Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:00 p.m. Lanark County Administration Building Council Chambers Councillor Richard Kidd, Chair AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Page 1. CALL TO ORDER (Reminder please silence all cellphones) 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES Suggested Motion: "THAT, the minutes of the Community Development Committee held on October 3, 2012 be approved as circulated." 4. ADDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA Suggested Motion: "THAT, the agenda be approved as presented." 5. DELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONS i) Lanark County Immigration Portal & Job Board Kara Turner, Website Developer and Community Liaison 6. COMMUNICATIONS i) RVCA: Watershed Briefs (September 2012) Suggested Motion: "THAT, the communications for the November Community Development Committee meeting be received as information." ii) Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County - Request to Formalize Agreement 6-7 6-7 6-7 6-7 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 Page 1 of 118 Page 1 of 118 Page 1 of 118 Page 1 of 118
Transcript
Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:00 p.m. Lanark County Administration Building Council Chambers
Councillor Richard Kidd, Chair
AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER (Reminder please silence all cellphones)
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES Suggested Motion: "THAT, the minutes of the Community Development Committee held on October 3, 2012 be approved as circulated."
4. ADDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA Suggested Motion: "THAT, the agenda be approved as presented."
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the communications for the November Community Development Committee meeting be received as information."
ii) Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County - Request to Formalize Agreement
6-76-76-76-7
8-98-98-98-9
Page 1 of 118Page 1 of 118Page 1 of 118Page 1 of 118
Page
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Community Development Committee recommend that the Council of Lanark County continue the third party partnership with the Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County to accept financial support on their behalf."
7. CONSENT REPORTSi) Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
ii) Report #T-24-2012 Lanark County Tourism Information Report
iii) Report #T-25-2012 Lanark County Tourism Association (LCTA) Information Report Suggested Motion: "THAT, the following Consent Reports for the November Community Development Committee meeting be received as information: Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report Report #T-24-2012 Lanark County Tourism Information Report Report #T-25-2012 Lanark County Tourism Association (LCTA) Information Report."
8. DISCUSSION REPORTSi) Report #PD-37-2012 Delegation of Authority: Minor Changes to
Subdivisions/Condos Planning Administrator, Mary Kirkham
Suggested Motion: “THAT, the Clerk prepare a By-law to amend By-law No. 2000-17 to delegate the authority to approve ‘minor’ revisions to plans of subdivision or condominium plans to an appointed officer of the Corporation in accordance with the Planning Act Section 51.2 (1).”
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the application for draft plan of subdivision in Tay Valley Township numbered 09-T-10004, Tayside Estates Subdivision be given draft approval and the draft plan subject to the conditions and notes recommended by the County Planner in his technical report. AND THAT this draft approval shall lapse if the conditions of draft approval have not been fulfilled within a period of three (3) years after the notice of decision is given.”
Suggested Motion: “THAT, the Request for Proposal #PD-001-2012 Development / Landscape Master Plan be awarded to Tocher Heyblom Design Inc. (thinc) in the amount of $13,900.00 which included disbursements, plus applicable taxes. AND THAT, staff be directed to budget for an additional $3,260.00 for the optional provisional public meeting, plus applicable taxes.”
iv) Report #IT-07-2012: Text2 Visit Business Case Director of Information Technology, Sam Law Tourism Manager, Marie White Suggested Motion: “THAT, County Council directs County staff to not purchase the Text2 Visit Application at this point in time.”
Chair/Warden, John Gemmell Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Tourism Steering Committee Update be received as information."
ii) 2012 Ontario Tourism Awards Tourism Manager, Marie White
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the 2012 Ontario Tourism Awards Update be received as information."
iii) Report of the Valley Heartland Community Futures Development Corporation (verbal) Executive Director, Susan Fournier Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Report of the Valley Heartland Community Futures Development Corporation (verbal) be received as information."
76-8076-8076-8076-80
81-8981-8981-8981-89
Page 3 of 118Page 3 of 118Page 3 of 118Page 3 of 118
Page
iv) Report of the Lanark County Municipal Trails Corporation (LCMTC) (verbal) Councillor Pat Dolan a) October 15, 2012 Meeting Minutes Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Report of the Lanark County Municipal Trails Corporation (LCMTC) (verbal) be received as information."
v) Report of the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance (EOTA) (verbal) Councillor Richard Kidd a) October 18, 2012 Meeting Minutes Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Report of the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance (EOTA) (verbal) be received as information."
vi) Report of the Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Management Committee (verbal) Councillor Peter McLaren No Report.
vii) Report of the Algonquin Land Claim Negotiating Committee (verbal) Councillor Val Wilkinson
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Algonguin Land Claim Negotiating Committee Update be received as information."
viii) Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal) Councillor Aubrey Churchill and/or Councillor Susan Freeman Last Meeting - October 26 Next Meeting - December 7 * Draft Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy available upon request Suggested Motion: "THAT, the Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal) be received as information."
ix) CP/OVR Update Warden John Gemmell
90-9390-9390-9390-93
94-9694-9694-9694-96
97-10397-10397-10397-103
Page 4 of 118Page 4 of 118Page 4 of 118Page 4 of 118
Page
Suggested Motion: "THAT, the CP/OVR Update be received as information."
ii) Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk, Cathie Ritchie
Suggested Motion: "THAT, upon recommendation from the Agriculture Advisory Working Group, the Community Development Committee recommend that Lanark County Council request a meeting at the OGRA/ROMA Conference with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the Proposed Local Food Act."
13. ADJOURNMENT
104-118104-118104-118104-118
Page 5 of 118Page 5 of 118Page 5 of 118Page 5 of 118
Fair and Consistent Regulation Through RVCARegulations — it’s the hard part of a Conservation Authority’s job, but one that is necessary andentrusted to us by our member municipalities, the Province and the federal government. What mayseem like red tape is actually there to protect property owners and maintain natural systems.
The RVCA administers a regulation under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act known as theDevelopment, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation(Ontario Regulation 174/06). Under this regulation, natural hazards such as flooding, erosion and theeffect of development on unstable slopes must be addressed before development can be approved.Through the review process, the RVCA ensures that the proposed development will not affect thecontrol of flooding, erosion, pollution, the conservation of land or the hydrologic function of a wetland.The safety of the proposed development will be assured and impacts on adjacent propertiesminimized. The goal is to prevent loss of life, minimize property damage, and to reduce public andprivate expenditures related to emergency operations, evacuations and restoration.
There is also a need to protect the long-term health and sustainability of the watershed’s streams,rivers and wetlands. The RVCA will generally direct new development away from these valuablenatural heritage features which are important for their environmental and social values. Your localConservation Authority is there to facilitate wise use of the land. The provincial regulation is there toprotect you, as well as the natural features and valuesassociated with wetlands, watercourses and shorelines.
If planning work along the water, it is best to call aheadand see if you live in a regulated area and if your projectneeds approval. An RVCA Information Specialist will helpyou determine if your property is located relative toregulated areas. If necessary, Conservation Authority staffmay visit your property and with your permission, accessthe property for a better understanding of local conditions.Staff will also advise you about the approval process foryour specific project.
If you don't call the RVCA, you may do something that isnot permitted. If your project is illegal, you may have toremove the work and you may be fined. Best to call aheadand work towards a suitable project that is safe for youand the environment. Over 90 percent of applicationsreceived by the authority are approved; not all may beapproved in the form in which they were received butusually a successful resolution is achieved which bothachieves the landowners’ objectives and results in a netgain for the watershed.
The Economic Value of Section 28Hurricane Hazel, a storm that sweptacross Southern Ontario on October15, 1954, unleashed floods that tookat least 81 lives, caused millions ofdollars in damage and shaped thepattern of development we see today.The government recognized that floodplain management needed to beundertaken on a watershed basis.Ontario’s programs to manage floodand regulated floodplains have provenextremely effective and the provinceis considered a global leader in floodplanning and management. Forexample, a study of four storms thatoccurred in Michigan and Ontario in1986 showed that while flood flowsfor Ontario were higher, damageswere much lower due to floodplainmanagement policies and regulations— $640 million in Michigan versus$0.64 million in Ontario (2008 dollars).
2012 Board of Directors
Andy Jozefowicz Athens
Lee Armstrong Augusta
Sharon Mousseau Beckwith
Tom Dewey Central Frontenac
No appointment Clarence-
Rockland
Ray Scissons Drummond/North
Elmsley
Lyle Pederson Elizabethtown-
Kitley
Jim Anderton Merrickville-
Wolford
Vince Carroll Montague
Gerry Boyce North Dundas
Barclay Cormack North Grenville
David Crowley Perth
Rob Dunfield Rideau Lakes
Ken Graham, RVCA Chair
Smiths Falls
Mark Tinlin South Frontenac
John H. Miller Tay Valley
Bradley Wing Westport
City of Ottawa
Alan Arbuckle, RVCA Past Chair
David Chernushenko
Steve Curtis
Steve Desroches
Ed Hand, RVCA Vice Chair
Magda Kubasiewicz
A n e w s l e t t e r f o r m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l l o r sSeptember 2012
ORD INARY P EOPLE DO ING EXTRAORD INARY TH INGS FOR THE ENV IRONMENT
ORD INARY P EOPLE DO ING EXTRAORD INARY TH INGS FOR THE ENV IRONMENT
Tools for Municipal Staff and ResidentsIf you need some environmental resource information, give an RVCA Resource Specialist a call (Kellieat ext. 1128 or Megan at ext. 1132). You can also download this exceptional information from theRVCA website at www.rvca.ca:• Beaver Information Package — helping landowners understand their rights and
responsibilities in managing beaver on private property. Available for free.• Stewardship Assistance Brochure — get the latest details on grant and technical advice
programs available to rural landowners in the Rideau Watershed. Ask an Information Specialist to send you copies for your municipality’s front counter or display rack!
• Extension Notes — access user-friendly fact sheets on a variety of resource management topics including water, wetlands and wildlife. Our favorites include: Preserving Water Quality, Preserving and Restoring Natural Shorelines, Buffers Protect the Environment, Restoring Shorelines with Willows. You can see them online at www.lrconline.com.
• Septic Smart - Booklet 1 — this twelve page booklet will help you understand and care for your conventional septic systems.
• Septic Smart - Booklet 2 — lot too small? Too much rock? Can’t go with a conventional system? Learn about advanced treatment units and their unique final distribution and soil treatments options.
• Solutions for Shoreline Erosion — A Basic Guide to Bioengineering — help reduce erosion with natural materials and structures. Valuable information on how to grow a self-repairing shoreline that stabilizes soils, minimizes erosion and contributes to healthy habitat.
• Around the Rideau Newsletter — see what’s happening in our corporate newsletter. Email [email protected] to get on our electronic mailing list.
City Streams Get TLC Thanks to Keen VolunteersCity of Ottawa streams continue to get a hearty dose of TLC thanks to the many keen volunteers whoget out and help with riparian planting projects, garbage clean-ups, invasive species removal andmonitoring events. This year’s surveys focused on Nepean Creek, Mud Creek (Gloucester), Black Creek(Gloucester), Taylor Creek (Orleans), and Ottawa East Tributary (west of the Village of Cumberland).
From 2003 — 2011 In 20121,226 Volunteers / 7,852 hours 170 volunteers / 962 hours
Thank you all for your hard work and dedication to the City Stream Watch Program. For moreinformation, contact Chelsey Ellis, City Stream Watch Coordinator, [email protected]
Your Conservation Land TrustThe Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation not onlyraises funds for conservation projects in ourmunicipalities, it is a reliable, local and accountable landtrust accepting gifts of property for conservation use inperpetuity. The Conservation Foundation has accepted16 parcels of land over the past few years (over 350hectares) to augment the supply of future conservationlands, to provide more public access to waterfrontviews and recreation, and for tree planting to helpprotect our irreplaceable sources of drinking water.
If you or someone you know is considering a gift of land, a mention of the track record andprofessional approach of the Conservation Foundation would be most appreciated. Together, we canmake the Rideau the greenest little valley in all of Ontario. Contact Charles Billington at ext 1116 [email protected] for more information.
Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County - Request to Formalize
Page 9 of 118Page 9 of 118Page 9 of 118Page 9 of 118
THE COUNTY OF LANARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 7, 2012
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Administrator
INFORMATION REPORT
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that:
“Report #PD-36-2012 of the Planning Administrator – Information Report for the period September 27, 2012 to October 31, 2012 be received as information.”
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
Page 10 of 118Page 10 of 118Page 10 of 118Page 10 of 118
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update Members of the Committee on the activities of the Planning Department.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Land Division Committee The Committee took the following actions with respect to consent applications considered at the regular meeting held on October 16,
2012:
Provisional Consent was granted to the following: 3.1.1 B05/055 – David and Doreen Scott – New Lot Pt. Lot 16 and 17 Conc. 9 Township of Beckwith (9th Line Beckwith)
3.1.2 B12/045 – Brian Moore – New Lot Pt. Lot 21 Conc. 7, geographic Township of North Elmsley, now in the Township of Drummond / North Elmsley. (Port Elmsley Road) 3.1.3 B12/051 – Donald Gordon – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 21 Conc. 6, geographic Township of Bathurst, now in Tay Valley Township. (Bathurst Con 7). 3.1.4 B12/055 and B12/056 Brian and Frances Craik – Two New Lots Pt. Lot 25 Conc. 3, geographic Township of Bathurst, now in Tay Valley Township. (Christie Lake Road). 3.1.5 B12/057 and B12/058 – James Closs – Two New Lots Pt. Lot 11 Conc. 2, geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (2nd Con Dal) 3.1.6 B12/076, B12/077 and B12/078 - James and Elisabeth Neelin – New Lot + ROW & 2 Lot Additions + ROW. Pt. Lot 14 Conc. 7, geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Fair’s Lane) 3.1.7 B12/079 – Craig Angus & P Rowshan – New Lot Pt. Lot 153, 154, 160 & 161 Plan 6115, Town of Carleton Place. (Napoleon Street) 3.1.8 B12/086 – Stacey Larocque – New Lot Pt. Lot 1 & 2 Conc. 10, geographic Township of Darling, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Tatlock Road) 3.1.9 B12/087, B12/088 and B12/089 – Margaret Briscoe - Three New Lots Pt. Lot 12 and 13 Conc. 6 Township of Beckwith. 7th Line Beckwith)
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
Page 11 of 118Page 11 of 118Page 11 of 118Page 11 of 118
3.1.10 B12/093 – Leo Fox – New Lot Pt. Lot 19 Conc. B, Township of Montague (Rideau River Road) 3.1.11 B12/109 Malcolm Williams – R-O-W Pt. Lot 2 Conc 4, geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Iron Mine Road).
Provisional Consent was deferred to the following:
3.1.12 B12/061 – Terry and Joan Dutton – New Lot Pt. Lot 4 Conc. 7 Township of Montague. (William Campbell Road) Requires EIS and confirmation on direction by Mr. Dutton – New Lot vs. Lot addition.
3.1.13 B12/075 – Deanne A Dowdall – New Lot Pt. Lot 7 Conc. 12, Township of Beckwith. (Dowdall Shore Lane) Does not conform to minimum Lot requirements – applicant to consider amending application to increase Lot to conform to Zoning By-law.
3.2 Land Division Committee The Committee took the following actions with respect to consent applications considered at the regular meeting held on October 29,
2012:
Provisional Consent was granted to the following:
3.2.1 B12/062, B12/063, B12/064 and B12/065 – Hector and Hilda Cowan – New Lot and 3 Lot Additions.
Pt. Lot 7, 8 and 9 Conc. 5, geographic Township of North Burgess, now in Tay Valley Township. (Elm Grove Road / Tully’s Way).
3.2.2 B12/075 – Deanne Dowdall – New Lot Pt. Lot 4 Conc. 7, Township of Beckwith. (Dowdall Shore Lane).
3.2.3 B12/080 and B12/081 – William & Joan McNaughton – 2 New Lots Pt. Lot 15 Conc. 9, geographic Township of Drummond, now in the Township of Drummond / North Elmsley. (Drummond Con 9A)
3.2.4 B12/082 – William & Joan McNaughton – New Lot Pt. Lot 14 Conc. 9, geographic Township of Drummond, now in the Township of Drummond / North Elmsley. (Drummond Con 10A)
3.2.5 B12/091 – Vicky Streeter – New Lot Pt. Lot 12 Conc. 9, Township of Beckwith (9th Line Beckwith)
3.2.6 B12/092 – Philip Pownell – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 9 Conc. 11, geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (11th Con Dal.)
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
Page 12 of 118Page 12 of 118Page 12 of 118Page 12 of 118
3.2.7 B12/095, B12/096, B12/097 & B12/098 – Michael J Umpherson – Three New Lots and One Lot Addition.
Pt. Lot 5 Conc. 12, geographic Township of Drummond, now in the Township of Drummond / North Elmsley. (Drummond Con 12A).
