THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF HASTINGS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
May 16, 2017, 9:30 am.
Council Chambers County Administration Building, Belleville, Ontario
HASTINGS COUNTY VISION STATEMENT People and businesses thrive in Hastings County because of its support for individuals and families, strong communities, its natural beauty, and respect for its history and traditions.
Page
. Call to Order . Disclosure of Interest . (a) Disclosure of Interest at the May 16, 2017 meeting . Land Division Business . (a) Correspondence for the May 16, 2017 meeting - none . (b) Hearing List for the May 16, 2017 meeting - none . 3 - 4 (c) Uncontested Items Provisionally Approved by the Director of Planning for the May 16, 2017 meeting.
. Petitions & Delegations . Review of Minutes . 5 - 8 (a) Review of the Minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting
. Business Arising from the Minutes . Account Vouchers and Year to Date Expenditure Report . 9 - 20 (a) Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated to March 31, 2017 and Cheque Register dated from April 3 to April 28, 2017
. Communications . 1. Information Correspondence . 21 - 23 (a) Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation – Doug Carr, Ontario Chief Negotiator’s Update dated April 13, 2017
Page 1 of 74
. 25 - 31 (b) Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter for April 2017 and “Have your Say about the Bay” Notice
. 2. Action Correspondence and Recommendation to County Council . 33 - 37 (a) Hastings Heritage Trail Capital Needs
. Economic Development Business . (a) Economic & Tourism Development Unit Managers Report - verbal report . Planning/GIS/E9-1-1 Business . 39 - 55 (a) Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File No. 12T- 10-001 (Ryell Homes) – Township of Stirling-Rawdon Note: A Public Meeting has been advertised for this file to commence at 9:30 a.m
. 57 - 58 (b) Draft Plan of Subdivision County File No. 12T-86-012 (James Bonter) – Final Approval
. 59 - 64 (c) Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public Consultation - copy available in Administration Office
. 65 - 68 (d) Repairs to the Trans Canada Trail
. Notice of Zoning By-Laws . 69 (a) Zoning By-Laws for the May 16, 2017 meeting
. Health and Safety . Other Business . 71 - 74 (a) Repairs to the TransCanada Trail
. Next Meeting . (a) Date of next meeting - June 20, 2017 . Adjournment . (a) Adjournment of the May 16, 2017 meeting
Page 2 of 74 Uncontested Items Provisionally Approved by the Director of ...
UNCONTESTED CONSENTS PROVISIONALLY APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM April 7, 2017 – May 4, 2017 ______
Plan or File No. Applicant Approval Date Lot Concession Municipality Proposed Use
B2/17 Richard & Lynn Bonham April 28, 2017 30 8 Wollaston Residential
B8/17 Don Wilman April 24, 2017 5 8 Marmora and Lake Residential
B9/17 Don Wilman April 24, 2017 5 8 Marmora and Lake Residential
B11/17 Gary & Marylou Cockins April 19, 2017 6 6 Tyendinaga Residential
B12/17 Murray Jonas Kuno April 19, 2017 24 & 25 13 & 14 Hastings Highlands Residential
B15/17 Perry A. Graff April 19, 2017 19 2 Hastings Highlands Residential
B16/17 Wilson Partnership Limited April 19, 2017 17, Pt 15 5 Carlow/Mayo Residential
B17/17 Michelle & David Ogden April 19, 2017 12 6 Tyendinaga Residential
B21/17 Dale Cockins April 20, 2017 17 7 Tyendinaga Residential
Page 3 of 74
Uncontested Items Provisionally Approved by the Director of ...
Page 4 of 74 THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF HASTINGS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE County Administration Building Belleville, Ontario, April 18, 2017
A meeting of the Hastings County Planning & Development Committee was held with the following members present: Warden Rodney Cooney, Councillors Vivian Bloom, Jo-Anne Albert, Sharon Carson, Bonnie Adams, Paul Jenkins, Wanda Donaldson, Norm Clark, Tom Deline, Carl Tinney, Rick Phillips, Bob Sager and Graham Blair. Regrets were received by Councillor Terry Clemens. Also in attendance were Justin Harrow, Director of Planning, Cristal Heintzman, Planner, Mark Pedersen, Planner, Jennifer Matthews, Land Division Secretary, Andrew Redden, Economic Development Manager, Mark Hanley, Small Business Coordinator, Jim Duffin, Clerk, Cathy Bradley, Deputy Clerk, and Sharon Christopher, Administrative Assistant.
Call to Order (a) The meeting was called to order by the Chair.
Disclosure of Interest (a) Disclosure of Interest at the April 18, 2017 meeting There was no disclosure of interest at the April 18, 2017 meeting.
Land Division Business (a) Correspondence for the April 18, 2017 meeting - none
(b) Hearing List for the April 18, 2017 meeting - none
(c) Uncontested Items Provisionally Approved by the Director of Planning for the April 18, 2017 meeting.
Moved by Councillor Vivian Bloom; Seconded by Councillor Bonnie Adams; THAT the Uncontested Items Provisionally Approved by the Director of Planning for the April 18, 2017 meeting be approved. CARRIED
Petitions & Delegations (a) Gary Gaudreau and Pat Murdock , Bancroft Flying Club and Christian Perreault, Explorer Solutions – Bancroft Community Airport Gary Gaudreau appeared before Committee and spoke to the history of the Bancroft Community Airport and the people and organizations that use it including Ornge Air Ambulance, the Department of National Defense, Ontario Provincial Police, Hydro One and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Mr. Gaudreau also spoke to the economic development advantages that the airport brings to the northern part of Hastings County.
Review of the Minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting Page 5 of 74 He also detailed the recent upgrades done to the terminal building and hangar as a result of a Canada 150 grant. Christian Perreault, Senior Partner and CEO of Explorer Solutions, whose company specializes in airport planning and economic development, detailed the plans for their "highest and best land use study" for the Bancroft airport. Mr. Gaudreau summarized the airport's plan to apply for a Rural Economic Development (RED) grant to fund the remainder of the work to be done by Explorer Solutions. He further thanked Hastings County Council for their generous donation of $10,000.
Moved by Councillor Bonnie Adams; Seconded by Councillor Graham Blair; THAT Hastings County fund an additional $4,400 to equal 50% of the $28,800 total amount of the study. CARRIED
Moved by Councillor Tom Deline; Seconded by Councillor Rick Phillips; THAT Hastings County provide a letter of support to the Bancroft Airport for the application of the RED grant. CARRIED
Review of Minutes (a) Review of the Minutes of the March 21, 2017 meeting
Moved by Councillor Jo-Anne Albert; Seconded by Councillor Wanda Donaldson; THAT the Minutes of the March 21, 2017 meeting be approved. CARRIED
Business Arising from the Minutes Account Vouchers and Year to Date Expenditure Report (a) Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated to February 28, 2017 and Cheque Register dated from March 3 to March 24, 2017
Moved by Councillor Tom Deline; Seconded by Councillor Bonnie Adams; THAT the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated to February 28, 2017 and Cheque Register dated from March 3 to March 24, 2017 be approved. CARRIED
Communications 1. Information Correspondence (a) Approved 2017/2018 Annual Work Schedule, Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit – Ontario Parks’ letter dated March 15, 2017
Review of the Minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting Page 6 of 74 (b) Inspection of Approved 2017-2018 Annual Work Schedule Bancroft-Minden Forest – The Bancroft District Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) notice received March 17, 2017
(c) Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter for March 2017
(d) Notice of Study Commencement “Highway 401 Aikins Road Underpass Rehabilitation (WP 4260-13-01), Detail Design and Environmental Assessment Study” – MMM Group Limited letter dated March 20, 2017 and Comment Form
(e) County of Haliburton Official Plan – Notice of Public Meeting to be held on April 26, 2017
(f) Water Quality Management of Lake Trout Lakes: County of Hastings, 2013 – Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change letter dated March 31, 2017
(g) Preliminary/Detail Design and Class Environmental Assessment Study – Highway 49 Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge Rehabilitation, County of Hastings , Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory and Prince Edward County – Morrison Hershfield letter dated March 28, 2017
(h) Inspection of Approved 2017-2018 Annual Work Schedule Mazinaw-Lanark Forest – The Bancroft District Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) notice received March 28, 2017
(i) Notice of Public Meeting Concerning Proposed Amendment Number 1 to the County of Lennox & Addington Official Plan – notice received April 4, 2017
(j) “I left the city” campaign to entice city slickers to Hastings County” – Belleville News article March 30, 2017
Moved by Councillor Sharon Carson; Seconded by Councillor Vivian Bloom; THAT information correspondence items a) through j) be received. CARRIED
2. Action Correspondence and Recommendation to County Council Economic Development Business (a) Economic & Tourism Development Unit Managers Report (Verbal) Andrew Redden, Economic and Development Manager, introduced newly hired Mark Hanley, Small Business Coordinator to Committee and welcomed him on behalf of Hastings County. He encouraged member municipalities to refer potential and current businesses to contact Mr. Hanley for assistance and utilize his services. Mr. Redden also provided an update on the Municipal Partners Group and the Tourism and Economic Development Advisory Committees.
