06 21 2006 Council Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2006
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
.....................................................................................................................
1. OPENING OF MEETING BY THE MAYOR
2. PRA YER/CONTEMPLATION/REFLECTION
3. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
5. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
6. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
a) Minutes of Council Meeting of June 7,2006.
7. RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS:
a) Patricia McCracken, 2006 Senior of the Year Award.
b) Carl Campitelli, Heritage Community Recognition Program (Natural).
c) Jerry Ball, Certificate of Achievement, Community Emergency Management
Co-ordinator Course, Emergency Management Ontario.
d) Hugh Murray, Certificate of Achievement, Community Emergency Management
Co-ordinator Course, Emergency Management Ontario.
8. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 7:15 p.m. Notice of Intention to Pass a By-Law to Amend Fees and Charges.
9. DEPUTATIONS:
a) 7:30 p.m. Lynette Mader, Oro-Medonte Ad Hoc Working Group - Medical Services,
re: Report on Status.
10. CONSENT AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE:
a) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, minutes of April 28, 2006 meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Receipt.
b) Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, minutes of May 12, 2006 meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Receipt.
c) Orillia Public Library Board, minutes of April 26, 2006 meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Receipt.
d) Kristal Crawford, Physician Recruitment Coordinator, Community Task Force for
Physician Recruitment, correspondence dated June 2, 2006, re: Letter of Appreciation.
Staff Recommendation: Receipt.
11. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
None.
12. REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS:
a) Report No. ADM 2006-037, Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Church Woods Property,
Shanty Bay.
13. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
a) Committee of the Whole minutes, meeting held on June 14, 2006.
14. COMMUNICATIONS:
a) Gayle Wood, Chief Administrative Officer, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority,
correspondence dated May 11, 2006 re: Natural Heritage System, Land Securement
Project, 2006-2010 [complete package available in Clerk's office].
15. IN-CAMERA:
a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO and Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re:
Legal Matter.
16. BY-LAWS:
a) By-Law No. 2006-050 Being a by-law to require land or cash-in-lieu thereof for park
or other public recreational purposes as a condition of the
development or redevelopment of land and to repeal By-Law
No. 2004-076.
b) By-Law No. 2006-061 A By-law to Prohibit Smoking in All Enclosed Workplaces
Owned and Operated by The Corporation of the Township of
Oro-Medonte And to Repeal By-law No. 2001-90.
c) By-Law No. 2006-063 A By-law of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
to amend By-law No. 2005-043, being a by-law to provide for
the imposition of fees or charges.
d) By-Law No. 2006-064 A By-law to Authorize the Execution of a Site Plan Control
Agreement between The Corporation of the Township of Oro-
Medonte and Steven Campbell described as lands as follows:
Lot 71, Plan 1464, Being all of PIN #58561-0067 (Lt) Roll
#4346-010-011-151 00-0000 Township of Oro-Medonte,
County of Simcoe.
e) By-Law No. 2006-065 Being a By-law to remove the Holding symbol applying to
lands located at Lot 71, Plan 1464, municipally known as 16
Mazepa Place (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte (Roll # 4346-
010-011-15100) (S. Campbell).
17. CONFIRMATION BY-LAW NO. 2006-062.
18. QUESTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
19. ADJOURNMENT
ADDENDUM
/\
L,f ! .k '
, 71
Ii
COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
15. IN-CAMERA:
b) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Personnel Matter.
16. BY-LAWS:
f) By-Law No. 2006-067 A By-law to amend the zoning provisions which apply to
lands within Lots 1 to 66, Plan 51 M-741 (Oro), Township of
Oro-Medonte (Laurel View Homes (H.V.) Inc. I Horseshoe
Resort).
~
M
~~
..... ..
~
er
n
p
~
...
...
lll.
...
:=
...
...
ct
...
CI
~
~
b:l
~
-
-
CI
:=
...
CI
=
't:l
-
...
...
-,
CI
:=
CI
.-
...
'='
...
9
~
~
~
~
~.
~
(t,
~
(t,
~
~
~
~
~
(t,
~
(t,
~
.......
9
<:)
~
~
~.
~
.......
<:)
~
9
~
~
(t,
CI
:=
~
;:s
~
0\
I
$'
t...J
o
o
0\
~~
::::
;::;' ~ .
~~
~
I
L
n
'"
;::1.
81
'"
~
'"
Z
S
cr"
'"
::
n
tI1
~
n
I
o
V>
I
o
'"
I
o
w
.~
M
~~
..... ..
~
n
p
~
...
...
lll.
...
:=
...
...
ct
...
CI
?
;:s-.
~
~
(j
<:)
~
~
~
~
-.
~
t:l"j
~
(t,
~
(t,
~
~ g
~ ~
~ ~
~ ::::
~ g
(t, CI
~ ::
(t, ~
~
.......
9
<:)
~
-.
~
~
.......
<:)
~
9
~
~
(t,
CI
:=
~
;:s
~
0\
I
.'0
t...J
o
o
0\
p
".
i~
lll.
... 1-..
~~
s~
~~
I
n
g.
a
'"
~
'"
z
S
cr"
'"
::
n
~
n
I
o
V>
I
o
'"
I
-
w
'\
X
uC(
DRAFT
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-063
A By-law of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
to amend By-law No. 2005-043, being a by-law to provide for the imposition of
fees or charges
WHEREAS Part XII, Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, $,0. 2001, c. 25, as
amended, permits a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class
of persons, for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; for costs
payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other
municipality or local board; and for the use of its property including property under its
control;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte did, on the 4th day of May
2005, enact By-law No. 2005-043 to provide for the imposition of fees or charges;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte did, on the 14th day of
December, 2005 resolve to increase ice rental fees by 10% effective September 1,
2006;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
hereby enacts as follows:
1. That Section 1 of Schedule "D" - "Parks and Recreation" of By-law No. 2005-043 be
repealed in its entirety and replaced by the following:
"1. ICE RENTALS
Prime Time (5:00 p.m. to Close & Weekends)
Non-Prime Time (before 5:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri.)
Minor Hockey I AAA tce Men I Figure Skating
$125.00/hour
$74.00/hour
$90.00/hour"
4, That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the 1" day of September
2006.
Read a first and second time this
day of
2006.
Read a third time and finally passed this
day of
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn Pennycook
Overview of presentation
, . _. 91:\) f\
~"~-t~ \'\o,~ -X:~
~-t\ "'-<\ ~"'c.... ~,'\."-'~
\r-\.c.Y.)~-\\...s.~\ \.c.~ ~W\ ,M
~~\J~"~\vV\ \~N '~\\~\)C)\()
\bu",-c., \ ""-\~_\
C\'\ x~-)
Deputation to Ora Medonte Council June 21, 2006
Introductions
Mandate of Physician Recruitment Ad Hoc Working Group: combine the resources of Oro
Medonte Council, the physician recruitment committees, residents and local associations to identify
physicians willing to locate to Oro Medonte and detennine the process to support their relocation to
Oro Medonte,
The role of this working group is to:
. Develop and implement recruitment strategies
. Determine a short and long term financial plan for a medical services for Oro Medonte
. Liaise with local charitable groups and residents to encourage solid community support
. Identify a suitable location for medical services
. Negotiate with physicians interested in relocating to Oro Medonte
Working Group Members
open to all residents of Oro Medonte
two public open houses: representatives from Council; Barrie & Area Physician Recruitment
Task Force; Orillia & Area Physician Recruitment; community members from all wards of
Oro Medonte; representative from local Lion's Club, the Chambre of Commerce and North
Simcoe community paper,
Core group of 20 moving forward
Subcommittees established for specific tasks - networking w. physicians; potential partners
and developing business plans
The group identified that four components are required to move this initiative forward:
1. Location
2. Physicians
3. Business plan
4, Patients
What we've accomplished so far:
Networked with physician contacts
Sub-committee established criteria for potential locations for a medical centre
Posted ad for potential medical centre locations
Networked with Physician Recruitment Task Forces for Barrie and Orillia areas and BCHC
Oro Medonte medical fonn redistribution - every citizen now has an opportunity to put
their name on a list that will go to new doctors
A sub-comlnittee was established to look at various options for bringing medical services to
Oro Medonte and prepare a business plan (thank members for their work; honoured to
represent their efforts here today)
One of those options was a proposal for Oro Medonte to be a point of access for BCHC -
goal is to piggyback on existing services to gain efficiencies and benefit from established
expertise/ administrative management (and provincial funding!)
BCHC photo:
Presented proposal to BCHC
Business proposal was included in BCHC budget submission to Provincial Government
Cooperation & support within the community:
Working group is not operating in isolation:
We're working with both Barrie & Orillia & Area Recmitment Task Forces
Credible proposal accepted by BCH C and presented to province for funding
Several councilors attend working group meetings
Next steps - coming back to the four components for success:
The Barrie Community Health Centre is the preferred option: it's neat & clean in regard to
ongoing funding, level of service, hiring, administration, liability and billing. If the province
accepts their budget submission, then BCHC will detennine the best location in Oro-
Medonte to serve residents. That notwithstanding, the committee has identified the Coulson
area as being most central and a facility does exist that can be efficiently outfitted to provide
a practice for family physicians,
Physicians: with support from the Barrie & area physician recmitment task force, we have
networked with several physicians and have more to meet, A number of these physicians are
strongly interested in practicing here and both recruitment task forces are helping to sell
doctors on this area.
Business plan: The committee has developed several business models but certainly the
preferred option is the community health centre model. This model requires volunteer and
community support. Should the BCHC submission for a point of access in Oro Medonte be
accepted by the provincial government, some initial financial support from the community
will be needed for start-up costs but after that, it would be a provincially funded service.
Patients: 6000 patients waiting to get in at Blake St, We're seeing in the news that seniors are
being denied access to family medial practices. Medical Survey showed a strong need for
doctors here; a sincere thank-you to council for the new medical form - we anticipate a
strong and grateful response from the community.
A request to Council
1. We ask Council to approve a motion that will enable medical services for Oro Medonte ,
We're requesting that the motion be for a grant or even a repayable loan for $50,000 of seed
money. This would cover start-up costs, and demonstrate municipal support to potential
funding partners.
2. Municipal support is an important criteria for being included in provincial budget
considerations. Subject to your approval of this request, BCHC is really interested in
investing in our township.
3. It that doesn't work, we'll look for other funding partners and/or explore a business model
that would see the clinic be self-sufficient.
Would having family physicians practice here be a good thing for the residents of Oro Medonte? -
sensible contribution to quality of life and economic development. We have all the pieces in place:
the last one is municipal support and that's what we're asking for today,
--: .
_??'~;"'C
_c,..
--: .
_??'~;"'C
_c,..
--
I~
"'J~
.~
r"'~_~-'Jt,. rl . -
__ .; r- - - ~l
. . r-_ ~I=-- .....-o-rl~1..11 -.. _ r. - I"-l~:r
~.!"'< 4-~:;-_.~ . .. ("'",.- ==
~~ -_""","t-
l ..._
- -
~-- -
- -..,
"':';'.'1
.~
"- ""',..,. .....~~~1."
~- < 4-~:, _.~
r. - I "-l~:-r
("",.- ==
__ .; r- - - ~l
r"'~_~-'Jt,. rl .
~~ -_""","t-
o
o
o
l ..._
- ~
~-- -
- -..,
mrUlrr 001
.~
r. - I "-l~:-r
("",.- - --
__ .; r- - - ~l
r"'~_~-'Jt",rl .
~~ -_""","t-
.....
\\fwrru@{~ ~-=>
.~
r. - I "-l~:-r
("",.- ==
__ .; r- - - ~l
r"'~_~-'Jt,. II . _
~~ -_""","t-
:!i
r
-~ c
----
~------- , I
. C .....fItIitu Be.lth Ceam B.
Bl.f1ll g".". " II ~
l ,.._
- ~
~-- -
-..,
---" "::.
l ..._
- ~
~-- -
- -..,
.~
r. - I "-l~:r
("",.- - --
__ .; r- - - ~l
r"'~_~-'Jt",rl .
~~ -_""","t-
l
!""='-
...
-
.~
r. - I "-l~:-r
("",.- ==
__ .; r- - - ~l
r"'~_~-'Jt,. II . _
~~ -_""","t-
o
l ..._
- -
~-- -
- -..,
---" "::.
.~
r. - I "-l~:-r
("",.- ==
__ .; r- - - ~l
~~ -_""","t-
.:
l
!""='-
... -
-..,
---" "::.
. ~
~- -<,~
......-
\() - \
Q)
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING NO. BOD-04-06
Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:00 a.m
LSRCA - Boardroom
MINUTES
Members Present:
Councillor Roy Bridge, Chair
Councillor V. Hackson, Vice-Chair
Mr. E. Bull
Councillor G. Davidson
Councillor B. Drew
Councillor K. Ferdinands
Mayor R. Grossi
Councillor B. Huson
Councillor P. Marshall
Councillor M. Nanowski
Councillor J. Rupke
Regional Councillor S. Self
Mayor K. Shier
Councillor Neal Snutch
MayorT. Taylor
Councillor J. West
Mayor J. Young
Regrets:
Councillor J. Moore
J. Dales, Honourary Member
G,R. Richardson, Honourary Member
Mayor R. Stevens
Staff:
D. Gayle Wood, CAO.lSecretary-Treasurer
B, Kemp, A1Director, Conservation Lands
M. Valcic, Director, Corporate Services
M. Mironov, Manager, Accounting
J, Hosick, Manager, Planning
T. Hogenbirk, Manager, Engineering & Technical
Services
G. Casey, Recording Secretary
Others:
M. Minnoch, Innisfil Scope
A. Byrne, Grant Thornton
D. Leighton, Urbantech I Matiamy Homes
M. Kingston, Mattamy Homes
K. Glasbergen, Mattamy Homes
DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There was no declaration of pecuniary interest or general nature thereof.
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Chair requested approval to amend the agenda by moving items V(a) and XI
(a), (b), and (c) forward to Item III (c), (d), and (e).
Moved by:
Seconded by:
J. West
K. Shier
April 28, 2006
Qi lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_. , Board of Directors' Meeting
800,04,06 ,Minutes
BOD-06-55
RESOLVED THAT the content of the Agenda be
approved as amended above.
CARRIED
III ADOPTION OF MINUTES
(a) Board of Directors
Moved by:
Seconded by:
S. Self
J, West
BOD-06-56
RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Board of
Directors' meeting No. BOD-03-06 be adopted as
printed.
CARRIED
(b) Conservation Ontario
Moved by:
Seconded by:
V. Hackson
J. Young
BOD-06-57
RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Conservation
Ontario Council Meeting held on February 27,2006,
be received for information.
CARRIED
(c) 2005 Audited Financial Statements & Manaqement Letter
The Director, Corporate Services presented Staff Report No, 03-06-AC identifying
an error on page two of the report which should reflect that the 2005 overview was
presented in November 2005.
The Director, Corporate Services provided an overview regarding the Authority's
reserves and outlined the next steps, The Board recommended that staff establish
both minimum and maximum balances for reserves.
The Director, Corporate Services indicated that the staff incentive program is
currently being reviewed in terms of relevance since the Authority recently
completed a Compensation Management Study, A report will be brought to the
Board for consideration in this regard,
Mr. Allister Byrne, Grant Thornton, reviewed the audit process undertaken for 2005
/
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
80ard of Directors' Meeting
800-04-06 - Minutes
April 28, 2006
and reported that there were no significant matters to report which would impact the
financial results. Mr. Byrne congratulated staff and thanked them for their full
cooperation during the audit.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
J. West
V. Hackson
BOD-06-58
RESOLVED THAT the presentation of the 2005
Audited Financial Statements and report to the
Board of Directors provided by Mr. Allister Byrne,
Grant Thronton, be received; and
FURTHER THAT staff be congratulated for a
successful 2005 audit.
CARRIED
Moved by:
Seconded by:
M. Nanowski
N. Snutch
BOD-06-59
RESOLVED THAT amended Staff Report No. 03-06-AC
regarding the Authority's 2005 Draft Audited Financial
Statements be received; and
THAT the Board approve the 2005 Draft Audited Financial
Statements; and
THAT the Board approve the Appropriations to Reserves
from operations as outlined in Schedule 6; and
FURTHER THAT the 2005 Audited Financial Statements be
circulated to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Authority's banker.
CARRIED
(d) 2006 Budqet
The CAO provided an overview of the budget process for the Board of Directors and
advised that throughout the process it became apparent that an 8% budget would
not be acceptable to the Authority's funding partners and have therefore finalized the
2006 budget with a 6% increase. This budget has been presented to municipal
Councils and has been endorsed. The CAO further advised that the Board will
be voting on this budget through a recorded weighted vote.
