The URL can be used to link to this page

10 13 2004 COW Agenda TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA DATE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ************************************************************************************************ 1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. DEPUTATIONS: a) 9:00 a.m. Mr. Denis Chamberland, Mr. John Mascarin; Aird & Berlis LLP, re: Procurement. b) 9:30 a.m. Mr. Brent Clarkson, MHBC Planning re: Georgian North Lands Ltd. / Buffalo Springs. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Gayle Wood, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, correspondence dated August 30,2004 re: Bill 26, Strong Communities, Planning Reform Initiatives. b) Frances Wood, correspondence dated September 21,2004 re: Development of the West Ridge Subdivision, Orillia. c) Garfield Dunlop, MPP, Simcoe North, correspondence dated September 27,2004 re: Request to Fast Track Additional Justice of the Peace Appointments in the Central East Region. d) Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment, correspondence dated September 22,2004; and Garfield Dunlop, MPP, Simcoe North, correspondence dated September 27, 2004 re: Regional Municipality of Niagara, Request for Provincial Action in the Areas of Diversion and Environmental Assessment. e) Jim Bradley, Ministry of Tourism and John Gerretsen, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, correspondence dated October 4, 2004 re: Community Use of Schools Program. f) William Duffy, Mayor, The Corporation of the Township of Ramara, correspondence dated October 4, 2004 re: County Official Plan Review. 6. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE: a) Report No. FD 2004-08, Joe Casey, Director of Fire and Emergency Services, re: Pager Replacement. b) Report No. TR 2004-27, Bonnie McPhee, Accounting Clerk, re: Statement of Accounts, September, 2004. c) Report No. ADM 2004-40, Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Proposed Permanent Closure and Sale, Original Road Allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte. d) Report No. ADM 2004-43, Mariiyn Pennycook, Clerk, re: Request for Exemption - Warminster Annual Remembrance Day Parade. e) Report No. ADM 2004-45, Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Designs for Moonstone Fire Hall [on desk]. f) Report No. ADM 2004-46, Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk, re: Proposed Closure of Road and Conveyance of Lands at the end of Oneida Avenue, Registered Plan M-31 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, Parts 12 and 13,51 R-33065. g) Councillor Buttineau, re: Request for Reconsideration, Scheduling of Committee of the Whole meetings. h) Councillor Fountain, re: Lakeshore Promenade, Plan 626 Update. i) Deputy Mayor Hughes, re: Legal Expenses, Plan 709. j) Minutes of Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting of September 15, 2004 and Memorandum to Council dated October 7, 2004, From Ruth Fountain, Chair, Accessibility Advisory Committee re: Review Dates and Summary of Actions. 7. PUBLIC WORKS: a) Report No. PW 2004-07, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Speed Reduction - Line 7, South of Hwy. #11. b) Report No. PW 2004-08, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Security Perimeter at the African Church. 2 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: a) Report No. EES 2004-40, Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, re: Lawrence William Tupling - Site Plan Agreement - 31 Bards Beach Road - Part Lot 6, Plan 546 (formerly South Orillia), Being all of PIN # 58531-0344 (Lt), Township of Oro-Medonte. 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: a) Report No. BD 2004-11, Ron Kolbe, Director of Building/Planning Development, re: Building Report, September, 2004. 10. IN-CAMERA: a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Property Matter. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 3 ADDENDUM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5. CORRESPONDENCE: g) Kathleen Sullivan, Secretary, The Shanty Bay Ratepayers Association, correspondence dated October 6, 2004 re: Property located at the North West Corner of Ridge Road and Line 2. h) Mike and Lori Beresford, correspondence dated September 30,2004 re: Development of the West Ridge Subdivision, Orillia. Page 1 of 1 Marilyn Pennycook From: Sent: To: Brent Clarkson Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:08 PM Marilyn pennycook Subject: Request to Appear as a Delegation - Georgian North Land Marilyn: Further to our discussion last week, I confirm that we wish to appear as a delegation at the Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for 9:00 am Wednesday Oct. 13. As you know I represent Georgian North Land who now owns the former Buffalo Springs property. The reason that we would like to appear as a delegation is to explore options to the OMB approved plan of subdivision and in particular, to obtain direction from Committee/Council regarding one option which we are giving serious consideration. Please confirm that you have received our request for delegate status by return email to clarkson@mhb<;:plan.colT) Thank you. Brent Brent Clarkson MHBC Planning 545 North Rivermede Road, Suite 105 Concord, Ontario L4K 4H1 905761-5588 10/7 12004 Comparison of OMB Approved Buffalo Springs Plan and "Johnston" Option 3 \ Johnston Item OMS Approved Alternative No. of Lots 230 lots 225 lots Length of Road 7,069 metres 6,215 metres Crossing of Wetlands 4 0 No. of Lots on "West Half" 74 20 of Buffalo SprinQs No. of Lots Abutting west 75 16 wetland ,~- part 01 the West \-Iall 01 LOi;. Q"- Ihe East \-Iall 01 Lot 2 and Ihe E.ast and west \-Ialves 01 Lot 3 COfIcession 9 f't>!T'1wy\l1\h1'1 (3e09r0-ph\C 1:0'#1105019 of 0\'0 t4"",iI1\t101 10wnship 01 oro_Madonte Count'; 01 Simcoe \ \ a , , , i otal Lots 230 ~sUBJE-CT WJfA~~ , NOTTO~ ......."""'Ii , :;Cf'.L"- 1'."3000 ~ ,~--~ m_ p~r",6'.Qctot#'12<2()1)4 Q ProparactOctooor12,20G4 CONCEPT PLAN Option 3 Part of the West Half of Lot 2 and The East Half of Lot 2 and The East and West Halves of Lot 3 Concession 9 r--.--- .----------- ~----=----- , . r---- L____~ I --- r------=------ L' ---:--- ---- , f---,:, I - I , , "'-, I ~............ .. I /' "'11,' /' "\ / -.->---, \. ~--~ j ~---~ -- ,\ _~__ '" I \--'"~ ---~\. -I r- ------1 t ',- Township of Oro-Medonte County of Simcoe Fom19nyinthe Geographic Township of Ora Nowintl19 Johnston Property 81 Lots Min. 0.75 Acres Min. Frontage 30 metres Buffalo Springs Property 144 Lots Min. 0.50 Acres Min. Frontage 30 metres Total Lots 225 KEY PLAN ! I .SUBJECT PROPERTY 1"""""'_1 ~ ---j ~-~-- ..I~ --- _ ..I 1-.-_ I I 1---" ~-:\ \'" / ~ / j-- -'\' -IL-I,' ---;'\ \ f----.j ".z..- / - /'/ ----' \! I I" ""'----- --:-\ L .. I ' --r--, ,< .. _.\\ __/171 I ",) ----\ \ I L-J '. -, \ I' , I ---\ ,- I. r--: 1---- :-"-J: I ../L=- -- .',>, r-----j I: -- __-- I '. 1------: I -- "-I, , I r--- .1---__ j ... ,oo ___-- I. I , -1-----1 1:-- .. I ,.. r ----rL ' .1,- I _ I 1--__ - '{ r--T'-l' I --~/.f {I - ---.:j I L! I j" I r-:--- \ \.. .' "L) . ~,--~-'/ -, 'I~T_\-~,- / il\ \'" I I I , I ,\ , NOT TO SCALE f/ SCALE 1 ;3000 0102550 100 200 300 ~ m"'" KacN.ucht.oD B__ Britton C1U'bcm PlImDiDc Umfted ItIGICtW..VRlWfPLt.ItIUffQ"1aIOmIICI1IiIVIUIPIaIIf ___-.c-..L-.Lll:4II1 ~ <-1""__ 1'.0: (tIIiI)'/IN_ -- WETlAND '" ' \',-" I /i \ '-,,---:;"_l. / I , I '\ .- \ ")-~ y' J I ...., \ 1 I ' , ' , ___' , \- -----I I " .1' "I / /' , , \/ ____--::J\ r j I \?-:-1-:--L:-1~_L:-L:J'~" /\ \, \~. LJ, l, [ , Y' .::J r---/ I f-----( (--;;--1---------r-- ' . / '-, \, \---~, --- -- - \---___' 'I' " "" I I "'\' ,'y-- ---r-T----. r-- L---,-~ ,-:-1 ~--i ~---i PARK //',~"/~;'\" " "-y1 '1 ~-- _____' " ~___Ll__j ~---1 )A." .) /(" \ Y'l L 1 _;\',~ 1-, ~ ~_.L__-"\ (--\ \, ",>/'>\' "V\ ,),----~ l- j,_ _---1', I 1\, '\",-vl" \ / '{'" "1'- I. I I 1 ,I.. /' /V' -r t--\! . " '" ,_-~, \--==L-~=-:l\.;\/,;~----.\ 'v:' /~-'-~ \:-'_L~J f-:-- I I -- r /~ m~" \\~'~\\:: y/ .~T---;;--r_\~"" , ~_:-_L.L_~_~~~ f-- \ JLl-+1 L~' . T 'jTj"j:-r 1 "-PFT:\ 0\\-,=r-1 If! i =~:::.~,tJ_!-l=-.J-=-.1=-LLJ Lj,J.-:l~~-~-~.L=~~L:J-' , l . \ .l r. T"7') r-\~~:'T"I- f r:FT~ I "--./' LLlj~' "". \ \". \\-.--LlLLLLf I I\.-,,!\ .<\ 'y.-A. , I l '\,," \ oj"), v)\\(::~~ WE~ND I \-:\~.;;;\;,,\~~;:J., i ~'~--:)>--<'. .>'~:----\ V'\':-7'-;ll' i'';:~ 'y"", , ,-( 0 JL . \ \~:..J--:::.L, '" / I "'{, ;./.) ;::Tr:::l r:--r~Yf:'1I' , '., /,." "I ~ ~_---.J t-... :1.L-.J i ___...1 , I' I ~----..;' I" \ i - ~ t-' M I I 1 R ,----- _--I I RECREATIONf---'---1 I - , WETLAND, . , \ CENTRE " "I r----J J \ ~_---\ \ L_____J 1 .... - -f== ?~ - -F=-=--j \---~- \....-"-~,,\, I .\1- ~ I ,?~,\/--f----~-i E'------~ I Y""O\\ I- // '7--__ I' \,/------^-, 0 I --"'-I I ! ;"'/1 I \Y-~ \ !-----J C-L:! - ,/ "i1 v--~ 'L "/ r-r-, ,/" .--11' \.---" - \ \ ----/ i 0' \~:: L----.-----\ \ / I---J . I I 0 I, \_,,--;-0.\ \ . / I. r----J f-------j I \,____.:-;, '---1 f--- I . i ~--]I OPEN \ __>1 ,I " ~_--j } I SPACE ,,-----" / f- I 0' r;--- 'I \-----;--f ) . ""i-------I t.---------1 I __~ I- 1 "I!"' ! I _ ") / 0 Tf--rl ~~~11 . / ' I I"' L "'-I :: '--,-L:L:L)/,:~:___. II' "/ --,',_",," '-'::---1 ,.;..,,,\.,,, "II ,. '0/ \ \ " II '*' \ \ "! , \ \ '" , _ ----'-------...:::,,) I ...-....-....-...-...-....-....-.... COMPARISON PLAN Part of the West Half of Lot 2 and The East Half of Lot 2 and The East and West Halves of Lot 3 Concession 9 FormaMy;oth<! Geographic Township of Ora Nawifllha Township of Ora-Madonle County of Simcoe --- Johnston Property 81 Lots Min, 0,75 Acres Min, Frontage 30 metres Buffalo Springs Property 144 Lots Min, 0,50 Acres Min, Frontage 30 metres , I , r--- , I Total Lots 225 KEY PLAN _SUBJECT PROPERTY ,-- ~ ~ NOT ro SCALe: 0_ ~ WETlAND SCAlE ,::3000 0102550 100 200 30Q ~ - ' m_ L...._..._...._...._...._...._ ...---...-....-... IWN&.~ lium.- Brittou <::wP<m ~ Um1te<I. JIIQJQIW."URlWfJ'LUlMlNll,"IIIIIIOIJ1ICI~ MII____....~OaI:aio.I.a:&1 ~<_)m_ __Im_ -. Prnp$rad:Octob&r12,2DQ4 l: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 K: 905.853.5881 \fail: info@lsrca.on.ca :b: www.Isrca.on.ca :0 Bayview Parkway )x282 ::wmarket, Ontario iY4X1 Leaders In Watershed Health i...-..... -. f!c ~ ~ August 30th, 2004 File: ADM-1-4 Ms. Marilyn Pennycook Clerk Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO RECEIVED SEP 7 200~ ORO.MEDONTE TOWNSHIP Dear Ms. Pennycook, Re: Bill 26 Strong Communities Planning Reform Initiatives J ,)C\- On Friday, August 27th, 2004, the Authority's Board of Directors, at their Meeting No. BOD-08-04, passed the following resolution: Moved by: Seconded by: J. West S. Self BOD-04-173 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 44-04-BOD regarding Planning Reform Initiatives be received for information; and THAT the Board of Directors direct staff to forward this report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration on this planning initiative; and FURTHER THAT a copy of the Staff Report be circulated to watershed municipalities for their information. Included is a copy of Staff Report No. 44-04-BOD which includes a summary of the comments from the staff of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. D. Gayle ood, CMM III Chief Administrative Officer/ Secretary-Treasurer Igle Ene!. if;'"-' .. 1)'~ -d Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 1 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 TO Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Kennedy, MCIP,RPP, CMMI Manager, Planning Watershed Management Department DATE August 13,2003 SUBJECT: Bill 26 Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act 2004 Planning Reform Initiatives - June 2004 Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools Provincial Policy Statement Ontario Municipal Board Reform RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 44-04-BOD regarding Planning Reform Initiatives be received for information; and FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors direct staff to forward this report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration on this planning initiative. . Purpose of Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report is to update the Authority's Board of Directors on Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act 2004 which proposes important amendments to the Planning Act. As part of the Planning Reform Initiative the Provincial government has: . reviewed the planning process; determined the need for effective implementation tools for municipalities and other decision makers; 77 .. . ... , S'~ - 3 I>- Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-80D 2 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 released draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement for public review and input; and · reviewed the role of the Ontario Municipal Board. Three consultation papers were released by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in June 2004, including: 1) Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools; 2) Provincial Policy Statement; and 3) Ontario Municipal Board Reform. Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools - Discussion Paper No.1 Over the next 30 years, 4 million new residents will call' Ontario home. The Ontario government is setting a course for building strong, safe and liveable communities in Ontario that offer residents a high quality of life. I Ontario's land-use planning system defines the interests and responsibilities of all Ontari.;3ns in planning for future land uses. The system provides the framework for determining the future of our communities and for protecting valuable resources such as farmlands, wetlands, water and natural features. Ontario needs effective land-use planning, and an effective land-use planning system. This is especially critical given the pressures confronting the province today, such as: Increasing gridlock as a result of urban sprawl; Unprecedented growth pressures in some parts of Ontario, such as the Golden Horseshoe region; Loss of prime agricultural land and other resources; The need for enhanced environmental protection; and The need for a strong economy. The Ontario government is responding to these challenges. Through the Planning Reform initiative, it is reviewing the land-use planning system to ensure it meets today's needs. 78 . 5~ -Lt Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 3 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 There are a number of interrelated initiatives to support strong communities that are currently underway. These initiatives will depend on a stronger land-use planning system for effective implementation. They include: Strong Communities; Golden Horseshoe; Growth Management in the Golden Horseshoe; and Source Water Protection. Bill 26 - Strong Communities (Planning Amendments) Act, 2003 received first reading in the legislature on December 15, 2003, it received second reading on May 13, 2004. If Bill . 26 receives Royal Assent it will make all the Planning Act changes retroactive to Decembe~ 15, 2003. Planninq Reform - Backqround to Bill 26 The main proposals in Bill 26 include: Increased Planning Decision Timelines I ncreasing the time that decision-makers have to review and make decisions on specific planning applications (i.e., official plans/amendments, zoning bylaws, holding bylaws, subdivisions/condominiums and consents). Under the Planning Act, proponents have the right to appeal to the OMB if an approval authority fails to give notice of a decision within prescribed time frames for applications deemed to be "complete". Bill 26 proposes more time for approval authorities to decide on applications for: Official plans/amendments and subdivisions/condominiums - to 180 days from 90; Zoning bylaws and holding bylaws - to 120 days from 90; and Consents to sever a property - to 90 days from 60. Basis for Proposed Legislative Change Some municipalities have advised that the Planning Act currently provides insufficient time for meaningful consideration of planning applications. Members of the public have not had enough time to participate in the planning process. Bill 26, if passed, would provide municipalities with more time to make planning decisions and provide the public with more time to participate in the planning process. 79 Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-800 4 of 1.1 ADM-1-4 10 800-08-04 Change the Implementation Standard to "shall be consistent with" 5~ ~5 Changing the implementation standard so that decisions affecting a planning matter must be "consistent with" provincial policy statements issued under the Planning Act. Currently the Planning Act requires that, in exercising any authority that affects a planning matter, a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a Minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, "shall have regard to" policy statements issued under the Plan,ning Act. It also requires a Minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the government to follow the same standard when providing comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter. The government is proposing to change the "shall have regard to" standard so that any planning "decision" "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Act. In addition, Sill 26, if passed, would require municipalities, local boards and planning boards to apply the new implementation standard when providing comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter. Basis for Proposed Legislative Change The government believes the current Planning Act standard of "shall have regard to" is not strong enough to protect provincial interests. A "shall be consistent with" standard would give planning authorities more certainty in using the PPS and in making planning decisions that implement the PPS. Appeal Rights Ensuring that municipalities have the ability to determine their urban settlement boundaries by limiting OMBappeals on applications to amend official plans or zoning bylaws for urban settlement area boundary alterations or to establish a new urban settlement area where the proposals are not supported by municipal councils. The Planning Act allows for appeals to the OMS for proposed amendments to official plans and zoning bylaws. Bill 26 proposes to provide municipalities with additional power to determine their boundaries by not allowing appeals to the OMS when a municipality does not support an application for an amendment that proposes to alter the municipality's urban settlement area boundary or to establish a new urban settlement area. The authority for the public to appeal a municipality's approval of an official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment would be maintained. 80 J)~ -\0 Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda ,Item No. 44-04-BOD 5 of 1 t ADM-1-4 10 80D-08-04 Basis for Proposed Legislative Change Municipalities need to be able to control urban sprawl. Of particular concern, has been the ability for matters to be appealed directly to the OMB regarding a municipal decision to refuse or not make a decision on proposals that would alter urban settlement boundaries, or introduce a new urban settlement area. Such appeals have been costly and time- consuming for municipalities and can result in ad hoc decision-making. Declaration of Provincial Interest Giving the province the authority to confirm, vary or rescind an OMB decision on an official plan or zoning/holding bylaw if, in the Minister's view, all or part of the matter adversely affects or..is likely to adversely affect a provincial interest and a provincial interest is declared. The Plan'ning Act does not allow the province to declare a provincial interest on matters before the OMB (e.g., an official plan amendment application). As a result, final decisions rest with the OMB. Bill 26, if passed, would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to declare a provincial interest on official plans and zoning/holding bylaws before the OMB, if the Minister believes that all or part of the application is likely to adversely affect a provincial interest. This would allow the government to confirm, vary. or rescind an OMB decision on an official plan or zoning/holding bylaw. Basis for Proposed Legislative Change There may be occasions when a matter comes before the OMB where the public interest may be so great that the province needs to be ableto review the OMB decision to ensure the protection of the broader public interest. This authority previously ~xisted in the Planning Act and was only rarely invoked by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Transitional Matters Providing the Ministerwith the authority to make a regulation to deal with transition matters (e.g., how to deal with planning applications currently under review). If Bill 26 receives Royal Assent it will make all the Planning Act changes retroactive to December 15, 2003. Accordingly, all planning decisions made after December 15, 2003 would need to have been made in accordance with the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004. In other words, If Bill 26 receives Royal Assent it,will make all the Planning Act changes retroactive to December 15, 2003. 81 SC\-l Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 6 of 11 ADM-1-4 1 0 BOD-08-04 In this interim period, Municipal Councils have been making decisions and are unclear as to what rules apply. In order to address this concern, Bill 26, if passed, would provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the ability to make transition rules to ensure that municipalities and other users of the planning system convert smoothly to the new rules. One possible approach to support a smooth transition is a regulation that exempts all planning applications on which a decision wasmade before the Bill received Royal Assent. In addition, the Bill could be amended so that the proposed "shall be consistent with" implementation standard comes into effect at a later date to coincide with the approval of a revised PPS. Staff Comments Staff strongly support these key changes to improve the planning system in Ontario, specifically, longer review times, return to "shall be consistent with", narrowing of OMB appeal rights and declaration of provincial interests at the OMB. Ideas for Further Reform Along with the key changes detailed in Bill 26, the province has also outlined additional proposals to further reform the Planning Act and broader planning system as follows: Complete Application; Redevelopment, Infilling Intensification and Compact Form Bonusing; Transfer of Development Rights; Content of Municipal Official Plans; Up-to Date Planning Documents; Review of Official Plans; Official Plan and Environmental Assessment Processes; Transition Provisions for Implementing Bill 26; Effective Date of Policies; and . Performance Monitoring. 