Review of the Minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting Page 7 of 74 Planning/GIS/E9-1-1 Business Notice of Zoning By-Laws (a) Zoning By-Laws for the April 18, 2017 meeting
Moved by Councillor Bob Sager; Seconded by Councillor Sharon Carson; THAT the Zoning By-Laws for the April 18, 2017 meeting be approved. CARRIED
Health and Safety Other Business (a) Director's update on the Official Plan - verbal report Justin Harrow, Director of Planning, provided an update on the next steps regarding the Official Plan. He advised that he will have an updated draft incorporating input from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting. Mr. Harrow advised that this draft, once confirmed by the Committee, will be sent out to member municipalities for their review and public consultation shortly thereafter.
Moved by Councillor Bonnie Adams; Seconded by Councillor Sharon Carson; THAT the Director's Report be received. CARRIED
Next Meeting (a) Date of next meeting - May 16, 2017
Adjournment (a) Adjournment of the April 18, 2017 meeting
Moved by Councillor Jo-Anne Albert; Seconded by Councillor Sharon Carson; THAT the April 18, 2017 meeting be adjourned. CARRIED
Chair Date
Review of the Minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting Page 8 of 74 OO_~_uO_N>._._O2 O_n ._._._mOOC2._.< O1 _._>m.:zmm
1:22.20
10.. =5 ._.—=.mm _so:__:m m:.=:uQuin...»
No.3 M03 0» >O._.C>_u mcuoma mcomma mx_umzu_Emmm m>r>m_mm m?wmm $3.20 a.m§ _u_»_zom mmzmm?m mommm838 mm.wm.x. Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... >OOO_<=<_O_u>._._OZ xmzir Noa memomm.oo.x. ommommcvvzmm emmo 980 ,o.o.§.\.. mOC:u_<=mZ._. .__moo o.oo.x. _uIO._.OOO_u<_Z® 0: mzmoo33$ _uoma>mm ma Nmoo $.mm..\.. amrmvxozm gm +80 3.8.x. _<__rm>omm.:»>
._.O._.>_: mx_umzo_ac_~mm 89%» .~4~.$m n._.3..\..
_~m _u_.>ZZ_Z® w_:>zU o_<_m_oz No.08 $.08 mm.m§ mm 342. mm Q: —uO_.:5 ._._..nmm30:35 m..==:uamine.» moi M03 ea >O._.C>—. mcooma mcomma mx_umzo:.:mmm m>r>m_mm Emu: wmobmm .§.%.x. _um_zmm mmzmm?m Name 930 58.x. Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... om_u_ommcu_u_._mm mo o.oo.x. o_u_u_ommocismza Go poo: _<__rm>omw3> ._.O._.>_: mxmmzo?cmmm 3.8» aohmo §.~§ Page 10 of 74 nowvo_~>._._oz 0-... ._._._mOOC2._.< 0-... _._>m._._zmm moozo_s_n um m>r>_»_mm mA0.AM._ wm00.0m© acog Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... mazomwmzmm?m pm? 03:00 3.3:. amrmuxozm BM Nmoo 3.3.x. _<_>mxm:zm Ur>Z omm Emma 000$ _<_mzwmmm:_nm\ooz_ummmzomm:m>_z_zm N03 ._m_000 momwx. _<___.m>om0. :»> ._.O._.>_.. mx_umzu:«cmmm $00.00» 33 .23 :.m§. mm +ocm_m_<_om ._.O._.>_u mm Zm._. ooma mmpm? 00.5.00» :.2..\.. Page 11 of 74 Page 12 of 74 mwmnmau »\w\m8E wupw Hm M3 0oHvoHwnwoDon awmnocnnwon m mmmm” H Gmm? Umnm" »\m\moHq nozmcammomocmmmmHmamm Gmmw HG“ zmHwH * <0wQmQ nrmncmm nrmncmZc3UmH mwwambnZcavmd Honmw nrmndmmn nrmncmmHonmwu Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... Page 13 of 74 m + ~mm»m »\q\NoHq ooooooooooopqpmqo owwmnwwEWHDHNEWD mmqm.qm mmmpm »\q\moHq ooooooooooouqumqw OWOW mm~o.oo Nmm»q »\q\moHq ooooooocooouqumqm ozmwm mHm.uoo.»w mmwpm »\q\~oHq ooooooooooouqwmqw Od?m?wo mwmnmnonoawnUm Honww nsmmdmmu OrmncmmHonmwu mmw.mHm.»m _u$rqmw,~¢@w\%V\. \.urPL35.A Page 14 of 74 m%m?mE" »\Hm\~oHq NuN»uHm V3 ooumo?mnwonom arm oocdn< om m mwmm" H GwmH Dwnm” pxpmxmopq nozmcammnmoumwmoHmamm GmmH Ho” zmnwwwnm mmwmvwmmzwsmmmaman wwnn? HUN ~o-zm-o»HmHq vcawn Hwwwwnomm" mznmooooummmm mmnn:noaamsnn wm< no I mwmnbwnmnanHad momnwdmUmnmu »\Hm\moHq OUmDdmUOOWHG" mmzmmwh + <0wmmQ nrmncmm nrmncmz:aUmH Umnm wwwamsnzcsvm? Honmw nsmmcmmu m nwmmcmmaonmwu Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... Page 15 of 74 m » NmoH» »\mH\~oHq ooooooooooowqpmu» noczao» OOCZHK om rmzzox m MUUHZQHOZ mm»m.mm mmowm pxmuxwowq ooooooooooowqpmmm mmummo» ZWHWmmmm?mms mm~w.mo Honmw nwmm?mmn M ndmncmmHonmwu mH.»qo.o~ Review of the Year to Date Expenditure Report dated March... Page 16 of 74 m * man::UH No-_<__u-ES: _»m< mo- _u_m::_:mm_u._.32.3 oooooooooooiad m_u._.3ooooo._ ._m zO_»._.Imo 22:63 Oo33::.om:o:m £303 mm.o$.& oooooooooooir?m mmjooooos 3 ozdymmm owmmc_.OO>_. Amm &SoG mi mm aonme mmwamdnmn m aonmw wmno: wBQ1U” m9§maA~:u mm<~o-na=a:omm+n<3H oooooooooooiawm mm:8082 mo OC_:_._o._ ._.I_m OOOU <<>am_» OO_<=u>Z< amino: 3 mam aonmwmm?zmdnmu H aonmwammo: Information Centre Centre d’information Algonquin Land Claim Revendication territoriale 31 Riverside Drive 31 rue Riverside Pembroke, ON K8A 8R6 Pembroke, ON K8A 8R6 Tel: (613) 732-8081 Tél: (613) 732-8081 Toll Free: 1-855-690-7070 Num éro vert : 1-855-690-7070 website: Ontario.ca/algonquinlandclaim April 13, 2017 Ontario Chief Negotiator’s Update I am pleased to provide you with this overview and update on the Algonquin land claim negotiations. With the Agreement-in-Principle formally signed and approved by all three negotiation parties in October 2016, we are now making plans for the final stage of negotiations - a process we expect will take at least five years to complete. Recent discussions at the negotiation table have been focused on joint work planning for this final stage of negotiations. This reflects the three parties’ commitment to establish an efficient and effective process that will help us achieve Ontario’s first modern-day treaty in a timely manner. Our shared priorities as we head into the final stage of negotiations include: • finalizing and confirming the proposed package of settlement lands, • finalizing the criteria that will be used for enrolment for the future Algonquin ratification vote on the Final Agreement and for the enrolment of Algonquins of Ontario rights-holders once the treaty is in place, • development and organization of the Algonquins of Ontario’s institutional capacity, and • building on the provisions of the Agreement-in-Principle to develop ongoing working relationships and the more detailed understandings that will be required for a Final Agreement. At this time, Algonquin election processes are underway to identify the leadership team that will guide the Algonquins of Ontario through the next three years of negotiations. On March 25, members of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation elected their chief and council for a three-year term. Kirby Whiteduck was re-elected for a sixth term as chief. Incumbents Jim Meness, Ron Bernard and Dan Kohoko were also returned to council. They will be joined by newly-elected council members Barbara Sarazin, Steven Benoit and Wendy-Anne Jocko. A separate election process for Algonquin Negotiation Representatives for the other nine Algonquins of Ontario communities is now underway. Nominations of candidates will close on April 25 and voting will conclude the last week of June and the first week of July. The declaration of election results is expected on July 7. We expect active negotiations will continue once this leadership team is in place. Future Consultation Processes Over the course of the negotiations, there will be a variety of consultation initiatives relating to different elements of the proposed agreement, such as the transfer of Crown lands to Algonquin ownership, natural resource stewardship frameworks for initiatives such as fisheries management planning, and expansion of the public lands within the Ontario Parks system in the Algonquin Settlement Area. The timing of these consultation opportunities will be linked to the discussions at the negotiation table. Because of the complex nature of these negotiations, it would not be practical or helpful to establish a firm timeline or artificial deadlines for this work. Each of the negotiation parties recognizes need for flexibility to analyze options, consult with interested parties, deliberate, and negotiate solutions that will work in eastern Ontario. Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation – Doug C... Page 21 of 74 Ontario`s commitment to public and stakeholder consultations will involve opportunities to meet with negotiation representatives for Canada, Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario. These opportunities will include: • Activities to meet Ontario’s environmental assessment requirements under the Algonquin Land Claim Declaration Order and parallel land use planning consultation opportunities. This process will build on the detailed information currently available on the Crown land parcels proposed for transfer to Algonquin ownership as part of the land claim settlement. The focus will be on evaluating and mitigating potential environmental effects of the Crown land transfers, and establishing municipal planning designations and zoning that will be applied to the lands at the time of transfer to Algonquin ownership. The overall process will include publication of a Draft Environmental Evaluation Report and notification of its availability for review and comment. The report will provide information about Ontario’s analysis of the potential environmental effects as well as proposed Official Plan designations and zoning for each land parcel. The comment period will include public information sessions and other opportunities to review the materials and provide input. We expect to schedule the public information sessions later this year. Notification will be provided to the general public and directly to people and organizations with known interests in the negotiations. A subsequent Final Environmental Evaluation Report will also be available for public review and input at a later stage in the negotiations. • Developing agreements to continue existing legal interests on the Crown land parcels proposed for transfer In the Agreement-in-Principle, the negotiation parties agree that existing legal interests on Algonquin Settlement Lands would continue following the transfer of the lands to the Algonquins, under agreements to be negotiated with the Algonquins of Ontario. One of Ontario’s