The URL can be used to link to this page

05 26 2008 PAC Agenda• • • •'• B 4 Council Chambers Date: Monday, May 26, 2008 Time: 7:00 p.m. 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Accordance with the Act 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings — April 28, 2008 and May 5, 2008 5. Deputations I= 6. Planning Applications (a) Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 2008-ZBA -07 Indian Park Association, Block 86, Plan M-367, Sugarbush subdivision (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte 7. Correspondence and Communication Presentation by Rick Groves, TSH Associates and Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning re: Servicing and Transportation Analysis, Craighurst Secondary Plan (report to be distributed electronically) 8. Other Business/Education (a) Growth Plan update (b) Source Water Protection Committee update 9. Adjournment 4-1 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2006-2010 TERM April 28, 2008, 7:12 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Terry Allison Councillor Sandy Agnew Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans Public Representatives Linda Babulic Roy Hastings Tom Kurtz Mary O'Farrell-Bowers Larry Tupling Staff Present: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services; Glenn White, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk Also Present: John Hare, Allan Baker, Jim & Pat Woodford, Sue Robinson, Joe Charles, Brent Clarkson, Gord Knox, Charles Gardner, Kathleen Dooling, Lori Hunter, Maria Benjamins, Berardo Mascioli, Stan Gidzinsky 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair. Deputy Mayor Hough assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. 2. Adoption of Agenda. Motion No. PAC080428-1 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, April 28, 2008 be received and adopted as amended to add Item 6b), Report No. BP 2008-29, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, re: Proposed Temporary Use By-law 2008-ZBA-04 (Hale), 1310 Moonstone Road West Concession 3, South Part of Lot 16 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte and Item 8c), Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. Carried. 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof — in Accordance with the Act. None declared. OWN 4. Minutes of PrmviouaMeetings — February 25, 2008' Motion No. PAC080428-2 Moved bv Larry TupUng. Seconded bv Linda B8bu|ic It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on February 25.20O8b8 received and adopted. 5. Deputations. a) K8r. Allan BGher, n3: History 0fBuffalo Springs Property. Mr. Baker distributed correspondence dated April 23, 2008 to members of the Committee. Motion No. PAC080428-3 Moved bv Tom Kurtz, Seconded hv Linda Babu|ic It is recommended that the verbal information and correspondence dated April 23, 2008 presented by Allan Baker re: Buffalo Springs Property bereceived. Carried. 6. Planning Applications. u) Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 2U08-OPA-U1and 2OOO-ZBA-08.1O88105 Ontario Inc. ([}s9um Enterprises |Dc.) -2978 Highway 11.Pariof Lot 2U. Concession 7/CJn}>. Township CdCJro-yNedonte. Mr. Gord Knox, on behalf of Ossum Enterprises Inc., spoke on behalf of the Report. Motion No. PAC080428-4 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Mary C)'Farna||-BoxverS |tiG recommended that 1 Report No. BP 2008-28. Bruce Hopp8, Director Of Building and Planning Services m8: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 2808-{]PA-01 and 20O8-ZBArOG.1898185 Ontario Inc. ((]oGUnn Enterprises |nc.)-2S70 Highway 11. Part nf Lot 20, Concession 7 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted. 2. And Further That it in recommended to Council that Applications 2008-OPA-01 and 2008- ZBA-0O proceed 10 a Statutory Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions Cfthe Planning Act. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 28, 2008, Page 2 4-3 b) Report No. BP 2008-29, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, re: Proposed Temporary Use By-law 2008-ZBA-04 (Hale), 1310 Moonstone Road West Concession 3, South Part of Lot 16 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte. Motion No. PAC080428-5 Moved by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that 1 Report No. BP 2008-29, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, re: Proposed Temporary Use By-law 2008-ZBA-04 (Hale), 1310 Moonstone Road West Concession 3, South Part of Lot 16 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted. 2. And Further That it is recommended to Council that Application 2008-ZBA-04, for rezoning submitted by Brent Hale respecting 1310 Moonstone Road West, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 16 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte proceed to a Statutory Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Carried. 7. Correspondence and Communication. a) Presentation by Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit regarding "Building Healthy Communities" (information packages enclosed). Dr. Charles Gardner, Medical Officer of Health, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, presented a PowerPoint presentation. Handouts of the presentation were distributed to the Committee. Motion No. PAC080428-6 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that the correspondence and verbal information presented by Dr. Charles Gardner, Medical Officer of Health, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, regarding "Building Healthy Communities" be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 28, 2008, Page 3 4-1 b) Correspondence dated April 17, 2008 from Mr. Berardo Mascioli of Stratega Consulting Ltd. re: Proposed Lake Simcoe Aeropark Industrial Subdivision. Mr. Berardo Masciolo, Stratega Consulting Ltd., presented a PowerPoint presentation. Handouts of the presentation were distributed to the Committee. Motion No. PAC080428-7 Moved by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 17, 2008 and verbal information presented by Mr. Berardo Mascioli, Stratega Consulting Ltd., regarding proposed Lake Simcoe Aeropark Industrial Subdivision be received. Carried. 8. Other Business/Education. a) Mayor H.S. Hughes, re: Growth Plan Update. Motion No. PAC080428-8 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Linda Babulic It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Mayor H.S. Hughes and Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, re: Growth Plan update be received. Carried. b) Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. Motion No. PAC080428-9 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Tom Kurtz re: Source Water Protection Committee Update be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 28, 2008, Page 4 9. Adjournment. Motion No. PAC080428-10 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Linda Babulic It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Chair, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Carried. Director of Building and Planning Services, Bruce Hoppe Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 28, 2008, Page 5 4-6- TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SPECIAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2006-2010 TERM May 5, 2008, 7:04 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Terry Allison Councillor Sandy Agnew Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans Public Representatives Linda Babulic Roy Hastings Tom Kurtz Mary O'Farrell-Bowers Larry Tupling Staff Present: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services; Glenn White, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk Also Present: Len Leach, Paul Mulrooney 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair. Deputy Mayor Hough assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. 2. Adoption of Agenda. Motion No. PAC080505-1 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that the agenda for the Special Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, May 5, 2008 be received and adopted. -=# 1-1 NO 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof — in Accordance with the Act. None declared. 4. Discussion. (a) Review of the County of Simcoe Draft "Simcoe Area Growth Plan". Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services presented a PowerPoint presentation from the County of Simcoe. The Chair asked for comments from Messrs. Leach and Mulrooney with respect to Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. Motion No. PAC080505-2 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the draft Simcoe Area Growth Plan dated April, 2008 prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. with the accompanying draft Transportation Master Plan and Natural Heritage presented by Mayor H.S. Hughes and Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, be received; And That the Township of Oro-Medonte forward comments on the draft "Simcoe Area Growth Plan" to the County of Simcoe. 5. Adjournment. Motion No. PAC080505-3 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Tom Kurtz It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 8:49 p.m. Chair, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Carried. Director of Building and Planning Services, Bruce Hoppe Planning Advisory Committee Meeting May 5, 2008, Page 2 &0 - f --- --- TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Z .0 2 Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By: BP 2008-033 Committee Glenn White, Senior Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Zoning By-law Motion # May 26, 2008 Amendment 2008-ZBA-07 (Indian Park Association) Part of Lots 1 & 2, Range 2 Roll #: R.M.S. File #: D14- 37803 4346-010-003-27595 2243 Ridge Road West IRECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action [X] For Information Only It is recommended: 1. THAT Report BP 2008-033 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment for Indian Park Association, Block 86, Plan M-367 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, be received. 2. THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2008-ZBA-07, Indian Park Association, Block 86, Plan M-367, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, proceed to a Statutory Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application submitted by Indian Park Association. This application to amend the Zoning By-law has been submitted to change the zoning of a parcel of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to Residential One (R1) Zone in order to create one new building lot for the development of one residential unit. The applicant's lands are located on the east side of Line 6 North, south of Horseshoe Valley Road West and north of Hickory Lane (Sugarbush Residential Subdivision), being Block 86, Plan M-367. ANALYSIS: The Zoning By-law Amendment Application is proposed to change the zoning of a parcel of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone. The applicant has indicated that when the subdivision was established, this parcel was created as an open space block. Further, the applicant has indicated that the Indian Park Association is in the process of liquidating the properties under their ownership, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date April 16, 2008 Report No. BP 2008-022 Page 1 of 3 (f,, a - Z with the eventual goal of the dissolution of the Association. To facilitate this process, the Indian Park Association is seeking to rezone the parcel of land to permit the sale of the land and the construction of a single detached dwelling. The applicant has indicated that the parcel of land no longer serves a purpose as an open space block; therefore the request to rezone it to permit a single detached dwelling has been submitted. The subject parcel is presently vacant and surrounded by existing residential uses. The parcel is irregularly shaped which fronts on Line 6 North. The total lot area of the parcel is 0.46 hectares. The sides and rear of the subject lands are surrounded by single detached dwellings. The surrounding lots are presently zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. FINANCIAL: , N 11561WIM00 M. 410 POLICIES/LEGISLATION: Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan: The subject property is designated "Residential" by Schedule "A" of the Official Plan. Schedule "A" also identifies the lands as being located within the Oro-Moraine Planning Area boundary. The subject lands are subject to the policies of Section C14 "Horseshoe Valley Road" which includes policies for the Sugarbush node (Section C14.2.4). Permitted uses on lands designated Residential on the schedules to the Official Plan are single detached dwellings, home occupations, private recreational facilities, bed and breakfast establishment and open space uses. The proposed residential zoning generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan. Zoning By-law 97-95: The subject parcel of land is presently zoned Open Space (OS) Zone. The subject parcel is 0.46 hectares in total lot area. The Residential One (R1) Zone requires a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres and a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares for a single detached dwelling use. The parcel has frontage of approximately 335 metres onto Line 6 North. The applicant's Planning Consultant has indicated that the subject parcel of land has a building envelope area of 0.285 hectares. This building envelope could front onto Line 6 North for approximately 90 metres. The subject parcel would exceed the minimum requirements of the Residential One (R1) Zone. CONSULTATIONS: External agencies and internal departments were consulted with respect to this application. No responses have been received from outside agencies as of this date. No concerns from internal departments have been received as of this date. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date April 16, 2008 Report No. BP 2008-022 Page 2 of 3 &a- -3 ATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Rezoning Proposal CONCLUSION: Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2008-ZBA-07 generally conforms to the policies of the Official Plan and on the basis of the above, it is recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2008-ZBA-07, Indian Park Association, proceed to a statutory Public Meeting to gain input and comments from the public. Respectfully submitted: _Z2 Glenn White Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: C.A.O. Approval: Date: Reviewed by: Aruceppe, MCIP, RPP Director, Building & Planning Services PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date April 16, 2008 Report No. BP 2008-022 Page 3 of 3 Cry Av ui z Fl HORSESHOE _VALLEY 0 SUBJECT LANDS 0 2008-ZBA-07 3: z cri Ol 0 OPP cc col z�v MONK OC _ui 00 . SUMAC..-I....,L/ O cc- m z w 0 75 150 3 Meters Subject Lands Line 6 North (Sugarbush Residential Subdivision) Former Township of Oro Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe, El Subject Lands Minimum setback under Zoning By-law Note: ProPertY Boundary is e Scale 1:2,500 April 1, 2008 rVITTY& REPORT Report BP 2008-035 Planning Advisory Committee I Prepared By: Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning___ Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Subject: Craighurst Secondary Plan- Next Steps Motion # R.M.S. File IRECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action 1K For Information Only It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council: 1. THAT Report BP 2008-035 Re: Craighurst Secondary Plan — Next Steps, be received and adopted; 2. THAT the Environmental Study Report prepared by Totten Simms Hubicki Associates (TSH) dated April, 2008 be received; 3. THAT Council support, in principle, future development in Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services; 4. THAT the Township prepare a Comprehensive Secondary Plan for the Craighurst community that is based on development occurring on full municipal services; and, 5. THAT the draft Secondary Plan be presented to Council in a draft form before a decision is made to hold a formal public meeting under the Planning Act. BACKGROUND: As Council will recall, TSH was retained in the summer of 2007 to complete a servicing and transportation analysis of the Craighurst Secondary Plan Area. This analysis was required to ensure that all issues relating to servicing and transportation were reviewed, options identified and potential solutions determined. To a very large extent, this analysis was required to satisfy the Ministry of Environment, who had requested that the Township ensure that any work completed in support of the Craighurst Secondary Plan was generally carried out in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, which requires a detailed review of all potential options. The intent of this report is to summarize the work carried out by TSH since September 2007 and to recommend next steps in the process. BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 1 of 6 Prior to initiating the work, representatives • TSH, Meridian and Township ff m with the Ministry • Environment to discuss the work program and obtain th:!iar inpt Once this input was received, work began in October 2007. Once a sufficient amou of background work had been completed, a public information session was held October 2, 2007 to primarily discuss the servicing aspects • the work program and t1h proposed Secondary Plan. Following this session, the engineering report w completed and is attached to this report as Attachment #1. � ANALYSIS: WON= In the enclosed report, TSH identifies a number of alternatives with respect to the provision of sewer, water and stormwater management facilities and services. A number of options are also identified for the area road network. It is noted that the focus of their report was on the review of alternatives that would support the development of Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services, which is a preferred means of servicing identified in the approved Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The TSH report concludes that there is a number of viable options with respect to servicing in the Craighurst Settlement Area. On the basis of a review of these options, TSH has concluded that: 1. There is an adequate supply of potable water available to service new development in the Settlement Area; 2. There are a number of viable sewage collection and treatment options that can be implemented in accordance with current Ministry of Environment regulations and guidelines; 3. A number of viable stormwater management options exist, with each of these options being developed in accordance with Ministry of Environment Best Management Practices; and, 4. A number of operational improvements to the road network will be required to support development. FINANCIAL: n/a POLICIES/LEGISLATION: OFFICIAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The 1997 Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte set out direction for the Township. Specifically, section B1.1 states that: BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 2 of 6 "7n accordance with the policies of this Plan, new residential development is directed to settlement areas. The strategy described in this part of the Plan is based on the need to provide municipal services as efficiently as possible to settlement areas and the wish to protect the natural environment and natural resources of the Township." This strategy is further supported by principles contained within Section A2.3.1 and A2.4.1 which state in part that: "The development of new residential subdivisions in the rural or agricultural area is not permitted by this Official Plan." M "Scattered rural development by way of Plans of Subdivision is not permitted by this Plan." A review of the 1997 Official Plan was carried out in 2000 and 2003 and as a result of that review, Council decided to retain the 1997 Growth and Settlement Strategy. In addition, the updated Official Plan indicated that: "it is expected that the Township's permanent population will increase by approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people over the next 20 years to 2023." In order to meet this population projection, the 1997 and then the 2003 Official Plan Update both recognized existing development approvals throughout the Municipality. In addition, Council initiated the preparation of both the Hawkestone and Craighurst Secondary Plans in 1999. In March 2006, the combination of the existing approvals and the amount of development that could occur in the two Secondary Plan areas resulted in there being a potential 17 year to 21 year supply of land in the Municipality. The inclusion of the potential development that could be accommodated in Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services in the supply analysis was a key factor in a decision made by the Ontario Municipal Board on April 18, 2006 (Order #1117- PI-040812). The OMB Decision dealt with an application to develop a 42 lot Estate Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Bidwell Road area. The following was noted in the OMB Decision "the Board, while it has wide powers to amend or modify municipal Official Plans should use this authority with circumspection and should not interfere in this fundamental municipal planning and decision making process unless it is clear. a) that the municipality has made fundamental errors in its assessment of its need for development lands and its ability through its land use designations and growth management strategies to achieve its projected growth; or BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 3 of 6 b) that the decisions with respect to its growth and settlement strategies are at odds with the directions of the Provincial Policy Statement; or c) that there has been a breach of the prescribed planning process afforded individuals as a matter of right." In making a decision on the application, it is further indicated in the OMB Decision that: "the Board is satisfied that the Growth and Settlement Strategy as set out in the 1997 Official Plan is sound, represents in good planning, and clearly articulates the direction that the Municipality wishes to take with respect to residential development. It is a Growth Strategy endorsed by the Province. This strategy is in conformity with the County of Simcoe Official Plan and has had proper regard for and is consistent with the 1997 PPS." It the writer's opinion that, in a growing area such as the County of Simcoe, every effort should be made to foster the establishment and maintenance of 'complete communities'. In essence, a complete community is a community in which all of the needs of residents can be met without traveling to other communities. It could be argued that the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) as an entity is the only true complete community, where services and jobs required for the population are located in a broad sense, although the distances between the people requiring the services and jobs may be quite significant. An example of such a circumstances may be someone living in Orillia, but working at the Honda plant in Alliston and obtaining higher order health care in Downtown Toronto. As a result, the definition of 'community' does have an impact on the analysis, with the GGH being one community in the Canadian/North American context, with that one large community being made up a cluster of individual communities. On this basis, there is a need to think about those elements that would make Oro- Medonte more 'complete', recognizing that the only 'true' complete community is the GGH itself. Below are some of the elements in this regard: • A strong live/work ratio, where the majority of residents are employed in the community they live. • Choice in the market place, in terms of obtaining goods and services (the larger the community the greater the choice). • A range of educational and training opportunities (from Pre-Kindergarten to Post Secondary). • A range of housing types for all levels of income. • A range of health care services for the majority of the residents (it is recognized that not every hospital can provide higher order services and that medical services are increasingly becoming focused in key hospitals that serve a wide region). BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 4 of 6 • A range of community and social services to assist the majority of those in need in the community. • A range of cultural and recreational opportunities and facilities. • A population level and density that supports the provision of public transit. All of the above require certain population and employment thresholds. The development of Craighurst on full municipal services will provide opportunities for the provision of range of housing types for all levels of income and more choice in the market place, resulting from additional population growth. Also, the establishment of a full serviced community in Oro-Medonte provides for the possible development of higher order residential uses such as retirement homes and the development of a new public school on full municipal services. The development of these types of new facilities would be in the public interest, since such retirement homes do not exist at the present time in the Township and there is a need for a new elementary school on full municipal services. Up until this point in the planning process, Council has not been asked to make a decision on which form of servicing should provide the basis for the planning of Craighurst. However, the Official Plan does support the expansion of the Craighurst Settlement Area and does indicate that the preferred means of servicing in Craighurst is on the basis of full municipal services. Given that the work now completed by TSH clearly indicates that full services are feasible and viable, it is prudent to endorse this recommendation at this time. CONSULTATIONS: Bruce Hoppe — Director of Building and Planning Services ATTACHMENTS: Environmental Study Report prepared by Totten Simms Hubicki Associates (TSH) dated April, 2008 CONCLUSION: NEXT STEPS Making a decision now on the form of servicing is only one step in a comprehensive land use planning process. However, once the determination is made, decisions can then be considered on density, housing types and the form of development. In this regard, while a certain land area with defined boundaries has been identified through this land use planning exercise, there remain a number of options in this regard, all of which relate to the location, type and scale of development. On this basis of the above, these options will be further explored through the preparation of a draft Secondary Plan for Craighurst for Council, following which public consideration can be sought. This BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 5 of 6 draft Secondary Plan will be initiated once Council has confirmed the form of servic for Craighurst. I It will take approximately one month to complete a draft Secondary Plan. Once complete, it will be presented to Council in draft form and direction will be sought on next steps, with the primary next step being the holding of a public meeting to obtain comments on the Secondary Plan. Once the meeting on the Secondary Plan has been held, a further report will be prepared with such a report containing a recommendation on the policy framework that should be adopted in the context of the Secondary Plan. Respectfully submitted: Nick M cD o n a Id,M �Cl P, R' P P Partner, Meridian Planning Consultants C.A.O. Comments: C.A.O. Approval: Date: BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: May 26, 2008 Report No. 2008-035 Page 6 of 6 . -, -A I-T QOw c o -VA Y\-Z .J cA v� )S h1 Crai'ghurst Secondary Plan Secondary Plan Study Area CRAIGHURS ,. QF ,�,' Win, �� . • 6 9 �' -.� $ � -- . ..ti 7� � rid` �.:•? , "._ +� F SECONDARY PLAN STUDY AREA L- 4 y J' �A0 L ell�.:. Project Description • Provide Recommended Upgrades for • Domestic Water Supply • Sanitary Collection, Treatment and Disposal • Stormwater Management • Traffic Class Environmental Assessment • Proceeding as part of the Secondary Plan process • Combines planning and servicing Work Program to Date • Aug 2000 -Phase 1 Background Study • May 2001 - Craighurst Development Options (Ph 2) • Oct 2007 - Public Information Meeting, Servicing Options • May 2008 -Draft Servicing Report (Ph 3) Work Program to be Completed • Summer 2008 - Public Consultation /Circulation • Summer 2008 - Receive Comments • TBD - Finalize EA Report (Ph 4) • - Draft Secondary Plan and Final Master Servicing Report - Finalize and Council Adoption of Secondary Plan Water Supply • Considerations • Suitability of Aquifer • Location Wells • Location of Pumphouse • Type of Water Storage and Location Water Supply Alternatives • Need a total of 1,000 m3 /day for total for 825 equivalent units. • Draw more water from existing wells - Currently limited to 523 m3 /day • Install additional wells in upper aquifer - Not a confined aquifer and could impact existing shallow wells • Install additional wells in lower aquifer - Source for existing wells, sufficient capacity available Existing Well Location Possible Well Locations Water Storage Alternatives • Underground reservoirs — Least obtrusive — Excavation and major construction required for expansion • Above grade reservoirs — Visible depending on location — Can be easily expanded • Elevated storage (Water Tower) — Very visible — Not expandable — Most expensive Potential Elevated Storage Locations Pumphouse Location Alternatives A Pumphouse will be required for new wells and water storage facility. • Location can be established: — In advance by Township — Based on first development to proceed • Considerations — Area to be serviced (new development) — Location of wells — Location and type of reservoir Potential Pumphouse Locations Sanitary Sewage - Collection • What type of collection system • Where is the collection point - Treatment • Level of treatment for either surface or subsurface disposal • Process considerations • Location of Treatment Plant - Disposal • Surface or subsurface disposal • Location of discharge point or points Sewage Collection • Several alternative types of collection available, most common are: — Conventional gravity collection — Pressure sewers • Preferred Alternative: — Conventional gravity collection — Use of sanitary pumping stations is necessary due to Treatment Plant location or topography. T/H Township of Oro - Medonte engineer architect: Craighurst Secondary Plan planner: MEN =� v 1 �1 /rou vision "'PI,n,„ REALIZATION T Sewage Treatment Plant Location • Location Considerations: — At low point of sanitary sewer system — Away from existing or proposed residential property — A minimum of 100 metre setback from adjacent property — Accessible by heavy trucks • Preferred Alternative: — 3 potential locations are suitable Alternate Treatment Plant Location Treated Sewage Disposal • Alternatives: — Surfacewater to a creek — Subsurface to tile beds • Preferred Alternative: Subsurface disposal — Surfacewater discharge would be difficult or impossible to obtain approval. Matheson Creek is only Nottawasaga subwatershed that has unimpaired water quality. — Distributed tile beds are constructed by each development as required. Possible Tile Bed Locations Sewage Treatment Plant Process • Alternatives: — Conventional Treatment — Enhanced Treatment • Preferred Alternative: Enhanced Treatment — Subsurface discharge to shallow aquifers in the area has the potential to impact the existing ecosystem — Enhanced treatment will provide a very high quality discharge — Eliminate potential effects to the watershed or to existing shallow wells or springs in the area Stormwater Management • Alternatives: - Centralized Ponds - Best Management Practices • Preferred Alternative: Best Management Practices where possible — A 30 metre setback is required to all watercourses — Use of swales and natural areas . — Larger development areas may not have alternatives other than to construct Stormwater Treatment Ponds due to large catchment areas — Need to maintain pre development flows in creeks to prevent erosion and downstream water flow /flooding CRAIGHURST 1 - -� i �,.. i I t i t mss' 'e Ir r— Transportation • Considerations - Road Classification -Arterial - Traffic Volume - Today and Future - Number of Lanes - Traffic Signals, Turning Lanes - Railway Crossing Transportation Alternatives Do Northing Upgrade the Road Network to suit Projected Requirements Traffic Study • Review Existing Data and Reports • Updated Traffic Counts & Rail Crossing Times • Forecast Traffic Volumes - 20 Years • Analyze Traffic Operations, Lanes, Signals • Road /Rail Crossing Exposure Index Traffic Study • Relatively Little Growth In Traffic from 1998 to 2007 • Three Alterative Forecasts Developed 1. Craighurst and Horseshoe 2. Alt 1. plus 1% Background Growth 3. Alt 1. plus 3% Background Growth Traffic Conclusions • Substantial Traffic Growth Predicted • Signalized Intersection Adequate • Two lanes of traffic with local improvements such as turning lanes will work Railway Crossing • Train Delays Recorded on County Rd 22 ranged from 1 to 3 minutes • Residents report much longer delays • Local Ambulance Station west of tracks • Traffic Backup to Highway Ramps Transportation Upgrades SECONDARY CON I LL11 :39 Summary • Water Supply — New wells located in new development — At grade or below grade reservoir with pumping station • Sewage — Gravity sewage system — Sewage treatment plant located adjacent to rail line — Enhanced treatment — Discharge to subsurface tile beds • Storm Drainage — Best Management Practices where possible — Use stormwater ponds for large catchment areas to prevent flooding • Transportation — Upgrades to roads and intersections as required by traffic volumes Totten Sims Hubicki Associates 10 High Street Barrie, Ontario, Canada L4N 1W1 (705) 721 -9222 Fax: (705) 734 -0764 E-mail: rgroves @tsh.ca www.tsh.ca TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE CRAIGHURST SECONDARY PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT zk APRIL 2008 NO :may I i tir At UH Township ofOu+Medonte i Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 1. INTRODUCTION ..................... ................................................ .................................... --1 11 Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Planning Process ......... .............................................. l 1.1.1 GeDe[8L----------------------------------------------.l 1.12 Schedules AB.OrC---------------------------------------..l 1.1.3 The Class Environment Assessment /FA\ Phases ..................................................................... l 11/4 Request for a Part U Order ............................................................................................................. 2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ......... ......... ............. ........ ...... ....... ......... ........ ........... 4 2.1 Introduction .......... ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Background ........................................................................................ ............................................ 4 2.2.1 Work Program ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.22 Preferred Growth Option ............................................................................................................... 5 2.23 Opportunities and Constraints tO Development ......................................................................... 7 13 2.2.3.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.222 Alternative No. 2— Provide local underground storage Bt new well sites ................ 2.2.3.2 Sewage Treatment and Disposal .................................................................................... 0 13 2.2.33 StO[OlvV@ter Management ................................................................................................. 9 2.233 Transportation --------------------------------------..9 2.3 Purpose Df the Project ................................................................................................................. l0 2.4 Problem Identification .................................................................................................................. l0 2.5 Project Proponent ......................................................................................................................... l0 3. DESCRIPTION [}F ALTERNATIVES ............. ...... .............................................. —......... 11 81 |DtnodU[tiOO -------------------------------------------- ll 3.2 Possible Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... l2 3.2] Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... .......... l2 3.211 Alternative No. 1—Dn Nothing: ....................................................................................... l2 3.2.1.2 Alternative NO. 2— Draw more water from the existing wells: ..................................... l2 3.2.1.3 Alternative No. 3— Install additional wells iDthe lower sand and gravel aquifer: ...... l2 3.2.1.4 Alternative No. 4— Install additional wells iD the upper sand and gravel aquifer: ..... l2 3.2.2 Water Storage ................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2.1 Alternative No. 1—Dn Nothing ........................................................................................ l3 3.222 Alternative No. 2— Provide local underground storage Bt new well sites ................ l3 32.2.3 Alternative No. 3—Provide central underground storage for the new development 13 4.4 StO[OlVVGtB[ Management ............................................................................................................ 33 4.4.1 Existing Conditions .......... ...................................... ...... ................................................ 33 4.4]] Drainage Basins .................................................................................................................. 33 44.1.2Sto[OlVV8te[ Management Facilities .................................................................................. 35 441.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.2 Guidelines for future StOrOYV@teF Management .................................. ............................ 3O 4.4.3 Pre Development 8t000VV@te[ Flows ............................................................................... 30 MT 4. ASSESSMENT {}F ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS .............................................................. 1S Township of{}u+Medonte Craighurst Secondary Development Pla l9 Environmental Study Report 1S 4.2.1.1 Existing Supply .................................................................................................................. l9 3.2.2.3 Alternative NO. 4— Provide central above grade storage for the new development l9 13 4.2.1.3 Well Locations ................................................................................................................... 4.2.2 Water Storage .............................. ...................................................... —...................... 20 23 1224 Alternative NO. 5—Provide central elevated storage for the new development ..... l4 24 32.3 Sewage Collection ........ -- ............................................ ...............................................14 43 VVaSteVVatB[ Cn|kecbOn' Treatment and Disposal .................................................................... 25 5.2.3.1 Alternative N0. 1 —D0 Nothing .................................................................... ................... l4 �01 3.2.3.2 /\lteDl8timB NO. 2— Provide conventional gravity sewers .......... .................................. l4 -- 3.23.3 Alternative NO. 3— Provide small bore sewers --------------------.l4 4.33 Sewage Treatment and Disposal ................ ................................................................... ME 3.2.3.4 Alternative No. 4—Provide pressure sewers ................................................................ l5 3.2.4 Sewage Treatment and Disposal -- ............................................... ............................ 