82 ~ q ~-<6 Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-80D 7 of 11 AOM-1-4 10 800-08-04 Staff Comments Staff strongly support the proposals for further clarity on what constitutes a complete application, providing more detail on what an official plan should contain, requiring municipalities to maintain up-to-date planning documents, further harmonization between Official Plan and Environmental Assessment Processes, and providing clear direction for transitional provisions. Provincial Policv Statement: Draft Policies - Discussion Paper No.2 As part of. the planning reform agenda, revised draft provincial policies have been put forward for comment, these policies include stronger, clearer direction to support the following goals: . Building strong communities by: Promoting intensification, infill and brownfields development; Promoting the revitalization of cities, towns, villages and other settlement areas; Recognizing that the long-term health of communities is dependent on providing an adequate supply of land and opportunities to meet employment, residential and other community needs; . . Promoting the integrity of local planning by ensuring that changes to growth . boundaries are made only in the context of comprehensive reviews of municipal official plans; Providing better "big-picture" and cross-boundary planning through requirements for intensification and minimum density targets; . Requiring the identification of priority growth areas; Supporting the efficient use of public investments in infrastructure, such as sewage, water and transportation to help address gridlock, save costs, and protect the environment; Supporting a full range and mix of housing for current and future residents, including affordable and special needs housing; Supporting urban greening, recreation opportunities, and improved accessibility for persons with disabilities and the elderly; and Supporting an improved jobs/housing balance to promote people working within their communities and to reduce the problem of gridlock. 83 )C\ - ~ Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 8 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 Protecting the environment and resources by: Protecting water and ensuring a safe drinking water supply; Protecting significant natural resource features such as coastal and otherwetlands, and the habitat of endangered and threatened species; Supporting up-front planning for natural heritage systems and environmental protection; . Helping to improve air quality and mitigate the impacts of climate change-through . supportive land-use patterns; Protecting prime agricultural and specialty crop lands by addressing residential lot creation in these areas; Ensuring the continued protection of Ontario's tender fruit lands for.the future; Supporting the protection of significant cultural heritage and archaeological resources; Supporting the use of alternative energy systems and energy conservation; and Providing strong policies for sewer and water systems which protect the environment and public health. Supporting a strong economy by: Recognizing that good planning provides an economic advantage by supporting strong communities, promoting a clean, healthy environment, and supporting a high quality of life; Ensuring an adequate supply of land and opportunities to accommodate a range/mix of industrial, commercial, employment, residential and other uses to meet long-term needs; Identifying .that Ontario's -long-term prosperity and social well-being depend on maintaining a diversified economy and a range and choice of employment lands; Helping municipalities to focus their funding locally by requiring municipalities to identify priority growth areas and to co-ordinate/allocate employment projections - accordingly; Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of municipal/provincial infrastructure investment by linking infrastructure planning with land-use planning; Promoting densities and a mix of land uses that support public transit and other alternative transportation modes; . Requiring a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning for transportation, so that transportation systems are efficient, cost-effective, facilitate the movement of people and goods, and help relieve traffic gridlock; and Ensuring an adequate supply of mineral and other resources to meet long-term needs. 84 ~~ - \ 0 Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 9 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 The draft policies generally focus on results, rather than how to achieve those results. This protects significant provincial interests, while recognizing that approaches developed locally will best meet local needs. The government is proposing to change subsection 3(5) to require that any decision by planning decision makers "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Act. The government also proposes to change subsection 3(6), to include municipalities, local boards and planning. boards in the list of bodies that must apply the new implementation standard when providing comments, submissions or advice that affect planning matters. The proposed change is intended to ensure that provincial policies are applied in all land- . use planning decisions, and that the outcomes of planning decisions are not in conflict with provincial. policies. The general, common usage/meaning of the current and proposed standards, is shown in the table below:. Current Shall have regard to Proposed Shall be consistent with less demanding test more demanding test directory in nature. mandatory in nature provincial policy statements must be considered as an important factor by decision-makers in land-use planning decisions provincial policy statements must be applied in planning decisions applies to decision-maker and to process of making decisions applies to outcome of the decision Proposed Provincial Policies As part of the review and commenting process, Conservation Ontario Policy Committee provided a review of their 2001 comments against the Revised PPS, Attachment 1, provides the detailed comparison in this regard. Attachment 2, provides detailed technical comment provided by LSRCA's technical staff. 86 Staff Report No. Page No. File No. Agenda Item No. s~ -\ \ 44-04-BOD 1 0 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 LSRCA key areas of concern: Who is responsible for mapping the "provincially significant" features? Timing of mapping features and incorporation in municipal official plans. Implementation Guidelines to provide criteria and methodologies for feature identification and evaluation. Guidance for municipalities on identifying locally significant wetlands. Specific recommendations on Sections of the PPS and Definitions. Ontario Municipal Board Reform - Discussion Paper No.3 Given the .magnitude of changes in the municipal environment since the OMB's crec;1tion in1897 arid the heightened understanding of the role that planning and development activities play in our communities, it is important to review the role of the OMBin the context of land-use planning reform. Areas to be reviewed include: The OMS's mandate, which encompasses the most complex projects to backyard additions. Accountability of the OMB to stand in the place of elected councils. The qualifications of OMB members and their length of tenure that affect the public's perception with respect to the Board's independence. The public's ability to participate in OMB hearings. Although the OMS traces its roles and responsibilities back to more than 100 statutes, this paper focuses on those aspects of the -OMB's mandate that relate specificallY to the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act. The province has heard a number of concerns regarding the Ontario Municipal Board (OMS) including; concerns that the OMS substitutes its opinions for those of elected officials, it is inaccessible to the public, requires municipalities and government agencies to spend scarce resources defending decisions that have been dealt with through the planning process, and that the municipal planning review process can be circumvented by early appeals before a municipality has had an opportunity to review an application. The revisions proposed to the Planning Act through Bill 26 include preventing appeals to the OMS on urban expansions that are opposed by municipal councils and increasing the length of time available for review and public consultation of planning applications before they may be appealed to the OMS and return to the "shall be consistent with" standard. ~. 87 f}C\ --\ ~ Staff Report No. Page No" File No. Agenda Item No. 44-04-BOD 11 of 11 ADM-1-4 10 BOD-08-04 J It appears that the Province wishes to obtain more comments from the general public prior to further OMS reforms being considered. Staff Comments Staff support the initiatives of the Province to improve accountability, accessibility, hearing scope, independence and competence of OMB members and will continue to monitor proposals put forward by the province in this regard. Impact on Authority Finances: As part of the Plan Review function carried out by the Conservation Authority, each year the costs associated with policy development and review are budgeted. These reviews are absorbed as part of the Authority's Plan Review function. Once implemented the changes to the Planning Act and planning system may allow the Authority's review to operate more cost effectively based on reduced staff time for interpretation of policies and reduced or more focused involvement in OMB Hearings. Summary & Recommendations: That Staff Report No. 44-04-800 regarding Planning Reform Initiatives, be received for information and that the Board of Directors direct staff to forward this report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration on this planning initiative. Prepared by: . ~. J~ Kevin Kennedy, MCIP, . PP, CMMI M a ger;Plai1 n I n D. Gayle 00, M III Chief Adm"nistrative Officer/ Secretary-Treasurer Attachments: 1. Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission and Revised PPS 2. Summary of LSRCA Staff Comments S:\GeorginaC\BOD Agenda ltems\44-04-BOD Planning Refonn V2.wpd 88 Comparison of CO Input to Revisions Ql-2 ! Issue Conservation authorities strongly support the statement at the end of paragraph 5 in the Preamble that the "wise use and protection of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. " Conservation authorities advocate a systems approach to environmental management and we view watershed planning as a means of achieving this. We do see a weakness in the PPS in that it does not clearly link land use planning to watershed planning and it does not fully address the issue of cumulative impacts. We feel that these issues can be addressed by establishing a clear linkage between watershed planning and land use planning and the concern for cumulative impacts in the PPS. The Preamble is an important adjunct to the "Principles." The tone, particularly of the 4th paragraph ("A healthy economy is vitaL..") speaks, in our opinion, to a.n "economy first" perspective. Conservation Authorities champion the environment. We believe that the principles and the preamble to them need to emphasize the need for balance in the weighing of economic, social and environmental interests. The principles also need to emphasize the need for balance with respect to certain resource utilization policies such as aggregates and agriculture. The Preamble recognizes the existence of "complex inter- relationships among environmental, economic and social factors" but not that these competing interests be reconciled one with the other. Health and safety are referenced. Financial and economic well-being are referenced. Notions of "sustainability" or "healthy conm1unities" or "Smart Growth" are not,explicitly referenced. The preamble and the principles should establish aclear linkage between watershed planning and land use planning. The principles should emphasize the importance of the environment and recognize our environment as a finite resource for which we need to understand cumulative effects and long term implications ofplanning decisions The 4th. paragraph ("A healthy economy ...") of the preamble should be amended. Emphasis should be added to the effect that none of the policies should be read or applied in isolation fIom any of the other policies in . the PPS and that social, economic and environmental considerations will have to be balanced by decision-makers to ensure that "sustainable" or ''healthy'' or "Smart" communities result fIom the development process. Addressed in proposed PPS - See Part IV paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 Addressed - see Part III, paragraph 2 Also see Section 4.0 item 4. ~ - v to (Q Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission tn lSevised PPS Page I of 19 I' !ReCti I Iss~~'" .....0.'.. "_.,,", ....',.. ,"".; .~,," ".,. ;,-<'?q "Re~()m rnfI1dation . . " I ".,:' :';~~f:Y~0-;::<o.}..~ .'; :-:~:~'.:)::,.'>-,:;).: .. .;:V(~W,~.~\;;'.: ,';:." :{.,:.... 'PrcmosedPPS .-.-,': . '!" :~.. QI-3 There has been concern raised that tbere is no direction in the It is recommended that the principles of the Not directly principles that provides guidance for those situations when the PPS ensure that interests related to the addressed principles conflict. environment, economy and community are balanced, rather than allow for economic interests to supersede. QI-4 Principle #2 states "protecting resources for their economic use It is recomn)ended that Principle #2 be Addressed - see and/or environmental benefits;" As a principle we should be reworded as "protecting resources for their Part IV, paragraph protecting resources both for their economic use and for their economic use and for their environmental 3 environmental benefits. In doing so we must balance economic, benefits;" social and environmental considerations. QI-5 Principle #3 deals with reducing the potential for public cost or Principle # 3 should be reworded by Addressed -see risk. It is suggested that avoidance ofrisk would be a better target replacing "reducing" with "avoiding" Part IV, paragraphs to include in this principle. 4 and 5 ~ t - -+=- c.D o Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 2 of 19 The Ontario government has launched a Smart Growth initiative. Many of our members have participated in consultation workshops across the Province. A formal submission is being prepared by Conservation Ontario in response to a provincial request for input. Nationally and internationally other jurisdictions support the principle of "Smart ' Growth". The Ontario Professional Planners Institute has this year been sponsoring research on growth management including Smart Growth initiatives. Municipalities such as the City of Ottawa are intending to build ''Smart Growth" principles into new Official Plan policies. Overall many of the elements of "Smart Growth" are, we believe, implicit in the PPS and particularly Section 1 "Efficient, Cost-effective Development and Land Use Pattems". We particularly support those existing policies (l.IJ(e)) that speak to coordinating issues that "cross municipal boundaries" including "ecosystem and watershed related issues". Ontario's conservation authorities have a strong track record of providing assistance to our municipal partners and to senior levels of government on ecosystem and watershed related issues both within and across municipal boundaries. Conservation Ontario strongly supports the principle of "Smart Growth". Natural heritage and water resource requirements must be identified utilizing a systems approach based on a watershed managementmodel as a fundamental basis for planning healthy communities that will support a strong and vibrant economy. Conservation Ontario strongly supports the principle of "Smart Growth". We believe many of the principles of "Smart Growth" are already embodied in the PPS. lnthe event that the Province decides to formally adopt a "Smart Growth" strategy, including policies and financial incentives, the Principles of the Provincial Policy Statement should be amended to explicitly refer to "Smart Growth" and define what that means for Ontario. Not directly reference - concept of Smart Growth is reflected throughout the document ~ - lJ1 CD --' Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 3 of 19 Q3-1 Q3-2 Q3~3 Conservation Ontario supports the approach adopted by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS ) of a policy led system. Our collective areas of jurisdiction include within them more than 80% of the population of Ontario. It is our observation that, overa]l, thePPS is regarded as clearly articulating the specific areas of "provincial interest". Issues addressed within the PPS generally do include those matters critical to the development of strong communities, healthy environments and a robust economy. Protection of regional and local features and functions, even if they are part of a broader scheme to build green networks, is given no assistance under the Provincial Policies. At the OMB the PPS has often been used to undemune them. Protection. of the local and regionally significant features and functions should be nested within the Provincial interest. The interrelationship of natural features and functions and the implications of any disturbance on the whole ecosystem needs to be promoted as opposed to the current "islands of green" Natural Heritage policies. Revisions are needed to adopt abroader systems (watershed) perspective in planning and to remove the current flexibility permitting development if there are "no negative in1pacts." Our concem is that the "no negative impacts" approach simply provides fodder for consultants and leads to very narrow, sire specific battles at the OMB. Conservation Ontario supports the policy led system of the PPS. The policies need to ensure that not only Provincially significant features and functions are protected but the Province also requires the protection of the locally significant supporting features and functions and that local decisions to recognize all elements of a system are not undermined by the Provincial direction. The policies need to ensure that planning decisions are directed to wards no net environmental loss and that within the existing degraded systems the re-establishment of a healthif(T system is required. N/A Addressed - see Section 4.0, item 5. Partly addressed in Part IV paragraph 6 and in Section 1.3.1 0\ S) ) - D (D 1'-.:1 Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Subrnission to Revised PPS Page 4 of 19 !Ref# Q3-4 Q3-5 Q3-6 I Issue' ,'''' :, ,P_" ", _',' ,_. ~:., : ,. .. . :. ~':-;/i;.:?;t:-:'::'_:i:~'i?:f.!;:'>' I Recommendatiorl' Recommended that perfornlance measures be developed and that the policy statements be evaluated against these measures regularly. Recommended that a point be added to Section IV Implementation/Interpretation 0 f the PPS which outlines the intent of "ha ve regard fo r." It is recommended that this point explain the meaning ofthe term and indicate that if there are no conflicting policy issues, the planning authority should be aiming for consistency with the PPS. That municipalities be encouraged to regularly update their official plans and zoning by-laws. It is also recommended that thy'inlportance of updating local p lann.i.rlg documents be included in Section IV Implementation / Interpretation. I Proposed PPS Addressed in Section 4.0 Item 10 N/ A - proposed revision of Plamllng Act to "shall be consistent with" Addressed in Section 4.0 Item 6 .LJl ..9 I - ---.J CD W "\>(TJi;: Fn(::,'-,,", ~..\;y;:" Conservation authorities are involved with the implementation of the PPS in many ways ranging :/Tom direct implementation through the provision of planning services through to conducting research and compiling monitoring data. There is consensus that the PPS is achieving the principles that it sets out however, it is also agreed that this conclusion is intuitive and that factual perfornlance measures need to be developed. Several conservation authorities have identified a concern with the interpretation of the "have regard to" by planning authorities. It was suggested that a return to "shall be consistent with" should be considered. The PISC Planning Committee considered this issue and options for addressing the concern. Since this is a review of the PPS and not the legislation, it was agreed that it was best to work with th~ existing phrase and recommend changes witllln the PPS that would assist with addressing the concern. (Cross reference reconmlendation Q 1-2 of natural hazards submission). Many conservation authorities noted that the municipalities value their input creating local po licies and when judging the merits of site-specific applications. A majority of municipal decisions on applications appear to reflect the intent of provincial policy. It is however noted that some municipalities have Official Plans and ZoningBy-Iaws that predate the PPS and therefore the scope and intent of the PPS is not reflected. (Cross reference recommendation Q7-1 :/Tom hazards submission) Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission toRevised PPS Page 5 of 19 Q4-1 Conservation Ontario generally supports the policy intent of2.4.1 of the PPS related to water quality and quantity however, it is our opinion that this policy is not being implemented because there is no clear municipal understanding ofhow to implement it. Clearly water is a provincial interest and the Provincial Policy needs to provide defmitive direction to municipalities. Conservation Ontario recommends that there be standards and guidelines for quality and quantity protection that cover not only reactive development planning but also to proactively address municipal growth planning. We feel that is necessary to undertake this planning in advance of setting growth targets so that new development can be directed to locations where the landscape can sustain it. 1. Add sub-section h) to 1.1.1. as follows: official plans, reviews or major urban expansions must be guided by a watershed plan which provides sufficient detail to protect or enhance both ecological and human health 2. Defme watershed plan. We recommend the fonowing definition: Characterizes existing physical and biological features and functions and their interrelationships as well as human influences and establishes performance objectives and provides guidance as to how to protect and enhance ecological and human health within the watershed. Watershed plans are prepared as a precursor in order to provide guidance to the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement and other planning efforts. 