3.2.8 B12/099 and B12/100 – 1166719 Ont. Ltd – New Lot and Lot Addition Pt. Lot 1 Conc. 2 Plan 320 Lanark Village, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Markle Road) 3.2.9 B12/101 – Evert and Helen Bron – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 1 Conc. 2 Plan 320 Lanark Village, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Markle Road) 3.2.10 B12/102 – David and Sandra Schonauer – New Lot Pt. Lot 8 and 9 Conc 2, geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (2nd Con Dal.) 3.2.11 B12/103 – Rodger Fisher – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 5 Conc. 3 geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Ashby Road) 3.2.12 B12/104 – Randy Alward – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 5 Conc. 3 geographic Township of Dalhousie, now in the Township of Lanark Highlands. (Ashby Road) 3.2.13 B12/106 – Wilson Bowes – Lot Addition Pt. Lot 15 Conc. 1, geographic Township of Bathurst, now in Tay Valley Township. (Upper Scotch Line). 3.2.14 B12/115, B12/116 and B12/117 – 1503893 Ont. Inc. - 3 New Lots Lots 113 and 114 Compiled Plan 2289, Town of Carleton Place. (Miguel Street)
Approval of Draft Plan. No activity since 2000. Meeting held to review file Nov 1, 2010 – reports requested with no response. 1-year Extension Granted. Lapses April 25, 2013 (16 Units)
3.3.2 Gary & Mary Greer (File No. 09-T-91011) Montague - STEP 9 – Approval of Draft Plan. No activity since 2000. (2 Comm)
3.3.7 Pagesus Subdivision (File No. 09-T-09001) – Carleton Place – STEP 3 & 4 - Revised Plan received, Consultation, Notice to agencies – Public Meeting scheduled for November 6, 2012 (527 units)
3.3.8 Wilson Subdivision (File No. 09-T-09003) – Drummond / North Elmsley – STEP 14 and STEP 15 – final approval of Phase 1, plan registered. STEP 11 Monitor Progress – for Phase 2. Lapses July 16, 2013 (47 units)
3.3.11 The Meadows of Perth Subdivision (File No. 09-T-10002) Town of Perth STEP 14 and 15 – Final Approval and Close File (69 units) Submitted to Land Titles for Registration - FILE CLOSED
3.3.12 Carlgate High (File No. 09-T-10003) Town of Carleton Place
STEP 11– Monitor Progress. (94 units) Lapses September 24, 2014
3.3.13 Tayside Estates (File No. 09-T-10004) Tay Valley Township
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
Page 14 of 118Page 14 of 118Page 14 of 118Page 14 of 118
3.3.18 Coleman Street Condo (File No. 09-CD-12001) Town of Carleton Place
STEP 2, STEP 3 and STEP 4 – Receive Application, Consultation. Public Meeting set for November 6, 2012 (67 Units)
3.4 Part Lot Control
3.4.1 1503893 Ontario Inc. (File No. 09-P-12005) Almonte - Registered Plan 27M-43 The purpose and effect of the exemption will allow the re-division of Block 15 Plan 27M-43 to accommodate a five (5) unit townhouse dwelling unit. See Appendix “B”
4. DISCUSSION
Not applicable.
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS Not applicable.
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.
7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT None.
8. CONCLUSIONS This report is for information purposes.
9. ATTACHMENTS
Appendix “A” - Subdivision Procedures Flowchart. Appendix “B” – Part Lot Control 09-P-12005
Report #PD-36-2012 Planning Department Information Report
Page 15 of 118Page 15 of 118Page 15 of 118Page 15 of 118
APPENDIX “A”
Subdivision & Condominium Procedures Flowchart Responsibility Local County STEP 1 Pre-submission OP Conformity Services Servicing Capacity STEP 2 Pre-consultation Receive application Receive Fees Review conformity STEP 3 Submission Receive formal application and fees Advise review team Deem complete STEP 4 Consultation Circulation list Notice of Application Notification of circulation Public Meeting Receive comments Prepare Status Letter STEP 5 Objections Review with Review Team Advise Review Team if objections resolved or not STEP 6 Application Withdrawn Receive letter Advise various parties Move to Step 15 STEP 7 Evaluation SRT reviews Prepare draft conditions Prepare technical reports STEP 8 Failure to make Decision Applicant if no decision within 180 days may be
appealed to OMB STEP 9 Refusal / Approval Review technical reports Consider recommendations Notice of Decision STEP 10 Change Conditions Receive request to amend Prepare Report Changes may be appealed STEP 11 Monitor Progress 3 years to complete May request extension May withdraw STEP 12 Clearance Receives copy Receive Clearance letters of letters Clear local Clear County conditions conditions STEP 13 Land Titles/Registry Applicants solicitor to review requirements with Land Titles / Registry Office STEP 14 Final Approval Review file to ensure
complete Endorse and Sign Plan Notification of final approval Forward plans to Land Registrar
STEP 15 Close File Prepare statement of deposit Requisition o/s Balance
Report #T-24-2012 Lanark County Tourism Information Report
Page 18 of 118Page 18 of 118Page 18 of 118Page 18 of 118
2 of 5
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the Community Development Committee on 2012 tourism projects and programs to date.
3. BACKGROUND
The Tourism department plans and implements promotional activities in order to raise the profile of Lanark County as a tourism destination.
4. DISCUSSION Tourism Workshops Approved - Packaging & Customer Service Ontario’s Highlands Tourism Organization has approved Lanark County’s application for partnership to deliver five workshops that will help local businesses to develop their tourism products. Ontario’s Highlands will provide professional consultants for workshop facilitation and Lanark County will seek local partners to provide workshop locations, refreshments and assist with registration. The March 2013 workshop will coincide with Lanark County Tourism Association’s Annual General Meeting. The program must be complete by the end of March, 2013. The following timeline has been suggested: Nov. 28, 2012 – Packaging 101 This session will be delivered as part of the Eastern Ontario Beyond the City Lights Rural Tourism Conference at the Comfort Inn, Smiths Falls. Nov. 29, 2012 – Building and Packaging Experiences The workshop will be facilitated by Barrie Martin (Yours Outdoors, Haliburton) and Trish Manning (Manning Consulting Group). Perth & District Chamber of Commerce has partnered to provide a location. Feb. 20 (tentative) – Building a Culture of Service Excellence Ontario Tourism Education Corporation (OTEC) will facilitate this session. Location is yet to be determined. Mar. 20 (tentative) – Service Excellence for Diverse Cultures & Niche Packaging As part of Lanark County Tourism Association’s Annual General Meeting, two workshops may take place on the same day; one in the morning and one in the afternoon. OTEC will facilitate the Service Excellence session. The facilitator for Niche Packaging is yet to be determined.
Ontario Tourism Summit As one of three finalists for Best Marketing Partnership in Ontario, Lanark County Tourism has been invited to be recognized during the gala event on October 23, 2012 as part of the annual Ontario Tourism Conference in London, Ontario.
Report #T-24-2012 Lanark County Tourism Information Report
Page 19 of 118Page 19 of 118Page 19 of 118Page 19 of 118
3 of 5
Lanark County Festivals and Events Guide 2013 To be launched in January 2013, the fourth edition of the Lanark County Festivals and Events Guide is currently in production. Over 100 event listings and festival photos have been submitted to Henderson printing for inclusion in the design of this 12-page guide. Advertising space is now sold out. Approximately 50,000 copies will be produced and distributed in 2013. Lanark County Map Distribution Report CTM Media Group has reported that in June, July & August this year, 2,600 Lanark County Outdoors maps were picked up in Ottawa Hotels and attractions. Editorial KiMagic (International) Travel photographer Igor Kravtchenko of KiMagic has published online photos of Narrows Locks and Murphys Point Provincial Park. The photos were taken during Mr. Kravtchenko’s first tour of Eastern Ontario as part of a Familiarization (FAM) tour in partnership with Rideau Heritage Route Tourism Association. The images have already been viewed by over 1,200 international online visitors. MOON Handbooks - Ontario Travel writer Carolyn Heller has featured Perth and Smiths Falls in a Rideau Heritage Route Section for Avalon Travel’s MOON Handbook for Ontario. Ms. Heller visited Lanark County in 2011 as part of a FAM tour in partnership with Rideau Heritage Route. EMC Progress Edition 2012 A three-page article describing the achievements of Lanark County was published in this year’s edition of “Progress”. This annual supplement to the Expanded Market Coverage (EMC) included quotes from Warden Gemmell and local municipal councils.
Ontario Table Magazine Food & Travel Writer Lynn Ogryzlo visited Lanark County in August 2012 and has since published a 5-page travel story about Perth in Ontario Table Magazine. The Town of Carleton Place is also highlighted as a travel destination. Ottawa Magazine The October 2012 edition of Ottawa Magazine featured an upcoming exhibit at the Mississippi Valley Textile Museum and a restaurant review of The Old Ashton Pub.
Report #T-24-2012 Lanark County Tourism Information Report
Page 21 of 118Page 21 of 118Page 21 of 118Page 21 of 118
5 of 5
Social Media Update As of October 18, 2012, both Facebook and Twitter have seen an increase in subscribers; 705 fans now follow Lanark County Tourism on Facebook and 445 on Twitter.
Lanark County Display Booth
On October 28, during the Opening ceremonies of the World Broomball Championships at the Beckwith Sports Complex, a Tourism Display will be prominently located and staffed by volunteers.
Upcoming Meetings November 19 LCTA Board Meeting, Carleton Place & Beckwith Museum November 28 Beyond the City Lights Rural Tourism Conference,
Comfort Inn, Smiths Falls November 29 Tourism Packaging Workshop, TBD
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS None.
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None to report at this time. 7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
Report #T-25-2012 Lanark County Tourism Association (LCTA)
Page 23 of 118Page 23 of 118Page 23 of 118Page 23 of 118
2 of 7
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update the Community Development Committee on tourism projects of the Lanark County Tourism Association.
3. BACKGROUND
The Lanark County Tourism Association (LCTA) works collaboratively with Lanark County Tourism Department to foster and promote sustainable tourism for the economic prosperity of our communities. The Lanark County Tourism Association is a membership based, not-for-profit, destination marketing organization. The LCTA operates with a volunteer board of directors. Comprised of industry representatives, LCTA works in partnership with Lanark County to maximize the Association’s impact in the marketplace.
4. DISCUSSION LCTA Board of Directors On October 15, a regular meeting of the LCTA Board was held at the Lanark County Administration Building. The next regular meeting of the LCTA Board will be held on Monday, November 19 at 2:00 p.m. at the Carleton Place and Beckwith Heritage Museum. Ontario’s Highlands - 2nd annual Tourism Conference and AGM The Ontario Highlands Tourism Organization hosted their 2nd annual Tourism Conference and AGM at the River's Edge Golf Course and Country Club in Bancroft on October 29th, 2012. This event marked the organization's second anniversary and staff shared its successes to date. For more information, visit the OHTO website or contact Laura Slater, OHTO Administrative Assistant, toll free, at 855-629-6486.
Upcoming Meetings November 19 - LCTA Board Meeting, Carleton Place & Beckwith Heritage Museum November Events Community listings and events are posted on www.LanarkCountyTourism.ca. Festival descriptions and event photos can be accessed using the online event calendar found on the home page. Please post your events using the easy online form.
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS None to report.
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial statements are reviewed regularly by the LCTA Board of Directors.
Report #T-25-2012 Lanark County Tourism Association (LCTA)
Page 29 of 118Page 29 of 118Page 29 of 118Page 29 of 118
1 of 3
THE COUNTY OF LANARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 7, 2012
Report #PD-37-2012 of the
Planning Administrator
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
“THAT, the Clerk prepare a By-law to amend By-law No. 2000-17 to delegate the authority to approve ‘minor’ revisions to plans of subdivision or condominium plans to an appointed officer of the Corporation in accordance with the Planning Act Section 51.2 (1).”
Report #PD-37-2012 Delegation of Authority: Minor Changes to
Page 30 of 118Page 30 of 118Page 30 of 118Page 30 of 118
2 of 3
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide Members of the Committee with background information on the provisions of the Planning Act, that allow the “approval authority” (Lanark County) to delegate approval and signing authority to an appointed officer.
3. BACKGROUND
Lanark County was delegated the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to approve applications for plans of subdivision, condominium, condominium exemptions and part lot control by-laws effective July 4, 2000. By-law No. 2000-17 originally established the general responsibilities and procedures for the processing of applications and appointment of a subdivision signing authority. In 2002 the by-law was revised/amended to delegate both the approval and signing authority for ‘part-lot control’ to the subdivision signing authority. The 2000 by-law was subsequently revised/amended to include the Clerk and remove the Deputy Clerk as signing authority following re-organization in 2003. And further revised/amended in 2009 to include Deputy Clerk, when this position was established. Presently, the CAO, Clerk and Deputy Clerk are the appointed signing authorities.
4. DISCUSSION
Lanark County Planning Department strives to provide a timely service to subdivision
and condominium applicants. The Procedures Guidelines adopted by Lanark County for Subdivision and
Condominium applications provides for ‘major’ or ‘minor’ revisions to the draft approved plan. The difference between these types of revision is set out in the procedures manual.
The current process for both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ revisions is the same. An application
is received, circulation is required, a report is presented to Committee and then ratified by County Council; a process taking between 2 and 4 months depending on the date received relevant to the timing of both local and county meetings.
Major revisions include: increased number of lots, lot reconfiguration, change of
density or additional roads, which may or may not require additional studies or reports and require concurrence with agencies as well as the local municipality.
Minor revisions deal with slight lot line adjustments, minor road re-alignment (e.g. type of cul-de-sac), easements or walkways that do not change the overall intent of the plan. These types of revisions would not affect the studies or reports (i.e. Stormwater Management) and would only require concurrence with the local municipality.
Report #PD-37-2012 Delegation of Authority: Minor Changes to
Page 31 of 118Page 31 of 118Page 31 of 118Page 31 of 118
3 of 3
As noted in the background above, Council has previously delegated both approval and signing authority for part-lot control which deals with Blocks within a plan of subdivision, to staff. This was done to recognize that approval was required within a limited time frame.
In the same case, ‘minor’ revisions to plans of subdivision and condominium plans are under the same time constraints. They are usually required just before the final surveyed plans are presented to the County for final approval.
The Planning Act Section 51.2 provides that the council may, by by-law delegate all
or any part of the authority to approve plans of subdivision to an appointed officer identified in the by-law by name or position occupied. Similarly, the Condominium Act Section 50 provides for the same action by Council.
If the authority to approve “minor” revisions were delegated to staff, the process time
could be reduced to 4 to 6 weeks. This is a major benefit to both the developer and the County (reduced staff/council time).
The approval would be reported to Council in the same manner as currently being
prepared for ‘part-lot control’, which is through the monthly Planning Department Information Report.
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS OPTION #1 Amend By-law No. 2000-17 to delegate approval authority for ‘minor’ revisions to subdivision and condominium plans to the CAO, Clerk or Deputy Clerk. OPTION #2 Status Quo (no changes).
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. This service is included in the “Tariff of Fees By-law”.
7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT None. 8. CONCLUSIONS
The recommended change in procedure will provide a more timely and efficient process.
Report #PD-37-2012 Delegation of Authority: Minor Changes to
Page 32 of 118Page 32 of 118Page 32 of 118Page 32 of 118
1
THE COUNTY OF LANARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 7, 2012
Report #PD-38-2012
Planning Administrator
DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
FILE NO. 09-T-10004 – TAYSIDE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
PT LOT 20 AND 21 CON 2 BATHURST, TAY VALLEY TOWNSHIP
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
“THAT, the application for draft plan of subdivision in Tay Valley Township numbered
09-T-10004, Tayside Estates Subdivision be given draft approval and the draft plan subject to the conditions and notes recommended by the County Planner in his technical report.
AND THAT this draft approval shall lapse if the conditions of draft approval have not been fulfilled within a period of three (3) years after the notice of decision is given.”
Page 33 of 118Page 33 of 118Page 33 of 118Page 33 of 118
2
2. PURPOSE This report is to recommend draft approval of a plan of subdivision consisting of twenty-five (25) lots to accommodate single family dwelling units, two (2) blocks for open space / parklands and one (1) block for the future road servicing the subdivision. Access to all lots is proposed via an internal municipal street connecting to Glen Tay Road. The proposed subdivision is 1.5-km west of the Town of Perth, 0.5-km south east of the hamlet of Glen Tay and lying between the Tay River and Grants Creek. An existing farm operation is located to the west and the subject lands are currently being used as part of this farm operation.
3. BACKGROUND Municipal Plan Review (MPR) services for this application have been performed on behalf of the County by Kevin Mooder, Senior Project Planner, Jp2g Consultants Inc. A copy of the County Planner’s technical review report is attached. Kevin Mooder will be a delegation at the Committee meeting to present and discuss the Technical Report. This application was deemed to be complete on January 6, 2011. The applicant had the option of appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board if the County was unable to make a decision within the 180 day timeframe established under the Planning Act (i.e. on or before July 5, 2011). There were a number of issues identified which caused the subdivision application not to be processed within the timeframe. These included:
Flood Plain Analysis, Stormwater Management, Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis, Water Supply and Water Quality.
Details of these issues are outlined in the Technical Report attached. The Public Meeting to present the plan of subdivision to the public was held on March 22, 2011. Thirty-eight persons or public bodies attended the meeting. The plan was revised in February 2012 to address a number of the concerns that were raised, in particular, the wetland boundary, the area subject to flooding and the lot development plan (septic and well locations).