15 324.1 Alternative No. 1 —D0 Nothing ........................................................................................ l5 ONE 3.2.4.2 Alternative N0. 2— Subsurface disposal using individual tile beds ............................. l6 3.2.4.3 Alternative No. 3— Subsurface d USiDgQ)00U�dS8VV8��R��t0�D[�vaba0 _, _ system 16 3.2.4.4 Alternative No. 4 - Subsurface disposal using conventional wastewater treatment. 16 3.2.4.5 Alternative No. 5— Surface disposal using advanced wastewater treatment ........... l7 3.2.5.StOrDVVat8[ Management .............. ............................................................................... 17 325.1 Alternative No. 1 —DO Nothing .............................................. ....................................... l7 3.2.52 Alternative NB. 2— Follow best Dl@DageOneOt ---------------]7 3.2.53 Alternative @O. 3—Provide storOlVV8te[ management facilities ................................ l7 3.26 Transportation ------------------------------------------'l0 3.2.6.1 /\lteOl8tk/8 N0. 1 —Do Nothing ...................................................................................... l8 ~� 32.6.2 Alternative NO. 2— Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of 4.4 StO[OlVVGtB[ Management ............................................................................................................ 33 4.4.1 Existing Conditions .......... ...................................... ...... ................................................ 33 4.4]] Drainage Basins .................................................................................................................. 33 44.1.2Sto[OlVV8te[ Management Facilities .................................................................................. 35 441.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.2 Guidelines for future StOrOYV@teF Management .................................. ............................ 3O 4.4.3 Pre Development 8t000VV@te[ Flows ............................................................................... 30 MT 4. ASSESSMENT {}F ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS .............................................................. 1S 4] GeDeraL---------------------------------------------.]9 42 Water Supply, Storage and Distribution .................................................................................... l9 4.21 Water Supply .... ......... ....... ........................................................................................ 1S 4.2.1.1 Existing Supply .................................................................................................................. l9 4.2.1.2 Future Demand ................................................................................................................. l9 4.2.1.3 Well Locations ................................................................................................................... 4.2.2 Water Storage .............................. ...................................................... —...................... 20 23 4.2.3 Water Distribution ........................................................................................................... 24 43 VVaSteVVatB[ Cn|kecbOn' Treatment and Disposal .................................................................... 25 4.3.1 Wastewater Flows ........... ................................................................... —..................... 25 4.3.2 Sewage COUeCb0O-----------------------------------27 4.33 Sewage Treatment and Disposal ................ ................................................................... 27 4.4 StO[OlVVGtB[ Management ............................................................................................................ 33 4.4.1 Existing Conditions .......... ...................................... ...... ................................................ 33 4.4]] Drainage Basins .................................................................................................................. 33 44.1.2Sto[OlVV8te[ Management Facilities .................................................................................. 35 441.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.2 Guidelines for future StOrOYV@teF Management .................................. ............................ 3O 4.4.3 Pre Development 8t000VV@te[ Flows ............................................................................... 30 MT P ON Township ofD/o-Medonte iii Cnaighung Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 4.4.58tOrDVV8ter Management Ponds ............................................. .......... ..................... ... 37 4.5 Transportation .............. .............................................................................. ................................. S8 4.51 Road Definitions ..................................................... ............. ............ —.......... — ........ _38 4.5.2 Existing Major Road Network ............................ —....................... — ............... ............. 38 4.5.3 Summary Of Traffic Studv— ....................... —............................................................... 3S 5. SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ...................... —... ............. .......... ...... — ........ ..... 42 51 Introduction ........................................................................ ........................................ ........ ......... 42 52 Water Supply ......................................... ................. ................. .................................................. 42 5.2.1 Alternative No. 1—DO Nothing: ............................................................................................. ..... 42 52.2 Alternative No. 2 —Draw more water from the existing wells: ................................................... 42 5.2.3 Alternative NO. 3—Install additional wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer: ................ 42 5.3 Water Storage ------------------------------------------.44 53] Alternative No. 1—DO Nothing: ................................................................................................... 44 5.3.2 Alternative No. 2— Provide Local Underground Storage: ....... ............ .................................. 44 5.33 Alternative No. 3— Provide Central Underground Storage: ................................................... 45 53.4 Alternative No. 4— Provide Central Above Grade e:-----------------46 5.3.5 Alternative No. 5—Provide Central Elevated :-------------------'46 5/4 Sewage Collection ......................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.1 Alternative No. 1—OO Nothing: ................................................................................................... 47 54.2 Alternative No. 2— Provide conventional gravity sewers: ....................................................... 47 5.4.3 Alternative No. 3— Provide small bore sewers: ........................................................................ 4D 5.44 Alternative No. 4- Provide pressure sewers: .......... ................................................................. 49 5�5 Sewage Treatment and Disposal ................................................................................................ 49 5.5] Alternative No. 1—DO Nothing: ................................................................................................... 4y 5.5.2 Alternative No. 2— Subsurface disposal using individual septic systems ............................ 49 5.5.3 Alternative No. 3— Subsurface disposal using communal Sewage treatment plant .......... 5U 5.5.4 Alternative NO. 4—Subsurface/Surface disposal using COOmeDtk}O@l vVaStevVat8[ treatment: ................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.5.5 Alternative No. 5— Surface disposal using advanced wastewater treatment ------..55 5.6 8tO[OlYVater Management ............................................................................................................. 56 5.61 Alternative No. 1—DO Nothing .................................. ................................................................. 56 5.62 Alternative No. 2— Follow best management ............................................................. 56 5.621 Source and Conveyance Controls ........................................... ..................................... 57 5.6.2.2 Post Development SbD[DlVV@te[ Management --------------------.. 57 -5-4 7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................... ...... -- ........ 63 Q. SELECTED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ................ ............ ...... O3 10. SUMMARY ............................................................ ............ .............................................. 03 Township of0m4Medonte iv Cmighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 5.6.3 Alternative NO. 3 — Provide stOrmw8ter management facilities ............................................... 58 5.6.3.1 SVVK8F design criteria ............................... .............................................................. ....... 60 5.7 Transportation ................................................... ...... ........ ............................................................ 6O 57] Alternative No. 1 —DO Nothing ........... ................................... .................................................... 60 5.7.2 Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of secondary plan 61 5.8 Potential Mitigative Measures ................... .................................................................................. 0l O. PUBLIC CONSULTATION .............................................. ................................................ -O2 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 62 6.2 Results Of Public Consultation ..................................................................................................... 62 6.3 Major Areas Of Concern ................................................................................................................ 62 6.3.1 Costs Of Services ............................. .................................. ...... ................................... 82 632 Environmental Concerns .......... .................................................... ................................. 82 6.3.3 Location 0f the Water and Sewage Treatment Fa[j|Uj8S ............................................... O2 -5-4 7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................... ...... -- ........ 63 Q. SELECTED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ................ ............ ...... O3 10. SUMMARY ............................................................ ............ .............................................. 03 I I Township of Oro-Medonte V Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report I I &I W*YA_ "I - it 14 Table 2.1 — Secondary Plan Land Use Table 2.2 — Secondary Plan Population Table 4.1 — Local Factors Affecting Production Well Positioning Table 4.2 — Craighurst Drainage Basins Table 4.3 — Pre-Development Peak Flows Table 4.4 — Stormwater Pond/Basin Storage Volumes Table 5.1 — Subsurface Sewage Disposal — Municipal Facility with Potential ..... Groundwater Impact Table 5.2 — Pre-Development Peak Flow Table 5.3 — Stormwater Pond/Basin Storage Volumes Pre-Development Peak . Flows Table 5.4 — Water Supply Table 5.5 — Water Storage Table 5.6 — Sewage Collection Table 5.7 — Sewage Treatment Table 5.8 — Stormwater Management ILIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A — Municipal Class EA Flow Chart Appendix B — Traffic Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 — Secondary Plan Area Figure 3.1 — Water Works Plan Figure 3.2 — Sewage Works Plan I I I IK:\0030637\Craighurst SP-ESR April 07.doc I I I 0 I I 1 Township of Oro-Medonte Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Planning Process 1.1.1 General The Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects which are undertaken in Ontario are currently subject to the Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment (MEA Class EA) as amended in 2007 process in order to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act of 1976. The flow chart in Appendix A.1 illustrates the process and phases considered essential for compliance with the requirements of the Act which are summarized below. Appendix A.2 depicts a Project Schedule for the required works for each component of the phased program. 1.1.2 Schedules A, B, or C Sewage and Water projects undertaken by Municipalities vary in their environmental impact depending on the extent and complexity of the required works. The various work schedules are described as follows: Schedule A: Projects which are minor in scale and have minimal adverse effects associated with them. Upon approval, these projects may proceed to implementation without following the Class EA planning process. Schedule B: These projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects and the proponent must initiate the process of screening the project by undertaking mandatory contact with various agencies and the directly affected public. If there are no outstanding concerns, then the project may proceed to implementation. If, however, the screening process raises a concern which cannot be resolved, then a "Part 11 Order" procedure may be invoked; alternatively, the proponent may elect voluntarily to plan the project as a Schedule "C" undertaking. Schedule C: These projects have the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed in full compliance with the Class EA planning process, and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document. Schedule "C" projects require that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be prepared and submitted for review by the public. If a concern is raised which cannot be resolved, the "Part 11 Order" procedure may be invoked. 1.1.3 The Class Environment Assessment (EA) Phases Phase 1: Identify the problem or deficiency in order to establish justification for the project. 0 Township of Oro-Medonte 2 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan "M Environmental Study Report Phase 2: Identify planning alternative solutions to the problem by taking into consideration existing environmental constraints, etc. Establish the preferred solution taking into account public and agency review and input. At the same time, identify approval requirements (i.e. Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)). Determine the appropriate schedule. Phase 3: Examine and evaluate alternative methods of design concepts of implementing the preferred solution, based upon the existing environment, public and government agency input, anticipated environmental effects and methods of minimizing negative effects and LP maximizing positive effects. Phase 4: Prepare and document in an Environmental Study Report (ESR) a summary of the rationale, and the planning, design and consultation process of the project as established through the above Phases and make such documentation available for review. Phase 5: Undertake design and complete contract drawings and documents and proceed to construction and operation etc. 1.1.4 Request for a Part 11 Order The Class EA Planning process allows provisions for the public or group to elevate the status of a project from Class EA process to make it subject to an individual environmental assessment. Such an action is called "Part 11 Order". Requests for "Part 11 Order" should address the following issues when making an appeal to the Minister of Environment and Energy (MOEE): • Environmental impacts of the project and their significance; • The availability of other alternatives to the project; • The adequacy of the public consultation program and the adequacy of the planning process; • Opportunities for public participation; • The involvement of the person/party in the planning of the project; • The nature of the specific concerns which remain unresolved; • Details of any discussions held between the person/party and the proponent; • The benefits of requiring the proponent to undertake an Individual Environmental Assessment; • Any other important matters considered relevant. In considering a request for a Part 11 Order, the Minister shall give consideration to the following issues: • Extent and nature of public concern; • Potential for significant adverse environmental effects; • Need for broader consideration of alternatives by the proponent; • Consideration of urgency; • Frivolous or vexatious nature of the request; Township of Oro-Medonte 3 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report • Degree to which public consultation and dispute resolution have taken place throughout the planning Phases 1 to 4. Should a concern of a request be resolved by a proponent to the satisfaction of the requester, it is the responsibility of the requester to withdraw the request. Withdrawals should be in writing to the Minister with a copy forwarded to the proponent. For Schedule "B" projects, the person/party should bring the concern to the attention of the proponent in Phase 2 of the Class EA planning process and must make a written request to the Minister within the 30 calendar day review period after the Notice of Completion has been issued. For Schedule "C" projects the person/party with a concern should bring it to the attention of the proponent at any point during Phase 2 through Phase 4 of the Class EA planning process and must make a written request to the Minister of Environment and Energy within a 30-calendar day review period after the proponent has received public and agency input after the completion of Phase 2, and filed the ESR in the public record for public review and has issued the Notice of Completion after completion of Phase 4. I I I I I I I �A= 0 -04 UH Township of Oro-Medonte 4 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 2. Project Description 2.1 Introduction The Township of Oro-Medonte has initiated a study, undertaken by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, to determine preferred strategies to accommodate future development in the Community of Craighurst. This study will identify options and solutions for: • Upgrades to the existing domestic Water Supply; • The preferred means of Sewage Treatment and Disposal for new development; • Storm Water Management for new development; • Transportation constraints and improvements. 2.2 Background 2.2.1 Work Program To date the Study process has included: Activi!y Description 0 A number of PIC's have been held since 1999. 1 Public Information Centers (PIC) 0 Last PIC was held November 13, 2007 and all previous Reports were reviewed and made available to the Public. • Reviews Provincial Policy Craighurst Secondary Plan — Phase 1 0 Reviews Oro-Medonte Official Plan as it pertains 2. Background Document Water Supply, to growth and servicing 0 Provides an Inventory Assessment Sewage Disposal, Stormwater and * Reviews existing services Transportation (August, 2000) Reviews constraints and opportunities • Identifies servicing options • Addresses Natural Heritage component • Provides terrestrial and aquatic biological inventories 0 Provides recommendations for setbacks from 3. Final Phase 1 Environmental water courses Background Study (August, 2000) * Identifies areas where development should not occur because of environmental significance 0 Identifies the significance of the recharge function of the Oro Moraine in maintaining the quality and quantity of base flow in cold water streams Craighurst Development Options (May, • Assesses development options including no 4. 2001) growth, development on private/partial services, and development on full municipal services I I i I i I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 5 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report The following is a description of the tasks that have yet to be completed: Studies commenced on the Craighurst Secondary Plan Area in 1999. In the spring of 2001 progress on the Secondary Plan was put on hold while land use planning issues on the Oro Moraine (upon which Craighurst flanks) were addressed. These studies are relevant with respect to the hydrogeological characterization of the Moraine and the identification of natural heritage features adjacent to the Secondary Plan Area. 2.2.2 Preferred Growth Option As a result of screening by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and the County of Simcoe based on the Background Study, the Secondary Plan Study area was reduced to approximately 160 hectares and covers the geographic area shown on Figure 2.1. Existing development in Craighurst consists of approximately 90 single detached residences and four apartment dwellings. There is one community hall, two churches, one gas station, two vehicle repair shops, a grocery and Liquor store, two restaurants and a chocolate factory. The balance of the lands is predominantly vacant with some lands being used for field crops. The basis for the development of the Master Servicing Plan is the concept prepared by Meridian shown on Figure 2.2. This Plan illustrates the major street pattern to support the land use pattern options for the Secondary Plan area. The Township Official Plan indicates that the preferred method of servicing in Craighurst is on the basis of full municipal services. However, it is recognized that all options have to be considered in this regard, and the preferred design alternatives established. UH Activity Description 1 Draft Master Servicing Report • Detailed description of the services to be provided • Set Terms of Reference for Development 2. Draft Environmental Impact Study Applications • Recommend setbacks and buffers for Natural and Management Plan Heritage features and functions and enhancement where appropriate. 3. Public Consultation/Circulation • Presentation of the above draft documents for comment 0 Finalize Land Use Plan 14. Draft Secondary Plan and Final 0 Present Draft Policies Master Servicing Report * Presentation of Final Master Servicing Plan 0 Statutory Public Meetings 5. Finalization of Secondary Plan & 0 Council Approval adoption of Plan Studies commenced on the Craighurst Secondary Plan Area in 1999. In the spring of 2001 progress on the Secondary Plan was put on hold while land use planning issues on the Oro Moraine (upon which Craighurst flanks) were addressed. These studies are relevant with respect to the hydrogeological characterization of the Moraine and the identification of natural heritage features adjacent to the Secondary Plan Area. 2.2.2 Preferred Growth Option As a result of screening by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and the County of Simcoe based on the Background Study, the Secondary Plan Study area was reduced to approximately 160 hectares and covers the geographic area shown on Figure 2.1. Existing development in Craighurst consists of approximately 90 single detached residences and four apartment dwellings. There is one community hall, two churches, one gas station, two vehicle repair shops, a grocery and Liquor store, two restaurants and a chocolate factory. The balance of the lands is predominantly vacant with some lands being used for field crops. The basis for the development of the Master Servicing Plan is the concept prepared by Meridian shown on Figure 2.2. This Plan illustrates the major street pattern to support the land use pattern options for the Secondary Plan area. The Township Official Plan indicates that the preferred method of servicing in Craighurst is on the basis of full municipal services. However, it is recognized that all options have to be considered in this regard, and the preferred design alternatives established. UH Township of Oro - Medonte Craighurst Secondary Plan Secondary Plan Area ti 0 100 200 Meters LEGEND: LIMITS OF SECONDARY PLAN ® RIVER CORRIDOR PROTECTED WOODLAND FEATURE Date: Sept. 2007 Drawn: E. Lester Job: 0030637 Figure 2.1 10 High Street Barrie, Ontario CON I W, P, R, LOT 43 CON I LOT 43 TEL: 705- 721 -9222 CON I LO 43 FAX: 705- 734 -0764 planners www.tsh.ca Totten Sims Hublcki Associates (1997) Limited CRAIG HURST C I R, L07' 4 CON I LOT 42 / / CON I L 1 CON I / LOT 41 / CO LOT 41 / ®® v s � — I CO CON I LOT 40 LOT 40 SECONDARY PLAN STUDY AREA CON I CON I CON I W, P, R, LOT 39 LOT 39 5� CON I E, P, R, CON I LOT 3 TAumap.nO,ermwhalem , npan , mq,mth pad, „� xxhaul+Ae xr!(4n authonryJrom(I�e Covnp jSimme. Cnp nRA b „� fsimm tl IanEl�rmarArn 4enrark Caopemme 01INCM2 y Pmduad (in pan! uMe,hmux jmm,he Clna laarne & O>1Wa aml rho Omaha Minicry y.4nmml Re,aumo; Copynghr 0 4ueens prime.100T � Th4 rrmpv no! a (egalsurny. For more inJorman'on rdl (]OS) 72&93W, aoumysim LOT .vim 3,t Township of Oro - Medonte Craighurst Secondary Plan Secondary Plan Area ti 0 100 200 Meters LEGEND: LIMITS OF SECONDARY PLAN ® RIVER CORRIDOR PROTECTED WOODLAND FEATURE Date: Sept. 2007 Drawn: E. Lester Job: 0030637 Figure 2.1 10 High Street Barrie, Ontario L4N 1W1 TEL: 705- 721 -9222 n egineers architects FAX: 705- 734 -0764 planners www.tsh.ca Totten Sims Hublcki Associates (1997) Limited I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 6 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Previous planning reports prepared by the Township have identified full municipal services as the most effective method to service the desired intensity of new growth. Notwithstanding these reports, this report does consider a 'do nothing' approach as well, with this 'do nothing' approach providing for little or no development as a consequence. The following is an estimate of future land use based on the municipal servicing option. Note that an existing industrial area is included in the future employment land use. For the purposes of this study, development phasing is expected to occur at 75 homes per year. Table 2.1 summarizes the development land use under secondary plan. Table 2.1 Secondary Plan Land Use Land Use Area (ha) Development Sectors Active Passive Hazard Land/Green Residential Commercial Parks Parks School Space/ Total SWIVI Existing 34 7 48 Development North Quadrant 40 1 4 5 8 58 South 36 2 1 6 51 Quadrant I I I I Total 110 9 2 4 5 14 160 The developable land available for residential and commercial lots excludes lands needed for schools, churches, parks, environmental lands, stormwater facilities, etc. Table 2.2 summarizes the estimated future population for the Secondary Plan Area. Population is based on 3 persons per unit. I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 7 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Table 2.2 Secondary Plan Population Development Sectors Residential School Students Area No. of Residences Population Existing Development 34 94 282 North Quadrant 40 400 1,200 540 South Quadrant 36 300 900 Total 1 1 794 1 2,382 1 540 11 To provide a variety for residential market selection the proposed residential land use mix is as follows: 30% -18 meter frontage 30% IS -15 meter frontage 30% -12 meter frontage 10% - multi-residential townhouse /semi - detached Based on the net developable area available for residential development (76 hectares), the density of future residential development would be 9.2 units per hectare, if full municipal services were provided, and if no more than 700 new units were constructed. This density is significantly less than typical new development in the City of Barrie. It is recognized that the density of development could be increased and that less land area would be required as a result. This issue will be explored further in the context of the land use planning analysis. An additional commercial allocation of 50,000 square feet (5,000 M) is also proposed in the Secondary Plan. An elementary school with a capacity for about 540 students and one Place of Worship are also proposed. The ability of the Secondary Plan Area to support new development as set out in Table 2.2 would be significantly affected if the development did not proceed on the basis of full municipal services. 2.2.3 Opportunities and Constraints to Development The opportunities and constraints to development with respect to each major servicing item are discussed below. 2.2.3.1 Water Supply The existing source of water supply for the Community of Craighurst is the lower sand aquifer which is regionally extensive and offers a high potential for providing a long term safe yield and secure water quality. Based on a conservative projection of the capture UH Township of Oro-Medonte 8 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report zone for the Community of Craighurst, a groundwater source from the lower aquifer could supply potable water for the projected 900 households. New wells and storage facilities are required to serve the residential demands of about 800 units and about 31 equivalent units of non-residential development for 9 ha commercial and about 5 ha of institutional development. The existing water system is designed for about 166 people or 55 units and 2.1 hectares of commercial development or about 65 equivalent units. Therefore the future water system needs to service about: 831 total future — 65 existing = 766 equivalent units The existing system includes three wells with a combined capability of 352 Umin. Four centrifugal high lift pumps provide system pressure to the distribution system piping. A 112 M3 underground storage reservoir provides sufficient storage to meet maximum day domestic water with a minimum of fire flow protection. 2.2.3.2 Sewage Treatment and Disposal At this time there is no communal sanitary sewage treatment as all existing development is currently serviced with individual septic systems. The selection of the preferred location of a municipal sewage treatment plant is dictated by many factors that must be considered including the integration of the design of the gravity collection piping and the choice or location of the discharge of the final effluent. ra Sewage treatment is an integration of the collection of the raw sewage from the development area, the treatment of the raw sewage to produce a final effluent to a level established by the Ministry of the Environment and the disposal of the final effluent back into the natural environment. The final effluent may be either directly or indirectly discharged to a surface water body or discharged to the native soils with a subsurface design. Treatment options capable of meeting the discharge constraints include primary biological treatment utilizing one of many available and currently accepted technologies and/or tertiary treatment with filters that then discharge to the final effluent process. The discharge of the final effluent to a surface water body must consider many factors such as effluent temperature, the chemical and biochemical characteristics of the final effluent, the quantity of the water discharged and the ability of the receiving water body to accept the forgoing parameters. The down gradient hydraulic boundary, which in this case is the Matheson Creek and its tributaries, are considered as a coldwater fish habitat. Therefore, any direct surface water discharge from a sewage treatment facility must cool the effluent and ensure that the discharge parameters of concern are within acceptable limits. It is significant to note that surface water discharge must be addressed in the context of the Assimilative Capacity Studies (ACS), NVCA, 2006, because of potential effects of elevated nutrient discharges, and the assimilative capacity of the Nottawasaga River UH I I I I I I I I I i i i I Township of Oro-Medonte 9 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report basin and tributaries. An additional localized study (subsequent to the Willow Creek Watershed Study of 2001) may be required to supplement the ACS for the Willow Creek subwatershed, as there was insufficient data received by the Willow Creek gauging, quality and calibration station during the Study period, for the creek to be included in the detailed analysis. Results and recommendations for the Matheson Creek subwatershed, which includes the Willow Creek subcatchment, are provided in the ACS. In summary, the Assimilatimve Capacity Study (2006) indicated that the Matheson Creek watershed is currently designated as Unimpaired and meets Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). Matheson Creek is the only Nottawasaga River subwatershed that falls into this category. As a result, Target Setting Strategy "A" has been applied to the watershed, to maintain unimpaired water quality and meet PWQO. Surface water discharge for treated effluent to the Willow Creek watershed would need to determine if there is any remaining capacity to accept any discharge from development. It may be that the level of treatment of communal sewage and the preferred mode of disposal options will be constrained by the limitations imposed on the down gradient receiving water bodies, Willow Creek, Matheson Creek and the Nottawasaga River. 2.2.3.3 Stormwater Management It has been identified that there are six drainage basins that fall within the Secondary Plan Study area and four have continuously flowing and/or intermittent watercourses. It has been mandated that all identified watercourses be protected or buffered from development with up to a 60 meter wide corridor. It is felt that the buffer is adequate in terms of flood zone protection for lands lying upstream of the CPR. Native soils are conducive to the design of storm water management techniques that utilize infiltration techniques to average stormwater for base flow maintenance and surface runoff quality control. Where stormwater design analysis conclude that quantity control facilities are deemed necessary, the quantity and quality control facility must be situated within the proposed development, typically at the most downstream location, before discharging into the receiving watercourse. 2.2.3.3 Transportation The intersection of County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) and County Road 93 (Penetanguishene Road) is the hub of the Craighurst Community. Both roads are considered to be County arterial roads. Horseshoe Valley Road serves as a connecting link between Highway 11/12 and Highway 26. Penetanguishene Road is a local arterial road that provides an alternate north/south route to Highway 400. Since Horseshoe Valley Road provides a higher level of service than Penetanguishene Road, the amount of entrances to Horseshoe Valley Road should be kept to a minimum. In addition, other considerations such as, commercial activities, delays at the CPR crossing and delays at the County Road intersection will require mitigating measures TM I I I I I I I I I ii I I i I Township of Oro-Medonte 10 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report such as road widening through the Community, and establishing alternate routes to access Highway 400. Road or rail upgrades by other agencies for County roads, Highway 400 or the CPR rail are not scheduled within the foreseeable future. Transportation upgrades needed for development on County Roads 22 and 93 will be done by the County. The cost-share for the development of the County road work could be paid through a County Development Charge. Ml= The Township of Oro-Medonte through its Official Plan directs new development within the Municipality to existing settlement areas, including Craighurst. In response to existing development pressures in the Craighurst area, the Township has initiated preparation the Secondary Plan to guide future growth within the community. This Environmental Assessment was initiated in conjunction with the planning process, to meet the requirements of the current legislation and to document the process to be followed to identify the preferred alternative solution to providing upgrades to the Water Supply, Sewage Disposal, Stormwater Management and Transportation in order to accommodate the secondary development plan for the community of Craighurst. 2.4 Problem Identification The problem identification for this Class Environmental Assessment is as follows: • Upgrade the Water Supply System to accommodate existing and future development in the Craighurst Settlement area. • Promote community wastewater treatment and disposal of the final effluent. • Upgrade the Stormwater Management and Transportation Systems to accommodate existing and future development in the Craighurst Settlement area. • Review the existing traffic flow and road network and the impact of future development with solution to any problems. 2.5 Project Proponent The proponent of this project is the Township of Oro-Medonte. 2.6 Project Location The secondary plan area in settlement of Craighurst is located around the intersection of Simcoe County Roads 22 and 93, East of Highway 400 as shown in Figure 2.2. I #A I 1 Township of Oro-Medonte Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 3. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Introduction The procedures to be followed in this Class Environmental Assessment are set out in the "Municipal Class Environmental Assessment" Document published by the Municipal Engineers Association, June 2000 as amended in 2007 In accordance with that Document, the proposed undertaking corresponds to Project Schedule 2 of the Schedule "C" Projects: As such, the undertaking is considered to constitute a Schedule "C" project and the activity is subject to the full planning process of the Class EA. The planning process will therefore follow a phased approach as shown in the flow chart included in the MEA Class EA Document. (See Appendix "A"). A minimum of three mandatory public contacts are required for Schedule "C" projects. Integral to the planning process is the adoption of alternatives to correct the noted deficiencies. The alternatives presented in this section are a broad range of potential solutions to address the problem of upgrading the water supply, sewage disposal, stormwater management and transportation systems for all lands within the study area. With the exception of Alternative 1 — Do Nothing, the alternatives will require the installation of servicing within designated servicing corridors, generally on public lands. In addition, there is potential for either upgrading the existing facilities or construction of new ones. Purchase of land for new facilities on a new site may be required. The following Sections 3.2 and 3.3 take the position that that if development proceeds it will occur on the basis of full services. Development on full services is the method of servicing preferred by Provincial policy, followed by individual water and sewage. Partial services, municipal water with individual sewage disposal, is the least preferred method of servicing new development. A partial servicing scenario would not allow development to proceed at the same scale as full servicing and in addition, the expansion of partial services is strongly discouraged by Provincial policy. Development on partial services, with individual septic systems would be limited by Reasonable Use Guidelines, which limits the nitrate content of groundwater downstream of development. Depending on local subsurface conditions and aquifer flow, development density would be limited to 1 or 2 residences per hectare. The following is a summary of planning alternatives to address the problem statement. These alternatives will be discussed in further detail in Section 4. I I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 12 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 3.2 Possible Alternativ-M! 3.2.1 Water Supply I Reasonable alternatives for upgrades for the supply of potable water for the Craighurst Secondary Plan include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Draw more water from the existing wells Alternative No. 3 — Install additional wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer Alternative No. 4 — Install additional wells in the upper sand and gravel aquifer A summary of the above noted Alternatives are presented in the following paragraphs. Figure 3.1 depicts existing and possible well locations. 3.2.1.