3. Add the following additional sentence to Section 2.4.1: Local implementation will be determined through a watershed plan which will provide objectives and targets for protection and enhancement and guidance for implementation. 4. Revise the current statement in 2.4.1 to refer to "the feature and function of ....." rather than just referring to the function. It is our opinion that by simply referring to function, the policy can be interpreted as being no net loss and we feel that it would be more preferable for the policy to require protection of the feature as well as the function. Not directly addressed Not directly addressed Partly addressed by adding additional policies to water section Partly addressed 01 .P ) ;;; CD .J:>. Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 6 of 19 !Ref# Q4-2 ! Issue . . ,,:, ::i'zY;", '. ..", There are policies in the PPS dealing with planning for 'agriculture uses. There is consensus that the PPS should be expanded to include policy (perhaps including definitions) to deal with nutrient management, intensive agriculture and so on. It IS recognized that the proposed Bill 81, and its enacting regulations, will provide some direction in this regard. Public hearings are being undertaken related to Bill81 and it IS recommended that the amendments to the. PPS be responsive to the outcome of these hearings. lR.ecdrii'IIl~rltI~ t~on'.... I ProposedPPS No t directly addressed ..'.-'t'/'Y~' ,'.'.::....:. "J.\.;:";\":;-""'"' Recommended that the agriculture policies of the PPS be reviewed following the adoption of Bill 81 and its enacting regulations. " - Q4-3 Full municipal services are preferred. ' That point is clear. Communal systems are the next priority but only if operated by a municipality or via agreement with a municipal I other public body. In practice these are usually "large systems" falling under MOE approval legislation; MOE seems clearly to prefer outright municipal ownership. The 'partial services' scenario (particularly where muni.cipal water supply is available) is another area where existing policies are being challenged. The policy seems clear - such scenarios are only acceptable to address failed systems or where there are physical constraints. Circumstances are arising repeatedly where the "physical constraint" is a restricted lot size related to new, not pre-existing, lot creation. TIlls is also leading to conflicts with Section 2.4 'Water Quality and Quantity". In addition alternate technology such as the use of effluent filters, adoption of aerobic treatment units, peat teclmology, shallow buried trenches or artificial media filters are challenging assumptions on lot size in rural areas. These teclmologies are particularly useful in addressing failed system on existing lots of record. With respect to new development, however, the technology affords the opportunity to dramatically change the character of development in rural areas with the possible effect oftransforrning the countryside into an urban landform oria piece meal basis (see comments on rural lot creation). Industry has been quick to adapt to these new technologies. Government has not been so quick to come forward with Implementation Guidelines on how to safely utilize the technology on a sustainable basis in new development scertarios. "_' '.'. '..f ',. _,; ; ';.:.n'",,_ '_.;".:..... ';C.,',' :,..".....".,'....;. Updated implementation guidelines are necessary to more equivocally address the matter of interpretation of the servicing hierarchy as well as to address the application of new technology in new development scenanos. Proposed PPS' Addressed in 1.5.4 0\. 9 \ -- Y {O CJ1 Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission tfl/?evised PPS Page 7 of 19 Ref# Q4-4 <0 0) Issue Proposed PPS In considering the natural heritage of Ontario, the current Provincial Policy Statement provides for a greater level of protection for features south and east of the Canadian Shield than for those considered to be on the Shield (as illustrated by Figure I ofthe document). We have consulted with pro fessional staff in Leeds and Grenville County, at the Cataraqui Region and Rideau Valley C.A. 's , in the City of Ottawa and at the District ofMuskoka. All are concerned that this policy does not adequately recognize the ecological value of the Shield, nor does it recognize the increasing development pressure on the natural features and ecological functions of the southern Shield. It is acknowledged that local jurisdictions can adopt ~lore restrictive policies than the minimums suggested by the Province. Nevertheless we believe that the development pressure being experienced is a matter of 'provincial interest' and that it is in the 'provincial interest' to protect or conserve the resource as required. The distinction between the southern portion of the Shield and those areas to its south and east be removed ITom the Statement or a new boundary line created to reflect the development pressure. We suggest that natural features and areas willch have been evaluated as provincially significant (i.e. ecologically important or unique within the scale of the province), should be protected ITom incompatible development, whether or not they are south and east of the Canadian Shield. Development and site alteration would thus not be pennitted in any significant wetland; development within and adjacent to significant woodlands and valleylands on the Shield would be subject to the same tests as that occurring south and east of the Canadian Shield. The recommended change in policy would provide decision-makers with greater direction in protecting natural heritage on the southern Canadian Shield. In the event that the creation of a new boundary line was the preferred option for dealing with this matter, in Eastern Ontario a suitable boundary might, for instance, be Highway #7 but tills does not address the issue within the City of Ottawa where likely the Ottawa River would be the most obvious demarcation line. In Section 2.3 the references to significance "south and east of the Canadian Shield" should be removed. Sufficient development pressure is occurring in southern portions of the Shield that we believe it is in the provincial interest to ensure that development is subject to more thorough review and analysis. In the event that the reference can not be removed a new line should be established that more appropriately recognizes areas experiencing growth pressure. Resources will have to be conm1itted by the Boundary revised - concern addressed? S?1 i 9.-> o Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 8 of 19 One of the PPS principles is "managing change and promoting efficient, cost effe~tive development and land use patterns which stimulate economic growth and protect the environment and public health". Policy 2.2.3 Mineral Aggregates does not place an emphasis on protecting the natural environment. The primary focus is clearly to protect the aggregate resource. Concerns related to environmental impact are only dealt with from the perspective of how these may "preclude or hinder" the expansion or continued use of aggregate, rather than any recognized concern about protecting the environment :!Tom aggregate related land uses (e.g. aggregate expansion within a provincially significant wetland). We recommend that Not addressed mineral aggregates be subject to the same policy constraints as other land uses. A policy under 2.2.3 similar to the existing Policy 1.1.1 f) is required. Po \icy 1.1. 1. f) states: "Development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns will be avoided." tJ1 5> ~ <.0 --.I Page 9 of 19 Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission tQ_Revised PPS I Ref# Q5-2 (D co IIssue J '," . ',:<')\:~':~~ ,~'>> ,..... . .-~....<,...., . . .-- . " . -",'" .... '".- " '.:I:;;'~)~\n::!w\: {:s:~::,'!fP:~};':::';":" "!';' . .;: ':\:.f,:;~'i:i:?:':-A >' "",::","",,:,-; ,0,1", Section 1.1.1 of the Statement reconmlends the use of cost-effective development patterns that direct growth to urban areas and rural settlement areas (i.e. cities, towns, villages and hamlets). Despite this policy, it IS observed, certainly m Eastern Ontario, that the predominantly rural municipalities are approvmg many severances outside of settlement areas. We are therefore observing year-round occupancy of new development on private lanes in recreational lake areas, the fragmentation of the rural agricultural landscape, and strip development along rural roads. Water quality impacts can be expected as the duration of occupancy on lakefronts increases. . ."IRecoIllIIl~nd!lti~n ! Clarification 0 f the Provincial intent and appropriate reinforcement should be outlined in the PPS. This may involve defining "other rural land uses" (Section 1.1.1. b)). Outputs associated with the new Municipal Report Card will be of significant assistance from an imp I ementat io n perspective 'as it will quantify the precIse annual level of lot creation within and outside settlement areas. ......;,. .'. . ? J1 ~ I ?-J P Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 10 of 19 Ongoing training support for stakeholders was identified by many conservation authorities as an issue. Q6-2 Many conservation authorities identified a concern that there is a lack offunding for the completion of the necessary comprehensive technical studies to properly identify the extent areas to be addressed in local planning documents. The preferred approach involves identification of the areas on a systems basis and the inclusion of defensible mapping inforn1ation and supporting poJicy in the comprehensive planning documents of the municipality. The difficulty is that municipalities and conservation authorities often do not have the financial resources to do the technical studies and as a result, the extent of the natural hazard and natural heritage areas is poorly defmed, or not defined, and the protection is limited to policy. It is possible to meet the intent of the PPS without the technical studies however, the resulting policy ITamework tends to be reactive and the costs for individual technical assessment will soon exceed the cost of one comprehensive study. (Cross reference recommendation Q8-2 ITom hazards submission). Q6-3 Many conservation authority responses encouraged the ongoing development of technical manuals, implementation manuals and other educational materials to support the PPS. The PISC Planning Committee agrees that these tools are critical for the continued success of the PPS. The PISC Planning Committee does feel that there is a need for the conservation authorities to be more involved in the identification of technical, training and education needs and the development of products to support these needs. (Cross reference recommendation Q8-1 ITom hazards submission). I Reconune~d~H()ri/'C; MMAH be encouraged to N/A provide continued training to the various stakeholders involved with PPS in1p lementa ti on. That the Province be encouraged to provide more support for municipalities and conservation authorities to undertake comprehensive technical studies to determine the extent of natural hazard and natural heritage areas at the ITO nt end 0 f the planning process. That the Province continue to develop technical manuals and 0 ther training and education materials to support the implementation of the PPS and that Conservation Ontario is prepared to work cooperatively with the Province in assessing what is needed and assist in the preparation of the materials. Not adressed in PPS - could be addressed in "implementation tools" document. Section 4.0 Item 11. Also refer to Implementation Tools submission <.J1 51 ~ W co co Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to RevisedPPS Page 11 of 19 !Ref# I " ;';";,.;.': ' , ::;;:':'~~N~';';::~::~:~;'::~~:\>;~~~::,~~i~~~':(:A')~:~~: )}:" I'Recomrnendation' ','" I ' " " Issue " }(;., '<:.:;',.',,:-;:, ....,- ," _'.'r.':.'" ~'.. :.:. .; PropQsed PPS " Q6-4 The previous submission prepared for natural hazards recommended that a Recommend that a preamble Preambles added preamble be added to Policy 3.1. (Cross recommendation Q1-1 from hazards be added to each section of submission). The PISC Planning Committee has considered the idea of preambles the PPS to assist with for each section and it IS agreed that additional information throughout the PPS interpretation. would assist with interpretation. These preambles could essentially be goal statements for the vanous sections. that engineering solutions should only be used as a last alternative. Q7-1 No policies were identified as being no longer needed. The PISC Planning Committee feels that it is critical to acknowledge the value of the PPS as one tool in the comprehensive programming of conservation authorities. That the Conservation Ontario subniission to the 5 Year Review of the PPS include comments acknowledging the value of the PPS policies as one tool in the comprehensive programing implemented by conservation authorities. N/ A in PPS - cross reference to in1plementation tools Conservation Ontario Responses to the One Window Questionnaire (Natural Hazards) ~ (:) (:) Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS . ~ Page 12 of 19 !Ref# QI-I Ql-2 QI-3 o I Issue' "":.,,,/,-.,:','::',; ". :.::;.<::,-'\tYf;":\:i:):~'<:':!''- ',.-.:,',:.", . ~ '. >,', ( :. '. . . .1 RecOID,mendation,'> ......... ,." That a preamble be added to Section 3.1 of the PPS and that this preamble emphasize that the preventative approach is preferred and that engineering solutions should only be used as a last alternative. That a point be added to Section IV Implementation/Interpretation of the PPS which outlines the intent of "have regard for." It is recommended that this point explain the meaning 0 f the term and indicate that if there are no conflicting policy issues, the planning authority should be aiming for consistency with the PPS. It is felt that this interpretation infonnation needs to be right in the PPS. That the PPS be amended by adding a point d) to Section 3.1.2 which states the following: d) lands that are rendered inaccessible by people and vehicles as the result of a hazard process in the area. I Proposed PPS Partially addressed - See Part IV paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Could emphasize more N/A to .PPS - addressed in proposed legislation Partly addressed by modification to 3.1.2 d) - does not cover erosion hazards. 'sf\ \ ~ ..., Several conservation authorities suggested that there should be a preamble which states that a preventative approach is preferred and that engineering should be the last alternative to be considered. In addition, the preamble needs to state that applying a safety factor to the hazardous lands and sites should be considered given climate changes etc. which may not rely on historic events to detennine the hazardous lands and sites in the future. Several conservation authorities have identified a concern with the interpretation of the ''have regard to" by planning authorities. It was suggested that a return to "shall be consistent with" should be considered. The PISC Planning Committee considered this issue and options for addressing the concern. Since this is a review of the PPS and not the legislation, it was agreed that it was best to work with the existing phrase and recommend changes within the PPS that would assist with addressing the concern. . Several conservation authorities raised concerns with the access provisions of the PPS. A major concern relates to the requirement for safe access for vehicles and people and that the policy outlined in Section 3.1.3 d) does not appear to apply to lands that are outside of the hazard, such as a flood plain, but the flood plain must be crossed to reach the property. The PISC Planning Committee considered this issue and it was agreed that this issue does pose a significant risk and that it should be addressed clearly in po licy. It was felt that the best way to address this would be to prohibit development in areas that are not accessible and this would be achieved by adding an additional point to Section 3.1.2. Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 SubmissiolJ tfJRevised PPS Page 13 of 19 ! Ref# Ql-4 I Issu e ....:...,. ....- '. ....,-.:,.....,..,':.,..... ". '. :..,;):. : '.':'" :::..,: .,p".,' .c~..~:.:...........,f......<.:\..:~,~:..::'..;'/:, ,"- ., . . _ _ , u, _ _ _' ,', >. -h :,:;.,;~<.,_::,,',:.' __ ">:::'.'.~;:-:<:: Several conservation authorities raised concern with hazards rrom steep slopes that are associated with geological features. The PISC Planning Committee has considered this issue and we feel that wording should be added to the hazardous sites defmition which would specifically include natural steep slopes and other hazardous processes. It was also agreed that a clarification of what constitutes a steep slope would also need to be included. With the revised definition of hazardous sites, the following natural hazards would be covered: a) steep slopes on the Oak Ridges Moraine - presently fill regulated by the Ganaraska watershed b) Lake Iroquois shoreline steep slopes - Central Lake Ontario c) sink holes- Ausable Bayfield watershed --I Recommendation-' I Proposed prs That the definition of hazardous sites be Not addressed revised to include additional natural hazards. The recommended wording is as follows: Hazardous sites means property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils (sensitive marine clays [leda], organic soils), unstable bedrock (karst topography), naturally occurring steep slopes (generally steeper than 3 horizontal: I vertical or otherwise unstable) or other hazardous processes. LIt )) I ~ <:::> 1'0 Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 14 of 19 !Ref# Q2-1 Q2-2 / Q2-3 Q2-4 I Issue Many conservation authorities indicated that comprehensive technical studies are the preferred method of defIning the extent of hazard areas however, there is concern that the PPS does not provide enough encouragement for them to be completed. We are suggesting that wording encouraging comprehensive technical studies be added in a preamble to Section 3.1. Policy 3.1.2 of the PPS reads "Except as provided in Policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted....." Based on experience over the past five years of implementation, many conservation authorities have found tIus wording to be confusing. We are recommending that tIus sentence be reworded. Concern has been raised that the tern1 "adverse environmental impacts" inSection 3 .1.3 c) of the PP S is not defined. The PISC Planning Comnuttee considered the use of the terms "adverse effects" and "negative impacts" both of which are defmed in the PPS and it was agreed that the term "adverse effects" as defined in the PPS does provide the desired result. Concern was raised by conservation authorities that point 5 in Section IV Implementation! Interpretation of the PPS conflicts with the latter part of the definition of development that is provided in the glossary as it relates to infrastructure. The PISC PlaMing Committee agrees with this concern and we are recommending that the latter part of the definition of development be removed. , ' ,.'i.~>, " " i, IJlecommendation . That the following wording be added to a preamble for Section 3.1 of the PPS: Development proponents and planning authorities are encouraged to identity natural hazard areas on a systems basis through the completion ofteclmical studies. Without the benefit of comprehensive technical studies, more conservative assumptions may be required in the determination of the extent of a natural hazard. It is recommended that the first sentence of Policy 3.1.2 of the PPS be changed from "Except as provided in Policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted....." to "Except as prohibited in Policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted....." . That Section 3.1.3 c) of the PPS be revised by replacing "adverse environmental in1pacts" with "adverse effects." I Proposed PPS Partially addressed but not directly - could be raised m Implementation Tools discussion Revised Not changed That the defmition of development be revised as Not changed follows: Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the PlaIllling Act (remove "but does not include activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessq1ent process; or works subje.ct to the Drainage Act") U\. 9 9-:> --5 o '^' Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to. l3:evised PPS Page 15 of 19 Q3-1 Many conservation authorities identified climate change as an emerging issue. The concern is that hazard management is done on a risk management basis with probabilities calculated to detern1ine the appropriate level of risk for society. Ifthe conditions that are used to calculate the risk change, the implementation framework must be able to change in response. It was agreed by the PISC Planning Committee that the PPS can only anticipate that the area affected by hazards may change and provide commentary on tlllS possibility. The selection of appropriate criteria to be used to identify the land effected is a matter to be addressed through technical guidelines and in1plementation guidelines. That a revision to the PPS to address the possibility of changing conditions which define the extent of hazard lands be considered. It is also recorrnnended that the factors used to defme the area effected by hazards be regularly reviewed and that if warranted, they be changed. Not referenced in PPS:- could be discussed in Implementation Tools section. Q4-1 The PISC Planning Committee supports the existing natural hazards policy framework of the PPS as a minimum.. It is recommended that the Conservation Ontario position state that the current policies need to be maintained and built on through this five year review. That the current policy framework ofthe PPS related to hazards be considered as a mininmm and that changes resulting from this five year review build on the current framework. N/A Y1 , .~ o .j:>.. Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 16of19 IR~ilr^' I IssUe' "-." t-,"- ',.. ,; '.~ . ,;" . I'. Recomrn enda ti6ri'h'i:;S"i:' >,,' ,".': I "<".. 'i:~:.~;:':?: :!;~:!i';~.:~t'f:~*'f{: .,.,.\.. ;:',~f -;::;;t.\;{:~,,;:;:j/t;~!;;~;~~~~~~~:i,~~~~~:~1';;~::~'/;' Proposed PPS .... "'-":.:,' :..,.'....