update This Agenda Item was deferred to the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Rustige & Mills That the committee does hereby adjourn at 7:15 p.m.
Jane Lovell, Chair
Page 3 of 3
Municipal Heritage Committee - December 3, 2015 and January ... Page 72 of 143 NAPANEEBIA MINUTESOF DECEMBER16, 2015 BOARDMEETING NAPANEEBUSINESSCENTRE
Present: Sondra Elliott Rob Hendrick Terry Johnson Tammy Peck Carol Harvey Doris l.ucas Kathy Medd
Guest: Ellen John5on
1. Meeting called to order by BIAChair Rob at 6:40pm.
2. Disclosure of conflict of interest: No Disclosure.
3. MOTION by Terry to approve the agenda. Seconded by Carol. Carried.
4. MOTION by Sandra to approve the November 25, 2015 board minutes. Seconded by Doris. Carried.
5. COMMIHEE REPORTS
a. BEAUTIFICATION: i. Doris wanted to express her thanks to Pam Oliver and BillCasselman for their assistance with the Xmas decorating while she was not feeling well. With activities finalized for 2015, she wanted to note the Beautification Commitee did not exceed its budget. b. MARKETING& COMMUNICATIONS: i. Sondra reported the committee has begun its work on the 2016 marketing and communications plan and budget; the committee will meet in the new year to continue its work. The committee is plannIng to provide information on partnership opportunities for members early in the year to help with their own budget plans. Sandra also noted that LizBotting of Milady’s Lace had recently joined the committee. Kathy reported on partnership discussions with the Town. Sondra confirmed the committee’s 2015 efforts would fall within its budget. c. FUNDRAISING: i. Kathy reported on some outstanding information items. Food safety handling courses are available through KFL&AHealth Unit, The cost is $SOpp. Sessions are not held on a regular basis. Kathy also asked that if there were any board members that needed health & safety training to contact her for details. ii. Terry reported he had purchased a candy floss machine on his own.
d. BIGDIG: i. Kathy reported the Kingston BIAhad been contacted to set up a meeting with their rep and a Kingston business owner. Details TBA.
1 BIAMinutes - December 16, 2015
Napanee BIA Page 73 of 143
Napanee BIA
7.
6.
REPORTS
BUSINESS
a.
c.
a.
b.
e.
CHAIR:
No
John
the
reconstruction addressing
Deseronto bus Community/Corporate
Chamber
Rob accounting.
Kathy lower
Kathy
OUTSIDE
ARISING:
report.
BINs
loading
H.
and
Ii.
i.
St.,
2
reported than
noted
J
the
Arts tourism
include
approved in
Kathy which Community
be
Ellen incorporated Copies
members
Sondra
adjacent
request
BIA
of
COMMITTEES:
Greater
bus
the
the
used
zone
1.
1. former
1.
Commerce
the
&
Minutes
provided
reported
outlines
Culture
and
and
truck
previous
of
she
Action:
Action:
Action: -
reported
and
in
Business
to
waterfront
to
to
the
document
at
Napanee...”),
the
cars.
minimize
Heritage
Is
regular
Council
Development
Wallace’s
delivery connecting their
-
meeting
by
2006
December
Advisory
downtown
a
Services
it
Rob
Kathy
had a
Committee
year.
This
the
detailed
mission
social
on
Awards
request.
parking
Urban
would
provided
to
Harvest
development,
BIA.
a
to
the
would
issue
Some
will
with
meeting
Drugstore,
make
event
be
to
16, Committee
communities.
loss
a There
statement
report
Gala
reconstruction.
Redesign
report Advisory
discuss
distributed
be
on 3-year
Kathy
2015
and
recommendations
Mark
help
funds
site
Council
of
a
for
a
Dundas
wrap
summary
held
recommendation
may
dedicate
regular
on
prepare
on
noted
arts
Day
on
to
plan,
and
will
housing
the
Committee
project
Jan
I
with
(“...
serve be
up
meeting
deputation
BIA
groups
on
St.
to
be
agree
There
a
committee’s
additional
parking
meeting
some
14,
the
Dec18
to
confirming
10-year
3
for
town
Rob
retained Rep:
as
parking
options,
will
2016.
serve
the
on
was
BINs
a
in
with
of
noted
will
loading/delivery
staff
Kathy
Greater
spots
be
I
the
to
the
remains
upcoming
on
Ellen
plan
a
to
as
design
board.
for
made
Mark
be
spaces clarify
request
best
January
from
convert
it
a design
long
recently
proceeds
to
Medd
the
brought
catalyst
and
was
Johnson
Napanee
1
proactive
Day.
available
term
outstanding,
recommendations
the
Infrastructure
2016
space.
along
its
agreed
downtown
for
work
the
12,201
completed
topS
outstanding
for
to
parking
to
copies
event.
zone
the
current
drive
had
will
the
the
to
by approach
Page 74 of 143
priorities;
6.
west
for
board
all
board.
already
take
event
of
howeverthe
strategy,
development
Services
present
Deseronto
the
trucks,
document
side
BBLS
place
were
that
for
these
been
of
the
at
that
and can b. COUNCIL: Carol reported she will be making a request to Council to support the sidewalk plowing of Centre, Dundas and Bridge Streets. It was noted the downtown reconstruction will help simplify plowing with the proposed removal of the islands along Dundas St. and that perhaps the BIAshould consider other ways to simplify signage to help with snow removal.
c. TREASURER: It was noted an evening budget meeting will be scheduled during the first two weeks of January; the meeting will be open to all board members.
d. MANAGER: Kathy reported Community Livinghad approved the Memorandum of Understanding for the CL-BIApartnership and would sign off on it in the new year. It was noted the $3600 fee for 2015 had been processed.
Kathy reported on a series of business seminars being coordinated by the Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Centre, PELACFDCand L&ACounty. The sessions include: Design for Marketing; Partnerships; Marketing on a Shoestring Budget; QuickBooks; Quicksooks Inventory and Employment Standards
Correspondence included information on accessibility ramp ideas from a BIAmember; notification of the completion of the Vital Signs Report produced by the NDCFand some advocacy work by the OBIM
The Expenses/Receipts Report was distributed for review and approval.
8. NEWBUSINESS:
a. Bestwishes for a Merry Christmas from Chairperson Rob.
9. MOTIONby Sondra to receive all reports and approve the Expenses/Receipts Report. Seconded by Terry. Carried.
10. MOTION by Carol to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Sondra. Carried.
11. Meeting adjourned at 8:20pm.
12. Ne*t.Board Meeting: January 20, 2016 @ 6:30pm /
Meeting Chair: Rob Hendrick Minutes Prepared By: KatI Medd
BIAMinutes - December 16, 2015
Napanee BIA Page 75 of 143 TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE TAXATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held January 5, 2016 at 7:00 PM Committee Room, Town Hall, 124 John St., Napanee PRESENT: Hubert Hogle, Hans Bichsel, Axel Thesberg, Ted Davie, Robert Marriott, Leslie Howell and Gary Scandlan, Chair
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles McDonald, Staff Liaison
CALL TO ORDER Gary Scandlan, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Davie & Bichsel That the Agenda of the Taxation Policy Review Committee dated January 5, 2016 be hereby adopted. ADOPTION OF MINUTES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Thesberg & Bichsel That the minutes of the Taxation Policy Review Committee dated November 25, 2015 are hereby approved.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Davie & Marriott That the Taxation Policy Review Committee receive the information provided by the Clerk regarding Axel Thesberg’s remote participation at the committee meetings while on vacation. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Review List of Selected Municipalities to Review through this Process: Municipality of Meaford Loyalist Township Township of Cramahe Municipality of Port Hope Township of Brock Township of Centre Wellington Municipality of Huron East Municipality of Trent Hills Municipality of Chatham-Kent Township of Muskoka Lakes Township of Hamilton City of Kawartha Lakes City of Kingston The Chair circulated the background information regarding the candidate municipalities and the evaluation provided by Committee Members in support of the selected municipalities.
Page 1 of 4
Taxation Policy Review Committee - January 5, 2016 Page 76 of 143 TAXATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE - January 5, 2016 Minutes
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Howell & Marriott That the Committee receive and approve the list of selected municipalities to be surveyed.
Review 2014 Information for Surveyed Municipalities The Chair reviewed the table information with the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Thesberg & Marriott That the Committee receive for information Table 1 - 2014 Summary of Property Taxation per Service for Surveyed Municipalities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Davie & Hogle That the Committee receive for information Table 2 - Town of Greater Napanee 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Summary of Property Taxation per Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Hogle & Bichsel That the Committee receive for information Table 3 - Comparison Summary of Types of Services included in Area-rated Charges (2015).