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing: The Do Nothing alternative would leave the existing pumping station in operation and not expand the water system beyond the current serviced area. 3.2.1.2 Alternative No. 2 — Draw more water from the existing wells: This alternative involves upgrading the existing water pumping station to include additional pump/s in order to draw more water from the existing wells to meet projected water demands. The current maximum demand is 233 M3 /d where as the existing three wells have a current combined capacity of 507 M3 /d. With a combined permit to draw water @ 523 M3 /d, additional 290 m3/d of water can be drawn from the existing wells. 3.2.1.3 Alternative No. 3 — Install additional wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer: This alternative involves installation of two new wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer in addition to the existing wells at Craighurst Estates. Preliminary investigations have shown that this aquifer has a potential long term safe yield of more than 450,000 m3 /year. This means that the lower ground aquifer can serve 2,740 persons per day @450 Ipcd, which translates to 913 residential units @ 3 persons per unit. The new well systems would be connected to the system at Craighurst Estates. Additional pumps to draw water from the new wells and watermains to connect the new wells to the existing wells would be required. Apart from that storage tanks for providing storage for fire flow, equalization and emergency storage will have to be provided to implement this alternative. 3.2.1.4 Alternative No. 4 — Install additional wells in the upper sand and gravel aquifer: This alternative involves installation of two new wells in the upper sand and gravel aquifer in addition to the existing wells at Craighurst Estates. With a long term safe yield of 375,000 M3 /year, the upper ground aquifer has a potential of serving 2,280 persons per day @450 Ipcd, which translates to 760 residential units @ 3 persons per unit. The new well systems would be connected to the system at Craighurst Estates. Additional pumps to draw water from the new wells and watermains to connect the new 0 I e t 0 s t Township of ti Oro- Medonte 0 Crai hurst g 0 CRAIGHURS _ Secondary Y Plan ' Water Works an 0 100 200 HORSESHO VALLEY ROAD Meters LEGEND: EXIST. WATERMAIN ° ° ° -- PROPOSED 4 TRUNK WATERMAIN ® EXIST. WELL LOCATION POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR WATER PUMPHOUSE ® POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR ELEVATED RESERVOIR PROPOSED WELL LOCATION _ z Date: Sept. 2007 Drawn: E. Lester D > a Job: 0030637 0 Figure 3.1 Ail may, ranr. Ia whok.,M aae,may awl yradaad Barrio, ,414 Ontario UH 10 Hlgh Street LEN iWi TEL: 705- 721 -9222 xirM1oW the aAtkn aurhurinJ mn,. cx,mry a7sn „..,.. engineers en 9 y cayydxnr emmry o/simror ta, dia7amvb1,vr-4 cuono1d11 0 uxc2 on2 FAX: 705- 734 -0764 architects - rrod,.rrd ra yam awrrurraa/ ,a m. cuo-r /m,.r. s ovum i aad mo,Mrarnr,�rvaa mr x..aanw., C yn*& 0 Qarrnvrdwrr 1 1 P w Tanners .tsh.ca Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited mr, may.: aoraregai: y.h'a.,ao.. m/armanaa rau rmM1l 724-93xr .r .r :u x.x.ra�mn.ruara...aa.,, I I I I I I I i I 1; 011 Township of Oro-Medonte 13 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report wells to the existing wells would be required. Apart from that storage tank/s for providing storage for fire flow, equalization and emergency storage will have to be provided to implement this alternative. 3.2.2 Water Storage Reasonable alternatives for upgrades for the storage of potable water for the Craighurst Settlement Area include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Provide local underground storage at new well sites Alternative No. 3 — Provide central underground storage for the new development Alternative No. 4 — Provide central above grade storage for the new development Alternative No. 5 — Provide central elevated storage for the new development Figure 3.1 shows possible locations for reservoirs. 3.2.2.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing The Do Nothing alternative does not address the problem of storage for equalization, maximum day demand and fire demand and thus would render the water supply system inadequate to serve the secondary plan area. Hence this alternative does not allow secondary development to be implemented. 3.2.2.2 Alternative No. 2 — Provide local underground storage at new well sites This option would entail two underground concrete storage reservoirs constructed underground, at the two well sites. Variable speed high lift pumps would have to be provided for maintaining the desired pressure for instantaneous flows. In addition, booster pumps for peak hour flows, fire flow pump and a standby power generator for power backup for the pumps would be required. 3.2.2.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide central underground storage for the new development This option is similar to the above option except that instead of two local storage reservoirs only one central underground reservoir would be required in this alternative. Variable speed high lift pumps would have to be provided for maintaining the desired pressure for instantaneous flows. In addition, booster pumps for peak hour flows, fire flow pump and a standby power generator for power backup for the pumps would be required. However booster pumps and fire pump would be required only at one location as opposed to two in case of local underground storage alternative. 3.2.2.3 Alternative No. 4 — Provide central above grade storage for the new development This option is also similar to alternative 3 except that the reservoir would be a storage tank at grade. Variable speed high lift pumps would have to be provided for maintaining the desired pressure for instantaneous flows. In addition, booster pumps for peak hour flows, fire flow pump and a standby power generator for power backup for the pumps would be required. U" ��M I I I I -1 I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 14 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 3.2.2.4 Alternative No. 6 — Provide central elevated storage for the new development This option would involve construction of a centrally located elevated reservoir. The elevated reservoir could be of concrete or steel. Central elevated storage will receive disinfected well water directly from the well. The weight of the water in the elevated storage tank will provide domestic and fire flow pressures for the entire Secondary Plan area. This option obviates the requirement of having high lift pumps. Further, as the well pumps have to lift the water to the level of elevated reservoir, pressurized disinfection contact time is provided at the well location. This allows the disinfected well water to be pumped directly to the distribution system. 3.2.3 Sewage Collection Reasonable alternatives for upgrades for the storage of potable water for the Craighurst Settlement Area include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Provide conventional gravity sewers Alternative No. 3 — Provide small bore sewers Alternative No. 4 — Provide pressure sewers Figure 3.2 presents a potential sewer system layout. 3.2.3.1 Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing The Do Nothing alternative does not provide any method for collection of sewage for its treatment and final disposal. This option would not implement the preferred servicing solution for Craighurst in the Official Plan. 3.2.3.2 Alternative No. 2 — Provide conventional gravity sewers This alternative involves providing a conventional wastewater collection system that would transport sewage from homes or other sources by gravity flow through buried piping systems to a central treatment facility in the Craighurst settlement. These systems are usually reliable and consume no power. However, the slope requirements to maintain adequate flow by gravity may require deep excavations in hilly or flat terrain, as well as the addition of sewage pump stations, which can significantly increase the cost of conventional collection systems. Manholes and other sewer appurtenances would also have to be provided which would add substantially to the overall cost of this system. 3.2.3.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide small bore sewers The small-bore system is a gravity sewer that requires interceptor tanks at the head of the sewer to prevent gross solids entering the sewer. The settling that first occurs in the septic tank eliminates most of the solid matter from the wastewater. This enables the collection pipes to have a smaller diameter and a more gradual incline. 0 Township of Oro Medonte CRAIGHURS ti Y 0 0 SIT 3 i� SITE 1 __-- — SITE 2 D 0 Craighurst Secondary Plan - , Sewage Works a n 1 0 100 200 Meters 1N 1 HORSESHO I VALLEY ROAD LEGEND: PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SITE 1 POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR WASTE WATER PUMPING STATION - -- -, POTENTIAL LOCATION - -- FOR FINAL EFFLUENT TILE BEDS I Ej !' > Date: March 2008 Drawn: E. Lester Job: 0030637 Figure 3.2 10 High Street Barrie, Ontario iWi TEL: 705- 721 -9222 engineers FAX: 705- 734 -0764 architects planners Ash.ca P w Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited q. iTv may, rirhrr in xMfe or in purl, nwY nolG rcPr^durM wmmnner,rrmrrr nwuadryl rn mr C�,mry /srmrpr. CmHgNC Iya fslm Cp fa 110ma11.11N—ACa XMI,n OUNC2602 y Pmdprnl(in yart)under littrurfrorn rhr ClNex oJlWnlyd Orlllb andrhr 0—m AflnIIr�•aJN'atumlRrrource; O'HghlO QuernrPnntrr 2002 lldr may lr nd a legal n+n'Y, For more mf —dm 'roll (703) 726.9300 or .. mry..lmr Township of Oro-Medonte 15 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report The pipes used are made of light weight plastic and can be buried at a relatively shallow depth. Manholes are not required for small diameter gravity systems; instead, clean out 1111' W, ports are used to service collector pipes. A household that already has a septic tank can therefore readily connect to a small-bore system. Households that do not have a septic tank will first have to construct a tank which may make the cost similar to the IN conventional gravity sewer system. Hence this option would require all residential and non residential units in the Craighurst secondary plan area to construct individual septic tanks. Also, depending on the topography of the terrain, a sewage pumping station may also be required. OWN 3.2.3.4 Alternative No. 4 — Provide pressure sewers Pressure sewers utilize the force supplied by pumps, which deliver the wastewater to the system from each property. Since pressure sewers do not rely on gravity, the systems network of piping can be laid in very shallow trenches that follow the contour of the land. This system would require provision of combinations of septic tank and effluent pumps. IN Pressure sewers utilize septic tanks to settle out the solids - thus allowing use of extremely small diameter piping. The effluent pump delivers the wastewater to the sewer pipes and provides the necessary pressure to move it through the system. Provision and maintenance of septic tank and the effluent pumps would be the responsibility of the unit owners. I I I I I I In addition, this system has to be installed with high water alarms. Because of the addition of the pumps, pressure sewers tend to require more operation and maintenance than small diameter gravity sewers. Operators can usually be hired on a part time basis, as long as someone is on call at all times. Operators will need training on both the plumbing and electrical aspects of the system. 3.2.4 Sewage Treatment and Disposal Reasonable alternatives for sewage treatment and disposal for the Craighurst Settlement Area include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Subsurface disposal using individual the beds Alternative No. 3 — Subsurface disposal using communal tile beds Alternative No. 4 — Subsurface disposal using conventional wastewater treatment Alternative No. 5 — Surface disposal using advanced wastewater treatment A summary of the above noted Alternatives are presented in the following paragraphs. Figure 3.2 shows possible locations for sewage treatment plants and disposal beds. 3.2.4.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing The Do Nothing alternative does not provide any method for disposal of sewage and hence does not allow secondary development to be implemented. �A= 0 Im M-11 I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 16 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 3.2.4.2 Alternative No. 2 — Subsurface disposal using individual the beds This alternative involves each individual residential unit to have its own on-site septic tank and the bed system for subsurface disposal of effluent. This would entail collecting raw sewage of a residential unit in an individual on-site septic tank followed by subsurface disposal of the settled effluent through a the bed facility. Existing development has been supported by similar individual conventional Class IV subsurface sewage systems. 3.2.4.3 Alternative No. 3 — Subsurface disposal using communal sewage treatment system This alternative involves subsurface sewage systems comprising a centralized communal sewage treatment system. This would entail provision of a sanitary sewer system for sewage collection along with a treatment system comprising of but not limited to one of the following: • Peat/biofilters Recirculation sand filters • Large communal tile beds Depending on the location of the sewage treatment plant and topography of the terrain a sewage pumping station might also be required. It is also likely that land acquisition would be required for the new sewage treatment plant and/or sewage pumping station. Land for subsurface disposal through communal the beds would be provided within each subdivision as development proceeds. These lands would be conveyed to the Township. Acquisition of land for tile beds would only be required if a suitable location within the development is not available. 3.2.4.4 Alternative No. 4 - Subsurface disposal using conventional wastewater treatment This alternative involves treatment of raw sewage in a centralized conventional wastewater treatment plant followed by subsurface disposal of the treated effluent. This would entail provision of a sanitary sewer system for sewage collection along with a treatment system comprising of but not limited to one of the following: Activated sludge process with denitrification • Sequential batch reactors (SBR) with denitrification 0 Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC) with denitrification Depending on the location of the sewage treatment plant and topography of the terrain a sewage pumping station might also be required. It is also likely that land acquisition would be required for the new sewage treatment plant and/or sewage pumping station. Land for subsurface disposal through communal the beds would be provided within each development as development proceeds. These lands would be conveyed to the Township. Acquisition of land for tile beds would only be required if a suitable location within the development is not available. I I I I I i I I Township of Oro-Medonte 17 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 3.2.4.5 Alternative No. 5 — Surface disposal using advanced wastewater treatment This alternative entails collection of raw sewage in a sanitary sewer system and treatment in a centralized advanced wastewater treatment plant consisting of Membrane Bioreactors, followed by surface disposal of the treated effluent. Depending on the location of the sewage treatment plant and topography of the terrain a sewage pumping station might also be required. It is also likely that land acquisition would be required for the new sewage treatment plant and/or sewage pumping station. 3.2.5. Stormwater Management Reasonable alternatives for upgrades for the stormwater management of Craighurst Secondary Plan Area include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Follow best management practice Alternative No. 3 — Provide stormwater management facilities A summary of the above noted alternatives are presented in the following paragraphs. Catchment areas and drainage directions are shown on Figure 3.3. mmy-jimmim- k, M owsmaw The Do Nothing alternative does not provide any method for treatment or quantity control of stormwater and hence does not allow secondary development to be implemented. 3.2.5.2 Alternative No. 2 — Follow best management practice Best management practice for stormwater management involves taking measures that increase infiltration, reduce post-development peak flow and erosion, and enhance water quality. This would entail measures like provision of Grassed swales along road, vegetated buffer strips where practical especially alongside roadways in the vicinity of stream crossings and construction of artificial ponds for detention of runoff etc. 3.2.5.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide stormwater management facilities This alternative would involve provision of stormwater management facilities comprising stormwater management ponds, curbs, gutters, sewers, manholes catch basins etc. The drainage basins in the Craighust settlement including the secondary plan area is divided into 8 areas from A to H for planning and provision of stormwater management ponds Figure 3.3. Out of these, areas D and E lie in the existing development areas and already have stormwater management ponds in them. Six new Level 1 quality ponds in areas, A, B, C, F and G would be required for post development storage and management of stormwater. Permanent pool storage volumes are to be based on impervious ratio and drainage area. Final actual volumes should be obtained through detailed hydrologic model undertaken at the functional servicing plan, or detailed design stages. The active storages shall include extended detention storage for erosion control, and quantity control storage for each design storm (2 to 100 year). CRAIGHURSI 1111111111111M 111MI! Sul 111111111111111IM11 11111somm-amil ®_ hORSEE&HOE V.Al. Township of 6L Oro-Medonte Craighurst Secondary Plan Storm Water Plan ti 0 100 200 I A LEY R.;,-llD Meters LEGEND: STORM WATER CATCHMENT AREA EXISTING POND PROPOSED POND DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW 2 DRAINAGE BASIN POST DEVELOPMENT LJ CATCHMENT Date: March 2008 Drawn: E. Lester Job: 0030637 Figure 3.3 10 High Stritet Bamie, Ontario TM L4N IWI c;-ngineers TEL: 705-721 U,,, FAX: 705.734 an L.d N—'k Cw�-h, 0 MNC M2 architects P .-i 0" d,, fi—f— 1� 0- 4B.� & 0,12. Z. 0-� 36nl, qf"—1 R".—, planners — Wit (A 6, ?A1* Q—PW-2002 Totton Sims Hubicki Astiodalan (lilt)711 livillell ftW 726 I i I I I I I I I I i I I Township of Oro-Medonte 18 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Drainage area "H" with an area less than five hectares would be provided with an infiltration basin or dry pond since the area is too small to sustain a wet pond according to NVCA Wet Pond Criteria, = Reasonable alternatives for upgrades for the transportation network within the Craighurst Secondary Plan Area include the following: Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of secondary plan 3.2.6.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing The Do Nothing alternative does not provide for accommodation of post secondary development traffic growth. 3.2.6.2 Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of secondary plan This alternative involves providing additional lanes on arterial roads to facilitate smooth movement of the increased traffic. Apart from that, provision of dedicated left turn lanes, provision of an advance green signals for dedicated left turns, queue storage and additional approach lanes to railways would also have to be provided. Further, upgrades to transportation infrastructure including - extension of existing right of ways and provision of urban cross sections for storm sewers and gutters. IM�A= 0 I I I i I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 19 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 4.1 General This section provides a detailed discussion and assessment of alternative solutions presented in Section 3. 4.2 Water Supply, Storage and Distribution A water system consists of a raw water supply source with pumps that discharge directly to the consumer or to storage, water quality treatment systems, water storage either above or below ground, high pressure pumps that discharge to the distribution system pipe network and provide domestic water and or fire protection. 4.2.1 Water Supply Water supply is typically either from secure ground water wells or a surface water body. An alternative is the purchase of potable water from an outside location. There is no opportunity to utilize surface water as a source of water or to purchase water from an outside agency or Municipality. 4.2.1.1 Existing Supply The Craighurst Estates Water Works system has a current capability to supply about 55 units residential and about 10 equivalent units for commercial development (400 Ipcd). In terms of water demands the system is designed for Average Day Demand of 77.8 M 3 /d, Maximum Day Demand of 233 M3 /d, peak hour demand of 6.6 L/s, and a fire demand of 16.6 L/s over 2 hours. The system is limited in terms of providing additional capacity. Apart from the Craighurst Estate water wells, there are approximately 110 existing individual wells within the study area. 4.2.1.2 Future Demand Institutional demand Church - .70 seats @8 L per seat: 0.56 m'/d School 540 students @ 30 L/day and 4 staff @ 50 L/day: 16.4 M3 /d Commercial demand - -5,000 M2 @ 5 L/M2: 25 m3/d Total Non-residential demand: 42 M3/d Non-Residential Equivalent Population @ 450 Uday: 93 people Non-Residential Equivalent Units @ 3 people/unit: 31 units Residential Development is expected in two phases: Phase I north of Horseshoe Valley Road: 400 Units un wass I I I I I I i i I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 20 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Phase 2 south of Horseshoe Valley Road: 300 Units Future Equivalent Units 31 Units Future Equivalent Residential Units: 731 Units Existing Development: 94 Units Total Equivalent Residential Units: 825 Units As per MOE Guidelines, a residential demand of 450 liters per capita per day (Ipcd) is normally used to calculate residential water demands in urban areas. It is very common to see historical water records for domestic usage in Simcoe County with a water consumption of 400 litres per capita per day. This has been attributed to the use of low flush toilets and water saving devices of the environmentally aware consumers. For the purpose of this assessment the total future average day water demand is established as (994 M3 /d), say 1,000 m3/d. 4.2.1.3 Well Locations The preferred location for advancing new wells is predicated on the hydrogeology data from historical data for the available sites. The availability of suitable property can be a limiting factor as site topography and the associated existing land use may impose restrictions on either the location of the well or future development. Locating new wells away from the preferred storage facilities provides an engineering challenge but does not preclude this concept from consideration. The advancement of a municipal grade well at the best site for a water source well is always given serious consideration during a drilling program. The phased approach and sequence of development within the settlement area may present limitations on the availability of well sites. Potential areas of access to the lower aquifer include: 1. The Snider well (MOE Well No.18 14), which taps into a sand and gravel unit approximately 20 meters thick at 70 meters depth. This well is close to the Cemetery. 2. An extensive sand aquifer of approximately 50 meters thick under artesian conditions found commencing at 25 meters depth in the vicinity of MOE Well No. 11090, which is located on the west side of the CPR west of the Craighurst Estates subdivision. This Well location is close to a potential wastewater discharge area. 3. An extensive gravel aquifer of unknown thickness and encountered at relatively shallow depths of between 25 and 50 meters confined by clay and till south of County Road 22. Other local factors that must be considered when positioning a production well, including the location of supply wells outside of the Secondary Plan area and potential sources of contamination to the water supply. Table 4.1 summarizes local issues with respect to production well positioning. UH 11 0111 I i i I I I 1, Township of Oro-Medonte 21 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Table 4.1 Local Factors Affecting Production Well Positioning Item Concern Discussion Highway 400 is an area where there is an upward Highway 400 Chlorides & sodium hydraulic gradient; as a result, the road salt is washed from road salt away to surface water because of the upward hydraulic gradient of groundwater flow. Salting levels are lower than Highway 400, however, County Roads 22 there is a downward hydraulic gradient and the and 93 Chlorides & sodium potential for salt contamination to the upper aquifer from road salt exists. The lower aquifer is protected by surface contamination due to it being confined by clay and till layers. The Presbyterian Cemetery is located beside the Snider Well, and the Anglican Cemetery is located on Cemeteries Various contaminants County Road 93 south of County Road 22. In both instances the lower aquifer is protected by overlying clay and till layers. Existing livestock operation located south of SE Active Livestock Various contaminants quadrant. As described above, the clay and till layers that overly the lower aquifer protects it from contamination by surface sources. Existing development is supported by individual Subsurface Sewage Nitrates & biological septic systems. As described above, the clay and till Disposal contamination layers that overly the lower aquifer protects it from contamination by surface sources. Those areas outside of the Secondary Plan relying on groundwater supply include several residences Surrounding Wells Interference fronting County Roads 22 and 93, and estate residential development located 1.0 km to the southeast. There is adequate supply to provide water to existing development as well as new development. However, to avoid complaints of drawdown Surrounding Wells Interference interference, the production well should be removed from adjacent concentrated development to the southeast by at least 1.0 km. It is preferable to locate the production well in close proximity to the storage facility. If elevated storage is Proximity to Storage Reduced piping desired then the well should be situated at the highest Facilities point of land which would place it somewhere in the east quadrant. However, other constraints may dictate an alternate location. The Secondary Plan development areas are split into Phasing of Financing three district units, the North Quadrant, South Development Quadrant and Existing Development. It may be - -1 1 desirable to initially service each area independently. I I I I In I I Township of Oro-Medonte 22 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Table 4.1 Local Factors Affecting Production Well Positioning Sufficient area around the Well head (50 meters diameter) should be provided to ensure surface Source Protection Well Head Protection and Source Protection sources of contaminants cannot migrate down the well over time (i.e. well casing annulus). Source water protection legislation and stewardship by the NVCA is expected to address source water protection I concerns. Since it is desirable that development of the North and the South Quadrant of the Secondary Planning Area proceed consecutively, it is feasible to implement potable groundwater supply sources as follows: 1. Continue to use the Craighurst Estates water supply systems 2. No change for existing development at the outset. 3. Construct test wells to determine well and aquifer yield. 4. Construct storage for 1,855 M3 or as confirmed by potential water supply from well tests. 5. Develop a production well in the North Quadrant at the north limit of the Passive Park, extending services to existing development not serviced by the Craighurst Estates Water Works and fill the new storage reservoir. 6. Develop a second production well, located in the southern section of the Secondary Plan area east of the CPR, in the active Community Park, to service those areas that cannot be serviced by the above, and the area within the South Quadrant. 7. Interconnect the three water supply systems by connecting trunk water mains to service the entire Secondary Plan Area. The number of wells for each location is dependent on the ability of each well to meet the projected theoretical demands. Extensive long duration 72 hour pump tests are required to determine the feasibility of utilizing a new well to produce an acceptable yield. Extensive water quality chemical testing is undertaken to verify that the source water is acceptable to meet the provincial requirements for potable water. Permit to Take Water Regulations are changing and all applications are extensively reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment. There is an existing Permit to Take Water in Craighurst and any additional potable water wells would require an amendment and reissue of the existing permit. All water taking over 50,000 litres per day is monitored, and permits are issued with many restriction. However, Permits to Take Water are still reviewed and issued by the MOE on a first come first serve basis. VEN Since the Township encourages development to occur in settlement areas such as Craighurst, it is not anticipated that there will be any issues on the issue of an amendment to the Permit to Take Water. The historical hydrogeology for water supply in this location suggests that there is more than a sufficient source of ground water to P1 realize the proposed development in the southern portion of the Secondary Plan in the future. However, test wells with quantity and quality testing should be completed as Um I I ON I I Township of Oro-Medonte 23 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report early as possible to confirm a sufficient water supply is available to fully develop the area and consider other development applications in the aquifer recharge area. 4.2.2 Water Storage Craighurst Estates Water system has a current storage capacity of 112 M3 provided by a below grade reservoir. Installation of new source water well system for the secondary plan area would then require the construction of additional water storage. Water storage is required to provide, contact time, equalization storage, fire protection storage and emergency use storage. With fire protection storage a function of the total volume of water to be designed into a system it is necessary to discuss the level of fire protection within the serviced area. The level of fire protection is controlled by the Municipality with the Ministry of the Environment Guidelines suggesting the fire flow requirements based upon population. The minimum currently accepted fire flow is 38 liters per second at 140 kPa pressure at every fire hydrant within the distribution system. The second consideration for fire protection is the ability to provide at the discretion of the Municipality additional fire flow to meet the specific requirements of individual developments in commercial or employment areas. It is sometimes mandated by fire Underwriters that specific fire flow and pressures be available. It is often standard practice that on site supplemental water storage and booster fire pumps be employed to meet the site specific requirements of the Fire Underwriters. With the population of the serviced area predicted by the number of available lots it is suggested at this time that the level of fire protection be established at 110 litres per second. MOE guidelines require 25% maximum day equalization storage, fire protection for two hours at 110 L/sec, and 25% of the total storage for emergency at the existing storage. Total storage required for the Secondary Plan area would be: Fire 110 Usec for two hours = 792 M3 Equalization 2,768 M3 /d x 25% = 692 M3 Emergency @ 25% = 371 M3 Total Storage = 1,855M3 Chlorine Contact time for 15 minutes (typical) = 29 M3 The topography within the identified Secondary Plan area and the corresponding analysis of any pressure drop due to elevation differences concludes that the distribution water piping network can be serviced within one pressure zone. Consequently, additional booster pumping facilities will not be required to create more than one pressurized zone. Storage options for potable and fire protection can consist of either a central storage facility or one or more local or nodal storage reservoirs. The final selection of a storage KU71 I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 24 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report system can also be dependent on development phasing. Central storage can be constructed in phases as mandated by phased development but at a premium of initial capital cost. The problem with the anticipated development within the secondary plan is that is not possible to predict which area will be approved and go to construction first. This mandates that the location of a expansion to the water system may be driven by which developer chooses to go to market first. The options for the location of a water treatment and storage facility are firstly existing Municipal property, secondly the purchase of property at a preferred location and thirdly the allocation of land within an identified settlement area. The latter although preferred, limits the choice of a central facility given the unknown as to the sequence of development. Water storage reservoirs can be either constructed in ground, at grade or elevated on a structural pedestal. Each design offers individual advantages or disadvantages that must be considered on a site by site review. Underground or grade level storage is typically less expensive than elevated storage and allows the option of limited construction phasing. Some storage is also necessary for disinfection contact time, pump cycling, peak hour and instantaneous water demands 4.2.3 Water Distribution The entire Secondary Plan can be serviced within one pressure zone. As such, water distribution mains should be directly interconnected between the various development la areas and to the existing Craighurst Estate system. I I I Water pressure variations are anticipated at the east and west limits of the Secondary Plan. High pressures are predicted at the lower elevations along the west limit of the secondary plan and lower pressures are calculated along the highlands near the east limit of the Secondary Plan. However it is concluded that operating pressures within each development area are still within the required design guidelines. It is anticipated that the existing distribution system will provide adequate fire flow. It is preferred that all communal water within the secondary plan be linked to provide one integrated system. Water distribution pipe and property services can be provided to existing development under Section 326 of the Municipal Act. Water distribution network analysis using a currently recognized method based on Hardy Cross or one of the computer model derivatives shall be undertaken to ensure design flows can be delivered throughout the distribution system at the required design pressures. The water distribution system may require private rights-of-way or easements to loop the water network across drainage courses or through as yet unidentified areas of the Secondary Plan. Watermain extension loops through easements are promoted at the end of culs-de -sac to prevent dead ends that cause water quality deterioration. i I I I I i I I I I IN 101 Township of Oro-Medonte 25 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Water supply from the storage reservoir and the three Well locations within the Secondary Plan results in shorter lengths of watermain between sources, and the furthest demand and highest demand are less distance away than water provided from one source. The lower friction losses result in smaller diameter watermain, such that the maximum size of watermain needed to deliver maximum day plus fire flow is 250 mm diameter. 4.3 Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal 4.3.1 Wastewater Flows It is anticipated that the existing commercial and residential development will at some time connect to the new sewage treatment facilities in due course. New development in the Secondary Plan forecast in Section 2 of this report will require wastewater services similar to the water requirements identified in Section 3: "Water Supply Storage and Distribution". Total residential development is expected in a minimum of two distinct development phases with approximately 400 units in Phase 1 and 300 residential units in Phase 2. The existing residential development has about 100 units and when combined with the non-residential development results in about 131 equivalent residential units. Both residential and non-residential wastewater flows reflect the theoretical water supply when infiltration into the collection network is considered.. Section 2.2.2 identifies water demand for development of 825 equivalent residential units at 400 liters per capita per day (1,200 liters/unit). The objective of developing the water supply will result in about 1000 M3 /d of wastewater produced. The 1000 M3 /d average daily flow from residential and non-residential development in the Secondary Plan, includes an allowance for infiltration into the sanitary sewage collection system. The total developed area serviced by sanitary sewers is about 100 ha, and the equivalent service population is 2,488 people. MOE design criteria for new sewage facilities for new development require that: 1. Strict control should be provided by the municipality to ensure sewer services from Property line to new buildings will be implemented to prevent sump pumps; footing drain and roof drain connections to the sanitary sewer, and insure proper building service construction and connections. 2. Adequate design and inspection during construction of both the municipal sewer and property services, and private services to the building. 3. Routine inspection and maintenance programs are in place by the municipality/operating authority to insure a tight system is maintained. In addition to the above sewage flows based on usage, an infiltration/inflow rate of groundwater is added to the system to account for potential future leaks into the system. This is also used for design of sewage facilities such as pumping stations and treatment facilities is typically stated at 90 L/day per person. Historically for this location and the nature of the underlying soil strata with the corresponding elevation of the ground water this value can be adjusted. PIPAIlm IIII-11111 U Township of Oro-Medonte 26 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report The rated capacity of the Sanitary Sewage Plant is a function of the rate at which the raw sanitary sewage is collected and discharged to the faculty and the capacity of the transfer pumps to deliver the raw sewage to the inlet works. This flow rate from either a sanitary sewage lift station constructed within the waste water treatment plant or from a forcemain and pumping station can not exceed the maximum rated capacity of the plant. It is estimated that the build-out of the Secondary Plan will result in an average daily flow of 1,000 M3 /d and with a design peak hour factor of 3.0 produces a facility rated at 3,000 M3 /d (peak daily flow). Maximum daily flow for wastewater facilities is related to stormwater inflow/infiltration and total water consumption/disposal, (similar to water facilities). Maximum daily flows 1-711 and peak hour flows are equalized in the design of the wastewater facilities and are cushioned by averaging and storage in the collection system. The peaking factor is I I I I I often determined by the selection of the treatment process. This will then impose limitations on the rate that the raw sewage is discharged to the treatment design or flow balancing must be incorporated into the pumping stations or plant. In addition to wastewater from the Secondary Plan, the ability to accept septage for treatment and disposal or to temporarily back-up other Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants should be considered. Discharge criteria are set by the MOE Southwestern Region. An assimilation study for the Nottawasaga River watershed, completed in 2006, has established loading criteria for individual subwatersheds and the resulting discharge criteria. Once the final effluent limits and objectives to the identified parameters have been set then the Reasonable Use Guidelines (RUG) can be applied to this development. The ability of the underlying soils to accept the final wastewater effluent determines if subsurface disposal by hydraulic conductivity is a viable option. Non cohesive sandy soils are preferred over heavy clays or till with a detailed analysis by a competent hydrogeologist. Based on the assessment undertaken during the Background Study the permeable soils are suitable for infiltration. Additional field investigation will be needed to define the infiltration areas for the Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant during the preparation of the Master Servicing Reports that are part of the site specific approval process. Biosolids or sludge production is similar for all alternative treatment processes and must be disposed typically by land application under the specific and current legislation of the Province of Ontario. It is not anticipated that the disposal of biosolids from this location will be an issue. 