Page 34 of 118Page 34 of 118Page 34 of 118Page 34 of 118
3
4. DISCUSSION
See report of the County Planner (attached).
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS See report of the County Planner (attached).
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS External costs incurred by Lanark County are reimbursed by the applicant through By-law No. 2007-17 “Planning Application Fees”.
7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The proposed new lots will assist Tay Valley Township in meeting its short-term and long-term needs for housing.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The Municipal Plan Review Team concludes that all agency concerns or comments will be addressed in the subdivision agreement between Tay Valley Township and the owner, or through clearance of the Conditions of Draft Approval, whichever is appropriate.
9. ATTACHMENTS
i) Technical Report prepared by Jp2g ii) Recommended Draft Conditions
Page 37 of 118Page 37 of 118Page 37 of 118Page 37 of 118
Basemap from Softmap Ontario Topo50 2002
DRAWING TITLE SCALE
PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY
DATE CHECKED BY
PLOT DATE DRAWING NO.
KM
Site Location Map
2083081G
Nov-11
NTS
Fig 1
Tayside Estates
Subdivision Location Plan
PJ
2-Nov-11
Site Location
Site Location
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
Report #P
D-38-2012 D
raft Conditions:
Tayside E
states P
age 38 of 118P
age 38 of 118P
age 38 of 118P
age 38 of 118
Technical Report for Page 1 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
1.0 SITE LOCATION
An Application for Plan of Subdivision has been received from Lockwood Lands Corporation located in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 2 geographic Township of Bathurst now in Tay Valley Township. The land area to be subdivided is approximately 52.7 hectares (130 acres) from a 89 ha property which is located south of Glen Tay with frontage on land east of Glen Tay Road along the south shore of the Tay River. The proposed subdivision lands are located approximately 1.5 km west of the Town of Perth. The site has approximately 460m frontage on Glen Gay Road and is bound to the north by the Tay River and to the south by the Unopened Road Allowance between Concessions 1 & 2. Grants Creek, a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) is located within a portion of the unopened road allowance, and forms part of the southern limit of the property. The subject lands are comprised of agricultural fields 30%, wetland 30% and forested areas 40%. There is an existing barn located close to Glen Tay Road, the fields are being used for beef cattle pasture, hay and alfalfa and a portion of the woodlands as a sugar bush. The site has undulating topography with steep slopes becoming more gently sloping in the southern portion into the smooth basin adjacent to Grants Creek. Overburden consists of stony sandy loam till and rock with evidence of bedrock outcropping, the lands adjacent to Grants Creek are comprised of organic muck. Maximum relief is approximately 13 metres from the elevated ridge in the northeast at 147m to 133.7m as the water level of the river. The lands along the Tay River are subject to the Regulatory 1:100 year flood elevation of 136.86 and lands adjacent to Grants Creek are subject to an assumed 1:100 year flood limit of 135.5m. The adjacent land uses include active farming operations along Glen Tay Road, existing residential development in Glen Tay on the north side of the Tay River known as Chaplin Heights Subdivision and adjacent forested areas along the Grants Creek.
2.0 SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL
The Application was submitted to the County of Lanark on December 22, 2010 by McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (MPCE) in consultation with the current owners John and Karen Miller, and on behalf of Brad Lockwood. 2.1 Development History
The subject lands have been used for agricultural purposes for the past century, initially established as a dairy operation and then developed to raise sheep, pigs and chickens. In addition a portion of the woodlands was used as a sugar maple bush. Historically the site may have been used for a sawmill operation and a portion of the property involved mica extraction. Over the past 20 years agricultural use involved feed crop and pasture for a beef cattle operation. The landowners also permitted the development of a recreation trail through the property which linked Glen Tay to the Town of Perth. The trail is presently not actively maintained.
Page 39 of 118Page 39 of 118Page 39 of 118Page 39 of 118
Technical Report for Page 2 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
2.2 Plan of Subdivision
The Tayside Estates Subdivision Application, as amended February 14, 2012 proposes the creation of twenty-five (25) rural estate residential lots fronting a proposed subdivision road, shown as Street A. The subdivision road extends from Glen Tay Road a distance of approximately 1200m and terminates in a cul-de-sac. The plan proposes creation of two (2) large blocks of land for open space and parkland. Block 26 is approximately 13.1 ha located along the Tay River comprising lands below the regulatory 1:100 year flood plain, wetlands along the river and the lands around the existing barn yard which are in part located in the flood plain of the river. Block 27 is approximately 16.3 ha located along Grants Creek comprising lands below the assumed 1:100 year flood plain, local wetlands and the Grants Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). A copy of the Draft Plan of Subdivision is included in Appendix 1. Originally the proposed 25 lots ranged in size from 0.54 to 0.9 ha with an average lot size of 0.63 ha. The plan as amended proposes the average lot size will be over 0.8 ha in area. Each lot is to be serviced with an individual well and septic system.
3.0 BACKGROUND
The County received the formal Application for Approval for the Plan of Subdivision on December 8, 2010 which was deemed to be complete on January 6, 2011 upon receipt of payment of the application fees. The Application included:
Application form signed December 8, 2010 by owners
Draft Plan of Subdivision signed and dated by the owners December 8, 2010 and the boundary certified by Brian Kerr, O.L.S. on December 8, 2010
Planning Report prepared by MPCE dated December 8, 2010
Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis prepared by MPCE dated December 6, 2010
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by MPCE dated December, 2010
Servicing Options Statement prepared by MPCE dated November 29, 2010
Conceptual Stormwater Management Report prepared by MPCE dated November 29, 2010
Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) prepared by Adams Heritage dated September 17, 2010
The “Notice of Application” was forwarded to Tay Valley Township and various review agencies on January 7, 2011. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) was requested to review the application as part of the Municipal Plan Review (MPR) team. The RVCA Planning and Development Review Team provided their preliminary comments on March 14, 2001. Given the sites’ geographical and natural setting there was numerous meetings, consultations and review comments between the applicant the RVCA and the MNR.
Page 40 of 118Page 40 of 118Page 40 of 118Page 40 of 118
Technical Report for Page 3 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
On March 22, 2011 Tay Valley Township held a public meeting as required under the Planning Act. Based on agency and public comments a Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision was filed with the County on February, 14 2012 by MPCE. The application was accompanied by:
Land Use Planning Rationale Addendum prepared by MPCE dated February 8, 2012
Environmental Impact Statement Addendum by MPCE dated February 7, 2012
Conceptual Stormwater Management Report Addendum by MPCE dated February 9, 2012
Servicing Options Statement Addendum by MPCE dated February 9, 2012
The Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision: - maintained the number of lots at 25 - revised lot boundaries to address 30m setback from the Tay River - widened many lots to over 60m frontage - created larger lots on the gneissic bedrock zone whereby all those lots exceeded
0.81 ha in size - increased the development area of lots from approximately 15.8 ha to
approximately 20.7 ha - extended the length of the proposed subdivision road from approximately 1.1 km
to 1.24 km The revised plan illustrates the approved regulatory floodplain for Tay River and the assumed 1:100 year flood elevation for Grants Creek and the limits of the wetlands based on the analysis requested by RVCA. In addition areas of steep slopes and soil conditions were considered for the development envelopes of all lots. The following summarizes the proposed changes to the subdivision design.
Feature 2010 Draft Plan 2012 Draft Plan
Min. lot size 0.54 ha 0.61 ha
Max lot size 0.91 ha 1.01 ha
Average lot size 0.63 ha 0.83 ha
Average lot frontage 59.12 m 74.91m
Gross density 1 lot/1.88 ha 1 lot/2.11 ha
Residential 34% 39%
Open space 61% 56%
Roads/reserve 5% 5%
The County filed a Notice of the Revised Application to eleven (11) agencies and on February 14, 2012. On February 29, 2012 the RVCA filed proposed draft Conditions of Approval to address their stormwater management, floodplain, fisheries and wetlands review. In reference to the RVCA letter of January 18, 2012 outstanding issues remained concerning the hydrogeological assessment and terrain analysis. In consultation with the Township and as requested by the Applicant an independent peer review of the hydrogeological issues was conducted for the County.
Page 41 of 118Page 41 of 118Page 41 of 118Page 41 of 118
Technical Report for Page 4 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
4.0 PLANNING REVIEW
As the County of Lanark has been delegated the approval authority for plans of subdivision, and under their procedures, the County is to review development applications on the basis of municipal planning documents, Provincial legislation and policies.
In addition, this Municipal Plan Review (MPR) function includes the assimilation and consideration of agency and public comments as part of the review of a development proposal in regards to good planning principals, which is summarized in Section 5.0 of this report. Activities conducted by the County Planner included the technical review of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and assisting the Planning Approvals Administrator in the processing of the Application. Other key tasks completed in preparation of this Report included:
September 30, 2010 Site visit January 6, 2011 Application preliminary review comments March 22, 2011 Attended Public Meeting April 18, 2011 Attended meeting with the Applicant, the Township, Town of
Perth, RVCA and MNR representatives April-October, 2011 Monitoring agency review comments and MPCE responses November 3, 2011 Attended meeting with Applicant and the Township December 2011 Liaison RVCA February 17, 2012 Meeting RVCA March 6, 2012 Attended Public Meeting March 30, 2012 Prepared Terms of Reference for Hydrogeological Peer Review June 21, 2012 Meeting Applicant, County, exp and Township September 18, 2012 Meeting County and Township October 2, 2012 Prepared Water Supply proposed Conditions October 2, 2012 October 25 2012 Circulation proposed Draft Conditions to RVCA, Town of Perth
and Township 4.1 Official Plan and Zoning By-Law
Schedule “A” to the Official Plan of Tay Valley Township, as amended designates the subject lands Rural, Natural Hazard (shoreline of Tay River) and Natural Heritage (Grants Creek wetland). Under the Land Division (Section 5.2) policies in the Official Plan the development of a Rural landholding involving more than two lots must proceed by plan of subdivision. Residential development by plan of subdivision is limited to 25 lots. The minimum lot size in the Rural designation shall be 0.8 ha, but may be smaller for development located immediately adjacent to lands designated as Hamlet. Glen Tay is designated as a Hamlet in the Official Plan. All plans of subdivision shall comply with the Stormwater Management policies and meet the requirements set out in the Water Supply, Sewage Disposal and other Services section in the Official Plan. Applications within 300m of a water body must meet the requirements for Archaeological Resources and Development Adjacent to Water Bodies sections in the Official Plan.
Page 42 of 118Page 42 of 118Page 42 of 118Page 42 of 118
Technical Report for Page 5 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
The plan of subdivision application addresses these and other relevant General Development Policies in the Official Plan: 2.3 Housing Policy 2.11 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2.17 Land Use Compatibility 2.18 Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources 2.19 Natural Hazard Features 2.20 Human-Made Hazard Features 2.21 Natural Heritage Features 2.22 Water Supply Sewage Disposal and Other Services 2.23 Water Quality and Quantity The plan of subdivision application included documentation and consultations to support development in the following land use designations: 3.4 Natural Heritage – The Environmental Impact Statement dated December 2010 has been supplemented with additional assessments for wetland setbacks, fish habitat and species at risk in consultation with the RVCA and MNR. 3.5 Natural Hazard – The base of the Plan of Subdivision was prepared through low level air photography and interpretation, and has been supplemented with mapping of steep slopes and floodplain analysis to define the boundaries of these hazards in consultation with the Township and RVCA. 3.6 Rural – The subdivision is limited to 25 lots and has been amended such that the average lot area is over 0.8 ha. Similar scale of development is proposed as exists in the Glen Tay area. 4.4 Transportation – The location of the proposed subdivision road entrance from Glen Tay Road has considered traffic volume and sight lines to provide a safe egress and ingress. The property is currently zoned Rural (RU) Floodplain (FP) and Environmental Protection (EP), an application for a zoning by-law amendment has been received by Tay Valley Township. The Township and the RVCA have indicated that the rezoning is to recognize the defined limits of the hazards lands and the wetlands based on the site specific analysis conducted. These lands will be placed in a suitable restrictive zoning category to limit their use as hazard/conservation.
4.2 Provincial Interests
Matters of provincial interest are contained in Section 2 of the Planning Act and through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Section 3 of the Act. In this respect the County must ensure the proposal is “consistent with” the policies contained within the three (3) main policy objectives when reviewing this development application.
Page 43 of 118Page 43 of 118Page 43 of 118Page 43 of 118
Technical Report for Page 6 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
1. Building Strong Communities; 2. Wise Use and Management of Resources; and 3. Protecting Public Health and Safety
The following is a brief overview of the Application with regard to the PPS policies.
1.1 Achieve Efficient Development and Land Use Patterns
The development is located adjacent to a water body, which is generally a
main focus for residential growth in the Township. The design makes efficient use of significantly constrained agricultural lands, and is in an area of established residential development adjacent to the Glen Tay Hamlet.
Limited residential development is permitted in the Rural Area which is
compatible with the rural landscape and complies with the MDS formulas. The development will be sustainable through current service levels.
1.2 Coordination
The County has consulted extensively with the Township and the Conservation Authority in the review of the Application.
1.3 Employment Areas
Not applicable.
1.4 Housing
Directing housing development to existing built up areas is consistent with the PPS and the Township’s housing policies. The proposed rural subdivision is in close proximity to the Glen Tay hamlet.
1.5 Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space
Approximately 29 ha of the 52.7 ha property (56%) to be subdivided is to be set aside for conservation purposes. The applicant has proposed that these lands could be conveyed to the Township or other public agency for the purposes of public open space/parkland. Alternatively subject to further consideration the Township may only be conveyed 5% of the lands forparkland or cash-in-lieu of the 5% parkland dedication equivalent.
Page 44 of 118Page 44 of 118Page 44 of 118Page 44 of 118
Technical Report for Page 7 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
1.6 Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities
The lots are to be serviced by individual on-site sewage and water services. The Application is supported by a Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis Report and addendums which were reviewed by RVCA. Due to technical differences between MPCE and RVCA the applicant agreed to have an independent consulting firm complete a peer review. Exp Services Inc. (exp) requested additional fieldwork and analysis to address the hydrogeological sensitivity; low well yield and raw water quality exceedances of sulphate and colour. Based on further investigations by MPCE, exp agreed that the proposal indicates that the subdivision is capable to be developed based on individual on-site sewage and water services. As the raw water quality found in the on-site test wells is highly mineralized and requires treatment, the Township has acknowledged their conditional approval to development based on treatment systems. In addition the developer will be responsible for the construction and testing of wells on a portion of the property where there is a probability of sulphate levels which exceed treatability limits established in MOE Procedure D-5-5, to ensure a potable water supply is available for each lot owner. For all lots the Township will not issue a building permit unless a Well Certification report is completed for each lot. This report is to document that a well has been installed in accordance with O.Reg 903 and the hydrogeological report recommendations, and has been subject to water quantity and quality analysis as per MOE Procedure D-5-5. Through consultation with the local fire department the applicant has been asked install a dry hydrant or an in ground water tank facility. The Township has expressed no concerns regarding the provision of other public service facilities for the future residents.
1.7 Long-Term Economic Prosperity
Not applicable for this scale of development.
1.8 Energy and Air Quality
Not applicable. 2.1 Natural Heritage
The Application is supported with an Environmental Impact Statement December 2010 as amended February 2012. Supplemental reports in the EIS Addendum included SAR July 26, 2011, Fish and Fish Habitat July, 2011 (amended October 17, 2011) and a Wetland Setback Justification dated June 20, 2011. Significant natural heritage features and areas have been identified on-site, and mitigation measures have
Page 45 of 118Page 45 of 118Page 45 of 118Page 45 of 118
Technical Report for Page 8 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
been developed to minimize impact on the woodland, wetland, Species at Risk (SAR) and fish habitat. The following summarizes the recommendations: - In consultation with MNR, MPCE delineated the limits of the
wetlands along the south shore of the Tay River, the PSW and local wetland limits along Grants Creek and wetlands in the floodplain spillway between the two watercourses. Building envelopes for all lots are 30m from wetland limits. One docking facility will be permitted on the river, none into the Grants Creek PSW.
- Fencing and/or staking of the rear and side lot lines for the lots abutting Blocks 26 and 27.
- No vegetation removal along Grants Creek to protect Least Bittern
habitat, and restrict construction within 5 ha radius of nesting sites, during the May 1 to August 1 breeding season.
- Proposal to remove farm roads and culverts and install fisheries enhancement ponds in the Spillway.
- Provide lot owners with an Awareness Information Package (Stewardship Manual) describing the natural features and functions and the importance to protect them.
2.2 Water
The Application is supported with a Conceptual Stormwater Management Report and a Hydrogeological Study, to ensure protection of surface water features and the groundwater supply aquifer. The Township and RVCA will require and approve a detailed Stormwater Management Report and a Site Grading and Lot Development Plan as a condition of draft approval. The Town of Perth has requested that Notices to lot owners advise that the Tay River is the source of water for the Town. In addition that in the event of failure of the groundwater supply the Town does not guarantee the availability of a piped municipal water supply. The Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office (MRSSO) will approve the design and installation of the individual on-site sewage systems. The subdivision review process has resulted in the recommended use of tertiary treatment systems capable of nutrient removal to protect the surface water quality. In addition the septic systems are to be located over 20m from the well installed and on soils with a thickness of greater than 30 cm. These requirements exceed the minimum OBC standards and are intended to minimize the potential impact to the groundwater resource.