Overview of Municipal Services and Approach to Allocation of Costs for Surveyed Municipality COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Davie & Hogle That the Committee receive for information Axel Thesberg's December 30, 2015 email to Gary Scandlan along with the response regarding clarification of data. Discussion: Which Services should be considered for review in Greater Napanee and which allocation approach should be used? An extended discussion was undertaken by the Committee, both in regard to services and approach to allocation, as well as some guiding principles which the Committee should consider during the process. Hubert Hogle suggested the following which the committee generally agreed upon: The need to consider why we are doing this process and ensure it is done carefully and properly because ultimately this process will provide information to enable Council; Not a question of urban versus rural but how to pick areas, i.e. the need to be able to draw a line on a map and explain to the public why these lines are drawn in this way; Some services are easy (sidewalks, streetlights, crossing guards) while everything else will be more difficult; and The need to consider if service level is different in various areas. Axel Thesberg acknowledged Hubert Hogle’s points, and suggested four questions the Committee should consider for its review of services: 1. Is there a significant difference in the service levels between areas? 2. Can we measure the cost? 3. Is there a reasonable boundary which can be drawn? 4. If we proceed with differentiating the costs by area, what are one or two ways to allocate the costs to make a tax rate difference?
Page 2 of 4
Taxation Policy Review Committee - January 5, 2016 Page 77 of 143 TAXATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE - January 5, 2016 Minutes
Robert Marriott added some additional questions to be considered by the Committee: 1. Is there an economic efficiency in doing this? 2. Can it administratively be done easily? Ted Davie suggested a qualifying question: 1. Even if the service level provided is the same across the different areas, is the cost of providing the service different? Leslie Howell advanced the following perspectives: Should we concentrate on the larger cost items and not the smaller ones? Most people enjoy all of the services provided by the Town…Are there really differences and can we get cost data for different areas Ted Davie provided the following suggested services to be considered in this process along with suggested approaches. Discussion was undertaken on each with general comments provided below. Police – It was noted that this is probably the largest cost and asked whether this should be considered by deployment areas. It was identified by Robert Marriott that the OPP has just introduced a new billing formula and the municipality will be changed based on a fixed cost and variable cost averaged over several years. The fixed costs will be 60% of the bill with the residual variable being 40%. The Chair was asked to get more information for the Committee and whether the variable information will be available by location and type of occurrence. It was noted that location information for the offence may not reflect the residency of the individuals. Fire – It was noted that the Town has 3 stations. It was suggested that the Main station is staffed with full time staff and the others by volunteers, which may denote a different level of service. It was questioned whether costs can be allocated by area and service level? It was also observed that the Town had received a certification, which would reduce home insurance for many individuals with a 9 km radius of a fire station. This may be a measure to be considered for a map area. Streetlights – It was noted that the operating, maintenance and capital costs for streetlights based on areas should be considered. Roads and Streets – It was noted that there were different types of roads (urban, semi- urban, rural asphalt, rural gravel) and questioned if we can identify different costs for different types of streets. It was noted that the capital cost will be significantly different. It was questioned whether the cost per property is higher in the rural areas versus the more dense built up areas. It was further questioned if there are different costs/service levels/etc. for snow clearing for the areas, if the cost of sidewalks is significant and where are they located. Parks – It was questioned whether the costs for maintaining and operating parks are different in the areas and does the community of Napanee have a higher level of service than other areas. Recreation – While the service and programs are offered to all residents, it was questioned whether there is a basis for differentiating costs. Is the location of buildings representative of the benefit received? (Note: there was a question raised as to program revenues for this service, and it was identified that it was outside the scope of
Page 3 of 4
Taxation Policy Review Committee - January 5, 2016 Page 78 of 143 TAXATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE - January 5, 2016 Minutes
this study. The Chair did note that if the Committee wished to pass on general observations that may be acceptable to include as secondary observations). Solid Waste – For the most part, it was acknowledged that the level of service was the same to all areas. An observed difference was the spring and fall yard waste pick up which is offered as a curbside service within the urban area and a “call for pick up” in the other areas. It was questioned if the cost for the curbside pickup was more expensive given the greater distances to be travelled in the rural areas. One added question was posed during the discussions regarding the allocating of costs for projects, which either area shared with the County or where there may be a road/water/wastewater service. It was further questioned whether the costs are apportioned to these different services and how generally the allocation is made. The Chair indicated that he would undertake discussion on these matters with Town staff. He did note to the Committee that some information may not be readily available at this time as there has not been a direct need for this information and hence, the record keeping may not be set up in a proper manner to facilitate this analysis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Hogle & Marriott That the Chair consider the input of the committee members regarding services to be considered, level of service measures, geography of benefit, etc. and review the availability of data with Town Staff and report back to the Committee with information and data
Excerpt of Section 326 of the Municipal Act Discussion was undertaken regarding the legal approach to recovery of cost for special services. The Chair indicated that this would be discussed as part of the process; however the discussion on services, allocation of costs, recovery by area, etc. would be considered first and then the ability to recover costs based on different basis would be considered. An excerpt of Section 326 of the Municipal Act was provided to the Committee members and the Chair will provide the Regulations
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Thesberg & Howell That the Committee receive for information the excerpt of Section 326 of the Municipal Act. NEXT MEETING Future Committee Meeting Dates COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Davie & Bichsel That the next two Committee meetings be held on February 2, 2016 and February 16, 2016. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Thesberg & Davie That the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Gary Scandlan, Chair
Page 4 of 4
Taxation Policy Review Committee - January 5, 2016 Page 79 of 143
Youth Programming Task Force
Youth
Programming
ADOPTION
ADOPTION
That
ITEMS
CALL Community
OTHERS
PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Jim That
The
The
2015. student
KL away Call
Committee Future results Needs 2015
needs agreed Shane
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION:
Fitness
was
to
members the
Committee
the
are
pizza
TO
to
FOR
Order
sharing
Parsons,
Assessment
to
Event
Session
agenda
unable
minutes
be
hereby PRESENT:
ORDER
Task
contact
Shane
&
to
OF
OF
Club
Mandate
DISCUSSION
more
North
Corporate
any
will
Ideas:
Minutes
and
Force
YOUTH
AGENDA
MINUTES
discussed
to
be
held
Chair,
adopted.
of
specific
to
members
continue
student
Parsons,
attend,
adopted
additional
Fredericksburgh
the
have
Survey:
Continued
on
Bethany
Meeting
called
Youth
of
PROGRAMMING
Services
November
so
individuals
Lesa
who
TOWN
the
Meeting
to
to
Lisa
as
will
the
think
committee
Continuing Programming
-
survey
Lessard,
properly
fills
presented.
contact
December
discuss
Lund,
Discussion
meeting
OF
out
of
19, Held
regarding
future
results
GREATER
HaIl,
a
Courtney
2015.
run
the
Youth
Survey.
members.
his
December
to
TASK
1,
the
Principal
1468
event
Task
initiatives
order
from
2015.
Bethany,
Programming,
events.
the
Bowering
Table
County
FORCE
NAPANEE
Force
Napanee
ideas
at
continued
at
1,
6:20pm.
at
Courtney
to
NDSS
2015
meeting
but
the
Rd.
COMMITTEE
be
District
agreed
next
James
at
set
promotion
8,
to
6:00
Napanee
set
up
dated
and
meeting.
Secondary
that
on
Timlin,
up
PM
Lesa
Page
December December
Page 80 of 143
a
there
of
table,
the
have
G.M.
2
still
of
survey,
School,
giving
all
3
16, 1, YOUTHPROGRAMMINGTASK FORCE COMMITTEE- December 1, 2015 Minutes
Recommendation to have Bethany &James look at the budget to bring in an outside facilitatorto discuss the mandate of the group.
NEW BUSINESS Facebook Page Bethany willcreate a Facebook page for this committee.
NEXTMEETING Next meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 5, 2015, 6:00pm at 12 Market Square. ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION: That the task force meeting does hereby adjourn at 7:11pm.
Shane Parsons, Chair
Youth Programming Task Force Meeting - December 1,2015. Page 3 of 3
Youth Programming Task Force Page 81 of 143
Staff Report to Council
To: Mayor Schermerhorn and Members of Council
Date: February 9, 2016
Prepared By: Susan Beckel, Clerk Gib Garrett, Planning Clerk
Presented By: Susan Beckel, Clerk Gib Garrett, Planning Clerk Re: Community & Corporate Services - By-law to Dedicate Two Parts of Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Part of a Public Highway - Sherman’s Point Road
Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Community & Corporate Services - By-law to Dedicate Two Parts of Block 24 (One Foot Reserve) on Registered Plan 1159 as Part of a Public Highway - Sherman's Point Road report;
And further that Council adopt a by-law later in the meeting.
Financial Implications Costs to register the by-law at the land registry office. Accessibility Implications The report is available in alternate format upon request. Information Technology Implications Upon review, there are no information technology implications.
Energy Management Implications Upon review, there are no energy management implications. Background Information On January 12, 2016, Council received a report regarding a request to dedicate two parts of a one foot reserve, being Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159, as part of the public highway, Sherman’s Point Road and adopted the following resolution:
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 82 of 143 RESOLUTION #21/16: Cole & Kaiser That the Council receive for information the Community & Corporate Services - By-law to Designate Two Parts of the One Foot Reserve Adjacent to Sherman’s Point Road as a Public Highway report; And further that Council instruct staff to proceed with the required process including public notice to dedicate two parts of the one foot reserve adjacent to Sherman’s Point Road, being Part of Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159, as a public highway. CARRIED
Discussion The purpose of the dedication is to provide entrances access from Sherman’s Point Road across the one foot (0.30 metre) reserve for a proposed single family dwelling and a machine shed on the property, described as Part 2 on Plan 29R-2748 (See attached Reference Plan and map below with subject property outlined in red). The locations of the proposed entrances have been approved by the Public Works Supervisor.