\
. ' Ql Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
~ Board of Directors' Moeting
BOD,04,06 Minutes
April 28, 2006
The CAO identified two areas of concern with the Authority's budget, those being
conservation lands and corporate communications. Both areas are significantly
under funded.
The CAO advised that the Authority owns approximately 1,000 hectares of lands
however have no funding to maintain these lands, Costs are increasing however the
general levy is not keeping pace. In terms of corporate communications, the current
budget holds $25,000 for corporate communications programs which is not
sufficient. It is becoming increasingly difficult to provide communications on Authority
projects and services to the public without an increase in budget.
The Board requested that staff provide a Staff Report with an appropriate
communications plan for the next Board Meeting.
The Director, Corporate Services presented amended Staff Report No, 04-06-AC.
Following the presentation, the Director, Corporate Services extended thanks to the
Management Team, the CAO and the Administrative Committee for all of their
support and direction throughout the budget process.
A recorded vote was conducted and the following table reflects the results:
MEMBER MUNICIPALITY WEtGHT YAY NAY
Councillor Roy Bridge Town Innislil 6.69% X
Councillor Jerry Moore City of Barrie 12.76% REGRETS
Eric Bull City of Barrie 12.76% X
Councillor George Davidson City of Kawartha Lakes 0.60% X
Councillor Bobbie Drew Region of Durham - Scugog 2.93% X
Councillor Ken Ferdinands Region of York, Whitchurch-Stouffville 7.14% X
Mayor Robert Grossi Region of York, Georgina 7.14% X
Councillor Virginia Hackson Region of York - East Gwillimbury 7.14% X
Councillor Barbara Huson Town of New T ecumseth 0.59% X
Councillor Paul Marshall Township Oro-Medonte 1.56% X
Councillor Mikki Nanowski Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury 4.70% X
Councillor Jack Rupke Region of York - King 7.14% X
Deputy Mayor Susan Self Region of Durham, Uxbridge 2.93% X
Mayor Keith Shier Region of Durham - Brock 2.93% X
Councillor Neil Snutch Township of Ramara 1.57% X
Mayor Tom Taylor Town of Newmarket 7.14% X
April 28, 2006
(ii) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
- Board of Directors Meeting
BOD-04-06 - Minutes
Councillor John G. West Region of York - Aurora 7.14% X
Mayor Jamie Young Region of York 7.14% X
TOTAL 100% 87.24%
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-60
J. West
G. Davidson
RESOLVED THAT amended Staff Report No. 04-06-
AC regarding the Authority's 2006 Budget be
received; and
THAT the Board approve of the 2006 Budget
Estimates in the amount of $12,484,867 as
presented in the 2006 Budget Book; and
THAT the Board approve the reserve appropriations
as outlined in the 2006 Budget Book; and
THAT copies of the approved budget be circulated
to our watershed member municipalities; and
FURTHER THAT each watershed member
municipality be formally advised of their respective
share of the General Levy and Special Capital Levy.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-61
CARRIED
S. Self
K. Shier
RESOLVED THAT a report be developed for the May
26,2006, Board meeting regarding the preparation
of the corporate communications strategy for the
Authority.
\b
,
April 28, 2006
Q);jii) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_ '. Board of Directors' Meeting
BOD-04-06 - Minutes
6
(e) Minutes - Administrative Committee - April 4, 2006
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-62
CARRIED
J, Young
J, West
RESOLVED THAT the minutes from the April 4th,
2006 meeting of the Administrative Committee be
approved as presented.
(f) Minutes - Administrative Committee - April 18. 2006
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-63
CARRIED
W ANNOUNCEMENTS
P. Marshall
B. Drew
RESOLVED THAT the minutes from the April 18,
2006 meeting of the Administrative Committee be
approved as presented.
(a) LSEMS Stakeholder Workshop
The Board was reminded of the LSEMS Stakeholder Workshop being held on
Saturday, May 6, 2006 at the Fern Resort in Orillia.
IX DELEGATIONS
(a) Relocation of a Watercourse - Newmarket
This item was brought forward in the agenda.
The Manager, Watershed Science presented Staff Report No, 18-06-BOD and
introduced Mr. Dave Leighton from Urbantech, to make a presentation on behalf of
Mattamy Homes.
\
Q) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_ . 80ard of Directors' Meeting
800-04-06 - Minutes
8
April 28, 2006
BOD-06-65 RESOLVED THAT the presentation provided by the
Director, Conservation Lands regarding the Beaver River
Wetlands securement project be received for information.
CARRIED
(c) Lake Simcoe Environmental Manaqement Strategv
The CAO provided a presentation on the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management
Strategy which included an overview on the October 2005 conference and the
March 31st, 2006 Stakeholders Workshop.
The CAO advised that through the workshop it is apparent that some stakeholder
groups will be advocating for a new governance and a new agency to lead the
LSEMS initiative and others will be advocating for the status quo.
Following the May 6th, 2006 workshop the recommendations will be reviewed and
a final recommendation will be made to the provincial and municipal governments
on how to move this forward,
Moved by:
Seconded by:
J. West
V. Hackson
BOD-06-66
RESOLVED THAT the presentation provided by the
CAO regarding the Lake Simcoe Environmental
Management Strategy be received for information.
CARRIED
VI DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Items 6 and 7 were identified for discussion,
VII ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Moved by:
Seconded by:
J. West
P. Marshall
BOD-06-67
RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations
respecting the matters listed as "Items Not
Q) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_ Board of Directors' Meeting
BOD-04-06 - Minutes
Page 9
Aprii 28, 2006
Requiring Separate Discussion" be adopted as
submitted to the Board and Staff be authorized to
take all necessary action required to give effect to
same.
CARRIED
1. Fill. Construction & Alteration to Waterwavs Applications
BOD-06-68
RESOLVED THAT applications under Section 28 of
the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario
Regulation 153/90, as amended by Ontario
Regulations 534/91 and 623/94, be received and
approved.
2. Correspondence (a)
BOD-06-69
RESOLVED THAT the correspondence listed in the
April 28, 2006 Agenda as Items 2 (a) be received for
information.
3. Monthly Communications Update
BOD-06-70
RESOLVED THAT the Monthly Communications
Update, for the period March 1 to 31, 2006, be
received for information.
4. Proaram Fees - Prof E.A.Smith Education Centre
BOD-06-71
RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 19-06-BOD
regarding increases to Educational Services Fees at
the Professor E.A. Smith Education Centre located
at Scanlon Creek Conservation Area, be received
for information; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained in
the Staff Report be approved for implementation in
2006.
\aC\~\
April 28, 2006
G)~ lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_ Board of Directors' Meeting
BOD-04-06 - Minutes
Page 10
5. Revised Authority Watershed Development Policies
BOD-06-72 THAT Staff Report No. 20-06-BOD regarding the revised
Authority Watershed Development Policy be received for
information; and
FURTHER THAT the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority adopt the revised Development Policies as
attached to this Staff Report..
CARRIED
VIII HEARINGS
There were no hearings scheduled for this meeting.
X CONSIDERA TION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARA TE DISCUSSION
6. Proposed Policy & Procedure Directive from MNR
The Board dealt with Staff Report No. 21-06-BOD regarding a proposed policy and
procedural directive issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR) which directs
MNR staff not to issue approvals under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.
Staff expressed a concern around the lack of support from MNR. Currently Staff and
MNR enforcement have a great partnership on the enforcement of these works.
The Board directed staff to issue a letter to all watershed municipalities requesting
that they support the Authority's position in this regard.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-73
CARRIED
T, Taylor
V. Hackson
THAT Staff Report No. 21-06-BOD be received for
information; and
THAT the Authority object to this change in MNR
policy as it will result in additional costs being
borne by the Conservation Authority without any
additional funding being provided by the Province;
and
FURTHER THAT watershed municipalities be
requested to support the Authority's resolution in
this regard.
\
- \\
Q)~ Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
_ Board of Directors' Meeting
BOD-04-06 - Minutes
Page 11
April 28, 2006
7. Planning Staff Turnaround Time
The Board dealt with Staff Report NO.22 -06-BOD which is a supplemental report
pertaining to the planning turnaround times and approved the content of this report
to improve service delivery time
Moved by:
Seconded by:
J, West
M. Nanowski
BOD-06-74
RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 22-06-BOD
regarding the Authority's Supplemental Report on
Planning Turnaround Times be received and
approved for implementation; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to find
efficiencies to improve planning services and that
these recommendations be brought to the Board of
Directors for approval.
XI OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Grossi extended thanks to Authority staff for their work on various
projects currently underway in the Town of Georgina.
XII ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11 :50 a,m. on a motion by J. Rupke
original signed by:
original signed by:
Roy Bridge,
Chair
D. Gayle Wood, CMM III
Chief Administrative Officer
-\
N.V.C.A. FULL AUTHORITY MEETING #05/06
MINUTES
Date:
Location:
Friday, 12 May 2006
Tiffin Centre for Conservation - John L. Jose Environmental Learnina Centre
PRESENT:
Chair:
Acting Vice Chair
Members:
Mary Brett
Orville Brown
Chris Carrier
Sandra Cooper
Lynn Dollin
Terry Dowdall
Tom Elliott
Wayman Fairweather
Ruth Fountain
Ron Henderson
Ralph Hough
Mike McWilliam
Garry Matthews
Ross Money
Gord Montgomery
Brian Mullin
Gerald Poisson
Ron Simpson
Joan Sutherland
Robert Walker
Barry Ward
Fred Nix
Bob Marrs
Town of Mono
Town of New Tecumseth
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Town of Clearview
Town of Collingwood
Town of Collingwood (arrived at 9:10)
Town of Innisfil
Township of Essa
Township of Springwater
Town of the Blue Mountains
Township of Oro-Medonte
Township of Essa
Township of Oro-Medonte
Town of Wasaga Beach
Township of Melancthon
Township of Springwater
Township of Mulmur
Municipality of Grey Highlands
City of Barrie
Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury
Town of New Tecumseth
Township of Clearview
City of Barrie (arrived at 9:15)
REGRETS:
Vice Chair: Walter Benotto
George Sheffer
Bob Currie
Town of Shelburne
Town of Wasaga Beach
Township of Amaranth
GUESTS
Mike Laycock, Auditor, B.o.O. Dunwoody
STAFF PRESENT:
CAO/Secretary- Treasurer
Director of Engineering & Tech Services
Director of Land & Water Stewardship Services
Manager, Stewardship Services
Healthy Waters Program Coordinator
Director of Planning
Watershed Planner
Manager of Finance
Manager Policy and Planning Regulations
Wayne R. Wilson
Glenn Switzer
Byron Wesson
Fred Dobbs
Shannon Stephens
Charles Burgess
Bob Law
Susan Whitters
Bev Booth
RECORDER: Laurie Barron, Administrative Assistant
\
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
-2.
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Fred Nix, Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
The Chair advised that Bob Marrs would be acting as Vice Chair in Walter Benotto's absence.
2. MOTION TO ADOPT AGENDA
Note additions:
Item 11.1 - Conservation Ontario meeting update
Item 11.2 - Source Water Protection meeting update (April 21S')
RES#1 MOVED BY: Robert Walker SECONDED BY: Orville Brown
RESOLVED THAT: The Agenda for Full Authority Meeting #05-06, dated 12 May 2006, be
adopted as amended.
Carried;
3. PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION
None noted
4. MINUTES
4.1 Minutes of Full Authority Meeting 04-06, dated 13 April, 2006.
RES#2 MOVED BY: Robert Walker SECONDED BY: Orville Brown
RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Full Authority Meeting 04-06, dated 13 April, 2006 be
approved.
Carried;
4.2 Draft Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 05-06, dated 28 April, 2006.
RES#3 MOVED BY: Chris Carrier SECONDED BY: Wayman Fairweather
RESOLVED THAT: The Draft Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 05-06, dated 28
April, 2006, be received.
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
None noted
ANNOUNCEMENT:
The Chair introduced and welcomed Sandra Cooper, Deputy Mayor for the Town of
Collingwood. Sandra will be replacing Kathy Jeffery representing the Town of Collingwood on
the Full Authority Board.
\
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
- 3 -
6. AUDITORS REPORT (Mike Laycock, B.D.O. Dunwoody of Barrie)
Mr. Laycock reviewed the 2005 Audited Financial Statements with the Full Board. Mr. Laycock
advised that there was no evidence of misstatement that would have a material affect on the
financial statement and accordingly, has issued an unqualified audit report.
RES#4
MOVED BY: Chris Carrier
SECONDED BY: Wayman Fairweather
RESOLVED THAT: The 2005 Audited Financial Statements presented by Mike Laycock, of
B.D.O. Dunwoody of Barrie, be received by the Full Authority,
Carried;
STAFF REPORTS
7. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND THE WATERSHED PLANNER
7.1 Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan
Bob Law, NVCA Watershed Planner made a PowerPoint presentation to the Full Board
outlining the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan. Three subwatershed plans have been
completed; Black Ash Creek, Willow Creek and the Innisfil Creek. The development of the
Innisfil plan involved several partners: Adjala-Tosorontio, Bradford West Gwilliimbury, Essa,
Innisfil, New Tecumseth, MNR, MaE, OMAF and Greenland & JTB Consultants.
Subwatershed Planning examines in some detail, an entire ecosystem (subwatershed). It
provides residents with a means of voicing expectations and is a mechanism to collect and
distribute information and baseline data. Subwatershed planning is a tool to resolve issues
and help ensure sustainability of water resources over the long-term.
During the planning process the residents were asked what their expectations were. Several
issues were addressed:
. Protect their stream, wetlands and woodlands (natural areas).
. Restore degraded natural areas where possible.
. Fix the water quality and protect their well water.
. Keep the stream flowing in dry summers; and
. Protect them from floods.
In order to meet the residents' expectations the following strategic direction was established:
. Subwatershed Goal, Objectives, Measurable Targets, Natural Heritage, Aquatic
Ecosystem and Water Management Strategies including 21 recommendations.
Preliminary subwatershed and preliminary Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) phosphorous
targets were established. The next step will be to determine the main source of impairment in
Innisfil Creek and the Nottawasaga River. Additional monitoring will be required to refine the
results of the ACS study.
The Subwatershed Plan was a pilot for the ACS water quality model (CANWET). The ACS
study results will directly impact the science of water management. The Implementation of
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
- 4-
this plan was questioned by board members. It is estimated that it could cost up to $28 million
to implement water quality improvement (Best Management Practices/recommendations). A
process and methodology needs to be established through the province and municipalities to
best implement these recommendations. The question was also raised as to whether the
County should be the planning authority looking to the developers to contribute to the costs of
water quality improvement.
The CAOISecretary Treasurer noted that the province is responsible for nutrient management
and this plan recommends nutrient management on a subwatershed basis which will require
the province to change its current approach.
A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is available to the members on request.
RES#5
MOVED BY: Wayman Fairweather SECONDED BY: Chris Carrier
RESOLVED THAT: The Planning Staff Report titled "Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan be
received and that the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan be adopted; and
THAT: The Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan be released following MOE's acceptance of the
Assimilative Capacity Study Technical Report on Pollutant Target Loads.
Carried;
7.2 Watershed Plan Update Status
Bob Law, Watershed Planner provided an update and explained why a decision had
been made to move the completion date up to the fall of 2006.
RES#6
MOVED BY: Tom Elliott
SECONDED BY: Gord Montgomery
RESOLVED THAT: The Watershed Plan Update Status report dated May 12/06 be
received,
Carried;
The Full Authority Recessed at 10:20 a.m.
The Full Authority Resumed at 10:30 p.m.
RES# 7
MOVED BY: Gord Montgomery
SECONDED BY: Robert Walker
RESOLVED THAT: The report of the Director of Planning and the Watershed Planner dated
12 May, 2006 be received.
Carried;
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
-5 -
8. REPORT OF THE CAO/SECRETARY-TREASURER AND THE MANAGER OF
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
8.1 Board Member Communication Survey
RES#8
MOVED BY: Gord Montgomery SECONDED BY: Mary Brett
RESOLVED THAT: The Board Members complete the Member Communication Survey as
circulated and forward the completed surveys to staff by 9 June, 2006.
Carried;
RES#9
MOVED BY: Ron Simpson
SECONDED BY: Ruth Fountain
RESOLVED THAT: The report of the CAO/Secretary Treasurer and the Manager of
Administration and Human Resources be received.