111111AVA LAI ri I I I I 1 Alternative sewage collection systems include, but are not limited to, the following collection systems: • Conventional gravity sewers • Small bore sewers • Pressure systems • Vacuum systems The method of sewage collection can have a bearing on the amount of groundwater infiltration that must be treated. Small bore sewers and pressure/vacuum systems have lower infiltration volumes. However, conventional gravity sewers are reliable, virtually maintenance free, and have virtually no operating costs. In addition, sewage collection systems that incorporate holding or septic tanks can reduce peak sewage flows that must be dealt with by both the collection system and treatment facility. In deciding on sewage collection systems several considerations must be taken into account. 1. The undulating topography may require deep burial of gravity sewers and possibly necessitates the use of pumping stations and the expropriation of easements, if same cannot be obtained in a cooperative manner. 2. Native soils are favorable with respect to the construction of underground utilities such as sewers. 3. There could be dewatering problems in low lying areas. This could impede construction of sewers, and potentially impact adjacent shallow wells. Of the various types of sewage collection systems gravity sanitary sewers are the preferred method of collection for the Secondary Plan. 4.3.3 Sewage Treatment and Disposal There are no communal sewage systems within the Secondary Plan Area. Existing development has been supported by individual conventional Class IV subsurface sewage systems. Sanitary sewage treatment facilities utilizing modern technology offer a very high level of treatment that produces a final effluent suitable for discharge to the environment. There are several alternative sewage treatment systems that can be considered for installation within this settlement area. Sanitary Sewage treatment typically involves primary treatment or screening to remove solids, secondary treatment with biological activity to produce an effluent at acceptable and mandated levels of the identified i I i I I I I I I I I IN M I Township of Oro-Medonte 28 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report parameters. It is sometimes required that tertiary treatment be utilized to further lower the level of the design parameters to meet stringent final effluent limits. This is often accomplished with deep bed filters or membrane filters. In a conventional Class 1V sewage system, the septic tank provides both primary treatment, and initiates secondary treatment. The subsurface distribution system completes secondary treatment. Tertiary treatment is provided by filtering effluent through the underlying soils. Alternative treatment systems include, but are not limited to the following: Treatment and Disposal of Effluent to subsurface soils. • Peat/biofilters • Recirculation sand filters • Infiltration lagoons • Large communal the beds Primary treatment and Subsurface or Surface Water Disposal of Effluent • Activated sludge with aeration or extended aeration • Rotary biological contactors Sequential batch reactors • Lagoons with or without aeration • Biological membrane systems • Others Groundwater Surface Disposal of Effluent 0 Lagoons with spray irrigation or snowfluent discharge A review of the local soils and overburden characteristics conclude that the site is favorable for the subsurface disposal of the final effluent. The second option to be considered is to discharge the final effluent to a receiving surface water such as one of the tributaries to Matheson Creek or Craig's swamp. Matheson Creek is identified as a cold water fishery that requires specific criteria be applied to final sewage effluent if this is to be considered a viable option. The limits and objectives of the identified parameters such as suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrates and possibly phosphorus must be applied within the guidelines for Reasonable Use Guidelines (RUG). The preliminary RUG analysis will then determine the actual loading of the identified parameters thru the subsurface disposal beds to the groundwater. The amount of final effluent at the suggested final effluent limits will determine the quantity of effluent that can be disposed off. Given below is a description of constraints and opportunities in treatment options and subsurface/surface water disposal options for the treated effluent. i r I im I Township of Oro-Medonte 29 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Subsurface Disposal So far as subsurface disposal of treated affluent from any of these treatment systems is concerned, there are two possible scenarios based on whether or not the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from the drinking groundwater aquifer. Given below is a brief description of disposal criteria for both scenarios. Subsurface Disposal -without hydraulic isolation MOE Policy B-7 of reasonable use is applied to measure the impact of development proposals supported by subsurface sewage systems serving five or more residential units, or large subsurface sewage disposal systems that discharge more than 10,000 old effluent. The Policy is applied where it cannot be demonstrated that the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from sources of groundwater supply. Nitrate (N), which is converted from ammonia found in domestic sewage, is used to measure groundwater impact potential. When nitrate attenuation is assessed, only that which occurs by dilution is considered. The amount of water available for dilution is equal to the annual infiltration rate of 250 mm. The value Of Ce is a function of the type of wastewater treatment system and the level of treatment effected by the system. Hence the density of development — i.e. residential units per hectare @ 3 persons/unit — would be determined by the value of Ce and consequently the type of treatment system and its efficiency. Subsurface Disposal -Communal System with Hydraulic Isolation In case it is demonstrated that the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from potential supply aquifers, then Policy B-7 is satisfied. This situation typically occurs where there is a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow immediately downgradient of the location of subsurface sewage disposal. The background information collected to date suggests the wetlands west and north of the Study Area present a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow. Further, there is an upward hydraulic gradient in the direction of groundwater flow adjacent to the wetlands. At the time of final design it will be necessary to satisfy all provincial guidelines to demonstrate that the effluent plume discharge from a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal is hydraulically isolated from groundwater supply aquifers. Should this situation exist, then the discharge of effluent via the subsurface will occur to the adjacent wetlands and eventually to Matheson Creek. Tertiary treatment of effluent would occur naturally by: 1. Filtering effluent through the overburden soils. 2. Uptake by wetland vegetation at the point of effluent discharge to surface. I IMP I I Township of Oro-Medonte 30 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Under the Water Resources Act, the Ministry of Environment applies Policies 1 and 2 of the Provincial Water Quality Objectives as they relate to surface water quality degradation resulting from the discharge of effluent. It must be demonstrated through an analysis of the assimilative capacity of the receiving watercourse, that these policies are met. Policy 1 states that where upstream surface water quality is below the PWQO concentration, water quality cannot be degraded to worse than the PWQO concentration at the downstream compliance limit. Policy 2 states that where upstream surface water quality is equal to or above the PWQO concentration, it cannot be degraded further at the downstream compliance limit.) In case of surface, water discharge - whether directly or via subsurface flow - phosphorous replaces nitrate as the parameter of concern within sewage effluent. The PWQO for total phosphorous is 0.03 mg/L. For impact assessment, a concentration of 15 mg/L (P) phosphorous in sewage effluent is used. Phosphorous attenuation occurs naturally in the soil, and by dilution. Sewage treatment systems are also capable of reducing the concentration of phosphorous. The natural retention capacity of the native soil media beneath the subsurface distribution system, and between the distribution system and the point of discharge to the surface must be measured to determine the attenuation capacity of the soil. In all likelihood, the size of development which could be supported by a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal located in the hydrologic setting described will be dictated by the hydraulic capabilities of the overburden that must accept sewage flows rather than phosphorous attenuation. Surface disposal The capacity of Matheson Creek, or Craig's Swamp, to receive sewage is limited by the application of PWQO Policy I with respect to total phosphorous. The Assimilative Capacity Study (2006) identified the Matheson Creek, and consequently the Willow Creek subwatershed as unimpaired and also the water meets PWQO. Therefore any discharge would also have to meet this criterion. A flow rate analysis at the discharge location, effects of elevated flow on downstream vegetation and structures, and potential seasonal fluctuation in phosphorous concentrations in the stream must be assessed in order to fully evaluate this option as they were not addressed by the Assimilative Capacity Study. 4.3.4 Treatment Plant Location Since it is proposed to phase development to accommodate growth estimated at 75 units per year, more than one treatment facility and plant expansion phasing are to be considered. The option of constructing more than one treatment plant significantly increases initial capital expenditures and long term operating costs. A more economical option, due to economy of scale, is the design of a plant that can be expanded. 1 1-1 It1"u � I i i1 Township of Oro-Medonte 31 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Consequently, we do not recommend more than one municipal wastewater treatment facility (sewage treatment is separate from disposal by one or more the beds). However, the Class Environmental Assessment for the new Sewage Treatment Plant will review this option as a potential solution. The preferred location of a future wastewater treatment facility must take into account many factors relating to engineering constraints as well as social economic considerations. Potential sites must take into account: • The integration of the collection of the raw sanitary sewage and delivery to the WWTP with either gravity sewers, pressure forcemains or a combination of the both. • Access to the site by operational staff and maintenance vehicles. • The availability of high voltage power to the site. • Concerns with noise, odours. • The integration of the site and architecture with proposed or existing residential or commercial development. • Site topography. • Integration into a phased approach to an undefined growth pattern driven by private enterprise. There are a limited number of potential sites to locate a new waste water treatment plant within or immediately surrounding the defined settlement area. The first potential site, SITE 1, is located at the northeast corner of Lot 41, Concession 1 west of the CPR railway. This location illustrated on Figure 3.2 is selected for the following reasons: - The Plant is downstream of, but close proximity to, the gravity collection system for the Secondary Plan; - The Plant is midway between the north and south limits of the Secondary Plan to reduce trunk sewer lengths, depths and diameters - The Plant abuts, but is above flood levels of Copeland wetland. The wetland is non- agriculture and non-developable, provides a natural buffer and is available for consideration of a wastewater discharge if discharge to the wetland is selected in the Class Environmental Assessment process - The Plant abuts the railway as a visible barrier and as a non-residential buffer, and is in a non-developed agricultural location outside the Secondary Plan. As such, the Plant is expandable - The Plant is located such that property acquisition from Lot 41 or Lot 42 owners will ensure a competitive price - The Plant is located such that infiltration disposal options can be provided by either Lot 41 or Lot 42, or both - The Plant is located outside the Secondary Plan where development is proposed, so trunk sewers and forcemain parallel to the CPR railway, (as a Utility corridor), will not interfere with multiple residential properties. Power supply, telecommunications, gas and utilities can be provided along a utility corridor from County Rd 22 La 011PAM n 0 I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 32 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report - The Plant location is midway between two streams that may provide the option of surface water discharge to one or both depending on the Class Environmental Assessment. Gravity or pumped discharge is possible - The site is accessible from County Rd 22 and is in close proximity to Highway 400. Truck traffic for deliveries and sludge disposal do not need to travel through the Secondary Plan development. The Second potential location, SITE 2 is located at the northeast corner of Lot 40, Concession 1 west of the CPR railway. This location illustrated on Figure 3.2 is selected for the following reasons: - The Plant is downstream of, but close proximity to, the gravity collection system for the Secondary Plan; - The Plant is between the north and south limits of the Secondary Plan with there being multiple options on location of trunk gravity sewers or force mains to reach the site - The Plant abuts, but is above flood levels of Copeland wetland. - The Plant abuts the railway as a visible barrier and as a non-residential buffer. - Is in a non-developed agricultural location outside the Secondary Plan. As such, the Plant is expandable - The Plant is located such that the disposal options can be explored in detail during the phased development of the site by locating site specific areas and forcemains as required. - The Plant is located outside the Secondary Plan where development is proposed, so trunk sewers and forcemain parallel to the CPR railway, (as a Utility corridor), will not interfere with multiple residential properties. Power supply, telecommunications, gas and utilities can be provided along a utility corridor from County Rd 22 - The site is easily accessible from County Rd 22 and is in close proximity to Highway 400. Truck traffic for deliveries and sludge disposal do not need to travel through the Secondary Plan development. The third potential location, SITE 3, is located at the northeast corner of Lot 41, Concession 1 East of the CPR railway. This site, illustrated on Figure 3.2 is selected for the following reasons: - The Plant is downstream of only part of the proposed development area. Another development area would require dedicated pumping stations and forcemains to send the raw sewage to this site. - The Plant is above flood levels. - The Plant would site adjacent to the railway. - The Plant is located such that the disposal options can be explored in detail during the phased development of the site by locating site specific areas and forcemains as required. - The Plant is located inside the Secondary Plan where development is proposed, so trunk sewers, forcemains power supply, telecommunications, gas and utilities can be provided along a utility corridor from Highway 93 - The site is easily accessible from Highway 93 and is in close proximity to Highway 400. Truck traffic for deliveries and sludge disposal do not need to travel through the proposed residential development. NIIIIIA111111" to n I 619 MINN. 1111 I Im. I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 33 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report The fourth potential site would be located within the first phase of request approval to proceed to construction. Potential locations would the time of construction of the first development: development to be determined at - The Plant would preferably be downstream of only part of the proposed development area. Other development areas would require dedicated pumping stations and forcmains to send the raw sewage to this site. - The Plant would be above flood levels. - The Plant should be located adjacent to either major roadways. - The Plant is located such that the disposal options can be explored in detail during the phased development of the site by locating site specific areas and forcemains as required. - The Plant is located inside the Secondary Plan where development is proposed, so trunk sewers, forcemains power supply, telecommunications, gas and utilities can be provided along a utility corridor from either county Road 22 or Highway 93. - The site is easily accessible from Highway 93 and is in close proximity to Highway 400. Truck traffic for deliveries and sludge disposal may need to travel through the proposed residential development. 4.4 Stormwater Management The Craighurst Secondary Planning Area is 160 hectares in area situated within the Simcoe Uplands on the extreme northwest flank of the Bass Lake or Oro Moraine sand moraine. The area drains to Matheson Creek which is tributary to Willow Creek and the Nottawasaga River. The upper section of Matheson Creek is also part of the Copeland- Craighurst wetland complex. Matheson Creek provides cold and cool water fishery, which impacts the degree of treatment required for any stormwater undertaking. Within the Planning Area, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has requested a 30 meter development setback from the centerline of identified natural streams. This section provides the technical and engineering stormwater management information for future development. It includes the hydrologic models for existing conditions, and stormwater management facility locations, sizing, design criteria and cost estimates. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions 4.4.1.1 Drainage Basins Drainage basin catchment areas utilizing Data from the previous Trow Report are identified on Figure 2.2. There are five major gullies, or small watershed drainage basins, that drain from the northwest flank of the moraine through the study area to Matheson Creek. The construction of County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) has diverted catchment area Basin 2 to Basin 1. The diverted and remnant portions of Basin 2 result in six drainage basins altogether. Table 4.2 provides a summary of each drainage basin. 101 W 19P I I Township of Oro-Medonte 34 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Table 4.2 Craighurst Drainage Basins Drainage Area Elevation Hydraulic Land Type Basin (ha) drop (m) Length (m) Wooded Field Settled % 1 49 46 1,700 5 95 2 157 103 3,300 25 75 20 13 -3- 59 29 1,400 50 50 16 27 4 59 32 1,800 70 30 11 19 5 331 12-6 4,800 60 4-0 4-0 1-2 6 226 129 4,700 70 30 The density of development in "settled areas" is relatively low outside the central commercial area located at the crossroads in Craighurst. Typical existing lot sizes in residential areas range between 0.2 and 1.5 hectares (0.5 and 4.0 acres). The following is a description of each drainage basin: Basin I drains to the extreme southwest corner of the planning area. There is no defined watercourse. However, there is a 0.6 meter diameter concrete culvert to convey any overland flow which may occur from this basin through the CPR embankment. Basin 2 lies south of County Road 22. Topographic mapping shows the watercourse crossing County Road 22 at the CPR crossing; however, the 1.8 x 0.9 meter concrete box culvert passes through the railroad embankment only. Flow from this basin is directed towards the Highway 400 cloverleaf south of County Road 22 where it joins the outfall from Basin 1. This drainage route flows intermittently. Basin 3 was once part of Basin 2 before commences at the Foodland grocery store Craighurst Estates under the railway CPR. Subdivision to a 0.6 me embankment. There is n County Road 22 was constructed. Basin 3 and drains the south portion of the new ter diameter concrete pipe culvert passing o defined watercourse downstream of the Basin 4 is a small intermediate drainage area that coincides with a pronounced gully that commences immediately to the northeast of the intersection at County Roads 22 and 93. There is a small storm sewer system that drains the intersection. The storm sewer outlets to the Basin 4 gully where County Road 93 crosses it south of the intersection. Overland flow at the base of the gully occurs briefly after a runoff event. The 0.9 meter diameter culvert under County Road 93 is half filled with silt. Some minor erosion is evident at the road embankment. i i I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 35 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report A 0.9 x 1.2 meter concrete box culvert under the CPR embankment accepts surface drainage from this basin. Base flow does not occur in Basin 4 until just upstream of Highway 400. Basin 5 encompasses the northerly section of the study area. Base flow is evident at County Road 22 where there is a 1.2 meter diameter CSP. The stream channel at this location is 0.3 meters wide by 0.15 meters deep and flows southeast to northwest through the study area. The stream crosses County Road 93 through a 0.9 meter CSP culvert and then passes through a 1.5 x 1.8 meter concrete arch culvert at the CPR embankment. The stream channel approaching the CPR culvert is 0.3 meters wide and 0.4 meters deep and has a flow of 12 Us (with 25-30 mm rainfall three days prior). There is a sub-basin within Basin 5 that is approximately 26 hectares in size. It has no defined channel and drains to a 1.2 x 0.8 meter concrete box culvert that passes under the CPR, then to a 0.9 meter diameter steel culvert that passes under County Road 93. Surface drainage from this sub-basin joins drainage from the balance of Basin 5 within the swamp lying west of the Study Area. Basin 6 is located in the northerly limit of the study area. There is no evidence of a riparian channel at County Road 22. However, at the CPR 1.2 x 1.5 meter concrete arch culvert the stream channel is 0.3 meters wide and 0.2 meters deep. A stream flow of 20 Us was measured at the CPR culvert on April 24, 2000. There is a High Water mark on the culvert headwall that coincides with the top of the culvert opening. Basin 6 outlets to Craig's Swamp 4.4.1.2 Stormwater Management Facilities There are two stormwater management facilities in Basin 3. One is located in the northwest corner of the Foodland store parking lot. The other is located in the southwest corner of the Craighurst Estates Subdivision. Both stormwater management ponds offer pre/post-development storm drainage control as well as an opportunity for surface runoff to infiltrate into the ground. 1 4.4.1.3 Soils I I The Simcoe County Soil Survey shows the surface soils surrounding Craighurst to be Tioga sand loam and Tioga sand-Vasey sand loam at elevations higher than contour 250 masi. Below contour 250 masi, the soils are either Alliston sandy loam, or muck. Muck soils are found in the lower swamp areas adjacent to Highway 400 west and north of Craighurst. The Alliston soils are located at marginally higher elevations found adjacent to the low swamp lands. Tioga and Vasey soils are well draining with high infiltration characteristics, and belong in soil hydrologic groups A and AB, respectively. Alliston sandy loam soils are fine sands with imperfect drainage and a similar hydrologic group classification of AB. Muck soils are typically located in areas where organic material has collected and drainage is poor. so �A= " N K_Mrl� I I I I I MIS 1111 I is I i I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 36 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 4.4.2 Guidelines for future Stormwater Management The stormwater management plan for the Secondary Planning Area shall be completed in accordance with the most current provincial, municipal and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority guidelines. The guidelines shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Water Quantity Post-development peak flow rates attenuated to pre-development levels, or less, for all storms up to and including the 100 year rainfall event. Safe conveyance of the stormwater for the Regional Storm Event is required for all road and subdivision design. Water Quality Enhanced treatment (formerly designated Level 1) is required due to: - The Planning Area located in Oro Moraine, a very important recharge area and headwater of Matheson Creek; - Downstream coldwater fisheries A setback of 30 meters is required on either side of a natural stream. 4.4.3 Pre Development Stormwater Flows SWMHYMO, a computer stormwater management hydrologic model, was utilized to compute the peak runoff flows for the six existing drainage basin areas. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the 2, 5, 25, and 100 year SCS 24 hour design storm and Regional Storm (Timmins Storm) event peak flows. Post development peak flows are to be modeled in detail at the functional servicing plan stages, or when the development density is clearly identified. Table 4.3 Pre-Development Peak Flows (m M31S) Storm Event Basin I Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 2 yr. SCS 0.04 0.03 0.77 0.67 OM 0.03 5 yr. SCS 0.34 0.26 1.19 1.05 0.24 0.16 F 25 yr. SCS 1.45 1.06 1.68 1.44 0.92 0.63 100 yr. SCS 2.95 2.15 2.26 1.92 1.86 1.30 Timmins 9.60 1 7.25 1 2.96 2.63 9.21 6.63 �A= 0 UH i I I i I 1:11 I i I 1, Township of Oro-Medonte 37 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 4.4.4 Post Development Stormwater Management Post development peak flows for the Planning Area should be controlled to the pre- development levels or less for all storms up to and including the 100 year rainfall event Post development peak flows are to be modeled in detail at the functional servicing plan stages, or when the development density is clearly identified. 4.4.5 Stormwater Management Ponds The preferred location of stormwater management ponds, and corresponding catchment areas, within the Secondary Planning Area are shown on Drawing SWM-I. Pond sites were selected based on the following criteria: 0 Locations that would facilitate inter-basin drainage where feasible. 0 Upstream of existing drainage culverts crossing Hwy 93 and the CPR thus avoiding expensive culvert enlargements. 0 At the most downstream location within the Secondary Plan Area. 0 Locations that also capture drainage from existing lots in addition to new development. Each pond shall provide "enhanced" or Level 1 quality protection per Table 3.2 of the "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual" (MOE, 2003). Permanent pool storage volumes are to be based on impervious ratio and drainage area. Table 4.4 summarizes the storage volumes for each drainage basin pond. The volumes are preliminary, actual volumes should be obtained through detailed hydrologic model undertaken at the functional servicing, or detailed design stages. Table 4.4 Stormwater Pond/Basin Storage Volumes Development Area Pond/Basin Drainage Area (ha) Percent Impervious % Runoff Coefficient Permanent Pool Active Storage(l) Total Volume m3 /ha m 3 m3 m3 A 9.54 60 0.6 162 1545 5500 7045 B 15.84 45 0.4 125 1980 6100 8080 C 24.71 45 0.4 125 3090 9500 12590 F 25.00 45 0.4 125 3125 9700 12825 G 42.92 45 0.4 125 5365 16600 21965 H 3.18 45 0.4 27.5 90 1200 1290 (1) Active storage volumes are calculated based on Orillia OF SCS 100 year storm event having a 24 hour rainfall volume of 120.68 mm, and that the volume of runoff retained in active storage is 80% of total 100 year storm rainfall. TM I I I I I I I i I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 38 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report The active storages shall include extended detention storage for erosion control, and quantity control storage for each design storm (2 to 100 year). An infiltration basin or dry pond shall serve the drainage area "H", because the area shall be too small to sustain a wet pond. NVCA "Wet Pond Criteria Check" indicates that a minimum drainage area of five hectares is required for a wet pond. The two existing ponds should continue to serve the drainage area "U. There shall be no new development in area "E"; consequently, no new pond shall be required. On-site controls are being used for the existing development in this area. Another option for area "A" make a bigger pond in area meet the new capacity. 4.5 Transportation and "B" is that combining Pond A and Pond B together to "A". In this case, the existing culvert shall be upgraded to The following describes road and street classification and function. Freeways are controlled access highways providing vehicles traveling at high speeds over relatively long distances. Arterial roads are through routes providing transportation across, and within, populated centers. Access to property is permitted; however, traffic flow is affected by the number of access points. Typically, development of property adjacent to arterial routes is undertaken to minimize the impact on traffic flow. Shared access points and controlled direction of access is encouraged. Major Collectors convey traffic between arterial roads and local roads, and may be used to service property. Minor Collectors provide access and traffic movement between major collectors and arterials. In residential areas, minor collectors convey traffic to and from a neighborhood prior to intersecting with streets having a higher classification. Through traffic is not encouraged. Local Streets provide access only to each abutting property. Boundary Roads present the directional limits of travel perpendicular to their orientation, and can function as any one of the above. 4.5.2 Existing Major Road Network The major road network is shown on Figure 2.2, and described as follows. i I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 39 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Highway 400 is a controlled access freeway. It provides a major route of vehicular transport between Toronto - Barrie - Parry Sound - Sudbury and areas beyond. Simcoe County Road 93 (Penetanguishene Road) was formerly King's Highway 93. It provides a connecting route between the City of Barrie and Penetanguishene/Midiand. It runs parallel to Highway 400 south of Craighurst to Barrie and crosses Highway 400 two kilometers north of the study area. Since it runs parallel to Highway 400, County Road 93 acts as a service road to provide an alternate route when Highway 400 traffic is diverted or congested, and functions as a major collector road between interchanges. The County of Simcoe's Official Plan has classified County Road 93 as a primary arterial road. It has a 30.5 meter Right-of-Way (ROW) throughout most of its length within and beyond the study area. There is a 150 meter section of ROW immediately north of County Road 22 that is only 20.0 meters wide. Through the hamlet there is a pedestrian sidewalk on the west side and east side of the ROW north and south of County Road 22, respectively. Simcoe County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) is an east-west connecting route that extends from King's Highway 12 just north of Orillia to King's Highway 26. Through the centre of the hamlet, County Road 22 has a 20.0 meter ROW width and is classified as a secondary arterial road. East and west of the hamlet, it has a 30.5 meter ROW, and is MR, classified as a primary arterial road by the Official Plan for Simcoe County. Ell, The intersection of County Rd 93 and County Rd 22 is a signalized two lane intersection, with left turn lanes for each approach to the intersection. Pedestrian signals are in place but currently advance green signal phasing is not implemented. The speed limit through the intersection is posted at 60 km/h. The intersection and approaches are relatively flat and at right angles with good sight lines for both stopping and turning. A slight vertical grade up to the intersection for southbound traffic does not restrict visibility. Commercial development and some residential development access the intersection within the length of the left turn lanes interfering with both sight line visibility and intersection traffic during peak periods. Overall, both the intersection at County Rd 93 and 22, and the intersection approaches, are currently operating at a high level of service. 1 4.5.3 Summary of Traffic Study I I I A traffic study was completed in support of the Craighurst Secondary Plan. The Study is included as Appendix B and is summarized below. The Study assessed future transportation requirements related to development of the Craighurst area along with future traffic growth on County Roads 22 and 93. I I I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 40 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report • Forecasting future traffic volumes for a 20 year horizon by combining existing traffic with an estimate of the trips that would be generated by the Craighurst Secondary Plan and Horseshoe Valley Resort area, and considering a range of growth in background traffic. • Analyzing traffic operations for the signalized intersection of County Roads 22/93; • Calculating the exposure index (daily trains X daily traffic) for the County Road 22/CP level rail crossing to determine if there is a need to consider a grade separation; and • Reviewing alternative road and traffic control requirements, and identifying a preferred alterative to address the requirements of the anticipated traffic growth. The conclusions and recommendations of the Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Study are as follows: a) Through a comparison of current and historical traffic data, it was found that there has been relatively little growth in the weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the County Roads 22/93 intersection in the period 1998 to 2007. b) Three alternative traffic forecasts for 2027 indicate the potential for substantial traffic growth (134 to 215 per cent increase over existing) at the County Roads 22/93 intersection and in the County Road 22 corridor through Craighurst. The Craighurst Secondary Plan area and the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node account for approximately one-third and two-thirds, respectively, of the new development component of traffic growth. Background or through traffic growth would account for the remainder of the 2027 traffic, and was estimated based on compound growth rates of one and three per cent per year for alternative forecast scenarios. C) The signalized intersection of County Roads 22/93 was found to operate at acceptable levels of service for each of the alternative traffic forecasts with the existing lane arrangements. In the future, signal timings and left turn lane storage requirements would have to be reviewed and modified if necessary to accommodate traffic increases. d) A basic two lane cross section on both County Roads 22 and 93 would be sufficient to accommodate each of the alternative traffic forecasts. Auxiliary turn lanes and other intersection improvements (e.g., additional traffic signals) should be provided as determined through subsequent traffic impact studies for proposed residential or commercial developments. The potential for road widenings to accommodate individual turning lanes, a centre two-way left turn lane, an additional through lane, or other facilities (e.g., bike lanes/paths, pedestrian facilities, etc.) should be protected for by acquiring property (through the development review process) to increase the road right-of-way where required. This applies to both County Roads 22 and 93, but primarily to County Road 22 where the higher traffic demands are expected. e) Three strategies have been developed to address the safety and delay concerns at the at-grade County Road 22/CP rail line crossing. The strategies include IM I i i i I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Studv Report 41 managing and mitigating the effects of the existing train operations, managing traffic queues, and consideration of the need for a grade separation in the future. The implementation of the various strategies is subject to monitoring traffic and development conditions, determining the physical feasibility of a grade separation, and possibly identifying property requirements and funding mechanisms to protect and provide for a future grade separation. With lower traffic volumes on County Road 93 at its crossing of the same CP rail line, it is seen that the existing rail protection system (flashing lights, bells, and gates) along with efforts by CP to minimize the duration of blockages are sufficient for the horizon year considered in this Study. UH I i i I i i I i i 11 Township of Oro-Medonte 42 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 5. SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Introduction The alternatives developed in Section 3 to address the problem statement are to be screened with respect to their impact on the physical, social and economic environments presented in Section 4. The potential environmental effects of the alternatives are listed in the respective Tables 5.4 to 5.7 and summarized in Table 5.8 at the end of this section: 5.2 Water Supply 5.2.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing: Action Required. • None Advantages • No additional construction required. Disadvantages 0 Does not address the problem statement. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since upgrades to the existing water supply system are required to implement the secondary development plan. 5.2.2 Alternative No. 2 —Draw more water from the existing wells: Action Required. • Increase the duty hours of the existing water supply pumps Advantages • No additional construction and equipment required • Potential for expansion of supply Disadvantages • Supply of water is fixed, based on permit to take water. This alternative would involve increasing the duty hours of the three duty pumps to draw additional water from the existing wells. The total combined capacity of the three duty water supply pumps is 855 M3 /d. The current maximum demand is 233 M3 /d where as the existing three wells have a current combined capacity of 507 M3 /d. With a combined permit to draw water @ 523 M3 /d, additional 290 M3 /d of water can be drawn from the existing wells by increasing the duty hours of the water supply pumps. 