The URL can be used to link to this page

05 26 2004 COW Agenda TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA DATE: WEDNESDAY , MAY 26, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. ROBINSON ROOM ************************************************************************************************ 1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. DEPUTATIONS: None, 5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Jim & Helen Mepham, correspondence dated May 18, 2004, re: Plan 709. b) Peter & Linda Mepham, correspondence dated May 18, 2004, re: Plan 709. c) Christine Chapman, correspondence dated May 18, 2004, re: Plan 709. d) Gayle Wood, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, correspondence dated May 10, 2004 re: New Brand Identity for Conservation Ontario. e) George Vadeboncoeur, CAO/Town Clerk, Town of Penetanguishene, correspondence dated May 3, 2004 re: West Nile Virus Control Program. f) Coldwater & District Curling Club, correspondence dated May 10, 2004 re: Annual Report. g) Catherine Dowd, Chair, Orillia Public Library Board, correspondence dated May 12, 2004 re: Contract for Library Service. 6. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE: a) Report No. FD 2004-6, Joe Casey, Fire Chief, re: Monthly Fire Report, March, 2004. b) Report No. ADM 2004-024, Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Oro-"tvtedonte History Association Restructuring (to be distributed at the meeting). '~~< c) Chris Carter, Recreation Co-ordinator, re: Applications for GranUSubsidy (deferred from May 12, 2004 meeting). 7. PUBLIC WORKS: a) Report No. PW 2004-04, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Speed Limit Reduction - Line 12 North. b) Report No. PW 2004-05, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Line 15 North from Sass Lake Sideroad to Hwy. 12 - Request for Non-Truck Route. 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: a) Report No. EES 2003-33, Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services re: Janet Carol Howard - Site Plan Agreement - 97 Brambel Road - Lot 11 , Plan 819, Being all of PIN # 58556-0115 (Lt). 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: a) Report No. PD 2004-21, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Removal of Holding Provision - 97 Brambel Road (Howard). b) Report No. PD 2004-22, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Zoning By-Law Amendment for Detached Accessory Buildings in the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone. c) Report No. PD2004-23, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: New Development Charges Background Study and Draft By-Law. d) Report No. PD 2004-24, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Area Specific Development Charge for Shanty Bay. e) Report No. PD 2004-17, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: 1452711 Ontario Limited, Concession 7, Part of Lot 1, West Part of Lot 2, RP 51 R-23787, Part 1 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte. .. f) Committee of Adjustment, minutes of May 13, 2004 meeting. 10. IN-CAMERA: a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Legal Matter. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 2 ADDENDUM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Wednesday, May 26,2004 6. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE: d) Report No. TR 2004-16, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Tax Exemption -Royal Canadian Legion Branch 619. May 18,2004 .5'~ The Mayor and Councillors, The Township of Oro-Medonte Re: Plan 709 We have just learned of the decision to return our funds for the purchase of that part of Block A in front of our home. We are very disappointed. Further, it is distressing when in-camera sessions produce announcements without explanation. Our offer to purchase was made in good faith. In the absence of any reason to withdraw from it, we respectfully decline to do so. In the meantime, thank you for your strong efforts to conclude the difficult and divisive Plan 709 negotiations. Thank you for your consideration. Jim & Helen Mepham 1 Greenwood Forest Road Lot 42 (905)826-3640 \. ,.. Tuesday, May 18, 2004 j-( hk ,).L) Your Worship and Members of Council, Re: Plan 709 ... Early last week we were elated to think that there was finally going to be a resolution to the ongoing problems regarding the portion of Block A abutting the waterview residents' homes. Then, after the Council meeting on Wednesday, we were infonned that Jennifer Zieleniewski had been instructed to return our money, and that Mr. Hughes had found a solution to the situation (according to the newspaper). Having lost the original court case, the waterview residents got together to try to come up with a workable, reasonable solution or compromise that would be fair to all. After discussing at length all possible and impossible ideas we believe we found that solution; one that is fair and equitable to everyone. We want to purchase the strips of land in front of our homes as initially agreed upon, except that we are willing to take title of them complete with the right to access on foot for all residents of Plan 709. This solution works for everyone. The backlot owners retain their rights, the township can rid itself of the most contentious portion of Plan 709, and the waterview residents receive some small amount of control over what happens immediately outside our front doors. We consulted with our lawyer, Mr. C. Tzekas - who in turn discussed it with Mr. Morris and Mr. Williams; both of whom said it could be done. This would effect the "community solution" that I believed the township was looking for - at least in regard to the most controversial area. We have been infonned that Mr. Hughes has a "solution" to the Plan 709 situation. We are unaware of any new solution and have not been consulted with regard to input or advised of any discussions on this matter. Any type of "joint ownership" venture would not allow the waterview residents an equal say as we are hugely outnumbered by the backlot residents - and we would be most impacted by any decisions regarding the waterfront area. The only other solution we have ever heard discussed was the possibility of a public park; but that any responsible government would even consider placing a public park at the foot of someone's front door, placing them in jeopardy for their safety, and eliminating any possibility of privacy, astounds me. We ask that Township please follow through with the sale of the strips to the waterview residents as soon as possible. With closure on the most troublesome portion of Plan 709, perhaps dealing with the remainder would be simplified. ..( Thank you for your time and patience in dealing with this situation. Sincerely, Peter and Linda Mepham 17 Greenwood Forest Road FROM : MACMILLAN PHrn~ NO. 9053193963 ~w Ma~. 18 2004 01120PM P1 1447 Creekwood Trail Oakville, On L6H 6E6 5 Greenwood Forest Road May 18, 2004 Re: Plan 709 Your Worship and Members of Council I am disappointed to hear that an "in camera" meeting has taken place regarding Plan 709 after all the meetings that have been conducted by Jennifer Zieleniev....skj to keep things open. It was my understaniling that we had reached a fair and equitable solution through the lawyers for all parties concerned. The original intention of Council and the Township of Oro-Medonte was to relieve themselves of liabilities and issues related to Plan 709. 1 ask that TO'WTIship follow through with the sale of the strips of land to the waterview resisdents as soon as possible, then proceed with the remaining land. Respectfully Cluistine Chapman ~-\\~ ~~ By fax to Marilyn Pennycook 7054870133 SG 905.895' 1281 1.800.465.0437 905'853'5881 IiI: info@lsrca.on.ca I: www.lsrca.on.ca Bayview Parkway 282 vmarket, Ontario " 4Xl Leaders In Watershed Health May 10th, 2004 Ms. Marilyn Pennycook Clerk Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO Dear Ms. Pennycook: Re: New Brand Identity for Conservation Ontario ~J;( ~ I)d. - \ The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is pleased to introduce a new brand identity for Conservation Ontario - the umbrella organization that represents all of the province's 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs). The brand identity for the network of Conservation Authorities includes a statement of values, a revitalized logo and a new tagline. These symbolize what is at the heart of Ontario's Conservation Authorities. The brand identity gives voice and image to the characteristics that make us unique and serves as the face of the network of CAs that is Conservation Ontario. , Who we are - Natural Champions The new brand identity is unanimously endorsed by and built on the participation of all 36 Conservation Authorities across the province. It captures the spirit and essence of who and what the Conservation Authorities are as represented by Conservation Ontario. Conservation Authorities are committed to continue to: · Be a credible source of valued, science-based information, insight and intelligence; · Be a network of dependable leaders in and facilitators of sound natural resource management on a watershed basis; and · Be trusted implementers of successful programs and initiatives -from water quality protection, to flood plain management, to wildlife protection, to reforestation, to environmental education, to planning for sustainable growth, to operating about 250 Conservation Areas across the province. All of the above speak to the Conservation Authorities' presence- on the ground in our communities, in the policy and decision-making process, in the realm of education and recreation - and are anchored by an unwavering commitment to technical excellence. Ma-nbe' of ~ Conservation ONTARIO ~a~ .., .. ./2 ~J-~ New Brand Identity for Conservation Ontario May 1 Oth, 2004 Page 2 What does it mean to be natural champions? The new tagline embraces Conservation Ontario's overarching philosophy, action- orientation, and key organizational characteristics and attributes. Simply put, it reflects the commitment to champion (that is, be an advocate for) the public good in the context of all facets of Ontario's natural environment. This means: . Playing a leadership role in helping find balanced, sustainable approaches to meet today's challenges; Leveraging expertise and experience that make Conservation Authorities 'naturals' for this role - and building on their influence and successes to date; Bringing together and working with various groups in communities and across the province; and . . The natural champions orientation is all about working cooperatively and in partnership to realize shared aspirations. .' The new logo In updating the previous Conservation Ontario logo, the new one presents a more modern, dynamic and vibrant look for the organization - while appropriately honouring the past. As a visual shorthand, the logo embodies a number of key elements: different tree types, flowing water, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, the 'big C' (for Conservation) and the inset '0' (for Ontario). The blue and green emphasize the interrelationship between land and water. The overall look conveys a sense of balance, motion and fluidity. It has been described as both bold and inviting. The new brand identity for Conservation Ontario conveys who we are, what we do and how we do it. It tells our stakeholders and valued partners what values we hold as important and it presents a tangible symbol of our renewed commitment to excellence. Conservation Ontario and its member Conservation Authorities thank you for your interest in our new identity. Sincerely, D. Gayle Wood, CMM III Chief Administrative Officer/ Secretary-Treasurer L\ '1 f) G- - J Conservation ONTARIO Natliral Champions MEDIA RELEASE FOR RELEASE MAY 6, 2004 Conservation Ontario Launches New Brand Identity NEWMARKET -Conservation Ontario launched a new brand today that reflects their renewed commitment to providing the best service possible to the people of Ontario in managing the province's natural resources. "Our new brand, tagged Natural Champions, is a statement of our continued commitment to excellence in watershed management," said the Chair of Conservation Ontario, Peter Krause. "Conservation Authorities (CAs) have been in the business of managing natural resources in this province for almost 60 years," he said, "and are a natural choice to continue this important work, particularly in source protection planning." There are 36 Conservation Authorities located throughout the province. Conservation Ontario (CO) is their non-governmental umbrella organization. CAs are community-based environmental organizations that manage natural resources on a watershed basis in Ontario and are governed by locally elected and/or appointed representatives. The first Conservation Authorities were formed in the late 1940s. Almost 90 per cent of the Ontario population, or just over 10.5 million people, live in watersheds managed by Conservation Authorities. Conservation Ontario will promote the network's collective brand through CO's new website, at trade shows and conferences and through public relations campaigns. /2 ~J-'1 "This renewed brand embodies the promise of Conservation Authorities to the people of Ontario to continue providing programs and services that promote healthy watersheds," stated Richard Hunter, General Manager of Conservation Ontario. "It is a commitment to ensuring the quality of life we all want," he said. Conservation Authorities are legislated under the Conservation Authorities Act to safeguard the province's natural resources and ensure their future economic and environmental viability. While early efforts focused on the protection of people and homes from flooding and erosion, Conservation Authorities have a very broad mandate. Over the years, Conservation Authorities have addressed all aspects of watershed management including protection of water quality and quantity, afforestation, natural habitat, landowner assistance, environmental education and recreation. More recently, Conservation Authorities are taking an important lead role in source protection planning as recommended by Justice O'Connor in the Walkerton Inquiry in 2002. Conservation Authorities are the only agencies in Ontario organized on a watershed basis. - 30- For additional information, please contact; Jane Lewington, Communications & Marketing Specialist Conservation Ontario P.O. Box 11,120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket, ON L3Y 4W3 Email: jlewington@conservation-ontario.on.ca Tel: 905-895-0716, ext 22 Fax: 905-895-0751 www.conservation-ontario.on.ca Communications Conservation Aut to redesign thelbg6" refresh its look. ~it Co n.......s......?ryt!ti9 '~ uSeS ~ sy'" A responsibility a. and biodiversit Conservation Auth played in conservatioh in '1:,:(\ Natural ChampiO?$Yi,:5':" This tagline was chose~b~' articu lates the idea that Authori.ties are'na.. t.u'fa.> '.. ' ''''Jr.,.. f i.....'...? . .' Ions 0 our env~ronment. 'N.~tl.ltal't '. Othe'iiai~r~I' envtronm<:nt aswell as the 'natural i role of Conservation Autho~itjes to proteCt and advocate for the environment. The tagline also reflec,ts the 'leadership' role of Conservation Authorities. ~ Consetvation ONTARIO Na tUt'c1/.Chafi1pions . A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE Conservation ONTARIO Natural Champions What's new? Our look at Conservation Ontario has changed. The brand identity for the network of Conservation Authorities has been strategically redesigned to ensure that we are presenting and promoting Conservation Authorities in an enhanced way. Conservation Ontario represents and supports the network of 36 Conservation Authorities across Ontario. Our organization identifies opportunities and issues for Conservation Authorities, advocates collective positions and messaging, builds province-wide partnerships, and uses strategic communications to promote the of Conservation Authorities. An outcome of the Walkerton Inquiry in 2002, was Justice O'Connor's recommendation that Conservation Authorities were the 'natural' choice to coordinate one of the largest initiatives to affect water management in Ontario since Hurricane Hazel - source protection planning. Given this enormous responsibility, Conservation Authorities recognized that it was critical for Conservation Ontario to improve our communications about who Conservation Authorities are and what they do. The first step was to renew Conservation Ontario's branding. .' What Does Our New Brand Say? Conservation Authorities are committed to: . Being a credible source of valued, science-based information, integrity and insight; . Being a network of dependable, forward- thinking leaders in responsible watershed management; . Being facilitators that value and promote .stakeholder involvem~nt in decision making; . Being organizations who balance human, environmental and economic needs in arriving at decisions; and . Being trustedimplementers of successful programs and initiatives that get things done in the field. ~, ~ ntains a video clip ntario, watershed Conservation well as a Fact i$h~etlFr~CJu~ .. .......< Questions and a Media Release cmnouncing the new Conservation Ontario branding. <.Jt 0......... . ~iw r; e-\ TOWN OF PENETANGUISHENE 10 ROBERT STREET WEST MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 5009, Penetanguishene, L9M 2G2 TE:LEPHONE (70S) S49 - 74S3 FASCIMILE (70S) 549.3743 .., Re: West Nile Virus Control Program .,' May 3,2004 Deaf Municipal Clerk: The Council of the Town of Penetanguishene adopted the following recommendation at its meeting held April 28th: "That Council endorse the Town's participation in the West Nile Virus Control Program and that it seek the support of other Simcoe County Municipalities to make the program 100% financially supported by the Simcoe County Health Unit, as controlling the virus is a health issue." Enclosed is a copy of the Council report fOf your information. Could you please put this matter before your Council for consideration. In accordance with Council's direction I am sending a copy of Council's report to Simcoe County Municipal Clerks~ including the Clerks from the Cities of Barrie and Orillia requesting that they put this matter before their Council's for consideration. If you could let me know the disposition of this matter, it would be appreciated. Sincerely, i:~~ CAO/Town Clerk Enclosure c. Dr. George Pasut, Medical Officer of Health County of Simco~ REPORT #5.9- DEPARTMENT/FUNCTION: Transportation and Environmental Section CHAIR: Councillor Debbie Levy SUBJECT: West Nile Virus Control Program In 2003 the Town of Penetanguishene was a willing partner with the Simcoe County Health Unit in the implementation of Health Unit's West Nile Virus Control Program. The Town incurred approximately $13,000 in costs of which the Health Unit reimbursed 50%. The Health Unit is now in the planning stages of their 2004 program and the Town of Penetanguishene is prepared to assist again with larviciding and dealing with stagnant water. However, Section is of the view that the Simcoe County Health Unit should fund 100% of the West Nile Virus Control Program, as this is a health issue. Local municipalities are not mandated to fund health issues and financial and human resources are already stretched to the limit. The responsibility for funding health issues rests primarily at the Provincial level and at the upper tier through the Medical Officer of Health. We anticipate that the costs for the Town's participation in the 2004 program as outlined in the enclosed letter will again be approximately $13,000 (net $6,500). These are additional costs that the Town will have to tax for. Section feels that the residents of Penetanguishene should not have to pay for this program through their municipal taxes. Mosquitoes or infected birds do not fly strictly within municipal boundaries. West Nile Virus is a health issue and the cost to deal with it should be borne by the Simcoe County Health Unit. Section recognizes the constraints the County is under and encourages the County to pursue the Province for increased funding for health care issues that the Health Unit is required to deal with. It is unfair that the Province downloads health issues onto the County and then the County does the same to the local municipalities. In conclusion, Section is of the view that although Town staff will assist with West Nile Virus Control Program, the full cost of the program should be borne by the Simcoe County Health Unit, as it is a health program. It asks that Council support this position and seek the support of the other Simcoe County Municipalities. Recommendation That Council endorse the Town's participation in .the West Nile Virus Control Program and that it seek the support of the other Simcoe County Municipalities to make the program 100% financially supported by the Simcoe County Health Unit, as controlling the virus is a health issue. Respectively Submitted Councillor Debbie Levy, Chair Transportation and Environmental Section Date: April 28, 2004 ....:.. \ffi ~~~1t"w'm\ ~ SIMCOE COUNTY Iffi \'ill i1' ~ ?:;:~~;~';~e~~~~e~O~'~':~ L4M 6K9 ~I'F 1 61004 l't'OlsTR'C. c;~ - 3 April 8. 2004 MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH ' Dr. George Pasut TEL: 705~721-7330 FAX: 705-721-149. TOWN Of l PENETANGUISHENE " ! i ~ APR 1 (3 . 2004 . Mr. George Vadeboncoeur Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Town of Penetanguishene 10 Robert Street West, P.O. Box 580 Penetanguishene, ON L9M 1A1 Dear Mr. Vadeboncoeur: Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Simcoe County District Health Unit West Nile virus report for 2003. This report details the activities undertaken by the health unit and its municipal partners during last year's mosquito season and provides a template for the year ahead. The health unit has been actively planning and preparing the West Nile virus (WNv) control programs for 2004. As a result of the feedback from the municipal/health unit WNv workshop in December. 2003, an advisory group was created. consisting of representatives from several municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities and the health unit. The WNv Advisory Group has identified some key strategic areas, such as communications, operational issues, and education for special attention. The 2003 report provides guidance for actions in those areas. Additionally, issues listed below have arisen since the creation ofthe 2003 report and should be factored into the planning and decision making process for 2004. . MOSQUITO CONTROL - LARVICIDING i. Product . The health unit will purchase and distribute the larvicides for municipal use, as was the case last year. . The study of methoprene (larvicide) by the Ministry of the Environment, suggests that its effectiveness time after treatment is closer to 21 days versus the 30 days indicated on the product information label. . Anew briquette formula is currently undergoing the approval process and may be available for the 2004 application season. This new product will provide a longer residual effectiveness of 90 to 150 days. Further information will be provided as it becomes available. ii. Application Schedulina . The first treatment should be completed no later than June 25th, subject to weather conditions, to target the first emergence of Culex sp. from the catch basins. . It is anticipated that a notice will be issued to the municipalities to complete three treatments of larviciding over the season. . 3RANCH (Collingwood :)FFICES: 280 Pretty River Pkwy. L9Y 4J5 TEL: 445.0804 FAX: 445-6498 [ Midland 1156 SI. Andrew's Drive, Box 626. L4 R 4L3 TEL: 526.9324 FAX: 526.1513 [ Orillia 575 West St.. s. Unit 12. L3V 7N6 TEL: 325.9565 FAX: 325-2091 [ Cookstown 25 King SI., S.. Unit 2. LOL 1 LO TEL: 458.1103 FAX: 458-0105 ... . ..... .. Se-L}- -2- iiL Licensing · Licensed exterminators need to submit permit applications for Methoprene and BU as soon as possible to Terri Cordeiro, Regional Pesticides Officer, Ministry of the Environment. . The health unit will endeavor to secure a county-wide permit for application of BtL iv. Training · The health unit will organize and facilitate a one-day workshop for municipal staff to review WNv biology and key components of the techniciaf}/exterminator program. · Information for a self-study program to train additional municipal staff as certified technicians and licensed exterminators was distributed through the list serve in late March. SURVEILLANCE · Health unit staff will continue surveillance activities in birds, larvae, adult mosquitoes and humans. · Larval surveillance in storm water management ponds and natural sites will be enhanced in 2004. · Adult mosquito trapping will be enhanced in 2004. - STAGNANT WATER ISSUES · An individual at each municipality should be designated to respond to stagnant water issues in that municipality. · The health unit can coordinate responses with this individual to improve service to the public. · A series of FAQs prepared by municipal and health unit staff to improve communications and to provide consistent response to the public will be distributed in the near future. COMMUNICATION · A public education campaign, similar to 2003, will be implemented in 2004. Please feel free to contact either Brenda Armstrong, West Nile virus Supervisor (ext.489), or Marina Whelan, Health Hazards/Rabies Manager (ext. 345), if you have any questions regarding the program or the report, In closing, Iwould like to extend my appreciation to the municipal staff for their cooperation and assistance in completing the WNv program for 2003. Our combined efforts assisted in protecting the health of Simcoe County residents and increasing our knowledge base regarding WNv Yours sincerely, a'~ Pm . Jim Pfaff, CO, SSc, MHSc, Mo, oAvMed, AFOM Associate Medical Officer of Health ~ & ZJueua Curling Club 9 Michael Anne Dr., Box 226, Coldwater, OntarioLOK lEO (~- Mo...y t ~{01 ~l,O r)-\' - \ (70S) 686-3946 May 10, 2004 Mayor and Council Township of Severn P.O. Box 159 Orillia, Ontario L3V 6J3 Coldwater Curling Recreation Centre The Coldwater & District Curling Club which operates and manages the facility is pleased to present our annual report on the Status and Activities of the Coldwater Curling Recreation C€ntre. I would briefly like to highlight some of the achievements that have been accomplished by referencing the "Aims. Goals & Objectives" as outlined in our Charter (copy enclosed) . Registration continues to grow. This past year there were 263 registered curlers. (Our 5 year goal was 250). Fees remain the lowest in the area, allowing the sport to be enjoyed by families of all income levels. Free curling time complete with instruction from certified coaches is available to all area schools 3 mornings and 2 afternoons per week. Coldwater (Moonstone), Victoria Harbour, East Oro, and Reagent Park elementary schools; Patrick Fogarty and Park Street Collegiate High Schools took advantage of this opportunity this past year. The "Junior Rock" curling program completed its fourth year of successful operation.The program is at no cost to the participants and is conducted Monday & Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons. There were 32 youngsters under 12 years of age and 24 bantam age curlers. This year for the first time the bantam age curlers competed in OCA santioned bonspiels within Zone 10. All of the "youth programs" are financially supported from the proceeds of Nevada & Bingo lotteries. Day-Curling done predominately by seniors has become so popular that an additional curling opportunity is proposed for next year. The Coldwater community continues to receive national recognition created by the two World Class Curling Teams representing the Club and out-of-towners attending bonspiels provide an economic benefit to the community. The Coldwater Curling Club donated over $12,000 to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation raised at one of its bonspiels this past season. .. rr 0 ') \ - c::;;L ( 2 ) Enclosed is a Financial statement (Notice to Reader) prepared by an independent chartered accountant for the fiscal year ending June 30 2003. The Club is debt free. A Capital Reserve Fund has been established for the repair/replacement of the Building or refrigeration equipment. The Capital Reserve as indicated in the financial report is $84,000. Our goal is that it be a minimum of 10% of the value of the facility. Repairs, Renovations, Maintenance completed in 2003 1) The flat roof of the "old Public Works Garage" was replaced with new felt and tar. 2) The interior block walls of the curling facility were painted. 