Carried;
9. REPORT OF THE CAO/SECRETARY-TREASURER
9.1 2006-2008 Business Plan
RES#10
MOVED BY: Ruth Fountain
SECONDED BY: Ron Simpson
RESOLVED THAT: The Full Authority approves the 2006-2008 Business Plan as a strategic
guidance document providing specific direction for the implementation of the approved 2006
budget; and further,
THAT: The strategic direction, targets and associated Financial Forecast for the 2007 and
2008 year within the plan be received as general guidance, which is non-binding on
subsequent year budget development and approval.
Carried unanimously;
The Chair directed staff to provide a copy of the Business Plan to each CAO of the NVCA
member municipalities.
9.2 Statement of Operations Summary for the Period ending March 31, 2006.
RES#11
MOVED BY: Tom Elliott
SECONDED BY: Mike McWilliam
RESOLVED THAT: The Statement of Operations Summary for the Period ending March 31,
2006 be received.
Carried;
\()'o- \jl
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
- 6-
9.3 Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) update
The CAO/Secretary Treasurer advised that a tentative schedule has been prepared to
make presentations to our member municipalities regarding the ACS. The
Conservation Authorities are awaiting a response from the Province for further direction
regarding the study.
RES#12
MOVED BY: Tom Elliott
SECONDED BY: Gord Montgomery
RESOLVED THAT: The Assimilative Capacity Study update presented by the
CAO/Secretary- Treasurer be received.
Carried;
RES#13
MOVED BY: Tom Elliott
SECONDED BY: Mike McWilliam
RESOLVED THAT: The report of the CAO/Secretary Treasurer dated 12 May, 2006 be
received.
Carried;
10. ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTES
10.1 Notes of the Land & Water Stewardship Advisory Committee Mtg. #02/06 dated 13
April, 2006.
RES#14
MOVED BY: Ruth Fountain SECONDED BY: Ron Simpson
RESOLVED THAT: The recommendations of the Land & Water Stewardship Advisory
Committee Mtg. #02106 dated 13 April, 2006 be endorsed by the Full Authority.
Carried;
10.2 Notes of the Engineering and Technical Services Advisory Committee
Mtg. #02/06 dated 13 April, 2006.
The Chair noted that the presentation made at the Engineering Advisory Committee on
April 13th re: "Watershed Characterization Report" provided valuable information.
Verbal direction from the Chair, that the report be placed on the NVCA web site, and
presented at a future meeting of the Full Authority.
RES#15
MOVED BY: Brian Mullin
SECONDED BY: Tom Elliott
RESOLVED THAT: The recommendations of the Engineering Advisory Committee Mtg.
#02/06 dated 13 April, 2006 be endorsed by the Full Authority.
Carried;
\
~
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
-7 -
10.3 Notes of the Planning Advisory Committee Mtg. #02/06 dated 13 April,
2006.
RES#16
MOVED BY: Robert Walker
SECONDED BY: Tom Elliott
RESOLVED THAT: The recommendations of the Planning Advisory Committee Mtg. #02/06
dated 13 April, 2006 be endorsed by the Full Authority.
Carried;
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.1 The CAO/Secretary Treasurer highlighted items addressed at the Conservation
Ontario meeting held on April 24/06:
. Liability Insurance costs for all Conservation Authorities are being reviewed with the
goal of placing all CA's under an additional $4 million general liability umbrella to
help reduce the premium increases.
. A new Chair has been elected for Conservation Ontario, Dick Hibma, Chair of the
Grey Sauble CA.
. The storm water management concerns due to global warming was referred by
resolution to the joint MNR/CO Flood Forecasting and Warning working Group to
address current standards.
. The second reading for the Clean Water Act occurred on April 12/06. It is anticipated
that a standing committee will hold meetings to receive input. The regulations should
be passed early in 2007.
. Conservation Ontario feels that there is a need for an integrated approach on all
water management issues in the province. The role and responsibility of the
Conservation Authorities needs to be clarified under the Clean Water Act. The
current bill relies 100% on regulation. There are other devices such as incentives
and education that could be used. Funding for implementation needs to be
addressed; the bill is currently silent on that. The Clean Water Act does not address
private wells or a land owner incentive component.
11.2 The Source Water Protection Study for Dufferin County was discussed. Cross
Boundary issues will need to be addressed in the plans. Staff have received a copy of
the draft terms of reference which will be reviewed and discussed with the NVCA
Executive. Garry Matthews advised that Melancthon has received confirmation that
they will receive additional monies to finance the study, over and above the current
funding.
\
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
- 8 -
12. CORRESPONDENCE
(a) Letter from MHBC Planning to Charles Burgess, Director of Planning dated
March 28/06 re: IGAP Event, Formal Request to use the Tiffin Centre.
(b) News Release from the Ministry of the Environment dated April 21/06 re:
Ontario Helps Communities Protect Drinking Water Sources.
(c) Bill 106, "An Act to establish a natural heritage system and watershed
protection area for Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River, 1st reading, April
25/06.
(d) Source Water Protection News Release dated April 26/06 re: Province
partners with local agencies to protect drinking water sources,
RES#17
MOVED BY: Ruth Fountain SECONDED BY: Ron Simpson
RESOLVED THAT: The correspondence not specifically dealt with be placed on file.
Carried;
13. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
NVCA Stewardship Services
Fred Dobbs, Manager of Stewardship Services and Shannon Stephens, Healthy Waters
Coordinator gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Full Board outlining the work that has been
completed, and projects planned for Stewardship Services.
The Healthy Waters Grant Incentive, Community River Restoration, Outreach and Education
and Fisheries Habitat Management programs are providing a valuable tool to help ensure the
future of our healthy water through stewardship programs.
The Forestry Program provides tree planting/reforestation, an Arbour Day Sale where
residents can purchase trees at a reasonable cost, and the Managed Forest Program, all of
which ensure the continued health of our forests.
These programs work in partnership with the community to implement local projects that
protect and restore our environment.
14. FUTURE MEETINGS/EVENTS:
~ Arbour Day - May 6/06
~ Executive Meeting - May 26/06
~ Native Plant Sale - June 3/06
~ Full Authority Meeting - June 9/06
~ Ian Lang Memorial Trail Dedication- June 23/06
(Nottawasaga Bluffs, 3 p.m.)
MEETING No: 05-06
12 May, 2006
\
,
-
FULL AUTHORITY MINUTES
- 9 -
15. ADJOURNMENT
RES#18
MOVED BY: Tom Elliott
SECONDED BY: Brian Mullin
RESOVLED THAT: This meeting adjourn at 11 :32 a.m. to meeting again at the call of the
Chair.
Carried;
Fred Nix, N.V.C.A. Chair
W. Wilson, C.A.O.lSecretary-Treasurer
Dated on the 9TH day of June, 2006
JV-.-/
l~
ORlLLIA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
\
MINUTES OF APRIL 26.2006 MEETING
A regular meeting of the Library Board was held in the Children's Services Department
of the Library commencing at 7:25 p.m.
PRESENT - BOARD - C. Dowd, Chair; 1. Beresford; C. Couper; J. Crawford; J. Francis;
F. Kreisz; P. Spears; J. Swartz
- STAFF - M. Saddy, Chief Executive Officer
S. Campbell, Director of Children's Services
1. Gibbon, Director of Information Services
D. Rowe, Director of Technical Services
T. Chatten, Recorder
ABSENT - C. Garland
Welcome to new board member John Swartz who is filling the vacancy left by J.
MacDonald. John brings previous library board experience to our aid.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF-None
CONSENT AGENDA
Revised minutes were distributed to board members to replace those included in the
board package.
MOTION #2006:16
Moved by C. Couper, seconded by J. Francis that the consent agenda of the Apri/26,
2006 meeting be adopted. CARRIED
P. Spears will act as the timekeeper for the agenda.
REPORT OF FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
Representatives of the Friends were unable to attend the recent presentation to Council
as they held a meeting the same evening. F. Kreisz reviewed items discussed at this
meeting.
REPORTS OF BOARD COMMITTEES AND REPRESENTATIVES
Building Steering Committee - The Fundraising Feasibility Study was presented to the
City Council Committee meeting on April 24, 2006. The establishment of a Task Force
was agreed to at this time, with building steering committee members to be named by
the next Council meeting. It was recommended that the Mayor be named to chair the
task force.
\
(: -
The report from City Manager Ian Brown was discussed regarding the recommendation
of hiring of a project manager. An invitation will be extended to Brian Jewitt to the May
board meeting to answer any questions that people would like clarified.
Strategic Planning Committee - The CEO prepared and presented the CEO/Staff 2006
Action Plan for the Library.
L. Beresford had to leave the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
The document was reviewed and discussed in detail with the motion to accept tabled
until the next meeting for further review by M. Saddy and possible suggestions by
absent board members.
MOTION #2006:17
Moved by F. Kreisz, seconded by P. Spears that the Orillia Public Library Board amend
the Action Plan to include recognition of the Federation of Ontario Public Libraries.
CARRIED
MOTION #2006:18
Moved by C. Couper, seconded by J. Crawford that the Board Action Plan be amended
to include:
- Presentfinal report of DVA Navion to Councils of the City and surrounding
municipalities
- Establish a new library taskforce CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
Letter in Support of Friend's Nomination of Order of Orillia - The letter was reviewed
and approved for the signature of the Board chair.
Policy Amendment - A report was prepared by S. Campbell and discussed.
MOTION #2006:19
Moved by P. Spears, seconded by J. Francis that PoliGy 821 be amended to read as
follows:
"From the Children's Department, any reasonable number of books, 3 cassettes,
3 multimedia kits, 3 compact discs, 3 sound recordings, and 3 CD ROMs, and
any reasonable number of pamphlets, periodicals and pictures may be
borrowed at one time. The Library reserves the right to restrict the number of
items borrowed." CARRIED
Adjournment at 9:27 p.m. moved by J. Swartz.
BOARD CHAIR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
\Del
Community Task Force for Physician Recruitment
c/o Kiistal Crawford, Physician Recnlitment Coordinator
201 Georgian Drive, Barrie, Ontario 1A;\-1 61'\'12
Phone: 705728-9090 x4294
Fax: 705 728-2408
Email: crawfordk(@nrh.on.ca
Mayor Neil Craig
148 Line 7 South
Oro, ON
LOL 2X0
RECE\\I\:U\
- j\lN\l%l\l\l~ \
OOI'l'TE
O~O-tJlE. ~ :
"O\NI'lS~\
June 2, 2006
Dear Mayor Craig,
On behalf of the Community Task Force for Physician Recruitment, we wish to extend our deepest
appreciation to the council of the Township of Oro-Medonte for the generous contribution to the
physician recruitment initiative in our community. We are in receipt of your contribution for
2006/07 in the amount of $15,000.
Your support will greatly assist our physician recruitment and retention efforts and help to ensure
quality health care is maintained throughout our community. We will continue to provide you with a
quarterly update on our successes, difficulties and key initiatives for the future, unless more frequent
submissions are necessary.
Again, thank you for your support.
Yours Truly,
Kristal
Physician Recruitment & Retention Coordinator
Working together to provide quality healthcare our
\ ~ \
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
ADM 2006-037 Committee of the Whole Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO
Subject: Department:
Council Church Woods Property, Administration
Shanty Bay
C.ofW. Date:
June15,2006
Motion # R.M. File #:
Date: RolI#:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
II BACKGROUND:
~
The Church Woods property is a 25 acre parcel of land located within the village of Shanty Bay,
which has been identified as an Old Growth Forest.
At its meeting of June 7, 2006, Council received a deputation from a Residents' Group, in partnership
with The Couchiching Conservancy, with respect to a fundraising campaign to acquire the Church
Woods property (ATTACHMENT #1), During the deputation, the Residents' Group requested that
the Township of Oro-Medonte partner with the group and The Couchiching Conservancy in the
acquisition of the Church Woods property by making a donation of 10% of the total purchase price of
$600,000,00,
II ANALYSIS:
I(
During the compilation of data and public meetings held with respect to the preparation of the Oro-
Medonte Parkland Secondary Study, the public repeatedly expressed their desire for additional green
space within the Township.
The Church Woods property is currently zoned A/RU*15 (WOOD LOT) (ATTACHMENT #2) and the
Official Plan designation is Rural Settlement Area, therefore with rezoning the subject land could
possibly be developed, The Church Woods property is crossed with footpaths and is frequently used
for walking, cross-country skiing and horse-back riding by local residents, The south end of the
property is wet due to the natural drainage which enhances the properties natural beauty while
attracting various species of birds and animals.
The intent would be that the Couchiching Conservancy become the registered owners of the property
and ultimately manage the subject land for the enjoyment of the Township residents and visitors.
The proposed partnership provides the Municipality with the opportunity to put into practice their
Environmental First Philosophy. The prospect of the partnership to join the Community and the
Conservancy to protect an area of the Township further supports Council's policy "Pro Green".
It is recommended that Council support a donation of $60,000.00 towards the purchase of the
Church Woods property, under the terms of the proposed partnership and that the funds be released
at the time of the land transfer and that the funds be allocated from the Contingency Reserve.
II RECOMMENDATION(S):
I
1. THAT Report No. ADM 2006-037 be received and adopted.
2, THAT Council support a donation of $60,000.00 towards the purchase of the Church Woods
property,
3. THAT the funds be released during the transfer of the land to the Couchiching Conservancy.
4, THAT the funds be allocated from the Contingency Reserve.
5, AND THAT the Residents' Group and The Couchiching Conservancy be advised of Council's
decision.
Respectfully submitted,
r'\
'A, ').," '
\~f1~~",-~JO ~i~
Qnnifer Ziele~i_
Chief Administrative Officer
- 2 -
Project Description: The Church Woods, Shanty Bay
Ecological Significance of The Church Woods:
The Church Woods property is a 25 acre parcel of mature hardwood trees and softwood trees,
located within the Village of Shanty Bay, to the west of the historic St. Thomas's Church and
close to Kempenfelt Bay, The Church Woods have been identified as an Old Grow1h Forest,
containing over thirty species of trees. However, the Woods are under serious threat as an area
for residential development. Because this is a relatively rare stand of forest within a residential
community, the purchase of this ecologically significant property is an essential conservation
strategy,
The Church Woods have been owned by the same family group since 1832. The property abuts
the western boundary of St. Thomas's Anglican Church. The church was built in 1832 partly
from trees cut from these woods, making a unique connection between the natural and cultural
heritage of Shanty Bay.
The Woods form part of a continuous belt of forest stretching from Barrie almost to Orillia, just
west of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. This corridor and Ridge Road follow an ancient beach and
bluff system along the former shores of the glacial lake, Lake Algonquin. Because the soil in the
Church Woods contains many granite rocks and boulders, this area was never suitable for
agricultural crops.
The Church Woods property is crossed by footpaths used frequently by residents of the
surrounding area for walking, cross-country skiing and horse-back riding. The forest is traversed
by a brook during the spring snow run off and fall rainy season; the forest slows the melting of
snow in the spring and absorbs the spring snow melt water and prevents flooding over Bay Street
to the south.
The Church Woods contain a host of species that are uncommon to rare in Ontario, including
many plants and invertebrates. The Church Woods have at least thirty species of trees, including
good specimens of the nationally-threatened Buttemut. This diversity forms an important habitat
for pileated, downy, red-headed and other woodpeckers, as well as other forest birds and
mammals such as squirrels, raccoons, porcupines and deer, rabbits and foxes. The drainage ditch
along the southern boundary forms a habitat for frogs and other amphibians.
The Church Woods have been operated as a Managed Forest since 1992. Apart from being
selectively logged for timber twice in the past forty years, the property has not been touched. The
woods were last selectively logged in 1992, so most of the trees are mature and in good
condition. Old Growth Forests occupy less than 1 % of the remaining forest cover in southem
Ontario, so healthy examples such as The Church Woods are especially valuable.
In light of all of the foregoing, there is no question about the ecological significance of the
Church Woods.
Page 1 of3
3153897.1
The Need for Conservation of The Church Woods:
\ VI
\ ",-(;\ -
The owners of the Church Woods, who have conscientiously preserved the property based on
sound community and ecological principles, are now interested in selling the property. They
would prefer to sell the property to local residents on condition that the woods be preserved in
their current natural state, rather than divided up into lots for the construction of houses or other
buildings,
A group of the local residents, interested in maintaining the owners' principles of good land
stewardship, has identified The Couchiching Conservancy as the ideal future owner of the
property. The Conservancy Board has approved their involvement in the project, and both the
current owners and the neighbouring land owners have entered into Letters of Intent for the
purchase of the property. The transaction is conditional upon an independent appraisal to
establish its current market value, and on the necessary purchase funds being raised within
approximately 90 days.