5.2.3 Alternative No. 3 — Install additional wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer: Action Required.- • Installation of additional wells • Connection of new well systems to the system at Craighurst estates well system. Advantages • Water supply is an existing and secure source I I I i i I i I I i Township of Oro-Medonte 43 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report MMEZ� # This alternative involves installation of two new wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer in addition to the existing wells at Craighurst Estates. The lower aquifer is regionally extensive with an estimated area of more than 1000 ha and potential long term safe yield of 450,000 M3 /yr with a potential of serving 2,740 persons per day @450 1ped. This capacity translates to servicing of 913 residential units @ 3 persons per unit, exceeding the 825 equivalent units required. However, long term 72 hours pump tests would be required to confirm the potential well production before actual construction. Wells would need to supply sufficient water to meet maximum day demand. Moreover the fact that most existing individual wells are completed in the upper sand and gravel aquifer, the possibility of interference and contamination of lower sand aquifer is minimal. Thus the lower aquifer offers higher level of security both in terms of quality as well as quantity. The overall water supply system to support the secondary plan area would consist of — Water supply facilities, Storage and Water distribution network. Water supply facilities The well water supply facilities would consist of: • Wells and pumps • Pump controls, alarms, etc. • Chlorine Disinfection system • Oversized piping for chlorine contact upstream of the first water user; • On-line Chlorine Residual analyzer and sample ports; • Diesel or Natural Gas Standby Generator for the system capable of maximum well house power requirements; • Alarming system connected to existing wireless communication system. • Treatment for sand, turbidity filters and mineral treatment may be required depending on water condition. Storage Craighurst Estates Water system has current storage capacity of 112 M3 provided by a below grade reservoir. Installation of new well system for the secondary plan area would require construction of new storage facility. Water storage is required for disinfection, contact time, equalization, fire protection and emergency uses. MOE guidelines require 25% maximum day equalization storage, fire protection for two hours at 110 Usec, and 25% of the total storage for emergency at the existing storage. Total storage required for the Secondary Plan area would be: Fire - 110 Usec for two hours: 792 M3 Equalization - 2,768 M3 /d x 25%: 692 M3 Emergency - @ 25%: 371 M3 URIMAM N Township of Oro-Medonte 44 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Total Storage: 5.3 Water Storage 1,855M3 MI 5.3.1 Alternative No. I - Do Nothing: 1- Action Required.- 110-1 • None Advantages • No additional construction required. Disadvantages • Does not address the problem statement. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since the existing storage of 112 m3 would be inadequate to provide for disinfection contact time, equalization and fire protection demand to effectively serve Craighurst secondary development area. 5.3.2 Alternative No. 2 - Provide Local Underground Storage: Action Required. • Construction of storage tanks at the new well sites • Connection of new storage tanks to the new well systems and to the well system at Craighurst estates. Advantages • More reliable water supply because of multiple storage locations. • Phasing of construction of storage tanks is possible Disadvantages • Requirement of Booster pump facilities at multiple locations This option will provide local underground storage at each of the two new well sites. Water supply from more than one storage source has higher reliability. Local underground pumped storage consists of a concrete storage reservoir normally constructed underground, booster pumps for peak hour flows, hydropneurnatic tanks for instantaneous flows, a disinfection system, a fire flow pump and a standby power generator. Smaller facilities typically require more pronounced peak flows. Fire protection needs are not correlated to the size of the service area but are based on suppression needs for a single fire regardless of service area. For predominantly residential development fire flows from fire hydrants are expected to be at least 38 L/sec. The Craighurst Estates water system has about 112 M3 of storage, pumped to the distribution system. A natural gas generator and fire pump provide 16.6 L/sec fire protection (219 gpm). Since this storage and fire flow are currently insufficient for Craighurst Estates, additional storage and fire flow capacity will significantly benefit the Craighurst Estates residents. I ---T- -1-Ir-I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 45 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report MOE requirements for 110 L/sec reflect fire protection needs for larger non-residential buildings and multi-residential buildings expected in Communities over 2,000 people. To provide fire protection to meet MOE guidelines for the Secondary Plan it is proposed that 48 Usec for two hours be provided for both phases in addition to the 16.6 L/sec available from Craighurst Estates. Phase I Existing Development: New Phase 1 Development: Craighurst Fire Flow: Total Fire Flow: Fire Flow Storage: 25% Equalization Storage: Emergency @ 25%: Total Storage: Existing Craighurst Estates: Net Storage Required: 105 Units (equivalent) 400 Units 16.6 Usec 64.6 L/sec 465 M3 341 M3 202 M3 1,008 M3 112 M3 896 M3 An underground reservoir 16 m x 16 m x 3.7 m will accommodate the Phase 1 storage requirements in conjunction with Craighurst Estates. Craighurst Estates fire protection and pressure problems will be improved as well when the Phase 1 water system comes on line. Existing Development: Phase 2 Development: Fire Flow: Fire flow Storage: 25% Equalization: 25% Emergency: Total Required: 105 Units Equivalent 300 Units 48 Usec 346 M3 273 M3 155 M3 774 M3 An underground reservoir 15 m x 15 m x 3.7 will accommodate the Phase 2 storage requirements. The total storage is 1,780 M3 versus 1,855 M3 to provide wells for the total aquifer recharge ability. Consequently, 4% more storage should be provided at each Well site (Phase 1 and Phase 2). .Phase 1- 935 m3 Phase 2 - 808 m3 5.3.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide Central Underground Storage: Action Required., • Construction of a central storage tank in Craighurst secondary plan area. • Connection of new storage tank to the new well systems and to the well system at Craighurst estates. I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 46 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Advantages • Less capital cost than construction of multiple storage tanks. • Requirement of only one booster pump station Disadvantages Less reliable water supply because of single storage location. This type of storage requires a booster pumping station to meet pressure needs similar to local underground pumped storage. Operation for this storage option will see disinfected well water pumped directly to the underground central storage facility. Disinfected water will be booster pumped to the distribution system to meet fire, peak hour and instantaneous peak flows. 5.3.4 Alternative No. 4 — Provide Central Above Grade Storage: Action Required., • Construction of a central above grade storage tank in Craighurst secondary plan area. Connection of new storage tank to the new well systems and to the well system at Craighurst estates. Advantages • Potential for lower capital cost than construction of multiple or below ground storage tanks. • Requirement of only one booster pump station. • Capability for low cost expansion by increasing height of the tank. Disadvantages • Less reliable water supply because of single storage location. • Initial cost may be higher than an underground tank • Ocular pollution This type of storage requires a booster pumping station to meet pressure needs similar to central underground pumped storage. Operation for this storage option will see disinfected well water pumped directly to the above ground central storage facility. Disinfected water will be booster pumped to the distribution system to meet fire, peak hour and instantaneous peak flows. 5.3.5 Alternative No. 5 — Provide Central Elevated Storage: Action Required. • Construction of an elevated central storage tank in Craighurst secondary plan area. • Connection of new storage tank to the new well systems and to the well system at Craighurst estates. Advantages • No booster pumping required • Better balancing of pressure in the water distribution system • No requirement of booster pump station • Lowest operating cost amongst all storage options PON I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 47 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Disadvantages • Highest capital cost amongst all the options. • Aesthetically the most visible option Elevated storage is aesthetically noticeable and can be considered acceptable for community promotion or unacceptable by other people. Local storage at the well is not required. If pressurized disinfection contact time is provided at the well location the disinfected well water can be pumped directly to the distribution system. The standby generator requirements and costs are much lower for this option. 5.4 Sewage Collection 5.4.1 Alternative No. 1 — Do Nothing: Action Required. • None Advantages • No additional construction or installation required. Disadvantages • Does not address the problem statement. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since implementation of the secondary development plan is contingent upon adequate sewage collection, treatment and disposal facility. 5.4.2 Alternative No. 2 — Provide conventional gravity sewers: Action Required. • Provision of conventional gravity sewers along with the required sewer appurtenances Advantages • Highly reliable. • Very little maintenance requirements • Negligible operational cost Disadvantages • High capital cost because of greater excavation, larger diameter sewers and sewer appurtenances. • Additional cost because of potential requirement of a sewage pumping station. • Higher infiltration of groundwater Topography predominantly dictates the direction of gravity sewer flow. Topography sloping to the northwest will discharge to a trunk sewer flowing to the sewage plant as illustrated on Figure 3.2. It is anticipated that the trunk sewer will run along the east or west side of the CPR. vH I I I ME I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 48 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Typically, pumping is required to lift wastewater to the headworks of a sewage treatment plant. Sometimes the pumps are located within the plant and sometimes pumping stations are external. The option of constructing a deep trunk sewer to intercept branch gravity sewers flowing along each drainage basin or to construct more than one pumping station with smaller trunk sewers was investigated. Figure 3.2 identifies gravity trunk sewers along the west side of the CPR to the Sewage Treatment Plant. A small Pumping Station is needed for the south portion of Employment Land east of Highway 400. The remainder of the Secondary Plan is drained by gravity sewers. Design should follow MOE and Ontario Provincial Standards. The following criteria should be used for design of sanitary sewer works within developments. Single Family Dwellings: Multi-Family Dwellings: Commercial Development: Schools - Students: - Full time staff: Church: Peak Flows: Infiltration peak: Minimum Sewer Size: Minimum Sewer Service: Minimum Velocity: Maximum Slope: Wn! I 30 Ud per student 50 Ud per person 8 L/d Per seat Harmon equation 0.1 L/ha/s 200 mm diameter 100 mm diameter 0.8 m/s 8% 5.4.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide small bore sewers: Action Required.- • Provision of individual septic tanks for all residential and non residential units in the Craighurst secondary plan. • Installation of small bore gravity sewers along with the required sewer appurtenances Advantages • Smaller excavation because of gentler slope requirements • Low capital cost because of reduced excavation and small diameter sewers Reduced load on wastewater treatment plants • Reduced infiltration of groundwater • Low operational cost Disadvantages • Requirement of individual interceptor/septic tanks for all residential and non residential units, • System incapable of carrying any gross solids. • Frequent monitoring and pumping of the septic tanks. • Higher maintenance cost than conventional gravity sewer system. • Additional cost because of requirement of a sewage pumping station. W-MrI&M �'� 0 W W1 I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 49 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 5.4.4 Alternative No. 4 - Provide pressure sewers: Action Required. • Provision of individual septic tanks for all residential and non residential units in the Craighurst secondary plan. • Provision of septic tank effluent pumps and small bore sewers pipes. Advantages • Flexibility in sewer network layout because of independence strict alignment and slope restrictions as in gravity sewers • Relatively small cost without damage to existing structures. • Significantly lower material and trenching costs because of reduced pipe size and depth requirements. • Reduced infiltration of groundwater • Reduced organic load on wastewater treatment plant • Low operational cost Disadvantages • Frequent blockages and maintenance problems • High operation and maintenance cost. • Higher life cycle replacement costs because lower life expectancy than conventional systems. • Potential odors and corrosion problems because of usually septic condition of wastewater in the collection sewers. 5.5 Sewage Treatment and Disposal 5.5.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing: Action Required. • None Advantages • No additional construction or installation required. Disadvantages • Does not address the problem statement. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since implementation of the secondary development plan is contingent upon adequate sewage disposal facility. 5.5.2 Alternative No. 2 — Subsurface disposal using individual septic systems Action Required. • Install individual on-site the bed sewage treatment systems for subsurface disposal Advantages • Decentralized easy to manage small sewage treatment systems • No centralized sewage collection system required Disadvantages • Insufficient treatment and potential contamination of potable groundwater aquifer. • Substantially reduced development density within the Secondary Plan area. un was 0 Township of Oro-Medonte 50 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report This alternative would involve construction of individual on-site the bed sewage treatment systems for subsurface disposal. An individual treatment system would consist of septic tank followed by a the bed for treatment/infiltration of the settled effluent into the ground. Applicability of these systems would be based on reasonable land use criteria recommended by MOE with regards to Nitrate concentration in groundwater adjacent to the effluent disposal site. Groundwater flow adjacent to wetland areas west and north of the Study Area has an upward hydraulic gradient. This presents a hydraulic boundary to effluent plume dispersion in groundwater, and is therefore, the limit of application of MOE Policy 13- 7 of reasonable use. This changes the criteria used to establish level of impact. In effect, the only constraint to subsurface sewage disposal becomes the ability of the soils adjacent to the wetland to accept the hydraulic loads, and the potential impact subsurface discharge will have with respect to stream water quality. 5.6.3 Alternative No. 3 — Subsurface disposal using communal Sewage treatment plant N Action Required. 0 Installation of sanitary sewer system • Construction and installation of a new communal sewage treatment plant. Advantages 0 Low capital cost because of simplicity of system Disadvantages • Potentially insufficient sewage treatment to meet subsurface disposal standards This alternative would require construction of a sanitary sewer system and a communal Sewage treatment plant for subsurface disposal of treated effluent. There are several treatment processes including but not limited to the following three options that could potentially be used for sewage treatment for subsurface disposal. I I I I I I • Peat/biofilters Recirculation sand filters 0 Large communal the beds Disposal So far as subsurface disposal of treated affluent from any of these treatment systems is concerned, there are two possible scenarios based on whether or not the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from the drinking groundwater aquifer. Given below is a brief description of disposal criteria for both scenarios. Subsurface Disposal without hydraulic isolation MOE Policy B-7 (Reasonable Use) is applied to measure the impact of development proposals supported by subsurface sewage systems serving five or more residential units, or large subsurface sewage disposal systems that discharge more than 10,000 Ud effluent. The Policy is applied where it cannot be demonstrated that the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from sources of groundwater supply. FrTr I I I I i i i i Township of Oro-Medonte 51 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Nitrate (N), which is converted from ammonia (NH4) found in domestic sewage, is used to measure groundwater impact potential. The Reasonable Use calculation for nitrate, taking into consideration a natural background nitrate concentration of 0.4 ma/L, is as follows: CM = Cb + X(Cr — Cb), where Cb natural background concentration in upper sand aquifer (see Table 7) Cr = Ontario Drinking Water Objective = 10.0 mg/L-N x = ratio for health parameters to ensure negligible effect on groundwater use = 0.25 Cm = maximum acceptable concentration beneath adjacent property Cm = 0.4 mg/L + 0.25(10 mg/L — 0.4 mg/L) = 2.8 mg/L The concentration of nitrate in groundwater that can be permitted at the down gradient property boundary is: Cw = Cm — Cb = 2.8 mg/L -0.4 mg/L = 2.4 mg/L (N) Guidelines suggest using a nitrate (N) concentration in septic tank effluent of 40 mg/L- N, and an average daily flow rate of 1,000 L/day, when evaluating the impact on groundwater by sewage produced by a single family dwelling. When nitrate attenuation is assessed, only that which occurs by dilution is considered. The amount of water available for dilution is equal to the annual infiltration rate of 250 mm. In applying Policy B-7, the density of development permitted on subsurface sewage disposal (without regard to hydraulic performance capabilities) is estimated as follows: effluent concentration available dilution or C, = C (#units)(1000L/d/unit)(365d/yr) [250mm/yr/ha + units(1,000lJd/unit)](365d/yr) which is simplified to, C, = concentration of nitrate permitted = 2.4 mg/L C, = concentration of nitrate in effluent (varies depending on level of treatment) Table 5.1 below establishes the density of development (residential units per hectare at 3 persons/unit) assuming a municipal sewage system with subsurface disposal, and the effluent plume not isolated from a groundwater supply aquifer. UH I I no I i I I i i i i 1, Township of Oro-Medonte 52 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report (1 1 The total number of units will also be a function of the total area available for attenuation by dilution (catchment area). The land area dedicated for attenuation could conceivably include the settlement area of Craighurst, and areas outside the designated settlement area. As seen, the number of units permitted per hectare varies with the level of treatment provided. Subsurface Disposal -Communal System with Hydraulic Isolation In the case that the demonstrated effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from potential supply aquifers, then Policy B-7 is satisfied. This situation typically occurs where there is a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow immediately downgradient of the location of subsurface sewage disposal. The background information collected to date suggests the wetlands west and north of the Study Area present a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow. Further, there is an upward hydraulic gradient in the direction of groundwater flow adjacent to the wetlands. It may be possible to demonstrate that the effluent plume discharge from a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal is hydraulically isolated from groundwater supply aquifers if the distribution area is located on Concession 1 WPR somewhere between Lots 41 and 46, or on Lot 44, Concession 1 EPR. Should this situation exist, then the discharge of the final effluent via the subsurface will occur to the adjacent wetlands and eventually to Matheson Creek. Tertiary treatment of effluent would occur naturally by: 1. Filtering effluent through the overburden soils. 2. Uptake by wetland vegetation at the point of effluent discharge to surface. Under the Water Resources Act, the Ministry of Environment applies Policies 1 and 2 of the Provincial Water Quality Objectives as they relate to surface water quality degradation resulting from the discharge of effluent. It must be demonstrated through an analysis of the assimilative capacity of the receiving watercourse, that these policies are met. Table 5.1 Development Density Subsurface Sewage Disposal - Municipal Facility with Potential Groundwater Impact % Nitrate Nitrate in Units/ha - Treatment System reduction effluent catchment area Convention Septic Tank 0% 40 mg/L 0.4(l) Peat Filter Beds 50% 20 mg/L 041) I Recirculation Sand 25% 30 mg/L 0.6(l) Filters (1 1 The total number of units will also be a function of the total area available for attenuation by dilution (catchment area). The land area dedicated for attenuation could conceivably include the settlement area of Craighurst, and areas outside the designated settlement area. As seen, the number of units permitted per hectare varies with the level of treatment provided. Subsurface Disposal -Communal System with Hydraulic Isolation In the case that the demonstrated effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from potential supply aquifers, then Policy B-7 is satisfied. This situation typically occurs where there is a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow immediately downgradient of the location of subsurface sewage disposal. The background information collected to date suggests the wetlands west and north of the Study Area present a hydraulic boundary to groundwater flow. Further, there is an upward hydraulic gradient in the direction of groundwater flow adjacent to the wetlands. It may be possible to demonstrate that the effluent plume discharge from a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal is hydraulically isolated from groundwater supply aquifers if the distribution area is located on Concession 1 WPR somewhere between Lots 41 and 46, or on Lot 44, Concession 1 EPR. Should this situation exist, then the discharge of the final effluent via the subsurface will occur to the adjacent wetlands and eventually to Matheson Creek. Tertiary treatment of effluent would occur naturally by: 1. Filtering effluent through the overburden soils. 2. Uptake by wetland vegetation at the point of effluent discharge to surface. Under the Water Resources Act, the Ministry of Environment applies Policies 1 and 2 of the Provincial Water Quality Objectives as they relate to surface water quality degradation resulting from the discharge of effluent. It must be demonstrated through an analysis of the assimilative capacity of the receiving watercourse, that these policies are met. Township of nraAA-4-nfa 53 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Policy 1 states that where upstream surface water quality is below the PWQO concentration, water quality cannot be degraded to worse than the PWQO concentration at the downstream compliance limit. Policy 2 states that where upstream surface water quality is equal to or above the PWQO concentration, it cannot be degraded further at the downstream compliance limit.) In the case of surface water discharge - whether directly or via subsurface flow - phosphorous replaces nitrate as the parameter of concern within sewage effluent. The PWQO for total phosphorous is 0.03 mg/L. For impact assessment, a concentration of 15 mg/L (P) phosphorous in sewage effluent is used. Phosphorous attenuation occurs naturally in the soil, and by dilution. Sewage treatment systems are also capable of reducing the concentration of phosphorous. The natural retention capacity of the native soil media beneath the subsurface distribution system, and between the distribution system and the point of discharge to the surface must be measured to determine the attenuation capacity of the soil. In all likelihood, the size of development which could be supported by a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal located in the hydrologic setting described will be dictated by the hydraulic capabilities of the overburden that must accept sewage flows rather than phosphorous attenuation. 5.5.4 Alternative No. 4 — Subsurface/Surface disposal using conventional wastewater treatment: Action Required.- • Installation of sanitary sewer system • Construction and installation of a new communal sewage treatment plant. Advantages • Potentially adequate treatment for subsurface disposal Disadvantages • High capital cost and operational and maintenance cost This alternative would require construction of a sanitary sewer system and a conventional sewage treatment plant for subsurface or surface disposal of treated effluent. There are several treatment processes including but not limited to the following three options that could potentially be used for sewage treatment for subsurface or surface disposal of treated effluent. • Activated sludge process with denitrification • Sequential batch reactors (SBR) with denitrification • Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC) with denitrification The criteria for the provision of a communal sanitary sewer system are already explained in the section 3.2.4.4 - Alternative 4. TlH I I Township of Oro-Medonte 54 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Disposal The disposal treated effluent in this option could be either surface or subsurface. Given below is a brief description of both alternatives. Subsurface disposal As previously discussed there are two possible subsurface disposal scenarios based on whether or not the effluent plume is hydraulically isolated from the drinking groundwater aquifer. Subsurface disposal without hydraulic isolation Based on effluent nitrate concentration, Ce of 3 mg/L from one of the above mentioned systems and the maximum permitted concentration of nitrates, Cw as 2.4 mg/L, the density of development permitted on subsurface sewage disposal is 6.3 units/ha, if only the Secondary Plan Study Area is used in the dilution calculation (See section 3.2.2.3). This means that a conventional wastewater treatment system with subsurface disposal is capable of supporting a population of up to 780 units, or 2,340 people. Subsurface disposal with hydraulic isolation If it is possible to demonstrate that the effluent plume discharge from a communal sewage system utilizing subsurface disposal is hydraulically isolated from groundwater supply aquifers then the discharge of sewage via the subsurface will occur to the adjacent wetlands and eventually to Matheson Creek. Tertiary treatment of effluent would occur naturally by filtering effluent through the overburden soils and uptake by wetland vegetation at the point of effluent discharge to surface In this case, as the effluent is ultimately disposed into a watercourse, phosphorous replaces nitrate as the parameter of concern within sewage effluent. The PWQO for total phosphorous is 0.03 mg/L. Since the conventional sewage treatment systems remove phosphorus biologically as well as chemically, a concentration of 2 mg/L (P) phosphorous in sewage effluent is typically used for impact assessment. Phosphorous attenuation occurs naturally in the soil, and by dilution. The natural retention capacity of the native soil media beneath the subsurface distribution system, and between the distribution system and the point of discharge to the surface must be measured to determine the attenuation capacity of the soil. In all likelihood, the size of development which could be supported by a communal sewage treatment system utilizing subsurface disposal located in the hydrologic setting described will be dictated by the hydraulic capabilities of the overburden that must accept sewage flows rather than phosphorous attenuation U" �'� M Township of Oro-Medonte 55 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Surface disposal The capacity of Matheson Creek, or Craig's Swamp, to receive sewage can be established by applying PWQO Policy I with respect to total phosphorous. PWQO Policy 1 permits degradation in surface water quality with respect to phosphorous to 0.02 mg/L. The background concentration of total phosphorous in Matheson Creek at Craig's Swamp was measured in April, 2000 to be less than the laboratory detection limit of 0.01 mg/L. Therefore, an increase in phosphorous concentration of 0.02 mg/L would satisfy PWQO Policy. Using a stream flow of 150 Us (approximate springtime flow of Matheson Creek at Highway 400), and an allowable surface water phosphorous concentration of 0.02 mg/L, the equivalent daily allowable loading of phosphorous would be 259,200 mg/d. Assuming a source phosphorus concentration of 15 mg/L and a daily flow of 1,000 L per dwelling, daily phosphorus loading per dwelling is 15,000 mg/d. The number of units that could be supported with a treatment facility capable getting effluent phosphorous to 2 mg/L, and a receiving stream flow of 150 L/s, would support approximately 130 single family residential units. A biological membrane plant with 98% removal to discharge a maximum of 0.3 mg/L phosphorous results in 864 residential units served. The capacity of Matheson Creek, or Craig's Swamp, to receive sewage is limited by the application of PWQO Policy I with respect to phosphorous. The above calculated allowable surface water concentration and resulting phosphorous loading, and resultant number of residential units was based on an approximate stream flow. Lower flow in the stream may require lower phosphorous discharge limits, either through a reduced number of units or a sewage treatment process with demonstrated phosphorus removal to below 0.3 mg/L. The Assimilative Capacity Study (2006) identified the Matheson Creek, and consequently the Willow Creek subwatershed as unimpaired and also the water currently meets PWQO. Therefore, any new effluent discharge would be restricted to maintain the unimpaired level of water quality within the receiving watercourse. 5.5.5 Alternative No. 5 — Surface disposal using advanced wastewater treatment Action Required: • Installation of sanitary sewer system • Construction and installation of a new communal sewage treatment plant. Advantages • Potentially adequate treatment for surface disposal Disadvantages • High capital cost and operational and maintenance cost This alternative would require construction of a sanitary sewer system and membrane bioreactors based advanced sewage treatment plant for surface disposal of treated effluent. The applicability of this option would be guided by the impact of treated effluent on phosphorus concentration in receiving watercourse, and the provincial water quality objective of a maximum phosphorus concentration of 0.02 mg/L in surfacewater. I I i I I i i i I i Township of Oro-Medonte 56 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Assuming a source concentration of 15 mg/L (P) and a daily flow of 1,000 L per dwelling, or a daily loading of 15,000 mg/d (P) per dwelling, the number of residential units that could be supported with a typical biological membrane plant is 864. The plant would be required to provide 98% phosphorus removal and a maximum effluent P concentration of 0.3 mg/L, The capacity of Matheson Creek, or Craig's Swamp, to receive sewage is limited by the application of PWQO Policy I with respect to total phosphorous. The Assimilative Capacity Study (2006) identified the Matheson Creek, and consequently the Willow Creek subwatershed as unimpaired, and the water also meets PWQO. Therefore, any discharge from a treatment plant would have to be limited to maintain these criteria within the creek and subwatershed. 5.6 Stormwater Management 5.6.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing Action Required: • None Advantages • No additional measures required. Disadvantages • Does not address the problem statement. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since implementation of the secondary development plan is contingent upon adequate stormwater management. 5.6.2 Alternative No. 2 — Follow best management practice Action Required. • Take all possible measures to minimize run off and provide infiltration swales, ditches and perforated storm pipes. Advantages • Effective management of stormwater post secondary development ensuring increased infiltration, reduced post-development peak flow and erosion, and enhanced water quality. • Lower capital cost than storm water management facilities Disadvantages • Inadequate storage of stormwater leading to potentially insufficient recharge of groundwater. Best management practice for stormwater management involves taking measures that increase infiltration, reduce post-development peak flow and erosion, and enhance water quality. Given below is a brief description of the measures to be taken for best management of stormwater. UnMAME I i I I I I I I I i i i i i Township of Oro-Medonte 57 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report • Promotion of Infiltration measures to achieve sufficient pre-treatment of stormwater runoff. For example, roof leaders should discharge to pervious grassed areas or soak away pits. No direct connection of roof leaders to the storm sewer system shall be permitted. • Provision of grassed swales in place of curb and gutter along road within depressions. • Reduced lot grading to minimize runoff and allow stormwater ponding for natural infiltration. • Sump pumping of foundation drains to rear yard ponding areas. • Utilization of vegetated buffer strips where practical especially alongside roadways in the vicinity of stream crossings to protect the watercourse. • Storm sewers where required off paved roadways should be geotextile wrapped perforated pipe with granular backfill. • Minimization of use of curb, gutter and storm sewer to encourage infiltration of stormwater as per Best Management Practices. • Provision of wet extended detention ponds with infiltration basins for frequent runoff events (i.e. <5 yr storm). • Provision of detention storage ponds for infrequent rainfall events (2 - 100 years storm pre/post control). 5.6.2.2 Post Development Stormwater Management Post development peak flows for the Planning Area should be controlled to the pre- development levels or less for all storms up to and including the 100 year rainfall event. SWMHYMO, a computer stormwater management hydrologic model, was utilized to compute the peak runoff flows for the six existing drainage basin areas. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the 2, 5, 25, and 100 year SCS 24 hour design storm and Regional Storm (Timmins Storm) event peak flows. Post development peak flows are to be modeled in detail at the functional servicing plan stages, or when the development density is clearly identified. Table 5.2 Pre-Development Peak Flows (m /s) Storm Event Basin I Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 2 yr. SCS 0.04 0.03 0.77 0.67 0.03 0.03 5 yr. SCS 0.34 0.26 1.19 1.05 0.24 0.16 25 yr. SCS 1.45 1.06 1.68 1.44 0.92 0.63 100 yr. SCS 2.95 2.15 2.26 1.92 1.86 1.30 Timmins 9.60 7.25 2.96 2.63 9.21 6.63 I I I I I I I i i Township of Oro-Medonte 58 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report In order to prevent the migration of silt downstream, it is important that sediment and erosion control strategy plans be prepared prior to constructions. The following are some of sediment and erosion measures which should be considered for implementation: Provide detailed construction work plan and staging schedule Install site access pad 0 Construct rock check dams Divert runoff from exposed areas • Construct silt fencing • Stabilize exposed areas with topsoil and seed immediately after construction • Regularly inspect erosion and sediment control and restore works where required 0 Based on NVCA Technical Standards for Stormwater Management, during the grading and construction phases, temporary stormwater sediment ponds or traps must be constructed, maintained and operated throughout the construction period. Temporary stormwater sediment ponds should be sized to detain the runoff from a 25 year 6 hour duration rainfall event by using average intensity, with a permanent pool of 0.6 meter in depth. All other temporary sediment control techniques should be designed to withstand the runoff from a 25 year 6 hour duration rainfall event by using peak intensity. 5.6.3 Alternative No. 3 — Provide stormwater management facilities Action Required. • Provide stormwater management facilities including — stormwater management ponds, curbs, gutters, sewers, manholes catch basins etc. Advantages 0 Sufficient storage for effective infiltration of stormwater and recharge of groundwater. • Higher level of reliability against peak rainfall and storm events. Disadvantages • Higher capital costs in comparison to best management practice option Each pond shall provide "enhanced" or Level 1 quality protection per Table 3.2 of the "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual" (MOE, 2003). Permanent pool storage volumes are to be based on impervious ratio and drainage area. Table 5.3 summarizes the storage volumes for each drainage basin pond. The volumes are preliminary, actual volumes should be obtained through detailed hydrologic model undertaken at the functional servicing plan, or detailed design stages. u WA111111n 11" I I I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte 59 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report Table 5.3 Stormwater Pond/Basin Storage Volumes Pre-Development Peak Flows (m31s) Active Total Development Drainage Permanent Storage (1) Volume Area Percent % Runoff Pool (ms) Arempervious Coefficient (3) Pond/Basin hall m3/h 3 ms ms a A 9.54 60 0.6 162 1545 5500 7045 B 15.84 45 0.4 125 1980 6100 8080 C 24.71 45 0.4 125 3090 9500 1 12590 F 25.00 45 0.4 125 3125 9700 12825 G 42.92 45 0.4 125 5365 16600 21965 H 3.18 45 0.4 27.5 90 1200 1290 4. Active storage volumes are calculated based on Orillia OF SCS 100 year storm event having a 24 hour rainfall volume of 120.68 mm, and that the volume of runoff retained in active storage is 80% of total 100 year storm rainfall. The active storages shall include extended detention storage for erosion control, and quantity control storage for each design storm (2 to 100 year). An infiltration basin or dry pond shall serve the drainage area "H", because the area shall be too small to sustain a wet pond. NVCA "Wet Pond Criteria Check" indicates that a minimum drainage area of five hectares is required for a wet pond. The two existing ponds should continue to serve the drainage area "D". There shall be no new development in area "E"; consequently, no new pond shall be required. On-site controls are being used for the existing development in this area. Another option for area "A" and "B" is that combining Pond A and Pond B together to make a bigger pond in area "A". In this case, the existing culvert shall be upgraded to meet the new capacity. The preferred location of stormwater management ponds, and corresponding catchment areas, within the Secondary Planning Area are shown on Drawing 3.3. Pond sites were selected based on the following criteria: • Locations that would facilitate inter-basin drainage where feasible. • Upstream of existing drainage culverts crossing Hwy 93 and the CPR thus avoiding expensive culvert enlargements. I I Township of Oro-Medonte 60 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report At the most downstream location within the Secondary Plan Area. • Locations that also capture drainage from existing lots in addition to new development. 