first priorities following the 2012 publication of the Preliminary Draft Agreement-in- Principle was to notify and meet with people who have these existing legal interests such as land use permits for recreation camps, bait harvesting areas, bear management areas, registered traplines and aggregate permits. These meetings will resume, with Ontario facilitating discussions about future arrangements with the Algonquins of Ontario and the current legal interest holders. The goal is to achieve negotiated agreements prior to the Final Agreement. • Fisheries management planning The negotiation parties have made a commitment to make every effort to develop fisheries management plans for the entire Algonquins of Ontario Settlement Area prior to the effective date of a Final Agreement. The first priority will be a fisheries management plan for Algonquin Park, and scientific research to support this goal has been undertaken as part of the negotiation process over the past seven years. In conjunction with the next stage of negotiations, Ontario intends to develop a customized fisheries management planning process for Algonquin Park in conjunction with the Algonquins of Ontario. The process will include engagement opportunities for stakeholders and interest groups, using scientific and traditional Indigenous knowledge to develop evidence-based management plans with measurable objectives to protect and enhance the Algonquin Park fish population. There are four other fisheries management zones within the Algonquins of Ontario settlement area. Provincial planning processes are underway in those zones now, and will continue with active involvement by the Algonquins of Ontario as well as fisheries management zone councils. Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation – Doug C... Page 22 of 74 • Parks planning The recommendation for a new provincial park in the Crotch Lake area of Frontenac County is a unique solution that was developed at the negotiation table to meet everyone’s interests – the Algonquins’ interest in protecting the land, the public interest in keeping the land available for a variety of uses, and Ontario’s interests in preserving the natural environment while helping the area grow economically by creating a park that will bring visitors to the area. Public and stakeholder consultation will be part of the park regulation and planning processes that will be undertaken as we pursue this recommendation and a similar initiative to expand Lake St. Peter Provincial Park in Hastings County. • Forestry All three negotiation parties recognize the importance of the forestry industry as an employer and economic driver within the Algonquins of Ontario Settlement Area. Our commitment to work with forest industry representatives began with the establishment of a forestry working group during the development of the Preliminary Draft Agreement-in-Principle. Discussions involving forestry industry leaders, the Algonquins of Ontario and Ontario government representatives will continue as we develop transitional plans to facilitate a smooth transfer of the proposed Settlement Lands to Algonquin ownership. Conclusion These are a few key examples of the many different opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement related to these negotiations that will be available in the months ahead. Ontario will be reaching out to local municipalities, interest groups and individuals to keep everyone informed as these processes roll out. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding the Algonquin land claim negotiations, please feel free to contact the Ontario Public Information Centre: • by mail: 31 Riverside Drive, Pembroke ON K8A 8R6 • by phone: 1-855-690-7070 (toll-free) or 613-732-8081 (local), or • by e-mail: [email protected]. Information about the negotiations will also continue to be posted on the Government of Ontario website at www.Ontario.ca/algonquinlandclaim Thank you for your continuing interest in the Algonquin land claim negotiations. I look forward to working together with you as the negotiations proceed. Sincerely, Doug Carr Ontario Chief Negotiator Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation – Doug C... Page 23 of 74 Page 24 of 74 April 2017 Changing Times - Have your say about the future health of the Bay of Quinte. Deadline for comments is Friday, May 5, 2017 After years of extensive scientific research, the environmental challenges related to fish and wildlife populations and habitat and underwater bugs have met all their scientific criteria. This means each of these challenges is healthy and diverse. The public is being asked for their input on whether or not they agree with the decision to change the status of these challenges to unimpaired. Have your say about the future of the Bay of Quinte. Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 25 of 74 • Degradation of fish and wildlife populations • Degradation of benthos (Underwater bugs) • Loss of fish and wildlife habitat Supporting information can be found on the BQRAP web site www.bqrap.ca Email your comments to: [email protected] on whether you support/do not support the recommendation to change the status of these environmental challenges to unimpaired. Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 26 of 74 Our 2016 Annual Report highlights actions the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan has taken to rehabilitate the Bay. Remember Healthy Bay • Healthy Community Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 27 of 74 Book your 2017 appointment, Today! Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 28 of 74 Septic tank pump out - FREE Do you live on the Bay of Quinte? or one of its tributaries? (up to 10 kms up the trib) You could be eligible for a free septic tank pump out and an 80% cost-sharing incentive, if minor repairs are needed to your tank. This is a free educational program providing homeowners with helpful advice on the care and maintenance of their septic system and best management practices for their shoreline. Be Septic Savvy - see if you qualify for a free pump out Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 29 of 74 Page 30 of 74 Have Your Say about the Bay View this email in your browser Do you agree? The three environmental challenges related to fish and wildlife po pulatio ns and habitat and underwater bugs are ready to be removed from the impaired list. Info at www.bqrap.ca Email - [email protected] Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan “Waterlogs” – newsletter ... Page 31 of 74 Page 32 of 74 Date: May 4, 2017 Report to : Planning & Development Committee Report from: Jim Duffin Subject: Hastings Heritage Trail Capital Needs Recommendation: THAT the Planning & Development Committee receive the Clerk’s report on future capital needs for bridge repair/replacement on the Hastings Heritage Trail and direct staff to address these needs as part of the Capital Plan for the County. Financial Impact: Does recommendation have a budgetary impact: Yes If yes, what is the anticipated impact? $1.5 - $2 million If yes, has it been budgeted for this year? No If no, provide an explanation as to how these costs would be accommodated in the current year’s budget: To be addressed in the County Capital Plan Has Treasury provided analysis? Yes Background: In 2015 Infrastructure Ontario as 50% owner of the Hastings Heritage Trail had an assessment undertaken of each structure on the trail. According to the report, there a 19 bridges on the trail and 12 are in need of repair with 3 of these needing full replacement. The estimated cost of repair/replacements are shown in the attached summary, and the attached map shows the approximate location of each structure. The report also addresses the Maynooth Station and indicates that it is in need of immediate attention to make the building safe. An overall cost estimate to repair the building is not provided but the report indicates that it would cost approximately $128,500 for shoring and stabilization of the building and temporary weatherproofing to prevent further deterioration of the building. As stated earlier in the report this assessment was undertaken by Infrastructure Ontario and no similar report has been prepared by the County for structures on the former CP Line. Hastings Heritage Trail Capital Needs Page 33 of 74 Page 34 of 74 STRUCTURE SUMMARY ON HASTINGS HERITAGE TRAIL Structure # Time Frame Cost Comment 1 6-10 year $60,000 repair 2 n/a 3 n/a 4 n/a 6 n/a 7 n/a 8 6-10 year $110,000 repair 9 6-10 year $80,000 repair 10 n/a 11 6-10 year $100,000 repair 12 n/a 13 6-10 year $80,000 repair 14 1-5 year $180,000 repair 15 1-5 year $325,000 replace bridge replaced in 2016 by EOTA 16 1-5 year $200,000 repair 17 6-10 year $825,000 replace 18 6-10 year $150,000 repair 18a 6-10 year $80,000 repair 18b 6-10 year $900,000 replace Hastings Heritage Trail Capital Needs Page 35 of 74 Page 36 of 74 %Ã Papineau Hastings Heritage Trail Lake Kamaniskeg Structures Lake !( 18 !( Structures HASTINGS Hastings Heritage Trail !( 17 RENFREW HIGHLANDS HALIBURTON %¥ Baptiste Lake CARLOW/ 16!( MAYO 15!( Bancroft BANCROFT %¿ %u %u !(14 FARADAY %¥ 13 Weslemekoon !( Lake TUDOR WOLLASTON AND LIMERICK CASHEL 11 Limerick Lake !( !(12 Steenburg 09 Lake !(!( Dickey Lake 10 %¥ !( 18a PETERBOROUGH TUDOR Lingham Lake AND LENNOX CASHEL MARMORA AND AND ADDINGTON !( 08 FRONTENAC LAKE MADOC 18b!( TWEED 07!( Crowe !( Lake 06 Marmora Madoc Moira Lake STIRLING - Tweed Stoco RAWDON Lake 04!( CENTRE %y !( HASTINGS !( 03 02 %¥ !