The Couchiching Conservancy will act as the owner of this project, based on a very successful
model provided by the Grant's Woods project in 2002. The Conservancy will register the
property with the Ecological Gifts Program of Environment Canada, to ensure that it will always
remain in its natural state. They will also prepare a management plan for The Church Woods to
ensure their ecological and community benefits, and will involve local residents in stewardship
activities. The Conservancy and the local residents will raise funds locally towards the overall
project cost, focusing on individual donors, a few foundations, and allied organizations such as
nature clubs.
Background on The Couchiching Conservancy:
The Couchiching Conservancy is a regional land trust based in Orillia, Ontario. The
Conservancy currently owns or manages 22 properties of ecological significance totaling over
7,000 acres in a region from Midland to Kirkfield and from Barrie to Muskoka, This local
organization has successfully participated in three cooperative projects with the Nature
Conservancy of Canada to purchase properties within the Carden Alvar.
The Conservancy is a registered charitable organization (13972-5030 RROOOI) and a certified
recipient for Ecological Gifts. It can also receive donations of securities if desired, since this
arrangement brings improved income tax benefits, It currently has three staff, and an annual
budget of $250,000.
Contact Information; The Couchiching Conservancy
Box 704, Orillia, Ontario, L3V 6K7
Phone: (705)326-1620
E-mail: nature@couchconservancy.ca
Ron Reid, Executive Director
Page 2 on
3153897.1
Jane Ball, Director
Phone: (705)835-2674
E-mail: jane.ball@sympatico.ca
Purchase Cost of The Church Woods:
The final purchase price for Church Woods will be established through an independent appraisal.
The current owners have proposed a cash payment of $600,000, with any value above that
recognized through a charitable tax receipt.
Funding sources:
For the $600,000 local budget for the project, we anticipate revenues over the next two years
from:
Individual donors:
$440,000
Municipality:
$60,000
Other Sources:
$100,000
Partnering to Complete the Purchase of The Church Woods:
We encourage interested parties to contribute funds to The Couchiching Conservancy in trust for
the specific purpose of purchasing The Church Woods, We encourage members of the Shanty
Bay community to assist in preserving this important ecological jewel. The Church Woods may
be used as an educational tool by the local school and will continue to serve as a buffer against
creeping urbanization of the area. The Church Woods, under the stewardship of The
Couchiching Conservancy and local volunteers will be preserved for use by members of the
community and their children and their children for generations to come.
Page 3 of3
3153897.1
. . .
Church Woods
An island of green
For the benefit
Of the Shanty Bay community
25 KEY PLAN
.
<Ii
'"
I>l 26
z
~
-----
27
28
~ RoAD
t
'1'-
'" SHANTY BAY
l"s;~:
I! !
~ ',' .'.~
" ,
, ,
o.s
DETAIL
NTS
:RUARY 19, 2004
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
ZONING BY-LAW
SCHEDULE A2
May 11, 2006
e
,""
t
Ms, Marilyn Pennycook
Clerk
Township of Oro-Medonte
Tel: 905.895.1281 Box 100
1.800.465.0437 Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Fax: 905.853.5881
E-Mail: info@lsrca.on.ca
Web: www.lsrca.on,ca Dear Ms, Pennycook
120 Bayvlew Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4X1
A
Watershed
Life
\
-\
, . \
\ . l\\\\~ \
"'~'\ '\ I \
\ E.OO~"\'€. \
~~/~
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority's Board of Directors, at their meeting
held on Friday, March 24th, 2006, passed the following resolution:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOD-06-38
CARRIED
S. Self
V, Hackson
RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 11-06-BOD regarding the
Natural Heritage System Land Acquisition Project 2006-201 0
be approved; and
FURTHER THAT the land securement target set out in the
2005-2010 Business Plan be revised to 1,000 hectares; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request the Minister of
Natural Resources to approve the project as required by
Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the watershed
municipalities as the basis for funding and land securement
opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority, and Kawartha Conservation as the basis for any
joint funding and land securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek funding for the
project from the funding sources outlined in the project.
In accordance with Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, this project
document must be approved by the Minister of Natural Resources prior to our
proceeding further. The document has been forwarded to Minister Ramsay and is
pending approval.
.. .IPage 2
\
May 11 , 2006
Page 2 of 2
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Authority's Natural Heritage System Land
Acquisition Project 2006-201 0 and it would be appreciated if this could be shared with
Council and the appropriate staff within your municipality.
ours truly,
\~
\
Iglc
Ene!.
c: B. Kemp, Director, Conservation Lands, LSRCA
K. Kennedy, Land Securement Offieer, LSRCA
,
,
l f
Q)
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
11-06-BOD
1 of 4
OA-11(a)
4 BOD-03-06
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: K.C. Kennedy, MCIP, RPP, CMMI
Land Securement Officer
DATE: March 10, 2006
SUBJECT: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006-2010
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 11-06-BOD regarding the Natural
Heritage System Land Acquisition Project 2006-2010 be
approved; and
FURTHER THAT the land securement target set out in the
2005-2010 Business Plan be revised to 1,000 hectares; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request the Minister of
Natural Resources to approve the project as required by
Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the watershed
municipalities as the basis for funding and land
securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority, and Kawartha Conservation as the basis for any
joint funding and land securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek funding for the
project from the funding sources outlined in the project.
\
,
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
11-06-BOD
20f4
OA-11 (a)
4 BOD-03-06
Purpose of the Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report is to present the Authority's Board of Directors with the
Natural Heritage System Land Acquisition Project 2006-2010 for approval.
Backaround:
In the Conservation Authority's Business Plan, the Conservation Lands Division identified
the need for a Land Securement Officer in 2004. This new position was created to respond
to donations of land and opportunities to add to the Conservation Authority's land holdings
in key ecological areas of the watershed through purchase or conservation easement. In
addition, the Land Securement Officer is responsible for monitoring various aspects of the
LSRCA's land holdings (i.e., taxes, agreements, insurance), coordinating and updating the
land management database and to provide general information to the public regarding the
LSRCA's land securement program. This position was filled in late 2005.
Since the early 1990's, the LSRCA has not been able to acquire any additional conservation
lands given budgetary constraints. In 2001, the LSRCA was the recipient of a bequest of
$300,000,00 by Ms. Katharine Symons to acquire and protect lands within the Provincially
Significant Beaver River Wetland adjacent to or in close proximity to the LSRCA's existing
land holdings. In addition, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation donated $50,000 to
the Beaver River Wetland land securement project in 2005,
In July 2005, the Conservation Authority submitted a proposal to the Minister of Natural
Resources (MNR) for the "Beaver River Wetland Land Project" as a separate project for
land securement. This outlined the land securement objectives for this area and once
approved would permit the partial taking of a land containing environmentally significant
features such as wetlands by the LSRCA, as allowed under Section 50 (3)(e) of the
Planning Act. This project was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources in October
2005, The funds associated with the Beaver River Wetland Project are administered
through the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC).
To date, the LSRCA has completed the acquisition of several properties within the Beaver
River Wetland totaling 36.4 ha through fee simple purchases. Additional purchases for
another 83 ha have been made and are scheduled to close on March 31, 2006 for a total
secured in the past year of 119.4 ha.
One of the key tasks of the Land Securement Officer was to develop a land securement
strategy document for the Conservation Authority. This document was to identify target
securement areas, include property evaluation procedures, outline funding opportunities
and include land disposition procedures. The report titled "Natural Heritage System Land
Securement Project 2006-2010" is contained in Attachment 1. The Conservation
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
11-06-BOD
30f4
OA-11(a)
4 BOD-03-06
Authority's 2005-2010 Business Plan set a goal for the securement of 4,000 hectares of
ecologically significant lands within the Lake Simcoe Watershed by 2010.
Issues:
In the process of preparing the land securement project report and through discussion with
other Conservation Authorities regarding land securement programs, the LSRCA's land
securement target was re-evaluated, In order to put this goal into perspective, we reviewed
our experience with the Beaver River Wetland Project in 2005. With an experienced land
securement consultant and budget allocation of $270,000 (net from the Symons bequest),
we were able to secure five properties for a total of 119.4 hectares (295 acres).
Our experience identifying and securing ecologically sensitive lands demonstrated that
even with the ability to pay fair market value for land that the business plan target may be
optimistic. Currently, there is no set budget allocation for land securement and resource
and staff allocation are to remain the same for the 2005-2010 period, Based on the Beaver
River Wetland Project and the experience of our land securement consultant, it was
projected that this program could secure an average of 10 properties per year
approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) in size. As it takes time to develop and nurture
donation opportunities and bequests, it is anticipated that during the initial 2 years of the
program that 5 to 10 properties/year would be a reasonable expectation and that this would
increase to 10 or more/year in the later years of the project. On this basis the land
securement goal for the 2006 to 2010 period should be revised to 1,000 hectares,
Relevance to Authoritv Policv:
The Land Securement Project 2006-2010 report provides the policies and procedures for
the securement of ecologically sensitive lands. This will form the basis of the program for
the five year period. Authority staff will administer this program on the basis of the
procedures set out in this document. Where situations arise that are not covered by this
document, or where new information is made available, modifications to these policies and
procedures, or specific cases will be brought before the Board for consideration and further
direction.
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
11-06-BOD
40f4
OA-11(a)
4 BOD-03-06
Impact on Authority Finances:
As stated in the project report, the LSRCA would require annual contributions of between
$320,000 to $420,000 in order to meet the land securement goal. Given the need for
ongoing LSRCA technical support, the utilization of Watershed Managementtechnical staff
has not been budgeted separately but will be addressed through the normal department
budget. For 2006, land securement activities will continue to be focused on the Beaver
Wetland Project based on the balance of funds remaining in the Symons bequest of
$88,250.
Summary and Recommendations:
It is recommended Staff Report No. 11-06-BOD regarding the Natural Heritage System
Land Acquisition Project 2006-2010 be approved; and
FURTHER THAT the land securement target set out in the 2005-2010 Business Plan be
revised to 1,000 hectares; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request the Minister of Natural Resources to approve
the project as required by Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the watershed municipalities as the basis for
funding and land securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority, and Kawartha Conservation as the basis for any joint funding and land
securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek funding for the project from the funding sources
outlined in the project.
Prepared
original signed by:
by'
"--------------------------------
K.C. Kennedy, MCIP, RPP, CMMI
Land Securement Officer
original signed by:
Recommended by:________________________________
D. Gayle Wood, CMM III
Chief Administrative Officerl
Secretary-Treasurer
Attachments:
1. Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project 2006-2010
NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM
LAND SECUREMENT PROJECT
2006-20 1 0
March 2006
AUTHORITY RESOLUTION
Natural Heritage System, land Securement Project: 2006-2010
At meeting No. BOD-03-06 of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority held on
March 24, 2006 the following was adopted by the Board of Directors by Resolution BOD-
06-38.
THAT Staff Report No. 11-06-BOD regarding the Natural Heritage System Land
Acquisition Project 2006-2010 be approved; and
FURTHER THAT the land securement target set out in the 2005-2010 Business Plan be
revised to 1,000 hectares: and
FURTHER THAT the Staff be directed to request the Minister of Natural Resources to
approve the project as required by Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority participating municipalities, the Region of York, the Region of Durham, and
County of Simcoe as the basis for funding and land securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT the project be circulated to the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, The Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority, and Kawartha Conservation as the basis for any joint funding
and land securement opportunities; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek funding for the project from the funding
sources outlined in the project; and
FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority Officials be Authorized to take the necessary
action to implement the project, including obtaining needed approvals and the signing
and execution of any supporting documents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................ 1
3.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT ............................................... 5
4.0 FOR M S 0 F LA N D S E CUR EM E NT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
4. 1 Fee S imp Ie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
4 . 2 Con s e rv at ion E as e men t s ........................................ 5
4 . 3 Co v en ants .................................................... 5
4.4 Leases and Agreements ......................................... 5
4 . 5 Sum m a ry ..................................................... 5
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO LAND SECUREMENT - STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS ... 8
6.0 MET HOD S 0 F LA N D S E CUR E MEN T ................................... 8
6. 1 The P I ann i n g Pro ce s s ........................................... 8
6 . 2 Pro p e rty Pur c has e .............................................. 8
6.3 Donations .................................................... 8
6 .4 Part i a I T a kin g s/ D ire ct Con v e y an ce ................................. 9
6.5 S P I it R ece i pt .................................................. 9
6.6 Life Interest Agreement/Lease Back Arrangements .................... 9
6. 7 T ra de La n d s .................................................. 9
6.8 Exchanges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
6.9 Project Requirements ........................................... 9
6.10 Municipal Lands .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
6.11 Land Trusts, Alliances, and Non-Government Organizations ............ 10
7 . 0 LA N D S E CUR EM E NT C R I T E R I A ...................................... 1 0
8.0 LA N D S E C U REM E NT P RIO R I TIE S .................................... 14
8.1 Historical Land Acquisition Objectives .............................. 14
8.2 Land Securement Target Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
9.0 PROPERTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES .............................. 21
10.0 APPROACH TO LANDOWNER CONTACT .............................. 22
~tJ~~i~~itage System Land Securement Project (I)
11 . 0 PRO G RAM FUN DIN G ............................................... 22
11 . 1 Costs ....................................................... 22
11.2 Financing Alternatives .......................................... 23
11.2.1 Municipal Funding ............................. 23
11.2.2 Provincial Funding ............................. 23
11.2.3 Land Sale Funding ............................. 24
11.2.4 Federal Funding ............................... 24
11.2.5 Funding Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
1 2.0 LA N D D IS PO 5 I T ION POL ICY ......................................... 26
List of Figures
Figure 1 - LSRCA Conservation Areas ......................................... 2
Fig u re 2 - L S R C A Context Map ............................................... 6
Figure 3 - LSRCA Sub-Watersheds ............................................ 7
Figure 4 - Natural Heritage System ........................................... 11
Figure 5 - Feature Occurrence .............................................. 18
Figure 6 - Land Securement Target Areas ..................................... 19
List of Tables
Table 1 - Conservation Authority Owned Lands .................................. 3
Table 2 - Land Securement Criteria ........................................... 12
Table 3 - Potential Funding Partnerships ....................................... 25
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 - Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program
Appendix 2 - Ecological Gifts Program
Appendix 3 - Land Securement Property Evaluation
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
(f)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since 1951, the Lal(e Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has secured 1,073 hectares (2,622 acres)
of land including; environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, woodlands), flood susceptible lands and day use
parl( lands for passive recreation and outdoor education. The mandate of the Conservation Authority under
Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act is "to establish and undertal(e, in the area under which it has
jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration development and management of natural
resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals". Based on this mandate, the Lal(e Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority has defined its mission:
"To provide leadership in the restoration and protection oJthe environmental
health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed with our community,
municipal and other government partners".
The Lal(e Simcoe Region Conservation Authority strives to achieve its mission based on the following goals:
· To ensure that Ontario's rivers, lal(es, and streams are properly safeguarded, managed and restored,
· To protect, manage and restore Ontario's woodlands, wetlands, and natural habitat,
· To develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as
flooding and erosion, and
· To provide opportunities for the public to enj oy, learn from and respect Ontario's natural environment.
This Natural Heritage System, Land Securement Project furthers the Conservation Authority's mission and
goals by securing interests in land both through purchase and holding rights to property thereby removing
sensitive ecological areas from potential future development. Where possible, the rehabilitation and restoration
of land that has or is experiencing degradation will be implemented by the LSRCA and other partners.
In the Conservation Authority's Business Plan 2005-2010, the Conservation Lands Division has set a goal to
secure 4,000 hectares of ecologically sensitive land through purchase, easement and donation by 2010. The land
securement program will also utilize the technical support from the Watershed Management Division to define
a natural heritage system and identify priority areas for land securement that will further the Conservation
Authority's mission for the restoration and protection of the environmental health and quality of the Lal(e
Simcoe Watershed.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The LSRCA currently owns twenty-three (23) properties for a total of 1,073.1 hectares (2,651.6 acres) of land,
(Figure 1) of which eighteen (18) are within Y orl( Region comprising 674.5 hectares (1,666.7 acres); three (3)
are in Durham Region comprising 96.3 hectares (238 acres); and two (2) are in Simcoe County comprising
302.3 hectares (747 acres) of valuable land assets (Table 1). These include lands for flood control, wetlands,
managed woodlots, day use parl(s, passive recreation and outdoor education, and undeveloped natural and
environmentally significant areas.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
Page 1
(I)
FIGURE 1
IL:.aJke fSlm.coe IRe;gieD CC-PDS,entartrjPD AD~bGrJi'y
I" CCons:eDtatrjoD Areas I"
Legend
W Lake Simcoe Watershed
11IIII Conservation Areas
Q Municipal Boundary
Township Boundary
W Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary
Conservation Areas
1. Bailey Property
2. Baldwin
3. Beaver River Wetland
4. Beaverton Dam
5. Franklin Beach
6. Herrema Property
7. Holland Landing
8. Holmes Point
9. Keswick North
10. Luck Property
11. Mabel Davis
12. Pangman Springs
13. Pefferlaw Dam
14. Pottageville Swamp
15. Queen Street Property
16. Rogers Reservoir
17. Scanlon Creek
18. Sheppard's Bush
19. Thornton Bales
20. Tyrwhitt
21. Wesley Brooks
22. Whitchurch
23. Willow Beach
24. Zephyr Wetlands
Scale 1 : 350 000
2 1 0 2 4 6 8 10
~_ I Kilometres
~COE b
S\~ ~{~
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~l~
~ .