5.6.3.1 SWMF design criteria Based on NVCA "Wet Pond Criteria Check", stormwater management pond design standards would include the following: Sediment Forebay.- - Minimum length to width ratio of 2:1 if single inlet - Minimum depth of 1.0 meter - Minimum area of 1/3 total pond surface area Wet Pond: Minimum length to width ratio of 3:1, 4:1 to 5:1 preferred Maximum side slope of 3:1 Permanent Pool: Average depth of 1 to 2 meters Maximum depth of less than 3 meters Maximum grade of 5:1, 7:1 preferred Storage Depth: - <1.5 rn for quality/erosion control, < 1.0 m preferred - <2.0 meters for active storage Major Flow Outlet: - Regulatory Storm (Timmins Storm) capacity - Erosion protection for all design storms - 0.3 meter minimum freeboard Maintenance access Apart form the above, a 30 meters setback from centerline of the watercourse should be maintained. 5.7 Transportation 5.7.1 Alternative No. I — Do Nothing Action Required. • None Advantages • No additional construction or installation required. Disadvantages • Does not address the future post secondary development traffic growth. The Do Nothing alternative is not viable since it does not address the traffic growth caused by implementation of the secondary development plan. I M I Township of Oro-Medonte 61 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 5.7.2 Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of secondary plan Action Required: �Upgrade of arterial and collector roads network Advantages 0 Accommodates the post secondary development future growth. Disadvantages High capital costs involved in construction/widening of roads upgrades of related infrastructure. Upgrades to the existing the road network system would involve implementing recommendations of the Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Study, included as Appendix B. 5.8 Potential Mitigative Measures i) Disruption to Trees and Vegetation If a new location for a pumping station is required during the detailed design stage of the project either a site with limited tree cover or the location of structures to minimize the impact on existing trees would be used. New watermains or transmission watermains would be run within existing road right-of-ways which generally have few trees. If significant trees are encountered then directional drilling could be used to avoid cutting established root systems. ii) Visibility of Pumping Station Construction of a new pumping station and reservoir, either on the existing site or in a new location, would take into account neighbouring architecture. Architectural and landscaping details can be used to minimize the ocular impact of above grade structures. Location and construction of a facility will also take into account natural vegetative and topographical features to minimize visibility iii) Noise and Dust All construction activities will temporarily generate noise and dust. The effect of dust can be minimized during construction by spreading calcium chloride and water on exposed dry granular bases. POP Construction activities would generally be limited to normal weekday working hours minimizing the impact of noise on residents. iv) Disruption of Utilities I 11 9111 WE I All stakes-outs are to be arranged and hand digging techniques are to be employed when constructing services over or under existing utilities to minimize the potential disruption of utilities during construction. Construction may require utility relocations. Table 5.4 WATER SUPPLY -2 = Negative Impact +2 = Positive Impact EVALUATION -1 = Moderate Negative Impact +1 = Moderate Positive Impact CRITERIA 0 = No Effect ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE 1 IMPACT DRAW MORE WATER FROM THE IMPACT ADDITIONAL WELLS IN THE LOWER IMPACT ADDITIONAL WELLS IN THE UPPER IMPACT CRITERIA DO NOTHING EXISTING WELLS SAND AND GRAVEL AQUIFER SAND AND GRAVEL AQUIFER Natural Environment Groundwater No Effect Additional groundwater usage Additional groundwater usage May lower shallow water table in some areas 0 -1 -1 -2 Soils & Geology No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 0 0 0 0 Surface Drainage No Effect No Effect No Effect May dry existing wet areas 0 0 0 -1 Terrestrial Vegetation and No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Wildlife 0 0 0 0 Social Change in quality of life No Effect Only minor additional development possible Will provide future capacity for development Insufficient long term supply for ultimate 0 1 2 development -1 Visual aesthetics No Effect No Effect Minor visual effect Elevated central storage tank 0 0 0 0 Water Supply No Effect Increase in water supply but insufficient for Sufficient for development Insufficient long term supply for ultimate 0 development -1 2 development -1 Odor No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 0 0 0 0 Residential disruption N/A No Effect Temporary disruption Temporary disruption during construction 0 0 -1 -1 Economic Capital costs No Effect Small capital cost Highest capital cost because of deeper drilling High capital cost because of drilling 0 0 -1 -1 Operating /maintenance No Effect Minor operational cost increase Operating and maintaining additional wells Operating and maintaining additional wells plus costs 0 0 _1 monitoring for contamination due to shallow -2 aquifer Ease of servicing No additional development Supply of water is fixed, based on permit to Development servicing possible Development serving possible but insufficient development -2 take water -1 2 for ultimate development 1 Property values Undeveloped land value decreases Minor property value increase Increase in value because of development Some property not developable because of 1 1 potential 2 limited water supply 1 Technical Complexity of Operation No Effect No additional construction and equipment Minor increase in operation complexity due to Minor increase in operation complexity due to 0 required 0 additional wells -1 additional wells -1 Expansion Capabilities No development possible Potential for expansion of supply Potential for expansion of supply Potential for expansion of supply but not for all -2 -2 2 development 1 Effects on other utilities, No Effect No Effect Minor effect for installation of watermains Minor effect for installation of watermains ex. Relocations 0 0 -1 -1 TOTAL -5 -3 4 -8 L 7 Table 5.5 WATER STORAGE Change in quality of life -2 = Negative Impact +2 = Positive Impact 0 = No Effect EVALUATION Will provide fire flow -1 = Moderate Negative Impact +1 = Moderate Positive Impact CRITERIA Will provide fire flow Will provide fire flow Capital costs No Effect ALTERNATIVE 3 High cost because of multiple sites ALTERNATIVE 4 Lower capital cost than construction of multiple ALTERNATIVE 3 Lower capital cost than construction of 2 Highest capital cost 2 ALTERNATIVE 2 No Effect 0 Limited to clearing of trees -2 Limited to clearing of trees at one location -1 Visible EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE 1 -2 PROVIDE CENTRAL UNDERGROUND PROVIDE CENTRAL ABOVE PROVIDE CENTRAL ELEVATED upgrading 1 IMPACT PROVIDE LOCAL UNDERGROUND IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT CRITERIA DO NOTHING costs STORAGE FOR THE NEW multiple storage locations GROUND STORAGE FOR THE NEW STORAGE FOR THE NEW 1 elevated storage 2 STORAGE AT ALL NEW SITES No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect development DEVELOPMENT take water DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Natural Environment 0 Residential disruption No Effect Construction at multiple locations Construction at one location Construction at one location Groundwater No Effect No Effect development possible No Effect multiple locations No Effect No Effect storage 1 to storage 0 Technical 0 0 0 0 Soils & Geology No Effect Minor disruption No Effect Minor disruption Additional booster pumping stations Minor disruption Requirement of only one booster pump station Minor disruption Requirement of only one booster pump No requirement of booster pump stations 0 required 2 -1 station Surface Drainage No Effect 1 Minor disruption No Effect, no development Minor disruption Potential for expansion of supply through Minor disruption Expansion on one site but can be costly Minor disruption Capability for low cost expansion by Expansion difficult 0 -1 2 additional reservoirs 1 1 increasing height of the tank Terrestrial Vegetation and No Effect 2 Disruption at all sites No Effect Minor disruption Greater chance of conflict due to multiple Minor disruption Limited conflicts due to one location Minor disruption Limited conflicts due to one location Wildlife Limited conflicts due to one location 0 ex. Relocations -2 0 -1 2 1 1 -1 Social 1 TOTAL -4 -13 -1 Change in quality of life No Effect Will provide fire flow Will provide fire flow Will provide fire flow Will provide fire flow Capital costs No Effect 0 High cost because of multiple sites 2 Lower capital cost than construction of multiple 2 Lower capital cost than construction of 2 Highest capital cost 2 Visual aesthetics No Effect 0 Limited to clearing of trees -2 Limited to clearing of trees at one location -1 Visible -1 The most visible option -2 0 1 0 upgrading 1 2 Water Supply No Effect More reliable water supply because of Reliable water supply because of storage Reliable water supply because of storage Most reliable water supply because of costs 0 multiple storage locations 1 1 1 elevated storage 2 Odor No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect development 0 take water 0 0 0 0 Residential disruption No Effect Construction at multiple locations Construction at one location Construction at one location Construction at one location during construction development possible 0 multiple locations 2 1 storage 1 to storage 1 Economic Capital costs No Effect High cost because of multiple sites Lower capital cost than construction of multiple Lower capital cost than construction of Highest capital cost 0 -2 storage tanks -1 multiple storage tanks. Lowest cost for -1 -2 upgrading Operating /maintenance No Effect Requirement of booster pump facilities at Localized facility Localized facility Lowest operating cost amongst option costs 0 multiple locations -2 1 1 2 Ease of servicing No Effect Supply of water is fixed, based on permit to No booster pumping is required development 0 take water -1 -1 1 1 Property values Decrease because no Lower than other options because of Increase because of low visual impact Property values may decrease adjacent to Property values may decrease adjacent development possible -2 multiple locations -1 2 storage -1 to storage -2 Technical Complexity of Operation No Effect Additional booster pumping stations Requirement of only one booster pump station Requirement of only one booster pump No requirement of booster pump stations 0 required 2 -1 station -1 1 Expansion Capabilities No Effect, no development Potential for expansion of supply through Expansion on one site but can be costly Capability for low cost expansion by Expansion difficult possible 2 additional reservoirs 1 1 increasing height of the tank 2 2 Effects on other utilities, No Effect Greater chance of conflict due to multiple Limited conflicts due to one location Limited conflicts due to one location Limited conflicts due to one location ex. Relocations 0 locations 2 1 -1 1 TOTAL -4 -13 -1 -1 -5 Table 5.6 SEWAGE COLLECTION -2 = Negative Impact +2 = Positive Impact 0 = No Effect EVALUATION CRITERIA -1 = Moderate Negative Impact +1 = Moderate Positive Impact ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA IMPACT CONVENTIONAL GRAVITY IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT DO NOTHING SMALL BORE SEWERS PRESSURE SEWERS SEWERS Natural Environment Groundwater Possible shallow groundwater Could cause movement of shallow Limited impact on groundwater and Limited impact on groundwater and contamination due to septics _1 groundwater through bedding -2 groundwater movement -1 groundwater movement _1 Soils & Geology No Effect Mixing of soils Mixing of soils Mixing of soils 0 1 1 1 Surface Drainage No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 0 0 0 0 Terrestrial Vegetation and No Effect Minor clearing required for installation Minor clearing required for installation in Minor clearing required for installation Wildlife 0 in easements _1 easements -1 in easements -1 Social Change in quality of life No Effect No need to deal with private disposal No need to deal with private disposal No need to deal with private disposal 0 2 2 2 Visual aesthetics No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 0 0 0 0 Odour Existing septic systems can produce Removes potential odour from septic Septic tanks can produce odours Removes potential odour from septic odour -1 systems 1 -1 systems 1 Residential disruption during No Effect Temporary disruption Temporary disruption Temporary disruption plus installation construction 0 1 -1 in house 2 Economic Capital costs No Effect Moderate cost for excavation and High cost due to individual septic tanks High cost due to multiple pumps 0 connection -1 plus sewers -2 2 Operating /maintenance costs No Effect Low maintenance and operating costs High cost due to individual septic tanks High cost due to multiple pumps 0 2 1 2 Ease of servicing development No Effect Moderate due to need for continuous Moderate due to need for continuous Changing grades a minor problem, downgrade, pumping stations may be downgrade, pumping stations may be sizing of pipes significant to maintain 0 required -1 required "1 minimum velocity prior to full -1 development Property values No Effect Increase, conventional system Less desirable because not Less desirable because not 0 2 conventional system 1 conventional system 1 Technical Complexity of Operation No Effect Simplest operation Requires maintenance Most complex operation 0 2 1 2 Expansion Capabilities No development possible Straight forward, depending on grades Requires acceptable grading plus Simple but requires installation of -2 1 installation of septic tanks -1 pumps 1 Effects on other utilities, ex. No Effect Requires coordination Requires coordination for sewers plus Requires coordination Relocations 0 1 septic tanks -2 -1 TOTAL -4 1 2 -10 -10 1 Table 5.7 SEWAGE TREATMENT EVALUATION -2 = Negative Impact +2 = Positive Impact 0 = No Effect CRITERIA 1-1 = Moderate Negative Impact +1 = Moderate Positive Impact ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5 EVALUATION CRITERIA DO NOTHING IMPACT INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC IMPACT COMMUNAL SEPTIC DISPOSAL IMPACT SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL WITH IMPACT SURFACE DISPOSAL WITH IMPACT COMMUNAL TREATMENT COMMUNAL TREATMENT Natural Environment Groundwater Existing septics can contaminate Increased nitrogen, greater potential for Potential for increased nitrogen or Minor potential of groundwater impact, Does not promote groundwater shallow groundwater -2 contamination -2 contaminants in groundwater -1 maintains groundwater recharge 1 recharge -1 Soils & Geology No Effect 0 Disruption from excavation Localized disruption for construction of Localized disruption for construction of disposal No Effect 1 disposal beds -1 -1 0 Surface Drainage No Effect Potential effects if raised beds required Potential minor effect if raised beds No Effect, disposal beds can be remotely No Effect 0 2 required -1 located 0 0 Terrestrial Vegetation and No Effect Minor due to land area requirements Large land area requirements Minor impact due to potential of distributed Potential impact due to surface water Wildlife 0 -1 -2 disposal beds 1 volume or quality changes -1 Social Change in quality of life Negative because of future failure of Negative because of future failure of Municipally run high quality system Municipally run high quality system existing septic systems -1 septic systems -1 0 2 1 Visual aesthetics No Effect Some pumping stations are external 0 -1 0 0 0 Odour Potential of odour from existing septics Potential odours Potential odours Odours controlled within a facility Minor potential of odour due to -1 -1 -1 1 surface disposal 0 Residential disruption during N/A Significant because one system per Construction centralized temporary Construction centralized temporary disruption, Construction centralized temporary construction 0 residence -2 disruption -1 disposal beds installed at time of development disruption -1 -1 Economic Capital costs No Effect High cost because of individual Moderate costs but life expectancy less Moderate costs with long life expectancy Highest capital costs because of need 0 construction requirements -2 than other communal solutions -2 -1 for high level treatment -2 Operating /maintenance costs No Effect Minor operating costs, pump out every Higher life cycle replacement costs Moderate operating costs High operational and maintenance 0 few years 1 because of lower life expectancy than -2 cost for enhanced treatment conventional systems -1 -2 Ease of servicing Does not allow secondary development Limited development potential because Limited development potential because Development potential limited by soil infiltration Development potential limited by development to be implemented -2 of nitrate loading -2 of limited nitrate treatment -1 capacity 1 downstream effects /assimilation 1 Property values No Effect 0 Negative because of future failure of Neutral Positive value increase, municipal system Positive, but potential resistance due septic systems -1 0 2 to perceived surface water disposal 1 Technical Complexity of Operation No Effect Requirement of periodic pump out by Low complexity of operation Moderate complexity, municipal treatment plant High complexity due to requirement of 0 homeowner -1 1 _1 enhanced treatment -2 Expansion Capabilities None, does not support development Limited development potential because Limited development potential because Development potential limited by soil infiltration Development potential limited by -2 of land requirements -1 of land requirements -1 capacity 1 downstream effects /assimilation 2 Effects on other utilities, ox. No I ftoc:t 0 No Effect Limited due to centralized facility Limited due to centralized facility, disposal beds Limited due to centralized facility Rolocntlonn 0 -1 require coordination with utilities -2 -1 TOTAL -8 1 -17 1 -13 2 -5 Table 5.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT -2 = Negative Impact +2 = Positive Impact 0 = No Effect EVALUATION CRITERIA -1 = Moderate Negative Impact +1 = Moderate Positive Impact ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE 1 IMPACT FOLLOW BEST MANAGEMENT IMPACT PROVIDE STORMWATER IMPACT DO NOTHING PRACTICE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES Natural Environment Groundwater No Effect Greatest potential for groundwater Reduced infiltration of groundwater 0 recharge 2 1 Soils & Geology Does not address potential existing Low impact, addresses existing erosion Moderate impact, can create local erosion problems -1 problems 2 -1 Surface Drainage No Effect Approach helps to maintains existing Concentrates surface drainage 0 drainage patterns -1 -2 Terrestrial Vegetation and No Effect Mitigates effects of disruption /changes Concentrated flow and large facility can Wildlife 0 to area -1 disrupt existing vegetation and wildlife, but -2 potential for creating habitat Social Change in quality of life None Positive change, maintains natural Can create centralized park area 0 features 1 1 Visual aesthetics N/A Blends into existing features Can create centralized park area or be 0 1 unpleasing if poorly implemented 0 Odour None 0 Low potential for odour 0 Moderate potential for odour -1 Residential disruption during N/A Temporary disruption Temporary disruption construction 0 -1 -1 Economic Capital costs None Moderate costs Moderate cost, but could increase due to 0 -1 requirements for collection -1 Operating /maintenance costs None Very little maintenance requirements. Very little maintenance requirements. 0 -1 Maintenance easier due to centralized 2 Ease of servicing development Does not allow development to be Complex due to numerous requirements Ease due to connection nature of a implemented -2 -2 centralized facility 2 Property values No Effect Moderate increase due to lower risk of Increase due to low risk of flooding 0 flooding 1 2 Technical Complexity of Operation No Effect 0 Low maintenance requirements 1 Requires maintenance, periodic cleanout 2 Expansion Capabilities No Effect Some potential for expansion, limited by Limited to available property 1 property and topography 1 -2 Effects on other utilities, ex. No Effect Minor effects Effect due to conveyance to centralized Relocations 0 -1 facility -2 TOTAL -4 -3 1 1 -6 i r Township of Ciro - Iedonte 62 Cra cghurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study, Report rrH I I I I I I I i I Township of Oro-Medonte 63 Craighurst Secondary Development Plan Environmental Study Report 7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The selection of a preferred alternative for Phase 11 of the Class EA is based on the evaluation of the alternatives from criteria established for this document. The criteria for evaluating each alternative are presented in Tables 5.4 to 5.8. The evaluation criteria are ranked based on their relative importance, and scored according to the individual effect to determine the net effect of each criteria. The total environmental effect is the sum of the net effects for each alternative. 7.1 Water Supply Alternative 3 — Install additional wells in the lower sand and gravel aquifer, was selected as a preferred alternative. 7.2 Sewage Disposal Alternative 4 — Subsurface disposal using conventional wastewater treatment, was selected as a preferred alternative: 7.3 Stormwater Management Alternative 2 — Follow best management practice, was selected as a preferred alternative. However, Alternative 3 may be required depending on specific design of the development, suitability of terrain and soils, protection of downstream properties, and requirements of the NVCA. 7.4 Transportation Alternative 2 — Upgrade the road network to suit the requirement of secondary plan, was selected as a preferred alternative. The above alternatives were selected as the preferred alternatives for the following reasons: • All of them addressed their respective problem statements; • Had highest scores for impacts on the physical and social effects; and • Had overall lowest economic impact. 8. ALTERNATE DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR THE PREFERRED SOLUTION 9. SELECTED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 10. SUMMARY D. Timms, P. Eng. Branch Manager K:\0030637\Craighurst SP-ESR April 07.doc R. Groves, Senior Project Manager 0 I 0-92:1zi7 MITI MUNICIPAL CLASS EA FLOWCHART MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS NOTE: This flow chart is to be react in conjunction with Part A of the Municipal Class EA e SELECT PREFERRED SOLUTION REVIEW AND CONFIRM CHOICE OF SCHEDULE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION IAY PROCEED I 1 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE APPRO DESIGN FOR PREFERRED SOLUTION �—' — 2 DETAIL INVENTORY SCHEDULE (_ _ OF NATURAL, SOCIAL IA_ 1 AND ECONOMIC 1 ENVIRONMENT 1 .5' IR S Rill, IF NO 'w 'd� +�i,36 i -W-'Eh TAI` ORDER *, MAY PROCEED I 3 IDENTIFY IMPACT OF I ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS i ON ENVIRONMENT AND 1 MITIGATING MEASURES ORDER' 1 I'rrz9' >x�t�a' �f t 7 e tas L3 tl PROCEED wires °,t- -4i { ",yri uKt ;f INDIVIDUAL (� I � w�': ll �r E.A. 1 ° OR ABANDON EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE 1 PROJECT I DESIGNS: IDENTIFY I RECOMMENDED DESIGN m Ott � r �) OPPORTUNITY FOR ORDERx<tit.;�?.i n' iLI _V;ar REQUEST TO 1 5 CONSULT REVIEW MINISTER i WITHIN AGENCIES & PREVIOUSLY 30 DAYS OF I INTERESTED & DIRECTLY NOTIFICATION 1 AFFECTED PUBLIC �,�+'� P& tT NOTICE OF Y`�(7Lii 'J,1`T'{ COMPLETION TO REVIEW ' e AGENCIES 8 1 SELECT PREFERRED PUBLIC ' DESIGN i I (i ,ty3�, �tZLiE�y *jest+ -II (Y r �) SCHEDULE B 1 �� - - - i r+' REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL N SCHEDULE C) SIGNIFICANCE & CHOICE OF SCHEDULE i INDIVIDUAL.. 1 �'S(ri�kg E.A. 1 v PRELIMINARY FINALIZATION OF PREFERRED DESIGN 1 IDENTIFY PROBLEM 1 1 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE i OR OPPORTUNITY SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR) r;} DRAWINGS AND 1 OR OPPORTUNITY 1 1 1 �A{'t�11i} i 1 I CONSUL TATION PUIIL I I PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY SELECT SCHEDULE (APPENDIX 1 ) }ts�radmi, Fr(trl i is i INVENTORY NATURAL, I DETERMINE APPLICABILITY \ A \OF MASTER PLAN APPROACH/ SOCIAL, ECONOMIC i ENVIRONMENT (See Seollon A.2.7) i A 5� 1 1 3 IDENTIFY IMPACT OF 1 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 1 I AND MITIGATING STUDY REPORT (ESR) ��(IT} rMEASURES t�5�.3 jlyiii 1 1 1 i EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE 1 SOLUTIONS: IDENTIFY I ; RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONE I I 1 CONSULT REVIEW AGENCIES AND PUBLIC PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS e SELECT PREFERRED SOLUTION REVIEW AND CONFIRM CHOICE OF SCHEDULE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION IAY PROCEED I 1 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE APPRO DESIGN FOR PREFERRED SOLUTION �—' — 2 DETAIL INVENTORY SCHEDULE (_ _ OF NATURAL, SOCIAL IA_ 1 AND ECONOMIC 1 ENVIRONMENT 1 .5' IR S Rill, IF NO 'w 'd� +�i,36 i -W-'Eh TAI` ORDER *, MAY PROCEED I 3 IDENTIFY IMPACT OF I ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS i ON ENVIRONMENT AND 1 MITIGATING MEASURES ORDER' 1 I'rrz9' >x�t�a' �f t 7 e tas L3 tl PROCEED wires °,t- -4i { ",yri uKt ;f INDIVIDUAL (� I � w�': ll �r E.A. 1 ° OR ABANDON EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE 1 PROJECT I DESIGNS: IDENTIFY I RECOMMENDED DESIGN m Ott � r �) OPPORTUNITY FOR ORDERx<tit.;�?.i n' iLI _V;ar REQUEST TO 1 5 CONSULT REVIEW MINISTER i WITHIN AGENCIES & PREVIOUSLY 30 DAYS OF I INTERESTED & DIRECTLY NOTIFICATION 1 AFFECTED PUBLIC �,�+'� P& tT NOTICE OF Y`�(7Lii 'J,1`T'{ COMPLETION TO REVIEW ' e AGENCIES 8 1 SELECT PREFERRED PUBLIC ' DESIGN i I (i ,ty3�, �tZLiE�y *jest+ -II (Y r �) SCHEDULE B 1 �� - - - i r+' REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL N SCHEDULE C) SIGNIFICANCE & CHOICE OF SCHEDULE i INDIVIDUAL.. 1 �'S(ri�kg E.A. 1 v PRELIMINARY FINALIZATION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ' COMPLETE 1 COMPLETE CONTRACT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR) r;} DRAWINGS AND J l I TENDER DOCUMENTS it `#m( Si^ { tt' t,zt�?,T`V'ntsk? 5� z ENVIRONMENTAL 1'I+ STUDY REPORT (ESR) I 1' PLACED ON I 2 PROCEED TO PUBLIC RECORD I CONSTRUCTION AND 1 OPERATION NOTICE OF COMPLETION ) TO REVIEW AGENCIES "IJ4l §b' �_ T. AND PUBLIC ii {z(L 11 COPYOF I` NOTICE OF COMPLETION 1 j 3 MONITOR FOR ' TO MOE EA BRANCH I 1 1 l ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS AND COMMITMENTS 3 OPPORTUNITY TO ' iREQUEST MINISTER WITHIN I ' 30 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION TO REQUEST AN ORDER I I 1 I OPTIONAL /t \ FORMAL MEDIATION h> \ (See Sedlb A.2.8.2) I ORDER* )ISCRETIONARY GRANTED, ORDER"` PUBLIC PROCEED MATTER DENIED CONSULTATION ASPER REFERRED WITHOR TO REVIEW MINISTER'S TO WITHOUT PREFERRED DIRECTION MEDIATION MINISTER'S DESIGN OR ABANDON CONDITIONS PROJECT — — — D INDICATES POSSIBLE EVENTS --)0 INDICATES MANDATORY EVENTS —)11� INDICATES PROBABLE EVENTS MANDATORY PUBLIC CONTACT POINTS (See Swim A-3 Ca .Aalbn) UDECISION POINTS ON CHOICE OF SCHEDULE OPTIONAL * PARTII ORDER (See S-11- A. 2a) a t 1 Traffic Study C Township of Ora- Medonte Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Study Final Report TSH Project # 44 -80637 March 2008 ■ engineers architects planners n � Crai�6uotS000udug'ybm Traffic Study Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION l 2. EXISTING C0NDXTXON8_~--.~~.-_~-3 2.1 ROADS ......... ......... ................ ---------------------------------------� 2.2 TxAFeIC --------------------------------------------------'2 3. TRAFFIC F@RECA8TS .--...-.,_.~---,-....-~....-...---.,^~..-.-,..-~.-,_...--.~..,~..,..,..-.....--..3 IlMETHODOLOGY ....................... --------------------------------------.�3 3.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH .............. .............. 3 3.3 CaAxauxom»T SECONDARY PLAN TnApac ........................................... ......... --------------'5 3.4 HORSESHOE VALLEY SETTLEMENT NODE ...... ............ ................ .......... ----------------'6 3.5 2027 TRAFFIC FORECASTS 6 4. ANALYSIS --------~�—~~--�------_______7 4] SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION on COUNTY ROADS 22 AND 93 ........................................................................... 7 42 Mto-BcouulAyc ----------------------------'7 43 COUNTY ROAD 22 AND 93/CP RAIL CROSSINGS ............. ..................... ------------------.X APPENDIX A-Traffic Data APPENDIX B - DetudcdLevcofSemice Analysis Worksheets LIST OF TABLES I Peak Hour Traffic Volume Comparison (l998-20O7) ........................................ ............................. .............. 4 2 Peak Hour Traffic Volume Comparison (2OO|-20O7) ........................................ ........................... ................ 4 ] YM Peak Hour Trip Generation, Cruigkumt Secondary Plan ....................................... ............ ..................... 5 4 PM Peak Hour Level of Service, Signalized Intersections .......................................................... ................... ? 5 Summary of County Road 22/CP Rail Crossing Traffic and Queue Characteristics ..... ................................. 9 h Estimated Queue Lengths ou County Road 22 During Rail Crossing Blockage, 2O27 Traffic Forecasts ...... l0 7 Assessment of County Road 22/CP Rail Grade Separation ........................................................................... l2 V Composition of County Road 22 Traffic Crossing C9 Rail ........ ................................................................. |2 9 Assessment of Development Levels Required to Meet Grade Separation Guideline Threshold ................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES I Study Area Z Components of Traffic Forecast 3 2OZ7 Alternative Traffic Forecasts myunJEczow^-\3o*srcmiguxot Secondary pmuuRevvuuDoftReport Mvrchznoo.doc _ UH The purpose of this Study is to assess the future transportation requirements associated with the proposed development within the Craighurst Secondary Plan area. The Study also takes area traffic growth into account, including the traffic associated with proposed developments to the east of Craighurst in the Horseshoe Valley area. A Study Area that approximates the proposed settlement area expansion in Craighurst has been used to correspond with the associated land use planning and servicing components of the Secondary Plan Study. The focus of the transportation assessment is on County Roads 22 and 93. The Study Area is shown in Figure 1. The key components of this Study include: ■ Updating traffic counts for the County Roads 22193 intersection, and reviewing historical trends in the traffic volumes at this intersection; ■ Conducting a field study during the weekday a.m., mid-day, and p.m. peak traffic periods to obtain information on the frequency and duration of blockages of County Road 22 at the level CP rail crossing, the length of vehicle queues, and the approach traffic volumes. This provides the basis for estimating future delays with revised traffic volume forecasts. With substantially lower traffic volumes on County Road 93 at its crossing of the CP rail line, and less potential need for future traffic increases, a similar study was not carried out for the County Road 93 level rail crossing; ■ Forecasting future traffic volumes for a 20 year horizon by combining existing traffic with an estimate of the trips that would be generated by the Craighurst Secondary Plan and Horseshoe Valley Resort area, and considering a range of growth in background traffic. The latter component of traffic growth SAM would represent population and employment growth in other parts of the Township and adjacent municipalities as well as through traffic; ■ Analyzing traffic operations for the signalized intersection of County Roads 22193; ■ Calculating the exposure index (daily trains X daily traffic) for the County Road 22/CP level rail crossing to determine if there is a need to consider a grade separation; and ■ Reviewing alternative road and traffic control requirements, and identifying a preferred alterative to address the requirements of the anticipated traffic growth. It is understood that additional traffic studies will be required in the future to assess the impacts and requirements of specific developments (e.g., subdivisions, commercial uses, etc.) at the time they are proposed and to correspond with the time frame for build-out. These studies would address details such as intersection/driveway locations, traffic control requirements, auxiliary turn lanes, etc. I I Settlamont Area !Expansion constraints Watercourse Corridor Ww & d A re a ff .III h ------- --- -OV D 101 2DO KAM"15 Settlement Area Boundary In Approved Oftlal Plan Total 7" 343ho Do"Iwd 29.0'W11 IlnifovMOpad M Nftwt Settlement Agee Expansion Gram, HwAret; N nfi%ft Not HectOM 77 1 Min Figure I - Study Area zbvmuhler 1, 20M 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 ROADS The road network considered in this Study comprises County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) and County Road 93 (Penetanguishene Road, formerly Highway 93). The characteristics of County Roads 22 and 93 within the Study Area are as follows: County Road 22: ■ East-west arterial road with a basic two lane cross section and a 60 km/h posted speed limit; ■ Flashing lights, bells, and gates at the CP rail level crossing; and ■ Full interchange with Highway 400. County Road 93: ■ North-south arterial road with a basic two lane cross section and a 60 km/h posted speed limit; and ■ Flashing lights, bells, and gates at the CP rail level crossing. County Roads 22/93 Intersection: ■ Operates under traffic signal control; ■ Each approach has a combination through/right lane and an exclusive left turn lane; and ■ The left turn lane storage lengths are approximately 50 to 65 in (seven to nine car lengths). All other intersections with the County Roads operate with the minor approaches under stop control. 2.2 TRAFFIC In order to obtain current traffic volume data, traffic counts were conducted at the signalized intersection of County Roads 22/93 on Thursday December 13, 2007 for the following time periods: ■ 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; ■ 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.; and ■ 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The a.m., mid-day and p.m. peak hours within these periods were determined to be 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., respectively. The traffic volume summaries, including the peak hour traffic volumes are provided in Appendix A and are discussed further in Section 3.2. In addition to these traffic counts, a study was conducted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at the County Road 22/CP rail crossing during the same time periods. The following information was recorded: ■ Eastbound and westbound traffic volume crossing the tracks in 15 minute intervals; ■ Number of times County Road 22 was blocked due to a train crossing; • Duration of each train crossing; and ■ Length of queue created by the train crossing for both directions. The results of this field study are discussed in Section 4.3, and the data sheets are provided in Appendix A. i I i 3.1 METHODOLOGY The traffic data indicated that the highest traffic volumes occur during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and as such, it represents the design hour. The methodology used to develop 20 year traffic forecasts (horizon year 2027) for the p.m. peak hour involved adding together the following components or layers of traffic data: ■ Existing traffic (December 2007 TSH traffic counts); ■ Traffic assignments for the proposed land uses within the Craighurst Secondary Plan as prepared by TSH; ■ Traffic assignments for the Horseshoe Valley Resort development (source: Traffic Review for the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Lands, URS Cole, Sherman &Associates, February 2003); ■ A background traffic growth scenario of one per cent per year compounded for 20 years (increases existing traffic volumes by 22%); and ■ An alternative background traffic growth scenario of three per cent per year compounded for 20 years (increases existing traffic by 81 The development of each layer of future traffic is described in the following report sections, and the traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2 (all subsequent figures are presented at the end of Section 3). It is important to note that the background traffic growth scenario would account primarily for through traffic traveling through and beyond the Craighurst and Horseshoe Valley areas. The one and three per cent per annum growth scenarios provide the basis for a sensitivity analysis of future traffic growth and associated road requirements. 3.2 EXISTING TRAFFICAND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH The December 13, 2007 p.m. peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 2 along with County Roads 22/93 traffic data previously recorded by the County of Simcoe in May 1998 and July 2001. The County Road 22 volumes crossing the CP rail line were derived from the County Road 22/93 intersection data, which was found to compare closely with the rail crossing study data (recorded the previous day on December 12, 2007). In order to illustrate how peak hour traffic volumes have changed between 1998 and 2007, and to assist in confirming an appropriate background traffic growth rate, traffic volumes from the two previous counts conducted in 1998 and 2001 were compared to those conducted by TSH in 2007. The results of the comparison are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. UH u n C FIGURE 2 - Components of Traffic Forecast County Road 93 / Rail Line 999 TSH. Dec. 2007 21 60 17 F 47 19 8 999 Township, JW.2001 / E 281 210 :� 19Lk� 21 45 20 E 205 144 Township, May 1998 / K 41 v K 17 21 25 County Road 22 27T; 244 295 -� CP Rail 43; 31 54 71 F A 0 161 200 4 55 51 18 31: r 52 41 y 45 75 16 Existing Winter PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes / County Road 93 / Rail Line / / E 101 F 4 33 33 7 E 61 / K JI K 65 County Road 22 137 / / CP Rail -> 7 39 �63� NO T F T T / �I ♦ PM Peak Hour Craighurst Secondary Plan Site Traffic Assignment SH, Jan. 2008 / County Road 93 / Rail Line / / E 207 F 60 0 0 72 E 207 / K U K 0 County Road 22 Q 249 / -) / CP Rail F D r T T 249 0_ 0 / 0 v • Horshoe Valley Site Traffic, Winter PM Peak Hour URS, Feb. 2003 / County Road 93 / Rail Line / F 10 5 10 4 E 45 / K 4o �i K 4 County Road 22 / 65 4 / CP Rai) MT4 11 F T X 12 11 4 1 / N ♦ PM Peak Hour 20 Year Background Growth Component, 1% Annual Growth (22 %, Increase) / County Road 93 / Rail Line / / E F228 F 38 17 36 16 E 166 / K v K 14 County Road 22 239 / CP Rail 44 11 F T � 162 45 41 15 / 33 V ♦ PM Peak Hour 20 Year Background Growth Component, 3% Annual Growth (81% Increase) FIGURE 2 - Components of Traffic Forecast i ti t i i i i Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Studv The comparison indicates that there has been relatively little change for most traffic movements. One exception is an apparent increase in the westbound through traffic volume during the p.m. peak hour. For the total volume entering the intersection, it appears that the main difference is that the December 2007 p.m. peak hour is approximately 10 to 15 per cent higher than the older counts. This is indicative of either traffic growth at approximately one to 1.5 per cent per year, or a seasonal difference where winter traffic volumes are higher than spring or summer traffic volumes. As the historical growth rate appears to be either nominal or relatively low, a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to determine the effect of alternative compound growth rates of one per cent and three per cent per year. The former growth rate reflects the observed condition, whereas the latter growth rate reflects a typical growth rate used for traffic impact studies in the County of Simcoe. The growth component of traffic under the one and three per cent scenarios is shown in Figure 2. TABLE 2 TABLE 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON (2001 -2007) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON (1998 -2007) COUNTY ROAD 22 & COUNTY ROAD 93 INTERSECTION Approach Date Approach North East South Date West North Total East South West Total Entering L T R L T Entering L L T R L T R L T R L T R A.M. Peaknour Dec. 13 2007 33 ,.....; 19 . 