-.,..,,..,,.. '.,',',,(.. "':";;:":."".,," Q5-l Conservation authorities identified concerns with the application of the PPS to That Section IV Not addressed - existing lots of record. While it is recognized that Regulations enacted under Imp lementationlInterpretation could be the Conservation Authorities Act provide a means to react to applications for include a point about how the PPS discussed ill development oil existing lots of record, there needs to be affirmation at the policies relate to existing lots of Implementation Provincial level that the responsibility and accountability lies with the record. Specifically, the Province Tools municipal approval agencies. The PPS should provide the direction needed for should be advising that the conm1ehts municipalities to proactively prevent development that would introduce new application of these policies may risks to life and property. Additionally, we note that this modification will result in sterilization of existing lots also be beneficial when applying Natural Heritage Policies. of record. Q6-l No recommendations provided related to tIlls question. Q7-l Many conservation authorities noted that the municipalities value their input regarding natural hazards when creating local policies and when judging the merits of site-specific applications. A majority ofmurncipal decisions on applications involving natural hazards appear to reflect the intent of provincial policy. It is however noted that some municipalities have Official Plans and Zoning By-laws that predate the PPS and therefore the scope and intent ofthe PPS is not reflected. This causes difficulty with existing lots of record (cross reference recommendation Q5-l). That municipalities be encouraged'to regularly update their official plans and zoning by-laws. It is also reconm1ended that the importance of updating local planning documents be induded in Section IV Implementation / Interpretation. Addressed - See section 4.0 Item 6 Ul ..9 --' o (J1 Comparison oj Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to fl:evised PPS Page 17 of 19 9-:> J) RH# Q8-l Q8-2 Many conservation authority responses encouraged the ongoing development of technical manuals, implementation manuals and other educational materials to support the PPS. The PISC Planning Committee agrees that these tools are critical for the continued success of the PPS. The PISC Planning Committee does feel that there is a rieed for the conservation authorities to be more involved in the identification oftechnical, training and education needs and the development of products to support these needs. Many conservation authorities identified a concern that there is a lack offunding for the completion ofthe necessary comprehensive technical studies to properly identify the extent of hazard areas to be addressed in local planning documents. The preferred approach involves identification of the hazard areas on a systems basis and the inclusion of defensible mapping information and supporting policy in the comprehensive planning documents of the municipality. The difficultyis that municipalities and conservation authorities often do not have the financial resources to do the technical studies and as a result, the extent ofthe hazard areas is poorly defmed, or not defined, and the protection is limited to policy. It is possible to meet the intent of the PPS without the technical studies however, the resuIti?g policy rramework tends to be reactive and the costs for individual technical assessment of hazards will soon exceed the cost of one comprehensive study. That the Province continue to develop technical manuals and 0 ther training and education materials to support the implementation of the PPS and that Conservation Ontario is. prepared to work cooperatively with the Province in assessing what is needed and assist in the preparation of the materials. That the Province be encouraged to provide more support for municpalities . and conservation authorities to undertake comprehensive technical studies to determine the extent of hazard areas at the rront end of the planning process. Mentioned in Section 4.0 Item 11. Also can be raised in Implementation Tools submission Not addressed in PPS - Could be raised in Implementation Tools discussion o c:1> .01 ~ , uJ o Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission to Revised PPS Page 18 of 19 !Ref# Q9-1 I I ' "'. '",' . -," ,. "".' .;,',,-.,. /;.,::~:. ,-r:-:,\' S"sue'.., '. ..,..........'':;/.....-''.,.. ':..'.:.' . ,,', .. .. ..... . , ,. ' ", :::--, ',;, ;-,,:'\'.F:\::~'>' ~:~~';' <;.'F;';:i:_:-:;'.;'~:':<'; c I No recommendations provided related to this question. ::>.,.-- ,,-,':'.-_::_'> .., ",:Y:\;:2/:';'. :'.ft:...>~}:.~, '-:' . I Jlecon1mendatiQli': T I I Q 1 0-1 The PISC Planning Committee feels that it is critical to acknowledge the value of the PPS as one tool in the comprehensive hazard managernent programs of conservation authorities. That the Conservation Ontario submission to the 5 Year Review of the PPS include comments acknowledging the value of the PPS natural hazard policies as one tool in the comprehensive program of hazard management in1plemented by conservation authorities. N/A , Sfl ~ vJ - C> -.J Comparison of Conservation Ontario 2001 Submission ({'Revised PPS Page 19 of 19 Q) ~q - ')~ ATTACHMENT 2 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT: DRAFT POLICIES CONSULTATION DISCUSSION PAPERNO. 2 SUMMARY OF LSRCA STAFF COMMENTS Generally, staff support the policy direction outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies, as they have been improved to provide stronger wording, expanded issues and address some of the new challenges facing Conservation Authorities and Municipalities such as source protection planning. The following sections outline staff recommendations for consideration: General Policy Direction " Mapping Features It seems that the identification of "provincially significant" features remains primarily with the "planning authority" to identify and map. In our experience, some planning authorities have not identified or updated these feature maps thus making it very difficult to apply and defend the PPS policies in consultations with proponents and at the OMB. . Given that the identification and mapping of natural heritage, surface water and ground water features is a very costly and time consuming exercise, the PPS should be clear who is responsible for delineating these features. If the province is not preparing this information then it should be made clear who is responsible, what criteria are to be used to identify the features of "provincial significance" as well as outlining the expectation/requirements. This would be appropriate for the supporting Implementation Guidelines that should accompany the revised PPS's. There should also be clear requirements and timelines for this information to be incorporated in the local and regional official plans. Further, there should be consideration for providing funding towards the preparation of the requisite environmental and hydrological studies. Peat Extraction Peat Extraction has the potential to cause significant impacts to wetland features and functions whether they are provincially significant, locally significant of unevaluated. Unless there is a planning application associated with a development proposal there is often no mechanism to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) or a municipal by-law requiring approval for grade alterations or peat removal. As a result, these areas can be mined out without any permits from the municipality or conservation authority. Summary of Comments - LSRCA Staff Planning Reform Initiatives' August 2004 \)~ - S 3 These operations can result in the loss of wetland area and function and/or significant impact on wetland functions (PSW, LSW, unevaluated), associated wildlife habitat, woodlots and watercourses. In order to further the goal of the long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well being of Ontario, the provincial policies need to recognize these types of operations and provide appropriate policy to assess the impact of this use of land and require technical studies similar to the other natural heritage features. Locally Significant &Unevaluated Wetlands As noted above, Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW) and Unevaluated Wetlands contribute to the natural heritage system. Currently, it is not clear what criteria municipalities are to apply to identify "locally significant wetlands" as the Ministry of Natural Resources does not provide direction on the identification of LSW's. Given the loss of wetlands in Southern Ontario it would be helpful for the province to provide a clear framework for municipalities to use in identifying LSW's and designating them in their Official Plans. Environmental Impact Study The Province should develop Implementation Guidelines to outline the scope and methodologies to be applied for Environmental Impact Studies (EIS - natural heritage, surface water, ground water). These could be similar to the technical guidelines prepared for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). PART V: POLICIES Sectioin 2.0 Wise Management of Resources Section 2.1.2 Natural Heritage . In order to obtain consistency in the identification and evaluation of natural heritage features and areas, an Implementation Guidelines should be prepared for the revised PPS statements. . Section 2.1.3.1 states that "nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue". While this is specific to "existing agricultural uses" often existing operations expand. In the event of agricultural expansion there should be some mechanism to ensure that they occur in such a manner to minimize impacts on natural heritage features and ecosystems. Summary of Comments - LSRCA Staff Planning Reform Initiatives August 2004 s~ - 1L.} . Section 2.1.2.5 refers to prohibiting development on adjacent lands, The definition of "adjacent lands" is non-specific, and unclear as to who decides what is "adjacent" when the extent is based on the area where a negative impact may . occur. To be more effective, this section should provide more direction with respect to who or how the extent of "adjacent" lands is determined. This could also be clarified in other PPS supporting implementation tools. Section 2.2 - Water . Generally the draft PPS is vastly improved relative to the 1997 statement regarding groundwater. There is a much clearer definition of what features and functions are to be protected. . The concept of having each planning authority identify the features and functions to be protected is reasonable given that environmental conditions, data availability, and existing studies will vary from one location to the next across the province. It would be helpful, however, to establish basic provincial guidelines on procedures for the delineation of these features. . The draft PPS also states that each planning agency should identify the "restrictions on site development and alteration" in order to preserve these features and functions. Both variables (what are the significant features AND how should they be protected) should not be open to interpretation. . It would be helpful to have a set of requirements identified in the PPS relative to the features and functions similar to those for Natural Heritage Features. For example, section 2.1.2.1 states that development will generally be directed away from natural heritage features - should development not also be .ge[1erally directed away from significant 'water resource' features? Section 2.1.2.2 lists a series of significant natural heritage features in which development is prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the features - can development in significant 'water resource' features not be similarly prohibited UNLESS it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the features? Summary of Comments - LSRCA Staff Planning Reform Initiatives August 2004 ~0 *35 ". Statements for 'water resource' features similar to those for natural heritage features would provide greater consistency in planning across the province and greater protection of these resources, while leaving the development community the option of demonstrating that their proposal will not be detrimental and should be permitted. Section 2.2.1 d) 1. Indicates that restrictions on development and site alteration should "protect all municipal drinking w;3ter supplies". The statement could go further to reflect the provincial investment to have wellhead protection areas (WHPA) delineated for all municipal supply wells. These WHPAs (or some component thereof such as the 10 yr capture zone) could be considered significant groundwater features that development should be generally directed away from, and prohibited unless NO impact to municipal water supplies can be demonstrated. . Scope of Hydrologic/Hydrogeologic studies to be provided in the Implementation Guidelines. Section 3.1 Natural Hazards Section 3.1.1 Should also include unstable soils and bedrock as outlined in the Conservation Authorities Generic Regulation. Definitions Adjacent Lands See section 2.1.2.5 above Coastal Wetlands The definition should include Lake Simcoe and other large inland lakes. Natural Hazards: Access standard The minimum criteria for safe access should be defined or other technical documents referenced which detail these requirements. Summary of Comments - LSRCA Staff Planning Reform Initiatives August 2004 Erosion hazards Floodproofing Standard Significant means: c) Woodlands: Significant means: d) other features S. 2.1: Significant Valleylands Wildlife Habitat F)~ - ~\.p Should be further defined to include unstable soils [sensitive marine clays (Ieda), organic soils], unstable bedrock (karst topography), naturally occurring steep slopes (generally steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or otherwise unstable). The minimum standards for flood proofing should be defined or other technical documents referenced which detail these requirements. The definition must include specific criteria or provide a methodology to establish significance (Implementation Guidelines). The definition must include specific criteria or provide a methodology to establish what is ecologically important (I mplementation Guidelines). This should be defined or include specific criteria/methodology to establish what is a significant valleyland (I mplementation Gu idelines). This should be defined or include specific criteria/methodology to establish what is ecglogically important (Implementation Gu idelines). 2004 Oro Medonte Counci~ 148 Line 7 South, Oro, Ontario. LOL 2XO Dear SirslMadams: It has been to my attention that Oro-Medonte has not signed off on the of the West and would like to bring to Councils attention that the increased flow tbe subdivision known as Bass Lake Heights would seriously jeopardize the quiet enjoyment of this At the Council meeting 20, 2004 it was proposed by Doug Lewis who presently has a law firm in Orillia, that a correction wherely closing offHepinstaU were it meets Bass Lake Road would greatly forestall any excess traffic through Bass Lake Heights. I heartily agree this proposal and request that it be granted. Street "D" should definitely not be allowed to continue past the Bass Lake Sideroad from the south. The bottom line of this proposal is to force an traffic from the proposed extension of the West Ridge Subdivision to use Line 15N or Fairgrounds Road (may be known as Harvie Settlement road). Please advise me as to your intentions regarding your acceptance/or not of the West Ridge Subdivision and if there is reason to hope for your assistance with Doug Lewis's proposal. Frances Homeowner at 8 Hepinstall GriUia, Ontario. L3V 7Z7 Phone - - - 325-9006 CC Doug Lewis lii ~=P= Ontario September 27, 2004 Constituency Offices: o 14 Coldwater Road West P.O. Box 2320 Orillia, Ontario l3V 6S2 Tel. (705) 326-3246 1-800-304-7341 Fax (705) 326-9579 o 482 Elizabeth Street Midland, Ontario l4R lZ8 Tel. (705) 526-8671 Fax (705) 526-8600 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GARFIELD DUNLOP, M.P.P. Simcoe North Mayor J. Neil Craig Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Dear Ma~ ~"- Thank you for forwarding me a copy of your letter dated September 6, 2004 to Premier McGuinty regarding the need to fasttrack additional Justice of the Peace appointments in the Central East Region. It is my understanding that there is a shortage of Justices of the Peace for Central East, which could result in reduced courts as well as the inability ofthe public and police services to access justice services. Therefore, I too, agree that there needs to be additional appointments of Justices of the Peace as quickly as possible. I appreciate you keeping me informed on the issues of concern to the residents of Oro- Medonte and of your support of surrounding local government. Please continue to keep me up-to-date as to the activities of our unicipality. ~ Garfield Dunlop, MPP SIMCOE NORTH GD:gg MAILING ADDRESS: Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P., Room 348, Legislative Building. Toronto ON M7A lA8 Fax (416) 325-9035 E-mail: garfield_dunlop@ontla.ola.org Website: www.garfielddunlopmpp.com THE CORPORATION OF THE 148 line 7 S.. Box 100 Oro. Onti'\rjo LOL 2XO TOWN6IiIP C9hOf <//f6~ Phone (705)487-217, fiV (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medome.c2. September 6, 2004 The Honourable Dalton McGuinty Premier of Ontario Queen's Park, Room 281 Main Legislative Building Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 Dear Premier McGuinty: The Regional Municipality of Durham has solicited the Township of Oro~Medonte's support of their request to the Attorney General, the Honourable Michael Bryant, to fast track additional Justice of the Peace appointments in the Central East Region. The Regional Senior Justice of the Peace for Central East has advised that there is a critical shortage of Justices of the Peace for Central East. A critical shortage in this area could result in reduced courts as well as the inability of the public and police services to access justice services. Durham has outlined the difficulties faced by the municipality in managing their increased demand for services due, in part, to increased volume of offences. On behalf of Council, I would therefore respectfully request that you give favourable consideration to the appointment of additional Justices of the Peace in Central East Region. Yours truly, 5!.~e~ ~ Mayor cc: Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General, Minister Responsible for Native Affairs and Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal Garfield Dunlop, MPP Members of Council hi, -1Ci - . Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre Ni ~-,... Ontario Ministry of the Environment Ministere de l'Environnement 135 St. Clair Ave. West 12th Floor Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Tel (416) 314-6790 Fax (416) 314-6748 135, avenue St. Clair ouest 12" etage Toronto ON M4V 1 P5 Tel (416) 314-6790 Telac (416) 314-6748 ENV 12 83 M C- 2004-5678 SEP 2 2 2004 His Worship J. Neil Craig Mayor The Township ofOro-Medonte 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Oro ON LOL 2XO IRECEIVEOl 1 SEt-' 7 7 200k ! - I I i ; I ORO-MEDONTE L... TOWNSHiP Dear Mayor Craig: Thank you for your letter of September 6, 2004 infonning me about the Township's support for the resolution of the Regional Municipality of Niagara with regard to the "Niagara-Hamilton Waste Plan, Request for Provincial Action in the areas of Diversion and Environmental Assessment". I greatly appreciate receiving comments and suggestions ITom municipalities and others on these important matters. The issues raised in the resolution are very important to the management of waste in Ontario and to the protection and conservation of our environment. Our government is committed to making Ontario a leader in recycling and diverting waste from disposal. By diverting more waste ITom disposal we will both conserve our valuable natural resources and reduce the need to build new landfills. At the same time, for wastes that cannot be recycled and need to be disposed of, the government is also committed to improving the Environmental Assessment process to ensure it is effective and fair. On June 10, 2004, ] announced a province-wide consultation that will seek new ideas to achieve 60 percent waste diversion ITom disposal. Five public forums were organized across the province to foster public input. I also released a discussion paper that sets out approaches for increasing the amount of waste that is diverted. The consultation period closed on August 9t\ but you can still review the discussion paper by visiting our web site at www.ene.gov.on.ca. With regard to the particular issue of designating additional materials such as organics, household hazardous waste, and electronic waste under the Waste Diversion AGt (WDA), I fully support the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility for the management of waste, and consideration will be given to designating additional materials under the WDA. This is why on December 22,2003, in addition to approving the Blue Box Program Plan developed by Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), ] also requested WDO to propose new or enhanced measures that will allow the Blue Box system to divert at least 60 percent of Blue Box waste by 2008. WDO is also developing programs for used oil materials and used tires, which] designated under the WDA. ...2 * 0761G (03/01) 100% Recycled Chlorine Free. Made in Canada SJ.2 Mayor 1. Neil Craig Page 2. I am also committed to diverting more electronic components from the waste stream. I recently spoke at the Electronics Product Stewardship Canada Annual General Meeting in Markham, Ontario. The country's leading electronics companies, inc1udiDg Apple, Brother, Canon, Dell, Epson, HP, IBM, Lexmark, LG, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony, Thompson Multimedia and Toshiba were in attendance. I announced my intention to designate electronic waste in the near future and encouraged these stakeholders to work together, and with government, to both reduce and divert the amount of waste they generate. I am confident that consumers will welcome and support electronics diversions programs, and I believe that companies will do their part. On the matter of updating Ontario's composting requirements, on May 5,2004, I posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry to harmonize our interim compost guidelines for metals with those of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). To help us find ways to improve the Environmental Assessment process, our government formed an Environmental Assessment Advisory Panel. The panel will develop proposals on ways to improve the Environmental Assessment process for waste management facilities, transit and transportation projects, and clean energy facilities. Panel members include experts from academia, industry, the legal profession, and municipalities. The panel will deliver its recommendations to me in the fall. Once again, thank you for your letter and for your interest in these important matters. We look forward to working with the Township of Oro-Medonte, and our other municipal and business partners, to achieve our mutual goals. Sincerely, L~O:k~1 Minister of the Environment c: Mr. Garfield Dunlop, MPP Simcoe-North IJM ~~~ Ontario September 27, 2004 Constituency Offices: o 14 Coldwater Road West P.O. Box 2320 Orillia, Ontario L3V 6S2 Tel. (705) 326-3246 1-800-304-7341 Fax (705) 326-9579 o 482 Elizabeth Street Midland, Ontario L4R lZ8 Tel. (705) 526-8671 Fax (705) 526-8600 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GARFIELD DUNLOP, M.P.P. Simcoe North Mayor J. Neil Craig Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X~ \: [ DearM~ \~ Thank you for forwarding me a copy of your letter addressed to The Hon. Leona Oombrowsky, Minister of Environment dated September 6, 2004 Your letter outlines the Township's support to the Regional Municipality of Niagara for their recommendations to the Ministry of Environment regarding the alternative disposal proposals to assist municipalities with the diversion of waste and improving the Environmental Assessment process. I appreciate you keeping me informed on the issues of concern to the residents of Oro- Medonte and of your support of surrounding local government. Please continue to keep me up-to-date as to the activities of y municipality. Garfield Ou op, MPP SIMCOE NORTH GDgg o MAILING ADDRESS: Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P., Room 348, Legislative Building, Toronto ON M7A lA8 Fax (416) 325-9035 E-mail: garfield_dunlop@ontla.ola.org Website: www.garfielddunlopmpp.com THE CORPOK;\ TiON OF THE T:OWN8tlIP C3mOf J!b~ 148 Line 7 S.. Box 100 Oro, Onta.rio LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-217 j Fa.x (705) 487-0133 www,oro-medonte.C<\ September 6, 2004 The Honourable Leona Dombrowsky Minister of the Environment 12th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, ON M4V 1P5 Dear Minister Dombrowsky: The Township of Oro-Medonte supports The Regional Municipality of Niagara in its petition of the Ministry of Environment to recognize the need to adopt legislation and policies that support Ontario municipalities in the implementation of integrated waste management systems to maximize diversion of waste from landfill and allow for the approval and implementation of disposal alternatives to manage the waste that remains after diversion. Niagara has outlined alternative disposal proposals to assist municipalities with achieving at least 60% diversion of waste from disposal and improving the Environmental Assessment process. On behalf of Council of the Township, I would therefore respectfully request that you give favourable consideration to Niagara's worthwile recommendations. Yours truly, ?J<)/0f~ J. Neil Craig Mayor cc: Garfield Dunlop, MPP The Corporation of The County of Simcoe The Regional Municipality of Niagara Members of Council Please Deliver To; Township of Oro-Medonte J.Neil Craig Mayor In Case of Transmission Difficulties, please call 416-863-2101 or 1-866-309-3811 Ministry 0' TDurlsm Ministry of Municipal Affairs and HOU$lng Mini:'iter lei ~ ontario Minl!