. ~
n ~
% 9i
~~~ #
1'l::1rroN ~U~
N
W~E
;Z~
S
-. Waterbody
~ Watercourse
Town
Table 1: Conservation Authority Owned Lands
Property Name
I Region I
Hectares I Acres
Municipality
1. Bailey Property York N ewmarket 10.5 26
2. Baldwin Dam York Georgina 27.9 69
3. Beaver River Wetland Durham Brock 85.8 212
4. Beaverton Dam Durham Brock 0.4 1
5. Franklin Beach York Georgina 0.4 1
I 6. Herrema Property
I 7. Holland Landing
I 8. Holmes Point
Durham
York
Uxbridge
East Gwillimbury
Georgina
10.1
8.1
0.6
25
20
1.5
York
9. Keswick North Watercourse York Georgina 0.7 1.8
10. Luck Property Silllcoe Innis fil 20.2 50
Ill. Mabel Davis
York
N ewmarket
6.9
17
12. Pangman Springs York Whitchurch - Stouffville 98.7 244
13. Pefferlaw Dam York Georgina 0.7 1.7
14. Pottageville Swamp York King 213.3 527
15. Queen Street Property York N ewmarket 0.6 1.6
16. Rogers Reservoir York East Gwillimbury 68.4 169
17. Scanlon Creek Simcoe Bradford West Gwillimbury 282.1 697
18. Thornton Bales I York I King I 19.4 I 48 I
19. Tyrwhitt York King 3.6 9
20. Wesley Brooks (Fairy Lake) York N ewmarket 13.6 33.5
21. Whitchurch York Whitchurch Stouffville 10.1 25
22. Willow Beach York Georgina 4 10
23. Zephyr Wetlands York Georgina 187 462
I TOTAL LAND HOLDINGS
1073.1
I 2652.1 I
Some of these properties are currently under management agreements with the local municipalities including
properties in the Town of Georgina, King Township, Town ofNewmarl(et, Township ofBrocl(, and the Town
of Innisfil. Some are active recreation Conservation Areas, such as Willow Beach in the Town of Georgina,
Pangman Springs in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and Scanlon Creel( in the Town of Bradford- West
Gwillimbury. The L SRCA also manages the Sheppard's Bush Conservation Area in the Town of Aurora which
is owned by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. This area also operates under a management agreement with the
Town of Aurora. Other conservation areas are operated as natural areas with no fees and minimal development.
Master plans prepared in the late 1970's for some of these conservation areas have identified adjacent lands for
acquisition.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
Page 3
(I)
Since the early 1990's, the LSRCA has not been able to acquire any additional conservation lands given
budgetary constraints. In 2001, the LSRCA was the recipient of a bequest of $300,000.00 by Ms. Katharine
Symons to acquire and protect lands within the Provincially Significant Beaver River Wetland adjacent to or
in close proximity to the LSRCA's existing land holdings.
In 2005, the LSRCA completed the acquisition of several properties within the Beaver River Wetland
(approximately 36 ha) through fee simple purchases. The Conservation Authority has continued its securement
efforts in this area and are in negotiations for an additional 83 ha of land within this provincially significant
wetland.
In July 2005, the Conservation Authority submitted a proposal to the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR) for
the "Beaver River Wetland Land Project" as a separate project for land securement. This outlined the land
securement objectives for this area and once approved would permit the direct conveyance (partial tal(ing) of
lands containing environmentally significant features such as wetlands by the LSRCA, as allowed under Section
50 (3)( e) of the Planning Act. This project was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources in October 2005.
The funds associated with the Beaver River Wetland acquisition are administered through the Nature
Conservancy of Canada (NCC).
Pangman Springs Conservation Area looking east (Photo by Lou Wise)
Page 4
(I)
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
3.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT
The LSRCA is situated within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and is bordered by four other Conservation
Authorities including: The Toronto and Region, Nottawasaga Valley, Kawartha Region and Central Lal(e
Ontario Conservation Authorities (Figure 2). The LSRCA's watershed contains portions of the Oal( Ridges
Moraine and Greenbelt Plan areas, the Lal(e Simcoe Shoreline, the Oro Ridges Moraine, l(ettle lal(es, wetlands,
environmentally significant areas and rare, threatened and endangered species within 18 sub-watersheds (Figure
3).
4.0 FORMS OF LAND SECUREMENT
Under this project there are two primary ways of protecting environmentally sensitive and significant lands;
holding title (fee simple) or holding rights on the land (easements, covenants, lease agreements). The following
provides a brief overview of these securement tools.
4.1 Fee Simple
This method is the purchase or donation of the total interest in a property and is the most effective way for the
protection of greenspace.
4.2 Conservation Easements
Easements are the acquisition of specific or limited rights of use from an owner. Easements can provide for the
protection of a resource, trail construction, and construction and maintenance of rehabilitation worl(s.
In 1994 the provincial government passed Bill 1 75 amending the Statutes of Ontario including the Conservation
Land Act. This amendment allows landowners to grant easements or enter into covenants for the protection and
conservation of land. The owners may grant easements or enter into covenants with "conservation bodies"
(such as the Crown, conservation authorities, municipal councils, bands, or registered charities) which may be
registered on title and a binding on future purchasers.
4.3 Covenants
Traditionally, covenants have been used to restrict an owner from undertal(ing specific activities on all or a
portion of his or her property. Typically, these covenants would restrict the destruction of a resource, filling,
or the building of structures.
4.4 Leases and Agreements
Leases and agreements, depending on their terms, can range from more than a right to occupy to almost an
equivalent of fee simple interest. The benefits and costs associated with the interests obtained varies
accordingly.
4.5 Summary
There are benefits and limitations associated with each method of securement. A case by case assessment will
be undertal(en to determine the quality and significance of the resources or function of each property. Based
on the individual property assessment and resources available, the Conservation Authority would determine the
most appropriate type of securement to ensure the protection of the features and functions of the land.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
Page 5
(I)
~
~
Q)
~
=
o
Vv
~
~
.~
~
o ~
~
~
=
o
.~
~
rd
>
~
Q)
TIl
=
o
V
::::
~
..... ?
~~
c~
~
~
п¹» é
5.0ALTERNATIVES TO LAND SECUREMENT - STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS
Where the securement of a parcel of land or an interest in land is unable to be negotiated between the
Conservation Authority and an individual property owner(s), staff would continue to work with interested
landowners to foster land stewardship as an alternative non-binding approach to natural heritage protection.
This could be achieved through a Stewardship Agreement with the landowner.
A Stewardship Agreement is a hand-shake agreement which is not enforceable and does not confer any rights
to the Conservation Authority. In this instance, the owner would agree to protect the significant lands within
their property or undertake rehabilitation initiatives (i.e. tree planting, livestock fencing). This usually involves
consultation and technical assistance from the Conservation Authority. The agreement usually includes a
request of the owner to contact the Conservation Authority prior to a change of use or proposed sale of the
property in an attempt to continue protecting a specific resource. This method has been used by other
Authorities to cultivate relationships with landowners and protect lands that are under development pressures.
While this does not confer any rights to the Conservation Authority, it is an important tool for resource
protection.
6.0METHODS OF LAND SECUREMENT
The following outlines the various methods which could be employed in the securement of environmentally
sensitive or significant lands.
6.1The Planning Process
As part of the Conservation Authority’s involvement in the Plan Review process under the Planning Act, (i.e.,
Official Plan Amendments, Draft Plans of Subdivision, re-zoning and land severance applications)
environmentally significant areas may be identified through supporting studies and where appropriate
designated open space, environmental protection or other designation that would restrict future development.
The opportunity to acquire some of these lands may arise from time to time, Conservation Authority staff will
review these opportunities when they arise.
6.2Property Purchase
Purchase of full title and rights to a property, these are typically situations with a willing buyer and a willing
seller.
6.3Donations
The Conservation Authority encourages donations of land or property rights. These gifts, at appraised value,
may qualify as charitable donations under the Federal Income Tax Act through the EcoGifts Program (see
Appendix 2). The Conservation Authority, in pursuing donations of land or property rights, will work with
municipalities, environmental organizations and the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation and other potential
funding partners in order to secure environmentally significant/sensitive lands.
The 1995 federal budget provided for amendments to the Income Tax Act to increase the 20% limitation in
respect of charitable donations to 100% for donations made after February 27, 1995, to Canadian Municipalities
and registered charities designated by the Minister of the Environment, of land certified by the Minister to be
important to the preservation of Canada’s environmental heritage. The LSRCA has been designated by the
Minister of the Environment to accept these donations.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» è
6.4Partial Takings/Direct Conveyance
This is an acquisition of part of a property in either a fee simple purchase or donation scenario. For example,
if a landowner has a residence he/she may be willing to dispose of the majority of the property while retaining
the residence and amenity area.
6.5Split Receipt
This can be viewed as either a donation of land or easement with cash consideration back to the donor or a
purchase of land with a donation of land value in cash back to the purchaser. Once the land value is determined
by a qualified appraiser the percentage of the fair market value of the land to be donated versus accepted in cash
will be negotiated.
6.6Life Interest Agreement/Lease Back Arrangements
When the vendor/donor wishes to retain an interest in the property he/she can enter into either a life interest
agreement or lease back arrangement. The value of the retained interest would be determined by a qualified
appraiser. The agreement would specify a set term or would continue as long as the vendor resides on the
subject property.
6.7Trade Lands
Trade lands are similar to donations where a landowner wishes to donate their property to the Conservation
Authority or to bequeath the property to the Conservation Authority. However, in these instances the property
does not contain any significant environmental features. Where the Conservation Authority accepts these
donations these properties would be sold with the proceeds being directed into and securement or other program
areas as directed by the donor. Lands disposed of by the Conservation Authority will follow the procedures
outlined in Section 12.0.
6.8Exchanges
Landowners who own property within a valley system, flood plain or environmentally sensitive feature may
exchange their parcels of surplus tableland owned by the Conservation Authority. These arrangements may
bring to the Conservation Authority funds which can be used to acquire additional conservation lands. While
these transactions traditionally consist of the exchange of fee simple interests, they can consist of any
combination of property interests. Note that land exchanges are not necessarily acre for acre, any exchange
would be based on appraised value as valley lands would not be valued the same as developable tableland.
6.9Project Requirements
When lands become part of an approved project, they may be purchased outright or a limited interest obtained
directly from the owner at market value. Where the project is mutually beneficial, i.e., erosion work on all or
part of which is on private land, landowners may be required to deed property rights to the Conservation
Authority for a nominal amount to ensure access for future maintenance.
6.10Municipal Lands
The Conservation Authority may acquire property interests in municipal lands, at a nominal cost, when they
are located within the boundaries of approved Conservation Authority acquisition projects.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ç
6.11Land Trusts, Alliances, and Non-Government Organizations
A number of Land Trusts, Alliances, and Non-Government Organizations have been formed to secure natural
heritage lands (i.e., Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, Ontario Land Trust Alliance, Ontario Heritage Foundation)
and to protect significant ecological features. It is important to work with these organizations to avoid
duplication of effort and to ensure all natural heritage lands are provided with the maximum sustainable
protection. Conservation Authority staff will develop and expand on partnerships with these and other
organizations involved in holding title to or providing funding for the acquisition of ecologically sensitive and
significant lands.
7.0LAND SECUREMENT CRITERIA
The LSRCA has mapped many components of the Natural Heritage System within its jurisdiction. This includes
provincially significant wetlands, environmentally significant areas, areas of scientific interest, watercourses
and shoreline features among other features (Figure 4). Based on these mapped features, potential securement
areas have been identified. These have been divided into two categories, first priority lands which contain
features which would be eligible for the Ministry of Natural Resources Conservation Land Tax Incentive
Program (Table 2 and Appendix 1). For lands where full title to a property is acquired, this program will allow
Conservation Authority owned properties to significantly reduce or eliminate the tax burden associated with
the long term management costs associated with the property.
Lands which fall into the secondary priority areas for acquisition include other ecological and strategic lands
that meet the federal Ecological Gift Program requirements (Table 2 and Appendix 2). Typically, these lands
would require greater long term funding or funding from other partners to address the higher maintenance costs
associated with land ownership to elevate specific projects to a securement priority. Once identified and
evaluated, these potential securement opportunities would be discussed with various funding sources to attempt
to find the resources to acquire full or partial rights to lands which provide an ecological benefit for the
protection of natural heritage features.
Not all of these natural heritage feature criteria have been identified and mapped at this time. As technical
studies are undertaken within the Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction, additional significant natural heritage
features will be identified and mapped. These features, once identified, will be considered as part of future land
securement priorities.
The Conservation Authority will be developing a natural heritage system plan for the entire Lake Simcoe
Watershed in 2006. Other initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Action Plan involving the Province of
Ontario, the County of Simcoe, the LSRCA and area municipalities are also underway to address concerns about
population growth and development pressures, and help municipalities plan for the future. As these studies
identify additional features and provide recommendations for priority acquisition areas, they will be considered
along with the above land acquisition priorities.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïð
п¹» ïï
Table 2: Land Securement Criteria
CriteriaTax ExemptMeets Ecogift LSRCA
(i.e., CLTIP)RequirementsPotential
Securement
Priority Areas
:
Provincially Significant WetlandsYesYesYes
Areas of Natural and Scientific InterestYesYesYes
(Earth Science - Provincial)
Areas of Natural and Scientific InterestYesYesYes
(Life Science - Provincial)
Habitat of Endangered Species (OntarioYesYesYes
Endangered Species Act)
Community Conservation Lands:
Natural Heritage Features or AreasYesYesYes
identified in the Provincial PolicyIf appropriately
Statement (PPS).designated in municipal
Official Plans and
Zoning By-laws.
Regionally Significant ANSI’s.YesYesYes
Habitats of species of special concernYesYesYes
designated by MNR (species at risk).
NHIC species occurrences or ecologicalYesYesYes
communities (S1, S2, S3).
Designated Natural Core, NaturalYesYesYes
Linkage or Countryside in the ORMCP
Natural heritage areas identified within
a regional or watershed plan or strategyYesYesYes
by a CA under the CAA
Lands designated environmentalYesYesYes
protection or equivalent in municipal
Official Plans. (LSRCA, ESA’s)
Areas within or adjacent to protected
areas (i.e., provincial park) thatYesYesYes
contribute to the natural heritage
objectives of the protected area.
Other criteria as may apply under theSubject toYesYes
CLTIP program requirements.Certification
Lands adjacent to existing LSRCASubject toYesYes
holdingsCertification
Previously identified LSRCA propertySubject toYesYes
acquisitionsCertification
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïî
Secondary Priority Areas:
Lake Simcoe WaterfrontSubject toSubject to CertificationYes
Certification
Wetlands (Not of ProvincialSubject toYesYes
Significance)Certification
Significant water bodies, rivers,Subject toYes (PPS)Yes
streams, shorelines and valleysCertification
Groundwater recharge and dischargeSubject toYesYes
areasCertification
Significant wildlife or fish habitatsSubject toSubject to Certification Yes
Certification
Regional Flood Plain (flood andSubject toNoYes
erosion risk)Certification
Significant WoodlandsSubject toYes (PPS)Yes
Certification
Areas with enhanced ecological valuesSubject toYesYes
through restoration and/or remediation Certification
(i.e., forest, stream, wetland)
Natural buffers adjacent to lands thatSubject toYesYes
contribute to other ecologicallyCertification
sensitive lands
Connections/Corridors/FeaturesSubject toYesYes
identified by Natural HeritageCertification
Programs or Watershed Plans that
contribute to conservation or
biodiversity
Lands under Forest Management PlansSubject toYesYes
(designated areas of concern forCertification
biodiversity)
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïí
8.0LAND SECUREMENT PRIORITIES
Governments at various levels have recognized the importance of protecting the natural heritage system.