169 22 28 31� Dec. 13 2007 6�,fi, 33 53 19 23 169 22 28 31 16 6 94 28 522 May 26 1998 88 24 66 21 24 165 22 20 22 17 8 84 39 512 Difference 8 9 -13 -2 -1 4 0 8 9 -1 -2 10 -11 10 ' Mid -Iiav Peak w Haar 117 22 9" 28 108 23 441 Jul. 5 2001 . 20 43 18 Dec. 13 2007 122 21 32 14 13 117 22 26 28 9 28 108 23 441 May 261998 -10 14 =8 -1 6 20 81 8 19 37 16 19 85 22 372 Difference 7 1 4 7 36 14 7 9 7 9 23 1 69 P.ivl: Peak Hour" 41 774 . r 17 60 21 21 144 19 45 75 161 52 662 Difference 3 -15 0 -4 61 28 10 Dec. 13 2007 2 20 45 21 17 205 47 55 51 18 54 200M 41 774 Ma 26 1998 30 53 25 25 107 28 58 74 23 43 203 31 700 Difference -10 -8 -4 -8 98 19 -3 -23 -5 11 -3 10 74 The comparison indicates that there has been relatively little change for most traffic movements. One exception is an apparent increase in the westbound through traffic volume during the p.m. peak hour. For the total volume entering the intersection, it appears that the main difference is that the December 2007 p.m. peak hour is approximately 10 to 15 per cent higher than the older counts. This is indicative of either traffic growth at approximately one to 1.5 per cent per year, or a seasonal difference where winter traffic volumes are higher than spring or summer traffic volumes. As the historical growth rate appears to be either nominal or relatively low, a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to determine the effect of alternative compound growth rates of one per cent and three per cent per year. The former growth rate reflects the observed condition, whereas the latter growth rate reflects a typical growth rate used for traffic impact studies in the County of Simcoe. The growth component of traffic under the one and three per cent scenarios is shown in Figure 2. TABLE 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON (2001 -2007) COUNTY ROAD 22 & COUNTY ROAD 93 INTERSECTION Approach Date North East South West Total Entering L T R L T R L T R L T R � ,., Dec. 13 2007 33 53 19 23 169 22 28 31� 16 6�,fi, 94 28 522 , Jul. 5 2001 31 70 17 22 136 28 25 35 12 15 88 36 515 Difference 2 17 2 1 33 6 3 4 4 9 6 8 7 Micl -I)a "Peak Hour � " " " Dec. 132007 21 32 14 13 117 22 9" 28 108 23 441 Jul. 5 2001 20 43 18 19 122 23 19 ff13 19 116 39 505 Difference I -11 -4 -6 -5 -1 -10 9 -8 -1 6 -64 1'.M Peak Hour. Dec. 13 2007 20 45 21 17 205 47 55 51 1 200 41 774 Jul.5 2001 17 60 21 21 144 19 45 75 161 52 662 Difference 3 -15 0 -4 61 28 10 -24 2 39 -11 112 The comparison indicates that there has been relatively little change for most traffic movements. One exception is an apparent increase in the westbound through traffic volume during the p.m. peak hour. For the total volume entering the intersection, it appears that the main difference is that the December 2007 p.m. peak hour is approximately 10 to 15 per cent higher than the older counts. This is indicative of either traffic growth at approximately one to 1.5 per cent per year, or a seasonal difference where winter traffic volumes are higher than spring or summer traffic volumes. As the historical growth rate appears to be either nominal or relatively low, a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to determine the effect of alternative compound growth rates of one per cent and three per cent per year. The former growth rate reflects the observed condition, whereas the latter growth rate reflects a typical growth rate used for traffic impact studies in the County of Simcoe. The growth component of traffic under the one and three per cent scenarios is shown in Figure 2. Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Surk 3.3 CRAIGHURST SECONDARY PLAN TRAFFIC It has been assumed for the purpose of this analysis that future development in Craighurst could be distributed as follows: ■ 410 residential units in the northeast quadrant of the County Roads 22/93 intersection; ■ 75 residential units in the southeast quadrant of the County Roads 22/93 intersection; ■ 225 residential units in the southwest quadrant of the County Roads 22/93 intersection; ■ An elementary school with 540 students in the northeast quadrant of the County Roads 22/93 intersection; and ■ 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, possibly in several developments in the employment core immediately adjacent to the County Roads 22/93 intersection. It is recognized that the above levels and location of development is dependent on the approval of a servicing solution based on full municipal water and sewer services and further land use analysis. The p.m. peak hour trip generation for the development was based on published trip rates (Institute of Transportation Engineers or ITE, Trip Generation, 7h Edition, 2003), and the following assumptions: The residential units would be a mix of approximately 90 per cent detached units and 10 per cent townhouses or semi-detached units. For trip generation, the conservative assumption was made that all units would have the characteristics of single family units (higher trip generation); The school trips would be nominal during the afternoon peak hour since the roadway peak hour (4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.) occurs later than the typical school peak hour (3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.). Therefore, the ITE p.m. peak of generator trip generation rate for schools was reduced by 50 per cent; and The commercial development, being relatively small in total floor area and located on multiple sites, would not generate any primary or new trips on the road system. That is, all trips to and from the various commercial sites would be accounted for either as part of the residential trip generation (i.e., a trip from home-to-shop) or as part of pass-by traffic (i.e., existing or new traffic on the road system that stops at a commercial site as part of another trip, e.g., work-to-shop-to-home). The trip generation for the Craighurst Secondary Plan development is presented in Table 3. TABLE PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CRAIGHURST SECONDARY PLAN Location Land Use Development Measure _... Trip Rate Per Unit Number of Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound NE Quadrant Residential ---3- 410 units 0.64 0.37 262 152 Elem. School 40 students 0.06 0.08 32 43 SW Quadrant Residential 225 units - 0.64 0.37 144 83 SE Quadrant Residential 7Tun units 0.64 0.37 1 -48 28 To facilitate the assignment of Craighurst Secondary Plan trips, it was assumed that the NE and SW quadrants would have collector roads that would provide access to each of County Roads 22 and 93. For the SE quadrant, it was assumed that there would only be a connection to County Road 22. The distribution of site trips to the arterial road system was based on existing traffic patterns as follows: ■ 15% to/from the north on County Road 93 ■ 25% to/from the east on County Road 22 ■ 25% to/from the south on County Road 93 ■ 35% to/from the west on County Road 22 VH Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Study The resultant secondary plan traffic assignments that would flow through the County Roads 22/93 intersection and/or cross the CP rail line on County Road 22 are shown in the Figure 2. 3.4 HORSESHOE VALLEYSETTLEMENT NODE A major development comprising residential, hotel, commercial, and recreational uses (golf) has been proposed for the Horseshoe Valley Resort area. A traffic study, Traffic Assessment Report, for the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Lands (URS Cole, Sherman & Associates Ltd.), was completed in June 2040 and updated in February 2003 with the study, Traffic Review for the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Lands (URS Cole, Sherman & Associates Ltd.). The traffic forecasts contained in the latter study included an assignment of the new development traffic to the County Roads 22/93 intersection. The traffic volumes for the p.m. peak hour are shown in Figure 2. 3.5 2027 TRAFFIC FORECASTS The components of the future p.m. peak hour traffic volumes as described above have been combined to produce three alternative traffic forecast scenarios for the 2027 horizon year. The scenarios are as follows: Alternative 1: Existing traffic + Craighurst Secondary Plan + Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node In this scenario, no allowance for growth in background traffic volumes is included as it is assumed that the full build -out of the known development proposals will represent the future traffic growth. Using the existing traffic volumes entering the County Roads 2/93 intersection as a base condition, this scenario results in an increase of 134 per cent, or an annual compound growth rate of 4.3 per cent per year over a 20 year period. Alternative 2: Existing traffic + Craighurst Secondary Plan + Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node + One Per Cent Per Annum Compound Growth in Background Traffic This scenario includes an allowance for some growth in background traffic volumes in addition to the traffic that would be generated by full build -out of the known development proposals. Using the existing traffic volumes entering the County Roads 2/93 intersection as a base condition, this scenario results in an increase of 156 per cent, or an annual compound growth rate of 4.8 per cent per year over a 20 year period. Alternative 3: Existing traffic + Craighurst Secondary Plan + Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node + Three Per Cent Per Annum Compound Growth in Background Traffic IN This scenario includes an allowance for substantial growth in background traffic volumes in addition to the traffic that would be generated by full build -out of the known development proposals. Using the existing traffic volumes entering the County Roads 2/93 intersection as a base condition, this scenario results in an increase of 215 per cent, or an annual compound growth rate of 5.9 per cent per year over a 20 year period. This should be considered to be a very high growth scenario, and unlikely to be achieved or sustained within a 20 year period. This opinion is based on our experience with transportation planning in the Greater Toronto Area where the historical growth rate over a 20 year period is typically two per cent per year, and tends to approximate the corresponding growth in population. According to the "Places to Grow Plan'; the projected population growth for the County of Simcoefrom 2006 to 2031 is 2.1 per centper. year. The traffic volumes for each of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Figure 3. UH E F-58-9-1 6811 4 d CP Rail <- F-651 7461 4 CP Rail r --j 816 — — ® Rail Line R [ 82N 51 K 54 78 99 - 1 1 1 C I County Road 22 83 2' K + 57 4 62 1 90 1 81-1 4 q1 ?A 2027 Forecast - Winter PM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 All horizon year growth is represented by Craighurst and Horseshoe Valle� County Road 93 Rail Line F--: , ; 59 88 F103 45i Ie e 86 Countv Road 22 qzo5l A it 4 1 74 1 101 1 85 5 50 0 V 2027 Forecast - Winter PM Peak Hour - Alternative 2 Alternative 1 + Background Growth of 1 % / yr County Road 93 Rail Line N9 F 71 -F1 1, <- 638 Ile 44 y 11C 96 W K a r9201 4 CP Rail 107 1 13+ 71 1 1 96 P74q U 2027 Forecast - Winter PM Peak Hour " Alternative 3 Alternative 1 + Background Growth of 3% / yrI t-IUUKt 3 - ZU27 Alternative Traffic Forecast: The quality oftraffic operations at intersections is typically defioedbz terms of level of service (LOS) volume to (v/c). The LOS � based on , dekmp��v�h��undhub/dcm `co�` and delay, - ' deceleration �,'qucounzovc'uy16o� d�ay, uud�oa uccc|u/udondelay. �o«oi b/�rucodooa,�08 ron�ca �ooz/� �o [0 accoudmav�ra��dduyoo)�aato� �xdobmo / 1buo - ucoondo. - Acceptable operations are generally considered to be LOS Cochetto dm�oo�cb��u�SD ouuybecooxid�ed |� 8bn�lnrio�0� tbcv�rudoioudud/ �o ' during peak acceptable. , ur�u iUeintersection uaa whole, and for individual movements u1auintersection. The v/c ratio provides u measure mf traffic volume demand &mthe available capacity, with a capacity condition represented 6vav/c ratio ofi.0 (i.e., volume demand equals The signalized intersection of County Roads 22/93was analyzed using the 7 soth�u/oomd p�dzU� Du�un�o��ouuda. &60oconndcycl� -qg--*id�o� l� 'baa' hzo�-~---�obuacoDx h |cft-kzozsmzd umyooudintb�ouab�� dou ' ' - ^�- °p"�"^~""""'ex ' cx ��`=ooug�/oum. The same cycle loou��uud mbndar were used �rdu of the ��beonadvcl and 2buf�cfho�uo�.I}ucto length and V�fUu vohun�cu in de /\kennudve 3 1na�ic thrco��, the cycle |oouth nmu increased to 7� a�oo- the higher advance �ccmphase for eastbound and westbound f�b�o/ - --- -'- -' w� o � on�u�ided. The complete level of service and wt results are shown mzu movement bv movement basis below iu Table 4` and the detailed analysis pxodc- �bcs are provided iu Appendix B. PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Intersection Approach Movement Existin Alternative 1 Alternative 2 it Alternativje3 LOS We LOS v/c LOS S We LOS V/c We W7D Thru / Rj lit B 0.34 B 0.70 B 0. 7 0.96 For existing conditions, the Alternative l forecast, and the Alternative uUnuovooxu�xosbi�too ��b��m�`��l.�.��3 ' �� uoucptubk:level o{ycodue�«h�uoe peak hour oo�zd000(LOS C)' and uoozebulivi forecast, traffic movements are shown to be approaching capacity (e.g., eastbound through/right movement at a We ratio of 0.96). Based outhe analysis, no intersection other than modifying ^ ~ ~ and '---y uzc/caabng left turn storage lane lengths, would be ococ�au�y to uccmnnodatcany ofthe three future alternative traffic forecasts. 4.2 MID-BLOCK LANE AL TERNA TIVESIREQUIREMENTS / 7o accommodate future tra±fiovolumes both within and hovnndthe 2027 horizon yea�the odd-hkckcross include the following: UH CmigburmSccuodmrlyPlan Traffic St d 8 ' m Ahasic two-lane cross section with auxiliary turn lanes at selected locations; ° /\ three-lane cross section providing for a two-way centre left turn lane; and M /\ basic four lane ornom section either with oo left or right turn lanes or with auxiliary turn lanes at selected locations. As indicated in Section 4.l' the intersection of Cnootv Roads 22/93 wmok1 not � any bupcoveueub�nthe foreseeable fukoe �bzoc�unu�odbV��cdoum the ' capacity � mq�m/ n�n:s�ut 000ubaboou arterial road capacity, it can be concluded that a basic two-lane cross section (one lane in each direction) will continue to suffice uo the mid-block acod b' noyuf�aoho[CouuRoud22uudCouu1yRoodA3. ' ' This conclusion has been examined further hv considering the mid-block volumes omCouo1v�ood22and ��D�93� �d��. F�planning y��,u�� ' capacity � u �oadn�b�odcv�dzmi@muliz�diu�racuiiouaiag0Uvcbiul�apu�/ancp�/bou� ' lurcviev' "s thobd�u Do /ecuat u, diafound that this threshold is only slightly exceeded ooCounty Road 22 in the hi��A|��i�3 scenario. Bmscdmotbeudddiona|reviep,itiooun�moedtbe1utv�oluoecnoeemedioo- with - auxiliary turn lanes o1 selected locations should accommodate the anticipated traffic increases on the arterial road system / CndgburuuodmbaceotureuathrUbeplumoiugpo�odoouuidcrcdiofbimStudv. serving While o basic two-lane cross section as described above would f��u�b��wo�d be beneficial to pooper�along County Road 22| anidor adequately (23to26zuri current right-of-way 20 m). This would provide the flexibility to iozploo�oo1uthree-lane cross section — to provide for left turning nuwvcoocnts at the intersections with existing and future residential streets and/or commercial driveways, opportunities to improve pedestrian and bike travel within the corridor, and a future potential widening to four luucu. Given the relatively low intensity of the potential tb1uro development, it appears unlikely that addidoua|todfio signals will he required Lo either the County Road 22no93corridors. The future need for isolated intersection improvements, including buffiowould have toben�iadedio future traffic iozpad�udiemfor apeci�udcvolopo�o�s. signals, 4.3 COUNTYROAD 22 AND 931CPRe4lL CROSSINGS Existing Conditions: Itiu understood that the CP rail activity mm the line that crosses both County Roads 22ast dV3vae neuda�'ad dha occur tbotbk�kCoonh/Road22 oodKor93durnotbuue ~'Tho reoubantb| un�ofonooeo�totb�oob|icdoe bztbe dolaythoLiucuumcd&mzu - ,the ' o|f«tbc fbouadouuflou�gucncodbaioaoyuffcitn��luopootiuoautaba000tbtcceodouo`oudtbc^ ' u1dobmfhr eo/ rg000yucrvice zeypouac. Ibo|atmrconoocuixdue tndzolmuadouoftbe ]000luo�bu|ooccmttiuoo'tbo north side of County Road 22 and west of the CP rail crossing, whereas Craighurst and the Horseshoe Valley area are located east of the CP rail crossing. Despite the concerns (as expressed a1 earlier public meetings for the Cmigmzst Secondary Plmd^CP has advised the Project Teanthat they have uo complaints oorecord regarding the delay experienced at the crossings, but have had complaints about the "bump" in the road. The remainder of this section of the report is focussed muthe County Road 22/CPrail a�o Road 22 oa��m and is to continue tocuoy` higher tna��volumes than - Road County . As noted previously, traffic and rail crossing data was collected un County Road 22 during the eight hours that typically represent the busiest road conditions during a weekday. The traffic and train activity on the sample day is summarized in Table 5. Craighmrst Secondary Plan Traffic Study 9 As shown in Table 5, there were seven trains crossing County Road 22 during the eight ` b�r��— n�od P��d�P '�T��|h��d�� period) would ��~ travel on this line during u (less ou weekends and bubduvs\ Therefore, recording trains in an eight hour period appears to represent m typical weekday. The following key information was recorded during the sample field study: • Two trains blocked County Road 22 for one minute; • Two trains blocked County Road 22 for two minutes; • Three trains blocked County Road 22 for three minutes; • The highest hourly concentration of trains (three) occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.; • There was one train crossing just after the morning peak hour ofooadvvuvbof�coudoouboiocn�so� during the afternoon peak hour o[noadvvuvbu�lc;and - ~ • The longest vehicle gocuc was 14 vehicles, which occurred during the afternoon peak hour oo eastbound County Road %2 during u three minute blockage. As noted previously, bis understood that the level of rail activity can vary omdoJvhu�a �d��dmo when �ub�aobeautthe and the duo��m�ofdeb n�|obovory Given ' uu1une of the train operations, it is reasoned that additional fioNstudies would have tobo conducted 0o determine the typical ranges for train crossing volumes bn hour nf the day and blockage durations u1 the at-grade crossing. Future Conditions: Based ou the observed traffic volumes and queuing, it was determined that the average vehicle arrivals per minute would provide uuxasouublo estimate of the typical queue length that could form per minute nf h|ookooc. This ozetbudologywas applied 10 the ukeroudvobafDuthn� - 0meadouatetbepoteutiulqoeu' that could o:oubwith higher �ut�cvobunomooCooub' Road 22`and �e remoUoare abovxoiuTable 6. ��-= SUMMARY OF COUNTY ROAD 22/CP RAIL CROSSING TRAFFIC AND RISTICS 15 Minute Maximum 15 Minute Maximum Time of Duration of Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Train County Road 22 Traffic Volume Vehicle Queue Traffic Volume Vehicle Queue Arrival Blockage at Time of During at Time of During Blockage Blockage Blockage Blockage - 12:59 p.m. 3 minutes 39 8 26 5 5:20 M.2 3 minutes 14 41 3 Train arrived one minute arfler the roadway a.m. peak hour. 2 Train arrived during the roadway p.mpeak hour. As shown in Table 5, there were seven trains crossing County Road 22 during the eight ` b�r��— n�od P��d�P '�T��|h��d�� period) would ��~ travel on this line during u (less ou weekends and bubduvs\ Therefore, recording trains in an eight hour period appears to represent m typical weekday. The following key information was recorded during the sample field study: • Two trains blocked County Road 22 for one minute; • Two trains blocked County Road 22 for two minutes; • Three trains blocked County Road 22 for three minutes; • The highest hourly concentration of trains (three) occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.; • There was one train crossing just after the morning peak hour ofooadvvuvbof�coudoouboiocn�so� during the afternoon peak hour o[noadvvuvbu�lc;and - ~ • The longest vehicle gocuc was 14 vehicles, which occurred during the afternoon peak hour oo eastbound County Road %2 during u three minute blockage. As noted previously, bis understood that the level of rail activity can vary omdoJvhu�a �d��dmo when �ub�aobeautthe and the duo��m�ofdeb n�|obovory Given ' uu1une of the train operations, it is reasoned that additional fioNstudies would have tobo conducted 0o determine the typical ranges for train crossing volumes bn hour nf the day and blockage durations u1 the at-grade crossing. Future Conditions: Based ou the observed traffic volumes and queuing, it was determined that the average vehicle arrivals per minute would provide uuxasouublo estimate of the typical queue length that could form per minute nf h|ookooc. This ozetbudologywas applied 10 the ukeroudvobafDuthn� - 0meadouatetbepoteutiulqoeu' that could o:oubwith higher �ut�cvobunomooCooub' Road 22`and �e remoUoare abovxoiuTable 6. ��-= Coigbomt Secondary Plan ^^~^~~ to Based on the information in Table 6, and as would be expected, it is evident that with increases in traffic there will he longer vehicle queues than exist today. As discussed previously, the longest eastbound queue under existing conditions was observed tobe l4 vehicles during othree minute bluukaoe,`vhcrcuadzcfbtureqm:uc (Alternatives l and 2) assuming a three minute blockage. If longer blockages occur, as may be the case if shunting activities occur, dbegooa will be proportionally longer. For example, u five minute blockage could result iuu queue ofapproximately 75 eastbound vehicles and 78 westbound vehicles. The eastbound queue on County Road 22is the more critical condition due to the — ' - o[de 8�bvay4U0 off ramp b�uryoobooe1 u�h/350nnvzo of the rail provid movement e approximately 50cars. The merge point of the obuooe/ized northbound to eastbound from this ramp is located approximately 150 in west of the cud crossing, which nmu1J provide for approximately 21 car storage before the cuony operation would he potentially / otod. Tbon: is additional opuoo for storage on the cbamoelLzcd omup of approximately 200 in (28 cars) 0u the point where the channelization of the northbound to eastbound ramp begins. It is unlikely that Highway 40Onperabooynmuld be affected bythe eastbound queue ou County Road 22 since the ramp and deceleration lane upto the diverge point where the northbound to eastbound and northbound to westbound off ramps split is over 500 in in length. Based ou the above, dis concluded that with future traffic increases there is potential for eastbound vehicle queues ou County Road 22to temporarily affect traffic operations at the intersection niU/tbe 408 no�bbooudoffcuoup aodcap�oiol)vtbcoo�hbouudtoouod/oundzuovco�cut� �uppcuouo)i ~~ tb' the queuing would be of sufficient length and duration to affect Highway 400 mainline operations. Improvement Alternatives: Three improvement alternatives have been oondderedwithospecttodeCom' Roxad 22 level —~ at the CP rail line uu described below. The first two alternatives - addrcoatbo' iasueanidb ,--- t000 ~�e""^ crossing iu that vehicles are physically prevented from entering tbe oroua'/g hvthe gates. Further, ' around the lowered gu�a iurto the mzb/a|ofabab�n1 the crossing. These ultccuu1�eadu not address driving delay or inconvenience created by u tudo blocking the crossing. The third alternative, u c separation, / addresses bod�the safety and convenience issues. Alternative]: ManagelMitigate Impacts In this alternative, no physical changes would be made to the roadway or rail The system of � ��,b��g�� -m��h — �� dv��c4�dthe �m' traffic issue ��to the '^��----mo�d~~^~~udizg eozeqgcuuyuenioeo ouCoun8ylloud22. lotbi muooudo' �imrcoo ' ddzo1 | tbe�ab� arriving � at cmadonutimes and hluc�no�ecrossing �«di�erecticuodz of times, �oosobiogdelays and queuing are � tcnzpororyand are not u product o[u roadway cupuodvdeficiency. FoDovviuAthe ^^cvco1"ufuod]cnso' de ESTIMATED QUEUE LENGTHS ON COUNTY ROAD 22 DURING RAIL CROSSING BLOCKAGE 2027 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ____i027 Eastbound on County Road 22 - Westbound on County Road 22 Traffic Traffic Queue For Various Traffic Queue For Various Forecast Volume Bloc e Times v hicles) Volume Blocka e Times v, hicles) I Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. Alternative - 681 11 23 34 - 589 10 20 29 Based on the information in Table 6, and as would be expected, it is evident that with increases in traffic there will he longer vehicle queues than exist today. As discussed previously, the longest eastbound queue under existing conditions was observed tobe l4 vehicles during othree minute bluukaoe,`vhcrcuadzcfbtureqm:uc (Alternatives l and 2) assuming a three minute blockage. If longer blockages occur, as may be the case if shunting activities occur, dbegooa will be proportionally longer. For example, u five minute blockage could result iuu queue ofapproximately 75 eastbound vehicles and 78 westbound vehicles. The eastbound queue on County Road 22is the more critical condition due to the — ' - o[de 8�bvay4U0 off ramp b�uryoobooe1 u�h/350nnvzo of the rail provid movement e approximately 50cars. The merge point of the obuooe/ized northbound to eastbound from this ramp is located approximately 150 in west of the cud crossing, which nmu1J provide for approximately 21 car storage before the cuony operation would he potentially / otod. Tbon: is additional opuoo for storage on the cbamoelLzcd omup of approximately 200 in (28 cars) 0u the point where the channelization of the northbound to eastbound ramp begins. It is unlikely that Highway 40Onperabooynmuld be affected bythe eastbound queue ou County Road 22 since the ramp and deceleration lane upto the diverge point where the northbound to eastbound and northbound to westbound off ramps split is over 500 in in length. Based ou the above, dis concluded that with future traffic increases there is potential for eastbound vehicle queues ou County Road 22to temporarily affect traffic operations at the intersection niU/tbe 408 no�bbooudoffcuoup aodcap�oiol)vtbcoo�hbouudtoouod/oundzuovco�cut� �uppcuouo)i ~~ tb' the queuing would be of sufficient length and duration to affect Highway 400 mainline operations. Improvement Alternatives: Three improvement alternatives have been oondderedwithospecttodeCom' Roxad 22 level —~ at the CP rail line uu described below. The first two alternatives - addrcoatbo' iasueanidb ,--- t000 ~�e""^ crossing iu that vehicles are physically prevented from entering tbe oroua'/g hvthe gates. Further, ' around the lowered gu�a iurto the mzb/a|ofabab�n1 the crossing. These ultccuu1�eadu not address driving delay or inconvenience created by u tudo blocking the crossing. The third alternative, u c separation, / addresses bod�the safety and convenience issues. Alternative]: ManagelMitigate Impacts In this alternative, no physical changes would be made to the roadway or rail The system of � ��,b��g�� -m��h — �� dv��c4�dthe �m' traffic issue ��to the '^��----mo�d~~^~~udizg eozeqgcuuyuenioeo ouCoun8ylloud22. lotbi muooudo' �imrcoo ' ddzo1 | tbe�ab� arriving � at cmadonutimes and hluc�no�ecrossing �«di�erecticuodz of times, �oosobiogdelays and queuing are � tcnzpororyand are not u product o[u roadway cupuodvdeficiency. FoDovviuAthe ^^cvco1"ufuod]cnso' de | ! Craigbur,l Souoodug'Pbm Traffic Study buDIo operations on County Road 22 vvmukl nesonum at good level o[service. Therefore, u In capacity improvement, as widenino, the road to add lanes, would be warranted. The mitigation measures that would be part o[ this alternative include: ° To address the issue nf emergency access, with the current location o{ the ambulance _~| station, examine the need, 'uadficu1ou and feasibility / additional emergency facilities and services 8.o.`oo both sides of the rail iine\' a In the event ofusimultaneous emergency call and rail b '��| vvhcrothe oouugeooyaenioodispatch coubuouuyco c the (�9PoUce � �crgoocyCommuoicu1moo Centre u1 any time to have the crossing cleared; N Ensure that CP is contacted and made aware of the concerns expressed 6v local renide�s. The resultant discussions should bo continued p/idzCpto encourage the ou ' ozczdn{,uUboODcto ' zuinionizeroadway bu�lo delays. The cuidg�be oucaonremthat should he~ considered include the management of rail traffic to minimize the number of crossings during the times when peak traffic occurs oo the roadway. Abermudve2: Traffic Signal To assist in managing potentially long eastbound buffioqueues ouCoun�8o�2�baffio�o��c��\e bzm�]�du1the County Road 4O0oodbhoondof[zxo�pi ' with ��-- link to the rail crossing protection controller. The operational strategy would involve o � ~ ^ � of the toz8Iu o�pu "p""""" p�ndhoo�l p�v�ouoo s /�oa m/Aaz��aro uc�uat�dbv xuoppnoa�biogtuain. This event would trigger nneast-west red signal ut the County Road 22DRiohwom4OO northbound off ramp intersection for the duration of the train crossing, which would result io part ofthe eastbound bofficou County Road 22queuing to the west of the ramp intersection rather than immediately west of the rail crossing. The dim�� ncn`between the Highway 400nodbbonnd and aouUhouud off ramp iuob is approximately in (53 cars), which provides considerable storage for the proposed signal operation. The southbound green signal during this operation would facilitate the continuous flow of northbound to westbound left turns from the Highway 400 northbound off ramp nm County Road 22 during this operation. Similarly, the northbound eastbound obuonoUzcd right turn from the Highway 400 northbound off ramp would continue toflow. In effect, this operation would split the eastbound queue ofa ffionoComvRu �2 d�CPR oa lh crossing. Tbe uo/dhbonodtocuoihouod6u�ttuo�t�on 400 ' throzuud^^ tn ~ m1ihc ~- ^^e,°"� -vum uuu mogo�uc CPkoi}uroaming,wbile dzoeumLboundtozOloouCouotyRuud22approacbi the Biuhvvav48Au� ^------ cao�pumoldfoco�uoduddtotbe gu�oe a1dbopcopuoodbu�Doai@nmi Y/db -iaoyo - `it^ would h-e`impossible for the eastbound queue toextend westerly from the rail crossing and block the Highway northbound off ramp intersection. According to the most recent Ministry of Transportation of Ontario `TO)p.u.peak hour traffic counts for the County Road 22 intersection with the '4O0nortbboomdofruop(uee-ppeo-' A),upprozioa1ely40peruezdofdboeasthunudtnaffioupp/ocb' - tbeC9nailorooa' ~ iubn County Road 22 west of the Highway 4OO northbound off ramp, and approximately 6Opnrcco1io from the Highway -' northbound to eastbound off ramp. Therefore, the proposed strategy would cedoce the potential queues in Table 6 by approximately 40 per cent. Alternative J/ Construct mGrade Separation at the County RoadJ21CP Rail Crossing - TheMT0 publication, "Inventory Manual, Municipal Roads and � ] 'luvc/ =^, -'---a method to assess the need for protection o1cnud/rad crossings. Itiobased on the calculation uo"exposure index" ' which is calculated bv -- r�� the total number nf trains per day bvthe �� m u�redaily traffic volume. The protection for a range uf exposure index values iaafollows: � Less than l,U00: Cross Bucks and Advance Warning Signs; UH IS ON Cmigbuo, lecoudaryPkm Traffic St�dy 12 * 1,00to100,000: Flashing Lights and Bells (where special considerations such as school buses many other special circumstances, such os accident records, gates may bucmuaidercd); * 100,001tu200,000: Flashing Lights and Bells and Gates (other factors can influence installation of equipment or construction of grade separation based on site specific conditions); and * Over 200,000: Grade Separation This methodology was once used to determine owumant for - purposes, - ' &o �funding oeubuo�nwas terminated bn lQO9vdbthe adooduuofthe Railway Safety Act. Subsequently, the exposure b]exhas been used pdoad|vuaa guideline for assessing ruUpoteutionoeudo . ICio recognized nom the uuneottechnology for m�uzodccrossings provides ooexbroe!y high �ve|of crossing pco��duu.Aonoted previously, however, the aspect of travel delay and queuing ia not oddrraacdbyut-goaoroumiogpooteodou measures. To examine the potential need for ugrade separation at the County Road 22/CPrail the exposure index for and future uoudbiouuhas been ozou/bned. 7b�i,muzuo�az�edio Table 7, crossing, shows the existing number nftrains, an allowance for u2S per cent and 50 per cent increase in train uctvdv(as u sensitivity test), and the daily �afDovoluuse required tnnuectthe exposure index �ru grade mcp' `ou oonopuzcdto the oximbogand forecasted tod�ovo|conex. - Based on the information in Table 7,disclear that the County Road 22 traffic forecasts for any of the growth scenarios considered would result bo achieving the guideline threshold for a grade separation. To confirm a earlier statement that traffic conditions on County Road 93 will be less critical, it was found that even iuthe highest future traffic and train volume scenario, the exposure index would be well hnlop/ the 'do|bm threshold for conyidedngumadeaepandiouad the County Road 03AC9 rail crossing. The existing guideline flashing lights, huKu and gates ebuu1dhcoutDoieutfbrtbefocnoeeablotub�eattbe1a�eroroami system To assist in understanding the components of traffic that contribute to the potential for u future e�& separation, the oocopoodUuo of the p.m. peak bonc �bpa on County {loud 22 crossing the CP rod � is summarized in Table 8. COMPOSITION OF COUNTY ROAD 22 TRAFFIC CROSSING CP RAIL ASSESSMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 22/CP 11NIL GRADE SEPARATION Exposure Index Calculation For Grade Separation Existing Daily 777 -1 2027 Dail Traffic Forecasts Exposure No. of Daily Approximate 41% 33% Craighurst Secondary Plan Index Trains Daily Traffic Traffic' Alternative I Alternative I Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Background Traffic Growth nil ti 16 (existing) 12,500 '0002 002 02 24 (50% increase) 8,500 ['21ctraffl,',e 'Daffy Iniffifire estimated based on the existing relitionship where-the p.m. pealt hour volume represents 8.5per cent of daily 2DaJ1Y traftic exceeds volume requiredfor aneyosure index afgreater than 200,000 ed "n" Based on the information in Table 7,disclear that the County Road 22 traffic forecasts for any of the growth scenarios considered would result bo achieving the guideline threshold for a grade separation. To confirm a earlier statement that traffic conditions on County Road 93 will be less critical, it was found that even iuthe highest future traffic and train volume scenario, the exposure index would be well hnlop/ the 'do|bm threshold for conyidedngumadeaepandiouad the County Road 03AC9 rail crossing. The existing guideline flashing lights, huKu and gates ebuu1dhcoutDoieutfbrtbefocnoeeablotub�eattbe1a�eroroami system To assist in understanding the components of traffic that contribute to the potential for u future e�& separation, the oocopoodUuo of the p.m. peak bonc �bpa on County {loud 22 crossing the CP rod � is summarized in Table 8. COMPOSITION OF COUNTY ROAD 22 TRAFFIC CROSSING CP RAIL Components of Traffic Forecast Percenta2e of 2027 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts -Existing Traffic 45% 41% 33% Craighurst Secondary Plan n36% Horseshoe Valley SettlemWt Node 33% 26% Background Traffic Growth nil UH � Cmighun, Secondary Plan Traffic Study 13 ' The information above could beused in assessing financial responsibility ��kmmmzt - or other funding mechanisms) for the potential grade aopar�iou. Bopmve�the key conclusion oftbimanalysis is that pot potential umvdcvm|npu�n1iuCcui~ borutvoo}d u000uutf�,00|v |4 to l� per cent of trutO at the rail A ftidberassessment was conducted of the Alternative 1 traffic forecast (assumes no background traffic growth) to determine the amount of development that could hn accommodated in either mboth the Craighurst Secondary Plan area and the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node before the grade separation exposure index guideline would he reached. The culco\ud000were based unhon/nuocbadddiuo�bafDcubovooxia�nowould ~ bcoequirod%ucoectdbctbrmabold`uoddhiopmyrmiatedtotbebiogeneotiunuudusoi@pouen1cbumacterisdoaof the two development areas. A sensitivity analysis was included to account for the potential of increased train tru{fioand for the two development areas building out at different rates (ie, one area developing iu advance of, o/u1a quicker pace, than the othed. The results of this analysis are presented iu Table 9 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT LEVELS REQUIRED TO MEET GRADE SEPARATION GUIDELINE THRESHOLD County Road 22 Daily Traffic Volume Percenta-e of Development Required To t Generate Additional Daily Traffic Volume No. of Daily Trains Existing Additional Required For Grade Se ation Craighurst Horseshoe Valley 16 (existing) 6,775 5,725 50% 80% nil 60% 61% nil nil 32% The information above would assist in identifying development triggers related to the potential need for future grade separation. Summaiy of Rail Alternatives: The three alternatives for addressing issues u1 the County Road 22/CP rail crossing can ho considered tobo sequential in terms oftheir potential implementation. Alternative l provides for u strategy to mitigate issues and 000xczoo in the short term, Alternative 2 is u strategy that could be implemented 0u address observed problem areas as development occurs and bnffic iuozeuaeo, and /\{&:rumtive ] represents the ultimate improvement to resolve outeb/ and delay concerns at u level rail uooauioK. The physical teuoihddv of constructing u grade separation on County Road 22 at the CP rail crossing requires m further asmomou [ to dMruoioe whether the road vmodd go over oc under the rail line, to coo§coz that the design could he accommodated with the existing public road intersections (eapcuio||vtbe Highway 4O0 northbound off ouup), and k`i��ifvpmp��gui�m��.T�a would f�il��hm' t�u' e�idmd�ud�de� — planning documents and future capital works programs, and would assist io protecting propertybzribtuUue implementation. IN � um � The conclusions u[the Craighurst Secondary Plan Traffic Study are oyfollows: a) Through u comparison of current and historical traffic data, bwas found that there has been relatively little growth in the weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the County Roads 2293intersection in the period 1998 to 2007. b) Three alternative traffic forecasts for 2027 indicate the potential for substantial traffic growth O34&m �\ 215 per cent increase over existing) at the County Roads 2293 intersection and in the County Road 22 ' omzdm through Craighurst. The Craighurst Secondary Plan area and the Horseshoe Valley 8oV|emcut Nude account for approximately one-third and two-thirds, respectively, of the new development component oftczffiogrowth. Buukunouudu«tbzoouhbuOIo growth would account bn � the remainder of the 2027Uaf�c' and was estimu�~—based uoc `ouod growth rates of one and three per cent per year for alternative forecast socoudoo. C) The signalized intersection of