Staff from the Clerk’s and Planning Department have responded to inquiries and met with residents regarding this matter. Some of the main inquiries and/or issues raised to staff include the following: . Why is the entrance for the shed needed when there is existing access at the south of the property? . Some residents are away for the winter, and it was questioned if the by-law could be deferred until their return.
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 83 of 143 . There was not a lot of notice. . The road is a private road for use by residents of the subdivision only. . Clarification regarding what dedicating parts of the one foot reserve as the public highway means. . Are there other development plans for the property? . What is the permitted land use for the property? . The intent of Block 24 in the Subdivision Agreement was that no access could be granted across it and that it be kept intact. . Increased traffic and noise
Given the issues raised from residents, Town staff provide the following:
Issue Information Response Traffic In consultation with the Town’s consulting engineer, the average daily trip rate on a weekday for a single family home is 6 trips.
Intent was to have no The Town’s solicitor has advised the following: access across Block 24 “The Town clearly owns both the road and the reserve. The Reserve is not dedicated as a public highway and therefore no person has the right to travel upon it. The reason municipalities take reserves is to control the development of the adjacent parcel. The Town can grant access to the reserve for purposes of development and typically the access is granted by making a portion of the reserve part of the public highway (dedication by-law with an R-Plan showing the exact location of the entrance).
Whether there were discussions about blocking access to adjacent lands at the time of approval or not, there is nothing in the agreement or on title to prevent the Town from granting access now.”
Defer the by-law until Town has received comments via email from residents that some residents return are currently out of the country (see attached emails from from the south Bob and Linda Roberts and Leanne and Michael McQuaid).
There was not a lot of Minimum notice requirements were exceeded. Staff notice provided public notice in the Town’s newspaper column for three weeks being January 21st, January 28th and February 4th and posted the notice on the Town’s web site for two weeks. Staff further provided personal notice (mailed January 19, 2016) to adjacent property owners on Sherman’s Point Road to ensure that residents were aware of the proposal.
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 84 of 143 Issue Information Response Proposed Development The property is approximately 83 acres in area and is of the Property currently zoned Rural (RU).
The residential uses permitted in the RU zone are; ● a single detached dwelling house ● existing converted dwelling house ● group home ● home occupation or home industry
The non-residential uses permitted are: ● asphalt plant, portable ● cemetery (existing) ● conservation and forestry uses ● equestrian centre ● estate winery accessory to an agricultural use ● farm winery accessory to an agricultural use ● farm ● farm produce sales outlet ● kennel ● nursery farm ● place of worship ● public and/or private park ● public use in accordance with the general provisions of this bylaw ● school ● wayside pit or quarry, and a portable asphalt plant as an accessory use to a permitted wayside pit or quarry.
Currently, the Building Department has received an application for the construction of a machine shed on the proposed property. The proposed machine shed is a permitted use on the property.
Street “A” on Plan 1159 Registered Plan 1159, registered in April 1984 dedicates (Sherman’s Point Street “A” as a public highway (See attached Registered Road) is a Private Plan 1159). Road for Use by Residents in Subdivision Only
Access should be This would require building a road across the 83 acre granted from another property. point on Sherman’s Point Road
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 85 of 143 Additionally, email correspondence from the following residents, who requested that their comments be presented to Council members, has been attached to this report: . Lynn and Doug Burnett . Ann and Bruce Carmichael . Martha Downey and Cecil Leonard (See attachment with Deputation) . Karla Maki-Esdon and Graham Esdon (See attachment with Deputation) . Erich and Linda Frei . Ann and Andrew Gonsalves . Reg and Penny Hollis . Tracey and Jim Hoyle . Raviinder Singh Johal . Murray and Joanne Kellogg . Laura and Bill Lee (Email attachment with Deputation) . Ralston and Sandra McPherson . Leanne and Michael McQuaid . Janice and Joe Morrow . Louis Nagy . Bob and Linda Roberts . Rosemary Selzer and Richard Dubord . Bruno Simard and Josée DeMenezes . Rhonda and Keith Sharland . Tom and Pat Stevens
The property owner consented for Town staff to provide his email address to residents in order that he could respond directly to questions, and subsequently scheduled an in- person meeting with residents on Saturday, January 30, 2016. The property owner has also provided a response to concerns raised (Presented as a Deputation to Council) and additional information is also published on the following web site at http://constantia.ca.
After reviewing the proposal, the subdivision agreement and plan, the public comments and all information provided to the Town for the proposed use of the land, staff feels it is reasonable to dedicate the two parts of Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 29R-10331 (See attached Reference Plan), as part of the public highway being Sherman’s Point Road, and would therefore recommend that Council adopt the required by-law as presented.
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 86 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 87 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 88 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 89 of 143 .,bflLL,
Susan Bethel
LJIIII Sent: February-02-166:28PM To: SusanBeckel Subject: Proposed bylawon Shermans
Dear Ms Beckel;
Could you please ensure that every councillor, the deputy mayor and mayor receive a copy of this email.
My husband and Iare registered owners of lot 19, 488 Shermans Point Rd. Councilis currently considering a proposed bylaw to allow access at two points along Block24.
My neighbours have already stated many reasons why this bylaw needs to be defeated. We as well believe that Block24 needs to remain intact so it may continue to protect our road, privacy, property values and all the enjoyment that livingon Shermans Point Rd,which ends in a cul de sac, brings.
We respectfully ask you to defeat this bylaw.
Lynnand Doug Burnett
1
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 90 of 143 Susan Beckel
From: dedadais Sent February-03-168:42 PM To: Susan Beckel Cc: MaxKaiser;GibGarrett ‘LauraLee’;‘Ann& Andrew’;‘Anna& Ravi’;‘Dan& Ingrid’; ‘Janiceand Joe’;‘Joanne & Murray’;‘Karla& Graham’;‘Leanne& Mike’;‘Linda& Bob; ‘Linda& Erich’;‘Louis’;‘Lynn& Doug’;‘Marlene& Bill’;‘Martha& Cecil’;‘Pat & Tom’; ‘Penny& Reg’;‘Rhonda& Keith’;‘Rosemary& Richard’;‘Sandy& Mac’;‘Tracey& Jim’ Subject: Proposed bi-lawamendment to Street A Plan 1159 Part B
HiSusan,
Mywife and I purchase lots of Plan 1159 AinJune 2014 with plans to build our retirement home. I understand that the new owners, ACXIZand Constatia Agri(the Burgers),have applied for a bi-lawamendment to gain access to Lot 24 Plan 1159 from Street A. We are opposed to this proposed bi-lawchange for the followingreasons.
Lot24 was established in 1984 to separate the subdivision, Lots1 through 23 of Plan 1159 zoned Shoreline Residential and Street A,from Part Bof Plan 1159 Lot24 which remained zoned rural. Areserve was established surrounding Lot 24 around the North and East sides of Street Aas part of the establishment of the subdivision know as Lots1 through 23 Plan 1159 Plan Ato separate the subdivisionfrom the remaining RuralLot24 Plan 1159 B. Asothers have pointed out Street Awas built for the sole use of Lots1 through 23 and the costs of constructing said Street Aare reflected in the purchase prices of our lots. Allowingthis bi-lawamendment would remove some of the conditions that were required for the establishment of the subdivisionon the west side of Street A.
Lot24 of Plan 1159 already has over 350 feet of access to the “old’ Sherman’s point road at the south end of the property. The portion of Lot24 North of Lot23 with shoreline access has remained intact to prevent any it from becoming land locked. Accessto Lot24 should remain from the old Sherman’s Point Road. Thisallows access to Lot24 without breaking the continuous reserve surrounding Lot24 along Street Athat was conditional of forming the subdivision (Lots1 through 23).
Ifthis bi-lawchange is accepted it would be unfair to the existing residents of Plan 1159 A(Lots1 through 23) for council and the municipalityof Greater Napanee to allow Lot24 to remain zoned Rural. Should council elect to support this bi law change council should also change the zoning of Lot24 to Shoreline Residential,to align with every other property that has access to Street A,as a condition of changing this existing bi-law.
We ask that council not support this by-lawchange.
Ann and BruceCarmichael, LotS Plan 1159 Greater Napanee
1
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 91 of 143 Susan Beckel
From: LindaFrei < : Sent: February-02-1610:24AM To: SusanBeckel Subject: proposed bylawchange ShermansPointRd
Regarding: Proposed bylaw to assume additional lands (part of block 24 on registered plan 1159) Sherman’s Point Road.
Dear Ms. Beckel!
Please present a copy of this email to each counselor and mayor. We purchased last year in May 2015 Lot#8 on Sherman’s Point Rd. and are currently building our retirement home at that location.
Lookingfor a quiet, calm and private environment we found (we thought) our ideal subdivision on water to spend our golden years.
Very little traffic, noise and pollution made our decision easy to buy lot #8.
With the additional insurance of bylaw and agreement of subdivision #1159 preventing access to the land across from our property we were assured that our road will be quiet and no farming or commercial traffic.
The proposed change to this bylaw is for us a betrayal. We are totally against the proposed change and please keep and preserve its integrity by leaving Block24 intact.
Thank you very much for your help.