3) A filter was installed on the brine recirculation system. No Major Repairs or renovations are contemplated for 2004. These yearly reports are intended to keep the Township aware of the financial status and activities of the Coldwater Curling Recreation Centre as per the Municipal Capital Facility Agreement. The executive for 2004/2005 President: Don Whitfield Past President: Derek Rynard Vice President: Dennis McKee Secretary: Donna Athron Treasurer: Wendy Oakley Should you have any questions or concerns please contact us directly. ~c.c. Mayor and Council Township of Oro-Medonte Sincerely, ~~ Walter G. Dickie Treasurer (2003/2004) r"r ')\-' Coldwater & D.is.trkt Curling Club Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Association Aims, Goals & Objectives Our aim is to provide a facility and conduct activities, programs and events which are available to local residents at reasonable cost. Our objective in building and operating the Curling/Recreation Centre is to ensure that all individuals in the Community and surrounding area are given ample opportunity to participate in a broad range of community and recreation related activities accommodated within the centre. Our goal is to ensure that the building will be self-sufficient and remain viable and beneficial to the community into the long term. There will be programs which are integrated so that people of varying degrees of ability can participate and hours of operation which do not restrict participation. There will be policies which allow people of lower incomes to participate. There will be opportunity for youth programs provided at nominal or no cost to the participants. April 2, 2001 = Adopted and carried at the annual meeting of the Coldwater & District Curling Club. , ~ ~.. ,. ~: t't\~ '-i..\ \~j hI u I, - , J" j;. COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 (Unaudited) JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant i" r r- '" c h --'\ - ) COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB JUNE 30, 2003 CONTENTS Page NOTICE TO READER REPORT 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet 2 Statement of Income 3 Statement of Cash Flows 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-6 JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant ( .c_ \ (', J \ \D JAMESW. McCREADY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT PO. Box 182 288 King Street Midland, Ontario L4 R 4 K8 Tel: 705-526-5418 Fax: 705-527-0362 email jwm@cryston.ca 1 JAMES W. McCREADY Chartered Accountant 288 King Street Midland. Ontario .. L4R 4K8 705-526-5418 NOTICE TO READER To the Directors Coldwater & District Curling Club J have compiled the balance sheet of Coldwater & District Curling Club as at June 30, 2003 and the statements of income and accumulated surplus for the year then ended from information provided by management. I have not audited, reviewed or otherwise attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of such information. Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their pur oses. Midland, Ontario November 21, 2003 ; " . ) ~ /J. 7 ~ CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 1 COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB 5~ -l (Incorporated under the laws of Ontario) BALANCE SHEET AS AT JUNE 30, 2003 (Unaudited) 2003 2002 ASSETS CURRENT Bank - operating account $ 33,255 $ 12,945 Bank - general account 558 4.252 33,813 17,197 Guaranteed investments Certification (Note 4) 136,188 122,749 Due from Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Assoc. 745 669 Inventory 265 406 171,011 141,021 CAPITAL ASSETS (Note 5) 755,266 792.566 , $ 926.277 $ 933.587 LIABILITIES CURRENT Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 4,296 $ 5,124 Deferred advertising revenue (Note 6) 22.345 29.795 26.641 34.919 ACCUMULATED SURPLUS Balance, beginning of year 898,668 893,928 Net income for the year, per statement 968 4.740 Balance, end of year 899.636 898,668 $ 926.277 $ 933.587 APPROVED ON BEHALF'OF THE BOARD: ~::2 := CI SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2003 2 JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB 5r-~ STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 (Unaudited) 2003 2002 REVENUE Advertising Income $ 22,057 $ 20,230 Bar revenue 30,486 27,102 Bonspiel revenue 13,751 9,445 Curling registration 41,059 37,794 Donations 505 985 Ice rental 5,105 5,730 Fundraising revenue 15,099 18,728 Youth services 2,450 1,355 Gore Mutual event income 8,867 Other 8.498 6.106 139.010 136.342 EXPENSES Advertising and promotion 881 , 549 Bar expense 15,173 13,803 Bank charges 353 461 Bonspiel expense 4,990 1,663 Caretaking 889 3.468 Curling supplies 3,548 2,336 Fundraising expense 3,738 10,110 Ice making expense 12,936 12,760 General and administrative 1,027 1,190 Insurance 7,279 5,958 Management fees 8,500 6,000 Membership fees 3,689 2,360 Miscellaneous 4,547 2,828 Professional fees 2,800 2,800 Repairs and maintenance 3,575 9,838 Training expenses 59 2,535 Utilities 19,784 17,426 Gore Mutual event expenses 5,775 Youth services program 124 210 93.892 102,070 NET income prior to amortization and other income(expenses) 45,118 34,272 Less - amortization of club facilities (Note 5) 44 .150 44.032 Net Income (Loss) from Curling Club Operations 968 (9,760) Add(deduct) other income (expenses): Contribution from Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Assoc. 14,500 NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR $ 968 $ 4.740 SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 21,2003 3 JAMES W. McCREADY J Chartered Accountant COLDWA TER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB 5[ 0 \ - \ I STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 (Unaudited) 2003 2002 CASH FLOWS RELATING TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net income for the year $ 968 $ 4,740 Add: transactions not affecting cash Amortization 44,150 44.032 45,118 48,772 Changes in non-cash working capital components Accounts receivable (76) 9,535 Inventory 141 (406) Accounts payable and deferred revenue (8.278) (3.391 ) 36.905 54.510 CASH FLOWS RELATING TO INVESTING ACTIVITIES Increase in guaranteed investment certificates (13,440) (32,400) Expenditures on recreation facility and equipment (6.850) (20,233) (20.290) (52.633) INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH FLOWS, for the year 16,615 1,877 CASH, beginning of year 17.197 15.320 CASH, end of year $ 33,812 $ 17.197 SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2003 4 JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant .: COLDWA TER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB (r lA J-t'-- V NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 1. INCORPORATION The Coldwater & District Curling Club (CDCC) was incorporated March 14, 1985 under the Or;ltario Business Corporations Act. Under supplementary letters of patent dated November 26, 1994 the incorporation document was amended so that upon dissolution. of the corporation and after payment of all debts and liabilities, the remaining property shall be distributed or disposed of to charitable organizations or to organizations the objects of which are beneficial to the community. 2. MUNICIPAL CAPITAL FACILITY AGREEMENT Under an agreement dated December 9, 1999 between Coldwater & District Curling Club(CDCC) and the Corporation of the Township of Severn the Township conveyed certain properties to CDCC to be used for the express purposes of a curling rink, public recreation facility and community policing office. It was agreed that no municipal or school taxes would be levied on the property and the CDCC is to pay 5% of the costs incurred with regard to the maintenance of storm water management pond. Under the agreement the land and buildings revert to the Township May 1, 2019. 3. LEASE AGREEMENT Under a lease agreement entered into with the Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Association (CCBFA). The organization has leased its property to the C CBFA at a nominal rental rate, but subject to the provision of the "Municipal Facility Agreement" dated December 9, 1999 between the Coldwater & District Curling Club and the Corporation of the Township of Severn. 4. GUARANTEED INVESTMENT CERTIFICATES The guaranteed investment certificates have been designated for the following purposes: Prepaid Advertising $ 22,345 Operating Reserve 29,536 Capital Reserve 84.307 $ 136.188 5 JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant , , . COLDWA TER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB 5 f-~ l ) NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 5. RECREATION FACILITY Funds raised by the CCBFA through projects, donations, and grants have been utilized in the construction of a curling rink facility operated by Coldwater & District Curling Club and in the promotion of curling by young people in the area. The facility is recorded at known cost less GST rebates: 2003 2002 Clubroom $ 114,165 $ 110,757 Curling Building 509,453 509,453 Curling Rocks 32,874 32.8-74 Ice Making Supplies 11,706 8,264 Kitchen 16,736 16,736 Outside Services 26,378 26,378 Professional Fees 38,885 3~,885 Refrigeration Plant 92,377 92,377 Supervision 10,208 10,208 Township of Severn 33.632 33.632 886,414 879.564 Less-accumulated amortization (131.149) (86.999) $ 755.265 $ 792.565 Under the terms of the Municipal Capital Facility Agreement, the facility reverts to the Township of Severn in May, 2019. The facility is therefore being amortized on a straight line basis at the rate of 5% per annum. 6. DEFERRED ADVERTISING REVENUE As part of the fund raising activities, advertising within the new facility was- sold on the basis of a five year programme payable in advance. T he estimated value of advertising revenue relating to future years has been deferred in the accounts and funded by guaranteed investment certificates. 6 JAMES W. McCREADY, Chartered Accountant ORILLIA PUBLIC ~. pJ~'v .Ms -" U1J LY.rt'1 ",{- LIBRARY 36 Mississaga Street West, Orillia, Ontario L3V 3A6 · Telephone (705) 325-2338 · Fax (705) 327-1744 May 12,2004 s~- \ Memo to: Mayor and Council, Corporation of the Township ofOro~Medonte From: Catherine Dowd, Chair, OriIlia Public Library Board Re: Contract for Library Service We have received your offer for library service for the current year for the sum of $85,170. The Orillia Public Library Board believes that a multi-year contract will be in the best interest of both the library and your residents and we hope that you will consider this new offer which proposes an increase of 20/0 per year over three years. We ask you to sign on behalf of your municipality and send a signed copy of the contract back to the Orillia Public Library. The Orillia Public Library has extended our opening hours and added new services since the signing of the last contract and we look forward to serving the residents of Oro-Medonte. Sincerely, c~~ Catherine Dowd Chair, Orillia Public Library Board www.odiliapublicIibrary.ca CONTRACT FOR LIBRARY SERVICE s~,~~ ''.) AGREEMENT between The Orillia Public Library Board 36 Mississaga Street West Orillia, Ontario L3V 3A6 ("the Public Library Board") and The Township of Oro-Medonte P:O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO ("the Municipality) The Municipality and the Public Library Board agree as follows: 1.0 Description of Services: 1.1 The Public Library Board shall endeavour to provide, in cooperation with other public library boards, a comprehensive and efficient library service to the residents of the Municipality. 1.2 The Public Library Board shall operate a library open a minimum of 20 hours per week and shall not make a charge for admission to the library or for use in the library of the library's materials by the residents of the Municipality. 1.3 The Public Library Board shall allow the residents of the Municipality to: (a) Borrow circulating books; and (b) Use reference and information services as the Public Library Board considers practicable, without making any charge. 1.4 The Public Library Board may impose such fees as it considers proper for services not referred to in section 1.2 and 1.3. 2.0 ~d I) ,. '" J Public Library Board's Warranties: 2.1 The Public Library Board is a corporation duly established under the Public Libraries Act (RSO 1990. Chapter P44, as amended). 2.2 To ensure quality library service under this Agreement, the Public Library Board shall endeavour to: (a) Ensure that all materials are available for use outside the library except those used frequently for reference service, and rare and fragile items; b) Ensure circulation policies of greatest convenience to the user and maximum use of materials; (c) (d) (e) (f) (9) 3.0 Cost: Ensure that the selection of materials reflects the needs of the community as defined in regular community analyses and needs studies; Ensure that the information provided to public library users is accurate,' up-to-date and is coordinated with other appropriate organizations; , Ensure that all library facilities are accessible as defined by the standards of accessibility of the Ontario Building Code; Provide resources, programs and services to meet defined community needs; Provide a telephone in each of their facilities in order to ensure user access and maintain communication with other library systems. 3.1 The Municipality shall pay the Orillia Public Library Board the sum of: Eighty- Five Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Dollars ($85,170) for the year 2004; Eighty-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Three Dollars ($86,873) for the year 2005; and Eighty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Ten Dollars ($88,610) for the year 2006. 3.2 Payments shall be quarterly on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. 2 r--" ~\ j 4.0 Municipal Representation on the Orillia Public Library Board: 4.1 The Public Library Board shall request its appointing council to appoint a member of the Township of Oro-Medonte Council (or a resident of the Township of Oro-Medonte designated by the Township of Oro-Medonte Council), recommended by the Township of Oro-Medonte Council, to the Public Library Board. 5.0 Reports: 5.1 The Public Library Board shall submit an annual report to the Municipality. 5.2 The Municipality shall make an annual financial report to the Minister and make any other reports required by the Public Libraries Act, and its regulations or requested by the Minster. 6.0 Limitation of Liability: 6.1 The Municipality shall not be liable for any injury, death or property damage to the Public Library Board, its employees or agents or for any claim by any third party against the Public Library Board, its employees or agents. 6.2 The Municipality shall not be liable for any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damages or loss of use, revenue or profit of the Public Library Board arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement or the services. 7.0 Cancellation: 7.1 Either the Municipality or the Public Library Board may terminate this Agreement at any time upon six months of notice in writing. 8.0 Notices: 8.1 Notices under this Agreement shall be given in writing by personal delivery or by mail. 8.2 Notice by mail shall be deemed to have been given on the fourth business day after the date of mailing. 9.0 Signing Authority: 9.1 Contracts are to be signed on behalf of the Public Library Board, by the Chair and Secretary of the Board and, on behalf of the contracting municipality by two (2) authorized Signing Officers. 3 r-" k JC - f; \j 10.0 Inspection: 10.1 The Municipality shall be entitled at all reasonable times, to review any records, books, accounts and documents in the possession or under the control of the Public Library Board. 11.0 Duration: 11.1 This Agreement shall, subject to Section 7 hereof, be in force and effect for three years from ttle 1 st day of January 2004 to the 31 st day of December 2006. 12.0 Entire Contract: 12.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. There are no other agreements or understanding. . DATE THE MUNICIPALITY (Seal) Signing Officer THE MUNICIPALITY (Seal) Signing Officer DATE J14Lf (5)r ~~~\~~ . ... THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD Chair Ai J THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD Secretary 4 Page 1 of 1 Main Identity 5h). From: To: Sent: Subject: "harry.evans" <harry.evans@rogers.com> <harry .hughes@oro-medonte.ca> Monday, May 17,20049:41 PM Fw: Plan 709 l~r)RO:MEDONTE I . . YOWNSHiP fa I MOTION~;. . I I i! , !'. ~ MEETfNG: COUNCIL CJ ~ w. MAY 2 6 2004 - Original Message --- From: h~r!y.~Y~I]!) To: "Dan Buttineau" Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: Plan 709 '".1"e.=_._~~ Your Worship and Members of Oro-Medonte Council, We were taken aback to read in the Orillia Packet and Times that Deputy Mayor Hughes has a solution for the Plan 709 predicament. It would seem to us that any solution that anyone puts forward would be presented to the property owners involved. We have not been contacted by Mr. Hughes or any other member of the Oro Medonte council with regard to a solution. With all due respect, we feel that any solution presented by the deputy mayor would be unfavourable to the water view residents of Plan 709. When Mr. Hughes was running for his first term on council we asked him prior to the election his views on the outgoing council's decision to sell the Block A strip to the abutting property owners. His answer was "that he always believed that the previous council's decision should be upheld". In fact, he has voted directly opposite every time the Plan 709 issue has arisen. In our view any form of joint ownership with the back lot residents is impossible. The sheer ratio of the numbers between front and back lot owners would mean that the front lot owners would have their wishes voted down on all issues. We have instructed our lawyer that we are prepared to accept ownership of the Block A strip subject to the right of access on foot as outlined by the court. Why not accept this solution so that Plan 709 residents can have some degree of closure? The township can still proceed to appeal should they feel this is necessary . We paid our money to the township in good faith, now we ask you to transfer title of the strip to us as soon as possible. WE thank you for time and your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Shirley and Harry Evans LOt 30, Plan 709 5/24/04 Page 1 of2 \1~:J : ^ . "''''\"1:a ;;~) . Main Identity From: "Doug Campbell" <campbeI!1269@rogers.com> To: "Dan Buttineau" <dan.buttineau@oro-medonte.ca>; "harry Hughes" <harry.hughes@oro- medonte.ca>; "John Crawford" <john.crawford@oro-medonte.ca>; "Neil Craig" <neil.craig@oro- medonte.ca>; "Paul Marshall" <paul.marshall@oro-medonte.ca>; "Ruth Fountain" <ruth.fountain@oro-medonte.ca>; "Ralph Hough" <ralph.hough@oro-medonte.ca> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Doug Campbell - Plan 709 Your Worship and members of Council: I read in the paper that Harry Hughes has a "solution" to the plan 709 situation. He further stated that he was unable to make his "solution" public. After this, I understand that Harry Hughes initiated an in-camera discussion pertaining to plan 709...1 assume to discuss his "solution". I would like to ensure council that the wate[View residents have not spoken with Harry Hughes regarding his proposed "solution". It would seem that any proposed solution should at least have the support of the people who are going to be impacted by it. I am quite certain that there are many back lot residents with whom Harry Hughes has discussed his solution and other aspects of these dealings to date. Unfortunately for those of us on the front lots, Harry Hughes has not seen fit throughout the preceding 4 years to keep us informed of his "plans" for this property matter as we believe he has with the back lot residents. Council should be aware that it will be virtually impossible to have a solution to this property matter that involves any sort of joint ownership between the back lot and front lot residents. There has been too much lying, vandalism and there is too much mistrust for that type of arrangement. The front lot residents would always be at a disadvantage to the back lot residents in any "board of directors" type of organizational structure. We would have no control over anything that went on in front of our houses under that type of arrangement. What would happen to those members of a "condominium" or "corporate setup who refuse to pay their taxes or insurance premiums etc? We have no enforcement capabilities in those circumstances. As has been made clear to council from our lawyer, the back lot residents' lawyer through to your lawyer, we are prepared to accept title to the strips of land subject to the right of access as described by the court. We have held a meeting and given this direction to our lawyer. The back lot residents have no problem with the front lot residents owning the land so long as the court described right of access is present. This does not preclude the township from pursuing the appeal to attempt to obtain clear title or to determine other administrative aspects on 5/24/04 Page 2 of2 dealing with the court ruling. It is with this in mind that I urge you to carry through with the transfer of title of those strips of land from block A to the front lot residents. This situation can continue forever if you entertain everyone who "has a solution". When you have agreement between the main parties, then why not carry through with it? As I mentioned, we want to buy the land, the back lot owners are not opposed to this, so the solution is at hand. What to do with the 100' strip of Block A and the other Blocks Band C is the next question. The township liability was highest with the strips of land that it is considering selling to the front lot owners. With those strips sold, the liability of 100' of Block A and Blocks Band C should be much improved. These lands can easily be maintained to township safety standards and could be held as public land similar to the 300' strip of waterfront parkland currently owned by the township next to Harry and Shirley Evans' lot. There really would be no difference in the township ownership of that land and the remaining blocks of land in plan 709. I hope that you will consider this proposal and move to transfer title as soon as possible. Our money has been paid and there is agreement. There are two new front lot residents...1 was the real estate sales representative for each of the purchasers and they have indicated that they are willing to acquire ownership of the strip with the right to access by the back lot residents. All they are waiting for is an offer by the township. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and to consider our request. Respectfully, Doug Campbell Lot 41, Plan 709 01'-1 if. M~Y 6 5/24/04 ~o\ - \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. FD-2004-6 To: Prepared By: Members of Council Lynn Burness, F .D. Secretary Subject: Department: Council Monthly Fire Report Fire and Emergency Services C. of W. (March,2004) Motion # Date: , , May 3, 2004 Date: DATE ST A TION TIME TYPE LOCATION DAMAGE March 2, 2004 Station #2 13:25:00 Medical Assist 1 Cedarbrook Cres. Hawkestone Call # 94 Call March 5,2004 Station #2 04: 19:36 Motor Vehicle Highway 11, between Hawkestone Call # 95 AcCident Memorial & Barrie Rd. March 6, 2004 Station #5 17: 08: 19 Medical Assist 9992 Highway 12 Warminster Call # 96 Call March 6, 2004 Station #6 17: 35:25 Alarm - No Fire, 24 Mt. St. Louis Road Moonstone Call # 97 Accidental March 7, 2004 Station #1 22: 51:00 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB, Shanty Bay Call # 98 Roll Over Between Line 2 & 3 March 7, 2004 Station #5 18:08:00 Medical Assist 4319 Line 9 North Warminster Call # 99 Call March 7, 2004 Station #1 20: 05:00 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB, Shanty Bay Call # 100 Accident Between Line 4 & 5 March 7, 2004 Station #1 20:05:56 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB, Shanty Bay Call # 101 Accident at Line 3 March 8, 2004 Station #3 18: 45: 11 Motor Vehicle 24 Trillium Trail Horseshoe Call # 102 Accident March 9,2004 Station #2 08:43:24 Medical Assist 94 Old School House Hawkestone Call # 103 Call Road & Line 9 t~ \ , - \:" \_, F.e. Report 2004-6 .........2 DATE STATION TIME TYPE LOCATION DAMAGE March 9,2004 Station #5 19:32:30 Carbon Monoxide 3 Farmington Cr. Warminster Call # 104 Call March 11, 2004 Station #4 00:45:00 Medical Assist 30 Cameron Drive Ruabv Call # 105 Call March 11, 2004 Station #3 06:03:00 Medical Assist 2331 Penetanguishene Horseshoe Call # 106 Call Road March 11, 2004 Station #2 14: 51:00 Medical Assist 9 Owen Hawkestone Call # 107 Call March 11, 2004 Station #6 22:28: 55 Motor Vehicle Highway 400, @ M1. Moonstone Call # 108 Accident S1. Louis Exit March 12, 2004 Station #4 06: 37:46 Vehicle Fire 13 Small Cres. $ 3,000.00 L Rugbv Call # 109 .00 S March 13, 2004 Station #4 10:26: 14 Multi Motor Old Barrie Road and Ruabv Call # 110 Vehicle Accident Line 9 North March 13, 2004 Station #3 11: 35: 00 Burning 51 Alpine Way Horseshoe Call #111 Comolaint March 13, 2004 Station #4 20: 13:00 Smoke Showing, Line 15 South and Rugbv Call # 112 NothinQ Found Highwav 11 March 14, 2004 Station #2 14:47: 00 A TV Accident 8 Blackman Blvd. , Hawkestone Call # 113 March 17, 2004 Station #2 11: 41: 20 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB, Hawkestone Call # 114 Overheat I Brakes @ Line 14 South March 18, 2004 Station #1 10: 13:00 Fuel Leak on Ridge Road and Shanty Bav Call # 115 Motor Vehicle GeorQina Drive March 20, 2004 Station #3 10:05:00 Carbon Monoxide 1208 Line 5 North Horseshoe Call # 116 Call March 22, 2004 Station #1 11:07:10 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB, Shanty Bav Call # 117 Accident @-Line 5 March 22, 2004 Station #1 22:08:54 Medical Assist 1228 Line 2 South Shanty Bay Call # 118 Call March 23, 2004 Station #5 19:20: 13 Large Bon Fire, 19 Condor Drive Warminster Call # 119 Comolaint March 23, 2004 Station #2 20:25:00 Medical Assist 12 Bluehaven Drive Hawkestone Call # 120 Call March 24, 2004 Station #3 13:33:00 Medical Assist 11 Trillium Trail Horseshoe Call # 121 Call March 24, 2004 Station #5 15: 14:30 Furnace 1231 Line 15 North Warminster Call # 122 Overheat March 26, 2004 Station #4 23:00:00 Medical Assist 8 Montgreenan Drive RUQby Call # 123 Call March 27, 2004 Station #1 13: 12:00 Fire at Hydro 43 Barrie Terrace Shanty Bay Call # 124 Meter March 28, 2004 Station #2 13:00:28 Burning 723 Line 7 South Hawkestone Call # 125 Comolaint March 30, 2004 Station #6 12: 30: 00 Alarm - No Fire, 24 M1. S1. Louis Rd., Moonstone Call # 126 Accidental Ski Resort Structure and Vehicle Fire Dollar Value Lost Dollar Value Saved $ 3,000.00 $ 00.00 I. ,r~ \-i. 0,,- --....J Monthlv Fire Report for March. 2004 Trainina Sessions Station #1 Station #2 Station #5 Shanty Bay Hawkestone Warminster 2 2 2 Station #3 Station #4 Station #6 Horseshoe Rugby Moonstone 2 2 2 Inspection Record for the Month (includina Fire Prevention I Public Education) Commercial Residential! Bed & Breakfast Industrial/Mercantile 4 Schools / Assembly! Church 1 Wood stove 3 Daycare ! Camps! Hall Tours Comments or Recommendations bv Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief Extra trainina I Seminars and Events Attended District Chief and Trainer Facilitator Meeting Chiefs Meeting New Recruits Orientation Night Fire Safety House Meeting Automatic Aid Meeting Dr. Pasut Meeting with Simcoe Fire Departments (Host Oro-Medonte) Health and Safety Meeting ~\ Re p.\~CtfUIIY submitted, , Fire Chief C.A.O. COMMENTS: DATE: C.A.O. DEPT. HEAD REQUEST TO WAIVE. t<E.N r AL""ccv ORGANIZA TrON I FACILITY I PURPOSE REQUESTED DISBURSEMENT I CARRIED/ . AMOUNT ACCOUNT DEFEATED - ~ _ . _ k __ - B East Oro Home & School Association. Old Town Hall 2 or3 MeetinQs $150.00 1-91-621-111-500 C W. R. Best Public School Oro-Medonte Community Arena Ice Pad 24X1hr for the whole school $2,040.00 1-91-601-111-530 Plus 6hrs for the Hockey Team . . . . . Note: It is recommended to Council that the listed organizations be requested to submit the appropriate applicable fee. Gf'vl0-tA fJ A iJ "- ,''. ..--I'D 1 f/~ .~ -- c (' ! - ~R-3r-2884 83:10 PM WHITMORE MEAT PACKERS LT 1'FR-26-~04 12; 01 CRO MEOONTE ThE' 78:5 32:5 8~11 P.83 1 705 467 0133 P.e2 01 ~ THE CORPORATION Of THE. · :'r:i~ TOW N & tl I P + r9tV-~7f6~ ~.J,tfi 1114""" ~.-",-, #~K""If1I..LM . ~ ,tPrrlfi. If~" ... ~Pt ~~-. APPLICA TIONFOR GRANT/SUBSIDY 148 Une 7 S.. Bol\ 100 lo _ I"\) 010. Ont.,;g LOL lXO cJ..... Phone (705) 4S7.~ 111 fur. (705)487.0133 WWW.OIO-meaMtl!.a j' ! Non~ OJtGANlZAT10NS MAY:Dl!: REQUIRIJ) TO SUBMIT FJNANClAL STATEMENTS. NOTE I If additio..1 'pact is rt:quired to COlD piece your inform-.tioa. pia. U5~ tilt attach" .....L - GrulfSubrid1 Rtq.... Amou..c sU5E OF tOWN HALL FOR... c?. (f1 ..:::> !1'JE:C, T I^, oS j;..ui' j - 'or.G..hi.dOfi~';,..1 AihI'*.ii. iJOr;'~ ~::j2atiOJl F./t::;;f ORD HDme';- SCHOOl- A~oc.1A7/0N Addresl5 Ef1.S, OleO Pu. &- , l2.. .:5f..l-loD '-- City Prov. Postal Code ConuCt c..HRI51'/~ WH ITn10J<E TeJepboDC .~ -Jq 15 B-mai'! &,0hI fn)ore, O)c:;nax:/e. CDmF~ ~ - gSi I i>.ar ii:.::..a,.-b.....,Ga.lriiI::lii.,..i~ Numbcraf Members 4l:, Out of Town Itesidems "&- Membership Fee , J:...-oCoj' ){ AppJic:abJe 1-.../ I=""A/YIIL Y - Pb -'-0 PE:bE:JG4TIDAJ ~~dpbic^r~.~ OL>O ~"'H~/. Dale Y 2 O-:J FbI<.. uR8IL.rIV -..... f;:::H.:::>1 ~ ..;;:J.... ~- Formed M Ii 0 '- IItJS tUV::vtJCC f Com f)'1U AJ I r y /n~ f3E,1e5J.1 J.y. Outline t~ mi5.5jan, DUl'J'OIe and objectives ot.)o\U orr.aniution, . /.' -.-rD' F*:PV IDE': EJ4:5T' ~ ~ft7c.'