>ter 9th Floor, Hearst t3100k 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Tel: (416) 32~9S26 Fu (416) 326-93313 17th Flol)!' 777 Bay Streltt Toronto, ON MSG 2E5 Tei: (416) 585.7000 FlOC (416)585:8470 October 4, 2004 Dear Head of Council: Our government announced, on July 9, a new $20 million Community Use of Schools Program to help put community groups back into schools and onto playing fields. The Government of Ontario is committed to building healthier communities by helping District School Boards open schools to not-far-profit community groups for after-hours recreation and community activities year-round. This vOluntary program, which is a Joint initiative of the Ministries of Education and Tourism and Recreation, will provide funds to school boards that enter into a CommUl"1ity Recreation and Use Agreement with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Education policies of the previous government have foroed many boards to charge for space and facilities at rates that not-for-profit community groups cannot afford. This program's intent is to assist school boards in reducing permit costs and increasing affordable access to noMer-profit community groups. Our government wants to encourage more Ontarians to become phySically active. The Community Use of Schools Program will help people to do that, while building strong and healthy communities. Many municipalities across Ontario have already helped to bUild stronger communities and healthier residents by promoting hea/thand physical activity. We see municipalities as key partners in this program. Developing joint-use agreements between municipalities and school boards, where they do not currently exist, will benefit local communities by allowing for the provision of more recreational, cultural, athletic and educational opportunities. Through the Community Recreation and Use Agreements, school boards are being encouraged to enter into discussions regarding the development of joint-use a.greernents with municipalities. If you have not yet done so, we hope that you will take advantage of this partnership opportunity. The Ministry of Tourism and Reoreation is currently gathering sample joint-use agreements and best practices information, which will be made available to municipalities through the AMO to facilitate discussions with local District School Boards in developing joint-use agreements. If you have any questions about this program, please contact Cindy Bint. at the Ministry otTourism and Recreation, at (416) 314-7682, or by a-mail at Cindy.Bint@mtr.gov.on.ca. We would like to thank you for your support of this important initiative to promote active. healthy lifestyles for Ontarians. Yours sincerely. ~~~ Jim Bradley Minister 4: 08Pt'1 RAI1ARA_ TOWI~SHIP 140 . 078 P.2/5 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA Proud History - Progressive Future October 4, 2004 Councils of the Town of Innisfil Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Township of Clearview Township of Oro-Medonte Re: County Official Plan Review The County of Simcoe is currently reviewing the County Official Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. As part of the review process, the Township of Ramara is proposing a change in one of the County policies which, if incorporated, could allow for a second detached dwelling on a farm. Ramara is soliciting your support for this amendment as the records indicate that Innisfil, Adjala-Tosorontio, Clearview and Oro-Medonte supported this initiative when the plan was adopted five years ago. If the County Plan is amended, local Official Plans could amended to allow for a second detached dwellings on a farm. I have enclosed a copy of our submission to the County. It clearly indicates that other upper tier plans in Peel, Wellington, York, Perth, Waterloo, Oxford and Halton support the principle of a second dwelling on a farm. Could I ask for a motion supporting our initiative. Yours truly, ~~f1 William p, Duffy, May~ WPB/clw c.c. Mark Dorfman P.O. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484.5374 Fax 484-0441 Entail: ramara@!Ownship.raroara.on.ca Web Site; WW\V.township.ramara.onca Proud Member of Lake Country /j~)CT. 4.2004,1:::1: 4: 08PI1'e5-~A~'1ARA_ TOl,..JnSHIP TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA 1'10. k:1(1::1 t-'. .:J/::> ...... , . q,w L Mark L.. Dorfman... Planner Inc. 145 Columbia Street West. Waterloo. Ontario, Canada N2L 3L2 Telephone; 5'9-866.6579 Facsimilis: 519.888.6382 September 13, 2004 Dear lan, ~t~ to Council "'_<;cpl-, 2.7/04,: ~on: a "YiS'.O'{ '_, <f) '" J . . t', .. ", , " .~~ . 1~ SEP 1 7 7f1r'! .~ RAMARA TOVV1\JSHIP Mr. tan Bender, Planning Director. County of Simcoe, 1110 Highway 26, MIDHURST. ON, LOl1XO Re: County of Simcoe Official Plan RovJew settion3.6.13. Second Detached Dwelling on a FalTn Towl1sh1p of Ramara SubmissIon As you know. on May 3, 2004, the Ontario Municipal Board adjourned the Township's appeal of the County's decision of part of the Ramam Official Plan. Township Council wants this matter of a second detached dwelling on a farm to be considered as part of the County's Official Plan Review. The outstanding Township appeal comprises Modifications 42. 43. 47 and 49 to the Ramara Official Plan. Council wants to provide for a second detached dwelling on a farm with specific conditions. This follows fromth~. previous Rama and Mara Official Plans. In the Ramara Official Plan that was adopted by Council, Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.8.5 deal with a second detached dwelling on a farm. In Section 9.3.3 ofthe Ramara Official Plan as adopted by Township Council, the criteria to allow for this second detached dwelling are restricted. The privilege is limited to an owner-occupied active farm where there is need for a second dwelling for full-time employees or persons significantly assisting on the fann (i.e. migrant workers.) The second dwelling cannot be severed from the fann according to the planning policy. We would add another criterion to require that the second dwelling must be located within the farm cluster of buildings and near the principal farm dwelling. Section 3.6.13 In the County OfficicstPlan states that aone detached dwelling unit may be located on an existing lot.- in the -Rural and Agricultural" designation. In addition, the local municipality may provide for "accessory apartments, temporary farm herp suites or garden suites, or other temporary accommodations. . !:J 0'oer. 4.2004.13: 4: 08Pf'1)B5-~AI1ARA_ TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP DF RAMARA NO. 078 P.4/5 tJ.:s . . It is the submission of the Township of Ramara that the County Official Plan be revised to allow local municipalities to decide whether a second detached dwelling should be allowed on a farm according to criteria similar to the Ramara criteria. Although the County's "Rural and Agricultural" designation is geographically extensive throughout the County, this proposed County policy provisIon would only apply to active and operating faml8 and not to non-farm residential lots and not to non.residential and non-farm properties. Experience In Ramara indicates that t here a re very few instances where a s erond detacf1ed dwelling has been allowed on an operating farm. I have had regard to the existing Provincial Policy Statement It is sifent on the issue of a second detached dwelllng on a farm In a prime agricuftural area. Since Ramara believes that no new lots are. allow(3d to be created in this case. this proposed County planning policy would follo~. th,~iOtent Qf provincial policy. Having read the proposed Provincial Policy Statement (June2p04), this proposed change would be consistent. I have reviewed other upper-tier municipal official plans to detennine how this Issue has been addressed. ftil ThiS has been left to the discretion of the local municipalities. W~lingtQo In the Prime Agricultural Areas and Secondary Agricultural Areas, accessory residential uses needed for fama help may be allowed provided they are establistaednear the farm buildings. No severance for accessory residential is implied. York. In the Agricultural Policy Area. additional residential structures for farm help required for 'the operation of the farm will be permitted ifgrouped with existing farm structures. A consent to separate these structures will not be permitted in the future. In the Agriculture designation, a temporary farm residence .for fann labourers is allowed. It is to be removed when the need fur farm labourers no longer exists. It is to be located In proximity to principal farm residence and farm buildings. No consent permitted. Perth ,.~ \<j 'OCT. 4. 2004. Y.1: 4: 09PM' i:j :'-I'RAi1ARA_ Tm.j~iSH I P I UI,lJN::;,Hlr-' UI t<:I4IVII-\KI-\ riO. 078 P. 5/5 '" *' j .;" ~atertoo In the Agricultural Resource Areas, second permanent or temporary farm-related residential unit permitted on farm for full-time farm employees including members of farm household. No consents anowed. Oxford In Agricultural Land Resoun:e ares, addltfonal permanent fann residence is allowed in close proxImIty to existing farm residence and farm buildings. Severance is not pennittad. In the Agricultural Rural Area. dwelling(s)accessorytD an agrIcultural operation are sUowed subject to local offICial plans and zoning by-laws. This policy is continued in the new official plan adopted in June, 2004. Halton It is evident that relevant upper-tier pfflcial plans allow for a second detached dwelling on a farm. The issue 1$ that the Cpul1tyOfficiaJ Plan only allows one detached dwelling on every lot In the designated -Rural and Agricultural" area. If the County refines the fitst sentence In Section 3.6.13 and allows the second detached dwelling on adive. operating farms. then this would satisfy. the Township of Ramara. Discretion can be left with the local municipality to decide how to apply the County policy. In order that a fulJ djscussion of the issue can occur, the Township will be sending this submission to the other local municipalities in the County of Simcoe. I look folWard to a full and robust discussion of this i~ue. Yours truly. Mark L Dorfman. R.P.P. cc Rick Bates, Clerk/CAO, Township of Ramara .. ~ ).' Marilyn Pennycook From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: ~ Shanty bay Rate payers,doc (20", Kathleen Sullivan [ksullivan@prodomax,com] Friday, October 08, 2004 9:48 AM Marilyn Pennycook Letter from Shanty Bay Ratepayers Association Shanty bay Rate payers,doc Please find attached a letter drawn up by our group for Council. Regards, Kathleen Sullivan Secretary Shanty Bay Ratepayers Association <<Shanty bay Rate payers. doc>> 1 ~ ~ \ October 6, 2004 Attn: Mayor and Council Members Subject: Property located at the North West corner of Ridge Rd and Line 2 From: The Shanty Bay Ratepayers Association It has been brought to our notice by some concerned ratepayers that the appearance of the above named property has deteriorated over the past few years. At our recent meeting it was agreed that this property does not give a good impression of our village. We have been given to understand by Paul Marshall that this matter has been brought to your attention previously. We fail to understand why some action has not been taken to remedy the situation. Could you please look into the matter and advise us of your intended actions? Yours truly, The Shanty Bay Ratepayers Association Kathleen Sullivan Secretary . North f:nd development Page lof2 Jennifer Zieleniewski \ From: Neil Craig, Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11 :38 AM To: Marilyn Pennycook; Jennifer Zieleniewski Subject: FW: North End development From: The Beresford's [mailto:lmca.beresford@rogers.com] Sent: Thu 9/30/2004 10:31 PM To: Neil Craig Subject: North End development Your Worship... I have not written in before, but feel now that I must make my feelings know to the council. The current construction in the area ofOrilJia (West Ridge area) is a positive growth for the City of Odilia, but it is encroaching on the land near where (live. I am a resident of the neighborhood comprised of Hepinstall Place, Orsi Drive and Sunset Cres. I moved here 11 years ago and have watched the developments in the Orillia west end as they steadily came nearer and nearer. Like I said, 1 am not opposed to this development, but 1 would like to have some thought being added into the growth. I know it will Jikely take five or more years for this development to affect me more directly, and I knew when I bought my home that Orillia was "across the streettt. My concern is the layout of the streets proposed by the new development. I oppose this layout because I know that the layout will encourage travelers to use my quiet, two lane, no sidewalk street to access the west route out of the new subdivision. This wil1 turn a street (Hepinstall) into a busy throughway that was in all likelihood not designed to be a major road. In fact, in the eleven years I have been here, the streets have started to crack and the shoulders have receded to the point where maintenance must now be done (and has been done) on Orsi and Hepinstall. I fear that this will escalate given the new road allowances being developed. I moved to this area (residential/agricultural) to escape the busy roads and associated problems attached to this level of road use. I walk frequently on the roads in my neighborhood and rarely do I find any traffic on my road. This is my concern. I can only make a few observations that could alleviate the anticipated problems with this new road map. In one case, the section of road from Orsi to Bass Lake side road could be made inaccessible to westbound traffic out of the new street by making it one way, or by closing it off. I for one would prefer it be left open as I go to work that way. If it were one-way, then traffic coming into this subdivision from Bass Lake Side road would not be permitted. As far as the residents go, the people who live in this area could be omitted from the "one-way!! provision with a subsection of the law allowing it. The other thought I had was to make the roads offset by a number of feet, discouraging through traffic. Either way you look at it, if something is not done, then this will become a very busy road with heavy traffic, more fumes, more danger to pedestrians/pets/children, and it will certainly change the environment of this nice quiet subdivision for ever. I am sure that if you lived here, you would feel the same way. I am not a city planner, but I do know what I see, and I do know what people are like. I am asking you and the membership of council to look at the situation and give it another thought Engineers may have a better solution than mine, 10/8/2004 . North ?nd development Page 2 of2 and [hope they do, hut the status quo will not be acceptable. Thanks Mike and Lori Beresford I Hepinstall Place Orillia.Ont L3 V 7Z7 329-0929 10/8/2004 , . TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. FD2004-08 To: Council Prepared By: Joe Casey Director Fire and Emergency Services Subject: Department: Fire Council Pager Replacement C.ofW. Date: September 27,2004 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: Roll #: GROUND: Over the past three years council has been advised of the new Industry Canada Standards for two way radio systems (Spectrum Management). Effective January 2004, two way radio systems had to be upgraded to be in compliance with the new standard. During the 2003 budget deliberations the amount of $240,000.00 had been approved by Council for this project. In June 2003 Council received and adopted report NO. FD2003-07 with regard to the radio Spectrum Management and awarded the contract to Point to Point Communications. Upgrades are well under way with the testing and changeover to occur by the end of October 2004. II ANALYSIS: II Currently the Fire and Emergency Services Department have two different models of pagers in use by the volunteer firefighters to receive emergency calls. Forty of the older Minitor II pagers and the remainder are the newer model Minitor IV. , . The original strategy was to replace the frequency crystals in the older pagers and continue with the use of the pagers until they where required to be replaced. The upgrades to the frequency crystals in the forty older pagers are estimated at a cost of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Recently it has come to my attention, from Point to Point Communications, that Motorola will no longer support the older model Minitor II pagers with respect to parts and service. In lieu of recommending that Council approve the ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) unbudgeted expenditure it is recommended that Council authorize the replacement of the forty older pagers at a cost of twenty-three thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars including taxes ($23, 760.00). The new Minitor IV pagers come with a five year warranty. Due to the timing in regards to the upcoming changes in radio frequencies it is further recommended to Council that the cost be approved as an overrun to the 2004 budget. 1. THAT Report No. FD2004-08 be received and adopted. 2. THAT Council authorize the replacement of the forty older pagers at a cost $ 23,760.00 dollars. 3. AND THAT the expenditures be an overrun to the 2004 budget. Casey ector of Fire and Emergency Services C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head - 2 - Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: TR 2004-27 Committee of the Whole Bonnie McPhee Subject: Department: Council Treasury Statement of Accounts C.ofW. Date: September October 04, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: Roll #: TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Following is the statement of accounts for the month of September 2004. Batch No. Date Amount AC00288 AC00289 A000269 AC00290 AC00291 A000270 AC00292 A000271 September 01 , 2004 September 08, 2004 September 09,2004 September 15, 2004 September 22, 2004 September 27, 2004 September 29, 2004 September 30, 2004 $ 1,725.00 90,518.69 1,083.73 3,836.946.77 502,101.63 494,986.00 134,458.57 6,188.60 $ 5,068,008.99 PR00030 PR00033 September 04, 2004 September 18, 2004 $ 77,704.67 74,951.76 152,656.43 Total $ 5,220,665.42 MMENDA TION S : 1. THAT Report No. TR 2004 - 27 be received. 