( 01 Stirling NORTHUMBERLAND TYENDINAGA BELLEVILLE %y QUINTE WEST %Ð %Ð Belleville µ %Ð Trenton %Ð CFB Mohawks of the 0 5 10 20 Bay of Quinte Kilometres Bay of Quinte Produced by the County of Hastings with data supplied under license by members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange. This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying Hastings Heritage Trail Capital Needs puPagerposes. Th e37 Coun tofy of H74astings disclaims all responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication. Page 38 of 74 Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 39 of 74 to Phase 1 as insufficient servicing capacity was available to support development of further phases; further capacity is now available, sufficient to support the remaining phases of development. The entirety of development proposed comprises the creation of 60 lots for detached dwelling units, nine townhouse blocks, and one apartment block; this characterization of development includes the units presently approved, as noted. Three minor modi?cations have been undertaken since initial approval, affecting a small adjustment in the lot line of Block 110, a reduction in the number of single detached dwellings by two, an increase in the number of attached dwellings by two, and modification of Block 108 (stormwater management block), all of which were undertaken upon Phase 1 lands. The units considered at present are 52 lots for single-detached dwellings, five blocks for townhouse development, one apartment block, one parkland block, one stormwater block, and numerous reserves. Supporting Documentation: A number of background documents have been submitted as background/justification for the plan of subdivision application, as required by the County Of?cial Plan: 0 An Enviromnental Impact Assessment report prepared by asi0tus Natural Heritage Consultants, June 2006. 0 A Geotechnical report prepared by DBA Engineering Ltd, June 2006. 0 A Traf?c Impact Assessment report prepared by G. D. Jewell Engineering Inc., stamped by John P. Zatorsky, P.Eng, July, 2006. 0 A Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan prepared by WaterPlan Associates, October 2008. The above studies were subject to technical review by the County peer review agent — TROW Engineering Ltd, and associates who made a number of recommendations that will form conditions to draft approval. PART IV — Analysis/Comments Provincial Policy Statement Consistency: The Statement indicates the following: 1.1 Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve E?icientand Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns 1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safecommunities are sustained by: a. promoting e?icientdevelopment and land use patterns which sustain the?nancialwell—beingofthe Province and municipalities over the long term; b. accommodating an appropriate range and mix ofresidential(including second units, a?ordablehousing and housingfor older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including places ofworship, cemeteries, and long term care homes) recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs; c. avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; The proposed plan is consistent with the above policies of the Statement, as follows: 0 It represents financial well—beingfor the Township provided the proponent addresses off—siteworks to adjoining streets and infrastructure as may be required to accommodate the proposed development. The proponent’s traffic impact assessment report stated that the existing conditions of connecting streets are in Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 40 of 74 ?fastingsCount_y—may16“, 201 7 2 need of some repair and that an agreement is required between the Township and proponent on relative financial contributions toward the required improvements; 0 The proposed plan offers a range of land uses including residential and open space; 0 Geotechnical, environmental, and traffic impact assessment reports confirm that the lands are suitable for intended uses. Pursuant of the above, it is recommended that the proponent complete a pre—constructionsurvey of adjoining streets and other infrastructure. The Township and land owner should agree on the financial contributions that the proponent should make toward off-site improvements. The financial contributions or off-site improvements should be borne at the cost to the developer to an extent that represents works that would not have otherwisebeen completed by the Township in the short to medium term. 1.4.3 Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range ofhousing types and densities to meet projected requirements ofcurrent andfutureresidents ofthe regional market area by: a. establishing and implementingminimum targets for the provision ofhousing which is a?ordable to low and moderate income households. The proposed plan provides for a range of lot sizes and forms of residential development. The variety of form offers a choice of living environments and levels of affordability. 1.6.6.2 Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred formofservicing forsettlement areas. Intensi?cationand redevelopment within settlement areas on existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services should bepromoted, whereverfeasible. The proposed plan is to be developed on full public water and sanitary sewerservices, which is strongly preferred by the Statement. 1.6.7.1 Transportation systems should beprovided which are safe, energy e?icient,facilitatethe movement of people and goods, and are appropriate to address projected needs. The County peer review agent, Mr. Dave Halpenny, P. Eng. has accepted the final version of the traffic impact assessment report and supplemental information as verifying that the proposed access points to/from the development will adequately accommodate future traffic volumes resulting from the development. The proposed plan of subdivision is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement provided the latter recommended draft conditions are met. Official Plan Conformity: The subject lands are designated Urban in the County of Hastings Official Plan. Land Use Appendix ‘E—l” for the urban area of Stirling-Rawdon establishes Residential, Development, and Environmental Protection land USCS. Section 3.5.2 b) of the County of Hastings Official Plan establishes criteria guiding the siting of residential development in the Urban designation. The subject proposal is pursuant of the policies of this section in locating lower density residential uses on local streets, and situating higher density residential uses where the impactof such upon adjacent uses is minimized. Section 3.5.3 of the Official Plan provides the policy framework for the evaluation of servicing in the Urban designation. Full municipal servicing is the preferred method of servicing within the Urban designation, and will be employed in the subject development; as such, the subject application is pursuant of Section 3.5.3. Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 41 of 74 7-[astingsCounty—may16‘5,2017 3 In 2010, Phase 1 of the subject application was approved; while supporting documentation was provided in compliment to the entirety of the proposal (Phases 1-5), it was discovered that insuf?cient servicing capacity was available to support the development of the full proposal. Section 3.5.3 b) ii) of the Official Plan requires that sufficient capacity be available to support development, prior to the granting of approval; at present, sufficient capacity has become available to support the remainder of the proposed development (Phases 2-5), and as such, granting of approval is pursuant of Section 3.5.3 b) ii). Zoning Conformity & Compliance: The subject lands are currently zoned the Residential Second Density (R2) Zone, the Special Residential Second Density (R2—3)Zone, the Special Multiple Residential (MR-2) Zone, the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, and the Marginal Agriculture (MA) Zone. It appears that some lots may not benefit from adequate frontage and area as required in the Residential Second Density (R2) Zone. As such, it will be recommended that the frontage and area of such lots be confirmed to be adequate as a condition of approval by an Ontario Land Surveyor. A portion of the proposed new lots appear to be zoned the MA (Marginal Agriculture) Zone. A zone _ amendment will be required from the MA (Marginal Agriculture) Zone to the R2 (Residential Second Density) Zone. The Blocks that are proposed for multi-residential use are currently zoned the Residential Second Density (R2) Zone. The proposed multi-residential lots appear to have less area and frontage than is required by the zoning by- law, being 0.4ha (l.0ac) and 45.0m (l47.6ft), respectively. The standards as expressed in the zoning by-law are somewhat over-stated, and less area and frontage may be appropriate, as presented in the revised plan. A zone amendment should be completed to rezone the multi-residential blocks from the Residential Second Density (R2) Zone to the Special Multiple Residential (MR-X) Zone recognizing the lesser frontage and area, as proposed; the frontage and area of said blocks should be confirmed by an Ontario Land Surveyor prior to approval of the noted zone amendment. Finally, lands comprising proposed stormwater blocks should be rezoned from the current zone to the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, recognizing the proposed use of such. Further, lands conveyed for parkland purposes, save lands currently zoned the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone should be rezoned to the Open Space (OS) Zone. Provided the amendments occur as described above, the proposed development conforms to the zoning by-law. Other Comments: Detailed comments were received from relevant agencies as per initial circulation of the subject application, as approved in part in 2010. Pertaining to the present approval, notice has been again provided to relevant commenting agencies, as signi?cant time has elapsed since approval of Phase 1. To date, comments have not been received from a number of commenting agencies, including the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, Ontario Power Generation, Trans Northern Pipelines, and Trans Canada Pipelines; while negative comments are not anticipated, comments should be received prior to the issuance of draft approval. Comments received from Lower Trent Conservation request that additional work be undertaken and reviewed, including a revised preliminary stormwater management plan, and revised draft plan situating roads and lots beyond the requisite 30m wetland setback, prior to issuance of draft approval (see attachment no. 3). Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 42 of 74 7-[astingsCounty- may16'”,201 7 4 Once all agency comments have been received, and outstanding matters relating to agency and public comments have been addressed, the application will be brought forward for consideration, complimented by draft conditions of approval. Respectfully Submitted by: M/2,9/"7 Mar Pedersen, Planner Date: May 16"‘,2017 Director of Planning and Development Concurrence: \ J tin Harrow, Director of Planning and Development Attachments: 1) Draft Plan; 2) Updated Phasing Plan; 3) Lower Trent Conservation Comments, dated May 3”‘,2017. Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 43 of 74 afastmgsCounty—may16”, 201 7 5 Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 44 of 74 m nr pm wr 5 EASYur mum swam ’L?:TEREnmay Nu m mu 0: ms 21 ms 2: vsr D7mm smziv Lms ‘ mu2 HOFYHor h'«>AE5svaza Lot: \ we _ scumer was SW17 mrs 7 m 2- mm w:LuswL MES! cr mu 5n?E_U L05 2:: Tn 17 sew mcwsni zzsvnr mm s Psasrmeu mu Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 45 of 74 LOWBKTRENT Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 46 of 74 Page 2 of 5 also indicate how stormwater will be conducted to a receiving body and the location and description of any and all outlets which may require permits under Ontario Regulation 163/06 (Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interferencewith Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). b. that a lot grading and drainage plan, and a sediment and erosion control plan, be completed and approved to the satisfaction of the County of Hastings and Lower Trent Conservation. 2. The Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the County of Hastings contains provisions with respect to the following, with wording acceptable to Lower Trent Conservation, whereby the owner agrees: a. to carry out or cause to be carried out, the works outlined in Condition 1. 3. The identified steep slope exceeding a slope ratio of 3(h):1(v) in Block 108 of Phase 1 be assessed by a qualified professional in the context to the proposed residential development on Block 112, adjacent to the feature. A geotechnical study will be necessary to evaluate slope stability, and the risks and possible mitigation measures associated with development on and adjacent to the potential erosion hazard. The geotechnical study should be completed to the satisfaction of the County of Hastings and Lower Trent Conservation. 4. The Stirling Wetland plus the recommended 30 meter setback be rezoned Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. 5. A landscaping plan be completed, by a qualified professional, in order to rehabilitate the contiguous lands (i.e. recommended 30 meter setback) adjacent to the Stirling wetland. The landscaping plan will identify the ecological and hydrological functions associated with the Stirling Wetland, to ensure the plan design is functionally compatible with the feature. 6. Written authorization under Ontario Regulation 163/06(Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses) be obtained from Lower Trent Conservation for any proposed development within 120 meters of the Stirling Wetland prior to any development or site alteration occurring on the ground. We would also request that LTC’s120 metre regulated allowance associated with the Stirling Wetland be illustrated on the draft plan for reference purposes when considering permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 163/06. Referto the following sections for context. OURUNDERSTANDINGOF THEDEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL LTCwas first circulated on this subdivision in 2008, when a Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (WaterP|an, October 2006) and an Environmental Impact Study (asiOtus Natural Heritage Consultants, June 2006) were circulated for pre-consultation purposes. LTCwas circulated on the formal Draft Plan of Subdivision (12T-10-001) application in 2010 and provided comments on the submission on July 30, 2010. It is our understanding that Phase 1 ofthe subdivision was given draft approval on September 9, 2010 and that the purpose of this circulation is to request draft approval for the remainder of subdivision (i.e., Phases 2-5) now that wastewater capacity to support the development is available. According to the completed application form, the overall development will consist of 72 lots for single detached dwellings, 4 multiple-residential units, 1 apartment block, 1 open space/park block, 2 stormwater management blocks, and a new road network on land that is currently vacant. Access to the subject lands will be facilitated from the extension oflohn Street and interior road access from Rodgers Drive. ‘WorkingWIII7LocalCon-ununmesIa Prater! our Natural Environment" i.’ zmberof Conservation Ontario Representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Autt orities Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 47 of 74 Page 3 of 5 PLANREVIEW Wetland Considerations The Stirling Wetland, a provincially significant wetland (PSW) as designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF),extends over lands to the south and southwest of the proposed development. In 2010, this wetland was downgraded to a non—provincia||ysignificant wetland however has since been upgraded again to provincially significant status (2012). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)prepared by asiOtus Natural Heritage Consultants was conducted during the time that the wetland was considered provincially significant. A 30 metre wetland setback is identified in the EISas a measure to protect the PSW from development impacts. On the Overall Site Plan the proposed Blockfor the cul-de—sacat the end ofthe John Street extension and Lot 50 encroach into the 30 metre wetland setback. Further, without seeing the proposed stormwater management facility design for Block100 we have some concern that insufficient room is provided in the proposed block to accommodate the facility outlet outside ofthe 30 metre wetland setback. Lot/Blocklines should remain outside of the defined 30 metre wetland setback to prevent encroachment of site development into this area and ensure that it is maintained as a natural wetland buffer. The proponent’s consultant will need to address this matter by revising the Lot/Blocklayout and demonstrating that sufficient room is available in proposed Block 100 to accommodate all components of the stormwater management facility. The wetland along with the 30 metre wetland setback should be rezoned appropriately to ensure their protection (e.g., Environmental Protection (EP) Zone). As stated in ourJu|y 30, 2010 letter, we understand that the previous land use included agricultural activities that directly abutted the Stirling PSW. Section 6.2 of the EISrecommended that the natural self-sustaining vegetation be improved within the recommended 30 metre setback from the wetland. Based on this, LTC recommends that a detailed landscaping plan by a qualified professional address the rehabilitation within the adjacent contiguous lands from the wetland (i.e., within the 30 metre setback portion of the recommended Environmental Protection Zone). It will be important to ensure that the landscaping plan identifies the ecological and hydrological functions associated with the Stirling PSW to ensure the plan design is functionally compatible with the feature. In ourJuly 30, 2010 we included a recommended condition of draft approval to specifically address this matter. Water Quality and Quantity Considerations During the 2010 review, LTCnoted concerns with the proposal for stormwater management. A revised detailed submission was provided for Phase 1, but nothing to address our comments forthe remainder ofthe development phases. The items noted in ourJu|y 30, 2010 letter related to the stormwater management report will need to be addressed by the proponent’s consultant for Phases 2-5. Specifically, I. A pre—deve|opment drainage area figure and a post—deve|opment drainage area figure should be submitted showing the existing drainage divides on the site. The post-development figure should show the intended drainage direction for the major and minor storm flows. The SWM report indicates that 0.5 m contours are available for the site; as such these contour intervals should be amended to the requested figures. ii. The SWM report utilizes the Kirpichtime of concentration equation, which was developed, based on watersheds with well defined channels and steep slopes of 3—10%.Conservation Authority staff is of the opinion that the airport formula would be more appropriate given the terrain of the watershed. iii. The SWM report does not size the SWM facility (Block 100) for water quality control. The permanent pool and extended detention volumes need to be determined for this facility. Conservation Authority staff note that the SWM facility is required to provide a 24 hour drawdown of the greater “WorkingwrmLocalCmnmunmes to Pratecr our Natural Envnranmem I I I " Member of Conservation Ontario Representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 48 of 74 Page 4 of 5 of the volumes determined by the formula 40 m3/ha,or the runoff volume generated from the 4- hour 25 mm Chicago storm (per MOE, 2003). iv. The SWM report used the Modified Rational Method to determine the detention storage volume required to provide ’post—to—pre’water quantity control for peak flows, up to and including the 100- year event. Conservation Authority staff are of the opinion that for sites greater than 1-2 hectares, the Modified Rational Method underestimates the storage volumes. To overcome this, LTCsuggests that the detention storage volume determined via the Modified Rational Method be multiplied by a factor of 1.5, in order to yield a conservation result at the Draft Plan stage. v. To demonstrate that the SWM Block(100) is sufficiently sized, the preliminary pond size should be determined by adding the total required active storage volume to the required extended detention volume to yield a conservative result. Furthermore, the minimum size ofthe SWM block should equal 120% ofthe pond surface area to accommodate periphery and access. vi. Conservation Authority staff observed during the above noted site investigation (July 19, 2010) that drainage conveyed along the Rodgers Drive road-side ditch appears to enter the site at a minimum of two distinct points; the first being between Lots 15 and 16 (Reg. Plan 1492) and the second beingjust north of Lot 11 (Reg. Plan 1492). Please demonstrate how this drainage will be accommodated through the site. Will a drainage easement(s) be required? The subject lands are situated within identified wellhead protection areas associated with the Village of Stir|ing’s municipal drinking water source. As such, certain provisions ofthe Clean WaterAct apply to protect the local drinking water source. This application was provided to the appropriate RiskManagement Official/Inspector responsible for this area and I understand that a Clearance Notice under Section 59 ofthe Clean WaterAct has been issued to the owner/applicant. Slope Instability and Erosion Hazard Considerations Based on the 2010 submission materials forthe proposed plan ofsubdivision, residential development on Block 112 of Phase 2 is proposed directly adjacent to a steep slope. In 2010 it was noted by LTCstaff that the slope in this area has a slope ratio steeper than 3(h):1(v). In accordance with provincial technical guidelines for natural hazards, these slopes would be considered potentially unstable and may pose slope instability and/orerosion hazards for adjacent development. The Natural Hazards Section of the Provincial PolicyStatement (Section 3.1) states that development shall generally be directed to areas outside of hazardous sites (i.e., lands that could be unsafe for development due to naturally occurring hazards). Conservation Authority staff understands that the proponent plans to or has already rehabilitated the slope (i.e., reduce the grade) in association with the proposed stormwater management facility on Block 108. In 2010 we suggested that this work be completed by a qualified professional, in the context of the proposed residential development adjacent to the feature (i.e., appropriate grades for the site). Our records do not contain details for the slope rehabilitation with respect to the adjacent residential development proposed — is the slope now stable enough to support the adjacent unit(s)? A geotechnical study should be completed to evaluate slope stability, and the risks and possible mitigation measures associated with the development on and adjacent to the potential erosion hazard. We have included an updated recommended condition of draft approval to reflect this. ONTARIOREGULATION163 06 Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 163/06, Lower Trent Conservation’s (LTC)regulated areas on the subject lands include the Stirling Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) plus a 120 metre regulated allowance, and the Rawdon Creek floodplain (flood elevation of 119.1 metres above sea level) plus a 15 metre regulated allowance. Any development as defined below within LTC’sregulated areas would require a permit from our office prior to 'WorkmgWlfllLocalCammun/‘rte; to Prored our Natural Enwranment" Me: L. >fConservation Ontario Representing C ario’s 36 Conservation Authorities Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 49 of 74 Page 5 of 5 the commencement of any on—siteworks. Conservation Authority staff note that development within 30 metres ofthe Stirling Wetland on this site would not be supported by our permitting policies. ’'Development’’ as defined under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act includes: 0 the construction, re—construction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind; 0 any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure; 0 site grading; or, 0 the temporary or permanent placing, dumping, or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. Itrust the above meets your information requirements at this time. Should you require any further information or have any questions, please contact me at this office. Respectfully submitted, aéokfiiilmnb Leah Stephens Environmental Planner/Regulations Officer 613-394-3915 ext. 220 “WorkingWlfhLocalCommunmes to Protect our Natural Enwronment" I I I Member or’C(' avwt.._.'vation Ontario Representing Ontario's :6 Conservation Authorities Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 50 of 74 HarrowJ@hast gscounty corn Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 51 of 74 Page 2 of 5 (2) Buffer areas shall remain in a natural, undisturbed vegetated state; (3) Avoidance of earth moving during the spring and fall storm periods; (4) Sediment and erosion control measures shall be established during construction periods to the satisfaction of Lower Trent Conservation Authority; (5) De—watering, where applicable, shall be treated prior to discharge. A de-watering quality plan shall be completed to the satisfactionof the Township of Stirling-Rawdon in consultation with the Lower Trent Conservation Authority; (6) No maintenance or re—fue||ingof construction vehicles on—siteunless in designated areas separated from the wetland; (7) Removal of woody vegetation to be minimal and not occur during the breeding bird season between May 15”‘and July 10”‘. b) The recorded Rawdon Creek floodplain should be first clearly demarcated on an accurate—scale drawing completed by a qualified professional; In consultation with the Lower Trent Conservation Authority and the County of Hastings, the Township of Stir|ing—Rawdonwill ensure the following within its comprehensive zoning by-law: i) Zone the Stirling Wetland Complex the Environmental Protection (EP)Zone; ii) Require a 30—metresetback from the Stirling Wetland Complex; iii) Zone the Rawdon Creek floodplain (flood elevation of 119.1 metres) the Environmental Protection —floodplain(EP-f) Zone; iv) Require a 6—metre setback from the Rawdon Creek floodplain.” LTC response...Lower Trent Conservation is not in receipt ofthe Subdivision Development Agreement or ofthe Muncaster Environmental Planning letter dated February 2009 so cannot comment on the requirement ofthis condition at this time. LTC/5 not in receipt ofa drawing indicating the delineated floodplain on Block 108 as required by Condition 3 b) and LTCdoes not have a copy ofthe Zoning Schedule for this property. Thereforewe cannot provide clearance ofthis condition at this time. Condition 7: ”Astormwater management plan be prepared by a certified and qualified engineerto the satisfactionof the Township of Stirling-Rawdon and the County of Hastings in consultation with the Lower Trent Conservation Authority as per its letter ofJu|y 30”‘,2020, which outlines: a) The means whereby stormwater quantity and quality will be addressed, so that 'post—to—pre’water quantity control is provided for runoff generated from the subject lands and at a minimum Level 2 water quality controls will be implemented (per the Ministry of the Environment's Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003)). The plan willalso indicate how stormwater will be conducted to a receiving body and the location and description ofany and all outlets which may require permits under Ontario Regulation 163/06(the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). b) That a lot grading and drainage plan, and a sediment and erosion control plan be completed and approved to the satisfaction of the Township of Stirling-Rawdon, the County of Hastings and Lower Trent Conservation.” LTCResponse: The proposed subdivision is located in an area with two distinct drainage areas: north and south. The north drainage area (7.68 ha) has local drainage fromthe development (and some off- site drainage) directed towards Rawdon Creek through a box culvert underjohn Street. Some ofthisflow is now directed to an abandoned aggregate pit in the northwest portion ofthe development. The “'\-.'oi‘l .‘.h -1!‘" L2.‘(.i,:n~.'n-.itu:un (l‘. Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 52 of 74 Page 3 of 5 southern drainage area (3.69 ha) directs flowtowards the Stirling Wetland Complex that is associated with the Mudd Creek tributary ofRawdon Creek. The original stormwater management plan had included the entire subdivision area but modificationsmade in 2011 focussedthe stormwater management plan on the northern area only. Phase I ofthe development is 3.11 ha proposed in the eastern portion ofthe northern drainage area. Block108 is the stormwater management facility block located along the northern portion ofthe subject site. The storm water management plan went through a number ofchanges throughout the consultation process in 2010 through 2012. The introduction ofthe Source Water Protection Program and updates to the delineation ofthe Stirling Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) caused some discussions during this process. There is a formerMining Aggregate Operation (MAO) located in the north portion ofthe property that accepts local drainage. It was finally agreed to that the location ofthe MAO was the best location with respect to source water protection and the impacts to the source water will be addressed through the prescribed instrument ofan Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).TheformerMAO was to be rehabilitated to reduce the side slopes and a rehabilitation plan. LTCis not in receipt ofthe rehabilitation plan and cannot comment furtheron this. The pit, acting as the proposed stormwater management facility, is to receive drainage fromcontributing area by storm pipe, major system contributions and overland flow.There is no outlet fromthis pit and the entire pit acts as a large infiltrationfacility. No hydrogeological study was completed to assess impacts to groundwater or potential for groundwater mounding in this area. No calculations were completed to confirmthe use ofthis pit as an infiltrationfacility. It was stated that the pond willnot cause adverse flooding impacts by exceeding the infiltrationcapacity ofthe underlying soils because the drainage area to the pond will not be increased and the existing storm events are stored in the pit and eventually infiltratedinto the ground. The pit was analyzed to be able to store more than the 100—year flow.In the event that the water level in the pit staged up, it would eventually spill to the north towards the swale that conveys flowunder John Street towards Rawdon Creek. To provide Level2 (Normal) water quality control a Stormceptor (or equivalent) oil grit separator (OGS) unit was proposed. Details about the OGS unit were provided and LTCwas satisfiedthat the unit will provide the required level oftreatment. Strict maintenance and operation ofthe OGS unit willneed to be undertaken to ensure the water quality controls are functioning at all times. On December 8, 2011, LTCconfirmedin writing that there are no furtherconcerns with the stormwater management plan forPhase I ofthe RyellSubdivision development based on informationprovided in the November 4, 2011 Stormwater Management Plan by WaterPlan and Engineering Drawings dated September 2011 with updates November 8, 2011 and December 5, 2011. LTCrecommended that a detailed maintenance plan be reviewed by the Conservation Authority and included in the subdivision agreement. In March 2012, there was confirmationofan additional 1.5 ha ofland contributing to the northern stormwater management facility through external drainage areas. LTCconfirmedthat the facility would be able to handle this additional flowand had enough storage capacity. ModifiedSWM block sizes were proposed and LTCwas agreeable to all proposed options. . . 1 . , _ _ ._ . H.worl<:ngw:tl1zocalcommunities to Protectour natur alenvnonment' .\.’w.-1‘ ' "Lnn -.-..1n-an ()n:.mo R:~p_v.-wnrlngO13‘. n'< .1, (,'r;n<<‘n'.I.'inn '~n.'lm.'..’n~-. Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 53 of 74 Page 4 of 5 In May 2013, LTCwas consulted on the addition ofdrainage easements between development on Rodgers Road and the proposed Phase / development. LTChad no concerns. Thereforebased on the Stormwater Management Plan by WaterPlan (Nov 2011) and the detailed enqineerinq drawinqs ]Sept, Nov or Dec 2011) LTChas no furtherconcerns with the stormwater management glan forPhase I and thereforeconsiders Condition 7 completed. LTCrecommends that a detailed maintenance plan be reviewed by the Conservation Authority and included in the subdivision agreement. Condition 10: "The Clerk ofthe Township of Stir|ing—Rawdonshall provide written confirmation to the County of Hastings Planning and Development Department that the following zoning classifications have been established: c) Block 108 is zoned EP (Environmental Protection) Zone and EP—f(Environmental Protection — floodplain) Zone.” LTCResponse....LTC is not in possession of the Zoning Schedule for this area and thereforecannot confirmthat this zoning was implemented. Other Conditions Reguested: Condition 4: "Prior authorization under Ontario Regulation 163/06(the Development, Interference with Wetland sand Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation) be obtained from Lower Trent Conservation for any proposed development within 30 metres ofthe Stirling Wetland Complex or 15 metres from the floodplain of Rawdon Creek (flood elevation of 119.1 metres)." LTCResponse....LTC does not pre-authorized permit applications. It should be noted that the Stirling Wetland Complex was upgraded to Provincially Significant Wetland status in 2012. LTCregulates lands within 120 metres ofall PSWs and lands within 15 metres ofdelineated floodplains. Note that no drawings submittedto LTCillustrated the Rawdon Creekfloodplain in Block108. LTCwould suggest that Condition 4 could be addressed through a clause in the Subdivision Agreement, requiring landowners to obtain permission fromLower Trent Conservation under 0. Reg. 163/06for development or site alteration within 120 metres ofthe Stirling Wetland Complex PSW or within 15 metres ofthe delineated floodplain prior to the commencement ofon—siteworks. Condition 6: "The landowner shall complete a pre—construction survey of roads, sewer, water and storm facilities in relation to John Street, Rodgers Drive and connecting access points to determine deficiencies of existing conditions, as may be required by the Township of Stir|ing—Rawdon.As a result ofthe survey as accepted by the Township of Stirling—Rawdon,the subdivision agreement between the proponent and Township shall include provision for off—siteimprovements required to be made by the proponent. The proponent shall address all costs for improvements to such facilities that represent premature undertaking of related public capital works, if any. The subdivision agreement between the proponent and Township shall include provision for improvements to be made by the proponent to John Street and Rodgers Drive and associated infrastructure and facilities, if any. Costs associated with improvement to the existing infrastructure may be mitigated through the use of temporary access routes designed to accommodate heavy construction vehicles and equipment.” LTCResponse: It is LTC’sopinion that this Condition is not to be cleared by LTC. “worl ’ .‘.lwna. bw):v ."Lu.-I:-.-r‘.'.iiiun(_>n:.i/.5-1 Rl"').'l“-‘..‘f"lflf‘ll,'(JET.~-mu “.3 'T:u.vlmi‘; i'I;C-':mx‘r\'.ii'i'-‘in 'ui.'liriri£icv. Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 54 of 74 Page 5 of 5 Condition 8: ”The Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Stirling-Rawdon contain provisions with wording acceptable to the County of Hasting and Lower Trent Conservation, whereby the owner agrees to carry out or cause to be carried out, the works outline in Condition 7, above.” LTCResponse: ....Please referto LTCcomments on Condition 7. Provided that a clause in the Subdivision Agreement requires the owner to implement and adhere to the measures outlined in the approved Stormwater Management Plan, LTCcan provide conditional clearance ofCondition 8. Once a Subdivision Agreement is prepared, LTCcan review the wording and provide finalclearance ofthese conditions. Condition 9: "A rehabilitation plan for the abandoned pit shall be presented to the County of Hastings Planning and Development Department prior to commencement of rehabilitation work. The identified steep slope associated with the abandoned pit where it exceeds a slope ratio of 3(horizontal):1(vertica|) shall be rehabilitated by a qualified profession, to establish safe conditions in context to the proposed residential development adjacent to the feature (i.e. appropriate gradesfor the site). The rehabilitation of the slopes shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Township of Stirling-Rawdon and the County of Hastings." LTCResponse: ....LTCis not in receipt ofa rehabilitation plan for the pit or some type ofdocumentation froma geotechnical engineer regarding the pit. LTCwas not required to acknowledge satisfactionofthe rehabilitation plan and thereforecannotcomment at this time. Please note that Lower Trent Conservation has not received the review fee for clearance at this time. As noted in earlier communications this fee is $370/phase. LTCcan provide final clearance once review fee and items noted above have been addressed or provided. Also note that LTChas received engineering drawings for an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for storm sewers for Phase 2 ofthe RyellSubdivision and were requested by the consultant to provide support for the application. LTChas not received any formal circulation of a Draft Plan of Subdivision application for additional phases of the RyellSubdivision at this time and therefore would not be in a position to provide comment on design drawings. LTC’sfee for additional phases is $2100. Lower Trent Conservation looks forward to working with Hastings County and the Township of Stirling- Rawdon on finalizing this file. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Leah Stephens (LTCEnvironmental Planner, x 220). Sincerely, Ja’netNoyes, . Manager, Watershed Science & Services ‘ Cc: Paul Walsh — Planner, Hastings County; Wa|shP@ haslingscountyxom Chris Sharratt — G.D. Jewell Engineering lnc.;1 csharratt@'ewelIeng,ca “'worl .\lL-ml‘.-v-7."(_uri~.:=r\nrion C).-n'.ii.‘o f\'«'~,'>.n_-xt-nririg 1.'.nu". .iI/. ('_fu..'i\r.'t.i.'r'nn ."l1r.'linn.'i'(>x Proposed Draft Approval to Plan of Subdivision County File N... Page 55 of 74 Page 56 of 74 Q > _._mmn_=mm92.2 m=%.i_..a_§%_mn.OE.9332.23 Umnmn _<_m wmno33m_,_n_mn_o:m" ._.._._._>._.ms: wmoonnnmnmn_<_m<.3. No.3 _.mcm_.n==u_u_:m_>Eono 4:5 :6 _u_m::_:mOo33.nnmm nmoonsnsmsonooo::n ._._._>n.