-SMODL -'/.A)rrti . Et.i~S ~/.5ED 'HRo..U6H ~;-/(:;Ol.. ) , ftDR.. ' EN HAI\JcEil 'O..fi2s J .::5A.1A( 1;:" PKo6~ AI YJ-S ; ..sUI6SIDV FoK ~'-- -r~/t->.s !;;rtZ. t.0E ~ P>KOV/~ VALLlAt:3tE. IAlFDK.fl'lA7IDN R)J( ;.J~75 Nt,/-! INPDRIYJATION ON Nu./Rr7"lDIJ J YARCAlTnJ G B::iADftrIDN 1:SSU.t;5 AND Bt;:;$7 PKft::fltYS. AT -rHe PJ(bu/lJrfIl1L.. t-LVEL ffl/YIE:. AND S{!HODL ~/)").8[".('"'.s AbVDCPrTE FoR.. A IAJELL AiNf:::LD~ WELL BALAAJce6 PUCLJC. ..scHOOL ..5Y.5rE"M ,/.lilT 'PROVIDE.-=:' ,HiE It Bt!!"Sr r.:~.tZ. /iCACI-l $'fiJ.l.EJ..J T /I AR-~r-2ee4 e~:e9 PM WHITMORE MEAT PACKERS LT 70~ ~2~ a~11 ...-.- .,-~..._., _..~ .-.-.....-. -..-..-..-..---.'-'--' - _.-- 1'm-2G-2004 12;01 cro t"EI)i)'\TE TIIP J 'i'05 48'i' e 133 P.03 .... ..~ Type ofOtgani2ation (Le, Registered Charity, Non-Profit Orjanizauon, DO statui, etc. ) and ftgi'stradoD number if applieab1e, NDN PRoFit _. EV-rC.tJ5,Q"-.J OF C>>..Jl'ARIO t="E.DEfi!.A-rION OF ~Tr)t: ~ c:(! HOOt-S. ~ - ---- Other SO\lJ'CeS ofRevcnuc (inc:Jude IImounlli tbat hatve been received 01' that are mticiplted - other erantS/subaidies. private funding, etc.). NDNE Purpose tor which the cummt grant/subsidy, jf approved, wouJd be used. Gne comp]cte detll.11. - (i.e. project or e\lent de~~ti~,nJ timcfrar>>e, oommunity benefits). 1Ht3 tJ6IE' (fr-rrl~ Hf1tL WOULD aJA6L.e. OUK. 6RCXJI? rO HoLb mii,EI/lJ6S 7b ~'~N ,A/;{IIIITI$:5 AAilJ HAVE ~f1L INF&emATIOAJ /)1EEi7tJ65. _.' - --, . ". Do )'W OUI1'tnt1y rc:c~j"c other ~llU1tli or subsidies trom the T()WDship (fllOilit)' IUbsjoi.zatio~ pbotccop)'iDs, secretarial, e~.). NO Previous grantataubaidiea fTcm the Township? Amount Requested: s--....t..1J.i1 AmoUDt ApprOved: S-----,v, II \J I.;q / I Yen ofRequea: Year of Approval: ~j;;,...~illlllllure Df 4J1';'orl.tfJ~IJI(SJ ~ -~~ Da1e: '-(Yl.M 8/104 Name A Position Plte: 'Name Ilk Position Ji~~'V.se qldJl ...'. '. APproved ,,' , ' Amol.lnt '$ . " , , Denied Date .' ",0\ , , ~: .' .. Nete; P~t sonaJ inform! tion c.ontained 01'1 this form b ~o]Je<:ted PUJ'SU811\ to tbe Mll11ktpol F~ttJom of lnJcnn4libn QNU PTPI~C1tOH ()f Priwu:y ..4 ct. ana will be U8~ for the. purpose Qf detennininB e1igitlllity for wants. Que3tions about tnis col1ecljon ,bou1d be directecl to the Flwdom of Information Coonltnuor. Thli Corpon\ion of1he Township ofOro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, Box 100, Oro, OntariQ, l.t)L lXO. P.02 ..-...- -.-....-. ~ THE CORPORATION OFTHE ~c-\j, \ c.c-. I.' 148 Line 7 ~ ox 100 O Oro. Ontario LOL 2X0 T 0 WT N ft. I P Phone (705)487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 -e/V-Of~~!~ . ;' APH ? . -D / I . 9?fJfJ( I ! O~O APPLICATION FOR GRANT/SUBSIDY-~~~te --~- - - . . - - -- - -.~.._:.'4i._....~.-~.~"':::. .'. ..'~ . .._ ...~. :.M _ i i ,/ ;, ---J NOTE: GRANTS/SUBSIDIES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED EVERY YEAR. NOTE: ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. NOTE: )f additional space is required to complete your information, please use the attached. sheet. Grant/Subsidy Request Amount $ P}jiiT-A{~-:oi~~'riil;'lft{,rtN;;ili~:l;;~dJidiiifi/;~-Titf;'1.;;iiI;i~;, .~f'. . (11."')" - 2" iCe. +i nJes Q..t- G ~+hri e. ~~ dc.w-1f'1q --the- cA~",'.L -Fe. io()hcle ~ch.Cl'.1 u.s.e + to hr-$ - lkr o~r he.e:.1.fi!.t ..f-&..tfY\. Organization Name \"J ""R.. ~e s-\ po. s . Address ~ . 1<. # 2. City 3.ho...J~ ~(j'l Provo {)^1. Contact ~A n (\ €. /J. t'"' l.$ ("' 7 E-maiJ Q Q.--ks@.t~ sc.-d~ h. 011. r'o.. ItA'iiTB~;;!Q;:iliJ1iitJ;}foii!6i'ifirf]f1irf;;f};''J'iii1~ Postal Code ).... 0 /...... .2L 0 Telephone 7;;. f>"- Cf5 q J Fax Number of Members -30{) Out of Town Residents Membership Fee ]f Applicable Geographic Area Served Date Fonned Out]ine the mission, purpose and objectives of your organization. - +, , -f' -{; I r' p {1'. \1 ; rlc_ 1- j 1 D'; 'I e r1. u CD ., (, .-, .. r all ::dc..( rl €;-. + s; ~L_h -J Type of Organization (i.e. Registered Charity, Non-Profit Organization, no status, etc. ) and registration number if applicable. 8(' k ()I"\ \ Other Sources of Revenue (inc1ude amounts that have been received or that are anticipated - other grants/subsidies, private funding, etc.). Purpose for which the current grant/subsidy, if approved, would be used. Give complete details - (i.e. project or event description, time frame, community benefits). Oc:t. -le, H~r. We- '. ""iet grl'>l.-\f OIoL-' s+~~e.nf.s.c ~ 4.~)~ .Wl\..~10 r\f?,:=d . I-j I~e tir'llle5' CL rvtCf"l~ r one hc/.l.' t?"'-ch \. An {A,(:4cl,.t..o"C\f ." h()(;(f'S h,'- Do you cu~ently r.ecer:e other grants or subs1d1es from the Townsh1p (fac{hty subs1d1zatJOn, kock.J pf"'Cl.C.:t1. (e.J: ,,)~..{ photocopymg, secretanal, etc.).a.1sc be &~f;eciClte.{. I\.L, Previous grants/subsidies from the Township? Amount Requested: $ Amount Approved: $ Jf4iif.'li;'jf'si'i?"i,.~iii~~:;/JfAtitiiflj~ji.~d';;am~filfiij' ~ ~J~':t {J/rJ~P<i:JA~ Name & ositi ' , Year of Request: Year of Approval: ,;l Dn 4- - . Date: t? fI&Y c2" d(,)[)'f , , Date: Name & Position Note: Personal infonnation contained on this fonn is collected pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and wi11 be used for the purpose of detennining eligibility for grants. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Freedom of Information Coordinator, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, ] 48 Line 7 South, Box 100, 01'0, On{ario, L'OL 2XO. . . ! Please use tbis additional sbeet (and attacb more if required) to complete the information \D requested on tbe Grant/Subsidy Application Form. Outline the mission, purpose and objectives of your organization. Type of Organization (i.e. Registered Charity, Non-Profit Organization, no status, etc. ) and registration number if applicable. Otber Sources of Revenue (include amounts that have been received or that are anticipated - other grants/subsidies, private funding, etc.). Purpose for which the current grant/subsidy, if approved, would be used. Give complete details - (i.e. project or event description, time frame, community benefits). Do you currently receive other grants or subsidies from the Township (facility subsidization, photocopying, secretarial, etc.). Previous grants/subsidies from the Township? Amount Requested: $ Amount Approved: $ Year of Request: Year of Approval: TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. TR2004-16 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Subject: Tax Exemption - Department: Treasury Royal Canadian Legion Branch 619 Council C.ofW. Date: May 25, 2004 Motion # RM. File #: Date: Roll #: 4346 020 004 14001 ~I BACKGROUND: II Section 325 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that" a municipality may by by-law exempt from taxation for its purposes any real property actually used and occupied as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by persons who served in the armed forces of His or Her Majesty or an ally of His or Her Majesty in any war." Such an exemption was granted to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 619 of Warminster for the taxation years of 2002 and 2003. The said Legion has requested that the exemption once again be granted. Please find attached their request. ~I ANALYSIS: I' The Legion's property is assessed at 307,000 RT. 2004 taxes for Township purposes are $1,030.73. It is recommended that the previously established policy of granting the exemption be continued and the term of the exemption be for the term of Council, being the 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years. II RECOMMENDATION(S): \ I: G /'""\ d I~ 1. THAT Report No. TR 2004-16 be received and adopted. 2. THAT an exemption from taxation for Township purposes be granted to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 619 Warminster for the taxation years 2004, 2005 and 2006. 3. THAT the appropriate by-law be brought forward for Council's consideration. Respectfully submitted, p~~ Paul Gravelle Treasurer C.A.O. Comments: Date: vl(~ <<1!Q tf I C.A.O. p~ V Dept. Head - 2 - THE ROYAL (~ANADIANLEGION CAHIAGUE BRANCH (ONTARIO #619) GENERAL DELIVBRY, 'VA.IU\lINSIER. ONTARIO, CANADA LOK.IGO r RECEIVED- ; JAW 5 10m ORO-MEDONTE TOWNSHIP --~----=-------......"..-.:-."~ December 2,2003. :ayor Craig and Council, [)wnship of Oro Medonte, ro, Onto ear Mayor and Council : ongratulations are in order from Branch 619 to the Mayor and councillers who have been re-elected and lose newly elected, as the result of the recent Municipal Elections. he Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 619 ofWarminster is again requesting, relief from the Municipal [)rtion of our 2004 Taxes. he Waiver granted us for the 2002 - 2003, has gone towards higher utility bills, and the overall rise in the )st of maintaining a Building. Our Insurance is now $ 5100.00, about 500/0 more since 2002. 'Ie would appreciate Councils.consideration of our request for your 2004 Budget Meetings. , , copy of our Financial Statement for 2002 is enclosed. r ours truly, L- t(Mac) McDougall, lecretary . ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 619 W ARMINSTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31 st. 2002 The Royal Canadian Legion Ontario Provincial Command [)tes to Financial Statements 1"~"""""",,,,""'~"1"'~""" alance Sheets: The Balance Sheet is a snapshot of the financial condition of a Branch, as of a specific date. Assets : Items owned by the Branch which have some value (cash,receiva bles,furnitu re,eq ui pmen t,etc.) Investments: Short term mature within 12 months. Long term : (deferred) mature beyond one years time. Fixed (Capital) Assets: Land, Buildings, Equipment, furniture,etc. Goverment regulations now require Non-profit organizations to depreciate buildings, furniture, equipment. Rate of depreciation Brick,cement and steel buildings annually at 5% Wooden buildings 10% Furniture and Equipment at 20%) Trust Accounts: Are funds or assets held by the Branch which belong to someone else. Therefore they are not only an asset, but also a liability. Liabilities: are items owed to someone else. Members Equity (surplus): Total assets minus total liabilities equals Members equity loJ - * BRANCH BALANCE SHEET 2002 ASSETS CURRENT CASH ON HAND AND IN BANK ACCOUNTSRECENABLE INVENTORY (Stock on hand) TRUST ACCOUNTS CAPITAL ASSETS BUILDING & LAND Less accumilated dep. FURNITURE & EQUIP. Less accumilated dep. TOTAL ASSETS ------- LIABILITIES CURRENT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SALES TAX COLLECTED LONG TERM LIABILITIES BANK LOAN TRUST ACCOUNTS POppy TOTAL LIABILITIES POppy FUND BUILDING FUND (fmance) $ 293,314.00 - $ 14,665.70 = $ 278,648.30 $ 24,448.40 - $ 4,889.68 = $ 19,558.72 . (gas furnaces) MEMBERS EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES & MEMBERS EQUITY Members equity is a term. not a fact. $ S, 977 .03 $ $ 865.00 $ 3,479.29 $ 2,400.00 $ 278,648.30 $ 19,558.72 $ 310,928.34 $ 734.00 $ 620.00 $ 00 $ 3,479.29 ------- $ 4,833.29 = $ 306,095.05 $ 310,928.34 Branch Expenses 2002 !JEER LIQUOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CABLE. HYDR() GAS BANK CHARGES LOAN PAYMENT (furnaces) paid off July INTEREST ON LOAN " WATER SNOW REMOVAL TAXES DOMINION COMMAND C.S.T. P.S.T. BUILDING & GROUNDS ECONOMY CHEMICAL BELL TELEPHONE PEPSI GEORGIAN DAY FIRE FINANCE ACCOUNT PROPANE FLOAT BAR EXPENSES MISC. R & F CONSTRUCTION ( l.nsurance deductable ) TOTAL EXPENSES Insurance increase $ 600.00 Water increase $ 704.81 Electricity dropped $ 960.46 Natural Gas dropped $178.19 Tbe decrease may be partly due to the insulating. $ 11,232.35 $ 4,162.62 $ 4,242.28 $ 3,420.20 $ 448.13 $ 3,740.86 $ 4,418.46 $ 174.00 $ 1,214.96 $ 504.04 $ 1,528.25 $ 650.00 . $ 1,578.71 $ 2,217.33 $ 2,880.64 $ 2,039.18 $ 2,775.04 $ 288.76 $ 563.30 $ 646.33 $ J,079.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 202.12 $ 143.69 . $ 2,400.00 $ 3837.29 $ 1,000.00 $ 60,387.54 .. .. 2002 BRANCH INCOME STATEMENT rCOME BEER LIQUOR COOLERS WINE SUNDRIES CIGARETTES COFFEE WAYS & MEANS DONA TIONS JAM SESSION FINANCE ACCOUNT HALL RENTALS KITCHEN DUES MEAT DARTS MISe. rOT AL RECEIPTS ...ESS ~XPENSESPERSTATEMENT ~ET INCOME FOR THE YEAR $ 24,684.75 $ 10,646.00 $ 2,341.50 $ 521.00 $ 5,109.30 $ 2,107.75 $ 482.04 $ 3,483.05 $ 600.00 $ 1,179.00 $ 1,490.60 $ 3,795.00 $ 2,885.50 $ 3,085.00 $ 896.65 $ 1,280.14 ~ ---------------- $ 64,587.28 $ 60,387.54 = S 4,199..74 The Break-in cost us about $ 3500.00. The deductable, the cost of a new Safe, and the money and cigarettes taken would total that amount. On the bright side, ~n now have our Alarm System updated, and a new burglar and fire proof Safe. -, \ \q TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-04 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Speed Limit Reduction - Line Public Works C. of W. 12 North Date: Mav 18, 2004 Motion # A.M. File #: T08-12728 Date: Roll #: , II BACKGROUND: I~ A petition dated January 16, 2004 was received from residents along the paved portion of Line 12, north of the Mount St. Louis Road, requesting a reduction in the existing speed limit of 80,km/h to 50 km/h.' This section of road is paved for 600 metres north of the Mount St. Louis Road, with seven (7) homes along this stretch, and the remaining 1.2 km section is gravel road, housing an additional eight (8) homes. In late April of this year, a new traffic count was completed resulting in 83 vehicles, per day, travelling the paved portion and 74 vehicles, per day, travelling the gravel portion. This road section has one small hill approximately halfway on the paved portion, which reduces the sight distance to four driveways for traffic travelling north. ANAL YSIS: Upon reviewing this road and considering the speed limit reduction, the daily traffic count, and the topography of Line 12 North, it is recommended that the 80 km/h speed zone be reduced to the requested 50 km/h to assist in the sight distance restriction for northbound traffic. \o\-~ RECOMMENDATION(S): II 1. THAT Report No. PW2004-04 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the speed limit on Line 12 North, from the Mount St. Louis Road north approximately 600 metres to the end of the pavement, be reduced to 50 km/h. 3. THAT the Public Works Superintendent advises the residents on Line 12 North accordingly. 4. AND THAT the Public Works Department erects the necessary signage on Line 12 North. Respectfully submitted, ~ Jerry Ball Public Works Superintendent (j)~ ^ f\(!) (y-'I ( l{ ~~ \ ~ 0 - 2 - '" '-\ 1 \ \b - \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-05 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Line 15 North from Bass Lake Public Works C. of W. Sideroad to Hwy. #12- Date: Request for Non-Truck Route May 19, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: T06-11285 Date: Roll #: BACKGROUND: At the Regular Committee of the Whole meeting held on January 28, 2004, Council requested staff to investigate the prohibition of truck traffic on Line 15 North from Hwy. #12 to Bass Lake Sideroad. This section of road is approximately 1 .3 km in length and about 800 metres of this section is scheduled to be repaved along the lakefront, which presently has a very rough surtace that has assisted in reducing traffic volume and speed. Line 15 North from Bass Lake Sideroad to Old Barrie Road, which is in the City of Orillia limits, was also very rough and in poor condition until the City completed paving late last summer. This now provides a short route from the south end of the City, across to Hwy. #12, west to Coldwater and Midland. A new traffic count was completed during the last week of April this year, resulting in 1,521 vehicles, per day, showing an increase of approximately 200 vehicles, per day, since October, 2003. Line 15 North from Hwy. #12 to Bass Lake Sideroad is a heavily populated area with approximately 50 homes on either side of the street, as well as four short side streets adding an additional 20 homes to this area. Along with the year round homes, there is a small trailer park that attracts a number of summer tourists frequenting Bass Lake Provincial Park or the beach area, both of which have access off of Line 15. In the summer months, a large number of people walk or ride bicycles along this portion of Line 15, which also has a posted speed limit of 40 km/h from Bass Lake Side road to Hwy. #12. " '\ b -fc:l ANALYSIS: Considering the above-noted facts for Line 15 North from Hwy. #12 to Bass Lake Sideroad, it would be recommended to stop heavy truck traffic along this road section due to increased traffic, being a heavily populated area, which increases during the summer months, narrow shoulders, and the short narrow road frontage, for most of the lots along both sides of Line 15 North, adds to the congestion in this area. The City of Orillia was contacted to provide input on this proposed non-truck route and also agreed to stop truck traffic to help reduce the number of trucks using Line 15 North from Old Barrie Road, north to the Township's portion of Line 15. RECOMMENDATION S : 1. THAT Report No. PW2004-05 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the Clerk be authorized to prepare the necessary By-law to prohibit truck traffic on Line 15 North from Hwy. #12 to Bass Lake Sideroad. 3. THAT the Public Works Department installs the required signage. 4. AND THAT the Public Works Superintendent notifies all trucking companies in the area of Line 15 North of the proposed "non-truck route". . . Respectfully submitted, Jerry Ball Public Works Superintendent [YJ~~ _t~:A\O'{ ~CJ- - (j - 2 - , 1~ -- \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2004-33 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Janet Carol Howard - Site Engineering and Plan Agreement- 97 Brambel Environmental Services C. of W. Road - Lot 11, Plan 819, Date: Being all of PIN #58556-0115 May 18, 2004 Motion # (Lt) A.M. File #: .' L04-13647 Date: Roll #: 010-008-60086 0 ~ 00 II BACKGROUND: II Mr. and Mrs. Howard are proposing to construct a single family home and boat house located at 97 Brambel Road. As Brambel Road is a private road, Mr. and Mrs. Howard must enter into a Site Plan Agreement in order to have the Holding Symbol removed. t ANALYSIS: I~ Mr. and Mrs. Howard's Site Plan was reviewed by the Site Plan Committee on May 14, 2004. The only concern from the Site Plan Committee was the location of the well. Mr. Howard has indicated that he is proposing to leave the existing well located within the proposed new house, as shown on the Site Plan, This well is a newer drilled well and will be located in an unfinished portion of the basement. Approval has been received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Township staff have no concerns with the proposed Site Plan. 1. THAT Report No. EES2004-33be received and adopted. 2. THAT the Township of Oro-Medonte enters into a Site Plan Agreement with Janet Carol Howard to construct a single family residence and boat house at Lot 11, Plan 819, Township of Oro- Medonte. ." 3. THAT the Clerk prepares a By-law for Council's consideration. 4, AND THAT Mr, and Mrs. Howard be notified of Council's decision. Keith thieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services fJJ (LCY>>'-- cJ.0 ' ~~t~( b i - 2 - r. t~ -;)_ -- '. May, 2004 By-Law No. 2004. APPENDIX" A" SITE PLAN AGREEMENT - between - JANET CAROL HOWARD - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE DESCRIPTION OF LANDS Lot11, Plan 819 Being all of PIN #58556-0115 (Lt) Roll #: 4346-010-008..gggiii 0000 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE Q ~ D~ -.....J '. Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 1 0 Schedule "An Schedule "B" Schedule "C" Schedule "0" Schedule "E" THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SITE PLAN AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Covenants by the Owner Covenants by the Township Development Restrictions Development Changes Security Compliance Co-operation Binding Effect Severability of Clauses Save Harmless SCHEDULES Legal Description of Lands Site Plan Deeds and Easements to be Conveyed Itemized Estimate of Cost of Construction Standard Township Letter of Credit ,....... ~D.i()., 1.,j - Y '. .-- r. h v\ - J SITE PLAN CONTROL AGREEMENT This Agreement made, in quadruplicate, this day of accordance with Section 41 of the Plannina Act. 2004, in BETWEEN: JANET CAROL HOWARD Hereinafter called the "Owner" PARTY OF THE FIRST PART -and- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE Hereinafter called the "Township" PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Owner has applied to the Township of Oro-Medonte to permit a single family home and boat house on lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto; AND WHEREAS the Township has enacted a By-law to provide for the designation of the lands as a "Site Plan Control Area"; AND WHEREAS the Owner intends to develop the lands in accordance with the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule "B"; NOW THEREFORE This Agreement Witnesseth THAT in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows: " r--, '6CA J , f' ~\JJ 1. COVENANTS BY THE OWNER The Owner covenants and agrees as follows: a) The Owner owns the subject lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto, and has provided the Township with a Registered Deed containing the legal description of the subject lands. b) This Agreement may be registered against title to these subject lands and shall take priority over any subsequent registrations against the title to the subject lands. c) No work shall be performed on the lands, nor any use made of the subject lands with respect to the proposed development, except in conformity with a/l the provisions of this Agreement. d) The Owner shall, prior to the execution of this Agreement, obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Township and from a/l Ministries and Agencies, including, but not limited to, the County of Simcoe and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. e) The Owner shall, prior to the execution of this Agreement, pay all municipal taxes and charges related to obtaining the approval of these lands for thE;) intended use. f) The Owner shall pay a refundable deposit for such reasonable costs as may be involved to the Township in having its Solicitor, Engineer, Planner and staff, perform any work in connection with this Agreement, including the preparation, drafting, execution, and registration of this Agreement. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of performance of all the Owner's obligations hereunder, unless the context otherwise requires. Every provision of this Agreement, by which the Owner is obligated in any way, shall be deemed to include the words "at the expense of the Owner", unless specifically stated otherwise. The refundable deposit for expenses and actual cost shall be $N/A. The Owner shall replenish the refundable deposit, to its full amount, when the expenses and actual costs are submitted by the Township. g) The Owner shall have delivered to the Township, all Transfers/Deeds, Discharges and Easements, or other documents required by Schedule "C", as well as certification from the Owner's Solicitor that the Transfer/Deeds and Easements shall provide the Township with good title, free and clear from all encumbrances. h) The Owner acknowledges that the lot does not front on an improved pubic road, that the Township does not or is not required to maintain or snowplow the said road, that the Township will not take over or assume the private road as a Township pubic road or street unless it has been built according to the Township standards, then in force, and that the Township is not liable for any injuries, losses or damages as a consequence of the Township issuing a Building Permit. 2. COVENANTS BY THE TOWNSHIP The Township covenants and agrees as follows: a) That the Township has enacted a By-law to permit a single family home and boat house described on the Site Plan. b) That the Township agrees that subject to compliance by the Owner with all relevant Municipal By-laws and Provincial Statutes and Regulations, the Owner may proceed to develop the subject lands, as indicated on the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule "B", subject to the development restrictions contained herein. <7 uCt - 3. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that any use of the subject lands by the Owner shall be on and subject to the following terms and conditions: a) Site Plan The use and development of the subject lands shall be in accordance with and as set out on the Site Plan, attached hereto as Schedule "8". b) LiQhtinQ All lighting systems installed outside, such as floodlights, shall be directed away from any adjacent residential use and/or roadway, not to cause interference in any way. c) ParkinQ Areas and Drivewavs All parking areas and driveways shall be constructed, in conformity with Sections 5.19 and 5.20 of By-law No. 97-95, as amended, and the Ontario Building Code Regulation #419/86, and such parking areas, loading and access areas shall be kept free and clear of snow and ice and kept adequately drained. All entrances shall be constructed, as in Schedule "B", attached. The Owner agrees to obtain all necessary approvals from the Ministry of Transportation, County of Simcoe and Township of Oro- Medonte. d) Outside StoraQe No outside storage shall be permitted between any buildings on the premises and any street. Any other outside storage shall be contained in the fenced compound, as identified on Schedule "B". e) Garbaqe StoraQe The Owner agrees to provide suitable storage areas for garbage and waste, as shown on the Site Plan, and to install and maintain litter containers in and around development on the lands. All metal scrap and associated refuse contained in the fenced compound shall be removed on a weekly basis. f) Landscapinq The Owner shall complete all landscaping and landscaped areas shown on the Site Plan, attached as Schedule "B", as soon as weather permits, and all grading and sodding required, according to any Engineering drawings submitted, shall be done on all lawn areas. g) Erosion and Siltation Control The Owner must take all necessary precautions to prevent erosion and sedimentation of ditches and culverts, slopes, etc., within the Site Plan, and downstream prior to and during construction. The Owner agrees to maintain all erosion and siltation control devices in good repair until vegetative cover has been successfully established. 4. DEVELOPMENT CHANGES The parties acknowledge and agree that there shall be no changes to this Agreement or the Schedules attached hereto, unless and until such changes have been approved by all Parties. It is the intention of the parties that material amendments to this Agreement be ~C\ - <6 properly recorded. Such amendments may take the form of a registered Amending Agreement, an unregistered Agreement, exchange of correspondence, memorandum of Confirmation, or notations on Engineering Drawings. The nature of such record of amendment shall depend on circumstances. 5. SECURITY Prior to signing the Agreement, the Owner will deposit with the Treasurer of the Township, to cover the faithful performance of the obligations of the Owner arising under this Agreement, including but not limited to the construction of the works and services identified in Schedule "0" to this Agreement (the "said Work"), the following securities: a) Cash in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the said work, as approved by the Township Engineer and Township Council, or: b) An irrevocable Letter of Credit from a Chartered Bank, issued in accordance with the requirements of Schedule "E", with an automatic renewal clause in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs of the said works, and as approved by the Township Engineer. The Letter of Credit shall be for a minimum guaranteed period of one (1) year, or such time as the Township decides, and shall be renewed automatically, as necessary, thirty (30) days prior to expiration. c) The Township reserves the right to accept or reject any of these altemative methods of providing securities. Prior to depositing the securities, the Owner's Engineer shall submit an estimate of the cost of the works to the Township Engineer for approval. When the cost estimate has been approved, it will be set out in Schedule "0" of this Agreement and will become the basis for the- limits of the securities. d) Any Letter of Credit or security filed with the Township is based upon the estimated cost of completing the various matters prescribed by this Agreement. However, all Letters of Credit and Security received by the Township may be used as security for any item or any other matter which, under the terms of this Agreement, is the responsibility of the Owner, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, payment of engineering, legal, planning or other costs incurred by the Township, which are the responsibility of the Owner, under the terms of this Agreement. e) Upon written notification by the Owner's agent, certifying that all required works for which the Letter of Credit was submitted have been completed in accordance with the plans submitted and upon confirmation by the Township or its agent that the Owner's obligations under this Agreement have been completed, the Township will return said Letter of Credit. f) If in the event of default of the Owner under any of the provisions of this Agreement, it becomes necessary for the Township to realize on its security or deposits, then the Township shall give, by registered mail, twenty-one (21) day's notice, its intent to draw down on the security or deposit. 