Respectfully yours. Erich and Linda Frei
1
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 92 of 143 Susan Beckel
From: Sent February-01-16 1:45 PM To: SusanBeckel Subject: Proposed by-lawto assume additionallands (part of Block24 on RegisteredPlan1159) Shermans Point Road
Ms. Beckel,
Kindlypresent a copyof this email to each Councillor.
We are residents of 408 Shermans Point Road, a property which we purchased in 1984. A major part of our decision to spend our “golden years” here was based on the conditions of Block24, being a part of the Bonds subdivision and which assured us of the private and quiet lifestyle we sought, with very little traffic, noise and pollution.
Part lots 24 to 26 (part 2) on Plan 29R-2748 already has 643 meters of frontage on the old Shermans Point Road, to allow AcxizInc. access to their property, without violating the Agreement of Subdivision 1159.
When Charles and Marjorie Bonds created subdivision 1159, Block24 was carefully designed and intended to benefit the township of Adolphustown, (now Greater Napanee] and the Bonds, and now deferred to the new owners on Sherman’s Point Road, Plan 1159. This reserve was intended to prevent access from street A, to Part 2 on Plan 29R-2748, owned by AcxizInc.
It would be a total betrayal and injustice to us and the other residents of subdivision 1159 if the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee was to adopt a by-law for Parts land 2 of Block24 to become part of the public highway, known as Sherman’s Point Road.
We respectfully ask that Council honors Subdivision Agreement 1159 in its entirety, preserving its integrity by leaving parts of Block24 intact and the purpose for which it was intended.
We respectfully oppose adopting a by-law to dedicate and assume additional lands, being Part of Block24 on Registered Plan 1159, to be part of a public highway known as Sherman’s Point Road.
Ann and Andrew Gonsalves
1
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 93 of 143
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa...
be
We/ To:
distressed privacy because
only this until Subject:
subdivision Point
more Sent: Susan
rrom:
honoured
by-law
Reg
a
than
Road.
later
Beckel
&
roadway
600
Penny
date
agreement
We
and
meters
request
to
street
Hollis
investigate
of
to
A
that
accessible
are
be
1159
accessed
this
current
all believe [email protected] penny Proposed
Susan February-O1-16
proposed
facts
road residents
Beckel; by
hoVis
the
and frontage
changes
subdivision
by-law
intent impacts
4:47
of lot Block
-
already pertaining
PM
also
this 10 24
1
on
agreement
because We
Registered
to
street
access
to oppose -
Max
block
A
many
with
per property Kaiser;
Plan
heavy
24
registered
residents respect
1159 on
Block
machinery
registered
we
to
are
plan
24
block
as
away.
limits
a
plan 1159
Page 94 of 143
and
current
24
traffic
noise
We
1159
on
known
the
party
are
be
on
and
plan
opposed
as
put
an
to
provides
Sherman
already
should
aside
there
to is Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... 446 K7R Napanee, Road O_ORQERNII4aBXLA3LCHANGE Shermans 3K8 Ontario Point All we were personnel and community outdoor-loving resale, allow allowed would adaptive staff scale, another subdivision for Councillor Shermans Councillor family Child assumed Councillor Councillor height In Councillor fairness Deputy Mayor February In 2004, response three our are built are totally us Development from we impact and Cord that severely now Mayor local being to children required to after housing. home 1,2016 as would and Carol Shaune Michael Roger Max Point
all TO bathrooms include we a through plan absorbed approaching to Schermerhorn part side location. parties. four us walks in Marg family public would
with BLOCK Kaiser disabled Harvey and Road. have our living and to Cole of road years Schenk Lucas our Centre the Sherman’s remain extensive Isbester around the daughters was ask notice be to by Should here which wheelchair This in neighbourhood, of consider quiet and able us
retirement, 24 rural that very and careful in have was as the of
totalled medically ON the to you road adaptations cul-de-sac Napanee difficult proposed parents Napanee Point neighbourhood. caae, recoup necessitated benefitted home
a REGISTERED.2LAN dependent planning consider traffic move, we well Road, Community to fragile and attending would our local to find. suppliers additional increase over road to likely custom with greatly how ft funds we grading, would public daughter The daughter. by a be was to detail the years to A our her unable for house another Living and from relatively designed now respond lands key team schools, be long most with framing, how worth builders, with unlikely in We being or Lennox was to to at term our the in the municipality, adaptations. 1150 researched fund level be Page 95 of 143 the in Hotel of and future high a decision. engaged only the floor change commitment our dedicated in custom activities we lot and a built the schools, Dieu interest exception similar salary to space, relocated which Addington. event a home in Hospital Her the in to designed commercial Given of this and the The rebuild find of would medical garage of our nursing to at bylaw our costs that care 446 in The networks that have been established for our daughter withinthe community would be almost impossible to transplant to another location. They constitute the main ingredient to her quality of life.
Recently, new owners of Part 2 on Plan 29R-2748 have communicated a range of plans for the adjoining property. Due to the variation in owner-supplied information, there is no reliableway for us to gauge the scale of the proposed development and thus the volume and types of vehicles which would access the cul-de-sac. Therefore, for us! there is no way of predicting the extent of the negative impact on our familyand the nursing staff employed to offer support withinour home.
The existing quiet road that may benefit others is a necessity for us. We do not support the change in the bylaw and call on council to uphold the conditions of Part 24 of Registered Plan 1159.
Sincerely,
Tracey and Jim Hoyle
Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 96 of 143 Susan Beckel
From: Ravi(Rj) HelloSusan Iwish to express my disagreement with the adoption of by-lawto dedicate and assume additional lands, being part of Block24 on registered plan 1159 and parts 1 & 2 mailed on draft received. Surelythe town is fullyaware of AcxizInc. intention to create and manufacture fertilizer(as per website). Thisis a residential area from County Rd9 along Sherman’s Point Rdto the cut-de-sac To allow commercial traffic in a residential area is fundamentally wrong and immoral . There must be an awareness that manufacturing of fertilizer is Hazardous to the environment as well as dangerous to well-being of residence with E.M.S(OPP,Fire,Ambulance) services such a distance away. Anydecision made must be inthe best inherent and well-being of the residence especially for my family and myself. RaviinderSinghJohal 398 Sherman’s point road -- — - I Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 97 of 143 Susan Beckel From: - - — Sent: February-01-163:56 PM To: Susan Beckel Subject: Re:Sherman’spoint road proposed by law Please note that in my email Ireferred to block A,when Ishould have said block24. Please change this before presenting to councilor mayor, thanks. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 1, 2016, at 2:03 PM,Susan Beckel > Susan Beckel,BBA,AMCT,Dipl.M.M., > Clerk > Town of Greater Napanee - Community &Corporate Services >12 Market Square, Napanee, ON ICR1J3 Tel : 613-354-3351 ext. 2014 > > >Thise-mail contains CONFIDENTIALINFORMATION.Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this e-mail do not disseminate, copy or use this e-mail. > Ifyou have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you. > OriginalMessage > From:Joanne kellogg[mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: February-01-16 1:36 PM > To: Susan Beckel 1 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 98 of 143 > >Thankyou. > > Murray and Joanne Kellogg > > >Sent from my Pad > >Sent from my iPad 2 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 99 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... considered Town concerned, We February application, agree. residents addition The To: Ralston In purchased bylaw agreement. the property considering to before In concerned Subject: have increase individual Sent alteration is We Please From: Susan as entertain closing the applicant are are fact relevant purchased unfortunate Council the We change be residents opposed Beckel in the in from concerned) 9,2016 & of we town the or advised from see usage imperative vehicular with this it it applicant, Sandra this organisation. may today, would initially is property. the to no as their application. to Street hoped regards sub at do at on to original grounds not and proposed dedicate Lot# and least the as so a respectfully division should property traffic, McPherson find commercial that as we A, or it that would To by-law to relay was 14,460 25% they his is would Sherman’s these whatsoever Council Might the put they and woefully not In noise representatives pertaining at for are on indicate of on existence fact, it assume its application take access will hope Sherman’s residents ever point bluntly, the must duty our and Susan sandy SHERMAN’S PROPOSED February-01-16 or inception. take we defer precedence basis agricultural inadequate Point to behalf the air an giving bound out not points would additional cognisance of the to McPherson Beckel any unreasonable pollution. unlikely affected the this to be the part Road Point detriment failed as the to Council such to permitted The commensurate ADDITIONAL protection be sub matter we POINT do. each of over Town reasoning appalled (NOT vehicle Road lands goal 3:40 firmly event considerations divisions to as Block of The In do that per till council any of this RD. addition Council PM disregard posts to Napanee, street being granting their that Block the May basis believe Plan of justification if supersede 24, important to LANDS 1 Town agreement the daily Council must with due provide ‘A’) part of Plan member can 1159 24 “Street that applicant this of that for are diligence part his life affords. not Council of only and TO this the will 1159. the right. fact. year not Block are the needs any of of be A’ for BE is and applicant be and application spirit be the the the giving moved intent some just DEDICATED and as is granting We to entertained prior out the should 24. We already residents Plan the at problem the ification and we see 2000 restraints the of of have serious by Mayor, to detriment already believe 1159 the the purpose no time this have the Council as in feet some reason of country/vacation sub concerned, AND a whatsoever a this purchase as application consideration of precedent the been poor for of that has any division pertains the of application of sympathy ASSUMED road residents at Page 100 of 143 access that two the reasonable considered state all we scheduled the of frontage. users original our regarding access are behest for to would agreement of and the to the situation with on repair to opposed the the AS of beyond property and as approve points application street meeting person of before ensure the sub PART Town property stated The the its the any and road. Plan division applicant. it (that ‘A’, fact inevitable to OF to Council one he would any the for this his the 1159 that who of the the Susan Beckel From: Leanne McQuaid Sent: February-0346 8:12 AM To: Susan Beckel Subject: Proposed by-law to assume additional lads (part of Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159) Shermans Point Road Ms. Beckel, We would like this email forwarded to each Councillor for Town of Greater Napanee. re are current residents of Lot 21 on Street A per Reg’d PLan1159commonly known as Shermans Point Road. As we are currentlyout of the CounLry,we would like to request and recommend that all considerations of this proposed by-law be deferred until May 2016 so that all fads maybe brought to the table and all concerned panics have an opportunity to present to Council. We are opposed to the proposed by law because: There is more than 600 meters of accessible road frontage on Shermans Point Road available to the owners to use to access their property, We, as a current party to Subdivision Agreement 1159, believe that the intent of this Agreement with respect to Block 24 on the Plan should not be altered or changed in any way and Street A be accessed by sub-division residents only. We hope that our request for the deferment of Council to discuss this proposed by-law will be granted. Sincerely, Leanne and Michael McQuaid 502 Shermans Point Road Napanee, Ontario 1 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 101 of 143 Susan Beckel I—.