2. The accounts for the month of September 2004 totaling $5,220,665.42 are received. Respectfully submitted, Bonnie McPhee Accounting Clerk C.A.O. Date: C.A.O. Comments: Dept. Head - 2 - TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: ADM2004-40 Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO Subject: Department: Administration Council Proposed Permanent Closure and Sale, Original Road C.ofW. Allowance between Lots 20 Date: October 6,2004 and 21, Concession 6 Motion # (geographic Township of R.M. File #: L07013191 Oro), Township of Oro- Medonte Date: Roll #: 4346-010-008-33150-0000 KGROUND: The Township has received a request to permanently close and transfer the original road allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte (Attachment #1). The applicant is the owner of two properties designated on Attachment #2 as A and B. The original owner of the Part A property had previously requested that the Township close that portion of the road allowance abutting his property. After a search had been conducted and it was determined that the Ministry of Transportation held an interest in the property abutting Line 6 South, Council approved the recommendation of staff on April 28, 2004 to negotiate an access easement agreement with the owner of Part A to allow access to his property over the Township owned road allowance. The lands designated as Part C on Attachment #2 are held by a different owner (Roll #4346-010-008-33100- 0000). AL YSIS: Since the purchase of the Part A lands by the present owner, the request has been made to close and transfer the entire road allowance abutting both properties A and B. The transfer of the road allowance would negate the need for an access easement agreement as previously approved by Council. In reviewing the proposed road closure two issues arose for consideration: (i) the lands designated as Part C on Attachment #2 would have no access should access to Highway 11 be denied and this unopened road allowance between Lots 20 and 21 closed and (ii) the unopened road allowance could be required as a service road in the future. During the investigation of the previous owner's request to close and transfer the portion of the road allowance it was determined that the Ministry of Transportation owned the portion of the road allowance identified as Part 4, 51 R-24117 on Attachment #2. The Township petitioned the Ministry of Transportation to determine whether this parcel could be conveyed to the Township of Oro-Medonte. The Ministry denied this request. On this basis, the entrance to the unopened road allowance from Line 6 South is not the required 66 feet to establish a municipal roadway at this location. In an attempt to secure a future service road and ensure continued access to Part C, an alternative was reviewed and agreed to by the applicant. The applicant has submitted an undertaking (Attachment #3) that indicates that in exchange for the permanent closure and conveyance of a portion of the original road allowance between Lots 20 and 21 from Line 6 South to the intersection of the proposed municipal road allowance (Part BB on Attachment #4); that the applicants agree to convey back to the municipality an area of land for municipal roadway purposes as identified as Part AA on Attachment #4. This option provides the Township with an area of land that meets the current road standards for the construction of a service road at a future date which is currently not available in its existing location and also continues to provide an alternative access to the land owner of Part C, identified in Attachment #2, in the future. On this basis it is recommended that the portion of the road allowance abutting the applicant's property from Line 6 South to the intersection of the lands to be conveyed to the Township for municipal roadway purposes and shown on Attachment #4 be permanently closed and transferred. The applicant has submitted the required deposit to the Township for survey, advertising and legal costs. RECOMMENDATION S : 1. THAT Report No. ADM2004-040 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the portion of the original road allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte (PIN#58550-0168(Lt) from Line 6 South to the intersection of the proposed municipal road allowance be declared surplus to the needs of the municipality. 3. THAT the portion of the original road allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte (PIN#58550-0168(Lt) from Line 6 South to the intersection of the proposed municipal road allowance; be permanently closed and conveyed to Muriel and Bradley Chestnut, and that the applicants be responsible for all costs related to the closure and transfer; 4. That Muriel and Bradley Chestnut convey to the Township free and clear a portion of lands located within Lots 21, Concession 6 (Oro) for the purposes of a future municipal roadway and the applicants be responsible for all costs related to the transfer; and 5. THAT the Clerk bring forward the appropriate by-laws. Respectfully submitted, - 2 - /J-r-r II e-f/ fY) GNr -=# I Chestnut Equestrian Centre R.R.#l Oro Station, Ontario LOL 2EO R;~EI5V~ 1 I I May 5, 2004 Township ofOro Medonte Attention: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk ORO-MEDONTE ~~'NSHfP ------~-.., - Re: Road Allowance Closure Dear Ms. Pennycook: This letter is written to request the closure of a Road Allowance; PIN#58550-0 1 68(L T) 008-33100. This road allowance is located between East Part of Lot 20 Concession 6, and Part 2008-33200, and Part 3 PIN#58550-007l(LT) 51R-30525, and our property East Part Lot 21 Concession 6, PIN#58550-0068(LT). We are interested in purchasing this property. We would like to learn the price of each portion of the road allowance, and by what process the road allowance can be closed. Sincerely, J~(<-~ ~LJ Muriel M. Chestnut Bradley K. Chestnut Owners, E. Part Lot 21 Cone. 6 (705) 487-6887 -==! .. A--(-7l1u#1~-7 ~ f~ ~ o '6/R.-aA-Jl1 'fA~ If, CgN V\ L 120 ~ 100 Meters . .'" UNDERTAKING TO: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE FROM: MURIEL MARGARET CHESTNUT and BRADLEY KENNETH CHESTNUT (Owners) RE: Stopping Up and Closing Part of Original Road Allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6, Oro-Medonte Township IN CONSIDERATION OF the Township of Oro-Medonte stopping up and closing that part of the original Road Allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 shown as PART A on the attached Schedule and conveying same unto us, we, MURIEL MARGARET CHESTNUT and BRADLEY KENNETH CHESTNUT, hereby irrevocably undertake and agree to convey unto The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte that part of Lot 21, Concession 6 shown as PART B free and clear of all encumbrances for the purpose of the Township constructing a deviation road to Line 65. It is understood that the extent of the lands to be exchanged shall be determined upon proper survey, the cost of which shall be borne by us. In addition, it is understood that we shall be responsible for all legal costs incurred in the preparation and registration of the appropriate Transfers/Deeds of Land to carry out the foregoing. Dated at the City of Barrie this 7th day of October, 2004. ~~,~.-j/ (f!~ MURIEL MARGARET CHESTNUT ~ . - t 118 Line 6 S. @ 500 Meters .. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: ADM 2004-043 Committee of the Whole Marilyn Pennycook Subject: Department: Council Clerk's Department Request for Exemption - C.ofW. Warminster Annual Date: October 13,2004 Remembrance Day Parade Motion # R.M. File #: M02-013984 Date: Roll #: GROUND: By-law No. 99-41 regulates the holding of parades or processions/events in the municipality. Section 8 of the above mentioned by-law permits that in a situation where a parade or procession/event will last for less than 24 hours, Council may dispense with any or all of the requirements of the by-law. The Royal Canadian Legion of Branch 619, Warminster plan to hold a Remembrance Day Parade on Sunday, November 7,2004 at 1 :30 p.m. ANAL YSIS: Mr. N. (Mac) McDougall, Secretary, Royal Canadian Legion, Cahiague Branch (Ontario #619), has supplied information regarding insurance coverage for this event, and has indicated that police have been assigned to direct traffic (Attachment #1). This parade is a yearly event, and the Legion has received Council permission to hold the parade in the past and waive the conditions of By-law 99-41. The parade route begins at 1 :30 p.m. in the Village forming up in front of the School, marches along the Warminster Sideroad to Hwy. 12 and then along the Highway to the Legion Cenotaph where the Remembrance Day Ceremonies will commence. MENDATION(S): 1. That Report No. ADM 2004-043 be received and adopted. 2. That an exemption to By-law No. 99-41 be granted to The Royal Canadian Legion of Branch 619, Warminster to hold a Remembrance Day Parade on November 7, 2004 commencing at 1 :30 p.m. 3. And Further That the applicant be notified of Council's decision. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head 2 Attachment #1 21,2004 Township of 01'0 Medonte 01'0, Onto holding their annual Remembrance Day Ceremonies on Sunday, November 7th. Kindly a # so we have our usual Parade. start 1.30 the front march along the Warminster Side Road to Highway 12, and then along the Highway to the were is Insurance Brokers, Lindsay, Onto We are fully covered for any Parade mishaps. We will 2 are meat Yours truly, j . \ve .~ -- ~ I ".. Cry~ \~~ ~~. ~ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: ADM2004-045 Committee of the Whole Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO Subject: Department: Council Designs for Moonstone Fire Administration Hall C.ofW. Date: October 13, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: II In September 2004, Council approved the purchase of land fronting on Line 7 North and County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East), in the village of Moonstone. This land acquisition is to facilitate the construction of a new Fire Station to service the Moonstone response area. II ANALYSIS: II The Director of Building and Planning forwarded a memorandum to the Chief Administrative Officer providing estimated pricing and proposed building layouts (Attachment #1). Staff gave consideration to including a community room in the new building. At this time, there has not been a needs analysis conducted to establish the viability of a community room. Staff also determined that the Eady Community Hall is located less than 10 minutes from the Moonstone settlement and could accommodate any immediate needs for a community room. It is recommended that a freestanding box building, approximately 57' x 50' be constructed at an estimated cost of $323,500.00. This estimated cost is for the structure only and does not include winter construction costs, land improvement costs, paving, sewage system or water connections. As the proposed building is of a freestanding nature, the final interior layout may differ from that shown in attachment #1. It is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with the tendering process for the construction of a new building to be utilized as the Moonstone Fire Station. II RECOMMENDATION(S): ~~ - :J.., I t 1. THAT Report No. ADM2004-045 be received and adopted. 2. THAT staff be authorized to proceed with the tendering process for the construction of a 57' x 50' building to be utilized as the new Moonstone Fire Station. Respectfully submitted, , J nifer Zielenie Chief Administrative Officer - 2- .ls,~-3 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE I MEMORANDUM ~ To: Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO . From: Ronald M. Kolbe, Director of Buildina and Plannina Date: I October 12, 2004 Subiect: I Moonstone Fire Hall An estimated cost was received for the construction of a commercial building 80' x 80'. Therefore, the estimated price per square foot was calculated at $112.50. 80'-0" x 80'-0" = 6,400 sq. ft. (Estimated Cost is $720,000) For council's consideration, two draft designs are proposed as follows: Building #2: 57'-6" x 50'-0" = 2,875 sq. ft. (Estimated Cost would be $323,438) 87'-6" x 50'-0" (irregular) = 4325 sq. ft. (Estimated Cost would be $486,563) Building #1 : Note: - Interior walls do not matter as the building is freestanding. - Plumbing should be concentrated together within the building. 9 Co It) 16- BUILDING #1 - October 12, 2004 57'-6" x 50'-0" = 2,875 SO. FT. 57'-6" MECH. RM 10' x6' KITCHEN 10'x 13' CHANGEROOM WOMEN'S 11.5'x15' TRAINING ROOM 620 SO. FT. 20' x 31' CHANGEROOM MEN'S 11' x 15' OFFICE 12.5'x 10' BAY NO.3 12.5' x 21' BAY NO.2 12.5' x 50' BAY NO.1 12.5' x 50' b (0 , ..c' ~ BUILDING #2. Oclober 12, 2004 87'-6" x 50'.(J' (irregular) = 4325 sq. ft. MEN'S WASHROOM 10'x 10' WOMEN'S WASHROOM 10' x 10' MECH. RM 10' x 10' WOMEN'S CHANGEROOM 20' x 10' MEN'S CHANGEROOM 20' x 10' MEETING ROOM APPROX. 1500 sa. FT. 50' x 40' 87'-6- STORAGE KITCHENNETTE KITCHEN I STORAGE 12.5' x 17' Qff!f.I;. ,12.5' x 12' BAY NO.3 12.5'x 21' BAY NO.2 12.5' x 50' BAY NO.1 12.5' x SO' b (D f VI TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: ADM2004-046 Committee of the Whole Marilyn Pennycook Clerk Subject: Department: Council Proposed Closure of Road Administration and Conveyance of Lands at C.ofW. the end of Oneida Avenue, Date: Registered Plan M-31 October 13, 2004 Motion # (geographic Township of R.M. File #: Oro), Township of Oro- Date: Medonte, Parts 12 and 13, Roll #: 51 R-33065 GROUND: In 2001, the Township of Oro-Medonte entered into a Letter of Intent with Indian Park Association to facilitate the severance and conveyance of portions of the Indian Park Association common lands with regards to providing ingress and egress to individual landowners abutting those lands. On October 29, 2003, the Committee of Adjustment approved the Indian Park Association severance application B-38/03 with respect to severing and conveying the common lands to individual landowners. ANAL YSIS: During the review of the proposed severances of the Indian Park Association lands, Township staff became aware that additional lands were required for maintenance of Oneida Avenue at the end of the road. As a result, Indian Park Association agreed to transfer lands (Part 8, Plan 51 R-33065) to the Township to facilitate maintenance. Currently, the road deviates a distance of ten feet westerly at the end of the road to permit turning of maintenance vehicles. With the acquisition of Part 8 from Indian Park Association, the Township no longer requires the ten foot deviation. It is recommended that this land be transferred to the abutting owners of Lots 60 and 61 on Plan M-31 to facilitate straightforward access to their properties. The lands in question abut portions of the Indian Park Association lands to be conveyed to the residents of Lots 60 and 61 on Registered Plan M-31. The Indian Park Association lands are designated as Parts 2 and 3 on the attached Plan 51 R-33065 (Attachment #1). The portions of the road allowance proposed for conveyance are designated as Parts 12 and 13 on the same R-Plan. The Public Works Superintendent has reviewed the issue and has no concerns with the conveyance of the 10 foot by 50 foot strip of the existing road allowance. There are existing utilities easements on the road allowance at present. It is recommended that the land be transferred subject to these easements. Given that the portions to be conveyed are insignificant in size, it is recommended that no appraisal be undertaken and that no value be placed on the land. Staff also recommend that Council permanently close those parts of Oneida Avenue described as Parts 12 and 13, 51 R-33065, declare them to be surplus to the needs of the Township, and further convey the lands to the abutting owners. The road transfer is considered as part of the project and costs associated with the transfer will be charged to the project. ECOMMENDATION S : 1. THAT Report No. ADM2004-46 be received and adopted. 2. THAT Council permanently close those portions of the road allowance known as Oneida Avenue, Registered Plan M-31 (geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, more particularly described as Parts 12 and 13, 51R-33065. 3. THAT Council declare those portions of Oneida Avenue (Parts 12 and 13, 51 R-33065) to be surplus to the needs of the municipality. 4. THAT those portions of Oneida Avenue, Registered Plan M-31 (Parts 12 and 13, 51R-33065) be transferred to the abutting owners of Lots 61 and 60, Plan M-31 respectively, subject to utilities easements in favour of Bell Canada and the Township of Oro-Medonte, and that no value be placed on the land. 5. THAT the costs associated with the transfer of lands be charged directly to the project. 6. THAT the Clerk bring forward the appropriate by-laws for Council's consideration. 7. THAT the landowners be advised of Council's decision. - 2 - __ <<;'0 / I I I REQUIRE THIS P\.>>I TO IjE PLA,N 51R-5'30lb5 DEPOSITED UNDER THE <<;~ / l'- \.>>10 TITLES ACT. RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED :'\ DATE _J!!~Y_~_~OE~:..____ DATE _51f!LLt3,a:tJi .> / I I -- --- -~ --Q.:::::rs._~-__--- it.a.~~it'~~)t,~~f /\- ~ 0 C.T_ STRONGMAN " '. I I.N'Q REGlSTRNI fOR THE I.ANO / ~ Z ONTARIO \.>>10 SURVEYOR mUs DMSION Of SIMCOE '51' / \ "" I <: I SCHEDULE OF PARTS / -() I ...." PR PERTY / \ 1- " PART LOT P\.>>I I NTFI AREA / I ......... 0.069 oc / ...J ~ 0.071 0(; / / \ b I I 0.060 ut / \ ~ 59 I '0 ';, co V.Vb.'! ut / \ I ..:::: / 0.117 Ut 0 58 ~ I PARI Of I<EGI51ER[O PARI Of PIN ,/ \ ... BLOCK A PlAN M-31 74057-- 0.066 Q( ~ ..... / 01 19(LT) Q I I 0.018 Ut ;<~ ~ .f> I "I I ~ \ / 0.089 O( '-:' ~ ;> r~ 0.079 m >'0 J I ,,"" / I (f) IU U.074 U( / ~ 0'> 60 \ "'"- / I z I 11 0.067 lit ,- I <i" I 0 / Ol) \ 12 PART Of PART Of PIN 0.009 (H; ~ / ...... ONEIDA AVENUE: 74057-. Sib 1-;'>... (f) !J OI93(1l) 0.003 u<: ,,/ "" 'J / I (f) ((I) \ ";'~~,j' PARTS 1 TO 11 INCLUSIVE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS BY lT354320 AND U441545 ......... '1:>.....> ~ I ~ ~ / I u ~ ".>;-f,. I r~-<j/ Z ~ ~ 0 P,^, ~ " 57 I u 61~ \..\..\) I \ /10 . ......... I !) /.... 1-"J{~J' Oh 'I' I). " "0. -i <: (ll) " - \ z \ I ~ ~ PLAN OF SURVEY I ~ 62 E-- I OF PART OF BLOCK "A", AND PART OF 1 ~ ONEIDA AvENUE REGISTERED PLAN M-31 p:j (GEOGRAPHIC TOW)/SHIP OF ORO) \L1) I TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE I I COUNTY Or' SIMCOE I ~ rut U " ....;.r.:( ~~":. ~~ I z <: 1 inch '" 60 It ......... I ~ "' .......... I 0 C.T. STRONGMAN O.L.S. :.c,xn ~.....,~ ;J>("1';J> :...~.,.. .....:J 2004 'j , t::10("1' "- .'t-"".rt) ;> I ...... 3: ("1' ff ....... ;) <: ~:... 10 ~OJ i' 0';> 1- Nro() ~ "l '0 O'lj ::r' ;r~~ 003 <1<; j, l~& I ,~.~ ~ I .j>-l'iro &# .- fl.1) 0 I ("1':j J! 54 ,I 0 ("1' .~ <: .j>- 1 I 0 (j\ "#= I 0:: I-'- \ 1- ?!; -' ) ~)1/ \ V 4J ~ /' f)~ \ / Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Zieleniewski From: Harry Hughes [hhughes@bconnex.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:56 PM To: Jennifer Zieleniewski Cc: Neil Craig; Harry Hughes; Ruth Fountain; John Crawford; Paul Marshall; Ralph Hough; Dan Buttineau Subject: Aird & Berlis Legal Expenses 709 September 24, 2004 Hello Jennifer: Thank you for your Email of September 20th. I am surprised to learn that no legal opinion was obtained regarding the removal of encroachments in Plan 709. I am concerned about the information provided to Council by Aird & Berlis regarding the costs of the Drohibycky appeal. Council voted to continue the appeal based on a quote of the total costs, if successful, to be approximately $20.000.00. When asked to reaffirm the quote and taking almost two months for consideration before responding on September 7th the quote was increased by $5000.00 to a total $25,000.00. However, an accounting of expenses supplied by Township staff on September 15th (only 8 days later) reveals that the Township has already been billed $37858.34 including GST for the Drohibycky appeal. It is also noted that a "John Swan" is being paid $595.00 ( $636.65 including GST) PER HOUR to assist with the appeal. At this point Airds & Berlis billings are approximately 77% higher than the original quote without the additional costs of further preparation and the case being heard in court. At this rate it appears that the actual costs will be similar to the cost of the original court case. Clearly, Airds & Berlis need to be held accountable. Deputy Mayor Hughes 10/7/2004 . THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday September 15, 2004 TIME: 9:30 a.m. Om-Medonta Administration Centre Chair: Ruth Fountain Present: Bonnie MacDougall, Debbie Ball Staff Present: Fire Chief Joe Casey Absent: Mayor Neil Craig 1. Adoption of Wednesday September 15, 2004 Agenda Motion No. 1 Moved by Ball, Seconded by MacDougall It is recommended that the agenda for the meeting of Wednesday September 15th be adopted Carried. 2. Adoption of September 18, 2004 and September 23, 2003 minutes Motion No.2 Moved by MacDougall, Seconded by Ball Be it resolved that the minutes of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, held on September 18th & 23rd, 2003, be adopted as printed and circulated Carried. 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof - In Accordance with the act NIL 4. Correspondence NIL 5. Review of Work Accessibility Plan, as submitted to the Province in September, 2003, was reviewed. The work which has been completed on Municipal owned buildings will be forwarded to the Province. 6. Information of Meeting of Simcoe County Association for Physically Disabled Ruth gave report of meeting of September 14th, which she attended 7. Adjournment: Motion No.3 Moved by Ball, Seconded by MacDougall Be it resolved that the meeting of September 15, 2004 be adjourned. Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday November 9,2004, starting at 9:30 a.m., at the Old Town Hall (Fairgrounds) Carried. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE MEMORANDUM To: Council cc: Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO From: Ruth Fountain, Chair, Accessibility Advisory Committee R.M. File #: Date: October 7, 2004 Roll #: Subject: Review Dates and Summary of Actions, Township of Oro-Medonte Date of Review: September 15, 2004, Copy of Accessibility Plan 2003 Recommended Action: This year, work was completed on Edgar, Hawkestone and Jarratt Community Halls, as outlined in the Accessibility Plan 2003. Funds were allocated in the Township budget and work was completed by local contractors at a cost of $15,500. The remaining Community Halls, Carley, Craighurst and Warminster, are currently under review by Council with respect to usage. Review of other requirements, to ensure Municipally owned buildings are fully accessible to people with special needs, will be referred to the 2005 budget deliberations. Yours truly, Ruth Fountain, Chair Accessibility Advisory Committee Township of Oro-Medonte Township of Oro-Medonte Accessibility Plan September, 2003 . Township of Oro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Draft - September, 2003 Township ofOro-Medonte AccessibiJity Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................... eo 3-7 Objectives and Methodology.................................. .............. 8 Accessibility Planning Checklist and Timelines ....................... 9 Review Past Initiatives to Removing Barriers.............~......... 10 Identify Barriers and Strategy for Removal.......................... 11-12 Monitoring Process........................................................... 13 Addressing Barriers, Council Approval and Public Awareness.. 14 Appendix A (Review Dates and Summary of Actions) ........... 15 Appendix B (Organizational Chart) .................................... 