6. COMPLIANCE Any action taken by the Township or on its behalf, pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in addition to and without prejudice to any security or other guarantee given on behalf of the Owner for the performance of its covenants and agreements herein, and upon default on the part of the Owner hereunder, the Township shall, in addition to any other remedy available to it, be at liberty to utilize the provisions of Section 325 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended. -y O~\ C, i 7. CO-OPERATION The Owner consents to the registration of this Agreement by the Township, upon the title of the subject lands,. at the expense of the Owner and agrees to execute such further and other documents, consents or applications, as required, for the purpose of securing registration and giving effect to the provisions of this Agreement. 8. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement, and everything contained herein, shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Parties hereto, and upon the lands described in Schedule "A", attached hereto, such Schedule being a legal description of the lands, and it is further agreed that this Agreement shall be prepared, approved and registered on title. 9. SEVERABILITY OF CLAUSES Should any Section, Subsection, Clause, Paragraph or Provision of this Agreement be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Agreement as a whole or any part thereof, other than the provision so declared to be invalid. 10. SAVE HARMLESS The Owner, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to indemnify and save harmless, the Township from and against any and all claims, suits, actions and demands whatsoever, which may arise either directly or indirectly by reason of any work or service performed by the Township, its servants or sub-contractors in order to complete the work or services required to be completed under this Agreement, provided the subject matter of such action, suits, claims or demands was not caused intentionally or through gross negligence on the part of the Township, its servants or agents or sub-contractors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereunto have affixed their respective seals under the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ~(}) )...J:..-J!... F+c.c~ ~~ ) ,wner: Janet Carol Howard ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The Corporation of the ) Township of Oro~Medonte ) ) per: ) ) ) ) J. Neil Craig, Mayor ) ) ) ) Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk ) " ~C\ - $) SCHEDULE "A" NOTE: It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Janet Carol Howard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS Lot 11, Plan 819, being all of PIN #58556-0115 (Lt), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe Roll #: 4346-010-008-99Q86-0000 '\ -. NOTE: SITE PLAN ~ $\ -q SCHEDULE"B" It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Janet Carol Howard. Site Plan is not in a registerable form and is available from the Township of Om-Medonte. Prepared by Peter Archer - Drawing #22321-SP1 dated January 30, 2004. \ '\ " C1- SCHEDULE "C" NOTE: It is understood and agreed that this Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Janet Carol Howard. DEEDS AND EASEMENTS TO BE CONVEYED All title documents shall be properly drawn and executed by the parties, with the appropriate Lot or Block Number inserted in the description of the document, and the registered Plan Number shall be left blank, to be inserted by the Solicitors for the parties after the Plan is registered and a Plan Number assigned. The consideration for all conveyances shall be the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) and the cost of preparation, execution and registration thereof, shall be borne by the Owner. All documents to be registered, shall be prior approved by the Solicitor for the Township. The following land and easement shall be conveyed: 1.0 LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP N/A 2.0 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO BE CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP N/A '. " NOTE: 1. 2. y \ DC), - \ SCHEDULE"D" It is understood and agreed thatthis Schedule forms part of the Site Plan Agreement between the Township of Oro-Medonte and Janet Ca.rol Howard. ITEMIZED ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMIZE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE AMOUNT LETTERS OF CREDIT AMOUNT Letter of Credit to be provided by the Owner to ensure completion of all works required under the terms of this Agreement, as noted in Section 5 herein. N/A qct ~.I TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004-21 Committee of Whole Andria Leigh, MCIP,RPP Subject: Department: Council Removal of Holding Planning Provision - 97 Brambel C. of W. Road (Howard) Date: May 17, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: D14 013650 Date: Roll #: , . 010-008-08600 BACKGROUND: An application has been submitted by Mrs. Howard to replace the existing dwelling with a new dwelling on lands located on Brambel Road. As Brambel Road is a private road, the lands are zoned with a Holding provision to ensure that a Site Plan Agreement is entered into between the Township and the lot owner. The intent of the Site Plan Agreement is to ensure that any buildings to be constructed are located appropriately and to ensure that the lot owner is aware that the property is only accessed by a private road. The landowner has executed the Site Plan Agreement and a report from Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services regarding the adoption of a by-law for the Site Plan Agreement will also to be considered by Council. It is anticipated that both by-laws will proceed for adoption at the Council meeting scheduled for June 2, 2004. On the basis that the Site Plan Agreement satisfies the condition of the Holding Provision, it is recommended that Council give favorable consideration to the attached by-law to remove the Holding Provision from 97 Brambel Road (Howard). cr'l-~ RECOMMENDATION S: It is recommended to Council : 1. THAT Report No. PD 2004-21 be received and adopted; and 2. THAT the by-law to remove the Holding provision from lands located at 97 Brambel Road, being Plan 819, Lot 11 owned by Mrs. Howard be brought forward for favorable consideration. Respectfully submitted, ---/f-L ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: M..~ d-.-\, L ~ i C.A.O. ~ V .' Dept. Head 2 : o 1 !O\' , t -'~ J THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO. 2004- "Being a By-law to remove the Holding symbol applying to lands at 97 Brambel Road, Plan 819, Lot 11, (Roll #43-46- 010-008-08600-0000XHoward)" WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation 01 the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to pass By-laws to remove a Holding provision pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to remove the Holding provision applying to the subject lands; NOW THEREFORE the Council 01 the Corporation 01 the Township of Oro-Medonte enacts as follows: r, ~-J 1. Schedule 'A3', to Zoning l3y-law No. 97-95 as amended, is hereby further amended by removing the Holding prqllision applying to lands known as 97 Brambel Road, Plan 819, Lot 11, (Roll # 43-46-o9Cl-oG8-G8600-0000) as shown on Schedule 'A' attached hereto and forming part of this By-law. 2. This By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage hereof, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME on the 2nd day of June, 2004. READ A THIRD TIME and finally passed this _ day of June, 2004. J. Neil Craig, Mayor Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk - . G' , I' 19 -If Schedule IAI 10 By-Law This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law 2004- Mayor /J c:s N passed the day of J. Neil Craig Clerk Marilyn Pennycook t:-t ..... :;:) CD Job en . LAKE ~Lands subject to the removal ~of the Holding Provision Township of Oro-Medonte 0;\ \ \ '0- TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD2004-22 Committee of the Whole Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Subject: Department: Council Zoning By-law Amendment Planning for detached accessory C. of W. buildings in the Date: Agricultural/Rural (AIRU) Mav 18, 2004 Motion # Zone R.M. File #: D14 013662 Date: Roll #: , KGROUND/ANAL YSIS: The Planning Department .has determined that there is a need to amend the Township's Zoning By- law (By-law 97-95) to clarify the provisions applying to detached accessory buildings on lots within the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone. At the present time, the setbacks for detached accessory buildings are the same for smaller residential lots and larger agricultural parcels. On the smaller residential lots, these setbacks cannot be provided and a Minor Variance is typically required. This was never the intent of the by-law when it was written; however, the wording of the by-law, when taken literally, does create this situation. Table B4 - Part C of Zoning By-law 97-95 contains the "Provisions for Buildings, except single detached dwellings" and provides setbacks for any other building not classified in Part C of Table B4 which would include a detached garage. These provisions require large yard setbacks for the detached accessory structure but do not restrict the floor area, coverage, or height of these detached structures. It was the original intent of these provisions to ensure that buildings on larger parcels of land were generously set back from lot lines. However, since the table indicates that the provisions apply "to any other building", the development of an accessory building on any size lot has been deemed to be subject to this provision, Detached accessory buildings on smaller lots should be controlled in the same manner as any other residential lot in the Township - through Section 5.1 "Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses". This section currently regulates and controls the location, size and height of accessory buildings on all residentially zoned properties. During the Comprehensive Update to the Zoning By-law that will be prepared later this year, all parcels which are less than 2.0 hectares and zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) will be rezoned to the ~D~~ Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone to reflect their intended residential usage. These properties would then continue to be subject to the general provisions of Section 5.1 for detached accessory buildings. The Committee of Adjustment is now imposing a condition on all residentiallqts created in the Agricultural/Rural zone that they be rezoned to a Rural Residential Two (RUR2) zone to implement this objective. However to ensure that in the upcoming building season, landowners are not required to complete a minor variance process on these parcels, it is being recommended that this provision be amended separate from and prior to the comprehensive Zoning By-law Amendment. Table 84 Part C Provisions for Buildings, except Single Detached Dwellings - would be amended by deleting the column regarding "Any other building not classified in Part C of Table 84". If this amendment were adopted, any detached accessory building which is not a defined building under the remainder of the Part C provisions (ie. detached garage) would be subject to the general provisions currently contained in Section 5.1 of Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. ,. In order to ensure that the general provisions of Section 5.1 are clear in their application, it is also being recommended as part of this amendment that Section 5.1.3 -Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures be amended to the following: "Section 5,1.3 - Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in all zones" A public meeting was held on May 17, 2004 in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act at which time no concerns were raised that required amendments to the draft by-law. ' The proposed amendment would conform with the Official Plan and would clarify the provisions for accessory buildings on Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone properties. On this basis, it is recommended that Council give favorable consideration to the adoption of the attached by-law. RECOMMENDATION S : 1. THAT Report No. PD2004-22 be received and adopted; and 2, That the Clerk bring forward the appropriate by-law for consideration by Council. Respectfully submitted, ---1~~ ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: I\~? CS d--\ ~ /C:)) ^-~ C.A.O. v Dept. Head J1~L 2 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO. 2004- 0, I -'~ --.)' Being a By-law to amend By-law 97-95 being the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone WHEREAS it is considered desirable to control development within the Township ofOro-Medonte in accordance with the Official Plan and to prohibit the use of land and the erection and use of buildings or structures except for certain purposes, and to regulate the type of construction and the height, bulk, location, size, floor area, character and use of buildings in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 cP. 13 as amended; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. AND WHEREAS the passage of such a by-law will conform with the Official Plan; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte enacts as follows: 1. That Table B4 - Subsection C - Provisions for Buildines. except sinale detached dwellings is hereby amended by deleting the column entitled "Any other building not classified in part C of Table B4". 2. That Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildinGs and structures is hereby amended with the addition of the following at the end of the title "in all zones". 3. This By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage hereof, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME on the 2nd day of June 2004. READ A THIRD TIME and finally passed this day of June 2004. Mayor - J. Neil Craig Clerk - Marilyn Pennycook ~c- \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004-23 Committee of the Whole Nick McDonald, RPP Subject: Department: Council Planning New Development Charges C. of W. Background Study and Draft Date: By-law Mav 19, 2004 Motion # A.M. File #: N/A Date: Roll #: " N/A ~I BACKGROUND: Ii By-law 99-81 was passed by Council on July 21st, 1999 and was prepared pursuant to The Development Charges Act, 1997, which enables a municipality to pass by-laws for the imposition of Development Charges. The intent of The Development Charges Act, 1997 is to ensure that new growth is responsible for the capital costs associated with maintaining an appropriate level of service to accommodate that growth. By-law 99-81 will expire on July 21 s\ 2004. The current Development Charge for single detached dwellings is $3,642.00 and for other dwelling units is $2,860.00. In 1999, Council decided to not levy a Development Charge for commercial and industrial development in the Municipality. A comprehensive report prepared by Meridian Planning has been completed to provide the basis for the update of the Development Charges By-law so that it will apply for another five years. The Meridian report is attached. TED LEVEL OF GROWTH: 1. The attached report confirms that the population of the Township will increase by between 8,000 and 10,000 between 2004 and 2024. A median population growth forecast of 9,000 has therefore been selected for planning purposes. As a 10 year growth forecast is required for Development Charges, the Development Charges Study estimates that the Township will grow by 4,500 people over the 10 year period between 2004 and 2009. This translates into 1,730 new households. 2. Other forms of housing are also anticipated within the community. These include semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units and single detached dwellings that have a floor area of 90 square metres or less o\c - J that are located in planned developments and accessed only by private roads. 500 such units may be constructed in the Township in the next 10 years. 3. The amount of residential assessment as a percentage of total assessment has been steadily increasing since 1994. In 2003, 94.3 percent of all assessment was residential. Over the last 10 years, the average amount of residential assessment as a percentage of the total was 91.88 percent. This means that 91.88 percent of the Development Charge will be attributed to residential development. 'I CONCLUSIONS: 11 4. On the basis of a review of all of the services the Municipality provides, it is recommended that the Development Charge for single detached dwellings be increased from $3,642.00 t6$3,824.81. This translates into a 5.0 percent increase. It continues to be recommended that Development Charges not be levied against new commercial and industrial development in the Township of Oro-Medonte. The Table below identifies the components of the recommended Development Charge. CHARGE PER CHARGE PER PERCENT ITEM SINGLE DETACHED OTHER DWELLING OF DWELLING UNIT TOTAL TRANSPORT ATION $2,664.41 $2,091.56 69.66% FIRE AND $402.83 $316.22 10.53% EMERGENCY RECREATION $661 .42 $559.66 17.29% ADMINISTRATION $96.15 $81.37 2.51% . GRAND TOTAL $3,824.81 $3,048.81 100% . 5. The Table below indicates what percentage of the total Development Charge were attributed to the five main service areas in 1999 and what the percentages are in 2004. ITEM PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT OF (1999) TOT AL (2004) Transportation 52.82% 69.66% Fire & Emergency 16.77% 10.53% Recreation 21.4% 17.29% Administration 4.45% 2.51% Police Services 4.55% 0.00% 6. The Table above indicates that the only service that will be increasing its share of the Development Charge is transportation. Almost 70 percent of the recommended Development Charge is attributed to this item. Reductions in the percentages attributed to emergency services, recreation and administration are recommended. No Development Charge for police services is recommended to be collected, since capital improvements are not anticipated in the next ten years for police services. 2 o /l \r--.J \ '-- 7. The major reason for the increase in the share attributed to transportation is the amount of money spent each year by the Township to maintain the Township's road network. In 1999, it was estimated that an average of $583,200.00 per year was spent on upgrading the road network in the previous 10 years. In 2004, that average amount has increased to $838,676.00. The 1999 report also indicated that only 50 percent of road upgrading costs were growth related. Giving the increasing demands for road upgrading in the Township, the 2004 report recommends that the growth-related share be increased to 60 percent. As a result of these two factors, over 50 percent of the Development Charge is attributed to road upgrades alone. 8. With respect to Fire and Emergency Services, the share of the total Development Charge attributed to this service in 2004 is less than in 1999 primarily because the level of service has declined. This is primarily because the amount of floor space in the Township's fire stations has remained constant since 1997, the number of vehicles operated by the Municipality has remained constant since 2000 and the number of volunteers has remained constant since 1994. This means that as growth has occurred, the level of service declines. It should be noted that the level of serv.ice amounts identified in the report are considered to be merely numerical levels of service for the purposes of calculating the Development Charge. These numbers should in no way be construed as a reflection of how well the Township's emergency service department can respond to or deal with emergencies. In addition to the above, the back-up power system identified in the 1999 Development Charge p.nd study and the Master Plan have been completed. As a result, there is no longer a need to include components of the Development Charge for these two items. 9. With respect to recreation, the average level of service for parkland or developed parkland has increased since 1994 as a result of the development of new parks in the Township since that time. However, the level of service in the Township's arena and community halls has declined, primarily because the square footage in both the arena and the Township's eight community halls has remained constant since 1994. In addition, the 2004 recreational Development Charge does not include a component for a Recreation Master Plan, since one has already been prepared. 10. With respect to Administration, the Development Charges Study in 1999 and in 2004 are relatively similar in terms of its recommendations. One difference is the lesser amount of money attributed to Secondary Plans, since the Secondary Plan for the Craighurst community has been initiated and will be completed this year and the Secondary Plan for Oro Centre has been completed and is now approved. 11. As noted above, a Development Charge is not being recommended for Police Services in the 2004 Study. This recommendation is being made primarily because it is not anticipated that capital expenses will be required in the next 10 years in the Township of Oro-Medonte. This is also because there is a considerable amount of excess capacity in the Barrie OPP detachment building on Rose St. in the City of Barrie. Given this excess capacity, there is no need to collect money to fund the construction of additional floor space if a building already exists and is under-utilized. 3 C\r _ I J '\... ~I It RECOMMENDA TION(S): It is recommended that Council: . receive this report for information purposes; and, . authorize the holding of a public meeting under The Development Charges Act, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, -1~ ~ Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Partner C.A.O. Comments: Date: ~ d-{~O-J C.A.O. ,tYJ~ / vi Dept. Head -4- . . ) f.1 1 , I.J; ...t( .~.., ~...J' . ~c-5 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE RY-I AW NO Q9-..1lL Being a By-law of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte With respect to Development Charges - ,^-(HERE.~S Section 2(1) of the Development Charges Act:. 1997 enables the Council of a munl-clpaUty to pass by-laws for the imposition of Development Charges against lands located i.. the municipality where the development of the land would increase the need for municipal services as designated in the by-law; AND WHEREAS The "Corporation of the Township of Qro-Medonte has determined that ==~:":Jt\edevelopment of lands within the municipality will increase the need for municipal services; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, at Its meeting of :Jli\.."o1 ?..11 Q'1 . approved the recommendations contained In a report entitled Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Study prepared by The Planning Partnership; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has ._ indicated its intent, by Resolution Number I 5 J that It intends to ensure that the increase in need tor services attributable to the anticipated development in the Township wit! be met; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has given Notice of Its Development Charges proposC11 in accordance with subsection 12(1) of the Act,"and held a public meeting on July 21, 1999; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has, by Resolution Number I b ,determined that no further public meeting is required in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Development Charges Act, 1997; NOW THEREFORE The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte by its Council enacts the following: PART I - DEFINITIOt-lS 1. "Act" means the Devetopmeot Charges Act. 1997. S.O, 1997. c.2Z, 2. In thisby~law: (a) all words and phrases used in this by-law that have been defined in the Ac.t shall have the same meaning as those words and phrases In the Act; (b) words and phrases that have not been defined in either the Act or this by- law, but that have been defined in the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law No. 97-95 shall have the same meaning given to them in such by- law; 1 . . t ~ '. " ~ ."!' qc-lD (c) if said Zoning By~law No. 97-95 is amended or is repealed and replaced WI{.(I a :,ucce~so{ oy-/aw, lilt: ....VIU.:> OIJ~ tJ'II"~...,; CA.; ,.;7",:::;-,::::: :::-::::: ~~J.i!;~:-' in said successor by-law shall have the same meaning in this by-jaw unless they are given other meanings in the Act or in this by-law; (d) the reference to any statute or regulation in this by-law includes not only the .state or regulation itself, but also any statute or regulation that replaces it in the tuture; and (e) the reference to any section or subsection of any statute or regulation in this by-law includes not only the section or subsection itself but also the equivalent section or subsection in any statue or regulation that replaces it, as amendeQ from time to time. ~RT 11- IMI>~ITION OF QE.YElOPMENT CHARGES 1. This By-law applies to all lands in the Township of Oro-Medonte. 2. Any development or redevelopment of land5, buildings or structures for residential purposes is deemed to require the provision, enlargement and/or expansion of the services referred to in Schedule 'A'. 3. Subject to the provisions of this By-law, Development Charges against lands shall be imposed and collected with the base rate set out In Schedule 'B', which relates to the services which are set out in Schedule 'A'. This By-law does not provide for the phasing-in of the schedule of base rates in Schedule 'B'. 4_ This By-law shall apply to the residential development of all lands, buildings and structures within the Corporate limits of the Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte, whether or not the land is exempt from taxation under Section 3 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 . 5. The Development Charge shall be collected when the residential development requires the issuing of a permit under the Bunding Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure. 6. Notwithstanding sUb-section (5), the Development Charge also may be conected as a condition of coment in accordance with Section 53 of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c.P .13. In such a case, a Development Charge WQu\d not be payable at the time of building permit Issuance for the same lot. ], Development Charges shall be calculated and payable in full in money (cash or certified cheque in Canadian funds) or by provisions of services as may be agreed upon, or by credit granted by the Act. 8. 10 the case of residential use or the residential portion of a m1xed-use development, the Development Charge shall apply to each dwelling unit. 2 _ 4 _..._ - , " . I ''Ii " I .... " . . ~ "',) \r '- PART III - E~EMPTIONS . ~ - _. .. -' - - &- '.. I ...J - , . ... I .... -. __ _ ..... I :........ I " , ...-.J: _ _ I..... _,.f ... h ""'.... ; ~ I. .1",) iJy-'C2,Y ,)"<;21' it....,... Qt-'r-") '-v IIVI'~I_~I\".~II\.I(.I _"......_,......_..... ..._......_...::; ,_,,_ "'.". owned by and used for the purposes of: · a Board of Education; and, t ? ..... · any municipality or local board thereof. No Development Charge shall be payable for the redevelopment of a dwelling unit that has been demolished, provided that a building permit for the redevelopment is issued within five years of the date that a demolition permit has been issued. 3. Oevl'lopment Charges are not payable where: · two or less dwelling units are being added to a single detached dwelling, provided the total gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit or units is less than or equal to. the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already In the building; · one dwelling unit is being added to a semi-detached dwelling or a townhouse dwelling, provided the gross floor area of the additional unit is less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; Of, · one dwelling unit Is b~ing added to an building containing apartment dwellings or a building containing dwellings which are not considered to be single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwellings, provided the gross floor area of the additional unit is less than or equal to the gross floor area of the 5mallest dwelling unit already in the building. {'ART IV - LQ(:Al SERVICES Nothing in this By-law prev~nts Council from requiring, as a condition of an agreement under Sections 51 or 53 of the Planning Act. that the owner, at his or her expense, shall install or pay for local s~rvlces as Council may require. PART V - INDEXING The Development Charge shall be adjusted, without amendment to this by-law, on the first day of January in each year, beginning January 1 It, 2001, in accordance with the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics. PART VI- RE~(A.l OF FORMER BV-lAWS The following By-laws are repealed by this By-law; . By-law 91-91 of the former Township of Oro, as amended; By-law 92-16 of the former Township of Medonte, as amended; By-law 1991-83 of the former Township of Oriliia, as amended; By-law 91-42 of the former Township of Vespra, as amended; and, By-law 91-40 of the former Township of Flos as amended. . . . . i - - - - .......