Page 46 of 118Page 46 of 118Page 46 of 118Page 46 of 118
Technical Report for Page 9 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
2.3 Agriculture
The site is not located in a prime agricultural area, but has been historically used for livestock pasture and cropland.
2.4 Minerals and Petroleum
No such resources have been identified on-site that would require long-term protection. There was past mica mining on site, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines was consulted indicating no concerns.
2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources
No significant mineral aggregate resources have been identified on site.
2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archeology
A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed by Adams Heritage to identify and document any heritage or archeological resources on-site. The Ministry of Tourism and Culture have reviewed the report and confirmed the archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their license in conducting the study. The Stage 2 field work did not lead to the identification of archeological resources and no further investigation is required. The report was accepted into the provincial register of archaeological reports. Copies of the Archaeological Assessment Reports were filed with First Nations, and written comments were received. The County accepts the review of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.
3.1 Natural Hazards
The subject lands are effected by the Tay River and Grants Creek flood plain. The applicant has stated that the PPS allows for certain types of development (ie infrastructure) within a flood plain provided human safety is not compromised. The proposed road design elevation will be no lower than 0.3m below the 1:100 year flood plain elevation similar in elevation to a nearby section of Glen Tay Road. The RVCA have recommended a Notice to lot owners of the flooding potential. With respect to lot creation, all lots have a suitable building area outside the regulated Tay River and assumed Grants Creek flood plain elevations.
3.2 Human-made Hazards
The mica mine located on the applicants’ remnant lands poses no concern. The Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry has advised the mine is not considered a hazard as it is less than 3m deep.
Page 47 of 118Page 47 of 118Page 47 of 118Page 47 of 118
Technical Report for Page 10 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
4.3 Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act
Regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality in considering a draft plan of subdivision. Matters applicable to the proposed subdivision as provided in Section 51 (24) are summarized as follows:
(a) The effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of
provincial interest;
As described in Section 4.2 of this report.
(b) Whether the subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
The Council of the Tay Valley Township has determined that the subdivision is not premature and is in the public interest.
(c) Conformity to the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision;
The subdivision conforms to the Official Plan as amended, and is
compatible with the surrounding residential development.
(d) Suitability of the lands for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
The lands are deemed suitable for residential development purposes and
the remaining 56% are proposed for conservation and passive recreation purposes.
(e) The adequacy of the highways in the proposed subdivision and the
highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity;
The extension of a new subdivision road from Glen Tay Road permits a
logical expansion of residential development into an area of vacant lands.
(f) The dimensions and shape of the lots;
The dimensions and shape of the lots are deemed appropriate for the residential use proposed by the draft plan of subdivision. The lot density of one lot/2.1 ha is similar to the development in the Glen Tay area. All lots exceed the minimum 4050m2 lot area under the General Residential (R) zone, Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15 and 16 require an exception from the minimum lot frontage of 60m to 45m.
Page 48 of 118Page 48 of 118Page 48 of 118Page 48 of 118
Technical Report for Page 11 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
(g) Restrictions or proposed restrictions on the land, buildings,
structures proposed or on adjoining lands;
There are recommended wetland setback distances which are defined in conditions of draft approval to be implemented through zoning and site plan controls.
(h) Conservation of natural resources and flood control;
The protection of natural heritage features and function, and the related specific stormwater management issues has been reviewed by the RVCA and MNR. Conditions of draft approval will require final design approvals from the RVCA.
(i) Adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
The adequacy of utilities and municipal services has been confirmed through the agency consultation process.
(j) Adequacy of school sites;
The adequacy of school sites has been confirmed through the agency consultation process.
(k) Land to be conveyed or dedicated, exclusive of highways, for public
purposes;
Blocks 26 and 27 for hazard protection and conservation purposes.
(l) Regard for energy conservation.
Issues regarding energy conservation were not addressed by the plan. 5.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW
The County circulated Notice of the application to twenty-two (22) agencies on January 7, 2011 Agency comments received as part of the review of the Application are summarized below.
Agency Consultation Date Comment
Conseil des Ecoles Catholiques de Langue Francaise du Centre-est Jan 24, 2011 - no objection Ministry Northern Development and Jan 27, 2011 - no objection Mines Enbridge Gas Feb 4, 2011 - conditions
Page 49 of 118Page 49 of 118Page 49 of 118Page 49 of 118
Technical Report for Page 12 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
Canada Post Feb 24, 2011 - public notice documentation MNR Mar 11, 2011 - comments RVCA Mar 14, 2011 - preliminary comments
Algonquins of Ontario Mar 22, 2011 - comments RVCA Mar 23, 2011 - comments on ZBA Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association Mar 28, 2011 - concerns Town of Perth Mar 31, 2011 - comments RVCA Apr 6, 2011 - comments on flood plain Bell Canada Apr 21, 2011 - conditions RVCA July 13, 2011 - HydroG review comments RVCA Aug 22, 2011 - Wetland Setback approval RVCA Aug 29, 2011 - Fish and Fish Habitat review MNR Aug 29, 2011 - Approved SAR analysis RVCA Aug 31, 2011 - Approved Flood plain analysis RVCA Oct 13, 2011 - Fish and Fish Habitat comments RVCA Oct 20, 2011 - Approved Fish Study RVCA Oct 28, 2011 - HydroG review comments RVCA Dec 7, 2011 - Response to MPCE RVCA Feb 29, 2012 - Draft Conditions MNDM Mar 5, 2012 - No comments Conseil des Ecoles Catholiques Mar 6, 2012 - No concerns Du Centre-Est MNR Mar 12, 2012 - Acknowledged EIS recommendations Town of Perth Apr 3, 2012 - Conditions Tay Valley Township Oct 24, 2012 - Conditions In response to the initial review of the Draft Plan application a meeting was held on April 8, 2011 with the Applicant, the Township, MNR, RVCA and Town of Perth. MPCE prepared and filed a preliminary Revised Draft Plan with the County on October 25, 2011 to address all agency comments. The formal Revised Draft Plan was circulated to key agencies February 14, 2012. As a result of the agency comments, various conditions and provisions have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval attached in Appendix 1. Public Consultation On March 22, 2011 a public meeting under the Planning Act was held by the Council of Tay Valley Township. A number of issues and concerns were raised by those in attendance (approximately 30) in both presentations to Council and written form: - natural heritage connectivity along the Tay River and Grants Creek - change in rural character of Glen Tay - potential for future road link from Glen Tay to Perth - road and lots subject to flooding - impact on the water quality and quantity of existing wells - evidence of poor water quality of the test wells
Page 50 of 118Page 50 of 118Page 50 of 118Page 50 of 118
Technical Report for Page 13 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
- potential for future development MPCE filed a letter of response dated March 20, 2011 addressing a number of these issues prior to the meeting, and responded to many of the concerns in their review of the application during the meeting As a result of agency and public comments a Revised Draft Plan Application dated February 14, 2012 was filed. A second public meeting was held on March 6, 2012. Generally those in attendance seemed pleased with the revised plan and how many issues have been addressed. There were however concerns expressed regarding the hydrogeological and terrain analysis issues not as yet resolved with the RVCA and what measures were proposed to protect the wetlands and water quality.
5.1 Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Review Team Comments
The RVCA Review Team conducted reviews of the reports filed with the Application and subsequent addendums related to Flood Plain Analysis, Stormwater Management, Wetland Setbacks, Fish and Fish Habitat, and the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis. Each of these issues are discussed separately, in consideration of the RVCA preliminary review comments dated March 14, 2011 highlighting the key issues and then how they have been addressed by the applicant and/or to be considered as conditions of draft approval.
5.1.1 Flood Plain Analysis
In consideration of the Natural Hazard policies in the PPS 2005, the subject lands are affected by the Tay River and Grants Creek flood plain. The Tay River Flood Plain Mapping was based on a 1981 study and under the initial Draft Plan application the estimate of the 1:100 year flood elevation for Grants Creek assumed the same elevation of 136.86 m geodetic. The initial RVCA concern was that development involving lot creation and the subdivision road was proposed within the flood plain. The review was conducted in consideration of the relevant PPS policies and the RVCA polices regarding development under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. RVCA (April 6, 2011) requested additional information to determine the volume of spill from the Tay River into Grants Creek during a 1:100 year flood event and extent of flooding. After a number of technical review meetings MPCE filed a response dated July 27, 2011. The results concluded that the Grants Creek 1:100 flood elevation would not exceed 135.5m and flood velocity and depths are acceptable through the spillway to allow the subdivision access road subject to detailed design. RVCA provided a letter dated February 29, 2012 summarizing the results of their review and recommended draft conditions.
Page 51 of 118Page 51 of 118Page 51 of 118Page 51 of 118
Technical Report for Page 14 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
5.1.2 Stormwater Management
Upon review of the Conceptual Stormwater Management Report dated November 2010 the RVCA (March 14, 2011) letter requested additional information on stormwater management controls. MPCE response (April 11, 2011) suggested: - quantity control achieved through multiple dry swales restricting post
development stormwater before entering the Tay River
- final stormwater management report to provide detailed calculations and design
The RVCA conditions of draft approval were provided in the letter dated February 29, 2012. The RVCA and the Township will receive and approve a detailed Stormwater Management plan prior to final approval. The plan will address mitigation measures prior to any site works being initiated, during construction and post construction.
5.1.3 Wetland Setbacks/Species At Risk
The Environmental Impact Statement dated December 2010 was completed with six (6) site surveys completed from May to September 2010. Vegetation communities were defined on site and included a review of wildlife species and habitat. The limits of the wetland communities were defined, and the proposed setbacks considered the requirements for protection of Species At Risk (SAR). Eastern Musk Turtle was observed in the Tay River and potential Blanding’s Turtle habitat in the wetlands. EIS proposed a 15m common buffer and a minimum 30m development setback for the proposed lots from the Grants Creek PSW and wetlands along the Tay River. No lot creation was proposed within 30m of the river, although there was two (2) communal access points proposed for recreational purposes to the Tay River. According to the applicant these were current access points for cattle. The EIS also recommended restoration of the channel in the Spillway and vegetative plantings to enhance a wildlife corridor between the river to Grants Creek. RVCA filed comments on natural heritage issues March 14, 2011 and MPCE filed a response April 11, 2011. Following a meeting on June 3, 2011 MPCE provided a Wetland Justification dated June 20, 2011 which detailed the wetland setback s for all lots. RVCA filed their letter August 22, 2011 recommending conditional approval. The EIS dated December 2010 was also filed with the MNR for consideration of SAR, including the turtle species noted above. Bobolink and Golden-winged warbler were observed. MPCE identified potential habitat for Eastern Ribbonsnake, Milksnake, Snapping Turtle, Butternut, Gray Ratsnake, Common Nighthawk, Whip-poor-will and Least Bittern. MNR filed their comments dated March 11, 2011. MPCE filed a response letter March 16, 2011 and a SAR Assessment dated July 26, 2011 detailing supplemental field survey for Boblink, Whip-poor-will and Least Bittern. Least Bitten was found along Grants Creek and measures are proposed to protect its habitat and minimize impact during the breeding season. MNR filed their review comments August 29 2011. Upon receipt of the Revised Draft Plan MNR filed their letter of acknowledgment March 12, 2012. The County’s standard ESA 2007 notice is included in the conditions.
Page 52 of 118Page 52 of 118Page 52 of 118Page 52 of 118
Technical Report for Page 15 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
5.1.4 Fish and Fish Habitat
Upon review of the Environmental Impact Statement dated December 2010 RVCA (March 14, 2011) requested additional information. Specifically a review under the DFO Risk Management Framework to assess the potential impact to fish habitat from the proposed project. Fish habitat is considered to be Type 1 enhanced (80% TSS removal) in both the Tay River and Grants Creek. In response MPCE filed a Fish and Fish Habitat Report dated July 21, 2011 and addendums dated September 8, 2011 and October 17, 2011. The RVCA filed their review comments August 29 and October 13, 2011 and approval October 20, 2011.
5.1.5 Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis
Upon review of the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis Report dated December 6, 2010 RVCA (March 14, 2011) filed preliminary comments which identified initial concerns regarding groundwater quantity and quality and the sensitivity of the terrain for septic system installation and performance. Detailed review comments were not provided indicating that the issues regarding the flood plain, stormwater management and wetland setbacks needed to be addressed before the detailed review. On March 24, 2011 MPCE met with RVCA and then filed a response dated April 11, 2011 which acknowledged they were prepared to work with the RVCA to address these issues, and requested clarification on the scope of work required to satisfy the RVCA. At the April 18, 2011 meeting hydrogeological issues were discussed and MPCE again met with the RVCA hydrogeologist on May 16, 2011. Detailed review comments on the Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis report dated December 6, 2010 were presented in a memorandum to Martha Bradburn by Claire Milloy and Bruce Reid dated July 13, 2011. The review was based on ‘D-5-4 Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment’ and ‘D-5-5 Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment’. The following summarizes the key issues: Terrain Analysis RVCA Comments July 2011
1) background nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 0.47 mg/L in a shallow test pit TPA10, TPA14 had nitrate at 11.7 mg/L.
2) areas of exposed bedrock and thin soils, and highly permeable soils are considered hydrogeologically sensitive and septic system locations are to avoid these locations
3) the contaminant attenuation assessment should delete the hydrogeologically sensitive areas from the dilution calculation
4) potential phosphorus loading to nearly surface water
Page 53 of 118Page 53 of 118Page 53 of 118Page 53 of 118
Technical Report for Page 16 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
5) recommend additional water quality monitoring of domestic wells in Glen Tay to assess if septic system impacts are found
6) the nitrate dilution assessment does not account for the variability in terrain, shallow groundwater flow direction, local climate and sensitive areas
7) the nitrate dilution assessment does not accurately account for impervious area assumptions: buildings, driveways and bedrock outcrops
Water Supply RVCA Comments July 2011
8) confirm test well construction as per O.Reg 903 and current compliance, TW3 surrounded by large puddle
9) require additional information on pump test procedures
10) provide a professional assertion that the well yields determined from the investigation are representative of future well yields
11) the groundwater conditions at PW3 (barn well) be further explained
12) there are several operational and aesthetic parameter exceedances within MOE – accepted treatability levels, provide discussion on effects and treatment options
13) when groundwater has parameter exceedances that are within MOE – acceptable treatment levels, the applicant must obtain a Resolution of Council which allows for private servicing based on treatment
14) there are groundwater parameter exceedances above the MOE – maximum concentration considered reasonably treatable: sulphate at TW-3 and colour at TW-4
15) provide detail on recommended well construction and locations for each lot, an alternate location is required for the area mapped Precambrian bedrock
16) any recommendation for hydraulic fracturing to be justified in terms of risk
17) recommend discussion on Source Protection
A detailed MPCE response was filed September 1, 2011 and re-filed as an Addendum Report dated September 30, 2011. Prior to filing the Addendum Report MPCE met with RVCA on September 19, 2011. The Addendum included proposed conditions of approval to address RVCA concerns. The following summarizes the response to the key issues: Terrain Analysis MPCE Responses September 30, 2011
1) The elevated nitrate concentration at TPA10 is a result of agricultural activities, it will decrease from 50 mg/L to less than 1 mg/L once the source is removed from
Page 54 of 118Page 54 of 118Page 54 of 118Page 54 of 118
Technical Report for Page 17 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
the site in 700 - 800 days.
2) Mapping of bedrock outcrops completed, septic systems are located to avoid. MPCE states there is potential to locate two septic systems on each lot.
3) An assumed 15m2 of exposed bedrock for each lot was deemed impermeable and excluded from the dilution calculation.
4) Phosphorus input to surface water will be less for a subdivision than the present agricultural activity. Propose tertiary treatment septic systems or use of septic bed material that has high phosphorus retention capacity. (MPCE proposed condition of approval which requires tertiary treatment for every system).
5) To supplement the off-site sampling in the December 2010 report, 3 wells in the Chaplin Heights Subdivision were sampled for septic indicator parameters and the 1988 hydrogeological report prepared to support the subdivision was reviewed. Minimal impact to groundwater quality from septic systems in Glen Tay was detected. The proposed subdivision will include tertiary treatment and proper well construction.
6) MPCE revised the nitrate dilution assessment based on distinct separate drainage areas: Lots 1-3, Lots 14-17, Lots 4-9 & 18-20 and Lots 10-13 & 21-25.
7) The revised assessment applied 300m2 building, 3.6m wide driveway and 15m2 bedrock outcropping for each lot.
Water Supply MPCE Responses September 30, 2011
8) MPCE confirmed construction of test wells conform to O.Reg 903/03. However have not observed wells for several months.
9) Additional information on pump test procedures was provided.
10) No statement provided that field results are representative of future well yields as required in Section 4.3.2 of D-5-5.
11) The PW3 barn well is located in an area of shallow soils or exposed bedrock and exhibits impacts from manure. Proposed new wells are located a distance away and are not expected to exhibit similar impacts. They could be tested for a suite of nutrients and bacteria if the subdivision is approved. The PW3 well will be dealt with if the subdivision is approved.