The Official Plans for the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York, County of Simcoe and various
municipal official plans have all recognized the important role the environment plays in the quality of life
within the Region and have adopted various policies that identify and protect the natural heritage/open space
system. The following sections outline the LSRCA’s historic land acquisition priorities and the target areas
for this project.
8.1Historical Land Acquisition Objectives
Of the 23 properties currently owned by the LSRCA, several have Master Plans or Management Plans which
have identified properties adjacent to these existing lands for acquisition. These historically identified lands
are included within the target areas in this strategy, however, they also must be evaluated as any other
securement potential would be evaluated. The lands identified for acquisition within the Master Plans
include the following:
1.Rogers Reservoir: four zones of acquisition were identified which would increase ownership
of the flood plain and would enable the Conservation Authority to exercise its objective of
providing flood control and protection to people and property adjacent to the river.
Additionally facilities such as walking trails could be accommodated and would create
opportunities to extend trail linkages in East Gwillimbury and improve a linkage between
the Town of Aurora and the Village of Holland Landing. A total of 260 hectares of land are
identified for acquisition.
Proposed Acquisition:Concession 1E-part lots E. ½ Lot 103, E. ½ Lot 104, Lot 5,
W. ½ Lot 106, W ½ Lot 107
Concession 1W-part lots E. ½ Lot 106, E. ½ Lot 107, E. ½
Lot 108, E. ½ Lot109, E. ½ Lot 110, E. ½ Lot 111, E. ½ Lot
112, E. ½ Lot 113, E. ½ Lot 114, E. ½ Lot 115
2.Willow Beach: in order to provide additional public access to the Lake Simcoe waterfront
and given the heavy visitation to Willow Beach, especially on weekends, expansion at
Willow Beach is important to improving and increasing access. Proposed acquisition
identified 4 lots.
Proposed Acquisition:Lots 3, (353 Lake Drive) of Registered Plan 284 and parts of
Lot 9, Concession 9 (363 and 365 Lake Drive) have been
acquired by the Town of Georgina since the master plan was
written.
Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 of Registered Plan 284 known as 339,
337, 335, and 333 Lake Drive respectively. Though not
identified as part of the acquisition, Lake Road which
separates the area day use from the beach would represent the
most advantageous acquisition from the point of view of
increasing the dry beach component and providing safe beach
access for visitors.
3.Scanlon Creek: most of the land identified for acquisition is flood plain land along the
Schomberg River which would link Scanlon with the Holland Marsh Provincial Wildlife
Area.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïì
Proposed Acquisition:Includes part of Lots 18,19,20,21,22 and 23 Concession 9,
and part of lots 19,20,21 Concession 10(total 264 hectares).
4.Beaver River Wetlands:the proposed acquisition area encompasses an area of approximately
815 hectares located on parts of Concession 4 to 11 in Brock Township and located on either
side of the Beaver River. A total of 38 private properties in private ownership comprise 765
hectares of the proposed acquisition area. This is currently being pursued as part of the
Beaver River Wetland Project Approved by the MNR in October 2005.
5.Pottageville Swamp: this provincially significant wetland is comprised of approximately 527
hectares in King Township, of which the Conservation Authority owns 213.45 hectares or
approximately 40%.
6.Zephyr Creek Wetlands: an ESA comprising 1,051 hectares situated in the Town of
Georgina and the Township of Uxbridge. The Conservation Authority owns 187 hectares in
this wetland or 17.8%.
8.2Land Securement Target Areas
The purchase of fee simple interests, easements and accepting land donations is dependent on the
Conservation Authority’s funding and requires that the most suitable lands which may be on the market each
year will be the lands which are acquired. Figure 5, Feature Occurrence, identifies the multiple occurrence
of significant environmental features within the Lake Simcoe watershed, specifically, provincially
significant wetlands, areas of natural and scientific interest and environmentally significant areas (biological
and hydrological). Based on this analysis and historically identified acquisitions, the following Land
Securement Target Areas (Figure 6) have been identified. These areas generally contain large parcels and
relatively less expensive lands.
1.Beaver River Wetlands, Beaverton River ANSI and Beaver River ESA (No. A46):
Based on the previous Master Plan a total of 38 private properties in private ownership comprising 765
hectares were identified for potential acquisition. Some of these areas are currently being pursued as part
of the Beaver River Wetland Project approved by the MNR in October 2005. In 2005, the LSRCA secured
Photo by Lou Wise
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïë
or has options to purchase a total of 119.6 hectares (295.5 acres) of environmentally significant land within
the Beaver River Wetland. The Beaver River Wetland contains 2,473 hectares of significant wetland
complex (73% swamp, 27% marsh). The ANSI contains 590 ha of river -swamp complex along the Beaver
River valley just south of Blackwater. The main marsh contains thicket and marsh types; cattail, alder-
cattail, alder-tamarack, cedar-ash-alder. Some balsam fir-tamarack-white birch-black spruce swamp is
present. The ESA covers an area of 2,264 ha and lies within a large depressional area along the Beaver
River. The area is relatively undisturbed containing extensive wetlands, swamp forests, submerged and
emergent aquatic vegetation.
2.Zephyr-Egypt Wetland Complex, Zephyr Creek Swamp ANSI(LS) and Zephyr CreekESA(No.
A37): an area containing provincially significant wetlands and an environmentally significant area
comprising 1,051 hectares situated in the Town of Georgina and the Township of Uxbridge. The
Conservation Authority currently owns 187 hectares in this wetland area.
Photo : APS Digital Photographic Portfolio
The provincially significant wetland is 2,634 ha and is made up of 33 individual wetlands, composed of two
wetland types (3% swamp, 97% marsh). The ANSI is 140 ha containing a river swamp complex lying 6
km south of Lake Simcoe, north of Zephyr. Vegetation is characterized by red maple, white birch, balsam
poplar, balsam fir lowland forest with willow-alder thickets, alder- willow- cattail- ash thicket marsh and
birch-poplar- tamarack- spruce scrub swamp. The ESA. is 1,051 ha located along Zephyr Creek, extending
from the village of Zephyr north almost to the Canadian National Railway Line east of the settlement of
Cedarbrae. The vast majority of the site is wet lowland covered with a forest of black ash, trembling aspen
and black willow, with some small pockets of pure tamarack. A large portion of this land is dominated by
speckled alder, red-osier dogwood and willow.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïê
3.Black River Wetland and Brownhill ESA: This area consists of lands containing
provincially significant wetlands and an environmentally significant area. The wetland
comprises a significant area greater than 1,300 ha of wetland complex made up of 51
individual wetlands with portions on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
It is comprised primarily of two wetland types, swamp and marsh with the former
comprising a significant portion of the wetland area. The Black River E.S.A. is a large
feature over 1,200 ha. Located west of Mount Albert and Highway 48, and extends
northward along the Black River. Most of the E.S.A. is wetland swamp dominated by white
cedar and eastern hemlock with areas of dense poplars, willow thickets and open meadows.
Photo: APS Digital Photographic Portfolio
4.Derryville Wetland, Derryville Bog ANSI (LS) and Derryville Swamp ESA {No. 44 a)&
b)}: This area consists of lands containing provincially significant wetland, areas of natural
and scientific interest and environmentally significant lands. The provincially significant
wetland complex is made up of six individual wetlands, composed of four wetland types (1%
bog, 2% fen, 86% swamp, 11% marsh) and is 245 ha. The Derryville Bog is one of the
twelve largest bogs in Ontario south of the Canadian Shield that contains both bog and fen
characteristics along with many provincially rare plants. It ranks high in this criterion due
to its representation of uncommon habitat (open bog and treed fen) and abundance of
significant species. The ESA consists of two separate swamps in which are situated in the
headwaters of a small stream that feeds Vrooman Creek and the Beaver River.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» ïé
п¹» ïè
п¹» ïç
5.Ramara Wetland Shoreline (Barnstable Bay Swamp Wetland Complex and ANSI): This
area consists of areas containing provincially significant wetland and an area of natural and
scientific interest. The provincially significant wetland is 752 ha and is composed of two
wetland types (81% swamp and 19% marsh). The ANSI consists of a 200 ha shoreline
swamp on north shore of Lake Simcoe in Barnstable Bay with two creek outlets. Mainly
silver & red maple swamp with cedar, yellow birch, alder-willow-dogwood thickets and
cattail-bulrush marsh.
6.Kawartha Lakes Wetlands (Grass Creek and Corben Creek Wetlands): This area consists
of two provincially significant wetlands. The Grass Creek Wetland is 1,304 ha with
approximately 1/3 within the LSRCA watershed. It is composed of two wetland types (95%
swamp and 5% marsh). The Corban Creek Wetland contains an area of 107 ha.
7.Oro-Medonte Wetland and ANSI: (Hawkestone Wetland Complex and Martin FarmANSI
(LS): This area consists of areas containing provincially significant wetland and an area of
natural and scientific interest. The provincially significant wetland complex is 843 ha and
is made up of eleven individual wetlands, composed of two wetland types (97% swamp and
3% marsh). The ANSI is comprised of a 130 ha of gently to moderately rolling kame hills.
The forest is young to semi-mature sugar maple-ash-beech with sugar maple understory.
8.Lands Adjacent to and in Close Proximity to Existing LSRCA Land Holdings: (i.e., Zephyr
Wetlands, Scanlon Creek, Pottageville Swamp).
Pottageville Swamp Photo: APS Digital Photographic Portfolio
9.Opportunity Sites: Properties within the priority areas but outside of these target areas that
contain important ecological features that come to the attention of the LSRCA through a
willing owner or funding support.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îð
This list of target areas contains a very large area well over 10,000 hectares of land within the LSRCA’s
watershed. Initially, the Beaver River Wetland area will be the focus of this land securement project as
there is funding available for land securement and there remains interest and momentum within this target
area. The ongoing focus of land securement initiatives will be based on the priority areas identified by the
Land Securement Committee and potential funding sources. As part of the annual budget process, priority
areas will be identified for each given year within this program area.
9.0PROPERTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Given the vast area of ecological features identified on Figure 4, it is inconceivable that all of these lands
would be secured by public agencies or land trusts. With existing funding levels and the ability to locate
willing parties, only the most suitable lands which may be available in any given year will be considered
by the LSRCA for securement.
In order to evaluate potential securement opportunities in an efficient manner, it is recommended that a Land
Securement Committee (LSC) be established. The purpose of this committee is to screen the potential land
securement initiatives to focus the time and resources utilized within the department on the most
ecologically significant securement opportunities. The Committee will be comprised of internal staff
members including, the Land Securement Officer, the Director of Conservation Lands, the LSRCA’s
ecologist, hydrogeologist, and aquatic biologist as needed. This committee will be chaired by the Land
Securement Officer and would typically meet monthly or less often depending on securement opportunities.
The committee will work to develop two property securement lists, list one potential securement
opportunities and list two the active properties for securement. The list of potential securement
opportunities will include those properties that have been brought to the attention of the Land Securement
Officer and warrant further consideration. Once a candidate property has been identified, a property
evaluation involving desk top analysis and where necessary field investigation, will be undertaken (see
Appendix 3). This will provide an assessment of the ecological significance of the property in the context
of the target areas identified on Figure 6. Further, the desire of the Conservation Authority to acquire the
property, and the landowners interest in working with the LSRCA to develop a mutually acceptable
transaction will need to be assessed. This could take the form of a fee simple purchase, donation, or
easement. Depending on the property history and preliminary site evaluation, additional environmental
studies may also be required (i.e., Phase 1 Environmental Assessment).
Properties that have been moved on to the active list will then be pursed for securement upon review and
recommendation by the CAO and approval of the Board. This will involve identifying the funding source
or program to secure the property (i.e., purchase, easement, donation). Once the funding is determined, the
Land Securement Officer will proceed to secure the property (i.e., obtain appraisal, negotiate agreement,
commission survey, etc.).
When assessing the suitability of land for securement, consideration will be given to the cost of taxes and
long-term maintenance of the property. Where it is desirable to have a municipality help manage a property,
arrangements would be made in advance with the respective municipality to have an agreement in principle
to include the land under a management agreement.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îï
10.0APPROACH TO LANDOWNER CONTACT
The initial steps associated with landowner contact includes developing a landowner contact list, preparing
landowner packages and property mapping. These activities will be undertaken by the Land Securement
Officer. Where funding for student programs or contract staff is available these tasks can be undertaken by
support staff. The contact program will include:
10.1Mailing: This will involve sending out a letter outlining the securement strategy, photo mosaic map
of the subject property, and appropriate LSRCA program brochures.
10.2Telephone Solicitation: This will involve calling target landowners to introduce them to the
program, to identify other program information they may be interested in and attempt to arrange a
meeting with the Land Securement Officer to discuss the program and landowner options.
10.3Drop-Ins: On occasion drive target areas and drop in on properties for sale or properties that are
ecologically significant to engage the landowner in the securement or stewardship program.
10.4Landowner Leads: This involves taking leads form various organizations and municipalities. These
will be followed up after discussion with the hand off agency on the appropriate next steps.
11.0PROGRAM FUNDING
The LSRCA has not had a pro-active land securement program for more than 10 years. The Conservation
Authority’s land securement program has been re-activated through a generous bequest from Ms. Katharine
Symons as well as support from the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation (LSCF), towards the acquisition
of the Beaver River Wetland in the Township of Brock. Given this opportunity and the increased focus of
many conservation organizations, municipalities and land trusts, the LSRCA’s land securement program
has been re-established. The following sections outline the costs associated with acquisitions in the past
few years and the projected costs over the five year program.
11.1Costs
As the LSRCA has not had been active in land securement for many years, there has not been a land
securement budget. In 2001, the Symons bequest for land securement in the Beaver River Wetland,
provided the basis for this revised program. In 2005, the LSCF provided an additional $50,000 to the
Beaver River Wetland project.
Based on the actual land securement funding for the past five years and the Natural Heritage System Land
Securement Project goal of 1,000 hectares, it is anticipated that a budget allocation of between $320,000.00
to $420,000.00/year would be required over the next five years in order to achieve this goal. The costs
associated with the land securement program include; land costs, legal, appraisal, survey, environmental
audits, demolition and property clean up, G.S.T., land transfer tax, interest charges, fencing, administration,
and other related costs. These expenditures will be based on the funding provided to date and the
opportunities for various programs and partnerships outlined below.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îî
Natural Heritage System, Land Securement Project 2006-2010
YearFundingRequirements
2006$320,000 - $420,000
2007$320,000 - $420,000
2008$320,000 - $420,000
2009$320,000 - $420,0000
2010$320,000 - $420,000
Total
$1,600,000 - $2,100,000
11.2Financing Alternatives
The following outlines a variety of potential funding sources for land securement. Table 4 lists some
agencies and project parameters.
11.2.1Municipal Funding
The conservation of lands benefits all municipalities within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authority
by maintaining their ability to accommodate the natural functions and features of the ecosystem and
providing open space for the enjoyment, health, and well being of all residents. The conservation of the
natural heritage system including issues related to the quantity and quality of water is of benefit to the
people of the entire region and will contribute positively to the quality of life for future generations.
The Conservation Authority proposes that the five-year Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006-2010 will generally be a benefiting project with our member municipalities, the Regions of York,
Durham, and Simcoe County, and lower tier municipalities for properties within their area of jurisdiction.
Where appropriate, as land securement opportunities present themselves, each upper and lower tier
municipality would be consulted to determine if there is any funding available to support the securement
initiative.
Currently, the Region of York has in place a Land Securement Working Group that provides an opportunity
for area municipal, agency and other key stakeholders to network and discuss land securement activities and
priorities. This is an important forum for sharing approaches and avoiding duplication of efforts and
resource utilization. The LSRCA is a member of this working group.
11.2.2Provincial Funding
One of the goals of this project is to obtain support from the Province to embrace the importance of, and
need for, the protection of all natural heritage lands. In August 2005, the provincial government announced
the Natural Spaces Program. This new programincluded a $6-million allocation to the Ontario Heritage
Trustfor the acquisition and stewardship of provincially significant natural heritage lands in southern
Ontario. This program provides up to 50% funding for acquisition and stewardship programs.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îí
11.2.3Land Sale Funding
Generally, the Conservation Authority does not endorse selling off conservation lands. Where revenues are
realized through the sale of any surplus lands, and where the Conservation Authority receives the necessary
approvals to allocate the funds to acquisition, these monies will be applied to properties identified as
suitable for acquisition by this project. In the case of trade lands, properties that do not contain
environmental features would typically be sold with the proceeds being directed to the land securement
program.