- . - . ~ _.. ''''.., .. a.. .. . .. ........ ...-...-...... .. .... . -, ~.' ! fl ..~, . - - , '- ~C-1 EART VII - EXPIRY OF BY-.::LAW. This By-law shall expire five years after it comes into force. PART VIII - ADMINIS.I.lMTION t " This by-law shall be administered by the Treasurer of the Municipality. PARr !X~- SCHE.DJJ.LES 10 THE BY-LAW The following schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law; (1) Schedule A - Classification of Services; and (2) Schedule B - Components of Development Charge. eART X - SeyERABIUTY If for any reason whatsoever any provision, terminology. covenant or condition of this by-law, or any application to any person or circumstances, is to an extent held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then such provisions, terminology, covenants, or condition Is deemed to be independent of the remainder of the by-law or any part thereat, and this by-law continues to be applicable to and enforceable to the fullest extend permitted by law against any person in circumstances other than those as to which it has been held or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal. PART XI - EHE<.:TIYE DAlE This by-law comes into force and effect on the date of its enactment. BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21stoAY OF July 1999. BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS.2l .- ,AY OF .J11l}1999. (~ ~~/ MAYOR 7 /\') ! \ - \ Jermifer Zie1eniewski CAO/Trea.su:rer .. 4 .... .... - - . .. ~-.. 4......';:.. - .'- ".. . , . . - - ~ ~-'" .....-. ,_..*.......... . ..~.....~-~.-..*'*~ . .... 0\ q Ie ~ I SCHEDULE "A" BY-LAW No.9S-J..L TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW Cfassification of Services ITEM ----------------------------------------- TRANSPORTATION road upqrades road equipment public works qaraqes sand storaqe --------~-------------------------------- FIRE + EMERGENCY fire stations equipment small equipment back-up power master plan ------------------------------------------ RECREATION parkland development arena community centres recreation master plan ----------------------------------------~ ADMINISTRATION Official Plan Update Secondary Plans qroundwater study Development Charqes Study office equipment Lake Simcoe ReQional Airport ------------------------------------------ POLICE SERVICES c -:? ;:.::.; ,:..' -:. . ., .. ............ "'...... .. . ...... ..~.iI,. .. .>.. .. .._. .. .... _'" .. ....... .. - . .. .... .\- ~c-tO SCH EDU LE "51! BY-LAW No. 99-_L TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW ~ Components of Development Charge .- CHARGE PER CHARGE PER PERCENT iTEM SINGLE DETACHEC OTHER DWELLING OF DWELLING UNIT TOTAL ---------------- ------------- ------------ ----~--....---- TRANSPORTATION 51,588.93 $ \,.247.31 52.82% ---------------- ----------...- ------------ ------------ FIRE AND EMERGENCY SS04.41 S395,96 16.77% ----.....---------- ------------ --_._-------- ------------ RECREATION $643.82 SS05.40 21.40% ---------------.... ------------ ------------ -----....------ ADMINISTRATION 5133.81 S 105.04 4.45% ---------------- ------------ ------------ - - -'------.- -- POLICE SERVICES S 136.96 S107~51 4.550/0 1/. 3,005. 00 Ji '2- 3(,,0, C' 'C GRAND-TOTAL sa.9S1.n . S~'l~ qc-q TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY Draft for Council Review May 19, 2004 MERIDIAN PlAHNJNG CONSlIlTANTI.INC 0\ \ 1\ ,C--\d- Table of Contents SECTION A - PURPOSE OF REPORT .......................................................................................... 1 SECTION B - PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH .................................................................. 2 SECTION C - HOW THIS STUDY WAS COMPLETED .................................................................4 SECTION D - TRANSPORTATION ............... .................................................................................. 7 D1. ROAD U PG RADES ........................................................ ............ ........... .... .................... 7 D2. TOWNSHIP ROAD EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 7 D3. PUBLIC WORKS GARAGES .............................................................................,.,..........9 D4. SAN D STORAG E .............................................................................................. .......... 10 D5. SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ........................... 11 SECTION E - FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ................................................................... 12 E1 . FIRE STATIONS.................. .................................................... .................... ......... ....... 12 E2. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES .......................................................~ 13 E3. FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ...................................................... .............................. 14 E4. SUMMARY OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 15 SECTION F - RECREATIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................ 17 F1. PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... .............................. 17 F2. ARENA............................................ ......... ................... .............................. ............ ....... 18 F3. COMMUN ITY HALLS...... ............ ......................... ....................................................... 20 F4. SUMMARY OF RECREATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES..................................... 20 SECTION G - ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................21 G 1, OFFICIAL PLAN UPDA TE...........................................................................................21 G2. SECONDARY PLANS.. ....... ....... ..................... ..... ..... ......... ........... ............. ............ ..... 21 G3. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDy............................................... 22 G4. OFFICE EQUIPMENT ..................... ..... ....................................................................... 22 G5. LAKE SIMCOE REGIONAL AIRPORT ........................................................................23 G6. SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES .............................23 SECTION H - RECOMMEN DA TIONS........................................................................................... 24 Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CON5Ul.TMfTS INC May 21,2004 0\ ,...., \ C - 15 SECTION A - PURPOSE OF REPORT A 1. The Township of Oro-Medonte was created on January 1, 1994 as a result of County of Simcoe restructuring pursuant to the County of Simcoe Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c.33. The Township is made up of the former Township of Ora and portions of the Townships of Medonte, Orillia, Flos and Vespra. A2. When the Township was created, it inherited the Development Charges By-laws that were prepared by the Councils of the former municipalities. As a result, there were five Development Charges By-laws in effect in the Township. On July 21, 1999, Council adopted a Development Charges By-law that applied to the entire Township. The By-law was prepared by the Planning Partnership (now Meridian Planning Consultants). The current (April 2004) Development Charge in Oro-Medonte for single detached dwellings is $3,642.00 and for other dwelling units it is $2,860.00. In 1999, Council decided to not levy a Development Charge for commercial and industrial development in the Township. A3. The current Development Charges By-law (By-law 99-81) is set to expire on July 21, 2004. A copy of the By-law is attached. The purpose of this report is to provide the basis for the update of the Development Charge By-law so that it will apply for another five years. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN I'!..ANN!NG CONSUlTANTS INC. 1 May 21, 2004 a I" ..\c~\i SECTION B - PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH B 1 . The intent of the Development Charges Act, 1997 is to ensure that new growth is responsible for the capital costs associated with maintaining an appropriate level of service to accommodate that growth. On this basis, the first step in the Development Charges process is to determine how much growth is expected to occur in the Township. B2. The approved Oro-Medonte Official Plan anticipates that the population of the Township will grow by approximately 10,000 between 1996 and 2016. This translates .into an average of 3% per year. Official Plan Amendments 16 and 17, which were adopted by Council in August 2003, confirmed that the population of the Township would grow by between 8,000 and 10,000 between 2004 and 2024. For the purposes of this ''Study, a median population increase of 9,000 is established. B3. The Development Charges Act, 1997 states that the Development Charge should be based on a 10 year growth forecast. On the basis of growth forecasts established in the Official Plan, it is estimated that the Township will grow by 4,500 people over the ten year period between 2004 and 2009 (9,000/2). On the basis of an average household size of 2.6, this translates into 1,730 new households (173 new permanent households per year). , ' B4. The development of other forms of housing in the Township is permitted by the Official Plan in certain locations, provided the proposed development satisfies the relevant criteria established by the Official Plan. These other housing types include semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units and single detached dwellings that have a floor area of 90 square metres or less (968 square feet) that are located in planned developments and accessed only by private roads. These types of development also have an impact on services in the future. In order to ensure that an appropriate share of the cost of these services is attributed to this form of development, it is assumed that up to 500 such units will be developed in the next ten years. These 500 units will generate 1,100 people, based on a household size of 2.2 persons per household. B5. On the basis of the above, this Development Charges Background Study assumes that the population of the Township will increase by 5,600 people in the next ten years. It is also assumed that 4,500 of these people will be housed in single detached dwellings and that 1,100 of these people will be housed in other types of dwellings. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN I'tANNlNG CONS\JlT"'NTS INC 2 May 21,2004 ~c -\5 86. In order to determine what share of future growth should be attributed to residential development, a review of the Township's assessment in the last ten years has been undertaken. This review has been undertaken since non-residential development also places demands on some municipal services. The residential and non-residential shares of the total assessment in each of the last ten years is below: 89.79% 88.85% 89.30% 89.25% 92.04% 93.42% 93.57% 94.10% 94.20% 94.30% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 NQn..R~$id 10.21% 11 .15% 10.70% 10.75% 7.96% 6.58% 6.43% 5.90% 5.80% 5.70% On the basis of the above, an average of 91.88 percent of the total assessment has been residential in the last ten years. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that this share will remain constant over the next ten years. " Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN P\,ANNING CONSUlTANTS INC 3 May 21, 2004 ~c - \ Co SECTION C - HOW THIS STUDY WAS COMPLETED Below is a description of the methodology used in preparing this study: C1. The first step is to determine what services are eligible. In the case of Oro-Medonte, eligible services are: · roads and transportation; · fire and emergency services; · parks and recreation; · administrative services; and, · police services. The expansion of water and storm drainage systems are not included within the Development Charge By-law since it will be the responsibility of developers to expand these systems on an as-needed basis, pursuant to the Planning Act. C2. The next step is to determine the average level of service, which is one of the key components of the calculation of the Development Charge. The Development Charges Act, 1997 states that the average level of service that existed in the last ten years should be used as a benchmark for planning future capital cost requirements. For example, if an average of 500 square feet of floor space existed for every 10,000 people in the last ten years, and the population was projected to grow by 5,000 people, an additional 250 square feet would theoretically be required to maintain the historical average level of service. This is an important component of the study process, since the legislation clearly requires that the average level of service cannot be exceeded in the next ten years. If an increase in the level of service is to be considered, the increase cannot be considered as part of the Development Charges process. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the population in each of the last ten years is required to determine what the level of service was for each year. The population in each year between 1994 and 2004 is based on Assessment Office data and building permit information obtained from the Township. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN Pl.AN~NG COI'&Jt.TANTS INC 4 May 21,2004 1c-ll Below are the estimated populations for each of the last ten years: 1994-15,516 1995 - 15,908 1996 - 16,300 1997 - 16,692 1998 -17,084 1999.... 17,494 2000 - 17,904 2001 - 18,315 2002 -18,765 2003 - 19,215 C3. The capital costs required to maintain the average level of service over the next ten years is then estimated. Eligible capital costs include: · the cost to acquire land; · the cost to improve land; · the cost to acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings and structures; and, ' · the cost. to acquire, lease,. construct or improve facilities including rolling stock with an estimated useful life of seven years or more and furniture and equipm~,nt other than computer equipment and materials required for circulation, reference or information purposes by a library board. Growth related studies are also permitted to be included within the Development Charge, provided the study deals with capital improvements and is required as a result of expected future growth. In most cases, a per capita share of the replacement cost for most capital item's (with a few exceptions) was established. The intent is that, as the population increases, a portion of that growth should also pay for the per capita cost of the capital items that will eventually need to be replaced to maintain the average level of service. C4. The increase in the need for service that is attributed to growth must then be reduced by the part of the increase that can be met using the municipality's excess capacity. This means that facilities that were oversized historically have to be reviewed. However, on the basis of our review of the services the Township provides, it appears as if the Township has been very conservative with the provision of services, meaning that none of the existing services has been over-sized. C5. The increase in the need for a service must then be reduced by the extent to which it will benefit existing development. The determination of how the increase in the need for the service will benefit existing development is fairly subjective and requires a good Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN !'lANNlN(; CONSUlTANTS IN(: 5 May 21,2004 ~ c '\i understanding of the potential benefit to existing uses resulting from an increase in the service being provided. In most cases, it is assumed that the majority of the anticipated capital costs required to maintain the average level of service is growth related. The amount in reserves also needs to be factored in. When the first Development Charges By-law was prepared, no reserve amounts were included. However, since By- law 99-81 was passed, the Development Charges that have been collected have been placed in reserves if they were not required at the time for capital items. For the purpose of this study, we have projected the amount in each reserve account to the end of 2004. These amounts are as follows: Transportation Fire Recreation Administration Police Total $162,288.00 $67,942.00 $468,175.00 $24,559.00 $37,911.00 $769,021.00 C6. The Development Charges Act, 1997 then requires that these capital costs be reduced by 10 percent. In the case of Oro-Medonte, The capital costs associated with fire protection and road maintenance are excluded from the 10 percent rule. The capital costs must also be reduced by the amount of the grants to be received from other levels of government. However, no such grants exist in 2004 and none are expected in the future. C7. Once the amount of the net capital costs are known (after the discounts and reserves are factored in), the costs are then allocated to residential and non-residential development. The residential/non-residential share is 91 .88% as described in Section 86. The residential share is then applied to the number of new dwellings anticipated over the next ten years to derive a Development Charge per dwelling unit. The number of new dwellings is set at 2,230, of which 1,730 are single detached dwellings and 500 are other dwelling unit types. The Development Charges Act, 1997 does not permit the collection of Development Charges for the enlargement of a dwelling unit or the creation of two or less additional dwelling units in an existing residential building. The non-residential share of 8.22% is not proposed to be recouped through Development Charges, since it is recommended that the Township continue to not include a Development Charge for new industrial and commercial development. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CQNSlA."tANTS INC. 6 May 21,2004 ~ c ~\ ~ SECTION D - TRANSPORTATION At the present time, the Township maintains over 600 kilometres of road in the municipality. Being a rural township, the majority of the capital costs expended in the municipality on a yearly basis are for the road network and the equipment used to maintain that network. Below is a description of the capital costs proposed to be expended in the next ten years to accommodate growth. The detailed calculations for each capital cost item are contained on Table A, which is attached to this report. D1. ROAD UPGRADES In the last ten years, an average of $838,676.00 was spent upgrading the Township's road network. For the purposes of this study, this amount is considered to be the'average level of service and is used as a benchmark to estimate future capital improvements to the road network. It is therefore estimated that at least $8,386,760.00 will be spent upgrading Township roads in the next ten years to maintain the current average level of service. Given that any road upgrade will benefit existing development and a major increase in the length of road network is not expected, it is conservatively estimated that 600;0 of this total cost is growth related. On the basis of the calculations undertaken on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $2,146. D2. TOWNSHIP ROAD EQUIPMENT The Township currently owns 28 vehicles that have a lifespan of more than 7 years that are used for maintenance and upgrading of the road network. This equipment is also used in the Township's parks as well. These include: . 2 service trucks . 5 single axles . 6 tandem axles . 6 graders . 2 loaders . 2 backhoes . 1 utility tractor . 1 water truck . 2 brush chippers . 1 float Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN f'Vt,NNlNG CONSUlTANTS INC 7 May 21,2004 C\c-1D The second brush chipper was added in 2000. The street sweeper and second service truck joined the fleet when the Public Works Department took over the park function. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the number of vehicles has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: 1994 15,516 23 1.48 1995 15,908 23 1.44 1996 16,300 24 1.47 1997 16,692 24 1.43 1998 17,084 24 1.40 1999 17,494 24 1.37 2000 17,904 27 1.50 2001 18,315 27 1.47 2002 18,765 28 1.49 2003 19,215 28 1.45 On the basis of the above, the average number of vehicles per 1,000 people in the last ten years is 1 .45. On this basis, there will be a need to purchase 9.27 additional vehicles to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 1.45 = 8,123/1,000 :I: 8.12). As noted above, the expected population growth is 5,600 people. As growth occurs, there will more requests by the public to ensure that Township roads are plowed early in the morning and more requests to grade the roads at appropriate times. It should be noted that if no growth was expected, there would be no need to purchase additional vehicles, only replacement vehicles would be required. The total value of all the vehicles used for road maintenance and upgrading is approximately $3,695,150.00. This translates into an average of $131,969.00 per vehicle. If an additional 8.12 vehicles are purchased over the next ten years, the cost would be $1,071,593.40. Although the purchase of new vehicles is required to maintain the average level of service, these new vehicles will also benefit existing development, since these additional vehicles could potentially contribute to a higher level of service in some parts of the Township. In addition, a major increase in the length of the road network is not expected in the next ten years. On this basis, only 80% of the total cost is considered to be growth related. The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $329.13 as shown on Table A. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN f'\ANNING t:::ONilllTANTS 1Nt. 8 May 21,2004 ~c-~\ D3. PUBLIC WORKS GARAGES At the present time, the Township operates two public works garages, the North Yard and the South Yard. The North Yard (in former Medonte) has an area of 706 square metres (7,600 square feet) and the South Yard (in former Oro) has an area of 1,158 square metres (12,465 square feet). An addition costing approximately $430,000.00 was added to the South Yard in 1994. The estimated replacement cost for both buildings is $1,859,000.00. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the number of square metres of floor space has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: 1994 15,516 1,162 120.06 1995 15,908 1,863 117.11 1996 16,300 1,863 114.29 1997 16,692 1,863 111.61 1998 17,084 1,863 109.04 1999 17,494 1,863 106.49 2000 17,904 1,863 104.05 2001 18,315 1,863 101.71 2002 18,765 1,863 99.28 2003 19,215 1,863 96.95 On the basis of the above, the average amount of floor space per 1 ,000 people in the last ten years is 108.05 square metres. On this basis, there will be a need to add 605 square metres of floor space to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 108.05 = 605,130/1,000 = 605). As noted previously, there will more requests by the public to ensure that Township roads are plowed early in the morning and more requests to grade the roads at appropriate times. As a result, monies should be set aside to add more space to the existing garages to house the additional vehicles required to deal with future growth. It is estimated that it would cost $929.00 per square metre ($100.00 per square foot) to build additional floor space in the public works buildings. Although the purchase of new vehicles is required to maintain the average level of service, these new vehicles will also benefit existing development, since these additional vehicles could potentially contribute to a higher level of service in some parts of the Township. On this basis, only 80% of the total cost of the additional floor space is considered to be growth related. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUlTANTS INC 9 May 21,2004 0. f)f'\ \ C -Cf~ The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $172.65 as shown on Table A. D4. SAND STORAGE The Township built a sand storage building in 1998 at a cost of approximately $200,000.00. A second sand storage building was constructed in 2003 at a cost of $285,000.00. Both structures have an area of 929 square metres (10,000 square feet). Prior to that date, sand was stored in a much smaller structure having an area of 130 square metres (1,400 square feet) with the remaining being stored outdoors. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the number of square metres of floor space has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: 1994 15,516 130 8.3 1995 15,908 130 8.1 1996 16,300 130 7.9 1997 16,692 130 7.7 1998 17,084 1,059 62.0 1999 17,494 1,059 60.53 2000 17,904 1,059 59.14 2001 18,315 1,059 57.82 2002 18,765 1,059 56.43 2003 19,215 1,988 1 03.46 On the basis of the above, the average number of square metres per 1,000 people in the last ten years is 43.13. On this basis, there will be a need to construct an additional 241 square metres (2,600 square feet) of additional floor space to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 43.13 = 241,573/1,000 = 241). It is estimated that it would cost $216.00 per square metre ($20.00 per square foot) to build the additional storage space. Although an addition to the sand storage building is required to maintain the average level of service, the additional space will also benefit existing development. On this basis, 80% of the total cost of the additional floor space is considered to be growth related. The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $16.02 as shown on Table A. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUlT;l.NTS INC 10 May 21,2004 C\c-:J) DS. SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES On the basis of the calculations made in this section of the report, below is a summary of the recommended Development Charge for transportation: TRANSPORT ATION Road upgrades Road equipment Public works garages Sand stora e Sub- T atals $2,146.60 $329.13 $172.65 $16.02 $2,664.41 $1,685.08 $278.49 $146.09 $13.56 $2,091.56 56.12% 8.61% 4.51% 0.42% 69.66% ThetabJe above indicates that 69.66% of the recommended Development Charge is attributed to transportation. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN I\.ANNING CONSlJI..TANTS INC, 11 May 21, 2004 SECTION E - FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ~c -~~ At the present time, the Township operates six fire stations that are manned by a Fire Chief, a Deputy Fire Chief and 96 volunteers. The Township also owns 17 emergency vehicles that have a lifespan of 7 years or more. Below is a description of the capital costs that are proposed to be expended in the next ten years to accommodate growth. The detailed calculations for each capital cost item are contained on Table A, which is attached to this report. E1. FIRE STATIONS The Township's fire stations are located in Shanty Bay, Hawkestone, Horseshoe Valley, Rugby, Warminster and Moonstone. The administration of the Fire and Emergency Services Department is contained within the Horseshoe Valley station, which was constructed in 1997. This station replaced a much smaller station in Edgar. An addition to the Warminster Station was constructed in 1996, when a small classroom with an area of 39 square metres (420 square feet) was added. The Moonstone fire station is considered to be too small for current operations and a number of options are now being considered. An addition is also proposed for the Hawkestone station. The estimated replacement cost for the six stations, \s $1,908,000.00. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the number of square metres of floor space has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: 1994 15,516 1,272.63 82.02 1995 15,908 1,272.63 79.99 1996 16,300 1,311 .65 80.46 1997 16,692 1,717.62 102.90 1998 17,084 1,717.62 100.53 1999 17,494 1,717.62 98.18 2000 17,904 1,717.62 95.93 2001 18,315 1,717.62 93.78 2002 18,765 1,717.62 91.53 2003 19,215 1,717.62 89.38 Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUlTANTS INC 12 May 21,2004 ~c-dS On the basis of the above, the average number of square metres per 1,000 people in the last ten years is 91.47. On this basis, there will be a need to construct an additional 512.23 square metres (5,513 square feet) of additional floor space to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 91.47= 512,237/1,000 = 512.23). It is estimated that it would cost $929.00 per square metre ($100.00 per square foot) to build the additiOnal floor space. Although the additional floor space is required to maintain the average level of service, this additional floor space will be housing vehicles that may potentially increase the response times for existing development, resulting in a higher level of service in some areas. On this basis, only 80% of the total cost is considered to be growth related. As shown on Ta'ble A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $162.40. E2. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES The Township currently owns 17 vehicles that have a lifespan of more than 7 years that are used by the Fire and Emergency Services Department. These include: . six triple combination pumpers; . six tankers; . three rescue trucks; . one ladder truck; and, . one airboat The ladder truck was purchased in 1996 at a cost of $320,000.00. Two new pumpers were purchased (1998 and 1999) to replace older pumps. An additional pumper is due to be delivered in July 2004. Two tankers were also purchased and a rescue truck was also purchased during that same time period. The Township also owns an airboat for lake rescue missions. The boat was purchased for $55,000.00 in 1997. For the purposes of this Development Charges Study, the boat is considered to be a vehicle. In order to determine the average level of service in the last ten years, the number of vehicles has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUlTANTS fNC 13 May 21,2004 1c-~, LD 1994 15,516 14 .90 1995 15,908 14 .88 1996 16,300 15 .92 1997 16,692 16 .95 1998 17;084 16 .94 1999 17,494 16 .91 2000 17,904 17 .94 2001 18,315 17 .92 2002 18,765 17 .90 2003 19,215 17 .88 On the basis of the above, the average number of vehicles per 1,000 people in the last ten years is .91. On the basis of the historic average level of service, there will bea need to purchase 5.12 additional vehicles to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X .91 = 5,121/1,000 = 5.12). The total value of all the vehicles used for the Fire and Emergency Services Department is approximately $2,270,000.00. This translates into an average of $133,539.00 per vehicle. If an additional 5.12 vehicles are required over the next ten years, the cost, to purchase these additional vehicles would be $683,668.00. Although the purchase of new vehicles is required to maintain the average level of service, these new vehicles will also benefit existing development, since the availability of these additional vehicles could potentially increase response times and the level of service in some areas. On this basis, only 80% of the total cost is considered to be growth related. As shown on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $232.24. E3. FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT There have been 96 volunteer firefighters with the Fire and Emergency Services Department each year since 1994. In order to determine the average level of service in each of the last ten years, the number of firefighters has been related to the size of the population in each year as shown below: Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CON$UlTANTS INC 14 May 21, 2004 1994 15,516 96 6.18 1995 15,908 96 6.03 1996 16,300 96 5.88 1997 16,692 96 5.75 1998 17,084 96 5.61 1999 17,494 96 5.48 2000 17,904 96 5.36 2001 18,315 96 5.24 2002 18,765 96 5.11 2003 19,215 96 4.99 Y f\ IC-eLl On the basis of the above, the average number of volunteers per 1 ,000 people in the last ten years is 5.56. On this basis, there could be a need to recruit 31 additional volunteers to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 5.56 = 31,156/1,000= 31). However, the Township's contingent of volunteers has remained constant at 96 over the last 10 years, although the Township's population increased by 3,700 during that time. Although the recently approved Emergency Service Master Plan recommends that additional volunteers be secured for each station, recruiting 31 additional volunteers "in the next ten years appears very unlikely. On this basis, it is estimated that 10 new volunteer positions will be created during this time. It costs $2,400.00 to equip each volunteer with protective clothing, a helmet, gloves, and pager. If 10 additional volunteers are recruited, the equipment cost would be $24,000.00. As with capital costs associated with the floor space expansion and the additional vehicles, 80% of this cost is considered to be growth related. As shown on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $8.19. E4. SUMMARY OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT CHARGES On the basis of the calculations made in this section of the report, below is a summary of the recommended Development Charge for Fire and Emergency Services: Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSUlTANTS INC 15 May 21,2004 q r _ 1')"-; ~ '"-. a--- 0 FIRE AND EMERGENCY Fire stations Equipment Small e ui ment Sub-Totals $162.40 $232.24 $8.19 $402.83 $137.41 $196.51 $6.93 $316.22 4.25% 6.07% 0.21% 10.53% The table above indicates that 10.53% of the recommended Development Charge is attributed to Fire and Emergency Services. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by 16 May 21,2004 MERIDIAN PlANNING CQNSJLTANTS INC ~c -d~ SECTION F - RECREATIONAL SERVICES At the present time, the Township operates one arena and maintains a number of park areas throughout the municipality. Below is a description of the capital costs that are proposed to be expended in the next ten years to accommodate growth. The detailed calculations for each capital cost item are contained on Table A, which is attached to this report. F1. PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT The new Development Charges Act, 1997 no longer enables a municipality to acquire parkland in addition to the 5% provided for under the Planning Act as part of the Development Charge. However, the Act does permit the municipality to collect Development Charges for the improvement of parkland. At the present time, the Township owns a number of public parks in the Township that are considered to be developed. The total area of this parkland is 44.03 hectares, and most has been obtained through the planning approval process set out by the Planning Act At the time of restructuring on ,January 1, 1994, the total amount of developed parkland was 31.69 hectares. Since 1998, additional parkland has been developed at Ramey Park and in Shanty Bay, Horseshoe, Edgar and Craighurst The Township also owns 27.79 hectares of parkland that is considered to be undeveloped. These parks are not currently used for recreation and for the most part remain in their natural state. Additi6nal parkland will be dedicated to the municipality in the future as development occurs. An additional 54 hectares is included within the rail- trail. In order to determine the average level of service in each of the last ten years, the amount of developed parkland has been related to the size of the population in each year as shown below: Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN f'lJ<NNlNG CON:SUt.TANTS INC. 17 May 21, 2004 c\ . _ ~b .C , 1994 15,516 31.69 2.04 - 1995 15,908 31.69 1.99 1996 16,300 32.64 2.00 1997 16,692 36.64 2.19 1998 17,084 40.87 2.39 1999 17,494 43.22 2.47 2000 17,904 43.22 2.41 2001 18,315 43.22 2.35 2002 18,765 43.22 2.30 2003 19,215 44.03 2.29 On the basis of the above, the average amount of developed parkland per 1,000 people in the last ten years is 2.23 hectares. On this basis, there will be a need to develop 12.51 hectares of additional parkland to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 2.23 = 12,511/1,000 = 12.51). It is estimated that it costs $74,100.00 per hectare ($30,000.00 per acre) on average to develop parkland. The development of 12.51 hectares would therefore cost approximately $926,991.00. Although the development of additional parkland is requir,ed to maintain the average level of service, this new parkland will also benefit existing development, since the additional parkland could potentially contribute to a higher level of service in some parts of the Township. On this basis, only 80% of the total cost of the additional parkland is considered to be growth related. In addition, as the development of parkland does not benefit industrial and commercial development, all of this cost has been allocated to future residential development. As shown on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $309.33. F2. ARENA The Township operates one arena on Highway 11 near the hamlet of Guthrie. The arena was built in 1972 and was expanded in 1976. Further improvements were made in 1989. Since that time, the total area of the building has been 2,787 square metres (30,000 square feet). Approximately 478 square metres (5,150 square feet) of this area is the site of a banquet facility/community hall. On this basis, the net area of the arena is 2,3()8 square metres (24,850 square feet). Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by 18 May 21,2004 MERIDIAN I'\..ANNING CONSUtT"'N1S INC ~C-)\ In order to determine the average level of service in each of the last ten years, the amount of arena floor space has been related to the size of the population in each year as shown below: 1994 15,516 2,308 148.74 1995 15,908 2,308 145.08 1996 16,300 2,308 141 .59 1997 16,692 2,308 138.26 1998 17,084 2,308 135.09 1999 1 7,494 2,308 131.93 2000 17,904 2,308 128.90 2001 18,315 2,308 126.01 2002 18,765 2,308 122.99 2003 19,215 2,308 120.11 On the basis of the above, the average amount of square metres per 1,000 people in the last ten years is 133.87. On this basis, there will be a need to construct an additional 749 square metres (8,069 square feet) of floor space to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 X 133.87 = 749,674/1,000 = 749). A projected population increase of 5,600 people is not sufficient to justify the construction of a new ice pad. However, the municipality should be collecting Development Charges against this eventual cost in hopes that other revenue sources will assist in the eventual development of a new ice pad at a later date. It is estimated that it costs $1,579.30 per square metre ($170.00 per square foot) to construct an arena. As noted above, an additional 749 square metres of arena floor space will be required to maintain the average level of service. The total cost of this additional floor space is therefore $1,182,895.00. It should be noted that the estimated replacement cost of the one pad arena is $3,019,000.00. Although the eventual development of an additional ice pad is required to maintain the average level of service, the new ice pad will also benefit existing development, since the additional ice will also provide additional ice-time opportunities to existing residents. On this basis, 80% of any capital cost is attributed to new development. Lastly, the percentage of ice time actually used by Township residents has to be taken into account. It is currently estimated that approximately 78% of the available ice time is taken up by Township residents. As a result, an additional 22% of the capital cost should be discounted. On the basis of the above, 62.4% of the capital cost is attributed to new development. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CON9.JlTANTS INC 19 May 21,2004 n /) A, --I (- ) J In addition, as the development of an additional ice pad does not benefit industrial and commercial development, all of this cost has been allocated to future residential development. . As shown on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $308.71. F3. COMMUNITY HALLS There are eight community halls in the Township. There are no plans at the present time to build any new community halls at the present time. Expansions to some of the halls may be contemplated in the next ten years to accommodate future growth... The replacement cost for these community halls is estimated to be $1,541,000.00. In the last ten years, the Township spent an average of $20,762.00 per year on upgrading the community halls. For the purposes of this study, this amount is considered to be the average level of service and is used as a benchmark to estimate future capital improvements to the community halls. It is therefore estimated that at least $207,628.00 will be spent upgrading the community halls in the next ten years to maintain the current average level of service. Given that any community hall upgrade will benefit existing development and the development of new community halls are not contemplated, it is estimated that 50% of this total cost is growth related. As shown on Table A, the Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $43.38. F4. SUMMARY OF RECREATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES On the basis of the calculations made in this section of the report, below is a summary of the recommended Development Charge for recreation: RECREATION Parkland development Arena Communit centres Sub-Totals $309.33 $308.71 $43.38 $661 .42 $261.74 $261.21 $36.70 $559.66 8.07% 8.07% 1.13% 17.29% The table above indicates that 17.29% of the recommended Development Charge is attributed to recreation. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSUlT"Nn INC: 20 May 21,2004 1c - ~3 SECTION G - ADMINISTRATION At the present time, the administrative headquarters of the Township is located on the 7th Line south of Highway 11. The new Development Charges Act places restrictions on eligible components of the Development Charge related to administration. Most significantly, the new Act precludes the inclusion of additions to the administrative building fromthe Development Charge. Computer systems used for administrative purposes are also not eligible. Below is a description of the capital costs that are proposed to be expended in the next ten years to accommodate growth, and which are related to the administration of the Township and its resources. The detailed calculations for each capital cost item are contained on Table A, which is attached to this report. G1. OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATE The Development Charges Act, 1997 permits the municipality to include growth related studies in the Development Charge. The Official Plan is intended to provide Council with the basis for making decisions on where growth should be accommodated and the infrastructure required for that growth. The existing Official Plan was approved in 1998 and recently updated in 2003. It is expected that the Official Plan will be updated in the next ten years, in accordance with the Planning Act. The cost of an Official Plan update is estimated to be $50,000.00. As the update of the Official Plan is required to prepare the municipality for future growth, it is considered to be entirely growth related. The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $19.20 as shown on Table A. G2. SECONDARY PLANS The approved Official Plan requires that Secondary Plans be prepared for Craig hurst, Hawkestone and Oro Centre in order to properly plan for future growth. These Secondary Plans will identify how much growth is to occur in each area and how that new development will be serviced with infrastructure. It is estimated that the Craighurst Secondary Plan will cost approximately $25,000.00 and that the Hawkestone Secondary Plan will cost approximately $100,000.00. The Oro Centre Secondary Plan has been completed. All of these costs are considered to be growth related and will benefit all of the residents of the Township. If infrastructure that is specific to any of these areas is required, the cost of the infrastructure will be paid for by the landowners or included within an area-specific Development Charge in the future. Township of Oro~Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN PlANNING CONWlTANT$ INC, 21 May 21, 2004 () /J '\ ~, \ C - ) , ' ''-1 J The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $47.99 as shown on Table A. G3. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY . The cost of preparing this Development Charges Study is estimated to be $7,500.00. This amount has also been completely attributed to new growth, in accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997. The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $2.88 as shown on Table A. G4. OFFICE EQUIPMENT As the Township grows, additional employees will be required to administer the Township. In order to determine the average level of service in terms of the number of employees in the administration building in the last ten years, the number of employees has been related to the population in each year, as shown below: 1994 15,516 21 1.38 1995 15,908 19 1.22 1996 16,300 18 1.13 1997 16,692 17 1.04 1998 17,084 20 1.19 1999 17,494 22 1.25 2000 17,904 22 1.22 2001 18,315 23 1.25 2002_ . 18,765 25 1.33 2003 19,215 27 1.40 The average number of employees in the municipal administration building each year over the last ten years is 1.24 per 1 ,000 people. On this basis, there may be a need to employ 6.95 additional employees to maintain the same level of service in the next ten years (5,600 x 1.24 = 6,952/1000 = 6.95) as the population grows. The '5,600' figure is the expected population growth. Although computers for employees are no longer eligible for inclusion in a Development Charge, other office equipment such as desks, chairs and similar equipment is still eligible. It is estimated that it costs approximately $3,000.00 to outfit a typical employee with this equipment. The total cost of outfitting these additional employees will be approximately $20,850.00. All of this cost is considered to be growth related as the new employees will be required to deal with the increased workload that comes with growth. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by MERIDIAN P\.ANMNG CQNSUtTANTS I/liC 22 May 21,2004 q( - '35 The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $8.00 as shown on Table A. G5. LAKE SIMCOE REGIONAL AIRPORT The airport is located on the ih Line in the Township and is jointly owned and operated by the City of Barrie, City of Orillia and the Township of Oro-Medonte. In a letter dated April 27,2004 the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Commission advised the Township that they had recently completed a 10 year capital program forecast. It is proposed to complete the South Apron Expansion, the upgrading of Taxiway C, construct the airside access to new lots and upgrade the water and Fire storage in this time period. It is estimated that the cost of these improvements are $514,900.00,of which 60% is deemed to be growth related. The Oro-Medonte share of this cost is..15.25%, which results in a capital cost of $78,522.00. The Development Charge related to this item for each new single detached dwelling is $18.09 as shown on Table A. G6. SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES On the basis of the calculations made in this section of the report, below is a summary of the recommended Development Charge for administration: . ADMINISTRATION Official Plan update Secondary Plans Development Charges Study Office equipment Lake Simcoe Re ional Air ort Sub-Totals $19.20 $47.99 $2.88 $8.00 $18.09 $96.15 $16.24 $40.61 $2.44 $6.77 $15.31 $81.37 0.50% 1.25% 0.08% 0.21% 0.47% 2.51% The table above indicates that 2.51 % of the recommended Development Charge is attributed to recreation. Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by 23 May 21,2004 MERIDIAN I"I.ANNING CONSULTAN'r.> INC. ~( - 3lp SECTION I - RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information contained in this report, the Township of Oro-Medonte should impose the following Development Charges in accordance with the provisions of the Development Charges Act, 1997: . COST I COST PERCENT ITEM PER PER OF SINGLE OTHER TOTAL DETACHED DWELLING DWELLING UNIT TRANSPORTATION road upgrades $2,146.60 $1,685.08 56.12% road equipment $329.13 $258.37 8.61% public works garages $172.65 $135.53 4.51% sand storage $16.02 $12.58 0.42% SUB-TOTALS $2,664.41 $2,091.56 69.66% FIRE AND EMERGENCY lire stations $162.40 $127.48 4.25% equipment $232.24 $182.31 6.07% small equipment $8.19 $6.43 0.21% SUB-TOTALS $402.83 $316.22 10.53% RECREATION parkland development $309.33 $261.74 8.09% . arena $308.71 $261.21 8.07% community centres $43.38 $36.70 1.13% SUB-TOTALS $661.42 $559.66 17.29% ADMINISTRATION Official Plan Update $19.20 $16.24 0.50% Secondary Plans $47.99 $40.61 1.25% Development Charges Study $2.88 $2.44 0.08% office equipment $8.00 $6.77 0.21% Lake Simcoe Regional Airport $18.09 $15.31 0.47% SUB-TOTALS $96.15 $81.37 2.51% GRAND-TOTAL $3,824.81 $3,048.81 Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Background Study Draft for Council Review Prepared by r ( m rit&LQJAM \_~/ 24 May 21, 2004 ~c-~'l TABLE A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CURRENT COST POPULATION FUTURE GROWTH GROWTH DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT IN NET RESI. RESI- RESI. COST COST NON NON HNT ITEM SERVICE AVERAGE PER GROWTH CAPITAL NEEDS RELATED RELATED % CAPITAL RESERVES CAPITAL DENTIAL DENTIAL DENTIAL PER PER RES 1- RESI- IN MEASURE LEVEL OF UNIT TO MAINTAIN SHARE CO~T COSTS COSTS SHARE COST COST SINGLE OTHER DENTIAL DENTIAL PORT SERVICE AVERAGE LEVEL AFTER AFTER PER DETACHED DWELLING SHARE COST OF SERVICE DISCOUNT RESERVES PERSON DWELLING UNIT (2.6 P.P.U.) (2.2 P.P.U.) . TRANSPORTATION $162,288.00 D1 road upgrades capital per year $838,676.00 n/a 5.600 $8.386,760.00 60.00% $5,032.056.00 0% $5,032,056.00 $54,096.00 $4,977,960.00 91.88% $4.623.453.05 $825.62 $2.146.60 $1,a16.36 8.12% $408,602.95 D2 road equipment vehicles per 1,000 1.45 $131,969.00 5.600 $1,071,588.28 80.00% $857,270.62 10% $771,543.56 $54,096.00 $717 ,447 .56 91.88% $708,894.22 $126.59 $329.13 $278.49 8.12% $62,649.34 D3 public works garages floor space per 1 ,000 108.05 $929.00 5,600 $562,119.32 80.00% $449,695.46 10% $404,725.91 $54,096.00 $350,629.91 91.88% $371,862.17 $66.40 $172.65 $146.09 8.12% $32,863.74 D4 sand storage floor space per 1,000 43.13 $216.00 5,600 $52,170.05 80.00% $41,736.04 10% $37,562.43 $0.00 $37,562.43 91.88% $34,512.36 $6.16 $16.02 $13.56 8.12% $3,050.07 SUB-TOTALS $10,072,637.65 $6,380,758.12 $6,245,887.91 $162,288.00 $6,083.599.91 $5,738,721.81 $1,024.77 $2.664.41 $2,091.56 $507,166.10 FIRE AND EMERGENCY $67,942.00 E1 lire stations floor space per 1,000 91.47 $929.00 5.600 $475,863.53 80.00% $380,690.82 0% $380.690.82 $33,971.00 $346,719.82 91.88% $349,778.73 $62.46 $162.40 $137.41 8.12% $30,912.09 E2 equipment vehicles per 1,000 0.91 $133,539.00 5,600 $680,514.74 80.00% $544,411.80 0% $544,411.80 $33,971.00 $510,440.80 91.88% $500,205.56 $89.32 $232.24 $196.51 8.12% $44,206.24 E3 small equipment volunteers per 1,000 5.56 $2,400.00 5.600 $24,000.00 80.00% $19,200.00 0% $19.200.00 $0.00 $19,200.00 91.88% $17,640.96 $3.15 $8.19 $6.93 8.12% $1,559.<J4 SUB.TOTALS $1,180,378.27 $944,302.62 $944,302.62 $67,942.00 $876.360.62 $867,625.25 $154.93 $402.83 $316.22 $76,677.37 RECREATION $468,175.00 F1 parkland development parkland per 1,000 2.23 $74,100.00 5,600 $925,360.80 80.00% $740,288.64 10% $666,259.78 $234.087.50 $432,172.28 100% $666,259.78 $118.97 $309.33 $261.74 0% n/a F2 arena floor space per 1,000 133.87 $1,579.30 5,600 $1.183.956.99 62.40% $738,789.16 10% $664,910.25 $234.087.50 $430,822.75 100% $664,910.25 $118.73 $308.71 $261.21 0% n/a F3 community centres.. capital per year $20,762.00 n/a 5,600 $207.620.00 50.00% $103.810.00 10% $93.429.00 $0.00 $93,429.00 100% $93,429.00 $16.68 $43.38 $36.70 0% n/a SUB-TOTALS $2,316,937.79 $1,582,887.80 $1,424,599.02 $468,175.00 $956,424.02 $1,424,599.02 $254.39 $661.42 $559.66 ADMINISTRATION $24,559.00 G1 Official Plan Update n/a nla n/a 5,600 $50,000.00 100.00% $50,000.00 10% $45,000.00 $6,139.75 $38,860.25 91.88% $41,346.00 $7.38 $19.20 $16.24 8.12% $3,654.00 G2 Secondary Plans n/a n/a n/a 5,600 $125,000.00 100.00% $125,000.00. 10% $112,500.00 $6.139.75 $106.360.25 91.88% $103,365.00 $18.46 $47.99 $40.61 8.12% $9,135.00 G3 Development Charges Update nla nla n/a 5,600 $7,500.00 100.00% $7,500.00 10% $6,750.00 $6,139.75 $610.25 91.88% $6,201.90 $1.11 $2.88 $2.44 8.12% $548.10 G4 Office equipment employees per 1,000 1.24 $3,000.00 5.600 $20,832.00 100.00% $20,832.00 10% $18.748.80 $0.00 $18,748.80 91.88% $17,226.40 $3.08 $8.00 $6.77 8.12% $1,522.40 G5 Lake Simcoe Regional Airport n/a n/a n/a 5,600 $78,522.00 60.00% $47,113.20 10% $42,401.88 $6,139.75 $36,262.13 91.88% $38,958.85 $6.96 $18.09 $15.31 8.12% $3,443.03 SUB-TOTALS $281,854.00 $250,445.20 $225,400.68 $24,559.00 $200.841.68 $207,098.14 $36.98 $96.15 $81.31 $18,302.54 GRAND.TOTAL $13,851,807.71 $9,158,393.74 $8,840,190.23 $722,964.00 $8,117,226.23 $8,238,044.22 $1,471.08 $3,824.81 $3,048.81 $602,146.01 , C'A /7'.'Q -\ ( ~ ) ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW Being a By-law of the Corporation of the Township Of Oro-Medonte With respect to Development Charges WHEREAS Section 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 enables the Council of a municipality to pass by-laws for the imposition of Development Charges against lands located in the municipality where the development of the land would increase the need for municipal services as designated in the by-law; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has determined that the development of lands within the municipality will increase the need for municipal services; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, at its meeting of , approved the recommendations contained in a report entitled Township of Oro-Medonte Development Charges Update prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has indicated its intent, by Resolution Number , that it intends to ensure that the increase in need for services attributable to the anticipated development in the Municipality will be met; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has given Notice of its Development Charges proposal in accordance with subsection 12(1) of the Act, and held a public meeting on AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has, by Resolution Number , determined that no further public meeting is required in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Development Charges Act, 1997; NOW THEREFORE The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte by its Council enacts the following: PART 1- DEFINITIONS 1. "Act" means the Development CharQes Act. 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27. 2. In this by-law: (a) all words and phrases used in this by-law that have been defined in the Act shall have the same meaning as those words and phrases in the Act; (b) words and phrases that have not been defined in either the Act or this by-law, but that have been defined in the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law No. 97- 95 shall have the same meaning given to them in such by-law; (c) if said Zoning By-law No. 97-95 is amended or is repealed and replaced with a successor by-law, the words and phrases as amended or as defined in said successor by-law shall have the same meaning in this by-law unless they are given other meanings in the Act or in this by-law; 1 r<"""'-, \C 0,-. -- \ '-""\ -E i (d) the reference to any statute or regulation in this by-law includes not only the state or regulation itself, but also any statute or regulation that replaces it in the future; and (e) the reference to any section or subsection of any statute or regulation in this by- law includes not only the section or subsection itself but also the equivalent section or subsection in any statue or regulation that replaces it, as amended from time to time. . PART II-IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1. This Sy-Iaw applies to all lands in the Township of Oro-Medonte. 2. Any development or redevelopment of lands, buildings or structures for residential purposes is deemed to require the provision, enlargement and/or expansion of the services referred to in Schedule IA'. 3. Subject to the provisions of this Sy-Iaw, Development Charges against lands shall be imposed and collected with the base rate set out in Schedule'S', which relates to the services which are set out in Schedule 'A'. This Sy-Iaw does not provide for the phasing- in of the schedule of base rates in Schedule'S'. 4. This Sy-Iaw shall apply to the residential development of all lands, buildings and structures within the Corporate limits of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, whether or not the land is exempt from taxation under Section 3 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31. 5. The Development Charge shall be collected when the residential development requires the issuing of a permit under the Suilding Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure. 6. Development Charges shall be calculated and payable in full in money (cash or certified cheque in Canadian funds) or by provisions of services as may be agreed upon, or by credit granted by the Act. 7. In the case of residential use or the residential portion of a mixed-use development, the Development Charge shall apply to each dwelling unit. PART 111- EXEMPTIONS 1. This by-law shall not apply to non-residential development including land that is owned by and used for the purposes of: · a Board of Education; and, · any municipality or local board thereof. 2. No Development Charge shall be payable for the redevelopment of a dwelling unit that has been demolished, provided that a building permit for the redevelopment is issued within five years of the date that a demolition permit has been issued. 