=5 _v_m=n::coo:::_nnmm _.moo==.:m:q no oo.=.n _u_:m:o.m_=5 man” Uomwnmoo33m:amn_o: :m UB2 >_u_u8 >:m_ w_w\oo33m:n ._.:mmvvzomiEmmm%_a$8 m__9. Em oosaaosm3 9%._mnu3 - _»mmumn::__< mcaazmaE: DC/\N 039 :® < \ 0133 _._m=:N3m:. _u_m::m~ _<_m<3. ~34 Enmnaon oo:o:2m:om" ~ _um?m_ ._:m:: _._m..3<<._u=mn3n 9. _u_m::_:mm_um N. US: _u_m:9. mcUa_<_m_o: oosqaosm w Qmmasom _.m:2 .403 Em _<_::.o8m_:<9. Omsqm Imwmzom.38 _<_m<9 ~03. Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Page 59 of 74 Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Page 60 of 74 Date: November 10, 2016 Report to : Planning Committee Report from: Justin Harrow, Director of Planning & Development Subject: Hastings County Official Plan – One Window Review Highlights Recommendations: 1. THAT the Planning Director’s Staff Report dated November 10, 2016 regarding the status of the Official Plan Update BE RECEIVED. Financial Impact: Does recommendation have a budgetary impact: Yes No √ If yes, what is the anticipated impact? If yes, has it been budgeted for this year? Yes No √ Has Treasury provided analysis? Yes No √ Background: The County Planning Department has received the Province’s “One Window Review” comments on the Draft Official Plan. Through the “One Window Review” the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) provides a single provincial position which integrates the perspective of several ministries: Environment; Natural Resources; Transportation; Culture; Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Northern Development and Mines; and Energy and Infrastructure. Planning staff have reviewed these comments in consultation with the MMA staff to determine what changes (if any) can be made. The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Committee with the highlights of the comments/suggestions received through the “One Window Review” process. Analysis/Comments: The Planning department received a number of comments (approximately 206) through the “one window review” process. The majority of the comments are considered technical and minor in nature and have or will be accommodated in the revised draft plan. The follow are highlights of some of the changes requested that are more substantive in nature. Bill 73 The draft plan was submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs prior to Bill 73 coming into full force and effect in July 2016. Bill 73 made a number of changes to the Planning Act which in effect has required a number of changes to the draft Official Plan in order to ensure compliance with Bill 73. Among others, changes included 1 Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Page 61 of 74 a mandatory requirement for policies around public consultation, policies around establishing additional criteria for minor variances beyond the traditional four tests. In addition, policies are required for increasing the Official Plan review cycle from 5 to 10 years and providing policies around prohibition of Official Plan or Zoning by-law amendment for 2 years after their adoption (unless council passes a by-law waiving that requirement. As most of the changes required are mandatory, these changes have or will be made. Were possible staff have drafted them to be permissive in nature. Natural Heritage Features The province has suggested that the County consolidate all natural heritage features onto a single schedule together with “conceptual” linkages in order to form/identify the County’s natural heritage system. Planning staff note that the draft Official Plan and its schedules have not been structured to accommodate this suggestion without significant changes to the plan. As an alternative staff will prepare a figure (map) identifying natural features and conceptual linkages, which will be included within the plan that will fit within the current policy framework and address the ministries concerns. Wildland Fires In order to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the province has suggested that areas with high to extreme potential for wildland fires be mapped; however mapping was unavailable at the time the draft plan was submitted. The province has now provided the mapping and staff will include it as an appendix to the plan for reference purposes. The current draft plan already contains policies requiring that development is to be directed outside of areas that have high potential for wildland fires or that any risk associated with wild land fires are mitigated. The province has suggested some additional wording which staff have incorporated where appropriate. Mining and Aggregate The province suggested separating mining and aggregate from the schedules and policies (mapping), which would require significant changes to the plan. The current approach of combining the mining and aggregate policies together is consistent with the way the current Official Plan is structured and has generally been effective. Staff recommend no change in this regard. Agricultural Farm size The province has suggested that the minimum lots size for lands designated Agriculture in the new draft plan should be their standard 40ha (100 ac). The draft Official Plan currently requires a minimum lot size to be 30ha (approximately 75 ac). Staff note that the minimum lot size for lands in the Agriculture designation in Hastings County have been 30ha for a number of years (predating our current Official Plan). In this regard it would appear that 30ha is a viable lot size for agriculture parcels in the County and should remain as the minimum lot size. Extension of Existing Right-of-Ways The Province suggests prohibiting development on the extension of existing right-of-ways, as there are potential issues surrounding ownership and maintenance costs among others. Council has provided direction to staff to maintain the provision to allow for development on extensions of private roads and as a result staff have not made any changes in this regard. Severances in the Rural Designation The policies of the draft Official Plan currently permit an existing land holding to sever two new lots and when each of those lots are built on, two additional severance would be permitted a (total of four lots plus the retained lot) subject to the rest of the policies in the Official Plan. The Province has suggested that the number be reduced to permit only one additional severance after the first two are built on (total of three plus the retained lot). Council has directed staff to prepare the plan to be consistent with the current practice which is to allow two additional lots (a total of four plus the retained lot) as a result no change has been made to this section of the plan. 2 Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Page 62 of 74 Urban Boundary Adjustments In consultation with affected member municipalities, staff have made some small adjustments to the urban settlement boundaries in Bancroft, Marmora, Tweed and Stirling in order to provide more logical/rationalized boundaries. The province has suggested that no changes be made to the existing Urban boundaries, and further they have indicated that if any adjustments are to be made they would need to result in no net gain in developable lands. Staff believe the adjustments to the boundaries of the urban areas are appropriate and are in the process of preparing additional information in support of the proposed boundary changes and recommend we continue to move forward with the Urban Boundaries as presented in the Draft Plan. Summary While there were a significant amount of comments received from the province, many of the comments were minor and/or technical in nature. The above report provides a high level summary/highlight of some of the more substantive comments identified by the province. It is anticipated that once the revised draft of the County of Hastings Official Plan has been completed, the committee will have the opportunity to review the policies in more detail. ______Justin Harrow, Director of Planning and Development . 3 Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Page 63 of 74 Page 64 of 74 TENATIVE TIMELINE FOR OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATE 2017 Tasks/Milestones May Jun July Aug Sept. Oct Nov Dec Jan 1 Draft of OP for Planning Committee 2 Draft OP to Member Municipalities 3 Meeting with Municipalities 5 Open Houses 6 Public Meeting 7 Final (revised) Draft OP for Adoption 8 Adoption Hastings County Draft Official Plan – Final Draft for Public... Hastings County Draft Official Repairs to the Trans Canada Trail Page 65 of 74 ATTACHMENT NO.1 Repairs to the Trans Canada Trail Page 66 of 74 Repairs to the Trans Canada Trail Page 67 of 74 Repairs to the Trans Canada Trail Page 68 of 74 NOTICE OF ZONING BY-LAWS FOR THE May 16th PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING: H. Lambe, CAO/Clerk By-Law 30-2017(R1-3 to R1-3-h) & (R1-3(f) to R1-3-h(f)) Town of Bancroft (former Faraday) Pt. of Lots 72 & 73, Conc. WHR A. Cox, Clerk-Administrator By-Law 14-2017 (MX to RU) Township of Carlow/Mayo (Mayo) Pt. Lot 17, Conc. 16 (295 Mallard Lake Rd) D. Switzer, Clerk-Treasurer By-Law 10-2017 (WR to WR-1) & (WR to WR2) Township of Faraday Pt. Lot 3, Conc. 10 (23 Jade Bay Rd) T. Donald, Clerk By-Law 1162-17(MA to RR) & (PA to PA-21) & Township of Stirling-Rawdon (PA to MA) & (MA to PA-21) (Rawdon) Pt. Lot 4, Conc. 3 (99 McInroy Rd) S. Mercer, CAO By-Law 17-03 (MA & EP to RR) Township of Tyendinaga Pt. Lot 10, Conc. 6 (1132 Shannon Rd) Zoning By-Laws for the May 16, 2017 meeting Page 69 of 74 Page 70 of 74 Repairs to the TransCanada Trail Page 71 of 74 ATTACHMENT NO.1 Repairs to the TransCanada Trail Page 72 of 74 Repairs to the TransCanada Trail Page 73 of 74 Repairs to the TransCanada Trail Page 74 of 74