12) MPCE provided generic conditions of approval (not the detail as requested)
13) MPCE no comment.
14) The parameters that exceed the MOE ‘maximum concentration considered reasonably treatable’ is based on the D-5-5 1996 document and treatment technology has changed. Other subdivisions have been approved with
Page 55 of 118Page 55 of 118Page 55 of 118Page 55 of 118
Technical Report for Page 18 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
exceedances.
15) Detail on well construction is provided and MPCE illustrated that each lot has an alternate location for a well.
16) Hydraulic fracturing is an acceptable procedure to increase well yield, however was not conducted in the investigation.
17) MPCE conducted consultation with the Mississippi – Rideau Source Protection Committee as detailed in the Planning Report. The property falls within Intake Protection Zone (IPZ-3) upstream of Perth’s drinking water intake. The “Proposed Assessment Report” suggests that the residential development would not be considered a threat to the Town’s drinking water supply.
On October 28, 2011 RVCA filed a letter and accompanying Technical Hydrogeological Review Memorandum dated October 27, 2011. The following issues were identified as outstanding:
Terrain Analysis RVCA October 28, 2011
1) agree nitrate levels will diminish, request numbering of test pits be clarified on the test well logs and figures
2) the increase in lot size to 0.8 ha in the eastern portion of the site permits increased separation distances between wells and septic systems, however sensitive areas were not clearly defined i.e. terrain unit mapping or removed from the development parcels
5) MPCE does not specify whether raw well water or treated water was sampled at the 3 residences in Chaplin Heights, nor any detail on sampling techniques. Also the data collected does not permit any further insight on water treatment requirements
Water Supply RVCA October 28, 2011
8) The Addendum does not address standing water conditions at TW3, the report should provide recommendations.
10) MPCE did not provide a professional opinion indicating that the probable well yields determined on the basis of the investigation is representative of the yields which residents are likely to obtain from their wells in the long term (D-5-5 Section 4.3.2). The addendum makes no recommendations for storage.
11) The PW3 barn well should be decommissioned as per O.Reg 903.
12) The Addendum lists the possible treatment scenarios for the aesthetic and operational water quality exceedances.
13) No comment on Resolution from Council.
14) In lieu of the general poor water quality and to address the sulphate and colour
Page 56 of 118Page 56 of 118Page 56 of 118Page 56 of 118
Technical Report for Page 19 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
exceedances above the MOE maximum concentration considered reasonably treatable MPCE recommends a Well Certification Program.
15) MPCE recommends only the minimum separation between wells and septic system, a minimum casing of 10m and recommended maximum well depth of 100m. No test well on site is greater than 56m deep.
On November 3, 2011 a meeting was held between the Applicant, the County, RVCA and the Township. MPCE filed a response dated November 14, 2011 including a Septic and Wells Location Plan and Steep Slopes Plan based on the proposed Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision. To address the elevated concentrations of sulphate and colour MPCE filed a Water Treatment Information Package. In addition proposed Conditions of Draft Approval to address the issues were presented by MPCE.
The outstanding issues remaining included:
- hydrogeological sensitivity - well decommissioning - well depths - well yield - treatability limits
RVCA filed their comments dated December 7, 2011 accompanied by a technical review memo dated December 5, 2011.
As the RVCA indicated that MPCE had not adequately addressed all their comments and concerns based on 3 complete reviews of hydrogeological submissions, the applicant in consultation with the County and the Township agreed to have the documentation peer reviewed by an independent consultant. In response to a Request for Proposal Exp Services Inc. (exp) was authorized by the County to perform the review, with all costs paid by the applicant.
The following summarizes the activities:
- June 5, 2012 exp peer review letter
- June 21, 2012 meeting with applicant, exp, the County and the Township
- MPCE conducted additional fieldwork to address the concerns regarding hydrogeological sensitivity, low well yield and water quality
- August 1, 2012 MPCE reply letter
- August 23, 2012 exp peer review letter
- August 18, 2012 MPCE response letter
- August 29, 2012 exp e-mail comments
- September 10, 2012 MPCE e-mail to the Township and the County
Page 57 of 118Page 57 of 118Page 57 of 118Page 57 of 118
Technical Report for Page 20 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
- September 11, 2012 Jp2g draft conditions’
- September 18, 2012 meeting with the County and Township
- September 25, 2012 Mary Kirkham e-mail to MPCE
- September 26, 2012 MPCE response letter
- October 2, 2012 Jp2g letter and proposed draft conditions
- October 15, 2012 MPCE comments
- October 16, 2012 Tay Valley Township Meeting Committee of the Whole
- October 23, 2012 Tay Valley Council meeting
As a result proposed conditions of draft approval related to the installation of septic systems and potable water supply wells were approved by the Township and filed with the County under two (2) resolutions:
1. A Resolution Accepting the Development Based on Treatment of Aesthetic Parameters Considered Treatable under MOE Procedure D-5-5
“WHEREAS. the Hydrogeological Evaluation has found the raw groundwater does not meet the provincial drinking water quality objectives for certain aesthetic parameters and that the developer’s consultant recommends that in-home treatment systems be installed to treat raw water quality where aesthetic parameters are not met;
AND WHEREAS, exp Services Inc. and the County Planning Consultant recommend that the subdivision agreement between the developer and the Municipality include conditions in the subdivision agreement relating to the requirement for well certification, water quality analysis, and provision for in-home treatment, if required;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council for Tay Valley Township accepts that development of the Tayside Estates subdivision may proceed on the basis of in-home water treatment systems where raw water quality does not meet Ontario Drinking Water Objectives for certain aesthetic water quality parameters, provided that the subdivision agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreements and Deeds contain an advisory clause relating to groundwater quality.”
and 2. A Resolution of Council approving Draft Conditions, which included specific conditions/recommendations as a result of peer review process. These are included as Conditions related to Water Supply Conditions 25 to 29 and Offers to Purchase and Sale Agreements – Conditions 30 c) to k).
5.2 Other Agency Comments
The Town of Perth was consulted from the initiation of the subdivision approvals
Page 58 of 118Page 58 of 118Page 58 of 118Page 58 of 118
Technical Report for Page 21 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
process as the Tay River is the source of its municipal water supply and that any development must be restricted to ensure no negative effect on the potential for downstream flooding. The Town filed conditions with the County April 3, 2012. In response to the Applicant’s submission of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report the Ministry of Culture filed their favourable comments dated April 5, 2011 stating no further investigation or reporting was required. First Nations comments were obtained March 22, 2011 and accordingly the Alongquins of Ontario will be notified of the decision and a notice included in the draft conditions of approval.
Bell Canada, Enbridge Gas and Canada Post filed proposed conditions for their specific design and approval requirements to be included in the subdivision agreement.
5.3 Tay Valley Township Comments On October 24, 2012 the Township filed with the County:
- a resolution conditionally supporting development based on in-home water treatment systems
- a resolution supporting the Application subject to Conditions - a duly completed Municipal Questionnaire with Conditions
Most of the conditions generally reflect the typical financial and design approvals for plans of subdivision. However given the sites unique setting along the Tay River and the Grants Creek PSW the Township proposed specific conditions to: protect the hazard and conservation purpose of Blocks 26 and 27 and guide septic system installations to minimize any potential impact on the surface and groundwater resource.
Blocks 26 and 27 - will entertain the applicants proposal to accept as public lands for
conservation purposes - in consultation with the RVCA ensure restrictive zoning is applied - limit only one public access point to the Tay River - fencing and marking of rear and side lot lines - all lot owners will be provided a Stewardship Manual Sewage Disposal - developer to provide a detailed Lot Grading and Development Plan - systems to be located at least 20m from wells and on soils with a
minimum thickness of 30 cm - systems to provide tertiary treatment - maintenance of naturally vegetated buffer along wetlands
Page 59 of 118Page 59 of 118Page 59 of 118Page 59 of 118
Technical Report for Page 22 Tayside Estates
Jp2g Consultants Inc. Engineers • Planners • Project Managers October 2012
Also as detailed in Section 5.1.5 there are specific conditions to guide water well installations for the proposed 25 lots.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Subdivision Review Team concludes that all agency concerns or comments will be addressed in the subdivision agreement between Tay Valley Township and the owner, or through clearance of the Conditions of Draft Approval, whichever is appropriate.
All agencies proposed conditions of draft approval have been considered and those requesting clearance of conditions prior to final approval must be satisfied prior to final approval.
Based on the reports and studies filed in support of the subdivision and the Township’s support of approval with conditions, the Subdivision Review Team recommends draft plan approval. The recommended Conditions of Draft Approval and the Draft Plan of Subdivision are attached as Appendix 1.
Page 69 of 118Page 69 of 118Page 69 of 118Page 69 of 118
Applicant: Tayside Estates File No: 09-T-10004
Municipality: Tay Valley Township
Location: Part E1/2 Lot 20, Lot 21, NE1/2 and W1/2 Lot 22, Concession 2 Bathurst
-9-
i. straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of
a river, creek, stream or watercourse, including but not limited to stormwater outlets
and the placement or removal of culverts,
ii. the construction of buildings and structures placing or dumping fill or undertaking
changes to existing grade anywhere within the area subject to the regulation as defined
by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority regulatory mapping (i.e. all lands
within120 metres of the PSW, in the 1:100 year floodplain and within 15 metres of the
floodplain.
d) The lots within this plan of subdivision have been sized and designed such that the building
and sewage system envelopes do not encroach into the floodplain, wetland and the buffer
lands. Encroachments onto these lands will not be permitted.
e) That permits will be required from the Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation
174/06 prior to the issuance of municipal building permits for Lots 13 to 25 inclusive.
Town of Perth
32. Prior to Plan being registered, or assurance through the subdivision agreement with the Township, that
the proponent will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Perth and the Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority that there will be no net loss of flood storage resulting from creation of the
new road being established by the subdivision.
33. That the Town of Perth confirms that the subdivision agreement and supporting documentation have addressed stormwater management issues to the Town’s satisfaction.
34. The subdivision agreement to be completed between the applicant and Tay Valley Township include a clause with wording acceptable to the Town of Perth, which will require that all prospective owners or purchasers be notified prior to signing a purchase offer that there are two cautions registered on title regarding the water supply for the Town of Perth.
35. The subdivision agreement to be completed between the applicant and Tay Valley Township include a clause with wording acceptable to the Town of Perth, which will require that any and all future offers of purchase and sale, or transfer of ownership in any manner, for any lot created within the subdivision shall include the following cautionary statement:
“Water Supply Caution:
This development has been approved by the County of Lanark and supported by Tay Valley Township on the basis of private, individual wells, and, in accordance with best practices, the quality and quantity of the ground water supply has been deemed to be adequate and secure on the basis of a report completed on December 6, 2010 and supplementary information provided in a Consolidated Hydrogeological Assessment and Terrain Analysis Report as provided by the developer’s hydrogeological consultant, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineering Ltd. a firm understood to have expertise in these matters and qualified to practice in the Province of Ontario. As such, in the face of any failure of the ground water supply with respect to either quality or quantity, the prospective owner is hereby cautioned that the Town of Perth does not guarantee the availability of capacity in its water supply system to permit the extension of a municipal water supply and will accept no liability or costs for the extension, operation or maintenance of any extension of the Town’s municipal water supply system, including the cost of replacing treatment capacity, and further that under such circumstances the Town would be opposed to a water supply extension for any purpose other than a volume adequate for day to day house-hold supply needs (i.e. exclusive of any firefighting or commercial needs). It is acknowledged by all parties that consideration will be given to extending the boundaries of the Town of Perth to include the affected lands in the face of any request or requirement for extension of municipal servicing.”
Page 70 of 118Page 70 of 118Page 70 of 118Page 70 of 118
Applicant: Tayside Estates File No: 09-T-10004
Municipality: Tay Valley Township
Location: Part E1/2 Lot 20, Lot 21, NE1/2 and W1/2 Lot 22, Concession 2 Bathurst
-10-
36. The subdivision agreement to be completed between the applicant and Tay Valley Township include a clause with wording acceptable to the Town of Perth, which will require that any and all future offers of purchase and sale, or any documents concerning the transfer of ownership, for any lot created within the subdivision shall include the following cautionary statement:
“Caution Concerning Perth Water Supply
The owner is cautioned that the lands in this subdivision drain into the Tay River. The Tay River
is the source of water supply for the Town of Perth. Since this subdivision is upstream of the
main water intake for the Town, any activities of the owner that may affect the quality of water
draining from the subdivision into the Tay River has potential to impact the drinking water for
the residents of Perth.”
Bell Canada
37. That prior to final approval, the County shall be advised by Bell Canada that the subdivision
agreement between the Owner and the municipality contain the following to the satisfaction of Bell
Canada:
a) The Developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the
Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/telecommunication infrastructure
is currently available within the proposed development to provide
communication/telecommunication service to the proposed development. In the event that such
infrastructure is not available, the Developer is hereby advised that the Developer may be required
to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication
infrastructure. If the Developer elects not to pay for such connection to and/or extension of the
existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Developer shall be required to
demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication
facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective
delivery of communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e.
911 Emergency Services).
b) The Owner shall agree in the Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell
Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services. Easements may be
required subject to final servicing decisions. In the event of any conflict with existing Bell
Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of
such facilities or easements.
c) Bell Canada requires one or more conduit or conduits of sufficient size from each unit to the
room(s) in which the telecommunication facilities are situated and one or more conduit(s) from the
room(s) in which the telecommunication facilities are located to the street line.
d) Trench and road crossing conduits to be provided, if aerial, easements for anchors required.
Enbridge Gas
38. Enbridge Gas Distribution requests that the following conditions be included in the subdivision
agreement:
a) The developer is responsible for preparing a composite utility plan that allows for the safe
installation of all utilities, including required separation between utilities.
Page 74 of 118Page 74 of 118Page 74 of 118Page 74 of 118
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
AgendaItem#8ii)
Report #P
D-38-2012 D
raft Conditions:
Tayside E
states P
age 75 of 118P
age 75 of 118P
age 75 of 118P
age 75 of 118
1 of 5
THE COUNTY OF LANARK
Community Development Committee November 7, 2012
Report #PD-39-2012 of the
Planning Administrator
DEVELOPMENT / LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
“THAT, the Request for Proposal #PD-001-2012 Development / Landscape Master Plan be awarded to Tocher Heyblom Design Inc. (thinc) in the amount of $13,900.00 which included disbursements, plus applicable taxes. AND THAT staff be directed to budget for an additional $3,260.00 for the optional provisional public meeting, plus applicable taxes.”
Page 76 of 118Page 76 of 118Page 76 of 118Page 76 of 118
2 of 5
2. PURPOSE This report is to provide information on the Request for Proposal (RFP) process followed for the award of a contract for a professional landscape architectural firm to develop a “Development and Landscape Master Plan” and to seek Council approval to award the contract.
3. BACKGROUND Lanark County is seeking a landscape architect design professional to provide Development / Landscape Master Planning services associated with the Lanark County Administration Building, the Public Works Building and the Long Term Care Facility lands. In 2012, a developer approached Lanark County to request that the county lands be considered as part of the Municipal Environmental Assessment (MEA) process to determine the appropriate location of a bridge crossing the Tay River and a road to join Christie Lake Road to a potential multi-unit development located on the Perth Golf Course. In reviewing the request, the Community Development Committee identified a need for a Development / Landscape Master Plan for the Lanark County Administrative Building(s) and Lanark Lodge site to better understand its future requirements and needs. The Development/Landscape Master Plan will identify locations and footprints for current and future building projects and general layout of vehicular access to the site. The Development / Landscape Master Plan will clarify major interpretive themes, design future pedestrian circulation patterns, new garden display areas, and the styles of new garden displays, all in keeping with the guidance provided by the scope of work outlined in the RFP. The proposed Development / Landscape Master Plan is intended to tie the current use of the lands to future development and expansion. The proposed project is designed to improve and provide alternatives for expansion to the current facilities to better meet current and future demands for the County’s services. The Development / Landscape Master Plan will also provide a multi-phase plan for improvements to landscaped areas along with funding requirements. The lands contain several environmental constraints. These include: Provincially Significant Wetlands, 1:100-yr. flood line, Regulation Limit and hazard lands. Consultation will be required with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Tay Valley Township and the Town of Perth to ensure any future development conforms to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statements, Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan, Tay Valley Official Plan, Tay Valley Zoning By-law and Conservation Authorities regulations.
Page 77 of 118Page 77 of 118Page 77 of 118Page 77 of 118
3 of 5
4. DISCUSSION
The Request for Proposal for professional landscape architectural services was developed in a non-biased manner by the Lanark County Purchasing Officer, the Planning Administrator, the Director of Clerk’s Services / Clerk, the Public Works Director and Kurt Greaves, CAO. The RFP was posted on the Lanark County website and the Canadian Public Tenders website, www.merx.ca, and the public sector website, www.biddingo.
The RFP was published on September 14, 2012, with a mandatory site visit, held September 27, 2012. Questions/request for clarification were allowed until October 10, 2012, resulting in four (4) Addenda being issued. The closing date to submit to the RFP was 2:30pm on October 18, 2012. The RFP was a two envelope process; the first envelope providing the technical response and the second envelope the financial information. The opening of the RFP submissions was not a public opening. The opening of the technical envelope was performed by the evaluation committee. Each team member evaluated the technical proposals on an individual basis, then met as a whole, on November 1, 2012, to discuss the teams’ scoring. The financial envelope was opened in the presence of the Lanark County Purchasing Officer, the Planning Administrator and the County Clerk.