3. Development Charges are not payable where: · two or less dwelling units are being added to a single detached dwelling, provided the total gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit or units is less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; 2 t' -\JO '-- I . one dwelling unit is being added to a semi-detached dwelling or a townhouse dwelling, provided the gross floor area of the additional unit is less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; or, . one dwelling unit is being added to an building containing apartment dwellings or a building containing dwellings which are not considered to be single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwellings, provided the gross floor area of the additional unit is less than or equal to the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit already in the building. P ART IV - LOCAL SERVICES Nothing in this By-law prevents Council from requiring, as a condition of an agreement under Sections 51 or 53 of the Planning Act, that the owner, at his or her expense, shall install or pay for local services as Council may require. P ART V - INDEXING The Development Charge shall be adjusted, without amendment to this by-law, on the first day of January in each year, beginning January 1 st, 2005, in accordance with the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics. PART VI- REPEAL OF FORMER BY-LAWS The following By-law is repealed by this By-law: · By-law 99-81 of the Township of Oro-Medonte. PART VII- EXPIRY OF BY-LAW This By-law shall expire five years after it comes into force. PART VIII- ADMINISTRATION This by-law shall be administered by the Treasurer of the Municipality. PART IX - SCHEDULES TO THE BY-LAW The following schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law; (1) Schedule A - Classification of Services; and (2) Schedule B - Components of Development Charge. PART X - SEVERABILITY If for any reason whatsoever any provision, terminology, covenant or condition of this by-law, or any application to any person or circumstances, is to an extent held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then such provisions, terminology, covenants or condition is deemed to be independent of the remainder of the by-law or any part thereof, and this by-law continues to be applicable to and enforceable to the fullest extend permitted by law against any person in circumstances other than those as to which it has been held or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal. 3 PART XI- EFFECTIVE DATE This by-law comes into force and effect on the date of its enactment. BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS DAY OF 2004. Q II! \C-~ \ ,. MAYOR CLERK DAY OF _2004. 4 .. SCHEDULE" A" BY-LAW No.2004-_ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW Classification of Services ITEM TRANSPORT ATION Road upgrades Road equipment Public.works garages Sand storage FIRE + EMERGENCY Fire stations Equipment Small equipment RECREATION Parkland development Arena Community centres ADMINISTRATION Official Plan update Secondary Plans Development Charges Study Office equipment lake Simcoe Regional Airport 5 a lJ \ C -- -i J SCHEDULE "B" ~c-Y3 BY-LAW No. 2004-_ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW Components of Development Charge CHARGE PER CHARGE PER PERCENT ITEM SINGLE DETACHED OTHER DWELLING OF DWELLING UNIT TOTAL TRANSPORT A TION $2,664.41 $2,091.56 69.66% FIRE AND $402.83 $316.22 10.53% EMERGENCY RECREATION $661.42 $559.66 .17.29% ADMINISTRATION $96.15 $81.36 2.51% GRAND TOTAL $3,824.81 $3,048.81 100% 6 CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW ~c -q~. The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte will be holding a Public Meeting pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997, to consider a new Development Charges By-law. The Public Meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on _, 2004 at the Municipal Office Copies of the draft By-law and Background Study will be available for review in the Municipal Office during regular office hours by _, Anyone wishing to address Council with respect to the proposal may do so at the Public Meeting. Persons unable to attend the Public Meeting may provide written comments to Council up until the time of the Public Meeting. Purpose of the Bv-Iaw The purpose of this meeting is to discuss an updated Development Charges By-law that will apply to all lands within the Township. The By-law was prepared in accordance with The Development Charges Act, 1997, The Development Charges Act, 1997 requires municipalities to complete a Background Study and recalculate Development Charges based on current programs and future capital needs., A copy of the Background Study will be available at the Municipal Office during normal working hours by _' The proposed revisions to the Township's Development Charges By-law would slightly increase the Development Charge currently in effect from $3,642.00 to $3,824.81, This charge affects new dwelling construction only, No Development Charge is proposed for new commercial and industrial development. Lands Affected This By-law affects all of the lands within the Township of Oro-Medonte. Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk Township of Oro-Medonte (705) 487-2171 d~ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Council Prepared By: PD 2004-24 Nick McDonald, RPP Subject: Area Specific Department: Development Charge for Shanty Bay Council Planning C.ofW. Date: May 19, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: , Date: Roll #: BACKGROUND: The Shanty Bay Settlement Area is serviced by a Township-owned water system. The water system currently services 61 lots in the Jo-Con subdivision, 23 lots in the Torpey subdivision and will eventually service 109 lots within the Arbourwood subdivision. A total of 193 lots will eventually be connected to the system. In order to provide for the connection of the new lots in the Arbourwood subdivision to the system, a number of upgrades to the water system were required. These upgrades were completed in 2003, and they provide source water, storage and pumping capacity for not only the 193 lots mentioned above but for an additional 94 lots on the former MSL property located in the east end of Shanty Bay, The owners of the Arbourwood subdivision have indicated that they would like to be compensated for any of the work they carried out on the water system that would benefit the future owner of the MSL property. In order to deal with this issue, RG Robinson and Associates (Barrie) Limited prepared a report dated March 2004. Within this report (which is attached), it is indicated that the total cost of the water system upgrades was $925,812.12. This translates into $4,560.65 per lot, based on 203 new lots being developed (109 lots in the Arbourwood subdivision and 94 lots on the MSL property). It is further indicated in the report that the owner of the Arbourwood subdivision has spent $725,812.12 on upgrades to the water system. On the basis of a per lot cost of $4,560.65, Arbourwood's share of this expense has been determined to be $497,110.85. Given that they have spent $725,812.12, the owner of the Arbourwood subdivision has essentially front ended the additional cost of $228,701.27. It is this additional amount that the owner of the Arbourwood subdivision wishes to be compensated for, when new development occurs on the MSL property. {J \ . f1 -\ 0 - d-. On the basis of the above it has been requested that the new Development Charges By-law include an area specific Development Charge that would apply only to the MSL property that would require the payment of levies that would total $228,701.27. ANALYSIS: It is my opinion that anyone who has front-ended the provision of services to the benefit of others should be compensated appropriately. As a result, the inclusion of an Area Specific Development Charge for the former MSL property is considered to be appropriate. However, the number of lots proposed on the MSL property is unknown. The property has been for sale for some time. In the early 1990's, it was proposed to develop up to 94 lots on the basis of full municipal services. The previous owner of the property determined that the development of this number of lots on the basis of full services was not economically feasible. While the Official Plan does provide for the consideration of full services on this property, the Official Plan would also permit development on the basis of partial services only. Given the size of the property, a partially serviced subdivision may accommodate up to 30 lots. On the basis of the above, the Area Specific Development Charge would identify the total cost of the front-ending and would indicate that the total cost would have to be divided by the number of lots that are registered within a Plan of Subdivision. ' With respect to the front-ending component of the water system upgrade, there will be a need for the owner of the Arbourwood subdivision to enter into a front-ending Agreement with Council pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997. This agreement can only be entered into once the area specific charge has been included within the Development Charges By-law and is not appealed. The front-ending agreement would provide a mechanism for the collection of Development Charges from development on the former MSL property and the provision of these monies to the developer of the Arbourwood subdivision. All of the costs associated with preparing such a front-ending agreement are to be the responsibility of the landowner. - 2 - <1d -) RECOMMENDA TION(S): On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Council: 1, 2. Receive this report; Authorize the inclusion of an Area Specific Development Charge for Shanty Bay within the proposed Development Charges By-law; and, Authorize the scheduling of a public meeting to deal with this issue. ~ 3, Respectfully Submitted, --1~' ~ Nick McDonald,MCIP, RPP Partner C.A.O. Comments: Date: j{CUd d-lliL'1 C.A.O. f-D~~ ,) '" Dept. Head ~ - 3 - G i Lv,!' Id - -, ! I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I April 2004 R.G. ROBJNSON AND ASSOCIATES (BARRIE) LTD. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10 High Street, Barrie, Ontario UN lWl File No. 12-00004-10 '. I ~ ." f'i\"" ,..= v\ \ ~, iO J Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 BACK GROUND ........................................................................................................... ....1 2.0 PURPOSE ............... ...........................................................................................................1 3.0 PO PULA. TI ON ...................................................................................................................1 3.1 Curren'tlSernced ..Area..................................................... ...........................~'................1 3.2 Proposed Sernce Area.. ........................................................ ..................................... .... 2 4.0 MVJEW OF WATER DEMAND ..................................................................................2 5.0 MVJEW OF WATER SySTEM....................................................................................2 5.1 Well. Sup ply .............................................. ......................................................................3 5.2 Pum ps ....................... ................. ............................................. ............................:............ 3 S.3 Sto rage....................................................................................... ................ ........................ 3 5.3.1 Chlorine Contact ........................... ...... .......................... ........................................ .... " 6.0 COST ESTThIA. TE ...........................................................................................................4 6.1 Well Su pply ........................................................................ ......... ................................... 4 6.2 Pum ping ........................ ................................................................................................." 6.3 Sto rage.......................................................................................~. ................................... '" 6.4 Engineering, Tender I Contract Preparation, Administration and Inspection.......5 7.0 COST nco VER Y OPTIONS ......................................................................................5 8.0 SU'l\WAR. Y ....................................................................................................................... 6 2 ~ I I h... I I I I I I -I 'I I I I I TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EV ALUA TION 1.0 BACKGROUND 0\ \ f \ C1. - \.() sHANTY BAY If. (j. /<J"",,^ anLA"""ia!.., !l-...) .JJJ. R. G. Robinson and Associates (Barrie) Ltd. has been retained by the Township of Oro- Medonte to prepare a technical and cost evaluation of the upgraded central water system in the Hamlet of Shanty Bay to determine the improvements and costs associated to service proposed future development. To some extent this report is an update of a previous water system report - Central Water System Update and Design Brief - prepared by RGRA in October 2002. To address the need for expansion of the existing water system to service the Arbour and Shanty Bay Estates Subdivisions, the Central Water System Update and Design Brief report was prepared by R. G. Robinson and Associates (Barrie) Ltd and submitted to the Ministry of Environment in 2002, as an attachment to an application for the construction of the recommended improvements to the water system and pumphouse to accommodate high lift pumps and reservoir connections. 2.0 PURPOSE The Township of Oro-Medonte has requested R. G. Robinson and Associates (Barrie) Ltd. to undertake a cost evaluation to further capacity the Shanty Bay Water Supply System to service 94 additional lots. With the completion of Contract No. 12-00004-21 in 2003, upgrades to the Community of Shanty Bay's water supply system included mechanical and. electrical modifications to the weB pumphouse, pump upgrades, process equipment instal1ation, installation of one new wel1 pump and construction of new watermain and a single water storage standpipe. The Township has requested a cost per lot Development Charge estimate for providing water service to 94 serviceable lots within the service area. This brief has been written to satisfy the above. 3.0 POPULATION 3.1 Current/Serviced Area Jo-Con Subdivision Torpey Subdivision Arbour Subdivision - Phase n - Phase n & ill Total (existin ) 61 Lots @ 3.2 ppu 23 Lots @ 3.2 ppu 23 Lots @ 3.2 ppu 85 Lots 3.2 u 193 Lots (ij), 3.2 ppu 195 74 74 275 618 pop. equivalent ~ I I I I I I I I CA,' \ . '"1 \Q TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EVALUATION SHANTY BAY R. q. R./'in44,. ....J.A~ IJ.......} .Lti. 4.0 3.2 Proposed Service Area Shanty Bay Estates 94 Lots Total Serviceable Population 301 = existing and proposed = 287 lots/919 equivalent population A population of 919 has been designated as the total reserved population in the serviced area. REVIEW OF WATER DEMAND The average per capita design flow rate for this system has been adjusted to 360 L/c/d to recognize that any additional population would be residential only. The M.O.E. standard flow rate is nonnally 450 Llc/d. Residential population density is assumed at 3.2 persons/unit in accordance with previous reports MOE Guidelines for Design of Water Storage Facilities, Appendix N has been referenced for calculations of maximum day and peak hour, fire flow requirements for the current population of 618, and for the additional 94 Lots/ 301 equivalent population. MOE factors for maximum day and peak hour rates are used to provide a factor of safety . 5.0 REVIEW OF WATER SYSTEM 618 919 360 360 222.5 327.6 2.57 3.79 2.75 2.75 611.9 900.9 7.07 10.43 4.13 4.13 10.61 15.65 38 38 153 225.2 273.6 273.6 106.6 124.7 533.2 623.5 .~ A review of the capacity of the current water system to service 94 additional lots for a design equivalent population of919 is as foHows. This capacity review includes the three system components, well supply, high lift pumps, and storage. 2 = I I Ih", I I I I I I .1 1 I I I I ! () d-~D .~ TOWNSIDP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EVALUATION SHANTY BAY R. q. R,,{,....... -1.A"",w.k4 /J-r...) cfJJ. 5.1 WeD Supply In accordance with MOE Guidelines, the fIrm well capacity should match or exceed maximum daily flows when fire storage is provided. MOE Guidelines for well capacity refers to the finn capacity meeting the maximum day demand. With the largest well out of service, the remaining capacity should meet the demand at maximum day. This water treatment facility has two smaller wells that serve as redundancy to the large well No.3 and together provide an instantaneous combined flow rate of 13.62 Lis for only a twelve (12) hour duration as per PITW. The MOE requirement is for flow rate and capacity to meet maximum day demand which in this case for a population of919, is 10.43 Lis (900.0 m3/d). Wells No.'s 1 and 2 at 6.81 Lis each are allowed under the current PTTW to operate a maximum of 12 hours each per day. This will provide a finn capacity of only 2(6.81 Lis x 12 hours) = 588. 4 m3/d. Recommendation It is concluded that the current well supply under MOE GuideJines falls short of the required maximum day capacity of 900.9 m3/d. A new well of the same capacity to current well No.3 is recommended, thereby providing redundancy. Cost of drilling a new well is in the range of $75,000 - $90,000. 5.2 Pumps MOE Guidelines for high lift pumping refer to finn capacity with the largest pump out of service. Design fire flow rates during a fire event are: . 38 Lis (fire flow) + 10.43 Lis (MDD) = 48.43 LIs Each of the two small variable speed pumps (one duty, one standby) can deliver 15.7 LIs at system pressure and 22.6 LIs under fITe flow conditions at a pressure of 140 kPa at the fITe hydrants. The capacity ofthe third pump is 46 Lis. Recommendation It is recommended that one of the two small variable speed pumps be up-sized to provide design fITe flow rates of 48.43 LIs. This will provide redundancy to the Fire pump. lD a fire event, one ofthe larger pumps plus the smaller pump will satisfy demand flows. 5.3 Storal!,e As per MOE Guidelines, total storage is the sum of fITe storage, equalization storage (peak rates) and emergency demands. Total storage required for the Phase 2 of !he Abour Subdivision as per submitted Design Brief was a volume of 534 m~ with a chlorine contact volume of approximately 62 m3 retained below the low water level in the standpipe. I J I '" :J h~ I I I I I I I I O\J_ -'1 TOWNSIDP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EV ALUA nON SHANTY BAY R. q. R.t'....nanLA-uJ.. /Jan-u) ..tti Storage requirements for a design population of 919 are 623.5 m3. 5.3.1 Chlorine Contact A time of 15 minutes is required in accordance with MOE criteria. The Design Brief recommended a tank size of 10.Om diameter by 8.0m height (30' x 27') to provide a total volume of 628 m3 within which a working volume . of ,534 m3 at an effective height of 6.8m and a chlorine contact, volume of approximately 62m3 is available. The actual size of the new Greatario tank is 9.4 5m diameter by 10 .06m height providing a total volume of 695 m3. This satisfied requires design storage and allows 695-623 = 72m3 available for chlorine contact. Additional capacity can be acquired with additional height in 1.5m increments that equates to 105m3 in volume. 6.0 COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate to expand the water system to supply water services and fire flows to tbe additional 94 Lots are provided as follows: 6.1 Well Supply It has been determined that a new well must be developed. A hydrogeological report is necessary for the revised Permit to Take Water. A Design Brief will be required for amending the MOE Certificate of Approval for the system. . Our cost estimate for the Hydrogeological Report and the RGRA Design Brief is $15,000, and $10,000 respectively; . Cost estimate for drilling new Well No.4 is $80,000. 6.2 Pumpinl! It has been determined that the best option would be to upsize one of the two small variable speed pumps to match the CR90 fire pump. . Estimated cost for the new high lift pump is $20,000, and an additional cost of $20,000 for the associated mechanical and electrical construction work. 6.3 Storaee Adding 1 - 1.5m extension to the existing storage tank to provide the necessary storage capacity and contact time is estimated at $30,000. 4 I ~. e ~d-\(J I TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EVALUATION SHANTY BAY Ie q Rot"""n -lA,,';"iaI.. /Jarr;.,) .,1u 6.4 Eneineerine.. Tender I Contract Preparation. Administration and Inspection RGRA estimates $15,000 for the preparation of design and construction drawings, tender can documents, contract administration and inspection servIces. , Required Uve.rades - Cost Estimate for future 94 Lots I I~ I I I I I I .1 -I I I I I 1. Update hydrogeological ReDort for Wells $15,000 2. New Design Brief for Applications (pTTW and Amend C of A $10,000 3. Drill new wen No.4 $80,000 4. Upsize existing pump CR45) to match new fIre $20,000 Dump 5. Mechanical and Electrical $20,000 6. Storage tank extension $30,000 7. Contract Preparation, Administration and Inspection $15,000 8. Contingency $10,000 Total $200,000.00 7.0 COST RECOVERY OPTIONS Final cost for the 2003 WTP Upgrades for servicing 193 Lots (618 equivalent population) are summarized as follows: . Final Contract Price (Gibson Contracting) . Engineering Design and Contract Administration . New Well No.3 . Hydrogeological Engineering Total $577,793.75 $73,392.98 $61,594.55 $13.031.47 $725,812.15 The upgrades completed in 2003 provide source water, storage and pumping capacity as per the design requirements for the existing 193 lots as well as the foundation for the provision of services to the future 94 lots. The estimated total cost for the water system upgrades including future development is $725,812.12 + $200,000.00 = $925,812.12. This cost can be dispersed to the new developments. Total number of lots is 109 + 94 = 203 Lots Cost per lot - $925,812.15/203 Lots = $4,560.65 per Lot It is reasonable to assume that the development of the 94 lots should cost the developer 94 lots x $4,560.65 = $428,701.10 for water upgrades to the water supply. 5 ~ ~d-~\\ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COST RECOVERY EV ALUATlON SHANTY BAY Ie q. R.J,........-L4.-i4J-.I5.".u,) .JlJ. The Arbourwood development has front ended the upgrades to the water system as listed below: .. Arbourwood hard costs are $725,812.12. . Calculated cost per lot for 109 lots x $4,560.65 = $497,110.85 . Calculated cost per lot for 94 lots x $4,560.65 = $428,701.10 . Project cost is: $725,812.12 + $200,000.00 = $925,812.12 . Front ending credit $725,812.12 - $497,110.85 = $228,701.27 This amount of $228,701.27 should be prorated over the number of lots in the future residential development (currently listed at 92 lots), this is equivalent to $2,485.88 per lot. The cost per lot for water to the future 92 lots would then equate to a cost per lot of $2,173.91 ( $200,000.00 by 92 lots) + $2,485.88 ( front ending cost) for a total of $4,560.65 per lot. 8.0 SUMMARY The 2003 upgrades to the Shanty Bay Water Pumping Station provides a direct benefit to the subdivision under construction as wen as to the future development of 94 Lots. This benefit has been calculated at $2,485.88 per Lot or not less than $228,701.27 and should be fixed amount that is independent of the final draft plan approved lot structure. We trust this report meets the requirements of the scope of work to detennine the cost of construction of the existing and future water plant upgrades, and the assigning of a cost per Lot to the development. Respectful1y submitted, R.G. ROBINSON AND ASSOCIATES (BARRIE) LTD. R. Groves Senior Project Manager File 12-00004-10 MAT/ld April 2004 6 f ~f> - \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004-17 Committee of the Whole Andria Leigh, MCIP,RPP Subject: Department: Council Planning 1452711 Ontario Limited C. of W. Concession 7, Part of Lot 1, Date: West Part of Lot 2, RP 51 R- Mav 19, 2004 Motion # 23787, Part 1 (Oro), Township R.M. File #: of Oro-Medonte D12010802 Date: Roll #: 43-46-010-003-27600-0000 ACKGROUND/ANAL YSIS: In 1992 the Township of Oro supported applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plans of Subdivision by Valdoro Estates and Sabiston. In 1994 the newly amalgamated Council for the Township of Oro-Medonte continued to support the applications and directed the Township solicitor to support the applications at the OMB. The OMB approved the designation and zoning of the properties in addition to the Plans of Subdivision in 1994. The OMB supported the two developments because they were both considered. to be logical extensions ofthe existing Sugarbush community. This was primarily because the park system, road network and water supply systems would be integrated. With respect to the road, the OMB determined that the road connection over the Rowanwood lands was in the public interest since it would facilitate the construction of a second means of access into the Sugarbush community. The link over the Rowanwood lands was considered to be the most appropriate since it would not add any additional traffic to existing roads in the community. Below is a chronology, which indicates the process that has occurred since the approval of these applications by the former Township of Oro until the present date. CHRONOLOGY - 1452711 Ontario limited (Forest HeiQhts Estates) 1. 1992 - Former Township of Oro supported applications for official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and draft plan conditions for a residential subdivision by Valdor Estates and Sabiston. 2. 1992 - Jarratt Coulson and District Community Group and the Rowanwood Conserver Society Cooperative Inc. (RCSCI) appealed the approvals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) 3. 1994 - After amalgamation the new Oro-Medonte Council continued to support the applications and directed the Township solicitor to defend Council's position at the OMB. ~ e-d- 4. 1994 - Draft Plan Approval by Ontario Municipal Board of Draft Plan of Subdivision - Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 7 (formerly Township of Oro) . Draft Plan Condition 6 - 6th Line Deviation . Draft Plan Condition 9 - connection of proposed Street 'A' to proposed Street "Ruby Ridge" on adjacent Diamond Valley Estates subdivision September 1994 - Agreement between 1452711 Ontario Limited and Township for 6th Line Deviation .~ 5. 6. Negotiation attempted between 1452711 Ontario Limited and RCSCI to discuss land purchase to complete road network 7. June 24, 2002 - request by P. Capobianco, on behalf of 1452711 Ontario Limited, that Township assist in expropriation pf lands owned by RCSCI 8. September 5,2002 - meeting between Township staff and RCSCI representatives to discuss land issue. 9. November 13, 2002 - report by Township Engineer with respect to option of no connection of proposed Street 'A'. 10. November 27,2002 -Confidential Report ADM2002-53 by CAO received and adopted. . Invite RCSCI to attend In-Camera discussion with Council . Ensure 1452711 Ontario Limited written offer of sale to RCSCI . Have supporting environmental studies reviewed for current compliance . Pending outcome of Council's deliberation with RCSCI - proceed with expropriation 11. December 11,2002 - Invitation to RCSCI to attend an In-Camera discussion with Council- response by RCSCI indicating preference of open session with Council. 12. January 15,2003 - Open session deputation by Hartley Woodside on behalf of RCSCI 13. March 20, 2003 - correspondence received from Terri Richard, President, RCSCI, requesting Council refuse the developer's request to expropriate Rowanwood land. 14. January 8, 2004 - written offer to RCSCI by 1452711 Ontario Limited to purchase lands required for road connection for specified monetary amount. 15. February 10, 2004 - Additional information provided by N. McDonald with respect to environmental concerns together with technical correspondence from Azimuth dated January 6, 2004. 16. April 21, 2004 - meeting between 1452711 Ontario Limited and RCSCI to discuss purchase of subject lands. 17. April 21, 2004 - Written Conditions of Sale by RCSCI to 1452711 Ontario Limited 18. April 21, 2004 - Written response by 1452711 Ontario Limited to RCSCI Conditions of Sale 19. April 28, 2004 - In-Camera deputation by RCSCI to Council As indicated above, on January 15, 2003 Rowanwood Conserver Society Inc. made a presentation to Council and indicated that they continued to have concerns that the approval of an 83 lot residential subdivision on the above noted property (formerly Sabiston) would not occur today because of changes in environmental policy. 