County Roads 22/93 was found tooperate at acceptable levels ofservice for each of the alternative traffic forecasts with the existing lane arrangements. In the future, signal timings and left turn lane storage requirements would have to be reviewed and modified if necessary to accommodate traffic increases. These zoodifiou1iuoawould bmdetermined through regular monitoring of traffic conditions by the County of Simcoe, and through the recommendations contained in future bof6u impact studies that will be required toassess the impacts of proposed developments in the Craighurst Secondary Plan area. d] A basic two lane cross section oo both County Roads 23 and 93 would be sufficient to accommodate each of the alternative traffic forecasts. Auxiliary turn lanes and other intersection improvements (e.g., additional baffiusignals) should be provided asdetermined through subsequent traffioimpact studies for proposed residential or commercial developments. The potential for road widenings to � accommodate individual turning lanes, acentre two-way left turn lane, an additional through lane, or T- other facilities (e.g., bike lanes/paths, pedestrian facilities, etc.) should be protected for by acquiring property (through the development review process) to increase the road right-of-way where required. This applies to both County Roads 22 and 93, but primarily to County Road 22 where the higher traffic demands are expected. C) Three alterative strategies have been developed to address the safety and delay concerns atthe County Road 22/CP rail line crossing. The alternatives include managing and mitigating the effects of the existing train nnooatiuuy, managing ioaffio queues, and consideration of the need for a grade separation in the future. The implementation of the various strategies is subject to monitoring traffic and development conditions, determining the physical feasibility of a grade separation, and possibly identifying property requirements and funding mechanisms to protect and provide for u future grade separation. With lower traffic volumes ou County Road 93a1 its crossing ofde same C9 rail line, dis seen that the existing rail protection system (flashing lights, bells, and gates) along with efforts 6vCP to minimize the duration of blockages are sufficient for the horizon year considered in this Study. I I,, APPENDIX A Traffic Data i TMCy 2007 Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 7:00:00 From: 7:30:00 To: 10:00:00 To: 8:30:00 Municipality: Simcoe County Weather conditions: Site #: 0000000017 Overcast Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 2 Ludmila Count date: 13- Dec -2007 * Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Penetanguishene Rd runs N/S North Leg Total: 164 Heavys 0 1 0 1 Heavys 2 East Leg Total: 357 North Entering: 105 Trucks 1 1 0 2 Trucks 0 East Entering: 214 North Peds: 0 Cars 18 51 33 102 Cars 57 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 19 53 33 Totals 59 Peds Cross: Heavys Trucks Cars Totals F$ Penetanguishene Rd Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 6 2 208 216 � 21 165 0 1 22 0 4 169 N 23 0 0 23 Horseshoe Valley Rd IF 209 0 5 W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Horseshoe Valley Rd 0 0 6 6 ffj S 7 0 87 94 3 0 25 10 0 118 28 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals MH 134 Penetanguishene Rd 0 9 143 Peds Cross: g West Peds: 0 Cars 99 Trucks 1 Cars 25 30 14 69 Trucks 1 0 0 1 Peds Cross: >a South Peds: 0 West Entering: 128 Heavys 4 Heavys 2 1 2 5 South Entering: 75 West Leg Total: 344 Totals 104 Totals 28 31 16 South Leg Total: 179 Comments 11 I I TMC.f 2007 Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 11:30:00 From: 11:45:00 To: 13:30:00 To: 12:45:00 Municipality: Simcoe County Weather conditions: Site #: 0000000017 Overcast Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 2 Ludmila Count date: 13-Dec-2007 Signalized Intersection Major Road: Penetanguishene Rd runs N/S North Leg Total: 145 Heavys 1 3 0 4 Heavys 3 East Leg Total: 290 North Entering: 67 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 2 East Entering: 152 North Peds: 0 Cars 13 29 21 63 Cars 73 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: >.4 Totals 14 32 21 Totals 78 Peds Cross: x Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Penetanguishene Rd 5 6 146 157 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 22 0 0 22 112 4 1 117 12 1 0 13 Horseshoe Valley Rd 146 5 1 W E + Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Horseshoe Valley Rd 0 2 26 28 S 3 0 105 108 E* 0 2 21 23 3 4 152 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals Penetanguishene Rd 135 0 3 138 Peds Cross: x Cars 62 West Peds: 0 Trucks 3 Cars 21 25 9 55 Trucks 2 0 0 2 Peds Cross: >.I South Peds: 0 West Entering: 159 Heavys 3 Heavys 3 3 0 6 South Entering: 63 West Leg Total: 316 Totals 68 Totals 26 28 9 South Leg Total: 131 Comments I I TMC., 2007 Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:00:00 From: 16:30:00 To: 18:00:00 To: 17:30:00 Municipality: Simcoe County Weather conditions: Site #: 0000000017 Overcast Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe ` Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 2 Ludmila Count date: 13 -Dec -2007 ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Penetanguishene Rd runs N/S North Leg Total: 238 Heavys 0 1 0 1 Heavys 1 East Leg Total: 507 North Entering: 86 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 East Entering: 269 North Peds: 0 Cars 21 44 20 85 Cars 151 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 21 45 20 Totals 152 Peds Cross: g Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Penetanguishene Rd Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 6 3 272 281 46 0 1 47 196 3 6 205 14 2 1 17 Horseshoe Valley Rd 256 5 8 W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Horseshoe Valley Rd 0 0 54 54 S 2 3 195 200 2 0 39� 4 3 288 41 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals Penetanguishene Rd 233 3 2 238 Peds Cross: g West Peds: 0 Cars 97 Trucks 2 Cars 55 51 18 124 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Peds Cross: D�a South Peds: 0 West Entering: 295 Heavys 4 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 124 West Leg Total: 576 Totals 103 Totals 55 51 18 South Leg Total: 227 Comments I I I TMC.f 2007 Eight Hour Peak Diagram Eight Hour Peak From: 8:00:00 To: 16:00:00 Municipality: Simcoe County Weather conditions: Site #: 0000000017 Overcast Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 2 Ludmila Count date: 13-Dec-2007 Signalized Intersection Major Road: Penetanguishene Rd runs N/S North Leg Total: 670 Heavys 3 8 4 15 Heavys 15 East Leg Total: 1577 North Entering: 327 Trucks 2 3 0 5 Trucks 6 East Entering: 869 North Peds: 0 Cars 72 144 91 307 Cars 322 East Peds: I Peds Cross: na Totals 77 155 95 Totals 343 Peds Cross: x Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Penetanguishene Rd Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 35 26 856 917 104 1 4 109 639 19 14 672 86 1 1 88 Horseshoe Valley Rd 829 21 19 W E + Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Horseshoe Valley Rd 3 3 86 92 S 18 8 504 530 7 3 106 1 116 28 14 696 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals Penetanguishene Rd 676 8 24 708 Peds Cross: x Cars 336 West Peds: 0 Trucks 7 Cars 145 132 81 358 Trucks 5 2 0 7 Peds Cross: >14 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 738 Heavys 16 Heavys 18 8 2 28 South Entering: 393 West Leg Total: 1655 Totals 359 Totals 168 142 83 South Leg Total: 752 Comments 1 TMC., 2007 Total Count Diagram Municipality: Simcoe County Weather conditions: Site #: 0000000017 Overcast Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe' Person (s) who counted: TFR File #: 2 Ludmila Count date: 13 -Dec -2007 Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Penetanguishene Rd runs NtS North Leg Total: 1265 Heavys 3 12 6 21 Heavys 21 East Leg Total: 2794 North Entering: 590 Trucks 3 3 1 7 Trucks 8 East Entering: 1506 North Peds: 0 Cars 136 266 160 562 Cars 646 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: oa Totals 142 281 167 Totals 675 Peds Cross: x Penetanguishene Rd Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 50 32 1513 1595 � 202 1 7 210 v N 1104 24 25 1153 137 3 3 143 Horseshoe Valley Rd 1443 28 35 W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Horseshoe Valley Rd 4 3 184 191 S 31 12 943 986 14 3 204 221 49 18 1331 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals Penetanguishene Rd 1234 13 41 1288 Peds Cross: x Cars 607 Cars 273 260 131 664 West Peds: 0 Trucks 9 Trucks 5 4 0 9 Peds Cross: ca South Peds: 0 West Entering: 1398 Heavys 29 Heavys 22 10 4 36 South Entering: 709 West Leg Total: 2993 Totals 645 Totals 300 274 135 South Leg Total: 1354 Comments I I I TMCy 2007 Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Penetanguishene Rd & Horseshoe ate: 13-Dec-2007 Municipality: Sin-Coe County N i orth Approach Totals North/South South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Left — Thru Right Grand Total Hour Ending Left Thru Right Grand Total Total Hour Ending Total Peds Total Approaches 7:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 0 0 0 0 —Peds 0 8:00:00 29 47 19 95 0 161 8:00-00 26 30 10 66 0 9:00:00 21 49 18 88 0 163 9:00:00 33 23 19 75 0 10:00:00 24 24 17 65 0 141 10:00:00 30 28 18 76 0 12:00:00 9 19 6 34 0 5812:00:00 13 8 3 24 0 13:00:00 19 24 14 57 0 11913:00 :00 25 27 10 62 0 15:00:00 9 7 6 22 0 5615:00:00 14 17 3 34 0 16:00:00 13 32 16 61 0 18316:00:00 53 39 30 122 0 17:00:00 27 30 22 79 0 19917:00:00 49 50 21 120 0 18:00:00 16 49 24 89 0 21918:00:00 57 52 21 130 0 – Totals: 167 281 142 590 0 1299 300 274 135 709 0 East Approach Totals East/West West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys — Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Left Thru Right Grand Total Hour Ending Left Thru Right Grand Total Total Peds Hour Ending Total Peds Total Aeproaches 7:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7-00:00 0 0 0 0 0 8:00-00 23 144 20 187 0 301 8:00:00 3 82 29 114 0 9:00:00 19 186 19 224 0 351 9:00:00 7 96 24 127 0 10:00:00 15 148 24 187 0 31010:00:00 8 91 24 123 0 12:00:00 11 53 16 80 0 15412:00:00 15 48 11 74 0 13:00-00 13 111 18 142 0 28413:00:00 23 99 20 142 0 15:00:00 12 59 8 79 1 14315:00:00 10 44 10 64 0 16:00:00 18 115 24 157 0 36516:00:00 29 152 27 208 0 17:00:00 20 185 47 252 0 53017:00:00 43 200 35 278 0 18:00:00 12 152 34 198 0 46618:00:00 53 174 41 268 0 Totals:1 143 1153 .210, 1506, 1, 2904, 1 191, 9861 221 1398 0 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 8:00 9:00 10:00 12:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Crossing Values: 170 212 171 79 147 199 263 239 I I i ed., Dec. 12, 2007 Time Number of vehicles 7:15 22 7:30 29 7:45 34 8:00 37 8:151 48 8:30 55 8:45 29 9:00 46 9:15 28 9:30 40 9:45 28 10:00 34 11:45 33 12:00 30 12:15 37 12:30 31 12:45 30 13:00 39 13:15 34 13:30 34 15:15 36 15:30 52 15:45 55 16:00 59 16:15 57 16:30 83 16:45 71 17:00 78 17:15 63 17:30 84 17:45 79 18:00 60 I t County Road 22 WB at CP Rail Wed., Dec. 12, 2007 Time Number of vehicles 7:15 26 7:30 30 7:45 61 8:00 59 8:15 60 8:30 71 8:45 68 9:00 38 9:15, 37 9:301 34 9:45 34 10:00 49 11:45 24 12:00 31 12:15 35 12:30 25 12:45 39 13:00 26 13:15 48 13:30 37 15:15 38 15:30 41 15:45 47 16:00 45 16:15 52 16:30 39 16:45 49 17:00 51 17:15 59 17:30 53 17:45 431 18:00 :77--30 I I I 1 County Rd 22/Canadian Pacific Rail Line Delay and Queue Study-County Rd 22 EASTBOUND Date: 12. 1107 Observer: Ludmila Time of train Arrival Gates down (Hour: minute) — Time of train Departure Gates up (Hour: minute) Length of time crossing blocked (Minutes) EASTBOUND Maximum queue on County Rd 22 (vehicles) 8:31 8:32 1 1 9:19 9:22 3 5 12:59 13:02 3 8 15:06 15:08 2 2 15:20 15:21 1 2 15:31 15:33 2 9 17:20 17:22 2 14 County Rd 221Canadian Pacific Rail Line Delay and Queue Study-County Rd 22 WESTBOUND Date: 12.12.07 Observer: Irina Time of train Arrival Gates down (Hour : minute) Time of train Departure Gates up (Hour: minute) Length of time crossing blocked (Minutes) WESTBOUND Maximum queue on County Rd 22 (vehicles) 8:30 8:31 1 0 9:20 9:23 3 6 13:01 13:03 2 5 15:08 15:09 1 3 15:21 15:22 1 0 15:32 15:34 2 12 17:21 17:24 3 3 1 �i S� i a+�sce�desT s mgmsEGTilok LAYOUT STET ' ..•; DATE ��' `'� OL ._: DAYJE� W - WEATHER` ��V �►�- Srou�t]BSEaVER �^�IZ VE' +� Ri l .GUEST # Skk 5/00 TFR 0 325 — FILE GRETCH CODE (LHRS) o o 3 LaCATiON RAMPS �` 2.% For Office Use Otay: REG/MUN Lod cr^ " "'M /T TOWNiCITY 7e\•vwrS/�lii! aG ' Edit .Sj0&Ae0V6 40 A M11. COMMENTS ! Fd s r R A-ri -\ P (G �2 q s G•/ir�2s r PM Peak Report; DAas,64 T},h SEGMENT i - AM or QleaseCircle) Processed by. SIGNALIZED Y Circle) P jy. ..1'•} M, ^rF ttx Y If Intersection is unsignalIzed, show the size of the stop signs. r, #t Fri.' a..,Yr } .. INDICATE • • DRECTION OF MTO VEHICLE r .s i '� vrxi•» gkr'y+ 1Fni'M Show all r II� approaching and �g the Intersection. Show all channelization. If there are a • or ! through lanes in one direction, Indicate If i �}}Sr' tR � � w�s✓4'�.'tK � t hose lanes are • a fr r •'y` :`» an crosswalks. f z0•d •.mot 1220899S0616 01 4600 SC? 9fv ssudW09 01W lid Wd 18:17 8002 Ndf bZ I. _ Y k .r • w _ .r.r w ,. 4 y 31 i ;icy 400 aalafi rsxFs ; t z ##### s#f s�:######## ttEttt# trssErE SSStrs:rsrt #EStE #z #r #sr #EtrEfr �- 244 Horseshoe Valley Rd 117_ t i 47 -•> dKpK- TV c-- 227, 112 J— 0900 »68 :30 t_ 61 374 orseahas valley Rd �22 so f47•t -txt uEt## # #f # #= #f # #t ## r = S 0 R7_1 > 11"y 400 ontoff ramps 9 t } ^^ ^^ Horseshoe Valley Rd ,° 6.20 Horsed :ot Valley Rd _ 3L`6 •y-�' `t6b z 8.75 __,-' B.2i„ y ; 160• -y ping- TR r -- iS9 ...._ s_ 6.16 -•> 8 C4ili. < -- 123 _,-- -� *6:45-17:45 s 23 —� ' 9,731; ,_ i TV HRS. ;19.54 —i � tY67 y 19.23; Horseshoe valley 14 26 14S 245- Horseshoe Valley Rd 19.40 b »21 7.14- .» --- ' 30 '`- 171; c. 0 -> i 1 17.86 i._' 6,91; c- 0 -> 0 1— 201,,,,_,; i � #€t # #ttt # #t #t� # #ttttttfx # # :� 0 ; `s .. � 8.67_,_„ 11 1 t It File: 040083TC.V23 $ ;icy 404 oo /aff flaps x Hay.; 0400 Aq: 04 -08 -13 'till 406 onloff ramps ## tsxst# tt## t###f t #E # # # # #:xxxtt ##zttx # # # # #t # #ttft Date: 04101/03 - 04/ 02/ 04# tt#f# t # # # #E #tt ;t #ttE # #E # {ttt # # # # €Ett Tat :04/02/03 14 :00- 18:00 Us 04/02104 07 :00.11:00 044040 # #t #t #t# t # #t## € #t# :tts #fi�tt € t #x# #t#itttI #t #t# #t #ttt#t tt st#tt###t#s # # #tt{tt# #tttE # # # # # # ## xt #t €t # # #E # # # # ## # }# _ 2 :i 6c? gOC7 b S QtsC' * }iL�tif �� 5L1xH8� VAtI#wY� ��- 5�f ir1'l+��rZS► . S0'd 1 089950616 01 L80# Scz SItT SSUdWOO 01W dd Wd 10:t7 8002 NUr 172 ,- 1231 Horseshoe Valley Rd 19Q4 ,"' 1132_ 364 -.> TV COUNT < -- 11061 678 _F ALL VEHICLE 26, 2368 1176-1 bargeshoe valley Rd 125 612 140 t t t # 31 i ;icy 400 aalafi rsxFs ; t z ##### s#f s�:######## ttEttt# trssErE SSStrs:rsrt #EStE #z #r #sr #EtrEfr �- 244 Horseshoe Valley Rd 117_ t i 47 -•> dKpK- TV c-- 227, 112 J— 0900 »68 :30 t_ 61 374 orseahas valley Rd �22 so f47•t -txt uEt## # #f # #= #f # #t ## r = S 0 R7_1 > 11"y 400 ontoff ramps 9 t } ^^ ^^ Horseshoe Valley Rd ,° 6.20 Horsed :ot Valley Rd _ 3L`6 •y-�' `t6b z 8.75 __,-' B.2i„ y ; 160• -y ping- TR r -- iS9 ...._ s_ 6.16 -•> 8 C4ili. < -- 123 _,-- -� *6:45-17:45 s 23 —� ' 9,731; ,_ i TV HRS. ;19.54 —i � tY67 y 19.23; Horseshoe valley 14 26 14S 245- Horseshoe Valley Rd 19.40 b »21 7.14- .» --- ' 30 '`- 171; c. 0 -> i 1 17.86 i._' 6,91; c- 0 -> 0 1— 201,,,,_,; i � #€t # #ttt # #t #t� # #ttttttfx # # :� 0 ; `s .. � 8.67_,_„ 11 1 t It File: 040083TC.V23 $ ;icy 404 oo /aff flaps x Hay.; 0400 Aq: 04 -08 -13 'till 406 onloff ramps ## tsxst# tt## t###f t #E # # # # #:xxxtt ##zttx # # # # #t # #ttft Date: 04101/03 - 04/ 02/ 04# tt#f# t # # # #E #tt ;t #ttE # #E # {ttt # # # # €Ett Tat :04/02/03 14 :00- 18:00 Us 04/02104 07 :00.11:00 044040 # #t #t #t# t # #t## € #t# :tts #fi�tt € t #x# #t#itttI #t #t# #t #ttt#t tt st#tt###t#s # # #tt{tt# #tttE # # # # # # ## xt #t €t # # #E # # # # ## # }# _ 2 :i 6c? gOC7 b S QtsC' * }iL�tif �� 5L1xH8� VAtI#wY� ��- 5�f ir1'l+��rZS► . S0'd 1 089950616 01 L80# Scz SItT SSUdWOO 01W dd Wd 10:t7 8002 NUr 172 `Ir;.y. �u: ��7�. _•`'Stir . •'i #R.sr. +"z• ..i•a` 'i, 'r. .f. �f ,}•".j '', -~ a,,.♦ /%��!s .fi�t+' ¢¢.n•�/}�iy jq�'.j/'��i jj:1.+'t•��:�(:./'^.1 �1,. �y. j�2� �`y/:�4a: •�,;,�.: `i, .; • `.0 i...i. •'J'1'�' .•• "•4, lr: �ii �>r71A�J.LL'i.1 V,Y' \il'11t�V l/iiD3+(V's l'3 r . l cation. ' . �692500031i1.,0000QQCi�f8" 4692504003 0400 Rq: 041- 08--13 Turning Movement e Interval 15 F e,: Dates Tue 04/02/03 to Wed, 04/02/04 Classification Data CLAS8IFICATIOX SUMMARY FOR TOTAL VEHICLES PIRIOD DATE Hsi A"cFEACB SOUT1�UPRUCH #8SY APPIOACS _ _ °fE30065 4BFP SIGST bSF? 11CN7 TE10cGS 04102103 1400 33:._.._.0:1 13= 2z�a__.__,�_____ 14:15 It 0� 3 3# 1 -13 14:13 j 10 0 14 3 � 3 19 0 � 27 Saut Ta �1 #07 100 ..... ..�.. rw._ .___._.._..,....... -------------- ___� _ix------ --- - --__� - - ---3 ,......... f_ 15:15 13 21 1 -5w� 12 15:30 29 11 .1 z iw local 15:0}0 _ t 1 "3 Z ; BQ 1� 1 it 5# ib'45 i 29 ? y 31 1a a 2l Hour 1ata_16:0Q # 117 4 1 112 29 ; 23 25 . _r______________+___ ---- ..-- -� 03/02103 1 :00 � 23�_�_____ _7��_ ____ -- 42 5 31 3 4 21 r: it;45' 25 2 1 coot Yatal 17 :00 1 .4 159 S i 151 26 i ;Q E9 �QItQQ---------------------------------------- _ 360�.. w... ------ 2 _...... 7........... 47118 j 58 1 1Q 4 1 12 Z2 45 1 .1 0 1 18 5 6 19 tour fota :07,00 , 201 1 41 19 , 18 75 0 #Jt12�0 --- -: ----- --------------------- - - - - -- - -.55 - _.___10______ w3w..,..2Z 2 53 Q } 5 4 22 3 1 26 08:45.', + 37 0 13 11 4 17 lour y ;at51 0800 157 1 ; 51 12 1 12 89 o to2l� Q a � y 7l_ €l ..... ...... ..�.�,.w_...4._____-- __-------- Q9,15:: 30 21 1S 51 2 13 09:'36 29 f 1 1 12 i '3 i 14 lou# 9atal- 9'a40 ; 1 12 6 59 ;l 1 e 70 i ................ .........._..,._...r..�...w.... .._« rr.+..._..__„_€..___.. ......._r.w,.,..,.._._w.wr_.... ' 22 1 31�w 1 2 1}' 10;3 29 S 12 iQQ Z, 34 2 1 7 i 3 8 noun Total.; '• 1 117 5 1 55 4 13 Sf 1105 129 114 55 ' 311 j ' �. ��tx .:,i:l,•tfy�yr.�c:r'1:��y.xLi }.`,-; '`.'; •.',.i,..,.: 7 rins��xs�t "nhniirin'rires ALAi1CAkKAAn t70 ' d I ZZ0899S06 I 6 01 460t, 602 9117 SSUdW00 O.LW 8.3 Wd 16 :0 8002 NUr hE i ) r. s3tAl l2 v.ED Y " i 3 •3C7 ' �; • (Please Cirdej E�� It Intersection is unelgrolized, show the size of the stop signs. �s cm. X cm. K t'+0\ •f . IT �► . "�, INDICATE LOCATION & DIRECTION OF MTO VEHICLE (NkMM y v♦a ♦t +� �'1 .Q i j T4 N s E w • Yi "1'i r • I. i' • ... •'�7i� • ,�, • (ice {y . • • • .. 1 � ��• ... • y ► .�rWrww.•ar•ww i 17 't= i:`.SOit ^~ .. : • • = - .. .sra.. "..�W,�ayti•N... • : a.. a'!'i .•'. ' i • •al.';p: a !•,...+. '�. s.r;7,'a�...�.aC� � �' . F'tid }�IL'w'r•..'4st: Y:..�'ti. �t }. ♦ .a .r.��. �•,rt•� +•.. • • ' - • •.. ••� `'III µ � �•.�,•� 1��...J+.�g++i.K •�'� �wa+1+ir.V. Show all lanes approaching r • ' `'f `' ` �a�» 6s„�► $< and leaving the intersection. .� :.`• ---' •Y,•.'jC .. •r V • .�. a.r• .�.. Show all Channelization, If there are two or more -. <. . thrQugh lanes irt•one :_ ; .•, , , 0-40tion. indicate if x,:., T::. ' . .` `._�, ; . • '�: L is lanes are not continuous. - '�4'.t �`"• !`; "t Snow pedestrian crosswalks. �`� '��- ;" ;'F►�;�- .+•� -' _ u d t22e8s9S0096 O!. 4.s0v sea SIP SSVdWOO 01W 6J Wd 2e:a 8002 Nur b2 � �YKlWi��l:�i:yui.f - - • L Y DAVE - _Eem, \ kn C�,_,... DAY IVI a,.N W WEATHER O OBSLRVER - sh y1a RE: :ZEST # YQd TFR # 23 Fite # GRETCH CODE (tHRS) k o c:s 7 LOCATION --�4� 5 �" t+Z �HH .$ P PAMPS 5 3 n n� ?�9Ets: " O For s: T To ws.y�A COMMENT$ W S Sr A 4rh P . 1 G• b b rn a gg_+ ovomvj P PM PCMC ra 49er 9400 p.g•115r . J JOSCO TO pa Off F FepoM fl¢3¢¢4¢fV_TdM SEGMENT t • AM or (Please Circle) a a ro P Pratased by: lr2:4 ) (Please Cirdej E�� It Intersection is unelgrolized, show the size of the stop signs. �s cm. X cm. K t'+0\ •f . IT �► . "�, INDICATE LOCATION & DIRECTION OF MTO VEHICLE (NkMM y v♦a ♦t +� �'1 .Q i j T4 N s E w • Yi "1'i r • I. i' • ... •'�7i� • ,�, • (ice {y . • • • .. 1 � ��• ... • y ► .�rWrww.•ar•ww i 17 't= i:`.SOit ^~ .. : • • = - .. .sra.. "..�W,�ayti•N... • : a.. a'!'i .•'. ' i • •al.';p: a !•,...+. '�. s.r;7,'a�...�.aC� � �' . F'tid }�IL'w'r•..'4st: Y:..�'ti. �t }. ♦ .a .r.��. �•,rt•� +•.. • • ' - • •.. ••� `'III µ � �•.�,•� 1��...J+.�g++i.K •�'� �wa+1+ir.V. Show all lanes approaching r • ' `'f `' ` �a�» 6s„�► $< and leaving the intersection. .� :.`• ---' •Y,•.'jC .. •r V • .�. a.r• .�.. Show all Channelization, If there are two or more -. <. . thrQugh lanes irt•one :_ ; .•, , , 0-40tion. indicate if x,:., T::. ' . .` `._�, ; . • '�: L is lanes are not continuous. - '�4'.t �`"• !`; "t Snow pedestrian crosswalks. �`� '��- ;" ;'F►�;�- .+•� -' _ u d t22e8s9S0096 O!. 4.s0v sea SIP SSVdWOO 01W 6J Wd 2e:a 8002 Nur b2 11 � -' ~ignalized.. DIRECTIomAL"TRAFFIC FL4w ;bay 440 on /a €€ ravy 4 924 - 111 23 Horsthae Valley Rd 747' lis4 11173 rti _ Tx COURT c -- 8011 -�- r` 1049 _E ALL MIME ' 2442 9orse6oe Valley Rd 888 -' 15:43 29 Misr, 2004 Htp 440 o & /a €€ rig _~ 142 31 0 Sorseltae Valley Rd r r r i I27 -- d11Pt- TX �- r_ 114 41:30 -08:30 384 larsehae Valley Rd 121 -1 #t Mott # t# tit Moot tt #tt4 ;Ft #t #t #t#ttt###t#tt##i� ,Hay 400 oalo„ raop , #Hay 400 onloff rasp it s Ot #F # # # # # #t # # #t # #t # # # #t #ttt #ti"� <- 4 -> ,- 194 51 5 Horschot Valley Rd ,- 1.52 31.99 13.04 Horsebos Valley Rd i i « 361 �22 _i � i_ 110_ 213 _t 8,31 111.41_3 <_' + -> i.. 3.751,,, 9.15 r PI1PR- TX - ~" "i_ , t $.44 - -� % COXX. < -- 5,44 F_ 114 _� 15:15 »17:13 --, 425 _;— TX IRS. lots -shoe Valley Rd IS3•, Hors aae Valley Rd o t File: 440000TC.911 ; V # Hwy.: 0400 Rg: 04- 4 »04 3 4 Date: 04145115 - 44 /43 /15t#tti:ttt:3#r #: ## tit # ### # # # # # # # # #ittFrFrstFiti: ## t TV : 04/02%16 1 = :00- 18:003 i Hts 04142/11 01:00.11 :401 k t#tt# tit##;# Ft### t tit # #ttit # #tttt# #Ft# # # MUM # # #t #t4it # It* # Ott# t## t# tt$ tt$## 4tF### ti #titttiti#t #t #$ #i#$t # #$t$tt # ## ##1111 ##$ 459250000HI000000CM8 4692500007 4dwYftC@'E44&sVcurtv,tu#u W 5;?33Pah /rid tiAAn Sold 1 22089990616 01 L6017 GCZ 9117 SSUdW ©a 01W 6J Wd 28:0 8002 NOr VZ I �-WaDUd 1U101 ME 4m ary pro u ed a A': 4Ei =P aii Aug` 3 8%t14 5y i1@ i'I \.>D1T2004 \TMC\0400BGTC.M11 ,ocati:on. : ,4592513000H1,00000OCM8 4692500007 r h *ay, 04tia' Rq 04— 4 -00 �'urning. Movement e Interval 25. ' ^1e Dates z � Mein 04/02/16 to Tue 04/02/17 Classification Data CLASSIFICATION SUM14ARY FOR : TOTAL VEHICLES »: ysa�ar�c»---- �, �__.._.:....«__..__________--: catz ^a�ax::reca�ar «:'. ^.�zac:z-c,r: ASS APMAQ ii$Si kPPR01ci DATn SiAi;i x1Cui U11 i1cif 1,910t{u4 gBSD6Gfi -- ----- -- ---- -ate 13 0 23 i2 ! 11.30 2 14:45 4 21 -2 I7€ 2 coal Total 11:06 i3 3 1 y3 92 1 _--- _- _.,__ - - - -_ - -_--_ ' s -- j= ir4 {oaf :b 1�:6a 3 , , � »________i____ ... __ 17 30 i 1 t° #- t ( t7 3 ott i . Hits � 3 1 14 ,26 1 1 23 1? I ozal iic46 041e72{i6 16;1#0 Y 96 _ _...____ _�___ _ ______+_!__.- __- ��_____ ---.____________-- _-- _--- ____- ____--- ---- -_:,_6 16:15 9 o f �2 29 1 1 24 M30 36 3 1b:55 6 3 25 42 41 ion Total 64{02 {16 1167::0640 30 - 151 I s it, 24 ----- ----------------- --------._.........___--------.---------------------------7 --- 22 j# 17:15 3 01 12 55 1 ' zy y1 ?7:3L0 +40 1 q24 3t1 1 1 7g � -i'S'+ . •1! �':it� 1L i 1 Ll .lei 2 . I 10131 17:60 2€ 1 E9 i:4 1 ry -------- - - - - -- - - -- ' 159 i4 64{62,17- 6r— ._....�« ..._ _.___1�_________F____________ _« »__- _— _- __-- __- _- _-- ___ -15- » 00- ; 1 07., 5 ' 0 0 €6 18 07,30 s_ 47:45 b " ( 41 35 1 1 35 10 :.foul cowl 07:66 16 0 ; ;47 48 ! 108 41 �t�1_ __------------------ _ ---------- 4- __-- _— _— _— _— _2— _r- « ------ 30 �i.'a:. .•. 6a:1�. ': 9 61 35 25 27 14 1 08:30 b 1 t it 24 ! i . 08:45 1€ 01 27 is 1 1' 19 �9 ibt r Total 48:60 40 123 3S ; t 1:1 0 04 --- -- --- - --- .............. ________i---------------------------- _..__-___-__-__---_---- ------- __- _-- _-2's_.,..___ 09:15 * 6 2 15 i7 ' 1 31 S I la 2 • ' 09145. € 0 1 IE iiur Rota1 89:00 1� s3 74 2 , � • � 89 04102 {ii • 10:60";.. '` 6 6 s 13 6 10 3 ?10:15'` 5 4; 5 16 ! T 6.30' 6 4 s. 17 16 i fi0t1I 1Otal 10:p0 21 6 ; s3 8c 1 7 77 12 _-Y}1'A1F -• ':••� }: " 177 23 717 847 . .... .... .... »�____________ -8Sy_ - - ---- -- . --.-. F:. :•'_•- '",'•— — »ZO;r t— M:= II3S= 3LSS`. LiZS9as2Z3tLit= 3SSx�aaaas-------------------------------- _..._ ------------- ..._____.._.__._..--- i.0'd 182089990616 01 460V 902 91P P. , SSUdW08 OiW 83 Wd 28 =O 8002 NUf 02 11 I I Detailed Level of Service Analysis Worksheets I 11-11 HCM Average Control Delay 12.5 HCM Level ofService 8 HOM Volume toCapacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) G&U Sum cUlost time (s) 120 Intersection Capacity Utilization 4i.796 �ULe�|uf Service A Anakm�Puhodkn�\ � 15 o Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 County Road 22 & County Road 93 16/0112008 4 } Lane Configurations Vi T+ T+ T+ T+ Volume (vph) 54 200 41 17 205 47 55 51 18 20 45 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 190 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time hd 60 6.8 6.0 6.8 6.0 60 6.0 6.0 Lane U0.Factor 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rf 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1^00 896 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0,95 1.OD 0.95 1.O0 �AS 1.U0 H5 1� OO / 8atd. Flow(pm0 1805 1792 1530 1782 1805 1825 1885 1786 Fit Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.59 1.00 01 1.00 0.0 1.00 Peak-hour factor, PMF 0.87 0.87 ON 0,87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0i87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow kmh> 62 230 47 20 236 54 63 SS 21 23 52 24 RTOR Reduction (xph) O 12 O 8 14 0 8 13 O 0 15 0 h Lane Group Flow h,�' . 62 266 O 20 270 U 63 67 U 23 61 O Protected Phases 4 8 2 8 ' Permitted Phases 4 8 2 O Actuated Green, G(s) 2G.0 26.0 26.0 26.8 220 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, 9(m) 26.O 26.0 28.0 260 22.0 220 22.0 22.0 Actuated mkCRatio 843 0,43 0.43 0.43 0.37 0.37 R37 0.37 MIN Lane Grp Cap (vph) 470 777 408 772 493 669 491 655 ws Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.16 0.04 0.83 � | ws Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 oO.OS 8.03 wtRuUo 0.13 034 0.05 0.86 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 10.2 11.3 9.8 11.4 12.6 12.6 12.2 125 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 12 0.2 13 0.5 O.8 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 10,8 126 10.1 12J 13.2 12,8 124 127 Level ufService B B 8 8 8 B 8 8 | � Approach Delay kJ 12.2 12.5 13i0 12.7 Approach LOS B B B B HCM Average Control Delay 12.5 HCM Level ofService 8 HOM Volume toCapacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) G&U Sum cUlost time (s) 120 Intersection Capacity Utilization 4i.796 �ULe�|uf Service A Anakm�Puhodkn�\ � 15 o Critical Lane Group Existing 1G0��8O8 ~ Hour Symdne7- Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: County Road 22 & County Road 93 16101/2008 MovdmenC � 1 -, L � EBT� EBR WBL: EBL: WBT, � W-88, NSL::�� NBY--.NBB 'W q;;T Lane Configurations T+ T+ Volume (vph) 83 557 41 82 473 111 62 90 81 99 78 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Fri 11.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.94 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 R95 1.00 OM 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prat) 1805 1823 1530 1781 1805 1765 1805 1763 Fit Permitted 0.27 1.00 0,26 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.63 1.00 Said. Flow (perrn) 518 1823 421 1781 1255 1765 1206 1763 Peak-hour factor, PHF 017 0.87 0,87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 640 47 94 544 128 71 103 93 114 90 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 14 0 0 54 0 0 41 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 683 0 94 658 0 71 142 0 114 Ill 0 Heavy Vehicles 0% 3% 50/6 18% 4% 2% 0% 00/a o% o% 2% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perin Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 a 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32,0 16,0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 16.0 16.0 1&0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0,27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Thels) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 972 225 950 335 471 322 470 v1s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.37 0.08 0.06 V/S Ratio Perm 0.18 0.22 0.06 C0.09 Vic Ratio 0.34 0.70 0.42 0.69 0.21 0.30 0.35 0.24 Uniform Delay, dl 8.0 10,4 8.4 10.4 17.1 17.5 17.8 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 4.2 5.6 4.1 1.4 1,6 3.0 1.2 Delay (s) 11.4 14.7 14,0 14.5 18.5 19.2 20,8 18.4 Level of Service B 8 B 8 B B C 8 Approach Delay (s) 14.3 14.4 19.0 19.4 Approach LOS B B n We rsect.on Summa y I . . .: I I I . . I �' ' .q .: HCM Average Control Delay 15.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.51/10 ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2027 PM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 16/0112008 %user _name% Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: County Road 22 & County Road 93 16/01/2008 --* --0- --,, f- -*-- *-- -4\ IMv e nt:: EBL EST EBR :..- WBL WBT WBR NK NBT NBR : SBL SBT. SBR Lane Configurations I T+ T+ T+ I T+ Volume (vph) 95 601 50 86 518 121 74 101 85 103 88 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 Lane MI. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.94 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said, Flow (prat) 1805 1821 1530 1782 1805 1769 IM 1764 Fit Permitted 0.23 1,00 0.22 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.62 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 430 1821 347 1782 1236 1769 1186 1764 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0,87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0,87 ON 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 017- Adj. Flow (vph) 109 691 57 99 595 139 85 116 98 118 101 68 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 14 0 0 51 0 0 40 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 743 0 99 720 0 85 163 0 118 129 0 Heavy Vehicles 0% 3% 5% 18% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% o% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8' 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 16.0 16.0 MO 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 16.0 16.0 16,0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 971 185 950 330 472 316 470 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.40 0.09 0.07 v1s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.29 0.07 C0.10 We Ratio 0.48 0.77 0,54 0.76 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl H 11.0 9.1 11.0 17.3 17.8 17.9 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 5.7 10.7 5.6 1.9 2.0 3.4 1.4 Delay (s) 15.7 16,8 19,8 16.6 191 19.8 21.3 18.8 Level of Service 8 8 B 8 B B C B Approach Delay (s) 16.6 17,0 19,6 119.8 Approach LOS 8 B B B Intersection Summary:: HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2027 PM Peak Hour - Alternative 2 1610112008 %user_name% Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 c Critical Lane Group 2027 PM Peak Hour - Alternative 3 16101/2008 %user�_name% Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: County Road 22 & County Road 93 16/01/2008 Movement: 'NBT EBL' E-13T.' EW' . WBL.:; : WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL: SBT .' SBR Lane Configurations T+ I T+ Vi T+ I T+ Volume (vph) 127 719 74 96 638 149 107 131 96 115 114 71 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) ZO 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 too 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri. 1.00 0,99 1.00 0.97 1.00 OM 1.00 0.94 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 IM 0.95 11,00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (proQ 1805 1816 1530 1782 1805 1780 1805 1769 Fit Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.45 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 195 1816 165 1782 1045 1780 852 1769 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0,87 0.87 0,87 OW 0,87 0.87 ON ON 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) 146 0 826 5 85 0 110 0 733 11 171 0 123 0 151 35 110 0 132 0 131 30 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 906 0 110 893 0 123 226 0 132 183 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 5% 18% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 00/a 2% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45,0 39,0 45.0 39.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Wo Effective Green, g (s) 45,0 39.0 45.0 39.0 16.0 16,0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 OM 0.60 0.52 0.21 0.21 011 0.21 Clearance Times 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6,0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 246 944 208 927 223 380 182 377 vis Ratio Prot C0.05 0.50 0.04 c0.50 0.13 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 027 0.12 C0,15 We Ratio Uniform Delay, dl 0,59 13.9 0,96 17.3 0.53 13.8 0.96 17.3 0.55 26.3 0.60 26,6 0.73 0.49 27.5 25.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 incremental Delay, d2 10.1 21.1 9.3 21.9 9.5 6.7 22.1 4.4 Delay (s) 24.0 38.3 23.2 39.2 35.8 33.3 49,6 30.3 Level of Service C D C D D C D C Approach Delay (s) 363 37.5 37.7 Approach LOS D D .34.1 C D Intersection Summary: HCM Average Control Delay 36.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2027 PM Peak Hour - Alternative 3 16101/2008 %user�_name% Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 a M,,iy 212008 By Facsirrifle Transinission and Courier Bruce Hoppe. MCH', UP Director of 1 nilding & Planning Senjices Fownship of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 SOLIth, Box 100 Oro, Ontario 1-01- 2XO Dear- Nit Hoppe: "n refc-,,r io: John M.. tr z Re: Craighurst as Corp. Parts of Reg. Plan 91, Part of Lots 41 & 42, Concession 1, E.P.H. (formerly Township of Medo eat e) Community of Craighurst Townstiip of Oro-Medonte I would like to take ffie opf)OIWI-iitti to illtrOdUCC, to (,,ouncill, Staff and residents Gc(?rariiurn Corporation. They have a PIOLId history of creating qr,lalitt) developnimits WrotighoLri, Ontario, Gwranitirn has recently beconie partners with ihc locally known Sindoll farnil", for the developnient of [he €Above r-ioted lands y I-the lAnds") hi he Arrarriiinify of Craighrin-st, Cr�-rightirst I and Corli, will have canige of t1his developinum vipjAkatirmi by this newilky formed corripany, I alf" a'dvised tha", oil Mcly It', - ), <-00' ( , -"taighn-a-st Land were f(ol'tunirte to have inxi die or4mounity to morl with Tc'rwnsl,.,ip staff indtidling .qora-Self. Nick AdcDonaW Will "A(""ridii-m (as Me Wcomww") pli'ini and Dong Tili- ar,,-; Toilh--,rr I htbicki (as fl-w engb,,eer sli pt)oft i rig the iniegrated FA), tt is ("',-'-aighurst 'Land (,,orp,�s ijiulem-tanchng Wt a axondary r1an process Or Craij,11-itirst is well rt ride l-way , and they wish to i'c-affirni their llbelief in an c)pen, transparent �rrl('J co-operalive prixess. To further that pt-ocess, Cfaightirsf t-and xffl sooll be ski'mmit-firig to A? -,-Apr.-,Iicaficw` s Bare vioi,.Ay stibi-nine d (ml the t-ancls. (hayl-lunt I And (Nap. MH inmx1rive heir tjrhan dc-siqnei-, `),even Winviner and �AfChit(?CtUral control lc,'-,d"'!r' (3)�-117y' W"<:Arc-hc)rn, both, of MB'I"'Al Watchorri, an m-ban desyjarchiteaum! Finn, and Maria Gi.',itzios of (,Iatzios Plarrnin=j + Development Consultants Inc.. their planning firm. F" } l ca�C' C The forthcc::)Irlint� revisions wilt affed tf"rr> Januaiv 29., 2003 0ffici al Plan Arnendryient, Zoning By -lakk Arrlenc: rnerr and (sr xff. Plan of t kjc:livi re i af)r Iic" .ti arras cuIren ly can file, ;, +rite the trirmi<ipall following CraicghUrst Land corp "s (.lisc.i,,s` ions with V()x I, ihey ore op till) istic that a fresh approach to this j)rc7l)C?SEII Will SeIVC US MA in= C)1eetinq Our comr-nitnient to work with Council, staff and residents, , \ "e taJd ()ire tilt' opportunity €liat this {.l£'sJelopiT1ent ;.)r('sents, 1. u ��1��) encourage ,)on to contract tlac, Project Manager, Shauna l :)rit:lding, or the Vice President of Land Development, Cheryl Shindrul, Fours truiv, John M. Alan C copy: Mr, Floyd sinton Mrs. Barb Sinton Mr. Strati `)infon Mr, lX3l°'uirt Vella, lnrlovrAive Plaril`ltrlg "3otuOic -'ris ms" .. ac I. }l %4 Ir`i i)`u v! s .i °n � Cpl` }_1(}rili3C3tt ms, { " ";3s" Gallia Subject: Remuneration of Planning Advisory Committee Members At the beginning of the term of the current Council, a request went out seeking public representation on the Planning Advisory Committee. Applications were received and in January 2007 letters • appointment went out. During the interview process it was indicated to the candidates that mileage and a per them of $75 would be received for each meeting. Subsequent • this appointment and without the knowledge of or discussion with the appointees, Council proceeded to amend the By-law (# 2004-124) which established these rates and by means of By-law # 2007-20 passed on Feb. 14 th 2007 and further by By-law # 69 passed on June 27th, 2007, established new rates for all existing committees at a per them of $40 except for the Committee of Adjustment which remained at the previous rate of $75. It was also noted that Council members receive per them of $75 for all committee meetings. I • The first issue of concern to PAC is the lack of communication and/or discussion of the intent to revise the per them rate. The rates were revised after the interview and appointment process and there was sufficient time for appropriate dialogue. The second issue of concern is the lack of specific notification of the rate change to the committee members affected either of by-law #2007-20 or the further by-law #2007-69. As there is no staff report or other background to this decision posted on the website it is difficult for us to understand the rationale behind this change. In the absence of this rationale, certain negative messages can be speculated on: kk LZ1*;XVrM1V*. HAMMOOMENSISIM CIO =110=10 0 laoJIM111012 *BM • Does Council rate the value of the work • the Committee • Adjustment at almost double that of the PAC? With respect to item a), it is our contention that the reason Council has a Planning Advisory Committee at all is to provide a perspectiv • planning issues that individual councilors are unable to provide either because of their lack of technical background or by political constraints. You have presumably sought out and appointed qualifie public representatives to fill that gap. To think otherwise is to cast u in the role of being the "token" public input to somehow legitimize council decisions. I With respect to item b), indications are that the work of PAC is most important to the Council as evidenced by the fact that it is the only public committee that all of council has chosen to be part of. It is further evidenced in the staff report of Dec. 11/06 to Committee of the Whole where it says "Planning Advisory Committee could focus on the broader development applications and review of more complex types of applications". Financial Implications: Using last year as an example, there were 28 public member per diems paid. Therefore the extra cost for 2007 to implement this recommendation would be 28 x $35 = $980. Assuming there are no absentees, the maximum per meeting additional cost for this and future years would be $175/meeting or, on a yearly basis (assuming we don't have too many cancelled meetings), less than $1500. The Planning Advisory Committee has been recruited from a pool of talented local citizens who have agreed to devote their skills to the objective of long range planning in the municipality. There is a requirement for the municipality to update its' Official Plan every 5 years and it is therefore important that examination of the latest planning and technological advances be brought to bear on this exercise in a continuing manner. This requires not only review • complex planning applications but also assessing what the vision of the township should be and what direction should #® formulated to achieve that on. ITS :10161 I'll 1_1 Wmp= It is recommended that 1. That this report be received by Council and 2. That Council passes the appropriate by-law to re-establish the rate of per them for members of the Planning Advisory Committee to $75 for the entire term (4 years) of their office. Respectfully submitted by the following PAC members: Tom Kurtz Dated:.. ated: Re. Craighurst Secondary Plan: Planning Advisory Committee U(A- Owner Woodside Pottery and Gallery Craighurst 0