The technical scoring and financial data is provided in a summary document.
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
Award of contract would be based on highest overall score, and not necessarily on lowest price. A total of 7 submissions were received and evaluated as follows: 1. 4 companies’ proposals were disqualified administratively. The submissions failed
to include mandatory information and completed forms, and reference addendums. 2. 3 companies’ proposals were evaluated as per RFP instructions. The Lanark County Purchasing Officer conducted the reference and financial credit check.
The recommendation of the evaluation team is to proceed with the award of contract to thinc (Tocher Heyblom Design Inc.).
6. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the project are within the County’s Contingency Reserves as approved by the Treasurer and outlined in Report #PD-20-2012 presented to Community Development Committee on June 6th, 2012.
Page 81 of 118Page 81 of 118Page 81 of 118Page 81 of 118
2 of 9
2. PURPOSE
To provide council with a recommendation in regards to using the Text2 Visit Smartphone application as an additional means to promote Tourism in Lanark County.
3. BACKGROUND
At the September 2012 Community Development Committee of the Whole meeting, Text2 Visit provided an overview of the Text2 Visit Smartphone application. Also presented was Valley Heartland’s commitment to fund 75% of the licensing costs if the County were to purchase licensing for all Local Municipalities. An action item resulting from the meeting was for the Director of I.T. and the Tourism Manager evaluate the business case for the County use the software.
4. DISCUSSION
The table below provides an assessment of the software’s capabilities as it applies to Lanark County.
Page 82 of 118Page 82 of 118Page 82 of 118Page 82 of 118
3 of 9
Benefits How it works Rating Promote County Tourism Assets
Once people cross the border of Lanark County they get a Text2Visit notification on their cell phone that says Welcome, highlights an event and has a link to the Lanark County Text2 Visit Content and website. Further notifications regarding specific events and places can be sent as well. By navigating further into the application you see a list of events, places to stay and other tourism items.
B- Points for:
- Using GPS to send notifications to people in proximity has been around for many years but has yet to be truly mainstream. Text2 Visit gets points for doing a good job of it. Its focus on rural areas is a differentiator from other apps.
- You give people the information they need when it is most relevant (i.e. they just crossed the Lanark County border).
Points against:
- Points are taken off because you need to download the app before they can receive any information of value.Therefore the County would need to promote. I.e. The County can buy the license but nothing happens until someone downloads the application.
- It is difficult to predict how many
people will download the app because the company is new. At best case if we get the same number of people downloading the app as we have face-book friends you end up reaching 709 people for the cost of $2000 a year. A difficult fee to pay compared to face-book being free achieving a similar thing but it is free.
- Driving while using cell phone law limits the usefulness.
- Local municipalities with better cell
phone coverage will have a better chance of tourists downloading the application and receiving notifications.
Page 83 of 118Page 83 of 118Page 83 of 118Page 83 of 118
4 of 9
Benefits How it works Rating Getting people to go to an event or place. Note, there is a difference between telling someone about an event and giving them enough information in an easily assessable way so that their chances of going are improved. This section refers to the latter.
Once people cross the border of Lanark County they get a Text2Visit notification on their cell phone that says Welcome, highlights an event and has a link to the Lanark County Text2 Visit Content and website. Further notifications regarding specific events and places can be sent as well. By navigating further into the application you see a list of events, places to stay and other tourism items.
C Points For:
- The app does a good job of making people aware of what is going on and the services available.
o You are sent notifications about events occurring in the area so the interest is peaked.
o You are sent notifications by businesses that have purchased the licensing to do so.
Points Against:
- Once your interest is peaked, most people want to know where the place is in proximity to where they currently are. The map feature allows you find an event of interest and then click it to see where it is. But unless you are familiar with Lanark County, you won’t know how far it is to get there (there is no “You are here” Arrow). That means using another app (google maps) or bringing out the paper map. Not a big deal if that is how you do things but if you have a good feel for what technology is out there, this will feel like a let down. More importantly, the less steps it takes to find information (like how close the event is to me) the more likely I am to go. This app adds an unnecessary step.
Page 84 of 118Page 84 of 118Page 84 of 118Page 84 of 118
5 of 9
Benefits How it works Rating Emergency Services: Text2 Visit users can be sent alerts (ex. Boil Water).
There is an Alerts Inbox where you can see messages from emergency services.
A Points For:
- It is nice to know that if you drive into an area that there is a boil water alert for that area.
- Using this app in conjunction with our 709 Facebook followers and 448 twitter followers allows Lanark to get very good coverage on emergency alerts and keeping the public informed.
- It is great to know that as you approach the tracks on Wilson Street that it is blocked off because a train de-railed.
- Using emergency alerts is a great way to promote citizens to download the app.
Points against:
- None. Communication to citizens: Council meeting decisions and accomplishments, public consultation notices etc.
In addition to sending tourism notifications, the app allows you to send political notifications as well.
D Points for: None. Points against:
- With Facebook, twitter and media releases, the there is little value in communicating government issues through this app at this point in time.
Local Businesses Advertising.
Business pay $420/year for a banner at the bottom of the application can contain advertisements that change randomly. For $1440/year local businesses can also automatically send notification to users once they get within a certain proximity to their business
B It is difficult to assess this one as every business has their own business case to develop. Points for:
- Businesses are able to promote themselves even if they don’t have a sign right on Highway 7.
Points against:
- The price point may be an issue. Some businesses wouldn’t pay $120/month for high speed internet.
Page 85 of 118Page 85 of 118Page 85 of 118Page 85 of 118
6 of 9
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
Option 1: “That, County Council directs County staff to not purchase the Text2 Visit Application at this point in time.” Costs: $0 Pros: - This option has zero risk. It almost never makes sense for governments to become
early adopters of technology because the market is very unpredictable. The application is new and there is no way to predict if it will be successful or even be around in a year. Strategically what makes sense for municipal governments are to let the early adopters figure out if the application works and let it mature. Then come on board when it is proven. That is the best time to buy into this application. Also at that time, there will be other applications and likely superior features.
- Carleton Place and Mississippi Mills have already signed up so it is possible to leverage their expertise when the County considers this type of application in the future.
Cons: - This app depends on municipal governments signing up as customers to succeed.
The more that sign up, the higher the probability of success (more information that becomes valuable to the user and more revenue for the company to help the app mature). Not committing may have an impact on the bigger picture. I.e. if we have a set of data where all Lanark County assets and local municipal assets can be promoted based on the physical location of the user. This set of data can only contribute to Lanark County awareness in a positive manner “if we build it, they will come”.
This is the staff recommended option. Considering the tough economic climate and pressure for the County to “Stay the Course” in terms of paying down debt, increasing reserves and doing more with less it makes most sense for the County to select an option with the least economic risk. Furthermore, by not adding a new method of promotion, this frees up staff time for focus on more pressing priorities. It is very likely that Lanark County Tourism can manage without using Geo Fencing and GPS proximity notification. Option 2: “That, County Council authorizes County staff to purchase a license to use the Text2 Visit Smartphone Application for a period of one year for the price of $2000 subject to a $1500 grant from Valley Heartland”.
Page 86 of 118Page 86 of 118Page 86 of 118Page 86 of 118
7 of 9
Costs: $500 for 1st year (after receiving grant from Valley Heartland) $2000 Cost to put up Text2 Visit signs and add to promotional material (signs as well as leverage emergency services information). $315 (14 staff hours) for Student and staff training on how to populate the CMS $315 (21 staff hours) for Student to populate CMS with standard information Total Cost: $3130 ($2500 expense plus 35 staff hours). After a year of usage, the County staff will assess the number of people that are reading the notifications to determine if a 2nd year should be purchased. Pros: - Leverage the 1st year grant money from Valley Heartland resulting in paying $500
instead of $2000). - Ability to stop after 1st year limits the costs sunk into the project in the event that
the app does not work as intended. - Local Municipalities will receive the benefit of the County sending notifications
regarding County assets that may reside in a particular local municipality. Cons: - The 1st year will be spent promoting and the number of users that end up
downloading the app will not peak until later in the year. Difficult to really determine if the application is working in the 1st year.
- If this project is a success after the 1st year, then it makes sense for the County to continue using it which means spending an additional $2000 a year to keep the license. Assuming we use the app successfully for 5 years, it becomes a commitment to spend almost $8,500 on this application.
- This is a new company that is just starting up and is therefore subject to the following risks.
o If they are not profitable, the service simply may no longer be available. o Another vendor will dominate the market with a better application. o Not enough revenue to support the business.
Option 3: “That County Council directs County staff to purchase licensing for the Text2 Visit Application for the County of Lanark and the townships of Beckwith, Drummond/North Elmsley, Lanark Highlands, Perth, Tay Valley and Montague at the cost of $14,000 subject to a $10,500 grant from Valley Heartland”. After a year of usage, the County staff will assess the number of people that are reading the notifications to determine if a 2nd year should be purchased.
Page 87 of 118Page 87 of 118Page 87 of 118Page 87 of 118
8 of 9
Costs: $3500 for 1st year (after receiving grant from Valley Heartland) $2000 Cost to put up Text2 Visit signs and add to promotional material (signs as well as leverage emergency services information). $315 (14 staff hours) for Student and staff training on how to populate the CMS $315 (21 staff hours) for Student to populate CMS with standard information Total Cost: $6130 ($5500 expense plus 35 staff hours). Does not include local municipal costs to create signage or populate their assets into the system. Pros: - Leverage the 1st year grant money from Valley Heartland resulting in paying $500
instead of $2000 per license). - Ability to stop after 1st year limits the costs sunk into the project in the event that
the app does not work as intended. - Local Municipalities will receive the benefit of the County sending notifications
regarding County assets that may reside in a particular local municipality. - Local Municipalities will be able to send their own notifications promoting any Local
Municipal asset. Cons: - The 1st year will be spent promoting and the number of users that end up
downloading the app will not peak until later in the year. Difficult to really determine if the application is working in the 1st year.
- If this project is a success, then it makes sense for the County to continue using it which means spending an additional $14000 a year to keep the license. If the app is used for 5 years, then the cost becomes $59,500 just the licensing alone.
- This is a new company that is just starting up and is therefore subject to the following risks. If they are not profitable, the service simply may no longer be available. The risk in this case would be the sunk costs.
o Another vendor will dominate the market with a better application. o Not enough revenue to support the business.
This option is not recommended as Carleton Place and Mississippi Mills have already purchased the Text2 Visit license, they would be paying a portion again to support the other local municipalities. Furthermore, there is a commitment on local municipal staff time for which the County cannot commit on their behalf. Most importantly, an alternative is available where each local municipality can contact the vendor on their own if they are interested and to confirm that Valley Heartland funding would be available.
6. FINANCIAL IMPACT
See Section 5 as costs are provided for each option related to this report.
Page 88 of 118Page 88 of 118Page 88 of 118Page 88 of 118
9 of 9
7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
See Section 5 as local municipal impact is provided for each option related to this report.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends Option 1: “That, County Council directs County staff to not purchase the Text2 Visit Application at this point in time.” Considering the tough economic climate and pressure for the County to “Stay the Course” in terms of paying down debt, increasing reserves and doing more with less it makes most sense for the County to select an option with the least economic risk. Furthermore, by not adding a new method of promotion, this frees up staff time for focus on more pressing priorities. It is very likely that Lanark County Tourism can manage without using Geo Fencing and GPS proximity notification.
Page 89 of 118Page 89 of 118Page 89 of 118Page 89 of 118
LCMTC Minutes – October 15th, 2012 1 of 4
MINUTES EIGHTH BOARD MEETING OF 2012
LANARK COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRAILS CORPORATION The Board met on Monday, October 15th, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. at the Lanark County Public Works Building, 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth, ON.
Members Present: Les Humphreys, Public, President Paul Frigon, Public, Vice-President Steve Allan, Secretary-Treasurer Susan McLenaghan, Public Member Lorne Hudson, Public Member Bonnie Schnittker, LGL District Health Unit Councillor Beth Peterkin, Municipal Representative
Councillor Jerry Flynn, Municipal Representative Councillor Brian Stewart, County of Lanark
Councillor Pat Dolan, County of Lanark
Staff/Others Present: Kurt Greaves, CAO (left meeting at 9:16 a.m.) Erica Patterson, Council and Clerk Services Assistant
Regrets: David Allcock, Public Member
David Percival, Public Member LCMTC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chair: Les Humphreys, Public, President 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. A quorum was present. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Report of the Lanark County Municipal Trails Corporation (LCMTC) (verbal)
Page 90 of 118Page 90 of 118Page 90 of 118Page 90 of 118
LCMTC Minutes – October 15th, 2012 2 of 4
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION #LCMTC-2012-077
MOVED BY: Beth Peterkin SECONDED BY: Susan McLenaghan
“THAT, the minutes of the Lanark County Municipal Trails Corporation Board of Directors meeting held on September 17th, 2012 be approved as presented.” ADOPTED
5. 2013 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
Lanark County’s CAO K. Greaves introduced himself to the board and wished to give the board the County perspective regarding the budget and its process. K. Greaves stated that the County contributes the auditors cost of $1,600 and Steve Allan’s time as in-kind contribution. Discussion was held on the following items: Council awareness of the progress the board has been making Further training allotment Responsibility of trail maintenance
Public Works provide service while board seeks funding alternatives Assets and a land use agreement Potential grant funding How to establish usage numbers of the Baird Trail
Guest book/comment box or allowance of electronic comments S. McLenaghan stated that the board should not be taking on any additional trails until the board can maintain the current trails.
Kurt left the meeting at 9:16 a.m. MOTION #LCMTC-2012-078
MOVED BY: Jerry Flynn
SECONDED BY: Paul Frigon
“THAT, the proposed budget request of $9,500 to Lanark County Council be approved by the Lanark County Municipal Trails Corporation.”
with Planners Technical Advisory Group October 26th, 2012
Village of Merrickville-Wolford
Steering Commitee Members in Attendance: Doug Struthers, Judy Brown, Steve Knetchel, Karen Currie, Sandra Candow, Jim Neill, Doug Thompson, David Jones, Lynn Clouthier, Susan Freeman, Jeff Scott, Bill Thake, Aubrey Churchill, Randy Malcolm, Pam Buell
Planners Technical Advisory Group in Attendance: Nelson Edwards, Mary Kirkham, Karl Grenke, Sandy Hay, Phil Gerrard, Peter Young, Lindsay Mills, Kristine Swaren Secretariat: Susan Millar, Heather Thomson Observers: David Taylor, Don Halpenny, Heather MacDonald Regrets: Elaine Mallory, Nicole McKernan, Noelle Reeve, Bill Dobson, Mike Dwyer, David Chernushenko,
Sally Coutts, Lorraine Stevens, James Marsden
1. Welcome from the Village of Merrickville-Wolford, Mayor Doug Struthers
2. Approval of August 9th, 2012 meeting minutes
a. MOVED by Aubrey Churchill b. SECONDED by Bill Thake CARRIED.
3. Business Arising from August 9th, 2012 meeting minutes None
4. Landscape Character Assessment draft report and draft Recommendations Rory Baksh, Dillon Consulting Rory Baksh provided an overview of the key elements of the three components of the project, including the landscape character assessment, the visual preference survey and the planning and management recommendations. a. Visual Preference Survey The VPS tested what is in the corridor based on feedback on issues, challenges, inappropriate types of development. The least favoured images include the gate shop yard; wetlands with hydro towers dominating the landscape; Colonel By Island with dilapidated house, mown lawn and limited shoreline vegetation; residential development and pool at water’s edge with hardened shoreline; and a marina. The common themes include poor riparian zone management, and the close proximity of development to the shoreline. b. Planning and Management Recommendations Rory provided an overview of the link from the landscape character assessment and the visual preference survey to the recommendations, and discussed the various approaches and recommendations. The recommendations are broken down based on the applicable jurisdiction for implementation. The Recommendations were analyzed via ‘carrot and stick,’ mixed approach, the multiple jurisdictions, and the issues identified, in order to build the Strategy priorities.
Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal)
Page 97 of 118Page 97 of 118Page 97 of 118Page 97 of 118
2
The Priority Recommendations include: - Regulations governing canal use - Permitting of in-water works - Guidelines for building and site design - Guidelines for visual impact assessment - Other zoning bylaws such as tree planting and site alteration - Development Permit System - Stewardship initiatives for environmental and agricultural interests, which can help
minimize current issues and mitigate future impacts - Sustainable funding mechanisms - Partnership recognition program c. Rory Baksh provided a breakdown of the Five Year Implementation Plan, recognizing that
organizations are already looking at their 2013 budget. The plan allows 2013 for planning and strategizing, with any financial requests assigned to 2014 onwards. Rory also highlighted some areas of the report which have already been identified as requiring refinement.
d. Comments and Discussion
i. How did development in a rural landscape compare to the urban context? Dillon Consulting - Suburban development and poor shoreline management also ranked low in the urban context however, images such as those of downtown Perth and Ottawa with a hardened shoreline and close development ranked high due to scenic quality within the context of an urban environment. ii Where would septic re-inspection fit in the recommendations? Some municipalities have strong policies on this. It might be best under the municipal jurisdiction. The Stewardship Initiatives would also fall under the municipalities. iii. Should the Planning Act related matters perhaps fall under the Provincial jurisdiction? Dillon Consulting - the implementation and decision-making falls to the municipalities’ discretion to undertake, such as site plan approvals and bylaws, so they are highlighted under their jurisdiction. iv. The Sustainable Funding Mechanisms recommendation should apply to all jurisdictions, not just federal. The GIS/info management could also fall under the Province. Dillon Consulting - The Province tends to be the provider of the GIS, not the data user. v. What do we have now for funding and what could we have in the future? Could we use a checkmark for what we have and a plus sign for what we could grow? Dillon Consulting – There is a lack of sustainable funding presently for Parks Canada. Will revise the Sustainable Funding Mechanism section. vi. You often see multiple levels of jurisdictions involved in projects, such as for brownfields, with funding sources at the municipal and provincial levels, which could be located beside the canal vii. Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) could be included under the municipalities for regulatory and quasi-regulatory approach. viii. It would be great to have a Google Maps street view of the Rideau Canal
Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal)
Page 98 of 118Page 98 of 118Page 98 of 118Page 98 of 118
3
ix. We should look at the planning checklist the Planners Group pulled together to see what the gaps are and identify what municipalities could implement, to help establish a consistent approach along the canal
x. How does the Province fit in with recommendations such as building guidelines? xi. The Province is the enabler, and provides assistance, but the municipality is the implementer. xii. Parks Canada is identified for a lot of the recommendations and we know the budget has been cut xiii. Capital needs are significant, even just for Rideau Canal infrastructure in Merrickville, but a lot of communication, social marketing and education about the significance of the canal have increased in the last few months; there is an opportunity right now to build on these and encourage greater attention, influence on the canal xiv. We need to see the Province better identified in the document as a player/contributor to the recommendations, even though they may not be the actual lead agency/implementer. Suggestion that they are included as providing guidance, advice, directions which the municipalities can use xv. The SC needs to decide how to transfer the GIS data and Dillon Consulting can facilitate that once a decision is made xvi. Was the feedback from the VPS broken down by where people came from? Dillon Consulting - information about the specific participants was not recorded xvii. The executive summary should be enhanced. The recommendations and implementation needs to be more detailed about how to actually move forward from here, such as an implementation game plan. xviii. The Steering Committee needs to decide how to move things forward based on the recommendations identified xix. The identification of values of the landscape areas and identification of key planning gaps will help us move forward xx. There needs a stronger tie between the recommendations and the specific landscapes xxi. The Planners Group should get together to review the document. Or at least individual comments should be sent to Susan for her to compile and send along to Dillon Consulting
e. Dillon Consulting will amend the report to include not only a description of each landscape character area, but also describe the landscape values of each area, significant views and sensitivities that require special planning and management approaches, along with illustrative photos. The revised document will also include a link between the landscape character types, planning issues in these areas, and planning and management recommendations. Parks Canada will send this revised document to the Planners Group to review. The final report will be available for downloading on the Dillon website, along with
Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal)
Page 99 of 118Page 99 of 118Page 99 of 118Page 99 of 118
4
a communications piece and a video with Doug Struthers. Parks Canada will add it to their website as well.
ACTION SECRETARIAT: The Parks Canada Secretariat will send the revised document via the Parks Canada ftp link for those people who cannot access the Dillon ftp site. The Statement of Work will also be sent to the Planners Group to help them undertake their review.
5. Future Management, Use and Accessibility of GIS Data Susan Millar, Parks Canada Secretariat Susan provided an overview of the present limited state of GIS capabilities within Parks Canada and highlighted that the best system for all to access may be through a web-based interface with individual sign-in accounts.
a. Comments i. The Conservation Authorities have a shared GIS database that all can access to view and to update. Steve Knetchel will look into how that works to see if the SC can do something similar.
6. Next Steps for the RCLS Steering Committee
Doug Struthers, Mayor of Merrickville-Wolford We will build an agenda for the next SC meeting where we can start to brainstorm the future of the SC functions, how we approach the recommendations, as well as social marketing and communications of how we got here and how we are moving forward a. Comments
i. We also need to discuss how we get the actual implementation steps moved through the various administrations ii. At the next meeting we need to review our mandate so people are reminded of why we are together, what we have done so far, and how we move forward iii. Some of the documents or tasks we already have or are already working on. Each municipality could compile the list of existing information. We also need a mechanism so the resources can be updated iv. What about ongoing renewable energy projects – how will the information from the landscape character assessment get integrated into these projects?
7. Update on Provincial Policy Statement review
Heather Thomson, Parks Canada Secretariat Heather provided an overview of how the new PPS has addressed the concerns raised in the RCLS October 21, 2010 letter to the Province, commenting on the review of the PPS. - The definitions of “cultural heritage landscape” and “protected heritage property” now
include UNESCO World Heritage Sites - The definitions do not include national historic sites - There are no policies related to scenic values and visual setting - Limited change to shoreline policies, related to water quality - Inclusion of references to coordination of various agencies related to managing natural
heritage, shorelines etc a. Comments
i. Karen Currie, as she works for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the Ministry responsible for the PPS review) abstained from the discussion and vote on the PPS review.
Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal)
Page 100 of 118Page 100 of 118Page 100 of 118Page 100 of 118
5
ii. Does the Steering Committee feel that this is sufficient? Comments on the review are due November 23, 2012 iii. We could respond back recognizing the changes that have been made iv. Workshops are currently being held but written comments are also welcome v. Are World Heritage Sites recognized in other provinces’ policy statements? That would be good to include in the letter back to the province. vi. Will Parks Canada ask that NHSs be included in the PPS as that would significantly help the municipalities in their planning and development matters which involve adjacent NHSs and federal heritage buildings vii. Parks Canada will be looking into how NHS are addressed in their review of the draft PPS
b. Motion Carried: The Steering Committee will write a letter to the Province acknowledging
the changes that have been made in the draft PPS and highlight the significance of the world heritage site to the province as a whole
8. Update on Tri-Valley Conservation Awards Program
Steve Knetchel, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority The group as a whole (CRCA, MVCA, SNCA) is not interested in a Rideau award but the RVCA and CRCA Foundations are interested in creating an award within the awards program that would be run through the CRCA Foundation with input from the RVCA Foundation.
9. Correspondence None.
10. Roundtable a. Doug Struthers highlighted that the 2013 operating season for the canal will remain at
the same length b. Jeff noted that Kingston has development guidelines for infrastructure related to hydro
lines, solar energy, etc which he can share with the group. The City of Kingston is also working on guidelines regarding park management; guidelines for the planting of native trees in Kingston, as well as looking at invasive versus heritage species, such as lilacs, which are invasive but historically there. The Environment Committee is looking at water quality issues related to blue green algae in River Styx and Colonel By Lake
c. Susan Freeman shared local residents’ concern with a new solar farm going next to the Narrows Lock Road. The Township is working to get a vegetative buffer along the roadway as it is part of the Rideau Heritage Route.
11. Next meeting: The next meeting will be held Friday December 7th; location to be determined.
Report of the Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy (verbal)
Page 103 of 118Page 103 of 118Page 103 of 118Page 103 of 118
September 25, 2012 Grant Crack, MPP Glengarry-Prescott-Russell Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs [email protected]
Re: Proposed Local Food Act Dear Mr. Crack, We are following up on the communications you have had with Carma Williams regarding the impending Local Food Act. As members of the Eastern Ontario Local Food Collaborative, we look forward to having the support and regulatory tools to continue our work in encouraging local food production, processing and procurement in our area. We do however have a very serious concern that the term “Local” in the proposed Act might be defined solely as Ontario. While the concept that “Local=Ontario” is an important foundation within an Ontario Local Food Act, we and others working in the local food sector use a more nuanced definition. In order to be respectful of all parts of Ontario and encourage the growing of all kinds of foods across the province, we believe it is crucial to have a solution that allows for the blending of both provincial and regional definitions in a hierarchical approach. Fundamentally, we suggest that local must be viewed as valuing the notion of “as close to home as possible”. Without this recognition, we believe that the local food movement will actually be set back by the introduction of a solely Ontario-based local food definition. Moe Garahan of Just Food, Tom Manley from Homestead Organics and Cheryl Nash of Lanark Local Flavour, all members of our Eastern Collaborative, participated in the first consultation on this Act that Minister McMeekin held on May 25 in the Byward Market in Ottawa. We have attached the minutes from that consultation, and taken the liberty of highlighting the many strong comments on the importance of local having a regional foundation. This message throughout the consultation with the Minister was very loud and clear: the Act has to acknowledge that local means as close to the source as possible as well as Ontario-wide. We've assembled some of the key reasons why we believe there should be a graduated system to define the term local (maintaining the existing province-wide definition and adding a place-based/regional definition as well): Support for regional branding efforts We know the public is extremely keen to connect with the farmers that grow their
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 104 of 118Page 104 of 118Page 104 of 118Page 104 of 118
food. This, to a large extent, has led to the dramatic increase in the numbers of farmers’ markets, community shared agriculture programs, roadside stands and year-round farm-gate sales, not to mention the new and growing demand for local food within both private businesses and public institutions. This need to connect is the foundation of both regional local food direct marketing campaigns and culinary tourism initiatives across the province. Savour Ottawa, the Frontenac Arch Biosphere's Local Flavours, Lanark Local Flavour, the National Farmers Union’s Food Down the Road in the Kingston region are all examples of initiatives in Eastern Ontario that help citizens identify food grown in their community and recognize businesses and restaurants that use locally grown food. These initiatives cannot match the level of promotion of a Foodland Ontario local food campaign. This has the potential to overshadow distinctive messages of local at regional levels, leading to the loss of benefit and incentive for local growers and processors that might come from the Local Food Act. Surely there are continued opportunities for co-branding, where provincial and regional initiatives can work together to the benefit of all. Savour Ottawa provides an example of this strategy. Level the playing field Growers in the Niagara region have historically found their own local markets overrun with early fruit from California and Mexico. Similarly, without regional distinguishing, farms from parts of Ontario with more favourable climatic conditions will be able to capture the early pent up consumer demand for seasonal fruits and vegetables under a single local label. This can displace the demand for more locally grown crops in areas such as Eastern Ontario and put our own regional growers at a strong disadvantage. It is important that accurate information is provided so that consumers can make an informed choice as to which farm or region they would like to support at any given time. Strengthening the bonds between local growers and retailers In the early years of the local food movement, retailers and restaurants using local food regularly developed relationships with a few farmers in order to secure the volume they required. While this somewhat increased the effort involved, the local benefits were large – it has allowed small and medium-sized farmers access to local markets and provided consumers what they’re looking for – a connection with the farmers in their community. These important local bonds would be threatened with a solely Local=Ontario promotion. Here in Eastern Ontario we are already seeing signage in food stores referring to produce grown in Southern Ontario as 'local'. (The distance between Ottawa and Leamington is approximately 700 km.) We have already had medium-sized farmers dropped by retailers in favour of something more distant that can still be called local. We believe this is in part due to the ramping up of the Foodland Ontario initiative. Without that initiative being tied in a systematic way to regional efforts, it will actually undermine them. Further, support is needed for aggregation/processing/
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 105 of 118Page 105 of 118Page 105 of 118Page 105 of 118
distribution hubs designed and managed within regions to meet regional needs and interests. Opportunity to rebuild regional agricultural sectors The Local Food Act offers great potential to kick start local economic development through the rebuilding of more complex and resilient local food production and processing across Eastern Ontario, as well as other regions of the province. Many regions have lost much of the infrastructure needed to make their systems viable. The local food movement has now begun to provide incentives to these regions to start rebuilding. Without the support of a regional local food campaign, these areas, including Eastern Ontario, will be at a disadvantage to those areas that already have more of these assets in place. As one Eastern Ontario farmer states: “The Ontario Local Food Act should be more than political lip service to local food; it needs to influence behaviour and deliver results. Ontario=Local is politically correct for a provincial government. But it is ineffective in branding at the emotional and commercial level. Ontario is a political territory with political boundaries, containing diverse geographies and peoples. Ontario is not a single heart-felt geographical uniqueness. The Ottawa Valley, the Niagara Peninsula, the Thousand Islands bring up images, physical characteristics of soil and nature, passion, unique culture, and sense of home and belonging. This is the sense of connectedness that consumers seek with their local farmers. That is how Québec captured and branded its local food program decades ago under the concept of "les saveurs du terroir". Local in the hearts of producers and consumers is regional, not political or provincial.” Summary In order to benefit the agricultural sector throughout all of Ontario, we feel that it is essential to have a hierarchical definition of Local, one that defines Local as being close to home and has both regional and provincial value. By employing a hierarchical or graduated definition of the term 'Local', everyone benefits - nobody loses. As you will see when you read the minutes from the May 25th meeting with Minister McMeekin, growers, processors, and retailers alike within our area all feel it is essential to ensure a regional scope to the term local food that is acknowledged and supported within the province-wide definition. Farmers can choose which regional or commodity-based marketing programs they wish to be a part of. This allows a farmer to benefit at the same time from a provincial initiative (Foodland Ontario), one or more regional initiatives, and commodity specific initiatives (eg. a local Maple Trail). While we write from our perspective of Eastern Ontario, we feel this is a shared
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 106 of 118Page 106 of 118Page 106 of 118Page 106 of 118
issue, highlighting Northern Ontario and all regions throughout Ontario who are seeking to implement food-related economic development initiatives resting on regional distinction. We believe it is crucial to have a solution that allows for the blending of both provincial and regional definitions to this issue in place within the Act as it comes out next month. Can you please confirm to this Eastern Collaborative by Monday, October 1st what definition is currently being proposed within the Local Food Act? We are at your service to assist with wording and ideas. Yours Truly,
Members of the Eastern Ontario Local Food Collaborative:
Cheryl Nash, Coordinator, ecoPerth/Lanark Local Flavour Moe Garahan, Executive Director, Just Food Ottawa Pat Learmonth, Director, Farms at Work, East Central Ontario Janet Duncan, Convivium Leader, Slow Food Lanark County Tom Manley, Owner, Homestead Organics Diane Dowling, President, National Farmers Union Local 316 (Frontenac and
Lennox-Addington Counties and the City of Kingston) Susan Preston, PhD., Chair, Canadian Organic Growers’ Ottawa Chapter Tom McCullough, President, Ottawa Valley Food Co-operative, Renfrew Pauline Pratt, Chair, All Things Food Collaborative, Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry Copy to: Carma Williams, Councillor North Glengarry Minister Ted McMeekin, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Premier Dalton McGuinty, MPP Ottawa-South Yasir Naqvi, MPP Ottawa Centre Phil McNeely, MPP Ottawa Orleans Madeleine Meilleur, MPP Ottawa-Vanier Lisa MacLeod, MPP Nepean-Carleton Bob Chiarelli, MPP Ottawa West-Nepean John Gerretsen, MPP Kingston and the Islands John Yakabuski, MPP Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Jeff Leal, MPP Peterborough Steve Clark, MPP Leeds Grenville Randy Hillier, MPP Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Jack MacLaren, MPP Carleton- Mississippi Mills Laurie Scott, MPP Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock Jim McDonell, MPP Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry John Vanthof, MPP - Timiskaming-Cochrane Gilles Bisson MPP - Timmins-James Bay Victor Fedeli MPP - Nipissing
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 108 of 118Page 108 of 118Page 108 of 118Page 108 of 118
MPPs: Yasir Naqvi Phil McNeely
MPP Staff: Jackie Choquette – Premier’s Office Lauren Hunter – Yasir Naqvi’s Office Laura Kobsa – Minister McMeekin’s office Richard Linley – Minister McMeekin’s office
Discussion Notes: 8: 45 am Introduction MPP Yasir Naqvi introduced Minister McMeekin. 8:50 a.m. Minister’s Comments This is the first of a series of roundtables on local food in Ontario. Minister McMeekin invited each participant to give a couple minutes of comments on the first question in the agenda. He also indicated that people can email him whenever they want with their ideas and issues. Next week, a website will be launched where the public can provide input and send their ideas to the minister. Kathy Bergquist – volunteer assistant market coordinator for Ottawa Organic Farmers’ Market. This is a small market in existence for 23 years. It is a year round market, currently located in the Canada Care Medical Building and therefore there is not much room to expand. They are always on the lookout for a permanent location that would allow growth. Relationships between growers and clients have kept the market going, but it is limited by lack of visibility and a long term location. Space is a big constraint in winter months, although the number of vendors goes down at that time. Reselling does happen to augment the offerings of the market. One issue is around organic certification. Everyone selling there claims to be organic, but not all are certified. This is an issue – those who established the market were small scale who did not want to certify for many reasons. They continue to claim they use organic practices. However, there is a contingent of certified producers that would like to see everyone at the market certified. New vendors at the market need to be certified and stay certified. Stephen Beckta – owner of Beckta and Play and another restaurant in the works. These restaurants are huge proponents of local food. They enjoy having
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 109 of 118Page 109 of 118Page 109 of 118Page 109 of 118
farmers show up and offer products. Stephen Beckta believes this is the way of the future and expressed appreciation for the minister’s support in this area. Mr. Beckta offered several ideas by way of suggestion: - Menu labelling is huge: consumers really appreciate this, reinforces
demand, consumers seek out farmers in their personal shopping when they see those labels on menus. Perhaps not something to be mandated, but keep in mind re: local food act and the impact it can have.