2 ge-'3 The focus of their concern was the potential impact of the development on the West Coulson Swamp, which is considered to be a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). . Michael Michalski completed an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in 1993 to support of the original application in 1993, but it did not specifically address the potential' impacts of the proposed development on the PSW, as the PSW boundaries were then thought to be some distance away from the development property. However, the PSW was re-assessed in 1994 and the boundary of the PSW appears to now extend onto the development property (145711 Ontario Limited). In order to assess the quality of the 1993 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) completed for this subdivision and to determine whether the proposed 83 lot subdivision would have a negative impact on the revised boundary of the PSW i the Township requested Azimuth Environmental Consulting to review the EIS completed by- Michael Michalski and to determine whether the development would have an impact on the PSW. A copy of the January 6, 2004 letter from Azimuth is attached to this report, which also includes a l}1apshowing the boundaries of the PSW as they relate to the draft plan of subdivision. To summarize'the recommendations of the Azimuth letter, the boundaries of the PSW will have to be identified and staked in the field and an appropriate buffer from the PSW will need to be determined (a' minimum of 20 metres is recommended). The delineation of the PSW boundary and the recommendation of an appropriate buffer is required to be carried out by the landowner's environmental consultant in the spring (May/June 2004) and documented in a letter of opinion. The Township, its consultants, and the NVCA will conduct a site visit to determine if the buffer recommendation is appropriate. Once this review is completed to the satisfaction of the Township, it is expected that a block of land would be identified for wetland protection and dedicated as part of the subdivision agreement process. Once this change occurs, it can be confirmed that the dev~lopment will not have an impact on the features and functions associated with the wetland located to. the ~ast of the subject property. It should be, noted that some minor changes in the lotting may occur to the east of the main north- south road and in the vicinity of the drainage channel. A change in the location of the north-south road is not anticipated. . The January 6,2004 letter from Azimuth Environmental Consulting was p~ovided to the landowner and in a January 15, 2004 letter they confirmed that their environmental consultant would review this matter in the spring and provide the'information required by the Township. Any changes to the Plan as a result of the further environmental review. would be required to be supported by the Township and then by the OMS before the subdivision could be registered. The Township would not enter into a subdivision agreement with the landowner until such time as they were satisfied that the revised lot layout does not have a negative impact on the wetland. 1. THAT Report No. PO 2004-17 be received. Respectfully submitted, Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner !CY~ . I C/-\U.. '/D 1 0AJ4 J-f . --/fJ-~ 3 . . .. . elis,4/2eS4 .1S': 24 7aS.80"'C; '. AZl~. ENoJ.IV . . ,0\ ~ __ 4' !:AGE 82/85 ATTACHMENT #1 ~UTIj E.~~RONM~NTAL /. .;.' . CONSULTING' lNC . . . , '.. . . EnvIronrI'\ental AAasments & ApproV8IiI , . '" .' January 6~ 2004 . " . Mc:rldian Planning Comultauts Inc. .it3 Coma- Stteet, Ontario. . lAM 1112 ' AttcnuOD:'" Mr. Nick'McDcnia14 Re:Peer Review of the ElS 1l.D.dtrUkelifor a Proposed Draft p~ Of Subdivision 76798' ODuTieLimi~d, Part of Lots 1 aDd 1, CODcenioa 7, T01'fIlship of OR MedoD~ Count)' of Simcoe .ABc 03-076 " . " Dear~. McDonald: Azim~En~nmenta1 Consu1ting (AmtlUth) '\V8.S requested to undertake a limited ~ review of the Environmental Inipact Study (EIS) prepared by Michael Micba18ld.. AuOciates in May, t 993 for the abOvementioned property in the Township ofOro- McdoD.tc to ~der the potential differmcu ~' the approval clm1mstanca oc. ~.~aredtolm. ,', . ' . , '.' . . ~. ; In addition, Azimuth bas been asked to comment on the impact of a proposed connector road tpat weu1d link the Sa'biston. and Valdoro .Properties and provide additional8ocel8 . into the subdivision from the east. It is our 'UDdersumdina that this road would travene a , section of In ~ UDpawd farm lane thai is inany decades old and that the JiI...,. wowd require expropri8tion by the mu1iicipatity. . . The pUlpO&e of 'the peer reviewoftbe E1S d~ent iJ to proVide suggestionslDd , commet1ts on both the protocols uscdandthe findings of the report. Sincetbe publication oftbe ElS document, :MNR ~ this portion of the Coulson sWamp compl=a04 . the Itowanwood Consc:rvu Society prepared a ~uati011 of the CoulSon.Swamp tbat included the Rowanwood Extension (October- 1993). c;oulson Swamp,100ated on adjacent lands to, the'east and Dorth of the S8biston development, is a proviDclaUy ~ lIigx,.ificant wetJand '(pSW) that was originally evaJuated by the MNR in: 1986 (Ferguson. . and Boyd, 1986) and subscquc:ntlyrc-Cvalt1atcd in 1994. . "I'he fonowing mnunary of~~ commmts is made: Tbe 1'993 E1S does not addrcas . number of the factors that would be rc:quired in' an EIS today, 'as set out in Council. adopted in OPA16: . - "-. . . 111 S811nders Road, Unit 2, Barrie, Ontario 'L4M 6E7 '. . telephone: (705) 721-8451; tax: (70!5)721-a926 ,info@azlmuthenVlronrnental.CQm '- el/1~/2Be4 15:24 ~e5V~?S , AZIMJTH ENIIIRG:a.r'" ..... 'e 'PAGE '83/85,' It 'J/-;'. . 1-'" . , ,-~-!iD' 'J-.. ' ,!,~-,j " , , . Theorlginal Em Was und~en.to 8S$e5S impacts solely on ih~ contim1cd health 2nd function of the R~ood Sugar Miplt B~h) present"on, a small portion of thc adjaoent lands to the eutofthc S$bisto~ Deyelopment., Tbe ~ w', ,,': prepaRd to address sp~jjjc CODcems ofadje.ccmlandownm (presumBblythl', ,,' RowBnwood Conserver Society) regs:rding impacts ofpol1utanu (peSticid-. oil, , . suspendro solids from sewage efDuent), mort term ~iUl of'tbe~, ': (drainage course) during C011Struction sndtbe effectsof'increased ni~ ftOaa ' septic tile beds on the health of B sugar m2p1e bush used for the production ~,' ,',' ' IDIlplesyrup (Stption 1.1 oftbe report). At th4: time of ptep;sration of1he~; report, ~ugar mapie decline was the subject of in~ scientific invmiptia1 ' and . multi-factor ca~ of thi$ diebatk is d.i!cussed in the :E1S,a1tboup witDmit, ' reference to acidicprttipitation and its impacts on soil'acidiiicf.tion,considered: " by many to be a ~rlmaty und~lying factor in the meback syndrome. .~a~ . , of this focus on the sugar maple bush. tDC EIS ~ not include' any detail. ' :' infonnation, or discussion of impacts to natuw features on the property itseIt aJthough it does make reference to a watercourst that originates from the 'W.eSt 8D4 flows northeasterly througb the sUgar maple wood1ot and subscQ.ueI)\b' 'throuih., riverine portions of the Coulson Swamp PSW.Thc watercourse;' ~ witbm ' a block hi the draft BppIOvedSabiston robclivison (Block'89). Bee-at oftbc laCk; of stand.ard reporting features shared by most E1S :rqxJr1a at ~'tUnet eUoh, as aI,\' , , mvestigation ofvegctation,soi~ topography, wildlifebabitat, rare'species, !tc..It, is difficult to assess whether the Sabiston subdivision wiD eliminate 8Q" '. ' "emironmentaUy smBitiveecOlogical or hydrological feat:DrCsand fUrictioDl; . ' The E1S report does not discuss thep~ence: of the COulson SwampPSW on a<ljacerit 1and!to the east oftbe development. Although thePSW W8I origins1ly , evaJuateOm 1986, and the: Wct1ands,Planmng.PoUc:ywas pub1ished in l~,tbe MNR updated the Wetland EvaJuation for Coulson S~J)Westinlm.: , ' Updated mappina of the wetland wo)lld not have been available at the time ,or preparation ofth~ ES. It now ap~ that units of the wetland comp~e:r....' located 'Within 120m oftbe development and potentiti1y within tbeeUtem portioa of the property itself. Tbeattached figure shows'the propolled 10ttma (frOm 1be OP A) and the wetland bouridarles on an aU- photogiapb' baSe. Hawever,theIe three features, were compDed from separate bases &0' the preclsion,ofthc'bouDdlry tiDes may be affecned. Page 17 of me report states that a lowland forest ia ;situated on the Rowanwobdproperty,just to the south of the sugar maple buab. Based 011 the speci~ list provided in the report (eastern white cedar, eastemheml~ ~now birt.h,clack ash, trembling aspen and white birch - with aensi~ &.m in the understory), the swam.pycbaracter of this forest is c;on1irme4. 'The report . conu.ins no discussion of impacts of the 4~e1opmenton thePSW and c1oeI,DOt outline Ii mitigation Strategy to msurc pro1-eCtion ofwet1and feature m)dfoncticg. On this basis and in the 8bscncc of any further reportius ontbis 4evelOpmeDt, we n;commend that at least * 20 metre buffa b~yond the confirmed boun4aty: ortbe ' wetland be established and not included withiJt'any of'the lots.. This will ~. , that the lots do not abut the wetJand units and wiD m;n;mhe ihe 'impact Of ' . . '. ' " , ' 2 Bl/14i2ee4 15:24 7B571.~')6 AZIMlTH ~IY - PAGE 134/85 . %' " ,0, ! \ 'f . \ . ! . _. \ I! W . an~pogenic distmbance to wetland features and fUnctions. IdefJly, thisb~ should be ~~prl5ed of natural eximng vegetation. Altematively, the buffer. . could ~. 30 :metres wide (on either 6ide of the watercourses), whicb is the t.u.hsWl standard in the 01'0. Medonte Official P1axi. Thb buffu may be rcO.uced., but only on the basis of a field invutigatiOn. . Given the ci1cinnstanCC$ oftbil development, it is de.5ir2.b\e to.have buffm of the abovementioned sizes. The buffer limitsshou1d be based on field evaJuationoftbe limits of the wetla:nd' and top ofb&.nk, whicb could be done ne)tt~; . . The EIS report contains little Monnation regafding the ws.tcroourse(refme4 10 as a drainage cbatmel and 8S a tn"butaiy to Coulson Creek); however, ~ '. watercoun;c bas, based on air photo interpretation, hydrologica1 connections 'Wi1b . the wetland and may serve as a source ofbasefiow/cnscharge to maintain wet1md . functio~. . Th~ report m~ on page 27 that "011 and grease x:oJ.uatins from the , subject property will be ppmarily directed to' ditches and ultimately cOnfined 10 the surface liytn of tht trlbutaty to Coulson Creek. Co~equently these . poDutants will tend to present a greater aesthc:tic prpblem in the cruk"tbaii a risk to tcmstrial vegetation". '.It,is noted that the. appto-ved Draft Plan docs not pravide . for the treatment of storm wl!1c:r. It is recommended that this be coiWdered, in acwrdance with the latest version of the MOB Best, Management PIactices. . ThcEIS report :recommends the; implementation of a buffer strip of at least 6m. betweeD the n:.ar lot tines and the joint property boundary (to the east). They also tecommend a . restrictive coveri8nt to ensure that no vegetation removal occura for aD additionall Om from the rear Jot Jines. As a1ready indicated., we wpport the incorporation of a buffer area or .setback to protect features and functions ofbotb the upland sugar maple woodlot ad. the forested swamp units oBbe Coulson Swamp PSW. At othet properties"priVlde . OWDcWp ofbufJer hinds has created problems Since the Township has limited control over the actions or1ndividual c;itizens,and would ha\"e to deal with each propaty .epatatt.1y. On this basis, buffer areas should not be in private ownCrship. AdditioDal setbacks to n.at tot lines that abut the watercourse is also recommended because of the potential.importance oftbiJ feature to wetland bydfoloay. With regards to the abovementioned access road, we rut that a road crossing wou1c1 DOt ncjatively impact the wetland provided that best management pnctice$ 8J:e use4 to . ensure that adverse impacts web as road surface runoff or impairment of wet11Dd hydro}oSYaR mitigated. The she for tne access road is an old farm lane and bas beea. . fill~ w:ith rOW takmoff the farm fields~. Based on the O,verlay 'of the development IDd the'wetland boundaries on aerial photography of the site, it appears that the location for ' '. the pt'OpO!cdconnector road is to1hc south of the wetland units and likely does not fall' within 120m of the wetland boundary. The presence of the road connection wiD not . . like1y result'in majOT adverse impacts to any features and functions of the wetlind to the nortb and east.. Potentia] impacu related to urban practices, intrusion. sew&gC trea1meat. and applicatlon of la'\1lm products can be mitigated by the use of appropriate Si1t fe:nciq . during construction, implementation of a sediment control and erosion strategy, retention "" .,. . :-. '. 3 'p~ g;;l' "'-'. a3, I 1412004 15: 24 7057'21S'3'2& - ~1MJ11" aNl~f1: .' .' . ' .. o'~ ,;.r, ..' ,\ "t-' - J . ..' . ' , , .,.. ~ % .. of ~ ,..nn03 "V<~lion Iba1 fo- . \>u!teI ~ Ib.e xoeA~ on4 \he.,.;.t\DI ",O\ItID'I ",,,n,,.umtios on4 en eypxepn.t< .",.teg)' '" IDI>I"S0 xood ...,It. # tIJQOIL '1'\111 ~ of. .-n xoe<\s\<fe """" Vl&ieI xneneiClXlont poo.d ..,uIcl \>e .-ia.xod to ~ . ,unoff vol""'''; D<Ni"""" \h< toeA m11111<<11 nOl\>enal< his\> txef!io "yo""",,"--Ii wm ". ",Cd ~1}' I>y tesidoOtS or !h' se\>istOn ond VoJcloIO ..,\)Cli"Vi!i-."cl VIiI1IiDt ~cl' genexe1 1',*,110 ..-. within \h< looal.'- . . . . . . . . . r).<&St dO not besi.... to .&1\ u you bev, en~ qUcsUons ",&axclID& Ih'" c~ youi' \ruI.y. ... . . ~ J'lNIRO~ IJ.- cm.SlJI.:fI1'lG,I1'Ic. ttfl~ 6- ~ Dr. ~ scott seniot E.co)opst M(JIG\ , , . " , .' . \ ' . 4 .~~.~~ Gt .-t- Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursdav Mav 13. 2004. 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Dave Edwards, Member Lynda Aiken, Member Allan Johnson, Member Michelle Lynch, Member Garry Potter, Senior Planner Andria Leigh and Junior Planner/Acting Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis. 1. Communications and Correspondence - Those received will be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest - None declared 3. Hearin2s: 9:30 2004-A-12 Marie-Louise & Herman Martin Cone. 3, West Part Lot 20 (Oro) 1681 Highway 11 In Attendance: Anson McQuarrie, new owner of lot Decision Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by MicheHe Lynch . "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2004- A -12 as amended to two 139.3 square metre detached accessory buildings in the Environmental Protection (EP) zone and subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 3. That the applicant maintain a minimum front yard setback of 45 metres (149 feet) for the detached accessory buildings; ~f -d 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and, 5. That approval is obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority pursuant to Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act. '-, .. ...Carried." 9:40 2004-B-17 Peter J. & M. Joanne Tinney Cone. 12, West Part Lot 15 (Medonte) 11 Stagecoach Road In Attendance: Peter & Joanne Tinney, appJicants, Burt Dobson, neighbour Decision Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby grant consent application 2004-B-17 and be subject to the following list of conditions: 1. That the appropriate entrance permit be obtained from MTO; 2. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject lands indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 3. That the applicant prepare aDd submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried." 9:50 2004-B-18 Kevin Strachan Cone. 13, Part Lot 1, RP 51R- 13506 Part 1 (Medonte) 102 Medonte Side Road # 2 In Attendance: Kevin Strachan, appJicant 2 o\..~. "1, , - .~ I Acting Secretary-Treasurer read e-mail from LiHian McConnell, 6 Blackcomb Dr., received May 13,2004 and from Gail White, PJanner, Simcoe County, received May 12, 2004 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2004-B-18 as per applicants' request. ...Carried" 10:00 2004-B-19 Lynda Roe Cone. 9, East Part Lot 20 (Oro) 72 Line 9 N. In Attendance: Randy & Lynda Roe, applicants, Lloyd BarthoJomew, 80 Line 9 N. Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Approve Consent Application 2004-B-19 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subjectlands; . 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ... ..Carried." 3 s;- 10:10 2004-B-16 James H. Martin Cone. 5, Part Lot 4 (Oro) In Attendance: James Martin, applicant, Jeff & Jill Maize, neighbour. Acting Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Gail White, Planner, Simcoe County, received May 12, 2004 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. "- Decision Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2004-B-16 to allow the applicant an opportunity to stake the severed lot and the proposed location of the dwelling. . .'. ..Carried." 10:20 2004-A-14 Julia M.Poore Plan 765, Lot 13 (Oro) 25 Greenwood Ave. In Attendance: Julia Poore, applicant, and Mrs. Squire, 27 Greenwood Ave. Decision Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-14 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS GRANTED FOR 25 GREENWOOD A VENUE FOR A 66.8 M2 (720 Ff2) ONE STOREY ADDITION and subject to the following conditions: .. 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. The north east comer of the proposed addition shall be no closer than II metres (36 feet) from the high water mark; 3. The south east comer of the existing dwelling shall be no closer than 12 metres (39.3 feet) from the high water mark; 4. The south east corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) 4 from the interior side lot line; q" ...h \ ."'\ - ../ 5. The south west corner of the dweUing shaH be no closer than 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) from the interior side lot line; 6. The proposed 8.9 m2 (96 ft2) entry way shaH be no closer than 2 metres (6.56 feet) from the interior side lot line. 7. That the applicant obtains approval and a building permit, if required, from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 8. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; and, 9. That the applicants obtain approval for a Change of Use Sewage Application from the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department. ...Carried." 10:30 2004-A-15 Mark Garland & Suzanne Ridpath Plan M-31, Lot 55 (Oro) 33 Oneida Ave. , ' In Attendance: Bob CampbeIJ, agent for applicants, Georgian Design Team Builders Decision Moved by AHan Johnson, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-15, subject to the foHowing conditions: 1. That the applicants obtain approval for a Change of Use Septic System or for a Part 8 Sewage Application as determined by the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 3. That the applicants satisfy the comments from the Public Works department; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; and, 5 ~~-\j) 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ...Carried" ,. 'Il11o- 10:40 2004-A-16 Greg & Nadia Bell Cone. 2, Part Lot 2, RP 51R-28938 Parts 2 & 5 (Oro) 2831 Ridge Road W. In Attendance: Nadia Bell, applicant, Kent Taylor, architect Decision Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-16, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permits be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. That the height of the proposed garage be no greater than 7.07 metres (23.19 feet); 3. That the size ofthe proposed garage be no larger than 105 m2 (1130 fe); and, 4. The proposed garage would be required to meet the required setbacks to existing septic systems ... ..Carried." 10:50 2004-A-17 Russell Watson Plan M-8, Lot 64 (Oro) 19 Oneida Ave. - In Attendance: Eric Csekey, agent Decision Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-17 subject to the following conditions: 6 C\ t- '\ '- \ \ 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 3. That the applicant maintain the minimum interior side yard setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet) for the detached garage; and, 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's . ~hief Building Official'only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .;.Carried." 11:00 2004-A-18 George & Dianne Hibrant Plan 935, Lot 3 (Oro) . 11 Grandview Cres. In Attendance: George & Dianne Hibrant, applicants Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-18, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. The proposed deck shall be setback no closer than 18.2 metres (60 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; . 3. The proposed turret extension shall be setback no closer than 19.2 metres (63 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the applicatioD, as submitted; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ...Carried" 7 c\ -t -~ 11:10 2004-A-19 Eugenie McCauley Plan 1720, Part Lot 19 (OriHia) 163 Forestview Road In Attendance: No one -; Decision .. Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-19, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed structure be located no closer than 4.5 metres (15 feet) from the interior and rear lot lines; 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 3. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for Site Plan Control on the subjec;t lands to accurately reflect the land use and structures on the lot; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; and, 5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted. ... ..Carried." 11:20 A-28/03(Rev) Robert & Therese Brown Plan M-324, Lot 15 (Oro) 30 Trillium Trail .. In Attendance: No one. .... Decision Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby grant the revision to Minor Variance A-28/03 being relief from Section 5.32 Setback from Slopes to a setback of 3.3 metres (10.8 feet) as verified by the surveyor's report dated April 15, 2004. .. ...Carried." 8 4. Other Business 1. Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Lynda AikeD C\.t..~ \ \ -- I "That the minutes for March 31 st 2004 Special Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated 2. Moved by Lynda Aiken, Seconded by Michelle Lynch . . . Carried." "That the minutes for April 15th 2004 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated 5. Ad10urnment Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Lynda Aiken "We do now adjourn at 2:50 p.m." , .. Carried. (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) t . .. . Carried." 9 yage 1 or L .... Ral ici) From: " To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \ I MEETING: COUNCIL CJ \ ~ C.OFW. QA" l. _ _"'" ...=_~",'''"n~~__._'''' ,f Hi Jennifer. At the LSRA meeting on Thursday, April 15th. 2004 Peter Waters of Weatherwise Aviation gave a monthly update to members of the airport commission. Peter, and his associate advised the commission members they still had some unresolved issues, which could jeopardise their future development plans at the airport. Their concerns fall into three basic categories: Legal, parking and Fire suppression. Their legal issues are: Extra legal costs in getting the sale completed and extra costs in site preparation. They stated they were hopeful the parking issue would be resolved shortly. They were advised by the Chair to address their outstanding issues in writing to the Air[ort Commission and they would receive a response. Their other concern, which at the moment is the major one, is the issue of fire suppression requirements. They advised the members of the commission that when they purchased the lots they understood they were buying serviced lots. They only found out two days before the building permit was issued they would be required to put in storage tanks with a capacity of 20,000 gallons before an occupancy permit would be issued. They initially agree to a three way split on the cost at an estimate of $36,000. but this estimate has now increased to almost $60,000. They have not yet received an official report but now understand they will have to install further tanks with a capacity of 120,000 gallons when they begin construction of the second hanger. Will this 120,000 gallon tank service all of the 15 potential lots in this area or will each hanger require 120,000 gallons? If they do put in a system that will service all 15 lots what mechanism is there for them to recover some of their costs if their company does not develop the remaining ten lots? They raised the issue that this was brought to their attention at the last moment and does not appear to be a consistent requirement throughout the Township. They advised they were aware that the Township office, The Hitch House repair shop, the John Deere dealership and the recently completed Church were not equipped with any fire suppression system. Councillor Crawford and I were requested by the commission to check with Township staff as to why there seemed to be inconsistencies in the requirement for fire suppression systems within our Township. Alii could tell them was that it is a requirement of the Building Code but could not advise them why the same rules did not apply to other structures. We were advised that the The Town of Gravenhurst recently waived this requirement at a privately owned hanger at Muskoka airport. The second question we were requested to get clarification on was the Townships intended use of the water storage tanks at the airport. Does the Township intend to use the storage tanks for fire fighting at other locations and if so, how much water do they intend to use? It was felt that if the Township planned on using the tanks for off site fire protection they should perhaps be making a larger financial contribution. I advised the members that it was felt by the Township that the original 20,000 gallon tanks would be an asset to our fire department for off site fire fighting and that was the reason for the Township agreeing to share the cost. I could not comment on how much use the Township might make of the larger 120,000 gallon tank as this was a new issue for everyone, I did advise Mr Waters that he should send a letter to Mayor and Council so that we could get a staff report that would clarify these issues. He advised the commission he felt that having "Ralph Hough" <rhough@sprint.ca> <cao@oro-medonte.ca> <john.crawford@oro-medonte.ca>; <Isra@csolve.net ; Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:34 PM Fw: Fire supression at LSRA MAY Z 6 2064 r\Q P\O i i(/'f'..../ f) fSGv')') J'crf} 5/20104 - -o~ - ......- - met with yourself, the building inspector and the fire chief he did not receive clear answers so there was little point in him sending in a letter. This is why the commission members requested we try to obtain clarification on these matters for the betterment of all concerned. Could you please address these questions at your earliest convenience so that Councillor Crawford and I can report back to the commission at our next meeting. Thank you, Ralph Hough - . 5/20/04 page 1 ot 1 . !3!!Ph Hough From: .. To: Sent: SUbject: Hi Ralph: "Lake Simcoe Regional Airport" "Ralph Hough" <rhough@sprint.ca> Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:26 PM LSRA Commission Per our conversation, please find listed below the motion put forth by Mike B., as recorded. MOTION: Moved by M. Beauchesne, seconded by P. Spears. 2004-AC-22 "THAT, Councillor Ralph Hough follow-up with the Township of Oro-Medonte staff and obtain an accurate, thoughtful and complete response, in writing, to Councillor Hough's e/mail of April 18, 2004 and that the response be sent to the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Commission and to Weatherwise Aviation, prior to May 28, 2004." Carried. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Mike 5/25/04 Fire Suppression Comparison - April 20, 2004 Airport Setting Water Supply Fire Largest Longest Otlter Contact for Fire Service Building Runway Number Su res,fion Lake Simcoe ral None Volunteer x 100 (705) 487-0999 Air 0/1 Muskoka (Gravenhurst) Rural None Volunteer 40,000 sq. ft. 6,000 x 150 40,000 sq. ft. hangar on (705) 687-2194 hangar owned land - not leased land. St. Thomas Municipal Rura1lUrban 5,050 x 100 (519) 633-5866 and/Huronia 6,000 sq. ft. 4,000 x 75 705) 526-8086 han ar 12,000 sq. ft. (705) 445-2663 han ar 6 Rural 4,000 x 75 (519) 364-3220 7 Peterborough Municipal Rural/Urban 5,000 x 100 On-site foam truck - not (705) 743-6708 staffed 8 Owen Sound Rural 4,000 x 75 (519 371-6936 9 Wiarton Rural None 5,000 x 150 Municipal hydrant/water (519) 534-0140 Municipal main at airport property Fire boundaries - approx. 500 Department meters from nearest buildin . Goderich ~ Rural None 5,000 x 100 On-site aircraft paint (519) 524-2915 Volunteer facility. 11 Stratford Municipal Rural/Urban None Municipal 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 x 100 Municipal water main (519) 271-4881 Fire hangar within 1 mile of airport. Department On-site foam storage & Volunteer for fire su ression. 12 Toronto Buttonville Urban Municipal Numerous 3,900 x 100 2 pumper call, 1 with lines (905) 477-8100 Fire to source, other at hydrant De artment on standb . Fire Suppression Comparison - April 20, 2004 13 Chatham-Kent Rural/Urban On-site Municipal 9,600 sq. ft. r 5,000 X 75 j Municipal Hydrant system (519) 676-3455 Municipal Fire hangar within 1 mile. Water Main Department & Volunteer 1411 Dryden Regional Rural Airport hydrant 40,000 sq, ft. 6,000 x 150 A irport hydrant system has (807) 937-4959 system Volunteer hangar, 50,000 gallon reserve Numerous. capacity (maximum), pumper truck response Oshawa Municipal Urban On-site Municipal Numerous 4,000 x 100 (905) 576-8146 Municipal Fire Hydrant System Department Note: AJI municipal or airport dedicated water main and/or hydrant systems are municipally owned and subsidized infrastructures. 2