—.—— It.,’.,. Jo’ iflUi p UVV — Sent: February-02-167:43 PM To: Susan Beckel Subject: Block24, Plan 1159 We are residents of Lot9,430 Sherman’s Point Rd. We purchased our home in 2004 believingit to be in a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood with little traffic; an ideal place to safely walk our dogs. We are opposed to the bylaw change proposed pertaining to Block24, Plan 1159. Respectfully, Janice &Joe Morrow 1 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 102 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 103 of 143 Susan Beckel From: Boband Linda Sent: January-27-16 8:41 PM To: Susan Beckel Subject: Proposed By-Law Re Shermans Point Road Please present a copy of this email to each Council member. We are current residents of Lot 17on Street A per Regd Plan 1159 commonly known as Shermans Point Road. We vil1 be nut of the Country and therefore unable to attend the meeting on February 9,2016 to voice our concerns. etc. Many of our neighbours will also be out of the country in Februan and March. We respectfully request and recommend that all considerations olthis proposed by-law be put aside unLilMay 2016 so that due diligence may be exercised , all facts and impacts may be brought to the table and all concerned parties have an opportunity to present to Council. We are opposed to the proposed by law because: - of the traflie it would create all along our street - of Lhenoise and air pollution of heavy machinery it would create all along our street, - there is more than 600 meters of accessible road frontage on Shermans Point Road available to the owners to use to access their property, - we, as a current party to Subdivision Agreement 1159. believe that the intent of this Agreement with respect to Block 24 on the Plan should be honoured, and Street A be accessed by sub-division residents only. - these new entrances will eliminate the very reasons we purchased our property namely, lack of traffic and the privacy that Block 24 provides. Bob and Linda Roberts 1 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 104 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... To: The A”. We Subject: Sent current Greater applicant Sherman’s Sent: afforded With In our and purchase Please From: Rosemary Susan view purchased properties Such the integrity from all present of and Beckel due protection Napanee when a of currently this Mail Seizer Point proposed future the respect, of we our here the the for Subdivision property Road and on strongly Windows property owners following indenture of has to November change due Richard the are begin over in diligence Subdivision opposed urge of Agreement question as 2000 with. 10 to would Dubord was Lots retirees the council 23, feet signed Susan SHERMAN’S PROPOSED February-02-16 rosemary 1 was to Mayor forever 1983. through and Agreement the of to for 1159 obviously Beckel accessible between all negate bylaw To and it’s affect seizer the 23 must grant ADDITIONAL location; Council PDINT on bylaws change the 1159. not all 8:59 Charles not “Road the roadway — residents proposed conducted ROAD AM be members proposed namely pertaining regarding A”. compromised and LANDS 1 to - of Marjorie the changes meet - by that “Street changes to Part TO dead the Part their we BE of representative(s) to Bonds and end A” as DEDICATED Block of would Registered needs owners and must Block cul-de-sac, and 24 deny be without maintain 24 on the and a AND on gross us Registered Plan Township residents all privacy, Registered of granting ASSUMED 1159. the the transgression Page 105 of 143 Acxiz protected reasons serenity, Plan of Inc. of access Adolphustown, Plan Lot AS prior 1159. we 16, PART 1159. against from status lack to purchased 470 the OF of “Street The traffic now Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... We To: Sent The Subject: Susan Cc: safeguard character, Ms. From; traffic greater surrounding proposed this were changes. ago. Sherman’s Our the interest neighboring My some limited the this concerns consultations There not consideration concessions led have standards creates note submission to are land potential also Beckel, by-law. proposed by-law. property that During had protected of the onto is Beckel lots residents neighbourhood a and concerned our more transfer require potential little We the by-law creation provided for designation, Point a of the properties, concern For Also, it properties. neighbours. street on impacts have Street municipality on of by-law residential than is time to in this negotiation about Sherman’s the Rd, this tax affecting of more you as title, of purchased additional an and to to which 358 “A’ reason, and elaborated that by-law. into matter, is the of today the issue prepare to time usage, not and and impacted and Sherman’s disruptions in I there clientele. was sub-division the I grant submit community was Sherman’s can am Plan just Point were the of were to process, is I or matter am costs paid a and sure relative quality request intended should a Susan February-02-16 Bruiiu be Proposed [email protected] and of property 1159 overall simply later response. to surprised satisfied Rd citizens. advised elaborated concern limitations recently. that Point to We has you are is too. Beckel Sirnwd we were in Point are of be not by to facing more defeat traffic are this no further Greater that by-law and life effected after the Road, the borne not The by be that to commensurate obligation I that Rd. concerned For submission, • have for Any transparence designed we our existence a call the 6:18 clearly, residents of easy on this nature verification relative presumption the this a reasons Please by residents we Napanee the negotiated Sherman’s additional legal for property property learnt a PM ill-conceived -. every matters road title have reason, community comments with to of to to representative that present 1 of of to search of in grant. the the lands taxpayer not be of Block has Plan that due which front that with from the requests to the usage I and Point residential. proposed Sherman’s lack that received request near our research proposed This considerations a 1159. the and proposed would proposal. the 24. issued the of and purchased copy of we other -- name Road of in Sherman’s our character information were is intended a developer Greater purchased street the that further The as deferral a of be by-law by property on neighbours Point leading Letter and to this by-law shown road securing by-law Greater The Greater surrounding short the “A” a Point address email Napanee. property and use reason Road, changes from onto of circumstances as in nature results to less about through would notice, plans would this it consideration at nature Rd the Napanee Napanee a to stands on Greater the as the than Page 106 of 143 new to on request, each proposed the this and and the the partly in residents be request potential bring The time, and file word of means two direct today, to proposed character proposed dead-end status surveys Councillor. the with Napanee in should the engineering serve based and non-residential which months and consideration of community of to usage community of areas have respect impacts including mouth of terms the differ you of access the extend on was of by-law use road as of an of the will existing the which did and and to of by are the the a of Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... submission proposed not Greater considerations more concern does whether becomes proposed consideration obligation new consideration re-zoning. resolving to building permitted permit The property delivered been considering could decisions, property, and uses. verifying affect building by under One standards contention precluded even block division much meant requirements the the get proposed anchored posting should not adequate consider information 24 potentially From all higher building the residents might to approval Napanee. for developper permit the he specify owner not the that a residents by-law for agri-industrial but serve to without use protection of may We blind that that oversight would a consider in on road adopt been the matter, a if have perspective rather of the be the for the by-law under that which have permit). property, the for a expose has there mostly was the any commitment the if of does given road devalue property were the There property is character context it voluntarily created a been distance of use lots the been Block required to cost were view and proposed seeking seems creation the that it may that does by Greater construction is not required. avoid to of would Greater factored lightweight proposed in great use It could considered the the existing and of considered the of the the the of 24 considered Plan also the open is of owner’s to not suited to the to the as my of local Township municipal partners as piece-meal a before I or prevent proposed cost road local define danger therefore Napanee, and road be be have a by-law be large seem the 1159. entertained residential Napanee part the comprehension greater modification street, and It zoning, a framing by-law, Cataraqui of the a of is community. had of residents’ vehicles request website was door no facilitating differently of the plan, concern passed possible or to (the the in the Indeed, for as and intended further of planning, the knowledge not had restrict be by-law. for approving, for be activities an by-law decisions. the to road to an Adolphustown I road relative and and reduce suggest a road sub-division wise their been for by open the for refers the other additional Conservation on simple agri-industrial nebulous for that properties. of the uses. known anchoring we the were public a the had instrument to use. benefit could property and A from ponds, for The the any use, limited limited and costs being opposition order are actions, the to clearer the developer, whether that wide-ranging in the request In Greater Opening the specified Cataraqui proposed proposed a by transparent road piecemeal a as concerned be consideration lot cost 2 costs conversion intended of description incurred marches, Greater by-law plan considered. and Street building virtue to residential in considered. conditions in owners intended Authority, a including status of for business. this a question the single to for timing Napanee was document to up the or in future