11.2.4Federal Funding
In the 1960's under the Plan for Flood Control the Conservation Authority received funding from the Federal
Government for the acquisition and construction of flood control structures. This project was funded 37.5%
by the Federal Government, 37.5% by the Province and 25% by the Municipality. It is proposed that the
Conservation Authority approach the Federal Government for support and funding of this project.
11.2.5Funding Support
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Foundation (LSCF) has provided $50,000.00 in 2005 towards land
securement within the Beaver River Wetland Project. As securement opportunities arise the Conservation
Foundation will be solicited to provide funding for individual and specific opportunities for the securement
of natural heritage lands.
In addition to Conservation Foundation, other potential funding agencies include the Nature Conservancy
of Canada, Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, Ontario Nature (formerly the Federation of Ontario
Naturalists), Ontario Heritage Foundation and our municipal partners (Table 3). With the assistance of the
Foundation and other potential funding partners it is anticipated that the solicitation of donations of money
and land can be significantly increased.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îì
Table 3: Potential Funding Partnerships
OrganizationProject Parameters
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation FoundationPotential funding for specific projects on a case by
case basis.
Nature Conservancy of Canada - GreenlandBased on projects that support biodiversity and
Fundingspecies at risk.
Potential funding for specific projects on a case by
case basis.
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (Provincial)Specific projects within the ORM Plan Area.
Oak Ridges Moraine Land TrustPotential support in fund raising efforts for specific
projects.
Focus of ORM Conservation Priority Areas.
Potential funding for specific projects on a case by
case basis.
Upper Tier Municipalities (York, Durham and PeelPotential funding for specific projects on a case by
Region, County of Simcoe)case basis (i.e., York Region - focus on tree cover
restoration, linkages).
Local MunicipalitiesPotential funding for specific projects on a case by
case basis (i.e., focus public access, community
related projects).
Ontario Land Trust AllianceFunding for appraisal costs on a case by case basis.
Ministry of Natural Resources - EnvironmentalPotential funding for specific projects on a case by
Land Acquisition Programcase basis - focus provincially significant feature
protection.
Trent Severn Waterway (Species at Risk)Funding for technical studies, potential funding for
acquisitions for areas containing species at risk.
Private Sector Funding• TD Canada Trust - Friends of the Environment.
• Industry (i.e., Aggregate Producers)
Friends of the Greenbelt FoundationPotential funding for activities that have multiple
benefits that link ecological enhancements with
economic, educational or cultural components.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îë
12.0LAND DISPOSITION POLICY
Through the process of securing ownership of lands through purchase, donation or bequest, the
Conservation Authority may receive lands that contain no or only portions of ecologically significant
features. Generally, the Conservation Authority does not endorse the sale of lands containing provincially
significant features. Through the refinement of the natural heritage system to be undertaken by the
Watershed Development Division and updated master plans for the LSRCA’s existing land holdings (where
funding permits), lands may be identified as surplus due to limited or no ecological significance. In the
event that lands are recommended for disposition, the following requirements would apply:
12.1That all surplus lands be offered “as is”.
12.2That land proposed for use for transportation, infrastructure, utilities or other routine public purposes
identified by a municipality or lands identified through an individual Environmental Assessment or
Class Environmental Assessment be disposed of at nominal consideration. Where a municipality
or public agency requests the disposition of Conservation Authority lands, all costs associated with
the transfer of title or easement (i.e., legal, appraisal, survey costs) will be the responsibility of the
requesting agency. If a property appraisal is required, it will be commissioned by the Conservation
Authority and paid for by the requesting agency.
12.3That a staff report be prepared detailing the technical concerns of the disposition, the environmental
significance of the lands, potential impacts of the disposition, any mitigation requirements
associated with the lands and remaining Conservation Authority land holdings. The proponent may
be required to prepare an environmental review documenting the above noted matters. The scope
of this assessment will be determined in consultation with LSRCA staff, agency staff and/or their
consultants prior to any work being undertaken.
12.4That the proposed disposition of land first be offered to the local municipality and the region or
county within which the lands are located for either purchase or lease. Where lands have been
acquired through a donation or bequest of lands that do not contain environmentally significant lands
and the owner has given permission for the Conservation Authority to use or dispose of the lands
as the Conservation Authority desires, the staff report outlined in 12.3 may not be required. This
will be determined at the discretion of the Board.
12.5When the disposition involves any lands where the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) provided
funding for the acquisition of the subject lands, that the proposed disposition be circulated to the
Ministry for approval as outlined in MNR’s Policies and Procedures for the Disposition of
Conservation Authority Lands.
12.6 That all land sales generally be appraised at market value by an AACI qualified appraiser
(Accredited Appraiser Canadian Institute). The sale may be subject to conditions to ensure that the
Conservation Authority’s objectives are met. Where an appraisal of land value is required, the
appraisal will be commissioned by the Conservation Authority. Lands with an anticipated value of
less than $25,000.00 may not require a full appraisal at the discretion of the Board.
12.7Generally, where lands are donated to the Conservation Authority, the family who donated the
property will be given first right of refusal or requested for consent to sell unless otherwise stated
in the terms of the donation or bequest.
Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project
2006 -2010
п¹» îê
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program
CONSERVATION LAND TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM (CLTIP)
The Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) was established in 1998. It is designed to
recognize, encourage and support the long-term private stewardship of Ontario’s provincially
significant conservation lands. It provides property tax relief to those landowners who agree to
protect the natural heritage values of their property. The current tax relief offered is a 100 per cent
tax exemption on the eligible portion of a property.
Eligible Lands
While large areas of Ontario are still in a natural state, only lands identified by the Ministry of
Natural Resources as provincially significant are eligible for this program. The eligible types of
land are:
1.Provincially Significant Wetlands
2.Provincially Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI - Earth and Life
Science)
3.Habitats of Endangered Species
4.Lands designated as Escarpment Natural Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan
5.Community Conservation Lands
5.1It is designated as an escarpment protection area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan
under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
5.2It is located within a Featured Area and contributed to the natural heritage protection
objectives established for the Featured Area as set out in the “Ontario Living Legacy
Land Use Strategy, July 1999", published by the Queen’s Printer.
5.3It is a natural heritage feature or area that meets the criteria of the natural heritage
provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement as issued and re-issued under section
3 of the Planning Act.
5.4It is identified by the Minister of Natural Resources as a regionally significant area
of natural and scientific interest using the criteria set out in the Ministry of Natural
Resources document entitled “A Framework for the Conservation of Ontario’s
Biological Heritage”, dated May, 1980, or in the Ministry of Natural Resources
document entitled “A Framework for the Conservation of Ontario’s Earth Science
Features”, dated October, 1981.
5.5It is a habitat of species of special concern, as designated by the Ministry of Natural
п¹» îç
Resources, based on the criteria in the “Categories and Criteria for Status
Assessment” of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario.
5.6It is identified as having species occurrences or ecological communities with an S-
Rank designation of S1-S3, as determined by the Natural Heritage Information
Centre of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
5.7It is designated as a natural core area, natural linkage area or countryside in the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act,
2001.
5.8It is a natural heritage area identified within a regional or watershed plan or strategy
developed by a conservation authority under the Conservation Authorities Act or by
another public agency under another provincial or federal statute.
5.9It is designated as an environmentally sensitive area, environmentally significant
area, environmental protection area, natural heritage system or another area with an
equivalent designation within a municipal official plan or zoning by-law under the
Planning Act.
5.10It is within, abuts or abuts a road allowance that abuts a provincial park, national
park, conservation reserve or provincial wildlife area and contributes significantly
to the natural heritage objectives of the park, reserve or wildlife area (no part of the
land that is more than 1,000 metres from the boundary of the park, reserve or wildlife
area is eligible to be classified as eligible conservation land).
5.11It is an area identified under the Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan
described in the “Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan Highlights Report
(2000-2003)”, published by Environment Canada.
CLTIP does not provide tax relief for buildings or other improvements and associated land.
CLTIP is not a land acquisition program. Participating landowners retain full ownership and
property rights.
п¹» íð
APPENDIX 2
Ecological Gifts Program
ECOLOGICAL GIFTS PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENT CANADA
The Ecogifts program is part of the federal government's efforts to protect Canada's biodiversity and
environmental heritage. It is administered by Environment Canada in cooperation with federal,
provincial, and municipal governments, and non-governmental partners. The Program is made
possible by the terms of the Income Tax Act. Amendments to the Act in the 1995, 1997 and 2000
federal budgets significantly enhanced the tax assistance for donations of ecologically sensitive land,
easements, covenants and servitudes.
Provincial Criteriafor Ecosensitivity - Ontario
A) Specific Categories of Qualified Lands
Lands, easements or covenants relative to such lands, which fall into one or more of the following
categories shall be deemed to be ecologically sensitive lands in Ontario. This is provided terms of
easements of covenants regard and protect the ecologically sensitive features of the land.
A1.Significant portions of the habitat of species determined to be endangered, threatened or
vulnerable in Ontario, as specified in a recovery plan or other biological study;
A2. Areas designated as Provincially Significant Wetlands;
A3. Provincial or regional Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest;
A4. Designated Areas of Concern for biodiversity purposes as identified in Forest
Management Plans;
A5. Areas qualifying for the Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program;
A6. Areas managed for wildlife habitat conservation purposes that qualify under the Managed
Forest Tax Reduction Program;
A7. Areas promoting the conservation of natural heritage and biodiversity that are identified
within a regional or watershed plan or strategy developed by a recognized conservation
organization;
A8. Areas designated as a World Heritage Site for biodiversity conservation purposes, a core
area of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, or a Wetland of International Importance under the
Ramsar Convention;
A9.Areas of biodiversity significance identified in a Canadian Heritage Rivers Management
Plan or Strategy;
A10.Areas designated in the Niagara Escarpment Plan as an Escarpment Protection Area or an
Escarpment Natural Area;
п¹» íî
A11.Areas designated as Natural Core, Natural Linkage, Sensitive Hydrological Feature, High
Aquifer Vulnerability, Significant Landform, Minimum Areas of Influence or Minimum
Vegetation Protection Zones within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
A12. Areas designated Core Area, Corridor or Restoration Area in the Lake Ontario Greenway
Strategy;
A13.Areas designated for biodiversity conservation purposes within Management Plans or
Strategies for the Trent-Severn or Rideau Waterways;
A14.Areas within a municipal official plan or zoning by-law under the Planning Act (Ontario)
designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area, Environmentally Significant Area,
Environmental Protection Area, Restoration Area, Natural Heritage System or other
designation for similar purposes that are compatible with the conservation of the
biodiversity, ecological features and functions of the site;
A15.Areas within or adjacent to a Provincial Park, Provincial Park Reserve, Conservation
Reserve, Conservation Area, Wilderness Area, Provincial Wildlife Area, National Wildlife
Area, Migratory Bird Sanctuary, National Park, National Park Reserve or Ecological or
Nature Reserve managed by a government or non-government agency;
A16.Municipal parks or other protected areas designated or managed for biodiversity
conservation purposes;
A17.Areas identified as Carolinian Canada sites or alternate sites;
A18.Areas designated as Core Natural Area, Natural Area Buffer, Natural Area Link, or Valued
Ecosystem Component in the National Capital Greenbelt Master Plan by the National
Capital Commission; and
A19.Areas designated for biodiversity purposes by regional agencies such as the Niagara Parks
Commission, St. Clair Parkway Commission, St. Lawrence Parks Commission and the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
B. General Criteria for Other Ecologically Sensitive Lands
Lands, easements or covenants relative to such lands, that meet one or more of the following general
criteria may also be considered to be ecologically sensitive lands in Ontario -- subject to the
approval of the federal Minister of the Environment or a person delegated by the Minister for this
purpose (the term "significant" for the purposes below refers to definitions provided in Provincial
Policy Statements).
B1.Significant habitats such as alvars, prairies, cliffs, Great Lakes coastal habitats, old growth
forest areas, glacial relic communities and sites with enduring geological features that
contribute to biodiversity;
B2.Areas of wildlife concentration such as bat caves, snake hibernacula, heronries, deer
wintering yards and sites used by migratory water birds and other species for seasonal
п¹» íí
staging, feeding, breeding and like purposes;
B3.Areas identified, designated or protected as ecologically significant or ecologically important
by a government or non-government local, provincial, national or international system or
body;
B4.Significant water bodies, rivers, streams, shorelines, valleys, wetlands, groundwater recharge
areas, headwaters and aquifers;
B5.Significant wildlife or fish habitats;
B6.Significant woodlands;
B7.Areas that have significant current or potential for enhanced ecological values through
restoration, remediation, management or geographic proximity to other ecologically
significant properties;
B8.Natural buffers and adjacent lands around areas identified under other ecologically sensitive
lands categories or criteria that contribute to the conservation of biodiversity;
B9.Natural links or corridors between areas identified under other ecologically sensitive lands
categories or criteria that contribute to the conservation of biodiversity;
B10.Areas used for long-term scientific study or baseline and benchmark monitoring of
biodiversity; and
B11.Areas that contribute to Canada's environmental heritage through the maintenance of the
genetic diversity of species, ecosystem health, or landscape biodiversity, and other natural
spaces of significance to the environment in which they are located.
The categories and criteria listed above, for the purposes of implementation of provisions in the
Income Tax Act for ecological gifts, have been agreed to by representatives of the Governments of
Ontario and Canada. This list and criteria may be further elaborated and amended by agreement
between Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
п¹» íì
APPENDIX 3
Land Securement Property Evaluation
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Land Securement Property Evaluation
2005
Review of a land securement opportunity (purchase/donation/easement) within the
watershed based on the following review process.
A. Property and Owner Particulars
Owner Information: Name
Address
Phone No.
Upper Tier Municipality
Lower Tier Municipality
Sub-Watershed
Property Location
Roll No.
Property Description
Property Size
Current Official Plan Designation(s)
Current Zoning Designation(s)
Priority or Secondary Securement
criteria observed
Willing Doner/Vendor (i.e. donation,
purchase, easement)
Existing Mortgage (Y/N)
Assessed Value
Comments
п¹» íê
B. Preliminary Property Investigation
Property AttributesYes/No/NotComments
Applicable
Adjacent to other public lands or private
conservation lands
Tax Exempt (CLTIP, Easement)
Contains features eligible for the Ecogifts
program
Part of an identified municipal, regional or
provincial greenspace system
History with the LSRCA, Permits,
Complaints, and Violations
LSRCA Stewardship Projects or Doner
The ecological sensitivity of the subject lands are based on the following priority and
secondary land securement criteria:
C. Priority Securement Criteria
Property AttributesYes/No/NotComments
Applicable
Provincially Significant Wetland.
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
(Earth Science).
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
(Life Science).
Habitat of Endangered Species (Ontario
Endangered Species Act).
п¹» íé
Community Conservation Lands:
Natural Heritage Features or Areas
identified in the Provincial Policy
Statement.
Regionally Significant ANSI’s.
Habitats of species of special
concern designated by MNR
(species at risk).
NHIC species occurrences or
ecological communities (S1, S2,
S3).
Designated Natural Core, Natural
Linkage or Countryside in the
ORMCP.
Natural heritage areas identified
within a regional or watershed plan
or strategy developed by a CA
under the CAA.
Lands designated environmentally
significant, environmental
protection or equivalent in
municipal Official Plans (Includes
LSRCA, ESA’s).
Areas within or adjacent to
protected areas (i.e., provincial
park, conservation reserve, or
provincial wildlife area) that
contribute to the natural heritage
objectives of the protected area.
Other criteria as may apply under
the CLTIP program requirements.
Lands adjacent to existing LSRCA
conservation areas
Identified LSRCA property securement
considerations
п¹» íè
D. Secondary Securement Criteria:
Yes/No/NotComments
Property AttributesApplicable
Lake Simcoe Waterfront.
Wetlands (Not of Provincial Significance).
Significant waterbodies, rivers, streams,
shorelines and valleys.
Groundwater recharge areas, headwaters
and aquifers.
Significant wildlife or fish habitats
Regional Flood Plain (flood and erosion
risk).
Significant Woodlands.
Areas with enhanced ecological values
through restoration and/or remediation
(i.e., forest, stream, wetland).
Natural buffers and adjacent lands under
other ecologically sensitive lands that
contribute to conservation of biodiversity.
Natural links or corridors between areas
identified under other ecologically
sensitive lands that contribute to
conservation of biodiversity (i.e., through
Natural Heritage Programs or Watershed
Plans).
Lands under Forest Management Plans
(designated areas of concern for
biodiversity).