- Colour coding at ByWard and Parkdale Markets works well. For those who want to know more about food origins, the info is available to them. If this was front and centre in all markets, it would be even better. Could an act mandate this? It may be easy and it communicates our values.
- Often OMAFRA sees local as Ontario. This does not match regional view. West Quebec is more local here than Niagara. Can we look at the wine industry as an example by establishing different zones in Ontario? Local must mean local, and an “Ontario-wide” definition does not fit the bill e.g. “Eastern Ontario” appellation could work.
- Verification is very important. An accessible mode of certification for local and/or organic is needed. Barriers to certification are time, money, paperwork, and lack of transparency. We need only ONE certification mark for organic in Ontario, not the several brands that currently exist. A Local Food Act should deal with these certification issues for local and organic.
Minister McMeekin mentioned that Foodland is the most recognized brand after McDonald’s in Ontario. Mr. Beckta suggested that while the Ontario branding is important, it does not deal with the local issue. We need to make it worthwhile for farmers to sell into regional markets, rather than shipping stuff all over the province/country/beyond. Cheryl Nash: EcoPerth - Located in Lanark County, where many small market gardeners and direct
marketers access markets in Ottawa and Kingston. - This needs to become more than an agricultural issue. It’s about food and
nutrition. We need to get out of our silos. When an experienced family doctor says to Cheryl that she knows obesity is about changing our food system rather than tweaking lifestyles that’s when we know we’re at the cusp of making a big change. We need to reacquaint ourselves with the rural population to do this.
- Consumer support for “regionality” is important. Many growers in Lanark are in tricky financial positions, asking a little more for what they grow than people would pay at the supermarket. Local buyers are willing to pay when they know where it comes from. When it comes to the Foodland logo, this does not carry the same weight to influence buyers to pay more. Needs to be closer to home, with relationships established to allow farmers to access higher market values.
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 110 of 118Page 110 of 118Page 110 of 118Page 110 of 118
- Recently a wave of new young farmers, transitional farmers coming out of commodity markets. Many factors are affecting their success. Income stability is key. One possible solution would be a municipal government procurement policy – dictating a local food minimum to be purchased. This little bit of force/encouragement makes a huge difference. When a municipality makes those connections with producers, it is a lot of effort at first, but thereafter they are well established and can continue.
Moe Garahan – Just Food Just Food has been a regional hub for food and farming for the past nine years. - Moe has been working on these issues for 17 years in Ottawa. It has
always been partnership based work. Current work and successes are based on broad partnerships.
- Re: Right to Food: UN Rapporteur’s recent visit was not well received by some governments. Creative solutions for farmer’s markets to donate, volunteer programs, etc. Food access issues are also part of Just Food’s work.
- Re: Local Food: Things that have made a difference in a positive way: o Need to link regional verification with Foodland e.g. the Savour
Ottawa model does this effectively using MyPick verification. We need to be more creative to allow a graduated definition of local. This is based on various research*, showing that people want to know the farm name and where it is. Current problem with MyPick is that it does not identify the location of the farmer. However, when linked to Savour Ottawa, the location is highlighted via association with Savour Ottawa’s definition of local, it is also linked to Foodland Ontario. MyPick has allowed this promotion that links to the info people want – this should continue to be supported. *Minister McMeekin asked for a copy of this research.
o There is an interest in seeing a government role in continuing to support this program through payment of verification. Moe has presented to OMAFRA before on this. We ALL want this info – eaters, restaurants, etc. It maintains consumer confidence. A graduated approach to supporting this verification would be appropriate.
o OMIF has made a difference in the region to bring forward business to business opportunities.
o Scaling up efforts are underway. Supports for regional infrastructure are needed, for processing, aggregation, abattoirs, egg grading, etc. We need to prioritize provincially inspected meat. There is a barrier in getting this product into public sector institutions that commonly have purchasing policies requiring federally inspected meat. Providing information about the provincial meat inspection system would help to make inroads into public sector institutions. Would like government to support these
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 111 of 118Page 111 of 118Page 111 of 118Page 111 of 118
communication efforts as they can have an impact in community economic development by supporting small and medium scale abattoirs.
o New farmer supports are needed. A gap is in the supports for established farmers to mentor new farmers. Quebec has good models. Experienced, older farmers need to help with skill development in new farmer base.
Minister McMeekin discussed agriculture demographics statistics. Moe Garahan added that, despite these stats, there is increased interest in farming seen among youth in urban areas, new Canadians and second careerists. We need to have unique supports for all of those new farmer areas. Just Food is starting an incubator farm built on FarmStart’s model. Philip Powell: Chair of FMO; City of Ottawa ByWard and Parkdale Markets Manager, and Steering Committee Member of Savour Ottawa. - Farmers’ Markets of Ontario (FMO) currently supports 160 markets and
My Pick verification (approx 200 farmers). - We need to remember to take time to celebrate what we’ve accomplished,
as important as talking about new ideas e.g. Pick Ontario Freshness. - The model in Ottawa is one to look at, as diverse stakeholders have come
together to create an impact and collectively recognize the same issues/barriers.
- Ottawa is making exceptions for farmers by looking at rules on itinerant sellers.
- Verification is important. Why? To maintain trust in farming. Foodland brand is great, but we need to verify farmers. Farmers are now traveling huge distances to sell. Attributes of a local brand can be better preserved with certification: quality and buying directly from the farmer.
- Need to look at partnerships with health, tourism, etc. Build the local food marketing and markets for local food from poutine to fine dining.
- Initiatives that were started here were and are based on supporting farmers -- giving them the best return.
Andy Terauds – Acorn Creek Farm, producing for over 30 years. - Ottawa Farmers’ Market (OFM) started in 2006. Since that time the local
economy benefited by sales of about 20 million in that time. Therefore, this is an important driver of local economy.
- Struck by the fact that there are not that many producers in the room. Challenge is that perception of local is in the eye of the beholder. Many groups trying to grab that spotlight, including big box stores where local = 24 hours by truck.
- To make successful local interpretation, there needs to be an educational process with the public. Producers say local must be identified clearly. Andy’s definition is within 100 miles. Another local definition is within the
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 112 of 118Page 112 of 118Page 112 of 118Page 112 of 118
“area” or “region” e.g. eastern Ontario. Farmers want to compete fairly with California, Chile and China. To do this, they need a clear identification that the public can rely on. Savour Ottawa does a great job identifying food producers. OFM has more MyPick certified farmers than any other in Ontario.
- Need a system that farmers’ markets can use to certify farmers’ markets for wool, crafts, etc. to be accessible to all vendors at a market so they can all participate. Verification is needed for all of these products. Growth needs to include all components of farmers market.
- Need to provide purchasing environment where people can relax – farmers’ markets can provide this. Helps consumers get into buying frame of mind. Need mix of crafts, food, baking, non-food items to create this environment.
- There are concerns that demand for farmers’ markets is tapping out. Andy Terauds disagrees – more markets will create demand – when people realize the quality they can get outside big box.
- Discussion of features of zebra tomato (given to Minister). These cost more. It costs more money to produce local food therefore needs to be a distinction made between local producers and resellers to help local farmers over this distinct disadvantage.
- Another challenge for the small scale farmer is that regulations are in place and they create a heavy burden on producer. There is a need to reduce this burden and identify scale appropriate regulations.
Minister McMeekin described the Open for Business task group: all GFOs and commodity organizations, together with government, have reduced regulatory burden already by 28 per cent. Continuing work is happening on this, trying to be proactive. The Minister invites people to send him a list of any regulations that they would like this group to look at for consideration. MPP Naqvi asked: Is there an issue with the size of producers, with some scales being financially unviable? Andy Terauds suggested that size is not an issue, local is the issue. Because local farmers are often selling in a single transaction direct to a consumer. Farmers need the opportunity to do this and to charge a fair price. Stephen Beckta: The reason his restaurants pay 2-3 times more for local tomatoes is because the flavour is better and the story and value add is better. Consumers want to connect with restaurants in that way. Price is a factor, there is a threshold above a certain price where it is impossible to make the purchase, but there is also a willingness to pay more for the added value local gives. A fair rate for farmers can be gained in that “sweet spot.”
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 113 of 118Page 113 of 118Page 113 of 118Page 113 of 118
Dan O’Brien, O’Brien Farms, Winchester - During BSE changed strategy to begin finishing beef – discovered they
had a great product. - Involved with Savour Ottawa which has been a great benefit to O’Brien
Farms. Already used 6000 of their business cards. Cards do not talk about product, but about the farmer. This marketing approach was initially new to Mr. O’Brien, but it is working well. It gives a way to bring customer to booth at a market. Cards and marketing and translation services are a huge support to the farmer – all of these provided by Savour Ottawa.
- These marketing materials allowed Mr. O’Brien to market to restaurants and food service. Started with Beckta. Now selling to 30 restaurants in Ottawa, also at 4 markets.
- Mr. O’Brien also supports the verification which is supported by an audit. - Abattoirs: huge need to get some wording to give to buyers on the
differences between provincial and federal regulations. We need to open that door to getting institutions and larger buyers to purchase provincially inspected meat.
- Robert Herjavic’s speech at FCC: farmers don’t appreciate the power of their brand – the discussion here supports that.
- O’Brien farms product is often double the price of commodity beef. Makes it hard to get in to some markets. Can’t take value from every part of the chain like Cargill. Last two years six figure losses. Very successful as far as marketing – approaching a million in sales – spinoff benefits to abattoirs, etc., but financial challenges remain.
Robin Turner: President Ottawa Farmers’ Market and Owner, Roots and Shoots Farm - It would help if government would enforce monopoly rules for food
processing, handling, transportation. - Roots and Shoots farm is in its third year. - 200 CSA shares, 3 markets. - Small scale vegetable growing selling directly is profitable. Lots of
potential benefits to suppliers, processors, etc if we let it happen. - Small scale veg farmers should be able to gross 40,000 per acre. This is a
lot of money to spread around local economy. - Mr. Turner relies on diversity for a viable business: in fields, customers –
needs 1000s of customers eating his food, biological diversity, educational options, suppliers, etc. all these needs diversity.
- What activities work well? Issue is that the success of Roots and Shoots farm is gained by living in shadow of industrial agriculture, providing what they cannot provide. Local food is food produced without involvement of industry and government, who have created food system bereft of diversity, taste, nutrition, etc.
- What can governments do? Legislate and protect terminology around local, farmers’ markets, etc. to prevent co-opting of these concepts by industrial agriculture. And big box stores.
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 114 of 118Page 114 of 118Page 114 of 118Page 114 of 118
- Competing with US corn and soy industry. How can we compete? We need to protect our “brand”.
- Also need to be “protectionist” – need to take this further. Canada is currently negotiating CETA – the agreement which would result in huge abilities for corporations to license genetics, etc. major concerns with food sovereignty continuing along this trend. We can’t continue to trust food to industry.
- There is a problem with infrastructure supporting small farmers. Growers can easily find suppliers in US, cheaper than they can at home. We don’t have the infrastructure, and supports to make supply happen here. Tom Manley and Homestead Organics is one of the only businesses that has the capacity to offer some infrastructure to farmers.
- Governments have annihilated extension, education and tech transfer. OMAFRA website is last on Mr. Turner’s list for information. Due to focus on industrial agriculture.
Andy Terauds added that research is needed as much as extension. For example, a grower in Beamsville had huge frost damage like many fruit growers this year. Those varieties bred in Ontario were largely untouched. Locally adapted varieties needed for our climate to support local food. . Paul Gorman - Signature Foods - Has also owned several restaurants in the past. - Signature does further processing of fresh fruits and veg., and are also a
local distributor of local and organic produce. They do co-packing and work with manufacturers. Kitchen on site to help manufacturers develop products and take to market.
- Currently working with Savour Ottawa to develop local food hub in Ottawa. Will only work with input from farmers
- Challenge is that local food is very, very expensive. Competition is unbelievable. Cost is huge, failure rate high. Signature competes with Sysco, GFS, etc. these are huge companies. Paul’s niche market is to work with high quality local foods.
- What is local? Has to be regional and then provincial. Everything so focused around that Toronto market, it’s a huge hub, global distributors trying to jump on local bandwagon. They are taking Ontario product, but it is not benefiting people outside that area. Crush farmers outside that market/ price point, then ship the product everywhere and market it as local.
- Mr. Gorman has two facilities, lots of capacity, willingness to work with the local value chain, hospitals, etc.
- Currently working with hospitals to produce menu items with items coming from 50 km from Ottawa.
- Branding needed, what is local? Verification needed. In food hub this would mean being a part of Savour Ottawa.
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 115 of 118Page 115 of 118Page 115 of 118Page 115 of 118
- Also considering a rating system based on geographic location in relation to that food hub. Model that exists in the US.
Susan Jessup - 42 Creighton Fine Foods; take out/take with operation - Member of Savour Ottawa and on advisory committee - Will be doing work on “Food For All” (a Just Food policy initiative) with
children and schools - Challenges: would like to design entire menu around local. Financial
challenges significant. - Why does it have to be so punishing for farmers to be so poor to feed us? - Starts at the farm level, greater activity education in schools needed. - Criteria for origin: French model (AOC) can be a good model. Also PDO
and PGI (Protected Geographic Indication). One AOC designation would cover many km square, another 4 ha. Reason is that people have demanded they know the story, quality, history behind that food product. Government has been active to support this. Part of culture people grow up with. We are missing that here.
- 42 Creighton Fine Foods is based on transparency, which speaks to customer confidence. Can tell people where all ingredients come from. Also educating business employing students part time.
- Also have tasting events every month, to give people a chance to learn more about the farmers that produce this food.
Herve Lacroix – H&H Lacroix Greenhouses Ltd. - Farming for 37 years. - Farming is very hard now, getting harder - Environment has changed a lot. - Need to work to save crop, need to learn all over again how to grow in this
environment. Yannick Manley: Homestead Organics: grain processor, feed mill - Local definition: closer to NY state in their location. - Over the last 50 years of government policy, everything about exporting
and large commodities. Policy created to support this. Politicians can say they created 200 jobs with government help, but this support not available to smaller businesses.
- Trying to create Organic Central, businesses with similar values to share resources, create a distribution hub, etc.
- Very challenging. Tom Manley, Homestead Organics - Family business est. 1988; largest employer in village or Berwick. - Testament to success of local food. - Over 6 million in sales last year. - Main challenge is supply, lack of organic grains. Small portion of
Homestead’s purchases are from 8 EO counties, this is not by choice. It’s
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 116 of 118Page 116 of 118Page 116 of 118Page 116 of 118
because demand for organic grain growing, but there is little supply here. There is less interest in converting to organic because commodities are doing well conventionally now.
- Would like to see government recognize that organic is viable alternative and provide supports in people power, research, etc.
- Also challenge to raise capital to grow business. - Community is supporting this business, raising capital and learning about
rules for investment, accredited investors, etc. Rules more lenient than previously, but time to look for further reform. People are looking for ways to expand and create businesses that meet demands; they should not be hampered from doing this.
- Financial regulations need to catch up to current realities; e.g. using technologies for various methods of “crowd sourcing. Why not “crowd funding”? A scenario where small amounts of money can be raised from small investors.
- Slow money/patient investment needed. - Mr. Manley is also the President of Community Advisory Group of College
d’ Alfred. Also on board of Organic Council of Ontario, National Organic Value Chain Roundtable. Top issue is certification for interprovincial traffic. Need government to implement this rule referring to national standard. In PQ they have done this, cleaned up organic market.
- Legislation needed but worthless without money. All these organizations – Just Food, Savour Ottawa, Ecological Farmers of Ontario, etc. need core funding to do training, marketing, grassroots support. Solutions not one size fits all, so grassroots groups are needed. However, organizations cannot rely solely on volunteers and be sustainable.
Heather Hossie, Savour Ottawa - CED manager at Just Food. Working on Savour Ottawa for 6 years - Membership based initiative, with about 90 farmer members. - Three main aspects to Savour Ottawa’s work:
o Business to business activities o Promotions o Verifications. Partnership with FMO for verification is basis for what
they do. - Also verify restaurants and retailers for membership based on stringent
criteria. - Important to ensure this verification exist. It must be accessible, could be
organic, LFP, etc.
Closing Remarks Minister McMeekin gave closing remarks. Notes will be distributed back to all participants. Passed list around and asked people to confirm name and e-mail.
Proposed Local Food Act Director of Clerk's Services/Clerk,
Page 117 of 118Page 117 of 118Page 117 of 118Page 117 of 118
Last invitation to say something before closing: Andy Terauds indicated customers first come to the market because of desire to eat local 100 mile diet, after that they are hooked by taste. Moe Garahan asked about other ways for giving information and input. Answer: there will be a website to be launched next week, will email everyone here with the link.
Closing MPP Phil McNeely thanked the minister for coming and providing the chance to discuss these issues at a roundtable. Adjourn 10:30am