grant been of Conservation by-law “A” by-law dead-end roadbed property it. Napanee block use by other an steps, standards that a possible or of which road Block development property of means In (Sherman’s that of the agreement use sub-division. the tied water re-zoning that of a proposed which While I land been actions light we Without to hear the 24 right in destroys unstated would the a developper 24 may dated would subdivision. was to differ Greater rehabilitation. development setbacks for Greater are could residential future for to requests of bodies, which facing that land the the should for of bought facilitate recently limit use Authority. possible asked that use have applications. way 23-November-1983. consideration earlier this open the Point use change (indenture) the possibly a leads uses, plan that uses protected Napanee a by The building Napanee the may which considered be for roadbed information street been of Page 107 of 143 are recently, of to intended waterfowl the Rd) development. These for read was consulted. for to of to cost could the further exacting the comment accessing be plan in such This It ask the giving stage a fear was much would everyone vocation at land, to subdivision deliberately is permit property. and on should between is costs their which have may the It the that our added rural the possibly of of protection, borne under avenues a would is to technical higher engineering consideration and such the website, the a becomes time petitioner my opinion on a detriment have the investment other were watershed Also, was request land, specific be may might the cost by-law by-law. vaguely piecemeal It indirectly no One that the Greater have building that without for had is recently been for any borne future or before would my sub that that may and be the a for the may the of A a a Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... 358 visible a The zoned the We considered contention Bruno rehabilitation. agreement community broad 24 24 neighbouring Rd. Let interests requestor, becomes by-law Block property Napanee virtual essentially by it condition respectfully Sherman’s sub-divisiuri be 24 itself interests Simard residential than is fence. known was of via only has necessary for that that might erecting the does a public created little physical residents. and and is one whom Point of residents that When farming testament when ask ul not would not access Josée all of to road. Plan for that a we the Road the stand Greater gain to be physical fence, Block one Greater respectfully prevent 1159 equipment De not Greater In one taxpayers steps of of In in considers to view to Menezes his Plan commonly 24 access adopting and day the Napanee was gain fence in property. was Napanee of other Napanee 1159, should sufficient a fact created overall objections development in a created and oppose onto to street Greater that the access, and is used purchase machinery be to now The by-law, from Block24 preserve the in to also considered which as resolve the terms, a prevent of inconvenience Napanee considering and sub-division a manner the the adoption specific neighbouring plan a and was had also property, were change he on other Block which it access. 3 intended he knew that his to to which has block not 24 of even have prevent residents a behalf, and in does by-law, much is the or of the to of the could for The not residents, contemplated more the should Plan a use for proposed existence not property proposed at protection, to other being Block Township Street residential like does be the 1159 lose, ieave significance have held us expense uses, viewed 24 it already intact, in “A” by-law of owner of appears parcels by-law. was known accountable consideration Sherman’s and block of that in in access. Adolphustown conceived or that thereby Plan of have than affecting the is the land-locked. considered that at 24 taxpayers Page 108 of 143 not a owner 1159. the on full mere a The property a the physical Point for protecting matter a time access that and Sherman’s title inception overall existence the It may and Rd, is as of designed were this search which Ihe cost my fence. which to a even purchase, and whole. proposed his the in of of Point of also is have is road Block to not Block more the be Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Page 109 of 143 Community & Corporate Services Re: By-law to Dedicate Two Pa... Thank Tom than This Survey We 24 We and Subject:Proposed To: Marjorie proposed Please Sent: LotlS, Susan Subject: From: Susan From: Date:2016-02-02 on wish respectfully create message To:Susan and those Registered you Beckel present Plan Beckel records Original Bond to Pat would for unwanted in inform 1159. Stevens Plan is your and - Beckel a indicate oppose clerk - Message from copy Plan bylaw 1159. Council Adolphustown devalue consideration 12:57 traffic Thomas of 1159 adopting Block this that our to email Stevens Susan February-02-16 Fwd: 24, be we property a Township part Plan are Proposed bylaw to Beckel Mayor of opposed and 1159 - a to lessen public Patricia to bylaw dedicate 3:32 Schermerhorn was prevent to PM the highway legally any Keech-Stevens 1 and continued road change put assume known and access in to place enjoyment each any as Block to , residents Sherman’s by member Block additional 24, then of A Plan owners from our at of Pt lands 466 1159. council. Page 110 of 143 quiet Rd. any Sherman’s Charles being neighbourhood property The changes Part and other Pt of Rd Block Staff Report to Council To: Mayor Schermerhorn and Members of Council Date: February 9th, 2016 Prepared By: John Koenig, Assistant Fire Chief/Fleet Manager Presented By: John Koenig, Assistant Fire Chief/Fleet Manager Re: Infrastructure Services (Roads) - Fleet – Purchase of New Back-hoe Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Infrastructure Services (Roads) – Fleet – Purchase of New Back-hoe report; And further that Council authorize the purchase of one (1) new 2016 Back-hoe to replace an existing 14 year old Back-hoe from Hartington Equipment of Hartington, Ontario as a cost of $130,712.31. Financial Implications $130,712.31 from the Fleet and Equipment Reserve Accessibility Implications This report may be available in alternate format upon request. Information Technology Implications After review it was determined that there are no information technology implications. Energy Management Implications After a review it was determined there are no Energy Management Implications. Background Information Infrastructure Roads existing Back-hoe is slated for replacement this year as set out in the Town’s 2015 – 2018 Fleet Replacement Plan. The Back-hoe, which is 14 years old has reached the end of its operational usefulness do to its age, wear and tear and increasingly extensive repairs and maintenance. Infrastructure Services (Roads) - Fleet Re: Purchase of New ... Page 111 of 143 The Back-hoe is a key piece of equipment for Infrastructure Roads that is used during all seasons. Including but not limited to; ditching, culvert replacement, road building, sidewalk and curb work, loading of trucks, snow plowing and snow removal, beaver dam control, and tree planting. The Back-hoe is also used to assist the other Town departments with repairs and projects as required. Discussion The following is the result of the RFP submitted by the Dealers for the back-hoe requested; Dealer & Model Price Recommended Toromont – Caterpillar $137,568.50 420 F2IT Nortrax – John Deere $137,454.05 310 SL Hartington Equipment - Case $130,712.31 X 580 Super N John’s Equipment - JCB Did Not Respond Respectfully Submitted John Koenig, Assistant Fire Chief Infrastructure Services (Roads) - Fleet Re: Purchase of New ... Page 112 of 143 Staff Report to Council To: Mayor Schermerhorn and Members of Council Date: February 9, 2016 Prepared By: Tara Bruce, Admin Assistant Mark Day, Director of Finance Peter Dafoe, General Manager of Infrastructure Services Presented By: Peter Dafoe, General Manager of Infrastructure Services Mark Day, Director of Finance Re: Infrastructure Services (Utilities) - 2014 - 2021 Financial Plan for the Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System Staff Recommendation: That Council receive for information the Infrastructure Services (Utilities) – 2014 - 2021 Financial Plan for the Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System; And further that Council approve the 2014-2021 Financial Plan for Town of Greater Napanee Drinking Water System as presented. Financial Implications Upon review, there are no financial implications. Although the increase in revenue projections are estimated @ 2% from 2016 to 2021 inclusive, the Financial Plan is simply a working document that can be amended at any point in time. Council still reserves the right to set user rates as required and control expenditures based upon the current and future needs of the community. Accessibility Implications This report may be available in alternate format upon request. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, Ontario Regulation 453/07, 5. The owner of the drinking water system must, I. make the financial plans available, on request, to members of the public who are served by the drinking water system without charge, II. make the financial plans available to members of the public without charge through publication on the Internet, if the owner maintains a website on the Internet, and III. provide notice advising the public of the availability of the financial plans under subparagraphs i and ii, if applicable, in a manner that, in the opinion of the Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 113 of 143 owner, will bring the notice to the attention of members of the public who are served by the drinking water system. 6. The owner of the drinking water system must give a copy of the financial plans to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (after Council approval). Information Technology Implications Upon review, there are no information technology implications. Energy Management Implications Upon review, there are no energy management implications. Background Information Through the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (the Province), and under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002/Ontario Regulation 453/07, an approved (by Council resolution) Financial Plan is one (1) of the five (5) requirements a municipality must meet in order to receive a Licence to operate and manage a municipal drinking water system. A financial plan is simply the Province’s approach to promoting financial sustainability by placing an emphasis on the importance of long-term capital planning and asset management. The Town of Greater Napanee’s Municipal Drinking Water Licence is set to expire on August 24, 2016, and has a renewal submission deadline of February 21, 2016. Upon successful renewal the licence would be in effect for another five (5) year period. The attached plan includes both the Napanee and Sandhurst Shores drinking water systems, including in ground infrastructure, but please note that the current plan does not include waste water treatment or it’s related in ground infrastructure. Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 114 of 143 Summary of Financial Plan Requirements a) approved by resolution of Council b) available to the public c) must apply to a period of at least six (6) years d) total financial assets e) total liabilities f) net debt g) non-financial assets that are tangible capital assets, tangible capital assets under construction, inventory of supplies and prepaid expenses h) changes in tangible capital assets that are additions, donations, write downs and disposals i) total revenues, further itemized by water rates, user charges and other revenues j) total expenses, further itemized by amortization expenses, interest expenses and other expenses k) annual surplus or deficit l) accumulated surplus or deficit m) capital transactions that are proceeds on the sale of tangible capital assets and cash used to acquire capital assets n) investing transactions that are acquisitions and disposal of investments o) financing transactions that are proceeds from the issuance of debt and debt repayment p) changes in cash and cash equivalents during the year q) cash and cash equivalents at the beginning and end of the year Discussion The attached Financial Plan commenced in 2014 in order to balance with the most current FIR report available. The plan extends to 2021 in order to comply with O.Reg 453/07. The first year of the plan commences in the year in which the drinking water system’s existing municipal drinking water licence would otherwise expire (2016). The attached plan indicates a 2% annual rate increase to water rates but please note that staff will continue to strive for 0% or the lowest increase possible. The 2010 - 2016 plan projected a 6% rate increase in consecutive years, but staff were able to present a balanced budget with rate increases as low as 2%. Summary The attached 2014 - 2021 Financial Plan is simply the product of the Province’s approach to promoting financial sustainability by placing an emphasis on the importance of long-term capital planning and asset management. The plan is one (1) of the five (5) requirements our municipality must meet in order to receive a Municipal Drinking Water Licence to operate and manage our residential drinking water systems. Financial plans are approved by resolution of Council and simply received by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Financial Plan is a working document that will be used during future budget preparations but in no way restricts Council’s authority to deviate as required. Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 115 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 116 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 117 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 118 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 119 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 120 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 121 of 143 Infrastructure Services (Utilities) Re: 2014-2021 Financial ... Page 122 of 143 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE BY-LAW NO. 2016-0009 Being a By-law to Dedicate and Assume Two Parts of the 0.30 metre (1 foot) Reserve being Part of Block 24, Registered Plan 1159, as Part of the Public Highway known as Sherman’s Point Road WHEREAS Section 27(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws in respect of a highway over which it has jurisdiction; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee is the registered owner of those lands, being: . Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159 as a 0.30 metre (1 foot) reserve; and . the public highway, known as Sherman’s Point Road; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee deems it expedient to dedicate and assume two parts of Block 24 on Registered Plan 1159 as a public highway; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee enacts as follows: 1. That the lands described in Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of this By- law are hereby dedicated and assumed as part of the public highway known as Sherman’s Point Road. 2. That this by-law shall take effect once a certified copy has been registered in the Land Titles Division for the Land Registry Office of Lennox (No. 29). Read a first and second time and finally passed this 9th day of February, 2016. ______Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor ______Susan Beckel, Clerk By-law No. 2016-0009 - To Dedicate and Assume Two Parts of t... Page 123 of 143 SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW NO. 2016-0009 Part of Block 24, Registered Plan 1159, Part of PIN 45102-0576 (LT), in the Geographic Township of Adolphustown, now in the Town of Greater Napanee, County of Lennox and Addington, more particularly described as Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 29R-10331 By-law No. 2016-0009 - To Dedicate and Assume Two Parts of t... Page 124 of 143 The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee By-law No. 2016-0010 A By-law to Impose Fees or Charges for Services Provided, Costs Payable or Use of Property by the Town of Greater Napanee WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended (the “Municipal Act, 2001”), authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons, (a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; (b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or any local board; and (c) for the use of its property including property under its control; AND WHEREAS Section 398 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes the treasurer of a local municipality to add fees and charges imposed by the municipality to the tax roll and to collect them in the same manner as municipal taxes; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee deems it expedient to pass such a by-law to defray costs of administration of the services; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for the services provided by the Community & Corporate Services Department. 2. Schedule “B” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for services provided by the Financial Services Department. 3. Schedule “C” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for services provided by the Infrastructure Services Department - Development Services. 4. Schedule “D” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for services provided by the Infrastructure Services Department - Public Works. 5. Schedule “E” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for services provided by the Infrastructure Services Department - Parks and Recreation. By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 125 of 143 Town of Greater Napanee 2 2016 Fees for Services By-law No. 2016-0010 6. Schedule “F” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law details the fees or charges for services provided by the Emergency Services Department. 7. Interest at the rate of 15.0% per annum (1.25% per month) shall be added to overdue accounts. The amount owing may be added by the Treasurer of the municipality to the tax roll for any property for which all of the owners are responsible for paying the fees or charges. 8. All fees and charges include applicable taxes unless otherwise noted. 9. This by-law may be referred to as the “Fees for Services By-law.” 10. By-law No. 2014-0014 and By-law No. 2015-0042 are hereby repealed. 11. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is finally passed. Read a first and second time and finally passed the 9th day of February, 2016. ______Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 126 of 143 Schedule “A” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Community & Corporate Services Department Fees SERVICE PROVIDED FEE FOR SERVICE Commissioner for Taking Oaths and Affidavits To commission a prepared document $10.00 To prepare and commission a document $20.00 To commission multiple documents $20.00 To Certify Copy of Document $5.00 Marriage Licence $110.00 Birth Registration $10.00 Death Registration (billed yearly) $10.00 Road Closing Request: (for the Clerk’s, Building/Planning and Public Works $100.00 Departments to review the request and make a recommendation to Council) Photocopies $0.25/page Process Information Request under Municipal $5.00/application Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy (MFIPPA) Act $0.20/page Photocopies for MFIPPA Requests $7.50 for each 15 For manually searching a record minutes spent by any person. By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 127 of 143 Schedule “B” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Financial Services Department Fees SERVICE PROVIDED FEE FOR SERVICE Duplicate Tax Receipt $5.00 Duplicate Tax Bill $10.00 N.S.F. Cheque Administration Fee $25.00 Statement of Tax Account $10.00 Tax Account History - up to two years No Charge $25.00 per hour with a Tax Account History - three years and minimum charge of over one hour Tax Certificate $50.00 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 128 of 143 Schedule “C” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Development Services Fees FEE FOR SERVICE PROVIDED SERVICE Copy of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law $50.00 Copy of the Official Plan $50.00 Property Standards Certificate of Compliance $50.00 Zoning Compliance Letter $75.00 Building and Work Order Information $75.00 Review of Telecommunication Tower Application $2,600.00 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 129 of 143 Schedule “D” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Public Works Fees SERVICE PROVIDED FEE FOR SERVICE Replace 9-1-1 Sign $60.00 Cut Permit Deposit $1,000.00 $50 plus total installation cost Entrance Permit of one 9 metre culvert By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 130 of 143 Schedule “E” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Parks and Recreation Fees ARENA RATES (Hourly Rates) FEE FOR SERVICE Prime Time - Weekdays from 4:00 p.m. and all day Saturday and Sunday) Adults (18+ years) $210.00 Minors (under 18 years) $157.00 Non-Prime Time Adults (18+ years) $116.00 Minors (under 18 years) $93.00 Note: Arena rates include $2.00/hour ice resurfacer replacement surcharge and $10.00/hour ice user surcharge. Public Skating/Public Swimming Per Skate Punch Card Child/Adult/Senior $3.00 $25.00/10 visits Children Under 3 yrs. FREE Slab Rentals - Daily Dance/Bingo/Shows $831.00 Set Up/Tear Down $315.00 Power Panel $525.00 Slab Rentals – Hourly Adults (18+ years) $73.00 Minors (under 18 years) $58.00 Other Per Rental Punch Card Skate Rental $2.50 $20.00/10 rentals By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 131 of 143 Schedule “E” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Parks and Recreation Fees FEE FOR PARK RATES SERVICE Conservation Park (daily rentals) Transit Docking Per Day – no shore $10.00 power Transit Docking Per Day – with shore $15.00 power Boat Launches Daily Dockage (2 hour maximum) $5.00 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 132 of 143 Schedule “E” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Parks and Recreation Fees HALL RATES (Rates are daily unless otherwise FEE FOR SERVICE specified) Strathcona Paper Centre – Lafarge Banquet Hall Sunday-Thursday $221.00 Friday & Saturday $496.00 Set Up (12pm set-up day before) $111.00 Large Lounge $127.00 Half Day or Less $ 72.00 Small Lounge $ 94.00 Half Day or Less $ 56.00 South Fredericksburgh Hall Sunday - Thursday $157.00 Friday /Saturday $315.00 Set Up and Tear Down $ 53.00 Meeting Room $ 63.00 Selby Hall Sunday - Thursday $165.00 Friday - Saturday $331.00 Set Up and Tear Down $ 56.00 BAR PRICES Beer or Liquor $4.75 Coolers or Wine $5.75 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 133 of 143 Schedule “E” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Infrastructure Services Department - Parks and Recreation Fees FEE FOR BALL DIAMOND RATES SERVICE Primary Adults - Non Lighted $27.00 Adults - Lighted $30.00 inor - Non Lighted $22.00 Minors - Lighted $26.00 Adults - Tournaments $27.00 Minors - Tournaments $22.00 Secondary Adults - Non