п¹» íç
E. Determination whether securement is the most appropriate course of action in
order to protect natural heritage lands.
CriteriaYes/No/NotComments
Applicable
Are the lands significant in the context of
the overall natural heritage system.
Availability of funding for securement
(purchase, donation, easement, appraisal,
legal, survey etc.).
Availability of funding for ongoing
maintenance.
Is there an immediate threat to the lands
(future development, resource use).
Proximity of property to lands already in
public ownership.
Willingness of owner to enter into
negotiations.
Sale Price at fair market value.
Availability of maintenance access to the
property.
Potential municipal lease agreement.
Preferred agency for securement (i.e.,
CA, Region, Municipality, NCC, ORMLT).
Summary and Recommendation for Securement:
Evaluated by:______________________Date:_____________________
S:\KevinK\Land Securement Project Report\Property evaluation checklist 2005 - Appendix 3.wpd
п¹» ìð
1!...f1.
j}~~
-;::r-t.
~ (16
'> /)- ~
~J?
--Jvt-..e c;2( /t:b
K!},
A'.
I
~-{-
--
Township of EdwardsburghlCardinal
P.O. BOX 129, 18 CENTRE ST.
SPENCERVIl.l..E. ONT.
KOE 1XO
ww'W.edwardsburghcardinal.ca
PHONE:.613-658--3055
FAX: 613-656-3445
E.MAIL: ma!l@edwan:1sburghc:arOinal;ea
June 13, 2006
RE: FARMERS' MARKETS
At its regular meeting of June 5, 2006, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of
EdwardsburghlCardinal passed the following resolution:
Resolution Number 2006-212
Moved by: M. Thomson, seconded by: C. Burrell
WHEREAS "Farmers' Market Ontario" (FMO) has released a report entitled Recommendations
to Ensure Food Safety at Ontario's Farmers Markets which was used by the Ministry of Health
and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) in developing the draft regulations relating to farmers' markets
which legislation has been placed "on hold" over the summer of 2006 to allow the FMO to test
the rules set out in the draft legislation;
WHEREAS the MOHL TC has not released the draft legislation to the general public and the
local Health Unit has also refused to release the document;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Township of
EdwardsburghlCardinal requests the Minister of Health and Long Term Care to place a
moratorium on legislative changes that would alter the current social and cultural make-up of
Ontario's farmers markets, church suppers, bazaars, teas, pot-luck suppers, and other similar
community social and fundraising events.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the MOHLTC
and to AMO for distribution to AMO members.
Township Council would appreciate your municipality's support in this matter. Please provide a
copy of your correspondence to the Honourable George Smitherman, Minister of Health and
Long-Term Care, 80 Grosvenor Street, 10'h Floor, Hepburn Block, Toronto, Ontario, M7 A 2C4,
Yours truly,
/L.:tP'/ .
~Jl~~~
,
Debra McKinstry
Clerk/Planning Administrator
\\si -\
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
By-law Number 2006-50
Being a by-law to require land or cash-in-Iieu thereof for park or other
public recreational purposes as a condition of the development or
redevelopment of land and to repeal By-Law No. 2004-076
WHEREAS Sections 42 and 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13, as amended
allows a municipality to pass a By-law to collect cash-in-Iieu of parkland;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte deems it necessary and
expedient to ensure that appropriate lands be conveyed or cash-in-lieu provided for
park or other recreational purposes arising from development or redevelopment;
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-
Medonte enacts as follows:
1. In this by-law:
"Development" means the creation of a lot in accordance with the Planning Act,
R.S.D 1990, or the construction, erection or placing of one or more units in
accordance with the Plan of Condominium Act or the laying out of sites for the
location of three (3) or more trailers, as defined in clause (a) of paragraph 101 of
s.210 of the Municipal Actor of sites for the location of three (3) or more mobile
homes, as defined in subsection 46(1) of the Act, or of sites for the construction,
erection and location of three (3) or more land lease community homes, as defined
in subsection 46(1) of the Act, and includes redevelopment;
"Township" shall mean the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte;
2, As a condition of development, land is required to be conveyed to the Township for
park or other publiC recreational purposes as follows:
a) In the case of lands proposed for development for commercial or industrial
purposes, land in the amount of two per cent (2%) of the land to be
developed;
b) In the case of lands proposed for development for residential purposes, land
in the amount of five per cent (5%) of the land to be developed; and,
c) In the case of lands proposed to be developed for timeshare or fractional
ownership purposes, at a rate of two per cent (2%) of the land to be
developed.
3. In lieu of requiring the conveyances referred to in Section 2, the Township may
require the payment of a fee of $2,000 for each new lot created for residential
purposes pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act. The payment required under
this Section shall be made as a condition of Provisional Consent.
4. In the case of new lots created for residential purposes pursuant to Section 51 of
the Planning Act or residential units created in accordance with the Condominium
Act, and in lieu of requiring the conveyances referred to in Section 2, the Township
may require the payment of a fee of $2,000.00 for each new 10Vunlt created for
residential purposes. The payment required under this Section shall be made as a
condition of Draft Plan Approval.
5. In the alternative, the Township may accept a lesser amount per 10Vunit than the
amounts specified in clauses 3 and 4, based on the opinion of an appraiser. In no
case shall the Township require more than $2,000.00 per 10Vunit. The value of the
land shall be determined as of the day before the day of the Draft Approval of a
Plan of Subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act or the granting of
Provisional Approval of a new lot created by consent under Section 53 of the
Planning Act.
6. In the case of new lots created for industrial or commercial purposes pursuant to
Sections 51 or 53 of the Planning Act and in lieu of requiring the conveyances
referred to in Section 2, the Township may require the payment of a fee of $500.00
for each new lot created for industrial or commercial purposes. The payment
required under this Section shall be made as a condition of Provisional Consent or
Draft Plan Approval.
7. In the case of new units created in a timeshare or fractional ownership
establishment and in lieu of requiring the conveyances referred to in Section 2, the
Township may require the payment of a fee as determined by a qualified appraiser,
with such a fee equaling 2% of the combined value of the units before the first
building permit is issued. In no case shall the cash-in-lieu amount exceed $800.00
per unit, which is 40% of the residentiallotlunit amount. The payment required
under this Section shall be made as a condition of Building Permit.
8. If land has been already been conveyed or is required to be conveyed to the
Township for park or other public purposes pursuant to a subdivision agreement
that was in force and effect when this By-law comes into effect, or a payment of
money in lieu of such conveyance has been received by the Township or is owing
to it under this by-law or as a condition already imposed under s.51.1 or 53 of the
Act, no additional conveyance or payment in respect of the land subject to the
earlier conveyance or payment will be required by the Township in respect of
subsequent development unless:
a) There is change in the proposed development that would increase the density
of development; or
b) Land originally proposed for commercial or industrial purposes is now
proposed for development for other purposes.
9. Nothing herein shall prescribe or limit the Township's ability to require a
combination of the conveyance of land at the standards specified or cash-in-lieu.
1 O. The provisions of this By-law are applicable to all lands within the corporate
boundaries of the Township.
11. That By-law No. 2004-076 be repealed in its entirety,
12. That the provisions of this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon third
reading thereof.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn Pennycook
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE \ \0
BY-LAW NO. 2006-061
A By-law to Prohibit Smoking in All Enclosed Workplaces Owned and Operated
by The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
And to Repeal By-law No. 2001-90
WHEREAS Section 9 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, S.o. 1990, c. 10, as amended
states that no person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any enclosed
publiC place or enclosed workplace;
AND WHEREAS Section 115 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.o. 2001, c. 25, as
amended, authorizes a municipality to prohibit or regulate the smoking of tobacco in
workplaces;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has
enacted a By-law Respecting Smoking in Workplaces in the Township of Oro-Medonte
(Smoking in Workplaces By-law);
AND WHEREAS the Township of Oro-Medonte's Smoking in Workplaces By-law states
that every employer shall adopt a non-smoking policy that prohibits smoking in respect
of each workplace;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as
follows:
1. That smoking is prohibited in any enclosed workplace and in all buildings, structures
or vehicles, as defined in the Smoke Free Ontario Act and the Township of Oro-
Medonte Smoking in Workplaces By-law, which are owned and/or operated by the
Township of Oro-Medonte.
2. That this By-law shall be deemed to be the Non-smoking Policy for the Township of
Oro-Medonte.
3, That every person who contravenes this By-law is guilty of an offence.
4. That the penalty for contravention of this By-law shall be:
a. Any non-management employee who is deemed to be in contravention of this
By-law shall be subiect to the Township's current Discipline Policy;
b. Any management employee who is deemed to be in contravention of this By-law
shall be subject to the Township's current Management Concerns/Resolution
Process Policy;
c. All Township employees may also be subject to maximum fines under the Smoke
Free Ontario Act, and/or the Township of Oro-Medonte Smoking in the
Workplace By-law.
5. That By-law No. 2001-90 is repealed in its entirety.
6. This by-law shall take effect on the final passing thereof.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF 2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
\"-.0
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-063
A By-law of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
to amend By-law No. 2005-043, being a by-law to provide for the imposition of
fees or charges
WHEREAS Part XII, Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001. S.O. 2001, c, 25, as
amended, permits a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class
of persons, for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; for costs
payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other
municipality or local board; and for the use of its property including property under its
control;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte did, on the 4th day of May
2005, enact By-law No, 2005-043 to provide for the imposition of fees or charges;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte did, on the 14th day of
December, 2005 resolve to increase ice rental fees by 10% effective September 1,
2006;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
hereby enacts as follows:
1. That Section 1 of Schedule "D" - "Parks and Recreation" of By-law No. 2005-043 be
repealed in its entirety and replaced by the following:
"1. ICE RENTALS
Prime Time (5:00 p.m, to Close & Weekends)
Non-Prime Time (before 5:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri.)
Minor Hockey I AAA Ice Men I Figure Skating
$125.00/hour
$74.00/hour
$90.00/hour"
4. That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the 1" day of September
2006.
Read a first and second time this 21st day of June, 2006.
Read a third time and finally passed this
day of
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
\
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-064
A By-law to Authorize the Execution of a Site Plan Control Agreement
between The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
and
Steven Campbell
described as lands as follows:
Lot 71, Plan 1464, Being all of PIN #58561-0067 (Lt)
Roll #4346-010-011-15100-0000
Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe
WHEREAS authority to enter into Site Plan Control Agreements is provided for in
Section 41 of The Planning Act, R,S,O., 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, and Council
deems it necessary to enter into a Site Plan Control Agreement on the lands described
herein;
AND WHEREAS By-Law No, 2005-124, a By-Law to Designate Areas of the Township
as Site Plan Control Areas, was passed by Council for the Township of Oro-Medonte,
pursuant to the provisions of The Planning Act, R.S.O" 1990, c. P. 13, as amended;
AND WHEREAS the lands referred to in Ihis By-Law are subject to Site Plan Control,
pursuant to By-Law No, 2005-124;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as
follows:
1. THAT the Township enter into the Site Plan Control Agreement attached hereto as
Appendix "A", on lands described on the attached Schedule "A";
2, THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Site Plan Control
Agreement on behalf of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte;
3, THAT the attached Appendix "A" and Schedules "A, B, C and D" shall form part of
this By-Law;
4. THAT this By-Law shall take effect on the final passing thereof.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS
2006.
DAY OF
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
APPENDIX "A"
to By-Law No. 2006-064
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT
- between -
STEVEN CAMPBELL
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
DESCRIPTtON OF LANDS
Lot 71, Plan 1464
Being all of PIN #58561-0067 (Lt)
Roll #4346-010-011-15100-0000
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
June, 2006
By-Law No. 2006-064
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 "D"
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
2
\~.~~
~~
SITE PLAN CONTROL AGREEMENT
This Agreement made, in quadruplicate, this day of
accordance with Section 41 of the Plannina Act.
2006, in
BETWEEN:
STEVEN CAMPBELL
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 25' x 30'
garage on lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto;
AND WHEREAS the Township has enacted a By-law 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 "8";
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 otherwise 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 otherwise. 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 agrees that prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a Sewage System
Permit approval must be received by the Township/Ministry of the Environment.
i) 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, and 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 25' x 30' garage 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) Liohtino
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) Parkino 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
Reguiation #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 Storaoe
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) Garbaoe Storaoe
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) Landscapino
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
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
\~ ~-
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 "0" 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 altemative
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 retum 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 behaW, 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 427 of the Municipal Act,
2001, S,O. 2001, c. 25, as amended.
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.
6
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 ) Jl2(( 11 ~:~?4/
) Owner: Steven Campbell
)
)
)
)
) 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 Steven Campbell.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS
Lot 71, Plan 1464, being all of PIN #58561-0067 (Lt), Roll #4346-010-011-15100-
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 Steven Campbell.
9
Site Plan is not in a registerable form and is available from the Township of Oro-Medonte.
\
SCHEDULE "C"
NOTE:
It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan
Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Steven Campbell.
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 Steven Campbell.
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
11
~ \
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-065
"Being a By-law to remove the Holding symbol applying to
lands located at Lot 71, Plan 1464, municipally known as 16
Mazepa Place (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
(Roll # 4346-010-011-15100) (S. Campbell)"
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is
empowered to pass By-laws to remove a Holding provision pursuant to Section
36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.
AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to remove the Holding provision
applying to the subject lands;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-
Medonte enacts as follows:
1. Schedule 'A6', to Zoning By-law No. 97-95 as amended, is hereby further
amended by removing the Holding provision applying to lands located at
Lot 71, Plan 1464, municipally known as 16 Mazepa Place (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte (Roll #4346-010-011-15100) as shown on
Schedule 'A' attached hereto and forming part of this By-law,
2. This By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage hereof,
subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21sT DAY OF JUNE,
2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
~ ~
Schedule IAI to By-Law
2006-065
This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law 2006-065
passed the day of , 2006.
J. Neil Craig
j
"l;
Mayor
N
Clerk
Marilyn Pennycook
SHEWCHENKO
6
OJ
w
Z
o
<
"
W
N
<
,
R.'X':X] LANDS SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL
KX.XJ OF THE HOLDING PROVISION
o 30 60 Meters
I"" 1"" I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
\~
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-067
A By-law to amend the zoning provisions which apply to lands
within Lots 1 to 66, Plan 51 M-741 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonle
(Laurel View Homes (H. V.) Inc.! Horseshoe Resort)
WHEREAS the Council ot the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is
empowered to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to amend the regulations for single
detached dwellings for the subject lands, in accordance with Section E2 of the Official
Plan;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
hereby enacts as follows:
1. Section 7.140 Exceptions of By-law 97-75 as amended is hereby further amended
by adding a new subsection I) under the heading "Reaulations for sinale detached
dwellinas" as follows:
I) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.9, Encroachments in Reauired Yard
the following shall apply to the subject lands being Lots 1 to 66, Plan 51 M-741 ,
zoned R1"140:
"Architectural features such as sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves or gutters,
chimney breast, pilasters, roof overhangs, cantilevered window bays may
encroach into the required side yard a distance of not more than 0.5 metres (1.5
feet). In regards to Lots 1 to 66, Plan 51 M-741 , landscaping treatments such as
natural or man-made stone landings, staircases, or walkways are not subject to
the provisions of the Zoning By-law unless defined as a structure under the
Building Code.
Except as otherwise provided in this By-law, the provisions of the R 1 Zone and
the general provisions of By-law 97-95, as amended, shall continue to apply to
Lots 1 to 66, Plan 51M-741."
2. This By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage hereof, subject to the
provisions of the Planning Act, as amended.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
\ ~ ~
Schedule 'A' to By-law
No. 2006-067
This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law 2006-067
passed the day of , 2006,
Mayor
j
"'"
J. Neil Craig
Clerk
N
Marilyn pennycook
IT~
i
i
I
I
i~
j ~
I~
i
I
I
I i
I .
I I
....+-.. AREA AFFECTED BY z~. ING BY-LAW.
Ll..J LOTS H6. PLAN 51M.71'
_AREA NOT AFFECTED t' Y ZONING BY.LAW. I
I' BLOCKS 67, 68, 69,70, 1,72&73 4~ 20 0
r-
\~
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
It
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2006-062
BEING A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21,2006
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the action of the Council at its Council Meeting held on Wednesday,
June 21, 2006, and in respect to each Motion, Resolution and other actions passed
and taken by the Council at its said Meeting is, except where prior approval of the
Ontario Municipal Board is required, hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed.
2, THAT the Mayor and the proper Officials of the Township are hereby authorized and
directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain
approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary on
behalf of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte. And, the
Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal to all said
documents,
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2006.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FtNALL Y PASSED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE,
2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn Pennycook