16 2 Township of Oro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Municipal Jurisdiction Participatina in this Plan The Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOl2XO (70S) 487-2171 Oro-Medonte is a diverse and beautiful community with a central location in Ontario. A community of 18,315 full-time residents, Oro-Medonte covers a land area ()f 61,000 hectares, stretching from the northern border of Barrie and Lake Simcoe to the southern fringes of Orillia and north to Tay and Severn Townships. Oro-Medonte's prime location provides residents and visitors alike with the riches of rural life and the convenience of a shore drive to Barrie, Orillia and the Greater Toronto Area. . Oro-Medonte is accessible by: Three major highways (Highway 11,400 and 12). The Lake Simcoe Regional Airport operated by the municipalities of Oro-Medonte, Barrie and Orillia and located in Oro-Medonte The Canadian Pacific Rail line, which passes through the Township of Oro-Medonte as it travels from Toronto to Vancouver. Lake Simcoe, which borders the Township to the South. Oro-Medonte's natural beauty, strategic location and progressive municipal government have made us one of the fastest growing rural, family-oriented municipalities in Ontario. Oro-Medonte has a very large land base and coritains within it many settlement areas. These settlement areas range in population from 30 to 1600 people. The following is a list of the settlement areas in Oro-Medonte: Craighurst East Oro Edgar Forest Home Guthrie Hawkestone Horseshoe Valley Jarratt Moonstone Oro Station Prices Corners Rugby Shanty Bay Sugar Bush Warminster . Council Commitment to Accessibilitv Planning People with disabilities represent a significant and growing part of our population. According to Statistics Canada, about 1.9 million Ontarians have disabilities - about 16% of the population. Disability tends to increase with age. In two decades it is estimated that 20% of the population will have disabilities. Enhancing the ability of people with disabilities to live independently and contribute to the community will have positive effects on the future prosperity in Ontario. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 (ODA) received Royal Assent on December 14, 2001. The purpose of the ODA is to improve opportunities for people with disabilities through identification, removal and prevention of barriers. 3 Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibj]jty Plan Improving accessibility is a shared responsibility. The ODA requires that the provincial and municipal governments and key public sector organizations review their policies, programs and services through the development of annual accessibility plans. Municipal governments playa crucial role in the planning and development of our communities: in their streets, parks, public transit, libraries, social housing, ambulance services, public buildings and elections. Responsibilities, which include enforcing the barrier-free access requirements of the Ontario Building Code and implementing key accessibility considerations under ODA, are crucial to realizing a vision of local communities that improve accessibility and mobility for their residents. The ODA builds on relationships and practices which currently exist among councillors, planners, builders and community groups to make municipalities more accessible to people with disabilities. The new legislative requirements set out standards that all municipalities must follow to ensure that existing barriers for people with disabilities are removed over time and that no new barriers are created. Under ODA, all municipalities must prepare and make public all accessibility plans. Municipalities with populations of over 10,000 must appoint an accessibility advisory committee (AAC) to help them prepare the plan. Improving accessibility is a shared responsibility and the Township of Oro-Medonte wishes to demonstrate leadership in working with people with disabilities to create innovative approaches and solutions for an accessible community. In keeping with the legislation Council appointed an Accessibility Advisory Committee, October 4, 2002 to commence work on an Accessibility Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte. Accessibilitv Advisorv Committee Members Mayor Neil Craig Councillor Ruth Fountain, Fire Chief Paul Eenhoorn Bonnie McDougall, Drew Rigden Debbie Mooney Ex-officio Chairperson Staff Liaison Person Resident Resident Resident (705) 722-8672 (705) 325-8825 (705) 835-5568 (705) 487-2903 (705) 835-6895 (705) 327-5303 Please contact a member of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for inquires regarding the · Accessibility Plan or Accessibility issues. 4 Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibi]ity P]an r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::2"O"O"1'~:"':""O'3:t'O<U<':':c..'(:i":f6r'o'<M'.e':.io':n':';;';: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:::::::::::;:::::':'::~:::::::::~::::~::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Name Neil Craig Email: neil.craig@oro-medonte.ca Walter Dickie Email: walter.dickiefaJ.oro-medonte.ca Title Mayor Telephone No. (705) 722-8672 Deputy Mayor (705) 835-2525 Donald Bell Councillor Ward 1 (705) 835-6322 Email: donald.beJ1@oTo-medonte.ca Ralph Hough Councillor Ward 2 (705) 835-2770 Email: ra]ph.hough@oro-medonte.ca Paul Marshall Councillor Ward 3 (705) 722-0839 Email: paul.marshaJ1@oro-medonte.ca Harry Hughes Councillor Ward 4 (705) 487-2128 Email: harry.hughes@oro-medonte.ca Ruth Fountain Councillor Ward 5 (705) 325-8825 Email: ruth.fountain@oro-medonte.ca Administration DeDartment The administration of the municipality occurs through a cooperative effort of the administrative staff consisting of a Chief Administrative Officer, Clerk, additional support staff and elected political representatives of the Township of Oro-Medonte. The key activities/responsibilities of Administration is the preparation and recording of Council meetings and Committee of the Whole meetings recommending policy development, human resources, and web page mastery. . 5 Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibi]ity P]an Fire and EmerQencv Services The Township of Oro-Medonte provides an efficient and high level of quality services from six separate fire stations located in Shanty Bay, Hawkestone, Horseshoe Valley, Rugby~ Moonstone and Warminster. The Oro-Medonte Fire Department provides quality 24-hour a day fire and emergency services for the entire Township, consisting of one full time Fire Chief, one full time - Deputy Fire Chief, one full time Technical Support Person and 96+ volunteers. PolicinQ Services The Township of Oro-Medonte currently provides policing services through the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), with one satellite detachment located in Horseshoe Valley. . Planning The Township's day to day operations are undertaken by the Planner and a Planning Technician. In addition the Township also deliberates with Planning Consultants. BuildinQ and Bv-Iaw Enforcement Building permit review, approvals and inspections as well as enforcing the municipal by-laws are undertaken by the Chief Building Official, Deputy Building Official. and four Building Inspectors. In addition one of the inspectors also undertakes the Septic System Inspection Program. library There are currently five libraries that are contracted to provide services to Oro-Medonte residents. The libraries are all located in adjacent municipalities and are listed as follows: Barrie Public Library Coldwater Public Library Orillia Public Library Midland Public Library Springwater Public library Public Works " The delivery of municipal road service is the key responsibility of the Public Works Department, maintaining approximately 600 km of road network, utilizing 18 Operators, two Foremen, a Manager of Operations and a Public Works Superintendent. Due to the geographical location of the Municipality there are two road garages - one located in the south on line 7 at 15/16 Side Road and one in the North located in the Village of Moonstone. 6 Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Engineering & Environmental Services Deoartment The Engineering & Environmental Services Department's key responsibilities are the daily testing and maintaining of 12 separate well water treated systems located within the Township. The department consists of a full time Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, one full time Environmental Services Foreman, two full time Water Technicians and one full time Technical Support person. Recreation There are eight Township-owned Public Community Halls within the Township of Oro-Medonte. Carley Hall Craighurst Hall Eady Hall Edgar Hall Hawkestone Hall Jarratt Hall Old Town Hall Warminster Hall These halls have been serving the communities for a number of years. The public community halls are under the direction and supervision of the Recreation Coordinator, but the volunteer efforts in the communities have fundraised, programmed and maintained these halls. There is one Township arena in Oro-Medonte built in 1972 located on Highway 11 at Guthrie. This facility has artificial ice, and is regulation size (approximately 218 feet long and 100 feet wide). In 1976 an addition was put on the existing arena as well as new dressing rooms. In 1989 there were further renovations to the entrance and banquet Hall. The Community Arena's facility is maintained and operated under the direction of the Public Works Manager of Operations, and four full time Public Works Operators. There are 52 Township-owned public parks in Oro-Medonte. These public. parks are maintained by four full time Public Works Operators. Treasurv The Treasurer of the Township of Oro-Medonte is responsible for the care and control of all finances as it pertains to the municipality and assists the numerous departments with annual and capital budget expenditures. To assist the Treasurer with the day to day operations of the Treasury Department is one full time Deputy Treasurer, two full time Data Entry Clerks and one full time Accounts Payable Bookkeeper. . 7 ~. Township of Oro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Obiectives Persons with disabilities represent a significant and growing part of our population. According to Statistics Canada about 1.9 million Ontarians have disabilities - about 16% of the population. Disability tends to increase with age. In two decades it is estimated that 20% of . the population will have disabilities. Enhancing the ability of people with disabilities to live - , independently and contribute to the community will have positive effects on future prosperity in Ontario. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 (ODA) received Royal Assent on December 14, 2001. The purpose of the ODA is to improve opportunities for people with disabilities through identification, removal and prevention of barriers to participation in the life of the province. Accessibility plans are intended to address existing barriers to people with disabilities and to prevent new barriers from being established. A great number of our seasonal residents are now retiring in the Township of Oro-Medonte. Many of them are in their senior years and the demand for accessibility will increase. The municipality desires to ensure accessibility for its citizens and visitors alike. MethodolOf;JV Council appointed the Accessibility Advisory Committee on October 2, 2002 by By-law No. 2002-99 to identify past initiatives and identify remaining barriers in the 'municipality. The Accessibility Advisory Committee met February 13, 2003 regarding Bill 125 and the implication of a Plan for the Township. An informal site audit was undertaken by the Fire Chief and a structural engineer of all municipally owned buildings and in particular to access any barriers that may exist as well provide solutions to removing those identified barriers. ... 8 Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHECKLIST Report to Council to appoint Accessibility Advisory Committee By-law No. 2002-99 to Appointment members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee First Meeting of the Accessibility Advisory Committee Review past initiatives Operational review Determine how to address barriers Develop a draft plan Meeting of the Accessibility Advisory Committee to review and amend the draft plan Establish a monitoring process Obtain Council Approval Make the Plan public " 9 March 30, 2003 March 30, 2003 Committee to meet '. quarterly September 4, 2002 October 2, 2002 February 13, 2003 May 28, 2003 May 28, 2003 May 28, 2003 September 18, 2003 September 23, 2003 Annually Township ofOro-Medonte AccessibiJity Plan Review Past Initiatives to Removina Barriers The Administration Office had automatic door openers installed on both sides at the main entrance to ensure wheelchair accessibility. The public washrooms were made wheelchair accessible. The counter at the main reception was cutout and lowered to provide easier access to persons with physical disabilities. The Township of Oro-Medonte's Council Chambers is located at the Administration Office on the main floor and is wheelchair accessible. Parking spaces for persons with disabilities were dedicated at the Administration Office, Community Arena, some community halls, Fire and Emergency main headquarters and the Provincial Police satellite building. By-law enforcement is ongoing. Fines for p~rking in designated spaces are also intended to increase. . An addition was constructed in 1996 to the Administration Office to accommodate the Public Works Department and Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The addition was made wheelchair accessible. An elevator was installed in the Guthrie Community Arena to provide easier access to the banquet hall upstairs and to provide easier viewing of sporting events. Memorial Park public washrooms were reconstructed in 2003 and are fully accessible. ':' .. ]0 '" Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Identifv Barriers and StrateQV for Removal/Prevention Ba rrier Type Status Strategy for, Removal/Prevention Architectural Administration Building was constructed in 19 Replacement of door handles This building also has the Council Chambers with level type handles and is on one floor, fully accessible with automatic doors at entrance, ramp and designated parking. Entrance and hallways are kept cleared for accessibility. Architectural Provincial Police Satellite Building No Barriers constructed in 2002, fu lIy accessible with desianated parkina. Architectural and Emergency Headquarters, one story No Barriers' ing constructed in 1996 and fully accessible Arch itectu ra I Fire Stations, Hawkestone - Rugby, Shanty No Barriers Bay, Moonstone - all one floor and fully accessible. Warminster Fire Hall requires further uoaradina to the washrooms. Architectural Community Arena - Accessible on ground level Washrooms need improvements with an elevator to second floor banquet hall Electric operator on main door to be installed. No designated area ,0 on main floor for viewing of ice surface for persons in wheelchair. Architectural Memorial Park - Public washrooms, constructed Designated parking area with in 2003 and fully accessible. Pavilioh is an open asphalt pathway to lake access. concept located at ground level therefore accessible Architectural Carley Community Hall - No handicapped Make two existing washrooms washroom, ramp required into one unisex handicapped washroom,. Remove partitions, redo plumbing, new toilet, new lavatory complete with paddle taps, grab bars, light and exhaust fan. Construct ramp parallel to building complete with one landing and rails. Architectural Craighurst Community Hall - No edge on Add edge to ramp, i nsta II new ramp, new threshold required, picto sign for threshold, install sign for washroom required washroom Architectural Eady Community Hall - renovations and Upon completion of renovations addition under construction to building code and there will be no barriers. will be completed by December 2003 ] ] Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Architectural Arch itectu ra I Architectural Architectural Architectural .... " .. Raised seat for toilet and install lever privacy on washroom door, install new threshold at door to ramp Hawkestone Community Hall - Main entrance Install closer with handicapped- needs upgrading, door to hall from foyer function, install panic complete with rim cylinder, install new threshold, install hollow metal screen to suit existing opening, - screen to include sidelight and complete with half light. Door to Foyer increase opening, install door with closer and push-pull Edgar Community Hall - minor repairs to bathroom, new threshold at door to ramp required Washroom to become more accessible Install new door complete with lever privacy, install grab bars, relocated sink and provide lever type faucets and correct trap. Install new toilet seat to regulated height as per building code, lower light switch and install oversize mirror, install exhaust fan create new washroom adjacent to existing washrooms, install new door in welded frame, exit only panic and pull, 1 closer- handicapped function, install new double doors at main entry, install new threshold, install 1 panic complete with rim cylinder Warminster Community Hall - entrance Install new insulated hollow door needs upgrading, washrooms need minor and frame, 1 panic complete adjustments with rim cylinder, 1 closer (handicapped function). Washrooms require change of faucets to paddle type, high toilet seat, install grab bars and mirror and lever privacy. Install new th reshold. Jarrett Community Hall - Washrooms, Exit to ramp, main entrance Old Town Hall (Fairgrounds) - Washrooms 12 In both ladies and mens washrooms - make two stalls into one handicap, remove panic from read door and replace with push pull plus dead bolt, remove door from main hall to corridor to washrooms. Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Parking at all Community install signage and designate handicapped parking areas near ramps. . library Services - Due to the geographical No Barriers location of Oro-Medonte, library services are contracted from neighboring municipalities. These libraries have all been contacted and the following information received. Barrie Public library - opened in 1998 and fully accessible to wheelchair, elevator, handicapped parking. Due to the glare from windows, this created a problem for clients with visible impairment. This has been corrected. Midland Public library - Fully accessible ramp and elevator installed in 1991, handicapped parking located on the street directly in front of the Library. Coldwater /Severn Public Library - fully accessible Orillia Public library - automatic doors, ramp Handicapped parking assigned. fully and accessible, elevator. Springwater Public library - fully accessible. " Monitorina Pro9ress Some barriers were identified and addressed in the previous years. The Accessibility Advisory Committee will meet quarterly in each year to review items in the plan requiring addressing for 13 .... Township ofOro-Medonte AccessibiJity Plan the next year. Costs will be determined and included in the next year's budget for Council consideration. The Accessibility Advisory Committee should also meet with a representative from the Chamber of Commerce and Lake Country. . Addressing Barriers The Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is committed to the continual improvement of access to all municipally owned facilities, premises and services for all those with disabilities and the provision of quality services to all members of the community with disabilities. Over the next several years, Council make decisions on which barriers are to be addressed each year, based on recommendations of the Accessibility Advisory Committee and subject to budget restraints and feasibility. Council Approval and Public Awareness The Accessibility Plan will be posted to the Township of Oro-Medonte's website and the Committee will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the Plan. Copies will also be made available through the Clerk's department. .^ ]4 ~ . Township ofOro-Medonte Accessibility Plan Appendix A Review Dates and SUmmary of Actions YEAR DATE OF REVIEW RECOMMENDED ACTION RESOURCES/COSTS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ]5 '.'..... I Y1:. \ :f! ~ ~ ~ 1& ~ ~.~' """ .' p ~ z I ~ '" ..... ~ "'" ~ h ~. 9 6;:;;f.; e ~. ~ :_~;...;.. ~; ~ ~. ~ .., ~ ~ ... ~ ...0 ~ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-07 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Speed Reduction - Line 7, Public Works C.ofW. South of Hwy. #11 Date: September 30, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: T08-12728 Date: Roll #: GROUND: Correspondence dated July 7, 2004 was received by Ms. Kathy Hurst, Director of Operations for the Trinity Community Presbyterian Church, requesting consideration being given to reduce the speed limit on Line 7 South between Hwy. #11 and Ridge Road. This section of road is currently posted as an 80 km/h zone from the Hwy. #11 exit ramp to approximately 250 meters north of the intersection of Ridge Road, at which point the speed limit is reduced to 50 km/h, southerly to Lakeshore Road. In 1998, Simcoe County downloaded Line 7 South from Hwy. #11, south to Lakeshore Road, to the municipality. Due to the rural characteristics of Line 7 South from the Hwy. to the Ridge Road, it was the opinion of the Public Works Department, at that time, that the existing speed limit of 60 km/h should be increased to 80 km/h as it would not affect the safety of motorists along this section of road. This two kilometer section of Line 7 South has eleven (11) homes, plus the newly-constructed Church and Municipal Office, with a daily traffic count of 1,750 vehicles. Line 7 South has numerous vertical curves (rolling hills) and narrow shoulders, with one hill, which fronts the Trinity Church and Municipal Offices, not meeting the required 135 metre safe stopping sight distance for an 80 km/h zone referred to in our Roadway Service Standards. Upon reviewing this speed reduction request with the roadway speed designation of our Roadway Service Standards, it is recommended that the speed limit be reduced to 60 km/h to meet the required safe stopping sight distance of 85 metres, and to provide a safer environment for pedestrian traffic due to narrow road shoulders and high traffic volume. 1. THAT Report No. PW2004-07 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the speed limit on Line 7 South, from the Hwy. #11 exit ramp and approximately two kilometers south, to roughly 250 metres north of the Ridge Road intersection, be reduced to 60 km/h. 3. THAT the Clerk be authorized to prepare the necessary By-law. 4. THAT the Public Works Superintendent advises Ms. Kathy Hurst of Trinity Community Presbyterian Church accordingly. 5. AND THAT the Public Works Department erects the necessary sign age on Line 7 South. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Public Works Superintendent - 2 - TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-08 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Security Perimeter at the Public Works C.ofW. African Church Date: October 4, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: A20-13909 Date: Roll #: KGROUND: The Oro-Medonte History Committee has requested Council to consider some type of barrier to be placed around the African Church. This request comes as a result of a motor vehicle accident on March 24, 2004, in which a vehicle left the road, resulting in considerable damage to the front of the Church. This has been the second incident involving a vehicle causing structural damage to the Church. The History Committee has suggested that field stones, approximately two feet high, be placed five to six feet apart as a security perimeter along the road allowance to discourage thieves and "out of control" vehicles from further damaging the Church. A field survey was completed to determine the property lines along Line 3 North and the Old Barrie Road. Once the survey was completed, a site visit was held with Ms. Jennifer Zieleniewski, C.A.O., and Mr. Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, to decide on field stone or barrier placement. It was determined from the survey that there was only approximately eight to nine feet available to place field stones at the front of the Church, which would create a safety hazard or encroachment on the road allowance. It was then decided to explore the possibility of erecting a heavy type of rod iron fence to keep within the historical approach, as well as to provide security. Simcoe Fence Company from Elmvale was contacted to provide a sample of the fencing and a cost estimate for supply and installation. II ANALYSIS: II Attached for Council's perusal is a spec sheet from Simcoe Fence outlining the fence dimensions, which includes an archway that will be located in front of the Church door. This fence is a heavy industrial black iron fence that will be 36 inches high and mounted on 2%" x 2%" square posts placed in concrete. The fence will be erected 100 feet along Line 3 North and 100 feet along the Old Barrie Road frontage to secure the building. The quotation for materials and labour totaled $13,500.00, plus GST. As this was not included in the 2004 Budget deliberations, it is therefore recommended that the request for fencing be considered during the 2005 budget deliberations. COMMENDATION S: 1. THAT Report No. PW2004-08 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the request for a security barrier at the African Church be considered during the 2005 budget deliberations. 3. AND THAT the Oro-Medonte History Committee be notified accordingly. Respev:tfully submitted, . J v: f4y~- :Jerry Ball Public Works Superintendent - 2 - 1='RDt1 : S"l MCOE FEr.4CE , \ z < ~ o ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ \ ~ 1;;1 ~~ :r::8 ;,ec FAX HO. : 705 322 1646 Se? 28 2004 12:24PM P2 ~..:" dj;tlJ "-:- :.~~. 6~7~ "'_' ,~'6 .,..~ .... _ -r';"'. A":'r...lr ~:- . TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2004-40 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Lawrence William Tupling - Site Engineering and Plan Agreement - 31 Bards Environmental Services C.ofW. Beach Road - Part Lot 6, Plan Date: 546 (Formerly South Orillia), October 5, 2004 Motion # Being all of PIN #58531-0344 (Lt) R.M. File #: D11-13942 Date: Roll #: 030-010-03200 D: Mr. Tupling is proposing to construct a 12' x 24' porch onto his existing home at 31 Bards Beach Road. As Bards Beach Road is a private road, Mr. Tupling must enter into a Site Plan Agreement, prior to removing the Holding Symbol and the issuance of a Building Permit. ANALYSIS: Mr. Tupling's application was reviewed by the Site Plan Committee on September 24, 2004 and neither the Committee or Township staff have any concerns with Mr. Tupling's request. 1. THAT Report No. EES2004-40 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the Township of Oro-Medonte enters into a Site Plan Agreement with Mr. Tupling to construct a 12' x 24' porch onto his existing home located at 31 Bards Beach Road. 3. THAT the Clerk prepares a By-law for Council's consideration. 4. AN AT Mr. Tupling be notified of Council's decision. Ke'h n Direc or of Engineering and Environmental Services September, 2004 By-Law No. 2004- APPENDIX" A" SITE PLAN AGREEMENT - between - LAWRENCE WILLIAM TUPLING - and- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE DESCRIPTION OF LANDS Part Lot 6, Plan 546 (Formerly South Orillia) Being all of PIN #58531-0344 (Lt) Roll # 4346-030-010-03200-0000 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 1 0 Schedule "A" Schedule "B" Schedule "C" Schedule "0" Schedule "E" THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SITE PLAN AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Covenants by the Owner Covenants by the Township Development Restrictions Development Changes Security Compliance Co-operation Binding Effect Severability of Clauses Save Harmless SCHEDULES Legal Description of Lands Site Plan Deeds and Easements to be Conveyed Itemized Estimate of Cost of Construction Standard Township Letter of Credit 2 SITE PLAN CONTROL AGREEMENT This Agreement made, in quadruplicate, this day of accordance with Section 41 of the Planninq Act. 2004, in BETWEEN: lAWRENCE WilLIAM TUPLING Hereinafter called the "Owner" PARTY OF THE FIRST PART -and- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE Hereinafter called the "Township" PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Owner has applied to the Township of Oro-Medonte to permit a porch addition to the existing home on lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto; AND WHEREAS the Township has enacted a Sy-Iaw to provide for the designation of the lands as a "Site Plan Control Area"; AND WHEREAS the Owner intends to develop the lands in accordance with the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule "S"; NOW THEREFORE This Agreement Witnesseth THAT in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows: :\ 1. COVENANTS BY THE OWNER The Owner covenants and agrees as follows: a) The Owner owns the subject lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto, and has provided the Township with a Registered Deed containing the legal description of the subject lands. b) This Agreement may be registered against title to these subject lands and shall take priority over any subsequent registrations against the title to the subject lands. c) No work shall be performed on the lands, nor any use made of the subject lands with respect to the proposed development, except in conformity with all the provisions of this Agreement. d) The Owner shall, prior to the execution of this Agreement, obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Township and from all Ministries and Agencies, including, but not limited to, the County of Simcoe. e) The Owner shall, prior to the execution of this Agreement, pay all municipal taxes and charges related to obtaining the approval of these lands for the intended use. f) The Owner shall pay a refundable deposit for such reasonable costs as may be involved to the Township in having its Solicitor, Engineer, Planner and staff, perform any work in connection with this Agreement, including the preparation, drafting, execution, and registration of this Agreement. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of performance of all the Owner's obligations hereunder, unless the context othelWise requires. Every provision of this Agreement, by which the Owner is obligated in any way, shall be deemed to include the words "at the expense of the Owner", unless specifically stated othelWise. The refundable deposit for expenses and actual cost shall be $N/A. The Owner shall replenish the refundable deposit, to its full amount, when the expenses and actual costs are submitted by the Township. g) The Owner shall have delivered to the Township, all Transfers/Deeds, Discharges and Easements, or other documents required by Schedule "C", as well as certification from the Owner's Solicitor that the Transfer/Deeds and Easements shall provide the Township with good title, free and clear from all encumbrances. h) The Owner acknowledges that the lot does not front on an improved public road, that the Township does not or is not required to maintain or snowplow the said road, that the Township will not take over or assume the private road as a Township public road or street unless it has been built according to the Township standards, then in force, an d that the Township is not liable for any injuries, losses or damages as a consequence of the Township issuing a Building Permit. 2. COVENANTS BY THE TOWNSHIP The Township covenants and agrees as follows: a) That the Township has enacted a By-law to permit a porch addition to the existing home described on the Site Plan. b) That the Township agrees that subject to compliance by the Owner with all relevant Municipal By-laws and Provincial Statutes and Regulations, the Owner may proceed to develop the subject lands, as indicated on the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule "B", subject to the development restrictions contained herein. 4 3. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that any use of the subject lands by the Owner shall be on and subject to the following terms and conditions: a) Site Plan The use and development of the subject lands shall be in accordance with and as set out on the Site Plan, attached hereto as Schedule "B". b) Liqhtinq All lighting systems installed outside, such as floodlights, shall be directed away from any adjacent residential use and/or roadway, not to cause interference in any way. c) Parkinq Areas and Drivewavs All parking areas and driveways shall be constructed, in conformity with Sections 5.19 and 5.20 of By-law No. 97-95, as amended, and the Ontario Building Code Regulation #419/86, and such parking areas, loading and access areas shall be kept free and clear of snow and ice and kept adequately drained. All entrances shall be constructed, as in Schedule "B", attached. The Owner agrees to obtain all necessary approvals from the Ministry of Transportation, County of Simcoe and Township of Oro- Medonte. d) Outside Storaqe No outside storage shall be permitted between any buildings on the premises and any street. Any other outside storage shall be contained in the fenced compound, as identified on Schedule "B". e) Garbaqe Storaqe The Owner agrees to provide suitable storage areas for garbage and waste, as shown on the Site Plan, and to install and maintain litter containers in and around development on the lands. All metal scrap and associated refuse contained in the fenced compound shall be removed on a weekly basis. f) Landscapinq The Owner shall complete all landscaping and landscaped areas shown on the Site Plan, attached as Schedule "B", as soon as weather permits, and all grading and sodding required, according to any Engineering drawings submitted, shall be done on all lawn areas. g) Erosion and Siltation Control The Owner must take all necessary precautions to prevent erosion and sedimentation of ditches and culverts, slopes, etc., within the Site Plan, and downstream prior to and during construction. The Owner agrees to maintain all erosion and siltation control devices in good repair until vegetative cover has been successfully established. 4. DEVELOPMENT CHANGES The parties acknowledge and agree that there shall be no changes to this Agreement or the Schedules attached hereto, unless and until such changes have been approved by all Parties. It is the intention of the parties that material amendments to this Agreement be 5 properly recorded. Such amendments may take the form of a registered Amending Agreement, an unregistered Agreement, exchange of correspondence, Memorandum of Confirmation, or notations on Engineering Drawings. The nature of such record of amendment shall depend on circumstances. 5. SECURITY Prior to signing the Agreement, the Owner will deposit with the Treasurer of the Township, to cover the faithful performance of the obligations of the Owner arising under this Agreement, including but not limited to the construction of the works and services identified in Schedule "D" to this Agreement (the "said Work"), the following securities: a) Cash in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the said work, as approved by the Township Engineer and Township Council, or: b) An irrevocable Letter of Credit from a Chartered Bank, issued in accordance with the requirements of Schedule "E", with an automatic renewal clause in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs of the said works, and as approved by the Township Engineer. The Letter of Credit shall be for a minimum guaranteed period of one (1) year, or such time as the Township decides, and shall be renewed automatically, as necessary, thirty (30) days prior to expiration. c) The Township reserves the right to accept or reject any of these alternative methods of providing securities. Prior to depositing the securities, the Owner's Engineer shall submit an estimate of the cost of the works to the Township Engineer for approval. When the cost estimate has been approved, it will be set out in Schedule "D" of this Agreement and will become the basis for the limits of the securities. d) Any Letter of Credit or security filed with the Township is based upon the estimated cost of completing the various matters prescribed by this Agreement. However, all Letters of Credit and Security received by the Township may be used as security for any item or any other matter which, under the terms of this Agreement, is the responsibility of the Owner, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, payment of engineering, legal, planning or other costs incurred by the Township, which are the responsibility of the Owner, under the terms of this Agreement. e) Upon written notification by the Owner's agent, certifying that all required works for which the Letter of Credit was submitted have been completed in accordance with the plans submitted and upon confirmation by the Township or its agent that the Owner's obligations under this Agreement have been completed, the Township will return said Letter of Credit. f) If in the event of default of the Owner under any of the provisions of this Agreement, it becomes necessary for the Township to realize on its security or deposits, then the Township shall give, by registered mail, twenty-one (21) day's notice, its intent to draw down on the security or deposit. 6. COMPLIANCE Any action taken by the Township or on its behalf, pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in addition to and without prejudice to any security or other guarantee given on behalf of the Owner for the performance of its covenants and agreements herein, and upon default on the part of the Owner hereunder, the Township shall, in addition to any other remedy available to it, be at liberty to utilize the provisions of Section 325 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended. 6 7. CO-OPERATION The Owner consents to the registration of this Agreement by the Township, upon the title of the subject lands, at the expense of the Owner and agrees to execute such further and other documents, consents or applications, as required, for the purpose of securing registration and giving effect to the provisions of this Agreement. 8. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement, and everything contained herein, shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Parties hereto, and upon the lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto, such Schedule being a legal description of the lands, and it is further agreed that this Agreement shall be prepared, approved and registered on title. 9. SEVERABILITY OF CLAUSES Should any Section, Subsection, Clause, Paragraph or Provision of this Agreement be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Agreement as a whole or any part thereof, other than the provision so declared to be invalid. 10. SAVE HARMLESS The Owner, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to indemnify and save harmless, the Township from and against any and all claims, suits, actions and demands whatsoever, which may arise either directly or indirectly by reason of any work or service performed by the Township, its servants or sub-contractors in order to complete the work or services required to be completed under this Agreement, provided the subject matter of such action, suits, claims or demands was not caused intentionally or through gross negligence on the part of the Township, its servants or agents or sub-contractors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereunto have affixed their respective seals under the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) Owner: ) ) ) ) ) The Corporation of the ) Township of Oro-Medonte ) ) per: ) ) ) ) J. Neil Craig, Mayor ) ) ) ) Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk ) 7 SCHEDULE "A" NOTE: It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Lawrence William Tupling. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS Part Lot 6, Plan 546 (formerly South Orillia), being all of PIN #58531-0344 (Lt), Roll # 4346-030-010-03200-0000 8 NOTE: SITE PLAN SCHEDULE "B" It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Lawrence William Tupling. Site Plan is not in a registerable form and is available from the Township of Oro-Medonte. 9 SCHEDULE "C" NOTE: It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Ora-Medonte and Lawrence William Tupling. DEEDS AND EASEMENTS TO BE CONVEYED All title documents shall be properly drawn and executed by the parties, with the appropriate Lot or Block Number inserted in the description of the document, and the registered Plan Number shall be left blank, to be inserted by the Solicitors for the parties after the Plan is registered and a Plan Number assigned. The consideration for all conveyances shall be the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) and the cost of preparation, execution and registration thereof, shall be borne by the Owner. All documents to be registered, shall be prior approved by the Solicitor for the Township. The following land and easement shall be conveyed: 1.0 LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP N/A 2.0 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO BE CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP N/A 10 SCHEDULE "D" NOTE: It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Lawrence William Tupling. ITEMIZED ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION 1. ITEMIZE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE AMOUNT N/A 2. LETTERS OF CREDIT AMOUNT Letter of Credit to be provided by the Owner to ensure completion of all works required under the terms of this Agreement, as noted in Section 5 herein. N/A II TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Repc<rt No. Bd2004-11 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Ronald M Kolbe Subject: Department: Building Report Council September 2004 Building C. of W. Date: October 1, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: Roll #: BuildinCl Permit September 2004 Year to Date U pdate 2004 Number of 98 748 Permits Construction $7,476,347.00 $48,454,331.00 Value Permit Fees $97,877.00 $435,761.00 Part 8 Permit Fees $12,055.00 $87,009.00 ~ 15 Single Family Dwellings bringing the total To-Date to 152 ~ The $3,000,000.00 Commercial Addition is at Wolf Steel (Napoleon Stoves) 1. THAT Report No. Bd2004-11 be received. Respectfully submitted, RJi flak- Ronald M. Kolbe, CBCO, AScT, MAATO Director of Building/Planning Development C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. ..,; - 2 - BuildinQ Definitions Accessory Building Addition Accessory Building Accessory Building Demolition Agricultural Building Agricultural Building Addition Agricultural Building Renovation Septic - Change of Use Commercial Building Commercial Building Addition Commercial Building Demolition Commercial Building Renovation ACCADD ACCBLDG ACCDEM AGR AGRADD AGRREN ChangeUse COM COMADD COMDEM COMREN DECK DEMOLITION FIREPLACE GARAGE INDADD MISC MRES POOL PORCHCOV Covered Porch PUB Public Building SEPTIC New Septic System SFD Single Family Dwelling SFDADD Single Family Dwelling Addition SFDDEM Single Family Dwelling Demolition SFDREN Single Family Dwelling Renovation SHED SIGNS SUNROOM Industrial Addition Miscellaneous Multi-Residential Permit Sumlnary Township of Oro-Medonte From 2004/09/01 to 2004/09/30 Totals ~-'. ~.1iJj" Construction Type Outstanding Complete Deficient Cancelled Permits Value Fees ACCADD 2 0 0 0 2 $17,000.00 $137.00 ACCBLDG 7 0 0 0 7 $192,000.00 $1,521.00 ACCDEM 0 0 0 $0.00 $50.00 AGR 0 0 0 $20,000.00 $150.00 ChangeUse 5 0 0 6 $0.00 $400.00 COM 2 0 0 0 2 $29,000.00 $150.00 COMADD 0 0 0 $3,000,000.00 $24,000.00 DECK 7 2 0 0 9 $24,000.00 $775.00 DEMOLITION 0 0 0 $0.00 $50.00 GARAGE 4 0 0 0 4 $76,200.00 $425.00 MISC 2 0 0 0 2 $15,000.00 $0.00 POOL 2 0 0 0 2 $30,000.00 $50.00 PUBREN 0 0 0 $5,000.00 $0.00 SEPTIC 27 0 0 0 27 $0.00 $6,750.00 SFD 15 0 0 0 15 $3,546,385.00 $25,590.00 SFDADD 11 0 0 0 11 $497,762.00 $3,922.00 SFDDEM 0 0 0 $0.00 $50.00 SFDREN 2 2 0 5 $24,000.00 $575.00 91 6 0 98 $7,476,347.00 $64,595.00 Friday, October 01,2004 Page 1 of 1 Permit SUlnlnary Township of Oro-Medonte From 2004/01/01 to 2004/09/30 Totals Construction Type Outstanding Complete Deficient Cancelled Permits Value Fees ACCADD 3 0 0 4 $40,000.00 $580.18 ACCBLDG 36 4 0 0 40 $1,163,300.00 $9,932.00 ACCDEM 2 0 0 0 2 $0.00 $100.00 ACCREN 0 2 0 0 2 $12,000.00 $150.00 ADDITIOl'" 0 0 0 $48,048.00 $409.00 AGR 7 2 0 0 9 $201,163.00 $1,981.00 AGRDEM 0 0 2 $0.00 $50.00 ChangeUse 7 29 0 0 36 $0.00 $1,700.00 COM 5 0 0 0 5 $122,500.00 $987.00 COMADD 2 0 0 0 2 $3,045,000.00 $24,377.00 COMREN 4 0 0 5 $352,000.00 $2,285.00 DECK 45 17 0 0 62 $250,275.00 $6,219.00 DEMOLITION 12 6 0 0 18 $0.00 $650.00 GARAGE ]4 3 0 ]8 $257,200.00 $2,019.00 IND 2 0 0 0 2 $549,505.00 $4,434.00 MISC 15 3 0 19 $42,500.00 $950.00 MRES 11 0 47 0 58 $3,475,600.00 $33,102.00 POOL 21 9 0 0 30 $384,745.00 $],700.00 PORCHCOVER 4 0 0 0 4 $35,970.00 $437.00 PUBREN 0 0 2 $47,000.00 $343.00 RENOVATION 4 0 6 $60,500.00 $550.00 SEPTIC 140 7 50 ]98 $173,098.00 $47,400.00 SFD 123 0 29 0 ]52 $36,556,925.00 $286,554.00 SFDADD 30 0 32 $1,213,826.00 $10,482.00 SFDDEM 4 7 0 0 11 $0.00 $2,3]7.00 SFDREN 14 5 0 20 $325,354.00 $3,616.00 SHED 0 0 2 $] 1,000.00 $225.00 SIGNS 2 0 0 0 2 $9,000.00 $150.00 SUNROOM 3 0 0 4 $77 ,822.00 $702.00 .........._........,......~.....__..- ............m........."".."_..........._.................................m.~ .........".........................- 513 101 13] 3 748 $48,454,331.00 $444,401.1 8 Friday, October 01,2004 For Period from Thursday, January 01,2004 to Thursday, September 30,2004 Page 1 oj 1