Lighted $23.00 Adults - Lighted $27.00 Minors - Non Lighted $16.00 Minors - Lighted $19.00 Adult - Tournament $23.00 Minor - Tournament $16.00 FEE FOR SOCCER PITCH RATES SERVICE Lighted (Hourly Rates) Full $23.00 Mini $15.00 Unlit (Hourly Rates) Full $ 18.00 Mini $ 12.00 By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 134 of 143 Schedule “F” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Emergency Services Department Fees SERVICE PROVIDED FEE FOR SERVICE Providing inspection reports or fire reports to $75.00 solicitors & insurance companies Performing special inspection requests (i.e. property resale, mortgage renewal for residential type $60.00/hour buildings) Inspection of private Home Day Care facilities or $60.00/hour Group Homes with three (3) or fewer residents Inspection of Group Homes with more than three (3) $60.00/hour residents Requested inspections for premises or buildings not mentioned elsewhere: Single occupancy up to 2,000 m2 $60.00/hour Each additional 100 m2 or part thereof Multiple occupancy up to 2,000 m2 Each additional 100 m2 or part thereof Two unit residential inspection for compliance with $60.00/hour Section 9.8 of the Fire Code Institutional inspection (on request) $60.00/hour Residential inspection for compliance with Section $60.00/hour 9.5 of the Fire Code Liquor Licensing requests: Patios $60.00/hour Special Occasions Premises Inspection of Open Air Burn Location, Special Occasion Open Air Burning Location or Fireworks $60.00 Location Total cost recovery for Specialized equipment and/or resources to control or specialized equipment / minimize loss (not provided by Fire Department) resources $450.00 for first hour per Responding to & providing vehicle fire piece of equipment, extinguishment & extrication services to $225.00 for each owners/drivers who are non-residents of the Town of additional hour or part Greater Napanee thereof per piece of (based on MTO rates) equipment By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 135 of 143 Schedule “F” to By-law No. 2016-0010 Emergency Services Department Fees SERVICE PROVIDED FEE FOR SERVICE $410.00 for first hour per Person(s) setting fires for the purposes of burning piece of equipment, grass, brush, rubbish or other such material or $205.00 for each burning in barrels or drums may be charged when additional hour or part Fire Services required to respond and extinguish thereof per piece of such fires equipment plus current hourly wage of firefighters $410.00 for first hour per piece of equipment, Where there has been more than three (3) false fire $205.00 for each alarms/faulty equipment calls or more than two (2) additional hour or part nuisance calls in a twelve month period to the same thereof per piece of address equipment plus current hourly wage of firefighters Supply and Install a Smoke Alarm $20.00 Supply and Install a CO Alarm or Combination $30.00 CO/Smoke Alarm Providing the service of refilling air bottles $8.00/bottle Providing the service of refilling large storage tanks $20.00/bottle Providing the service of refilling scuba tanks $9.00/bottle Rental of Napanee Station Training Room including $100.00/day set up and tear down $50 per ½ day or evening 2-4 Hours $200.00 Rental of Training House or Grounds Over 4 hours $400.00 Rental of Roblin Station Training Room including set $150.00/day up and tear down $75 per ½ day or evening Rental of Dorland Station Training Room including $100.00/day set up and tear down $50 per ½ day or evening By-law No. 2016-0010 - Fees for Services Page 136 of 143 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE BY-LAW NO. 2016-0011 A By-law to Amend By-law No. 06-14, as amended (A By-law to Regulate the Use of the Waste Management System for the Town of Greater Napanee) WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee adopted By-law No. 06-14, being a by-law to provide for the regulation of the waste management system on March 27, 2006; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee amended By-law No. 06-14 on May 26, 2015 to increase the cost of bag tags; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee deems it expedient to amend By-law No. 06-14 in order to amend the tipping fees for the Town’s Waste Disposal and Transfer Sites; AND WHEREAS public notice of the amended tipping fees has been provided; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Town of Greater Napanee hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule ‘E’ of By-law No. 06-14 - Tipping Fees for the Town’s Waste Disposal Sites be hereby amended by deleting the said Schedule ‘E’ and replacing it with the Schedule ‘E’ - Tipping Fees for the Town’s Waste Disposal and Transfer Sites attached hereto. 2. That this by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is finally passed. Read a first and second time and finally passed this 9th day of February, 2016. ______Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor ______Susan Beckel, Clerk By-law 2016-0011 - To Amend Waste Management By-law No. 06-1... Page 137 of 143 Town of Greater Napanee By-law No. 2016-0011 – To Amend By-law No. 06-14 as amended Schedule “E” to By-law No. 06-14 Tipping Fees for the Town’s Waste Disposal and Transfer Sites The below noted fees will apply to all non-commercial waste that is generated from a residence within The Town of Greater Napanee, to be disposed of at the South Fredericksburgh Waste Disposal Site and/or the Roblin Waste Transfer Station. 1. All residential household domestic waste packaged in a refuse bag/container not exceeding: A size of 36 inch in height by 24 inch in diameter or a container with a capacity of 27.5 gallons (125 litres). Oversized bags/containers of domestic waste will be charged at an additional bagged rate. Charge: $3.00 or a Greater Napanee Bag Tag plus an additional $1.00 2. All residential bulky waste shall be calculated at a rate of $.31 cents per cubic foot. A minimum fee of $10.00 will be applied to all loads under 32 cubic feet. Measurements will be based upon the site attendant’s discretion, and will be calculated based upon the greatest vertical and horizontal measurements. FORMULA (Length x Width x Height) will determine the quantity in cubic feet to be multiplied by $.31 cents. All fees will be rounded to the nearest dollar. 3. Additional surcharges will be applied to all residential large items as per below: $5.00 each for items up to 64 cubic feet. (i.e. box spring, mattress, sofas/chairs, cabinetry, dressers, and other accepted items that are not broken down.) $10.00 each for items larger than 64 cubic feet. (i.e. fiberglass boats, large furniture and cabinetry, and other accepted items that are not broken down.) 4. Recyclable items accepted free of charge at both South Fredericksburgh Waste Disposal Site and/or the Roblin Waste Transfer Station include: Paper/Cardboard Metals/Glass/Plastics Electronic waste Scrap metal Biodegradable bagged leaves & yard compost Brush less than 3 inch in diameter By-law 2016-0011 - To Amend Waste Management By-law No. 06-1... Page 138 of 143 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE BY-LAW NO. 2016-0012 Being a By-law to Appoint a General Manager-Emergency Services/Fire Chief WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee is empowered by the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, Section 8 and the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, Section 6 to appoint a Fire Chief; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee deems it expedient to appoint a General Manager-Emergency Services/Fire Chief; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee enacts as follows: 1. That Kevin Donaldson be hereby appointed as General Manager-Emergency Services/Fire Chief for the Town of Greater Napanee effective February 29, 2016. 2. That Kevin Donaldson shall exercise all the authority, powers and rights as per applicable provincial legislation and municipal by-laws, and shall perform all the duties as outlined in the Job Description attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law. 3. That any by-law or part thereof previously passed that conflicts with this by-law shall be hereby repealed. 4. That this By-law shall take effect on the date of final passing. Read a first and second time and finally passed this 9th day of February, 2016. Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk By-law No. 2016-0012 - To Appoint a General Manager-Emergenc... Page 139 of 143 By-law No. 2016-0012 - To Appoint a General Manager-Emergenc... Page 140 of 143 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE BY-LAW NO. 2016-0013 Being a By-law to Appoint a Deputy Fire Chief WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee is empowered by the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, Section 8, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, Section 6 and Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Section 77 to appoint a Deputy Fire Chief; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee deems it expedient to appoint a Deputy Fire Chief; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee enacts as follows: 1. That John Koenig be hereby appointed as Deputy Fire Chief for the Town of Greater Napanee effective February 29, 2016. 2. That John Koenig shall exercise all the authority, powers and rights as per applicable provincial legislation and municipal by-laws, and shall perform all the duties as outlined in the Job Description attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law. 3. That any by-law or part thereof previously passed that conflicts with this by-law shall be hereby repealed. 4. That this By-law shall take effect on the date of final passing. Read a first and second time and finally passed this 9th day of February, 2016. Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk By-law No. 2016-0013 - To Appoint a Deputy Fire Chief Page 141 of 143 By-law No. 2016-0013 - To Appoint a Deputy Fire Chief Page 142 of 143 The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee By-law No. 2016-0014 A By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee at a Regular Council Meeting Held Feb. 9, 2016 WHEREAS Section 5 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (the “Municipal Act, 2001”), gives Council the authority to exercise the powers of the municipal corporation and requires that the powers of every Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS Council has passed By-law No. 2008-58, being a By-law to Govern the Calling, Place and Proceedings of Council and Committees of Council and the Conduct of its Members; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee enacts as follows: 1. That the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee, at a Regular Council Meeting held on Feb. 9, 2016 in respect of each motion and resolution passed and other actions taken by the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee at this meeting, are hereby adopted and confirmed, as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law. 2. That the proper officials of the Town of Greater Napanee are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee, referred to in the preceding section. 3. That the Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Clerk, or in the absence of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee. 4. That this by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is finally passed. Read a first and second time and finally passed this 9th day of February, 2016. ______Gordon Schermerhorn, Mayor Susan Beckel, Clerk A By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of the Co... Page 143 of 143